Talk:Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

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]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

1 This article is too biased
2 New edits - 22 June 06
3 Why 'hate'?
4 Bias
5 Biased section
6 Stop making stuff up
7 A link

[edit] This article is too biased

I have found this article too biased against the Imam. He is one of the most widely respected scholars in the Muslim world. Whoever wrote the current version clearly does not want to know the other side of the story. Anyway, according to Wiki's standards, this article is supposed to be neutral. It seems to be far from neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.249.115 (talk • contribs).

While I see no reason why this article is biased, I do agree that it is in need of expansion (this is why it is marked as a stub now) to present his credentials in full. Everyone will see then that the words like "Monkeys and pigs and worshippers of false Gods who are the Jews and the Zionists." come from an influential scholar, highly respected in the Muslim world, rather than from a marginal, universally despised bigot. Pecher ^Talk 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New edits - 22 June 06

I do not think that this article is now too biased or unsourced (at least compared with the rest of Wikipedia) and I therefore removed the ugly boxes with hands. Regarding the claim that His Eminence memorised the whole book at the age of 12, I removed it until somebody finds sources for it; I do not believe that this is a fact of key importance. - Regarding the title of the 2nd chapter: I think that "controversial" is too weak, and moreover there is nothing very controversial about it - it is simply a textbook example of hate speech.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 'hate'?

Well I think you shouldn't have removed the word 'controversial' and replaced it with 'hate'. This has made the article biased once again. The Sheikh's sermons may be considered as hate only by some Jews and Christians. What about the Muslims? And please remember, the Sheikh was referring to the oppressive Jews of the state of Israel, who have illegally occupied Palestinian lands. There is no dispute about the fact that their continued occupation is illegal under international law. Also, when referring to Christian and Hindu people, he was just reffering to their own practices of what amounts to worshipping 'false gods'in Islamic terms. To be neutral, you have to consider the viewpoint of Muslims as well. The Sheikh is among the most highly-respected scholars of Islam and certainly not a bigot. 221.134.248.125 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous colleague, Wikipedia is not to be written from Muslim (or any other particular) point of view. Instead we are trying to achieve a neutral point of wiew (WP:NPOV). If somebody says about a group of people thet they are "monkeys and pigs who should be annihilated", then it is a hate speech and nothing else. And the gentleman is speaking not only about Zionists, as you assert, but about "the Jews and the Zionists" - "the Jews" are much broader category, including many people who are against the occupation. So I think I am not biased, but only give things their proper names. Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

As you can see, the entire point of the article seems to be attacking the Imam, not telling his real job: to be reciting the Quran (I don't care about bias against the Quran, believe or disbelieve). Muslims should recite the Quran in nice and beautiful tones. Imam Sudais does an awesome job of doing that yet no one has written anything much on that. As for the "sermons attacking Jews and Christians," that I believe is full of bias. People keep removing "promotion websites' so that no one hears what he really does for a living. If Imam Sudais really did say the hate speech I disagree with him then. But let's focus on his real job, shouldn't we? --Nhgulam 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, then focus on his real job, write how he changed the Quran recitation, which type of tones he prefers etc.; but do not remove other relevant information here.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for removing that relevant information. I am new here anyways. --Nhgulam 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, does not matter, we can revert it easily. Happy editing! (And, by the way, use please your signature here on discussion pages - the third button from right, produces four tildas.)--Ioannes Pragensis 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased section

An entire section of the article was based on nothing but second hand gossip, under the guise of being from a reliable source, the BBC. I've deleted it per WP:Biographies of living persons. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You may call it a "gossip", but the source is nevertheless reliable. Beit Or 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop making stuff up

This man is one of the foremost scholars in the world at this time in Islam. This man deserves respect. although it is understandable if someone does not agree with with his choice of faith, it is completely unacceptable for people to input false information just because of prejudice against Islam, and whoever's doing it knows who they are. Unless someone has verified information, with a RELIABLE external link, then it would be geratly appreciated if you DO NOTHING to vandalise this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericwong (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

What exactly do you think does not come from reliable sources? Beit Or 17:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would rather say that you, Ericwong, destroy the quality of the article by deleting sourced information and by adding weasel words and unverified claims. I assure you for my person that I have no prejudices against Islam, I have rather sympathies for good and peaceful believers of all faiths. So stop please personal attacks and read the fundamental guidelines of Wikipedia you've got from me today.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)