From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

why is this article blocked by copyright?

I edited the part where it says he was expelled from saudi arabia, that's not true, he was never expelled from saudi arabia, and mater of fact all saudi arabian scholars respect him and credit him as one of the greatest scholars, including shiekh abdul aziz ibn baz

While not expelled from Saudi Arabia, al-Albaani was removed from his teaching position at the Islamic University of Madinah. His biographer, Muhammad Ibrahim Shaibaani, states that this was due to false accusations made against him by jealous professors. He then mentions Ibn Baaz's words of consolation upon his removal. This is found in the book, Hayaah al-Albaani; vol. 1, pg. 60-1, which I am surprised to not see cited as a reference here as it could considered the authoritative biography even if only quantitatively as it is two volumes. I mentioned this as the primary source for this article is from the intro to a translated book. Supertouch (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Need for transcription standards 3 rename 4 weasel words 5 Recent addition of fatawa 6 Improper referencing!! 7 Wikipedia Standards Violated by this article 7.1 Referencing 7.1.1 reference 2 7.1.2 reference 3 7.1.3 reference 4 7.1.4 reference 5 7.1.5 reference 7 7.1.6 Reference 9 7.2 Request to improve the quality of this article 8 Some Sufis? 8.1 Neutrality

[edit] Cleanup

This seems to be the start of a good article as it has a good deal of information. Here are the reasons for marking this for cleanup:

• It has some point-of-view problems: "After Albania was taken over by atheism" and "he bore this with patient perserverence" are examples.
• No sources are cited. Is this original research? I can't determine what this person is notable for, and cannot figure out how to categorize it. This needs a subject-matter expert to evaluate and improve.
• The article needs to be wikified.

Not trying to come down hard on this article, but somehow I succeeded. Cleduc 3 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

This article is not neutral by any stretch of imagination. It is written from a Salafi standpoint by obvious supporters of Al-Albani.

Who alleges Rashid Rida (who has his own page on wikipedia despite the lack of a hyperlink) is a freemason?

Actually, this article was written by a "Salafi" scholar, and is reproduced at the beginning of Albani's book, Sifat as-Salat an-Nabi. This article may be infringing on copyright

Hey I have read a lot on this guys life and I'am Albanian from Kosova and can fix some of the wronge things I will try and clean up what I know INSHALLAH waht I dont I will leave for people that do

[edit] Need for transcription standards

This article has too many double vowels, which is unnatural in English print. I recommend using the IJMES (International Journal of Middle East Studies) standard http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/history/faculty/journals.html

This is simply to represent the long vowels common in Arabic. While it is at variance with the standard manner of transliteration it is much more practical as the symbols used are difficult to use and not recognized by any but a few. The Atlantic Monthly has an interesting aarticle not too long ago discussing the different ways of transliterating Arabic to English lettering which seemed to express some amount of frustration at the inevitable inconsistencies present in doing so. Supertouch (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Double vowels are peculiar to the Salafi movement.

[edit] rename

everyone calls him "al Albanee". --Striver 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] weasel words

"some sufis" ??? IT seems like some people trying to promote a certain point of view are not willing to allow much in the criticism section. how sad.

While the term "some Sufis" does seem like a jab, the overwhelming majority of his critics are practicioners of Sufism. Also, please log in when making edits. MezzoMezzo 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition of fatawa

Recently, an edit with some strong POV overtones was added in the form of some fatwas from this person. While much of the material does seem legit, is was presented in a very biased manner; for example, the site albrhan.org is a website criticizing Albani heavily from a Shi'a point of view. While this would be perfectly legitimate reference for criticism or an opposing view, using a site for criticism as proof of a person's own opinions dances a fine line over the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.
On top of this, some of the information provided in these sources and hence in the article is actually quite inaccurate. For example, in this source linked in the article we can see clearly that Albani says:
"and that he is the most excellent of the Prophets, noblest of the Messengers, the last and best of them,"
But the edit says: "In his book "At-Tawsulu: Anwau'hu wa Ahkamuhu" Al-Albaanee stated that prophet Muhammad is not the best of creation."
Albani never actually took a position on this issue; rather, he displayed the differences of opinion on the matter from some Muslim scholars from earlier time periods. So to say that he stated the above seems to be somewhat of a misquote.
Albani ALSO said: "The reason allowing tawassul by means of him ( ) is that he is the best of all the creation to Allaah."
So he doesn't negate that Muhammad is the best of creation here. But read the entire section and look at the context that he says this in. Read this entire chapter: "4. His error in claiming that the reason for tawassul by means of the Prophet is that he is the most excellent of everything in creation." Look at the opinions Albani brought because not all Muslim scholars of the past held this opinion. So there is a difference of opinion but considering that much of this material added was from a very POV website, it seems as though it is an attempt to subtley discredit the man via Wikipedia.
Also, I believe that the [language content] section of the Wikipedia:External links page in the manual of style should be reviewed, as much of this material is in Arabic or French and thus unreadable by most users of English-language Wikipedia.
In addition, this is not Wikiquote; refer to the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles guidelines as far as avoiding a quotefarm. Albani made many Fatwas, and it would make a mess of the article to list them all here. This, coupled with the fact that the ones provided are not necessarily any more relevant than any other he has made makes it a bit silly to keep a separate section for them.
Also, please do not simply rewrite or insert entirely new sections without gaining the approval of other editors first; review the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy for more information on that. For the time being, I am considering the issue closed. MezzoMezzo 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the link to albrhan.org is with the purpose of you and those interested to play the voice tapes..so we refer to the scholar voice tape regardless of the page content. Yes the mentioned scholar says that Mohamad is not the best of creation and stated he disagrees with such idea. as for approval of major contributor, I respect you here and the content will be moved to new articles..thanks

Once again, please actually read the book that I mentioned above. A Hate site bashing Sunni Muslims is not a valid source of information on the opinions of Sunnis. In addition, a separate article is not necessary as there is not a sufficient amount of controversy outside the links you and some other anonymous users provided on this and the article on Bin Baz. My response in regard to this supposed separate article can be seen here. It has already been nominated for speedy deletion as it should be. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as this may teeter dangerously close to violating the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. MezzoMezzo 19:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

what is important now is that the sources quoted on Albani are in the process of verification. Ibn baaz article was misleading and there was an abuse of the source ie. he did not endorse peace with Israel, he declared bin laden khariji -out of- the straight path JUST because he oppsed Al Saud which Bin Bazz sees legit rulers. May be some misleading info from Al-albanee sources is going the same direction. We will tell you what and where. In any case, the poor and hardly verifiable sources on Albaanee article makes in need of cleanup to meet wikipedia standards.. thanks again and sorry if any misunderstanding occured. Our purpose is to put the right thing about a given subject, not for not against him. Just facts..

It is good for members to verify sources and check them out, as it brings everyone up to speed. But keep in mind that your own verification is not justification for you to make sweeping deletions and undiscussed insertions as you have been doing over the past few days; I will again remind you to review the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy and the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guideline.

As for your assertion that the Bin Baz article was misleading, this is not true. While a reference section was not added until today, the reference itself was there and I know you were aware of this because you also looked up some of the other references in the same article. In addition, the reason Bin Baz declared bin Laden a khariji was already stated; your wording in this edit was blatantly POV. Always keep the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy in mind.

As for the Albani sources, you have shown that you can't tell anyone what is or isn't reliable as not only have you very obviously misquoted sources and ignored sources that didn't confirm your opinions - as I mentioned above with Bin Baz - but you also have been pushing a Hate site in the form of albrhan.org as a source, to the point where you even created an article whose very title labeled these two men with a religious slur and had to be deleted. Also, what's with this "we" business? How many users are on your account? This is very strange and suspicious behavior.

Lastly, as for your claim that you're just posting facts and not anything against him, this is clearly false according to even your own words. On the talk page for your now deleted article, you stated up front that your issue was that the articles didn't feature enough criticism. I then called you out on it and received no response. I will repeat here what I said there: I assumed good faith about your edits initially, but your erratic behavior, inappropriate and undiscussed trashing of entire articles, and constant contradictory statements have worn that thin. I will be watching the articles on both Albani and Bin Baz like a hawk to prevent any further vandalism to them. It's up to you now to change my mind about your intentions, both myself, other users, and the admins that deleted your article gave you plenty of chances already. MezzoMezzo 18:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper referencing!!

ATTN: User: MezzoMezzo

You have rightly stated :"as much of this material is in Arabic or French and thus unreadable by most users of English-language Wikipedia." I support what was quotted and see some problems with the following references in this article:

1.^ ad-Dustoor, 10 August 1999 (unreadable and -or accessible to English readers) 2. ^ a b al-Asalaah, Issue #23, Pg. 76-77 (unreadable or-and accessible to English readers) 5. Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat and Vol.2, pp. 63-64 (unreadable or-and accessible to English readers)

Having said that, this article remains based on 2 or 3 references !!and needs fortifications in terms of references: legit English readable-accessible or verifiable sources are necessary. User: Swapant

Really this could have been brought to the attention of any editors reading the talk page, but regardless I am flattered by the attention.  :) The three articles are from non-English publications, but are all available on the web - translated into English, of course. I'm editing some other things and am trying to get out the door in just a few minutes, but I respect your dedication and will try to find the translations for you later on tonight. MezzoMezzo 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The mere suggestion that research be limited to one language is absurd. Be it Arabic, Spanish, German any language to declare these and any of the other numerous languages off limits to the researcher is to fall into cultural arrogance. The entire world does not speak English even if it has become amore or less universal language. The topic at hand is originaly from Albania lived in a number of Arab countries throughout the Middle East - how are we to happen upon primary sources writien in English? Ths being the case did it not occur to you that at some point in time a work in English will have been translated from the original Arabic? Even if we restrict our selves to English works, who will verify the foreign-language works that they have been translated from? Wikipedia being a cooperative effort it seems more than reasonable to assume that there are any number of people speaking any number of numbers viewing and editing the different topics at this site. If verification is your concern resticting the sources to one language is of only minor assistance. A prime example of this is this article. This very article is taken from the introduction to the author's work 'The Prophet's Prayer Described.' This book was translated into English by Usama ibn Suhaib Hasan and in spite of its being found in the English language as you have required nobody has so much as looked to see who has written this biography - something I just did in about two minutes. I say this assuming that the translater is the author\compiler or translator of this biography. Diligence is not limited by language. Here is the Wikipedia policy regarding the use of foreign-language:

Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. Supertouch (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Standards Violated by this article

There is a big irrelevance and doubts about the way this article is made.

[edit] Referencing

[edit] reference 2

ad-Dustoor, 10 August 1999 !!!!what is this, first NOT readable to English readers. Second, Not verifiable. Remember, this is an English wikipedia.

[edit] reference 3

How can someone use a blog as a reference, especially if this blog is made to preach about the subject in question. Referencing froma website like the website : http://almuttaqoon.com/ which means the Practicing Muslims is by no mean of a value or even a relevence to be here.

[edit] reference 4

al-Asalaah, Issue #23, Pg. 76-77 !!!!what is this again, Arabic material NON -readable for English readers and NON-verifiable.

[edit] reference 5

Biography of Shaikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaani by Shaykh 'Ali Hasan al-Halabi !!!!what is this, some one told you some one said in a friday prayer kind of referencing!!!Very irrelevent content.

[edit] reference 7

Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat and Vol.2, pp. 63-64 !!!!!

[edit] Reference 9

http://www.troid.org/articles/manhaj/innovation/indefenceoftheulamaa/alalbaanee.htm!!!! this website is established to preach Wahabism and calls itself the site of the REIGN OF ISLAMIC PREACHING..!!!how can someone even quote something from it!!

Therefore, the factual accuracy of this article can not be established and it remains disputed..

In regard to reference two, it is shown in English on the website in reference three. In regard to reference three, it is not a blog; it's a board that is a repository for English translations of mostly Arabic and some Urdu Muslim religious material. In regard to reference four, it is also provided on the website in reference three. In regard to reference five, it is from a book. In regard to reference seven, it is from a book and even the specific page numbers are provided. In regard to reference nine, once again Chubeat8/Swampant/uss-cool Wahhabism is a slur and you need to stop hurling it around. The Troid website doesn't claim to be Wahhabi anywhere so for you to accuse it of that is merely your own personal opinion of the site. Furthermore, a site claiming to be the reign of Islamic preaching doesn't violate any rules of Wikipdia at all.

I have been quoting Wikipedia policy to you back and forth all over here and yet you still claim some parts of this and the Bin Baz article violate Wikipedia policy even though you have demonstrated through your comments on the talk page over there that you aren't familiar with said policies. And yes, I know it's you:

the factual accuracy of this article can not be established and it remains disputed

Remains? Come on, man, the people who contribute to this site aren't stupid. You can use every computer and IP address in Montreal and the entire eastern side of Canada, it's still very obvious who this is. MezzoMezzo 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, Good MezzoMezzo and his concensus partners!! keep the good work ok. This article is an excellent B.S sample. But that is no issue, if there is a market demand on B.S why not having this kind of staff on Wikipedia. I personally like I have red before, came to a conclusion that Wikipedia can not be reliable..I let you enjoy it, my appologies if my contributions have disturbed some Saudi Sheikhs and their sympathisers at night as they were deligently working hard to present the Extreemist Sheikh ibn Baz- (and now Albaaanee!!)as a peace lover. That Sheikh -like ibn Baz- who says make peace but NOT LOVE with Jews in one of the rare racist comments of our times. I got no time to spend on this and hope you enjoy the Da3wa and missionary work. May allah bless you for conquering wikipedia. Do not hesitate conquering the rest..Swapant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.222.197 (talk • contribs)

I don't have "consensus partners". What this article has is a version which is informative as a biography and is the result of much work, no thanks to you. You claim it is "B.S" yet every insertion you have suggested for both this and Bin Baz has been inappropriate and disruptive. You even accuse them both of racism with absolutely no backing whatsoever - proving that you are incapable of abiding by the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. On top of this, you have once again violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy as you have done in almost every comment you've made. Have you been reading the site policies at all? Do you even take that into account? It seems as though you haven't read a thing i've posted.

Regardless, I and others will continue to watch over these two articles. Your attempt to conquer these two pages through the useage of sock/meatpuppets has failed as will any other attempts to do so. Do not compromise the integrity of this site. MezzoMezzo 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact the mentioned reference page in no longer there, it says: ``Afwaan, but the content you requested could not be found. Perhaps try our Search Module insha'Allaah.`` so the reference is before being void, was not verifiable. Suggest deletion of the related content.Chubeat8 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather unreasonable suggestion. As I explained to you on another talk page, the Troid site was recently down for maintenance and is now back up. The information is still out there, it simply needs a reference from a separate source now. MezzoMezzo 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you know the reference was there before the site went down and that the article is legit, so to dispute the factual accuracy now is blatant dishonesty on your part. MezzoMezzo 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not argue more to disturb the atmosphere, I will take a sober look and verify the sources and be back and if the time allows me. I can reassure you that what ever comments edits I will introduce, they will be nothing but pure honest talk to improve the article. I can even assure you that other than a tag, all what I have will be listed on the talk page.Chubeat8 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz and your associated sockpuppet activity and trolling are proof enough against your claims of good faith. Please stop patronizing me and others reading this, as you now have a number of editors convinced of your shenanigans and have been reported. As for the references, they're the same ones you already verified months ago so please stop being coy. MezzoMezzo 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to improve the quality of this article

• Mezzo-Mezzo: your behavior with regards to other users maily doing this, this, and other staff; the fact that you did not respond positively to facilitate the verifiability of the references here in this article, I am willing to give a couple of days or a week to link me, email me, or scan for me pieces of the sourses. If you can not, than there will be a reference issue and I will seek a templete on referencing. Also, try to put references where citation is needed. I by the way read Arabic at the university level. Just shoot your references. If you are not willing to cooperate and start using Ad hominem, I will not need to wait for placing templetes. ThanksChubeat8 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your personal attacks on my talk page and elsewhere have nothing to do with this pages referencing issues.

Second of all, I did not respond positively because you asked for the referenced material to be removed as factually inaccurate when the reference URLs changed, despite the fact that you knew the references were legit as you saw them months ago, and you knew that the sites they were on were under maintenance as I told you here and on other talk pages. You were being dishonest.

Third, I don't need to get clippings of the references because they are already up. Please check the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Citing sources style guideline. If you attempt to remove them or tag the article again despite having been warned here, I will remove it as both trolling and vandalism.

You have stalked me across no less than six articles for the purpose of harassment and many more beyond that in an attempt to discredit me as an editor. This information will be brought up during the investigation of your shenanigans opened on the admin's noticeboards. MezzoMezzo 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine MezzoMezzo, it is tagged as having reference issue. I already taked about this on top of this page. No need to repeat my self. It seems that you are stubors, so let it be if you feel comfortable that way.Chubeat8 04:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't explained a thing! The references are up and the URLs are available for you to see. You have absolutely no basis for putting the template up. You've been harassing me in a similar matter across multiple pages and you need to cool it. MezzoMezzo 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On this one, I have to appologize as I found a file with follow ups you did last time that I already viewed. So MY APPOLOGIES ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT. Please do not read bad faith in me on this one because we focuced on each other more than the spirit of the issue.Chubeat8 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Sufis?

I have changed 'some sufis' to some muslims. Although some may be 'practicioners of sufism', they are still a subset of muslims, and criticism has been put forward by non-sufis as well. To call the 'sufis' is misleading - almost like saying 'some salafis believe that Al-Albani is a qualified scholar'. AN-MEL 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

[edit] Neutrality

I don't claim to be an expert on Nasiruddin al-Albani, but what I do know is that he is more controversial than this article seems to indicate. In many instances he contradicts all four of the Islamic Schools of Jurispudence. Many scholars throughout the Islamic World regard his actions such as editing or as he calls it (mukhtasar) of classical books such as Bukhari highly controversial. I am not going to take sides but al-Albani is, as the article states, considered by "various scholars as being perhaps the greatest Islamic scholar of the twentieth century". The various however is a minority, and is thus not worthy of an entire section of praise, followed by a "Refutation of Criticism" section. I thought there had to be a "Criticism" section for there to be a "Refutation of Criticism" section. Please re-check this article. Jaw101ie (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He has his critics, however I was never aware of any sort of large controversy or of this "various" in question being a minority compared to them (critics). There is some out there on the net, but so far all I have found is polemical works from sites of different sects. What we could do, if you think this will help, is remove the unsourced content in the "refutation" section, as indeed it doesn't make much sense without there being reliable criticism. The sourced thing in that section doesn't really seem to be a refutation at all so much as it is an academic view. So I think we could move the sourced part up to the previous section and just drop the "refutation" section entirely. That's just the most immediate thing that came to my mind. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a first. Unfortunately Google doesn't have a "what is the majority scholarly opinion about such and such a person" button! So I don't know where we can find the majority opinion. What I do know is the majority of scholars in the world advocate madhhab following, so this in turn means that the majority will object to at least some of his opinions. This is the first time I edit an Islamic article (I mostly edit Libya articles which don't tend to cause any upsets among other Wikipedians or readers alike) so I don't want to offend anyone (especially the person in question in the article). God is the Wisest Judge so I'll leave that to Him, and this article to you, but please be honest with it. Yes, first remove refutation of criticism or push it up. Then a non-offensive and useful section on criticism. Thank you.Jaw101ie (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this as a reason to stop editing, as this is more of an article policy discussion than anything else. I'll enact the suggested edits but do keep in mind that people who are enthusiastic to help edit articles should never feel shy to do so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)