Talk:Siraj Wahhaj

Sections and quality

Can anyone perhaps flesh this article out a bit more and add more organized sections? As it is, it seems a bit jumbled. MezzoMezzo 04:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Prostate Cancer section does not even list a date, not even so much as a year that this took place in. Anon 12:09, 06 April 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.229.79 (talk)

POV

Someone (a Siraj flunkie?) has repeatedly removed references to homophobic comments in the article, even deleting references to a musical group's song about Wahhaj that criticizes him for the aforementioned comments (so it's not an issue of sourcing). Such highly controlled editing makes it clear that this article is essentially a vanity-style PR piece. waxwing slain 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes (danielpipes.org), in the article "The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America" (November 2001), shows another side of Siraj Wahaj --

"A little over a year later, addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj articulated a rather different vision from his mild and moderate invocation in the House. If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." In 1995, Wahaj served as a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman in the trial that found that blind sheikh guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. More alarming still, the U.S. attorney for New York listed Wahaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the sheikh's case."

I'm not adding it to the wiki entry but posting it here for further consideration.

From daniel pipes perspective EVERY muslim on planet earth is a militant..

Whoa... It's impressive how one can take a statement where he says that the Muslims in America could have a leader and that unity amongst the Muslims will make the Americans come to the Muslims, and turn it into a call for the abolishment of the constitution.

Let's not have this boil down into an argument. As it is, the article is poorly written and difficult to read. In addition, some of the information looks like it was pulled directly from his site which may be a copyright violation, I am not sure. Either way, I think much of it needs to be rewritten and much can be done to improve the quality of the article, including a section for controversey or opposing views. We should put together a better article on him, drawing from more than just one source and using standard formatting to keep the article organized. MezzoMezzo 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously don't see why it says that he has called for an Islamic theocratic state in America. The only "proof" is the quote where he says that the Muslims should unite under one leader (which obviously has nothing to do with the constitution of America). I'll go ahead and remove that statement until someone brings a source.

Another person piping up to say that Daniel Pipes is openly hostile towards the religion of Islam. He is the editor of Middle East Quarterly, which is the equivalent of Fox news in terms of its opinions on Islam, Muslims, and Arabs. His opinion of Siraj Wahhaj has no place on this page. It can't be considered unbiased or factual. We wouldn't, after all, include the opinions and comments of David Duke, in an article discussing the life and work of any other black leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5A01:8B90:29AB:F6D9:3B45:51FA (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

QUESTION Why is the opinion of a US attorney not based on facts being put here? Do you see any other "unindicted and alleged" people have this title in their entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.157.242 (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced information from a relevant third party source. Aside from those allegations, there isn't a ton of notability on the imam from reliable and verifiable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Article revision

This is an article the neutrality of which has been disputed and nominated to be checked. I just had to undo a sizeable set of edits that were made to the article without conferring here first; some of these edits included he removal of the POV tag. Please refrain from making large edits to any article without first conferring on the talk page, especially articles with POV disputes. MezzoMezzo 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A member of CAIR's board of advisers, Wahhaj was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The radical Brooklyn imam was close to convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and defended him during his trial.

The following are facts according to the NY Times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.223.254 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do islamofascists insist on silencing the Truth as reported by the New York Times and in court documents by constantly editing this page to make this racist into a "good guy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.223.254 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been over 15 years and he still is unindicted therefore its still regarded as a claim against him, by listing this it will conflict with NPOV, and cannot be listed till he is 'indicted'. Dimario (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is idiotic, This man has done more to hurt Islam than a million racists. He is constantly in the media as a result of this simple fact, being an unindicted co-conspirator, which is why it's salient. He testified as a defense witness for Omar Abdul-Rahmanm, too. Forget that? Also, they mention consideration of arrest in articles of other major figures, e.g. Kissinger (and I don't think that's bad). It's NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.79.119 (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Siraj Wahhaj is a very controversial figure

Yet none of that is reflected in the article. Do a search on his name and most every new site mentions the controversial things he has said and done, yet not a single word of it is in the article. I looked at the history of the article and sections about controversies associated with him continue to be removed. Is this because the editing was poor, or are there people making sure nothing negative gets included in the article? I am not a Wiki editor so I'm having a difficult time determining why a man who has said so many controversial things has not one mention of them in the Wiki article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.105.90 (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. You can't have a conversation about Islam in America if you play it safe and whitewash everything. Reporting the truth (not an "Islamic conspiracy", just one guy who's said some controversial things) clears the air and lets us trust each other more. Ignoring information creates suspicion and allows issues to fester. 137.159.56.200 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

GorgeCustersSabre undid revision 759976207 by Djrun - it waa balanced and cited

Let us examine this revert.

• The reverted to version says 'He was quoted as saying that he hopes all Americans eventually become Muslim and also referred to the FBI and CIA as the "real terrorists". The cited source says: 'Siraj Wahhaj has defended the convicted WTC bomb plotters, called the FBI and CIA the “real terrorists,” and said he hopes all Americans eventually become Muslim.' The "He was quoted as saying" construct should be deleted, as there is no quotation in the source. However it would be true to say that on 11 November 2009 he said that...
• The same paragraph says "Wahhaj was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." The cited source says: "Wahhaj was one of 170 people identified in 1995 as unindicted co-conspirators in the attack two years earlier." There is quite a bit of hedging there in the source, which the WIkipedia article has stripped away. That is not balance or even honest.
• The reverted from version says: "However he has denied any involvement with the bombing." The cited source says: "He has denied any involvement." WP:PUBLICFIGURE makes it clear that the article should say that the subject was alleged to have been a co-conspirator, not that he actually was. And also says that if the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. i.e. if you are not willing to put the denial in the article, then do not put in the allegation.
• The reverted from version says "Wahaj has never formally been charged with anything pertaining to the incident" and cites a source that the reversion deleted. The cited source says: "Prosecutors included his name on a 3 ½-page list of people they said "may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged." Clearly the sentence was in the wrong paragraph, as the incident was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, not his testifying at the Blind Sheikh's trial. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Clearly this second source is needed to support the allegation of his being a so-called "unindicted co-conspirator". His being never charged is a good thing to mention.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Toddy1. These are disruptive edits by Gorg CustersSabre.213.205.251.238 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The revert was not what Wikipedia considers disruptive editing. Though I disagree with most of the revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy1 (talk) for your vigilance in maintaining the integrity of this, and other articles on Wikipedia. In regards to the statement the subject made ('He was quoted as saying that he hopes all Americans eventually become Muslim and also referred to the FBI and CIA as the "real terrorists"), where would be the best place to park it within the article? It currently is in the section for the 1993 WTC bombings. Should it be removed if not deemed to be relevant? Your thoughts please.Djrun (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Be at peace Djrun. I edit in good faith, like you do. No need to see it otherwise. When people disagree we leave it to other editors and we refrain from personal comments. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Djrun, I think that the current version of Siraj Wahhaj#1993 World Trade Center bombing fixes these problems. Readers can draw the obvious inference from his attending the meeting with the mayor of New York in city hall in November 1999.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siraj Wahhaj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121075713/http://www.halaltube.com/siraj-wahhaj/video/guide-for-humanity-universal-teachings-of-the-prophet-icna-2007 to http://www.halaltube.com/siraj-wahhaj/video/guide-for-humanity-universal-teachings-of-the-prophet-icna-2007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"His brother is..."

This uncited sentence seems like it could be a BLP violation. Yes/no?--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted it, since on further thought it seems unambiguously a BLP/privacy concern.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Statements about grandson's death in compound

Imam Wahhaj made statements at his grandson's funderal here: New York Times: “I have met no one more loving to Abdul-Ghani than his mother Hakima,” said during the funeral at Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam, looking toward the mother. “But Hakima, as much as you love Abdul-Ghani, Allah loves him more.” It's odd there doesn't appear to be any coverage in Wikipedia of a heavily armed radical extremist compound training children for school shootings let out on bail and then arrested and charged by the FBI. Bachcell (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Alabama terror camp

[1] Yikes. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP Concerns

This article is in quite poor condition. A large amount of material is cited from sources that don't seem to be authoritative or reliable, such as investigativeproject.org or the NYPost. Where reliable sources are used, such as American Islam: The Struggle for the Soul of a Religion, quotes are cherry-picked to paint Siraj in as worse as light as possible. In American Islam: The Struggle for the Soul of a Religion, for example, there's quite a lot of material that provides much more nuance to the quotes that have been dumped here. 2601:243:903:3F5B:6526:4CD7:E3DE:ACD4 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)