Talk:Muhammad al-Asi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have removed most of the material in this article. The information about the subject was not sourced, and, as it happens, I was there at the Islamic Center during his "imamate." The Center had been seized by force, and the trust that owned it did not act for a long time. Eventually, the police removed the dissidents, including al-Asi. It appears that he was later convicted of trespass. Abd 01:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Controversy
The controversial quotes have been properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperionsteel (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for contribution to this wiki: excessive name-calling. Furtfurt (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous IP editor inserted a parenthetical POV comment:
Al-Asi has been accused of holding Anti-American and anti-Semtic views. The following quotes (which are taken out of context) have been attributed to him:
That kind of claim can't be made without evidence. If there is evidence that the quotes were, indeed, taken out of context, the context could be sourced so that any reader could verify it. I have not examined those sources myself, the ones that are in the article, and many of them are sources expected to be inimical to him. However, if the sources, with other reliable information, show out of context quotation, that could be described here in talk and, in my opinion, the description in the article might shift, possibly, from one of his alleged offensive statements to one showing attempted character assassination. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone believes these quotes they were taken out of context, they should explain what context they should be taken in.
[edit] About al-Asi's alleged election
My testimony does not satisfy WP:RS, in itself, but for background, I was there when al-Asi led prayer. My understanding was that the official imam had been ejected by a group of activists, and al-Asi was installed. From my knowledge of how such groups functioned, I'd expect that some kind of election was held, but that it would not have been a formal election, with anyone involved other than those who happened to be present, and I can say that those who openly disagreed with the activist leadership were not welcome. Given that there is no reliable source regarding the alleged election, all that could be said was that he was physically leading prayer at the masjid at that time. The "elected imam" claim is used, it seems, politically, to give credence to a claim (whether by him or by critics) that his views represent that important congregation, but there is no evidence for that. In any case, he *was* ejected, eventually, by the police, at the behest of the trust which owned the masjid, and the was masjid closed for a time until order could be re-established. He continued to "lead prayer" outside, on the sidewalk across the street, for years. I can probably find source for that. --Abd (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
oops! It's in the article, the sidewalk thing, sourced from Asi's website. This is a quote:
- the Muslim community in Washington decided to elect the administration at the IC. The process of elections took almost two years of preparations and convincing. Finally, during the last Friday in the month of November 1981, the Muslim congregation in Washington held the first ever election at the IC after Friday prayers. And, as a result of that election, a new administration was now charged with the daily and occasional responsibilities of an Islamic Center/Mosque.
Let me read between the lines. After the prayer, when most congregants would have dispersed normally, a prepared group held an election of a "new administration." Problem is, the congregation did not own the masjid. It was, as Asi notes, owned by a waqf, a trust, with established procedure for appointing the imam. There is no right in Islamic law for a congregation to usurp property. A trust owning a masjid may certainly delegate the appointment of an imaam or other officer to the community, and that is not uncommon, but the community -- and certainly not an ad-hoc group claiming without proof to represent "the community" -- cannot unilaterally declare that it now administers the masjid. The community, if it chooses, can pray elsewhere, and a masjid is any place of prayer, though it is desirable that it be dedicated to the purpose. If it really was the "congregation" that wanted to have this new administration, it would certainly have had the resources to establish its own masjid, if it believed that the waqf was not properly administering the place. That masjid, however, the Islamic Center, was established, if I'm correct, primarily for the convenience of the Muslim diplomatic community in Washington, hence the composition of the waqf. From 'Asi's site:
- The Islamic Center (IC) in Washington, D.C. was established during the 1950's and registered as a trust. The reason for that, it is said, is to give the IC as close a description and “legal status” to a mosque as possible. Being that there is no such concept as waqf in American legality, a trust comes as close to waqf as is possible. From the 1950's until 1979 the administration of the IC was a function of the accredited embassies to Washington. And due to the political climate of those times, the Egyptian embassy was tasked with appointing the Imam to the IC. Other supportive positions were agreed upon by a committee of seven ambassadors who would rotate on a two year basis.
Basically, from al-Asi's account, he was ejected from the masjid, was prosecuted and convicted of trespass, and has held weekly prayer outside on the sidewalk ever since. No imaam who had the support of the community would need to do that. The masjid belongs to those who built it, or to the trust to which the builders entrusted it, or, if such control is lost, to the sovereign. If such authority does not object, the congregation can take responsibility for administration, and could even gain legal authority, but not by force, not without consent or at least acquiescence. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of extensive quotes from "anti-terrorist" publications
As an example of the problems with this material as source on Al-Asi, see [1], "What the Muslim Student Union does not mention in its literature, however, is that its members commonly wear green armbands during the events it sponsors, to signal their allegiance to the terrorist group Hamas." Hamas, of course, is an organization with many purposes, popular enough in Palestine to win elections. Defining it as a terrorist group, on the basis that some of its activities are allegedly terrorism (and I agree that some are), is like defining the United States as a terrorist organization on the basis that it has used terror to advance its goals (What does "Shock and Awe" mean?)
WP:BLP, policy on the biographies of living persons, requires strict sourcing standards. I removed material like this because it was extensive, and contrary to policy. Obviously, there are people who hate Al-Asi and who think he advocates terrorism, but how this would be mentioned in the article requires caution and balance. I highly recommend discussing changes to this article before making them, particularly if it is to insert possibly inflammatory material. I left in one seriously critical report on Al-Asi because it had been referenced, itself, from the Al-Asi web site (actually the web site of his alleged Muslim community, but, same difference.) --Abd (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources are reputable
The quotes stay in. The sources are reputable and freely post this material on the Internet. Al-Asi has also never denied that he made these statements. If you can provide evidence that any of these sources is incorrect, feel free to present it. But don't just delete it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
- Read WP:BLP]. I'm reverting it all out, and warning this user, and next step will be to bring this to admin attention. In fact, I'm simply going to do that. A magazine with a clear bias and political agenda is not a neutral source, and even linking to such a magazine may be contrary to Wikipedia policy. Lots of material is "freely posted on the internet," and most of it cannot be used as WP:RS, and sourcing standards for Biographies of Living Persons are tighter than for other articles. I left in material that was neutrally sourced, or some sources that in themselves are not neutral, but which showed actual videos of Al-Asi. That is, in itself, possibly problematic, because they were very tight clips and thus could be taken out of context; my point is that I may be leaving in some material that is not proper.
- I left in a news report video without verifying that the source was neutral because it was itself referenced from Al-Asi's web site, and I presumed that if it was lies, that reference would say so. It didn't. But just because someone has not denied saying a thing does not mean that Wikipedia can quote the alleged statement; further, there is policy as well against a lengthy series of such quotes. Enough is enough, too much is too much. There was a quote-farm tag on this article which I removed when I removed the quotes.
- Correctness is not an issue, in this case. That Hyperionsteel thinks it is shows a lack of understanding of policy here. I'd suggest reading the links I've provided. Lots of correct stuff can't be put in the encyclopedia.
- Al-Asi is a fanatic, an extremist, I'll say that. His understanding of genuine Islam is poor. But this is my opinion, and is irrelevant to this article. --Abd (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frontpage is out - but the rest stays in
I've removed the reference to Frontpage Magazine. Instead, I've cited other sources. MEMRI is a legitimate source - it is cited repeatedly throughout Wikipedia. The rest of the article stays in. It is properly sourced and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I've rewritten the article to so that it is not just a quotefarm. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
- I'll review MEMRI. However, I have previously found inappropriate sources that were commonly used. That's no evidence that it's proper, unless there has been some formal examination and decision.
- I'm more concerned about article balance. A question was just raised at WP:BLP/N re Martha Stewart. Should the introduction to the article call her a "convicted felon.? I'd say not. She is not defined by that. The conviction does belong in the article, but not featured, and if we imagine a headline for the article, MARTHA STEWART: CONVICTED FELON, we would see how her life has been reduced to one incident, which is POV and defamation. This article should not be an "expose" of Al-Asi, and it's looking like that is what it is becoming.--Abd (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MEMRI
MEMRI may have a politcal bias, but nobody doubts their translations are accurate.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
[edit] And don't threaten me
By the way, Abd, don't threaten me. I don't respond well to threats. If you want Wikipedia to review the article, feel free to ask - I welcome a second opinion. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
- I read over my comments and for the life of me can't see where I threatened this editor. I informed him that I was taking this to WP:BLP/N, here is the exact report: [[2]]. I did not threaten anything; if I did, I'd welcome someone pointing it out. --Abd (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I may have overreacted when I wrote the above comment and I apoligize. I shouldn't have used that language and I am sorry if you took any indignity.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
What I should have said is that I strongly disagree with your description of my additions to this article and I am concerned that you are presenting my work in an inaccurate manner. However, I am willing to accept whatever Wikipedia deems is appropriate. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
- Good start, it's appreciated. Disagreement among editors is essential to the development of the encyclopedia, except for the rare article which is created, as it were, virgin with no inherited POV from the editor. With controversial subjects, that's quite rare. Disinterested editors *usually* aren't interested enough in the subject to create an article. Now, I'm not *entirely* disinterested, because I knew Al-Asi, I had what might be called a run-in with him. In my view, he's a relatively isolated fanatic, useful to other relatively isolated fanatics, which greys into the bottom side of the general Muslim community. Like many such, he voices discontent that is bubbling under the surface among many, so he gets invitations to speak to various Muslim organizations. My experience with such organizations is that they are often easily co-opted by extremists. Happens in all fields with small democratic organizations: participation bias allows the fanatics to take over, because normal people really dislike participation in such a context.
- So I'm a critic of Al-Asi, but I'm also very, very concerned about the values and policies of Wikipedia. Let me point out the danger of an article which is too much of an "expose." It doesn't much matter what the article says with respect to the extremists on both sides, though it might serve as a link to information -- though not much that they could not easily find with Google. However, consider the large middle, simply trying to understand some reference that they come across, seeing, say, one of the Frontpage references that was in this article. For a non-Muslim, not knowing much about the situation, they might swallow what is said there -- not just what is in the article referenced from there -- without further investigation or thought. This is why "reliable sources" should not be sources full of unestablished strong claims, and I mentioned above some of that from Frontpage above. Elsewhere in Wikipedia I have taken down references to advocacy organizations much milder than Frontpage, because the material that the reader would see there frames evidence in a biased way, spinning it. These sources are not neutral, they are, instead, concerned with creating impressions through sometimes lurid presentations of fact and innuendo, often itself built on very unreliable source. Where such references are used, they should be attributed and properly described in the text of the article, so that the reader is prepared to see something controversial, not to be implicitly trusted as accurate. This is true all through Wikipedia: even "reliable sources," when a controversial position is advocated in them, should be attributed when citing them.
- Articles that are not balanced can backfire, becoming useless for dispelling myths or informing multitudes. Muslims, for example, reading, say, a Frontpage source, and seeing what they immediately recognize as anti-Muslim bias in it, may toss out the whole article as biased.
- Now, as to MEMRI. It is possible to assert with a straight face that MEMRI is neutral. However, that it is neutral is, from the MEMRI article, controversial. In particular, MEMRI has been accused of selection bias and of translation bias. Translation bias in translation from Arabic to English is practically unavoidable due to the nature of the Arabic language, but Farsi is an Indo-European language and, I suspect, easier to translate accurately in to English, but *all* translations require selection of word meanings. This selection can *easily* reflect the biases of the translator, without, even, any such intention on the part of the translator. We cannot, I suggest, consider MEMRI reports based on translations of Farsi TV to be unbiased unless confirmed, and, in particular, unless confirmed by sources not tainted by credible allegations of bias. The allegations against MEMRI may not be true, I have no clear understanding of that (nor have I researched it in depth), but they are credible. This does not mean that the MEMRI translations may not be used, but caution would be in order, according to this:
- (1) Is the complete context available? That is, are we looking at only a snippet of text, extracted from a longer original piece, i.e., say, an interview. Without the complete context being available, a reader cannot judge if the quotation has been taken out of context, and in this case we may have selection bias; the translation was made only of what a possibly biased translator considers important. I sometimes propose a rough standard: if it's up on the flapole, and nobody shoots at if for a reasonable time, it is almost certain to be true. However, this standard cannot apply to Wikipedia articles in the WP:BLP field, for it would allow libel to remain for far too long. Rather, as an example, if there were some forum where those likely to know the truth, to recognize bias and quotation out of context, can be expected to have seen the material and to have objected to it and did not, this becomes a reasonable indication of reliability, and this could be verified. This standard, I'll note, is pushing the boundaries of what Wikipedia could accept.
- (2) Is it necessary for balance in the article? Suppose there is a piece of information in an article which is true, reliably sourced, and inflammatory. That information without possibly contrary information, reasons why it is reasonable to doubt the first piece, not as to truth (since I'm assuming truth for the inflammatory information), but why it might be misleading to consider only that. Martha Stewart is a convicted felon. This is *not* the story of her life, it is merely a notable event in her life. Suppose a stub were started on someone like Martha Stewart, and it said, "So-and-so is an interior designer and a convicted felon," and, as it happens, these were the only fully reliable facts available from reliable sources. However, So-and-so is famous, and lots of people know much more about her, and have written about her, but not in such reliable sources. So an editor might add: "She is well known among those interested in home decoration, on the Internet, for her advice blog, So-and-so-sews-curtains.com." True, verifiably, but no reliable source. Now, is the MEMRI material *necessary* for this article? Is the sum of al-Asi's work that he makes outrageous statements about contemporary political situations? Beyond two or three particularly notable examples, it becomes a quotefarm, and, even then, without balancing material, it's not balanced. The whole history of his so-called imamate at the Islamic Center of Washington D.C. is, in my opinion, a notable incident, and reliable sources exist for at least some of it, but we have little on it in the article. Why don't I add this? *Because I was involved,* and, as well, I don't have enough interest at this point to work on it, I have other fish to fry. Rather, I've described some of what I know in Talk, I watch this article, and I'd be pleased to help anyone get it right who wants to expand it in a proper manner, i.e., to make it into a *biography,* not merely a collection of things that he has said that offend certain interest groups. Al-Asi's whole approach to Islam is seriously outrageous, and, I suspect, there are usable materials out there, but nobody is collecting them for use here. Most Muslims in Washington, I suspect, consider him an isolated lunatic. Holding Friday prayer for years on a sidewalk to make a point? In most places where there is any measure of freedom, and people don't like what the jama' masjid is doing, they start their own masjid, and these proliferate if there is any support for them (and they make it more convenient for people to get to the masjid). If Al-Asi's claim that he represented the Muslim Community of Washington were true, there would be plentiful resources and eager attendance. But he does not have that kind of support.
- (3) Is it unchallenged as accurate? From my knowledge, this is true of the MEMRI quote, but such a challenge could appear.
- (4) Does it create an inflammatory impression? If so, and if the material is necessary and unchallenged, i.e., it meets the first three tests, the general remedy is to balance it, and, in my view, sourcing standards should be somewhat relaxed in this, though always insuring that contrary information and opinion is presented in an NPOV manner, with reasonable verification possible.
- I do not see the MEMRI material as necessary for the article, failing test (2), and I have not checked to see what is the case with test (1), availability of full text, and, even better, untranslated original. However, having read this, what do you think? --Abd (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disagree about MEMRI and it is important
I disagree with you about MEMRI. I'm only quoting part of the interview but a full video and transcript is available on the MEMRI website - to which I have provided a link.
I also feel that this reference is very important because it exposes Al-Asi's view on 9/11. While his view is controversial, it is extremely notable. Something this significant belong in this article.
In addition, MEMRI references are used throughout Wikipedia without penalty from Wiki editors (as far as I know).
I am reinserting the quote for now.
However, if you feel very strongly about this, I suggest we submit this issue to Wiki editors to decide what is the best course of action. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
