Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
1, 2
About archives


Contents

[edit] my last revert maintaining counter terrorism paragraph

Evidence of notability:

The Riyadh Grand Mosque Conference 13/09/1996 Gregorian , Tittled: The Illustration of the Rights of the People in Charge -rulers- On the Ummah -nation- from the Book- Quran- and the Sunnah -Prophet tradition-. ندوات تحت عنوان: " بيان حقوق ولاة الأمور على الأمة بالأدلة من الكتاب والسنة ، سماحة الشيخ عبد العزيز بن باز مفتي عام المملكة العربية السعودية الجمعة 1 / 5 / 1417 هـ

--Uss-cool 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a reference proving that it happened, not a reference proving its notability. Please review the actual Wikipedia:Notability guideline. You've admitted before that you're not exactly familiar with how to use Wikipedia, I think it would be best for you to learn the guidelines before editing. MezzoMezzo 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of notability:

an other proof:

Medina new paper, Edition of October 19th 1995 Gregrorian. جريدة المدينة في 25/5/1416هـ. Ater all this, I think that there is acincesus and notability case built here. Thank you

proof by comparison supporting add on of that paragraph

  • example A:

It is not contested that all the acheivement section is based on one news paper sourse. If that was enough as proof of notability, than the news paper sourse + the conference source are more than enough to leave the counter terrorism section there.

  • example B:

The same thing for section lecures and lessons.

Therefore there is a clear breach of wikipedia neutrality here. This is clear cherrypicking and misuse of wikipedia law.--Uss-cool 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you have merely posted a source proving it happened and not that it was notable; the fact that you would do the same exact thing as before despite me having explained to you why it's incorrect leads me to believe that you didn't actually review the notability guideline. I am not posting these things up to impress you; i'm doing it so you'll actually read them and in the long term understand the issues with your edits. This is a help for you.
In addition, that you would claim to have created a consensus by posting the same fallacy before leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy.
You have also once again accused me of vandalism due to a different in opinion. As has been explained to you numerous times, this is a personal attack. Please be mature about this and actually review the policies and guidelines I have shown you before trying to start another edit war. You'll also notice that I didn't remove the tags from the article this time - I am trying to compromise with you. Please cooperate with your fellow editors. MezzoMezzo 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
please do not use personal attack and wikilaws to press your view. however, if your are correct, than what you cired for other sections suffer from the same problem. thus, it is agreed that those section to be deleted or all sections left alone with a notability act for all the article. --Uss-cool 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't think you've reviewed the notability guideline as I asked. The issues of the Saudi Gazette and those magazines were already provided - scanned and everything - on this talk page and elsewhere, and they do not simply assert that it happened; the Saud Gazzete and the magazines assert the important of the claims I cited with them.
In addition, you've placed a notability template for the subject of this article; I hope that was a mistake on your part. Aside from being the Grand Mufti (top religious authority) of an entire country, the majority of the references aren't the above mentioned ones you're confused about, so his notability is well proven. In addition, the comments about Bin Laden is cited in the above sources - citations don't always necesarily come directly after what they cite.
I'm asking again, and this is for your own benefit, please actually review the guidelines before acting on them. MezzoMezzo 17:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
based on your argument on notability and wikinotability rules, the subject of this article is itself a question of weither or not being notable. till now, no major independent sourse wrote about him. The only major independent sourse that talked about his which should be displayed here are his oponents. i am affraid we bring the opponents references here and end up having mezzomezzo complaining about POV. basically, there is no way you deal with this. His opponents are POVs, his Sources are not notable!! so what is the point of having him here,thank you.--Uss-cool 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The references include three separate books, two magazines, one newspaper, the BBC, and three websites excluding his own. On top of that, he was the Grand Mufti of Saudi. Again, I am really encouraging you to review the Wikipedia:Notability guideline because your assertion is clearly incorrect. MezzoMezzo 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] on the notability of this article

According to wikipedia notabilty rule for biographies this article breaches these sections of the notability rule:

  • no itelectually independent source cited other than the subject official website and sources from his followers people he presided over in the saudi fatwa commitee.
  • No indepth coverage by multiple sources. just the saudi gazette giving him tribute after his death and from his official website again.

si I use this to put the tag of notability so that users make get deligent and search for establishing it. Not interupting it. thank you--Uss-cool 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite glad that you're finally reading the guidelines i've been showing you. I think you need to look at this article again though. There is intellectually independent, in depth coverage by the Saudi Gazette, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Fatwa Online, the Clear Path, the New York Times, TheTrueReligion, am-Muslimoon, at-Tawheed, and Gilles Kepel. In addition, a quick look at the page for what links here also shows mention of him in other articles. So why you do seem to get the concept of guidelines, your application of them in this specific case is deficient. MezzoMezzo 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
oh thank you i am so very much glad that you and are eventually becoming good wikipedia citizens. now having the tag there, let us debate arguments here and sorry if anytghing before went personal unvolunteeraly or unwisely. So now our goal is to debate the ideas.

Let me know under which section should be put back the bbc sourced birth day banning fatwa and its ramifications of demonstrations in Riyadh. Thank you--Uss-cool 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article may be found here. It's in reference to an edit by another user talking about the succession of Bin Baz, though in retrospect this source also does not assert the notability of this succession. Also, someone else putting in this reference doesn't prove the birthday fatwa was notable; this is again a deficiency in reasoning. The BBC article never claimed the fatwa caused any controversy or was any more notable than his other fatawa, so it is not a valid proof of the notability of that specific fatwa.
As for the New York Times, that may be found down at the bottom of the page under references: Youssef M. Ibrahim, "Muslim Edicts Take on New Force," The New York Times, February 12, 1995, Sunday, p. 14. So we can clearly see that it is there. MezzoMezzo 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


thank you very much. first the bbc link you provided was introduced by an other user. i ask you to show me where you used bbc now you show me where other users whom you accuse of puppetry and vandalism used bbc. now this bbc sourced section on birth day that you deleted will be added soon--Uss-cool 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
136 references on Google Books, including an entry in Hiro's Guide to The Middle EAst. Flies through notability. If you are concerned, take it to AfD. See our WP:Deletion policy. Hornplease 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

the references do not establish notability of some sections, yet it is no question the subject is notable. need to work on some sections that are not independently in depth studied. A good addition refereing to some of the 136 google books (independent ones) would be a good idea. So far not yet. everyone knows google, not every one knows how to abstract references from goole books in a way that does not violate article notability rules--Chubeat8 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, you are claiming that the sections are not notable, even if the subject is. Ini which case, the current tags indicating neutrality problems are sufficient. Hornplease 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

true i do not wish to see this artcile deleted and therefore the neutrality and dispute tags are enough. agree and will fix.--Chubeat8 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Having the article the way it is now with a bit on hs life, his career and his controversial views makes it in no need of the neutrality and dispute tags and I suggest removing them. I also hope this closes the preceding misunderstanding and is acceptable to all the parties.--Chubeat8 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the cooperation. I have a few final issues before i'm completely ok with this, though.
  • The article says his birthday fatwa caused demonstrations, but the source doesn't. I think you should change the wording of that section, just cut out the reason and simply report that he did and put the reference.
  • You deleted the sentence about bin Laden making takfir of the entire Saudi government and Bin Baz calling him a khariji saying it was OR, but it's literally there in both references cited beforehand. If you would prefer to put the references after that final sentence then that's fine, but it's clearly in them.
Aside from that I no longer have any issues with the article. MezzoMezzo 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi MezzoMezzo, I am glad that our dispute ends up with cooperation. as for the sections you mentioned, you can do the changes on that and add aswell the non referenced sentence on Bin Laden with citation needed tag. That should be ok. I aslo would suggest removing that clean from wikipedia tag, what do you think! i am also looking forward working together on building and even creating other articles. --Chubeat8 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

wow the hot discussions gave birth to a balanced article with reports on the subject from different independent sources on different issues. good job everybody; it looks like henesty is there but was just finding its way out.--Uss-cool 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arakiwi `s unecessary edits

The argument of Arakiwi is weak. Even if Ibn Baz said he does not know the Hadith books by heart, what s the point of adding that to his article! show me one islamic scholar who knows Hadith by heart. Most of them hardly master by heart -except the Hafazuun- the quran. So is it relevant to go to islamic scholars articles and just keep adding that they do not know the quran or the hadith by heart!! absolutly not. now for the translation what he said is la ahfazuha -do not memorize it by heart-. that does not mean that ibn baz does not memorize some, or know at least the essentials of most of Hadith. If not how can he be reputed as scholar. So MezzoMezzo in this point has concensus over you and have my support. You are welcome to add neutral none opinionized facts to enrich his biography, in a way that helps general public understand the closest to reality large image. thanks--Chubeat8 06:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Shouldn't it be Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah bin Baaz? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Arabic languages, when writing names like that the "son of" is written as bah-noon (i'm using my brother's computer and he doesn't have the Arabic font on here). When you just write the word "son" by itself, it's alif-bah-noon. In speech, I hear Arabs say both "ibin" and "bin", so i'm not really sure which is the more correct pronunciation, but as far as it appearing more than once in one name, I don't know of any rules saying that one should be bin while the other ibn. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osama bin Laden

Ibn Baaz was the subject of Osama bin Laden's first public pronouncement intended for the general Muslim public. This open letter condescendingly criticized him for endorsing the Oslo peace accord between the PLO and Israeli government.(Messages to the World, Edited and Introduced by Bruce Lawrence, Translated by James Howarth, Verso, 2005) Ibn Baz defended his decision to endorse the Oslo Accords by citing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, saying that a peace treaty with non-Muslims has historical precedent if it can avoid the loss of life.(al-Muslimoon Magazine, 21st Rajab 1415 AH) (at-Tawheed Magazine, vol. 23, Issue #10) This criticism, coupled with Bin Laden's making of Takfir of the rulers of Saudi Arabia, resulted in Ibn Baaz declaring bin Laden a Khariji.

With respect to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, bin Laden's 1996 fatwa listed a litany of complaints before saying that "what ever treaty you [the United States] have with our country is now null and void." He, moreover, explained how the "The treaty of Hudaybiyyah was cancelled by the messenger of Allah."http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html


If we aren't going to present both sides, then let us delete the whole thing.--71.108.27.113 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about "presenting both sides". This article is about Bin Baz, not Bin Laden. He was the subject of the pronouncement; and the notability of this is provided in sources.
Your insertion, however, has a few issues with it. First, it isn't about Bin Baz at all, it's about the Oslo Accords; it belongs either in Bin Laden's article or in the article on the Oslo Accords. It isn't about this individual here. Secondly, the notability of Bin Laden's complaints isn't supported by the source. The source lists his complaints, but it doesn't provide any reports on whether or not the international community paid as much attention to all his specific points.
In addition, your latest edit summary constitutes a personal attack and is in violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. I can see that you're new and things like this happen, but please be mindful in the future. A disagreement doesn't automatically mean the other party is being biased. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Baz's mentioning of The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah should be omitted entirely if there won't be any mentionening of bin Laden's statement on the treaty.--71.108.23.234 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know that is your position. You haven't given any particularly convincing reasons why though. Simply stating what you think here isn't justification for the edits in question. Please refer to my comments above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
On some of these non-online or non-English sources, could folks please provide quotes with the refs? This will help with verification. See also WP:RSUE. Thanks, Elonka 04:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This is an interesting and useful article. However, I think that it could be better written. Some recommendations for article improvement:

  • Please expand the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the top section should include a concise summary of the article
  • Avoid lists of facts. Try to work them into actual prose.
  • Check article structure per WP:LAYOUT. For example, section headers should only have the first word capitalized
  • Copyediting for tone. There is good information here, but the text sometimes seems a bit disjointed. Try to make the writing more neutral and encyclopedic. There are other Wikipedians who can be brought in as native English copyeditors, if it's helpful.
  • Ensure that the article title is the "most common name", per WP:COMMONNAME. We should use the name that is most commonly-used in English-language sources. Longer names can definitely go in the lead, but the article title should be "what most English speakers will recognize".

Hope that helps, Elonka 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)