Talk:Siraj Wahhaj

Sections and quality

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

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

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article revision

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

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

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

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

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

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