![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have found this article too biased against the Imam. He is one of the most widely respected scholars in the Muslim world. Whoever wrote the current version clearly does not want to know the other side of the story. Anyway, according to Wiki's standards, this article is supposed to be neutral. It seems to be far from neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.249.115 ( talk • contribs).
I do not think that this article is now too biased or unsourced (at least compared with the rest of Wikipedia) and I therefore removed the ugly boxes with hands. Regarding the claim that His Eminence memorised the whole book at the age of 12, I removed it until somebody finds sources for it; I do not believe that this is a fact of key importance. - Regarding the title of the 2nd chapter: I think that "controversial" is too weak, and moreover there is nothing very controversial about it - it is simply a textbook example of hate speech.-- Ioannes Pragensis 07:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I think you shouldn't have removed the word 'controversial' and replaced it with 'hate'. This has made the article biased once again. The Sheikh's sermons may be considered as hate only by some Jews and Christians. What about the Muslims? And please remember, the Sheikh was referring to the oppressive Jews of the state of Israel, who have illegally occupied Palestinian lands. There is no dispute about the fact that their continued occupation is illegal under international law. Also, when referring to Christian and Hindu people, he was just reffering to their own practices of what amounts to worshipping 'false gods'in Islamic terms. To be neutral, you have to consider the viewpoint of Muslims as well. The Sheikh is among the most highly-respected scholars of Islam and certainly not a bigot. 221.134.248.125 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, the entire point of the article seems to be attacking the Imam, not telling his real job: to be reciting the Quran (I don't care about bias against the Quran, believe or disbelieve). Muslims should recite the Quran in nice and beautiful tones. Imam Sudais does an awesome job of doing that yet no one has written anything much on that. As for the "sermons attacking Jews and Christians," that I believe is full of bias. People keep removing "promotion websites' so that no one hears what he really does for a living. If Imam Sudais really did say the hate speech I disagree with him then. But let's focus on his real job, shouldn't we? -- Nhgulam 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
An entire section of the article was based on nothing but second hand gossip, under the guise of being from a reliable source, the BBC. I've deleted it per WP:Biographies of living persons. -- Kendrick7 talk 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This man is one of the foremost scholars in the world at this time in Islam. This man deserves respect. although it is understandable if someone does not agree with with his choice of faith, it is completely unacceptable for people to input false information just because of prejudice against Islam, and whoever's doing it knows who they are. Unless someone has verified information, with a RELIABLE external link, then it would be geratly appreciated if you DO NOTHING to vandalise this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericwong ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
http://www.iccuk.org/media/reports/bbc_panorama_programme_the_question_of_leadership.htm
Remove Neutrality tag - the rant on the talk page relates to older versions of the article, otherwise no clearly stated reasons for it.-- Ioannes Pragensis 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone does not provide an adequate response for this, i will remove this, considering the BBC self admits that its program may be errarneous. Bless sins 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP says "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. "
Here criticism of Sudais is presented "in a manner that does not overwhelm the article". Bless sins 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The answer here is not to keep the article in a stub to suppress information you do not like. It is the responsibility of wiki editors to find other things about this man. And if all there is that is reliably sourced is negative, so be it.
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically.
The above is upheld in the article; there are reliable third-party sources. Further, this is the view of mainstrea,m Western media, or the majority opinion, not the minority opinion. Your responsibility is to bring OTHER sources that debate/argue the point, not to hide information. Please re-real WP:BLP carefully. Whitewashing and information deletion is as just a serious issue. Thank you. -- Avi 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Last I checked, this article is about Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, not Martin Gilbert. Everything is sourced, so there is no violation of WP:BLP. There is no reson to boedlerize the article, because editors are either undesirous or incapable of finding positive or neutral things to say about this man. Your job is to BUILD the article, not delete things that make you uncomfortable. His antisemitism is well-documented and well-displayed. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry, but it is verified and well-cited, and central to his notability. -- Avi 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I have asked for comment here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and overwhelming clause. I hope you join in and we get some form of consensus. Secondly, even were you to be correct, that in no way shape or form justifies removal of the categories. His antisemitism is well documented in his own words, regardless of how much of it will be displayed in the article. -- Avi 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, I do not think that the criticism overwhelms the article. The controversies about Sudais' antisemitic speeches are just what makes him notable here in the Western world. If you wish to make the article better, please start with adding the reference for his Ramadan prayer and do not delete sourced material.-- Ioannes Pragensis 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have joined the commenting you directed me to. However, I will not settle this issue until a proper interpretation for "as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article" is provided.
In the meanwhile I have some more objections:
Avraham, why don't you just answer the questions. 1, 2 and 3. Has Al-Sudais said he is anti-Semitic? Then how does he wear it as a badge of pride? Bless sins 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How is the anti-Defamation league a reliable source? At best it is a controversial and one sided source aimed at attacking those who attack Jews. Also, who is making the "vilifying" allegation? BTW, please don't re-insert the out of ocntext quote I removed. Bless sins 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
…or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
The ADL is accepted as an authority on anti-semitism. It may not be to your liking, but it is in accordance with policy. -- Avi 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please gentlemen, do not start edit wars here. Try to speak quietly, hear each other, do not make bold changes in the article against consensus of other editors. Thank you,-- Ioannes Pragensis 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting material that is well and reliably sourced, as well as relevant, without a discussion here. Removing material simply because one feels that it paints a person in too good or too bad of a light is improper, and a seeming violation of WP:NPOV. Pleae remember that Nuetral point-of-view does not mean that the article can say neither good nor bad about the subject. Rather, that (emphasis added is my own) “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.” If the reliable literature predominantly paints a person, object, or idea in one light, that light must be the dominant theme in the article, in accordance with the "proportionate" clause. Whitewashing or vilifying (as the case may be) an article to achieve a "neutral" tone is both an improper representation as well as a violation of WP:NPOV and would need to be reverted as vandalism. All editors do need to review the appropriate policies before editing articles which may have contoversy surounding them. Thank you. -- Avi 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This sermon is an example of his beliefs. Another similar sermon with a reliable source may be used as well. The sermon itself need not be notable, it does not have its own article, Sudais is notable. The extent of his antisemitism is part of what makes him notable for the purposes of English Wikipedia. Examples thereof are relevant; it need not be THIS PARTICULAR one, but having such an example is appropriate, and this was the one that for now passed WP:RS and WP:V. -- Avi 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Might I remind all users that WP:BLP says criticism should not "appear to side with the critics' material." Please don't portray criticism as fact, it's against WP:BLP. Bless sins 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this so-called "scholar" portrayed as a becon and a role-model for all Muslims? He is loved only by Wahhabis and some Salafis, meaning that the vast majority of Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims don't like this man. Armyrifle 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone decided that Fred Flintstone was a leader of the Muslim world, would that stay up until documents proved otherwise? I live in Morocco and the extent of Sudais' importance is pretty much Saudi distributed cassettes and the yearly appearance on 2m for Hajj. Don't foist Salafi whack-jobs on the rest of us. The best documented evidence you need is this: we in Morocco have existed and contine to live under the Maliki school of Islamic Jurisprudence, not that of wahabi/salafi school; i.e, Sudais or his backers. So, except in the al-Qeda pockets within Moroccan slums, the claim of his importance is mostly laughable in Morocco.
You say only Wahhabis like this guy.... I am Hanafi and I think he's one of the best Muslim scholars out there. He is not antisemitic; he can't be because he's Arab and Arabs are also Semites. He isn't anti-Jewish... he's anti-Israel because of all the crimes they commit (flotilla raid in May/June 2010, off the top of my head). A lot of ignorant people think anti-Jewish and anti-Israel is synonymous and a lot of Muslims think so as well....seriously people get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.9.178 ( talk) 02:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please source the statements about Sudais's renditions of the Qur'an? It's been tagged since February. Thank you. -- Avi 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
there is no reason for an archive right now. I've seen longer talk pages. Bless sins 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that the title "Antisemitism and racism" is well chosen. I do not see why Sudais should be described as a racist. He does not slander races, but religions and nations - e.g. not white persons but Christians, not Semites but Jews. It is indeed possible that there is a bit of racism in it, but not clearly visible, at least as far as I know - WP:V :-) -- Ioannes Pragensis 08:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the best title is "sermons vilifing non-Muslims" or "antisemitic sermons." It should be made clear that this guy is an antisemite and a racist.-- Sefringle 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Arabs are Semites. Being anti-Jewish isn't being racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.157.231 ( talk) 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Since user:Bless sins seems to be perturbed about the length of the quotes sections, yet removing the quotes in toto is inappropriate for verification purposes, I have restored the pertinent quotes into the footnotes of the citations. The article text is now, hopefully, smooth prose and paraphrase, with pertinent quotations down below. This way, the text is not overlong and choppy, yet the information is immediately available. I also fixed a few improper links and updated citation templates. -- Avi 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help to flesh this part of Sudais's life out? -- Avi 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) It is said that sudais's son is Ahmad saud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He also is a very good reciterer Written by Samira Abdillkadir Ahmed > MASHA-ALLAH HE IS AN EXELLENT RECITER,MAY ALLAH PROTECT HIM FROM BAD EYES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.84.141.186 ( talk) 11:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please leave the vertical formats. The article text does not appear different, and the citations in the code are easier to verify. -- Avi 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The ref's always end in a </ref> tag, and I always have that at the beginning of a line, so it should be easier to edit, actually. -- Avi 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by "Non-reliable source "Citizen Jounalism". This is does not seem to be even an established organization; more like a blog"? Bless sins 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure when Sudais called for the annihilation of Jews as claimed in the lead of the article.
Please provide the quote. Thanks. Bless sins ( talk) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - if you are referring to the telegraph uk op-ed piece, the quote is second-hand. I'm having a hard time finding the actual source for "monkeys and pigs who should be annihilated". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.52.202 ( talk) 13:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I re-read my request for a quote source. Nobody was called a liar or suggested so. But your Charles Moore/Daily Telegraph (no point in making them seperate, is there?) reference is to an opinion page, not a report. And I am still requesting the source to which the opinion piece in opinion section of the Daily Telegraph is. I think when the lead of the article sets the tone for the character of the man, you should have something more substantial than that. Most other online sources reference the opinion piece, so I couldn't get further than that. Can you find something better than an opinion piece? It will help the article appear encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.229.47 ( talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
But you are using his opinions until you source the quotes - unless you have a source from a Daily Telegraph article. Why don't we have a date and a reporter for this quote? I think that the normal way to create reports - who, what, where, etc. RIght now we have an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.229.47 ( talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Where is the quote's original source from which Moore formed his opinion (within this op-ed piece)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.127.49 ( talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
For a educated reader, Its about having sources (especially from a partisan op-ed piece), and quoting them directly. Unsourced quotes are suspicious. Where is the verifiable source of the quote, so we can look at it. Wikipedia needs less blog-like articles of this type. We should leave the many unsourced, or poorly sourced articles to the bogosphere and try a little harder to provide real research on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.127.49 ( talk) 12:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
and pigs and worshippers of tyrants.…May God's curses follow them until the Day of Judgment.…Thus, they deserve the curse of God, His angels, and all people." so technically he is not praying or suggesting annihilation in this one.
-- Avi ( talk) 08:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is the quote that he 'vilified other faiths' and called for 'annihilation of the Jews' mentioned in the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammaduddeen ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No fact about the part where he led many prayers in Mecca? Only the highest scholars led prayers in Mecca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolway ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears that section entitled "Controversial statements on non-Muslims" has been erroneously duplicated in this article, i.e. it's posted twice. I would be more than willing to delete it but it appears that new users are not allowed that privilege for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.23.93 ( talk) 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless there exist sources that support claim that the quotes the article brings from Sudais in and of themselves were restricted to Zionists and not Jews, the qualifications being added are clear violations of Wikipedia principles of verifiable information, neutral point of view, etc. Further violations may need to be met with measures taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The article claims 'Al-Sudais called the Jews "monkeys and pigs"' and the following text is given with ref #20: "...He turned some of them to monkeys and pigs and worshippers of creatures..."
Clearly he is not calling all the Jews "monkeys and pigs", rather he is claiming that Allah turned some of the Jews, in the past, into monkeys and pigs. And in fact this is mentioned in the Quran. So, as the source mentions, the claim is made by the Quran and only repeated by Al-Sudais. Please see following source for the references in the Quran:
A classical explanation of Quran:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=36
Christian viewpoint on this topic:
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm
--
Chintook (
talk)
02:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abdul-Rahman Al-Sudais/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Comments==
|
Last edited at 23:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have found this article too biased against the Imam. He is one of the most widely respected scholars in the Muslim world. Whoever wrote the current version clearly does not want to know the other side of the story. Anyway, according to Wiki's standards, this article is supposed to be neutral. It seems to be far from neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.249.115 ( talk • contribs).
I do not think that this article is now too biased or unsourced (at least compared with the rest of Wikipedia) and I therefore removed the ugly boxes with hands. Regarding the claim that His Eminence memorised the whole book at the age of 12, I removed it until somebody finds sources for it; I do not believe that this is a fact of key importance. - Regarding the title of the 2nd chapter: I think that "controversial" is too weak, and moreover there is nothing very controversial about it - it is simply a textbook example of hate speech.-- Ioannes Pragensis 07:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I think you shouldn't have removed the word 'controversial' and replaced it with 'hate'. This has made the article biased once again. The Sheikh's sermons may be considered as hate only by some Jews and Christians. What about the Muslims? And please remember, the Sheikh was referring to the oppressive Jews of the state of Israel, who have illegally occupied Palestinian lands. There is no dispute about the fact that their continued occupation is illegal under international law. Also, when referring to Christian and Hindu people, he was just reffering to their own practices of what amounts to worshipping 'false gods'in Islamic terms. To be neutral, you have to consider the viewpoint of Muslims as well. The Sheikh is among the most highly-respected scholars of Islam and certainly not a bigot. 221.134.248.125 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, the entire point of the article seems to be attacking the Imam, not telling his real job: to be reciting the Quran (I don't care about bias against the Quran, believe or disbelieve). Muslims should recite the Quran in nice and beautiful tones. Imam Sudais does an awesome job of doing that yet no one has written anything much on that. As for the "sermons attacking Jews and Christians," that I believe is full of bias. People keep removing "promotion websites' so that no one hears what he really does for a living. If Imam Sudais really did say the hate speech I disagree with him then. But let's focus on his real job, shouldn't we? -- Nhgulam 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
An entire section of the article was based on nothing but second hand gossip, under the guise of being from a reliable source, the BBC. I've deleted it per WP:Biographies of living persons. -- Kendrick7 talk 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This man is one of the foremost scholars in the world at this time in Islam. This man deserves respect. although it is understandable if someone does not agree with with his choice of faith, it is completely unacceptable for people to input false information just because of prejudice against Islam, and whoever's doing it knows who they are. Unless someone has verified information, with a RELIABLE external link, then it would be geratly appreciated if you DO NOTHING to vandalise this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericwong ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
http://www.iccuk.org/media/reports/bbc_panorama_programme_the_question_of_leadership.htm
Remove Neutrality tag - the rant on the talk page relates to older versions of the article, otherwise no clearly stated reasons for it.-- Ioannes Pragensis 10:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone does not provide an adequate response for this, i will remove this, considering the BBC self admits that its program may be errarneous. Bless sins 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP says "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. "
Here criticism of Sudais is presented "in a manner that does not overwhelm the article". Bless sins 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The answer here is not to keep the article in a stub to suppress information you do not like. It is the responsibility of wiki editors to find other things about this man. And if all there is that is reliably sourced is negative, so be it.
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically.
The above is upheld in the article; there are reliable third-party sources. Further, this is the view of mainstrea,m Western media, or the majority opinion, not the minority opinion. Your responsibility is to bring OTHER sources that debate/argue the point, not to hide information. Please re-real WP:BLP carefully. Whitewashing and information deletion is as just a serious issue. Thank you. -- Avi 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Last I checked, this article is about Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, not Martin Gilbert. Everything is sourced, so there is no violation of WP:BLP. There is no reson to boedlerize the article, because editors are either undesirous or incapable of finding positive or neutral things to say about this man. Your job is to BUILD the article, not delete things that make you uncomfortable. His antisemitism is well-documented and well-displayed. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry, but it is verified and well-cited, and central to his notability. -- Avi 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I have asked for comment here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and overwhelming clause. I hope you join in and we get some form of consensus. Secondly, even were you to be correct, that in no way shape or form justifies removal of the categories. His antisemitism is well documented in his own words, regardless of how much of it will be displayed in the article. -- Avi 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, I do not think that the criticism overwhelms the article. The controversies about Sudais' antisemitic speeches are just what makes him notable here in the Western world. If you wish to make the article better, please start with adding the reference for his Ramadan prayer and do not delete sourced material.-- Ioannes Pragensis 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have joined the commenting you directed me to. However, I will not settle this issue until a proper interpretation for "as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article" is provided.
In the meanwhile I have some more objections:
Avraham, why don't you just answer the questions. 1, 2 and 3. Has Al-Sudais said he is anti-Semitic? Then how does he wear it as a badge of pride? Bless sins 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How is the anti-Defamation league a reliable source? At best it is a controversial and one sided source aimed at attacking those who attack Jews. Also, who is making the "vilifying" allegation? BTW, please don't re-insert the out of ocntext quote I removed. Bless sins 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
…or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
The ADL is accepted as an authority on anti-semitism. It may not be to your liking, but it is in accordance with policy. -- Avi 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please gentlemen, do not start edit wars here. Try to speak quietly, hear each other, do not make bold changes in the article against consensus of other editors. Thank you,-- Ioannes Pragensis 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting material that is well and reliably sourced, as well as relevant, without a discussion here. Removing material simply because one feels that it paints a person in too good or too bad of a light is improper, and a seeming violation of WP:NPOV. Pleae remember that Nuetral point-of-view does not mean that the article can say neither good nor bad about the subject. Rather, that (emphasis added is my own) “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.” If the reliable literature predominantly paints a person, object, or idea in one light, that light must be the dominant theme in the article, in accordance with the "proportionate" clause. Whitewashing or vilifying (as the case may be) an article to achieve a "neutral" tone is both an improper representation as well as a violation of WP:NPOV and would need to be reverted as vandalism. All editors do need to review the appropriate policies before editing articles which may have contoversy surounding them. Thank you. -- Avi 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This sermon is an example of his beliefs. Another similar sermon with a reliable source may be used as well. The sermon itself need not be notable, it does not have its own article, Sudais is notable. The extent of his antisemitism is part of what makes him notable for the purposes of English Wikipedia. Examples thereof are relevant; it need not be THIS PARTICULAR one, but having such an example is appropriate, and this was the one that for now passed WP:RS and WP:V. -- Avi 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Might I remind all users that WP:BLP says criticism should not "appear to side with the critics' material." Please don't portray criticism as fact, it's against WP:BLP. Bless sins 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this so-called "scholar" portrayed as a becon and a role-model for all Muslims? He is loved only by Wahhabis and some Salafis, meaning that the vast majority of Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims don't like this man. Armyrifle 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone decided that Fred Flintstone was a leader of the Muslim world, would that stay up until documents proved otherwise? I live in Morocco and the extent of Sudais' importance is pretty much Saudi distributed cassettes and the yearly appearance on 2m for Hajj. Don't foist Salafi whack-jobs on the rest of us. The best documented evidence you need is this: we in Morocco have existed and contine to live under the Maliki school of Islamic Jurisprudence, not that of wahabi/salafi school; i.e, Sudais or his backers. So, except in the al-Qeda pockets within Moroccan slums, the claim of his importance is mostly laughable in Morocco.
You say only Wahhabis like this guy.... I am Hanafi and I think he's one of the best Muslim scholars out there. He is not antisemitic; he can't be because he's Arab and Arabs are also Semites. He isn't anti-Jewish... he's anti-Israel because of all the crimes they commit (flotilla raid in May/June 2010, off the top of my head). A lot of ignorant people think anti-Jewish and anti-Israel is synonymous and a lot of Muslims think so as well....seriously people get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.9.178 ( talk) 02:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please source the statements about Sudais's renditions of the Qur'an? It's been tagged since February. Thank you. -- Avi 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
there is no reason for an archive right now. I've seen longer talk pages. Bless sins 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that the title "Antisemitism and racism" is well chosen. I do not see why Sudais should be described as a racist. He does not slander races, but religions and nations - e.g. not white persons but Christians, not Semites but Jews. It is indeed possible that there is a bit of racism in it, but not clearly visible, at least as far as I know - WP:V :-) -- Ioannes Pragensis 08:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the best title is "sermons vilifing non-Muslims" or "antisemitic sermons." It should be made clear that this guy is an antisemite and a racist.-- Sefringle 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Arabs are Semites. Being anti-Jewish isn't being racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.157.231 ( talk) 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Since user:Bless sins seems to be perturbed about the length of the quotes sections, yet removing the quotes in toto is inappropriate for verification purposes, I have restored the pertinent quotes into the footnotes of the citations. The article text is now, hopefully, smooth prose and paraphrase, with pertinent quotations down below. This way, the text is not overlong and choppy, yet the information is immediately available. I also fixed a few improper links and updated citation templates. -- Avi 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help to flesh this part of Sudais's life out? -- Avi 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) It is said that sudais's son is Ahmad saud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He also is a very good reciterer Written by Samira Abdillkadir Ahmed > MASHA-ALLAH HE IS AN EXELLENT RECITER,MAY ALLAH PROTECT HIM FROM BAD EYES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.84.141.186 ( talk) 11:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please leave the vertical formats. The article text does not appear different, and the citations in the code are easier to verify. -- Avi 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The ref's always end in a </ref> tag, and I always have that at the beginning of a line, so it should be easier to edit, actually. -- Avi 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by "Non-reliable source "Citizen Jounalism". This is does not seem to be even an established organization; more like a blog"? Bless sins 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure when Sudais called for the annihilation of Jews as claimed in the lead of the article.
Please provide the quote. Thanks. Bless sins ( talk) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - if you are referring to the telegraph uk op-ed piece, the quote is second-hand. I'm having a hard time finding the actual source for "monkeys and pigs who should be annihilated". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.52.202 ( talk) 13:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I re-read my request for a quote source. Nobody was called a liar or suggested so. But your Charles Moore/Daily Telegraph (no point in making them seperate, is there?) reference is to an opinion page, not a report. And I am still requesting the source to which the opinion piece in opinion section of the Daily Telegraph is. I think when the lead of the article sets the tone for the character of the man, you should have something more substantial than that. Most other online sources reference the opinion piece, so I couldn't get further than that. Can you find something better than an opinion piece? It will help the article appear encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.229.47 ( talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
But you are using his opinions until you source the quotes - unless you have a source from a Daily Telegraph article. Why don't we have a date and a reporter for this quote? I think that the normal way to create reports - who, what, where, etc. RIght now we have an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.229.47 ( talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Where is the quote's original source from which Moore formed his opinion (within this op-ed piece)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.127.49 ( talk) 12:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
For a educated reader, Its about having sources (especially from a partisan op-ed piece), and quoting them directly. Unsourced quotes are suspicious. Where is the verifiable source of the quote, so we can look at it. Wikipedia needs less blog-like articles of this type. We should leave the many unsourced, or poorly sourced articles to the bogosphere and try a little harder to provide real research on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.127.49 ( talk) 12:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
and pigs and worshippers of tyrants.…May God's curses follow them until the Day of Judgment.…Thus, they deserve the curse of God, His angels, and all people." so technically he is not praying or suggesting annihilation in this one.
-- Avi ( talk) 08:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is the quote that he 'vilified other faiths' and called for 'annihilation of the Jews' mentioned in the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammaduddeen ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No fact about the part where he led many prayers in Mecca? Only the highest scholars led prayers in Mecca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolway ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears that section entitled "Controversial statements on non-Muslims" has been erroneously duplicated in this article, i.e. it's posted twice. I would be more than willing to delete it but it appears that new users are not allowed that privilege for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.23.93 ( talk) 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless there exist sources that support claim that the quotes the article brings from Sudais in and of themselves were restricted to Zionists and not Jews, the qualifications being added are clear violations of Wikipedia principles of verifiable information, neutral point of view, etc. Further violations may need to be met with measures taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The article claims 'Al-Sudais called the Jews "monkeys and pigs"' and the following text is given with ref #20: "...He turned some of them to monkeys and pigs and worshippers of creatures..."
Clearly he is not calling all the Jews "monkeys and pigs", rather he is claiming that Allah turned some of the Jews, in the past, into monkeys and pigs. And in fact this is mentioned in the Quran. So, as the source mentions, the claim is made by the Quran and only repeated by Al-Sudais. Please see following source for the references in the Quran:
A classical explanation of Quran:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=36
Christian viewpoint on this topic:
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm
--
Chintook (
talk)
02:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abdul-Rahman Al-Sudais/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Comments==
|
Last edited at 23:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)