Talk:Al-Albani

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

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)

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

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

rename

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

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)

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)