Talk:Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Lebanon (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Islam / Shi'a Islam  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force.
WikiProject Islam / Muslim scholars / Shi'a Islam (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force.
This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (marked as Mid-importance).


had section about opposition from other ayatollahs that could not be verified by neutral reader as source is non english. This isn't an Arabic encyclopaedia therefore should be removed. Huge potential to mislead.

btw many of the translations of fatwa's that I have obtained it is evident they do not mention the subject of the article by name, and highly are misleading by there nature.

Also nature of the oppostion is not described and therefore added no value to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


Here the number of people killed in the 1985 car bomb is stated as 80; in the entry for Elie Hobeika it is stated as "more than 45". Can anyone who feels confident about their sources reconcile these articles? --Dcaron 12:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"Fadlallah published a minor periodical, and went to Lebanon in 1952." If it was a periodical then it was published more than once. I suggest that this be changed to "Fadlallah began publishing a minor periodical..." but I am not sure of the accuracy of the statment after the change. Does anyone know? --Apolloourson 20:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Major Problems With This Article[edit]

First of all, the use of the term "Palestine" is egregiously partisan, and does not belong in Wikipedia. There is no nation currently established that is known as "Palestine." There is a Palestinian Authority.
Secondly, the description of the assassination attempt is speculative, and not written in a NPOV manner.
Finally, most of the article seems to be written in a very partisan, i.e. Shia', manner, like most of the articles dealing with prominent Muslim terrorists and/or terrorist paymasters, extremist immams, etc...

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all there is a nation of Palestine, there is not however a state of Palestine, a nation is a group of people that identify with each other and want some degree of independance i.e. the Cherokee nation. The Cherokee like the Palestinians do not have a country however they are a nation.

Secondly the assissnation of Fadlallah is not speculative According to a Frontline interview of Jim Hougan CIA supported opperatives (though not under the control of the CIA) planted a massive car bomb timed for when worshippers would be leaving a Beirut Mosque associated with Fadlallah. The bomb exploded and killed 80 and wounded 200 as a responce to the Beruit Marine barracks bombings which Fadlallah was supposedly involved in though he denies this. The CIA also viewed Fadlallah as troublesome and wanted him dead.

Second terrorist is a very partisan and charged word if you are going to pull the "egregiously partisan" do not turn around and use egregiously partisan terms. Often depending on who the group is various individuals will define them as both terrorist and Freedom fighter. Examples American Revolutionary solidiers, British Terrorists/Americans Freedom fighters Italian revolutionary solidiers Austrians terrorist/Italians freedom fighters as is the case with a lot of Muslim armed groups many Arabs view these people as freedom fighters fighting against Secular Arabs dicatatorships, Israel and the US. While Israel, Secular Arabs dictatorships, and the US label these people terrorists. Militants is the best term to avoid partisanship.Bored college student 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Loaded words like "terrorist", "freedom fighter", etc. have multidimensional meanings and should be used only in direct quotes -- in context. Maintaining with straight face that somebody IS "terrorist" is stupid and counterproductive. --Magabund 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

-- -- -- What has the word Martyr to in a supposed objective article ????? This article is Pro-Shia and lacking all kind of objectivity. - - -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the overly biased and fawning nature of this entire article, failing to mention his clearly established and well-known ties to terrorist groups like Hezbollah is ridiculous. Tell the whole story or don't tell it at all. You can start with the 1983 massacre of Marines at Beirut's airport. Unklscrufy (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing stopping you from adding it. Go ahead an be WP:Bold (just make sure there are RS to say so). His relation to Hezbollah is already mentioned.Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The section about Fatima and his views thereof needs a major copy edit, it is also unsourced as well as poorly written.Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


This chapter in the page cites only one book for all it's numerous claims. I suggest this is removed, unless those references are scanned or become accessible for someone to verify the quotes attributed to Fadlallah. This entire section is biased and written by someone out to smear his good name. Kinkydoc22 (talk)

I too agree. I actually went looking for the sources and they don't exist! Besides, the statements provided contradict the ones on his official website. Why have these not been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Arabic name translation removed[edit]

His Arabic name translation was removed here: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ive restored the unexplained vandalism. although where is the translation of his name? More a transliterationLihaas (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

William Lewish? Vandalism?[edit]

"Here he met his long time friend, and fellow terrorist William Lewis. William Lewis was born a simple goat herder in the southern province but moved to Najaf in 1972. He tragically died in a fatal goat accident twelve years later." Is this vandalism? Someone ought to remove such rubbish. ( (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

Removed it, like i said this page needs some seriuos monitoring, its becoming the target of many vandals94.170.144.254 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

He was the target of several assassination attempts[edit]

This sentence in the introduction need clarification: why was him the target ? who attacked him, on which issue ? (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

CIA was widely thought to have organized the 1985 bombing: [2] This is very important info that should be added to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Added. It was quite vague actually. --candlewicke 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
the same link and info is IN the section. The lead just summarizes it, for readers who want to know they can scrool down and read the subsection clearlyentitled Assassination attemptLihaas (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
i've removed the link and the requisite CIA details from the lead. This can be found in the article (along with a link to the page). Better than edit warring.Lihaas (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


an edit-war seems to be going on with a facebook link and its relevancy. Relevant or not, Facebook never qualifies as a WP:RS. Who wrote this? What is its verifiability? If its from another source, then that source can be listed.Lihaas (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete quotation[edit]

The second quotation in Views/US foreign policy (After the tragic...) doesn't make sense. It seems truncated. Source is behind a paywall.-- (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, i removed it. And the rest of the part that unverifiable or uncited for over 2 years.Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

External link notability[edit]

How notable is the tribute in the external link as an external link? Can it not be somehow added into the article. If the person is notable that is.Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Lihaas, please explain why you keep removing the word Holocaust from the subsection entitled "Israel and the Holocaust". Fadlallah's engagement in Holocaust denial is an important aspect of this section. If your motivation is that you want his views on the Holocaust to be separated from his views on Israel, that's fine, I have no problem with moving the Holocaust denying quote to a separate subsection. I'd also like to know why you insist on belittling factual material from the New York Times by calling them "claims". You are continually violating WP:CLAIM, and I don't understand why. Has the NYT report been disputed? If not, why are you casting doubt on it? (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Holocaust, I'll leave it to Lihaas to answer. Personally I'd go with a separate section, and if I'll have the time to find sources I probably will. Regarding "claims", if you read that NYT source carefully you'll see it does not quote much directly and mostly makes claims. I added a direct source on some of the material, and again, time permitting I'll add more. As for "wished that the state of Israel...", I'd personally remove that entirely. If you read the source you would see it is a quote of what a reporter said that a nurse said that he said, on his death bed. Not a really strong source. --Muhandes (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
IMHO the source you added seems to bring very little new material to the discussion. It is again mostly claims made by reporters, rather than direct quotes. I'm not saying there isn't any use for such material, but I'm sure better sources exist--Muhandes (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Insisting on direct quotes is setting the bar pretty high. The New York Times has oversight; what NYT reporters write is generally considered reliable as a source by Wikipedia. Referring to reporters' statements as "claims" tends to belittle the source, something that WP:CLAIM cautions against. To temper my remarks a bit, consider the following from a July 10 article about Fadlallah by Jonathan Spyer, published in the Jerusalem Post: In mourning his passing, Hizbullah spokesmen stressed his support for the destruction of the “Zionist entity.” I would hesitate to use such a quote because the bias of the source could be called into question. Now, on the subject of Fadlallah's dying wish, you got the story almost right. According to Reuters, Fadlallah's wish was communicated to the reporters by a doctor (not a nurse). You are correct that the story would have greater credibility had Fadlallah communicated his wish directly to the reporters. After all, the doctor could have made the whole thing up. Nevertheless, the Reuters story had sufficient credibility that it was picked up by the Arab Press as well as by many of the top newspapers in the world, including the NYT and the Guardian. I think it would be fair to write the following on the Wikipedia page: A doctor at the Bahman hospital ... said that when a nurse asked the cleric what he needed, he replied: "For the Zionist entity to cease to exist. " This makes it clear that the evidence is hearsay (something I'd neglected to make clear before). Of course, the evidence is inadmissible if you want to treat Wikipedia like a court of law, in which case I won't press the point, since it's not that important. (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to almost everything you said. I know I said "direct quote" but what I meant was that not that one needs a direct quote, but rather I'd prefer the direct source, the interview rather than an obituary quoting the interview. As for the dying wish, it is a matter of opinion. In my opinion no matter how you put it, it is inessential detail. But if someone adds in with an exact description of what it is, I wouldn't mind. --Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Since at most lukewarm support has been expressed here for its inclusion, I'll bow to consensus and not add it in. Instead, I'd like to focus attention to the fatwa of September 13, 2009. First, a trivial point: the IRIB translation has a misprint: "on inch" should be "one inch". More importantly, there are almost no other English language sources that describe the fatwa in such detail. This could foster skepticism about the veracity of the IRIB report. For this reason, if there is no objection, I'd like to insert a second English reference. It contains a different translation, a "second opinion", if you will. The reference is not a direct source, but rather the Beirut Daily Middle East Reporter 's English translation of Al Akhbar 's quote of Fadlallah. (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Another section is fine, because israel and the holocaust are not equivalent.
As with the quotation from the article, hearing from the horse's mouth is more accurate. as per the discussion here, at any rate, if you cant find english sources an Arabic source is fine (though it would be nice to give a rough translation in the ref tag with a comment that the source is in arabic.
[3] [4] [5] also alter the crux of the arguement to go back to square 1. they need to be disccsed Lihaas (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, could you explain the problem in these edits? The first is mainly technical. The religious basis explanation is already found in a later section so I removed it. The sentence about allegation was replaced with a quote, which I believe is the neutral way to do it (also as as noted, WP:CLAIM). The second edit is per discussion here - Holocaust and Israel are two different things so they were split. The third edit is another quote on Fadlallah's position regarding suicide bombing, which I thought was relevant in showing that at least until 2009 he still held these views. I believe he also released a fatwa a week before he died to the same effect, but as I can't find a source in English I didn't mention it. Is there a problem with any of these edit? I tried to be very factual and NPOV. --Muhandes (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Minor note, I removed a link to Israel–Lebanon relations. From memory, this was actually a jab at Qatar which offered normalization, and in fact normalized relations some time later. (see --Muhandes (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Just give me a bit to go over it, but for the foreign relations link. The one to israel-lebanon bore most relevance, i thought, because it pertains to the issue on hand. Alternatively, Foreign relations of Qater or the requisite Doha Agreement page can be linked to here.Lihaas (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to make my opinion clear, the relation to Qatar is mainly from my memory and without a source I don't think Fadlallah's fatwa should be linked to either Qatar or Lebanon. --Muhandes (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying no link? There is fair value on having a link. Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(I apologize for breaking up your message, I felt each issue should be answered on its own)
I am saying having no link is better than having a misleading link. --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
[6] removes the ground reason for support, which is essential to say and not just that he did. (cited too) Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the ground reasoning should be given. I added a sentence to the quote which I believe covers this in a better way than "on the grounds that it uses advanced weaponry". It is directly from the source. --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
[7] + [8] my bad, was a good edit, or i dont remember what i had an issue with ;) Good healthy, non-heated debate, thanks. think we can get an agreement.
[9] says "other..." why the other? its the first ref over there.Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed the word "other", was that the problem? --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the first 2 are squared now, but i disagree on the link. I think something is fitting. either to israel, qatar, OR perhaps alink to foreign relations of lebanon? (although this last would be tenous)Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not such a big deal. If you find a link which is fitting, feel free to add it. My point was mainly that it was not aimed at Lebanon. --Muhandes (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you it was about/What do you read it as?Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I linked Foreign relations of Israel. If you see a better alternative feel free to change it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a specific to your link. But per [10] i think "advanced weaponry" is essential to his reasoning and it was from the source (cant remember which)Lihaas (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I read the source again, and it still seems weaponry is mentioned incidentally. I agree the reporter in 2010 thought it was the reason, but reading the source from 2002 the reasoning is clear. That's why I insisted above on using the source from 2002, rather than a reporter reporting on the source from 2010. --Muhandes (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Still mentioned per RS. I think there should be some mention, even if with the various caveats.
(but still good we're discussion in a healthy manner, a rare feat here ;))Lihaas (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Civility seems to work best for me. If you feel strongly about it, add a sentence with caveats. The one that was there before doesn't fit the current sentence structure, you might want to do that right after the quote. --Muhandes (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done forgot about this for a while, so i hope i followed the trail of suggestions. I addedit flollowing the quote. is it better?Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Two months ago, I hope I'm not expected to follow my own train of thoughts. Anyway, seems fine, lets give it a rest. --Muhandes (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldnt either, but just saw it undone so i thought id "finish". anyhoo..Lihaas (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Holocaust" section says: "They say there were six million Jews – not six million, not three million, or anything like that" it doesn#t make sense: First he says six million and than "not six million" ????? By the way the source is not valid.-- (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Fadlallah says THEY say there were six million Jews [but he thinks] not six million, not three etc. And how is the source not valid? --Muhandes (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

title and lead[edit]

Shouldn't the title and the lead match? Either switch with Muhammad Hussein Fadl-Allāh or use Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah in the lead? --Muhandes (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)