Talk:Al-Albani

Copyright?

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

While not expelled from Saudi Arabia, al-Albaani was removed from his teaching position at the Islamic University of Madinah. His biographer, Muhammad Ibrahim Shaibaani, states that this was due to false accusations made against him by jealous professors. He then mentions Ibn Baaz's words of consolation upon his removal. This is found in the book, Hayaah al-Albaani; vol. 1, pg. 60-1, which I am surprised to not see cited as a reference here as it could considered the authoritative biography even if only quantitatively as it is two volumes. I mentioned this as the primary source for this article is from the intro to a translated book. Supertouch (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This article is not neutral by any stretch of imagination. It is written from a Salafi standpoint by obvious supporters of Al-Albani.

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

I have removed the criticism section of this page because it was not neautral and there were many answers given to Albani's research without authentic references.

Furqan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furqan81 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

This is simply to represent the long vowels common in Arabic. While it is at variance with the standard manner of transliteration it is much more practical as the symbols used are difficult to use and not recognized by any but a few. The Atlantic Monthly has an interesting aarticle not too long ago discussing the different ways of transliterating Arabic to English lettering which seemed to express some amount of frustration at the inevitable inconsistencies present in doing so. Supertouch (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Double vowels are peculiar to the Salafi movement.

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)

Improper referencing!!

ATTN: User: MezzoMezzo

You have rightly stated :"as much of this material is in Arabic or French and thus unreadable by most users of English-language Wikipedia." I support what was quotted and see some problems with the following references in this article:

1.^ ad-Dustoor, 10 August 1999 (unreadable and -or accessible to English readers) 2. ^ a b al-Asalaah, Issue #23, Pg. 76-77 (unreadable or-and accessible to English readers) 5. Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat and Vol.2, pp. 63-64 (unreadable or-and accessible to English readers)

Having said that, this article remains based on 2 or 3 references !!and needs fortifications in terms of references: legit English readable-accessible or verifiable sources are necessary. User: Swapant

Really this could have been brought to the attention of any editors reading the talk page, but regardless I am flattered by the attention.  :) The three articles are from non-English publications, but are all available on the web - translated into English, of course. I'm editing some other things and am trying to get out the door in just a few minutes, but I respect your dedication and will try to find the translations for you later on tonight. MezzoMezzo 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The mere suggestion that research be limited to one language is absurd. Be it Arabic, Spanish, German any language to declare these and any of the other numerous languages off limits to the researcher is to fall into cultural arrogance. The entire world does not speak English even if it has become amore or less universal language. The topic at hand is originaly from Albania lived in a number of Arab countries throughout the Middle East - how are we to happen upon primary sources writien in English? Ths being the case did it not occur to you that at some point in time a work in English will have been translated from the original Arabic? Even if we restrict our selves to English works, who will verify the foreign-language works that they have been translated from? Wikipedia being a cooperative effort it seems more than reasonable to assume that there are any number of people speaking any number of numbers viewing and editing the different topics at this site. If verification is your concern resticting the sources to one language is of only minor assistance. A prime example of this is this article. This very article is taken from the introduction to the author's work 'The Prophet's Prayer Described.' This book was translated into English by Usama ibn Suhaib Hasan and in spite of its being found in the English language as you have required nobody has so much as looked to see who has written this biography - something I just did in about two minutes. I say this assuming that the translater is the author\compiler or translator of this biography. Diligence is not limited by language. Here is the Wikipedia policy regarding the use of foreign-language:

Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. Supertouch (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standards Violated by this article

There is a big irrelevance and doubts about the way this article is made.

Referencing

reference 2

ad-Dustoor, 10 August 1999 !!!!what is this, first NOT readable to English readers. Second, Not verifiable. Remember, this is an English wikipedia.

reference 3

How can someone use a blog as a reference, especially if this blog is made to preach about the subject in question. Referencing froma website like the website : http://almuttaqoon.com/ which means the Practicing Muslims is by no mean of a value or even a relevence to be here.

reference 4

al-Asalaah, Issue #23, Pg. 76-77 !!!!what is this again, Arabic material NON -readable for English readers and NON-verifiable.

reference 5

Biography of Shaikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaani by Shaykh 'Ali Hasan al-Halabi !!!!what is this, some one told you some one said in a friday prayer kind of referencing!!!Very irrelevent content.

reference 7

Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat and Vol.2, pp. 63-64 !!!!!

Reference 9

http://www.troid.org/articles/manhaj/innovation/indefenceoftheulamaa/alalbaanee.htm!!!! this website is established to preach Wahabism and calls itself the site of the REIGN OF ISLAMIC PREACHING..!!!how can someone even quote something from it!!

Therefore, the factual accuracy of this article can not be established and it remains disputed..

In regard to reference two, it is shown in English on the website in reference three. In regard to reference three, it is not a blog; it's a board that is a repository for English translations of mostly Arabic and some Urdu Muslim religious material. In regard to reference four, it is also provided on the website in reference three. In regard to reference five, it is from a book. In regard to reference seven, it is from a book and even the specific page numbers are provided. In regard to reference nine, once again Chubeat8/Swampant/uss-cool Wahhabism is a slur and you need to stop hurling it around. The Troid website doesn't claim to be Wahhabi anywhere so for you to accuse it of that is merely your own personal opinion of the site. Furthermore, a site claiming to be the reign of Islamic preaching doesn't violate any rules of Wikipdia at all.

I have been quoting Wikipedia policy to you back and forth all over here and yet you still claim some parts of this and the Bin Baz article violate Wikipedia policy even though you have demonstrated through your comments on the talk page over there that you aren't familiar with said policies. And yes, I know it's you:

the factual accuracy of this article can not be established and it remains disputed

Remains? Come on, man, the people who contribute to this site aren't stupid. You can use every computer and IP address in Montreal and the entire eastern side of Canada, it's still very obvious who this is. MezzoMezzo 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, Good MezzoMezzo and his concensus partners!! keep the good work ok. This article is an excellent B.S sample. But that is no issue, if there is a market demand on B.S why not having this kind of staff on Wikipedia. I personally like I have red before, came to a conclusion that Wikipedia can not be reliable..I let you enjoy it, my appologies if my contributions have disturbed some Saudi Sheikhs and their sympathisers at night as they were deligently working hard to present the Extreemist Sheikh ibn Baz- (and now Albaaanee!!)as a peace lover. That Sheikh -like ibn Baz- who says make peace but NOT LOVE with Jews in one of the rare racist comments of our times. I got no time to spend on this and hope you enjoy the Da3wa and missionary work. May allah bless you for conquering wikipedia. Do not hesitate conquering the rest..Swapant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.222.197 (talk • contribs)

I don't have "consensus partners". What this article has is a version which is informative as a biography and is the result of much work, no thanks to you. You claim it is "B.S" yet every insertion you have suggested for both this and Bin Baz has been inappropriate and disruptive. You even accuse them both of racism with absolutely no backing whatsoever - proving that you are incapable of abiding by the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. On top of this, you have once again violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy as you have done in almost every comment you've made. Have you been reading the site policies at all? Do you even take that into account? It seems as though you haven't read a thing i've posted.

Regardless, I and others will continue to watch over these two articles. Your attempt to conquer these two pages through the useage of sock/meatpuppets has failed as will any other attempts to do so. Do not compromise the integrity of this site. MezzoMezzo 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact the mentioned reference page in no longer there, it says: ``Afwaan, but the content you requested could not be found. Perhaps try our Search Module insha'Allaah.`` so the reference is before being void, was not verifiable. Suggest deletion of the related content.Chubeat8 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather unreasonable suggestion. As I explained to you on another talk page, the Troid site was recently down for maintenance and is now back up. The information is still out there, it simply needs a reference from a separate source now. MezzoMezzo 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you know the reference was there before the site went down and that the article is legit, so to dispute the factual accuracy now is blatant dishonesty on your part. MezzoMezzo 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not argue more to disturb the atmosphere, I will take a sober look and verify the sources and be back and if the time allows me. I can reassure you that what ever comments edits I will introduce, they will be nothing but pure honest talk to improve the article. I can even assure you that other than a tag, all what I have will be listed on the talk page.Chubeat8 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz and your associated sockpuppet activity and trolling are proof enough against your claims of good faith. Please stop patronizing me and others reading this, as you now have a number of editors convinced of your shenanigans and have been reported. As for the references, they're the same ones you already verified months ago so please stop being coy. MezzoMezzo 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to improve the quality of this article

• Mezzo-Mezzo: your behavior with regards to other users maily doing this, this, and other staff; the fact that you did not respond positively to facilitate the verifiability of the references here in this article, I am willing to give a couple of days or a week to link me, email me, or scan for me pieces of the sourses. If you can not, than there will be a reference issue and I will seek a templete on referencing. Also, try to put references where citation is needed. I by the way read Arabic at the university level. Just shoot your references. If you are not willing to cooperate and start using Ad hominem, I will not need to wait for placing templetes. ThanksChubeat8 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your personal attacks on my talk page and elsewhere have nothing to do with this pages referencing issues.

Second of all, I did not respond positively because you asked for the referenced material to be removed as factually inaccurate when the reference URLs changed, despite the fact that you knew the references were legit as you saw them months ago, and you knew that the sites they were on were under maintenance as I told you here and on other talk pages. You were being dishonest.

Third, I don't need to get clippings of the references because they are already up. Please check the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Citing sources style guideline. If you attempt to remove them or tag the article again despite having been warned here, I will remove it as both trolling and vandalism.

You have stalked me across no less than six articles for the purpose of harassment and many more beyond that in an attempt to discredit me as an editor. This information will be brought up during the investigation of your shenanigans opened on the admin's noticeboards. MezzoMezzo 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine MezzoMezzo, it is tagged as having reference issue. I already taked about this on top of this page. No need to repeat my self. It seems that you are stubors, so let it be if you feel comfortable that way.Chubeat8 04:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't explained a thing! The references are up and the URLs are available for you to see. You have absolutely no basis for putting the template up. You've been harassing me in a similar matter across multiple pages and you need to cool it. MezzoMezzo 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On this one, I have to appologize as I found a file with follow ups you did last time that I already viewed. So MY APPOLOGIES ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT. Please do not read bad faith in me on this one because we focuced on each other more than the spirit of the issue.Chubeat8 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Sufis?

I have changed 'some sufis' to some muslims. Although some may be 'practicioners of sufism', they are still a subset of muslims, and criticism has been put forward by non-sufis as well. To call the 'sufis' is misleading - almost like saying 'some salafis believe that Al-Albani is a qualified scholar'. AN-MEL 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't claim to be an expert on Nasiruddin al-Albani, but what I do know is that he is more controversial than this article seems to indicate. In many instances he contradicts all four of the Islamic Schools of Jurispudence. Many scholars throughout the Islamic World regard his actions such as editing or as he calls it (mukhtasar) of classical books such as Bukhari highly controversial. I am not going to take sides but al-Albani is, as the article states, considered by "various scholars as being perhaps the greatest Islamic scholar of the twentieth century". The various however is a minority, and is thus not worthy of an entire section of praise, followed by a "Refutation of Criticism" section. I thought there had to be a "Criticism" section for there to be a "Refutation of Criticism" section. Please re-check this article. Jaw101ie (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He has his critics, however I was never aware of any sort of large controversy or of this "various" in question being a minority compared to them (critics). There is some out there on the net, but so far all I have found is polemical works from sites of different sects. What we could do, if you think this will help, is remove the unsourced content in the "refutation" section, as indeed it doesn't make much sense without there being reliable criticism. The sourced thing in that section doesn't really seem to be a refutation at all so much as it is an academic view. So I think we could move the sourced part up to the previous section and just drop the "refutation" section entirely. That's just the most immediate thing that came to my mind. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a first. Unfortunately Google doesn't have a "what is the majority scholarly opinion about such and such a person" button! So I don't know where we can find the majority opinion. What I do know is the majority of scholars in the world advocate madhhab following, so this in turn means that the majority will object to at least some of his opinions. This is the first time I edit an Islamic article (I mostly edit Libya articles which don't tend to cause any upsets among other Wikipedians or readers alike) so I don't want to offend anyone (especially the person in question in the article). God is the Wisest Judge so I'll leave that to Him, and this article to you, but please be honest with it. Yes, first remove refutation of criticism or push it up. Then a non-offensive and useful section on criticism. Thank you.Jaw101ie (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this as a reason to stop editing, as this is more of an article policy discussion than anything else. I'll enact the suggested edits but do keep in mind that people who are enthusiastic to help edit articles should never feel shy to do so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I used to be a salafi and a follower of him (may allah have mercy on his soul). Today I am completely the opposite. When I was a salafi , I used to point people to this article to show what a great mujtahid he was. Today I realize many of the faults with him and I pray for his forgiveness. Having said that many people can become deviated by him (like I was) , and it's important to have a section to show where he is "not praised". This page might as well be renamed "Praising Albanee all the way ......." otherwise..

Salam. Hanozbs (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions regarding al-Buti

A number of recent additions have been slipped in regarding a debate Albani had with a man by the name of Al-Buti. There are a number of problems that have ensued with these additions up until now. The first and most obvious issue was the usage of marifah.net as a reference; it is quite obvious even to a casual observer that marifah is a highly sectarian site presenting a certain position within the Sufi tradition, rather than objective and/or academic views, and is not up to par with the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable Source, and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. That's first.
Second, the same reference was kept but simply removing the marifah.net url and the insertion of one of the books promoted by that site. Needless to say, this isn't a real change at all. It's still the same POV, unreliable material simply in print instead of a website. A cursory glance at the site and the books they promote will show that they only carry material in line with their own beliefs. In regard to articles on organized religion and it's figures, this is no more acceptable than simply using the url as a reference. The same breach of neutrality is there.
Last but not least, there is also the issue of the official Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Al-Buti, while claimed to have had an infamous debate with Albani by the individual inserting these edits, is not well known himself and neither is the debate in actuality. There is absolutely no information to be found on either the individual or the incident on mainstream academic sources; only different comments via POV Sufi and Salafi websites. There is no reason to be carrying comments from a decidedly non-notable individual in this article; why should every random Muslim cleric have his opinion broadcast? As mentioned in earlier discussions, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
I would also mention, as an aside, that the immediate personal attacks by the individual making these additions have come off as rather suspicious. Rather than simply discussing the difference of opinion in a civil manner, I was accused of being biased without evidence simply for removing poorly sourced POV content. Please see edits and edit summaries here: [1][2] [3] [4]
Needless to say, this is wildly inappropriate. There is no reason why anyone should be able to come along, violate the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and insert dubiously sourced and highly negative material with no proof of notability and then further openly state that they intend to continue with these disruptions until they get their way. Until any sort of legitimate and compelling case can be made for the edits, and in a civil fashion without insulting anybody else, then there is no reason at all why these biased edits should be allowed to stand. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is no longer applicable as the reference to marifah.net was removed. Points two and three: You present an unsubstantiated claim that the referenced book is unreliable. The book was authored by an extremely respected and well known Syrian scholar whose works are carried by publishing houses in both the Arab world and the West. As for any uncivil behaviour on my part, once again, I extend my apology. I am still new to Wikipedia and learning proper etiquette. I trust you are mature enough to put it behind us. That said, I maintain your persistence in breaching WP:NPOV regarding Al-Albani. My evidence is the fact that you are censoring all criticism levelled against Al-Albani under the (ironic) pretext of neutrality, which can be witnessed on Al-Albani's Talk page, and the entry's history. Until you substantiate your claims of neutrality, there is no reason why your biased reverts should be allowed to stand. Thirteen36 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen, you're not working with me here. You're alleging that this book is notable as is the criticism; this means that the Burden of proof is on you. If you were bringing something perhaps sourced by AlJazeera English or some sort of academic institution this would be no problem at all. But what it appears you've done is first put in marifah.net, then just used one of the books they promote. I honestly see no difference.
You have told me you are new to Wikipedia and I believe you. You want to be better at editing? Then work with me and I will help you. Wikipedia works by [[WP:Consensus}|consensus]]. You can't simply demand that someone else accepts your version without much backing. What you've said here is that until I substantiate my claims of neutrality, then my "biased reverts" should not stand. I will give you some coaching on this right now. Since your additions were the most recent, the substantiation lies upon you. I'm not giving you the run around, i'm trying to explain to you how it is. Simply saying that the book is by a well known scholar isn't proof. You need to show me something and I can't tell you exactly what because that would be limiting. Look, for all I know maybe nobody has heard of this guy. Random editors can come in and tout books by their own favorite imam as though he is the be-all-end-all of Islamic studies; it happens. So I can't simply take your word that this is notable, I am asking you to give me something here.
Second, you need to stop calling me biased every time we disagree. You apologized for incivility but then did it again. You don't know me and thus don't know if i'm being biased or not and what i'm thinking. If someone disagrees just discuss the disagreement and not that person. The disputes above have long since been resolved so I don't know why you'd bring that up.
But yeah, i'm not here to fight you, we're here to build articles. And you can't simply revert and tell me i'm wrong every time. Step back and take a look at what you did. You reinserted material that isn't part of the consensus version of this article, told me that the book is notable with no real proof, and left it at that. You can do better than that. Trust me on this one as i've done it before, if you just engage in an edit war then things most likely won't go your way anyway. Does that make sense? Do you get what i'm asking you for? MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Do not take this offensively, but it is not my duty to prove that Al-Buti and his works are notable. As an editor on this article with authority on the subject matter, you should know this already. I certainly did not expect you to revert a valid edit on the basis of your unfamiliarity with its content. In any case, I do want to work with you, so I will do as you asked. Here are some facts illustrating the notability of Al-Buti and his book, Al-La Madhhabiyya. FACT: Al-Buti is the Head of the Beliefs and Religions Department in the Faculty of Islamic Law, Damascus University. This is notable. FACT: Damascus University is the oldest and largest university in Syria. This is notable. FACT: Al-Buti has over 44 publications, many of which have been translated into English and are popular in the West, such as Kubra Al-Yaqiniyat Al-Kawniyya, The Greatest Universal Sureties. This is notable. FACT: Al-Buti's book, Al-La Madhhabiyya, is well known in Arabic speaking circles. It is also printed by more than one Arabic publishing house. (I bought it in Cairo in 2003.) Due to its popularity, the book has recently been translated to English. This is notable. FACT: The website of the book's author, bouti.com, is extremely popular. Alexa measures its average monthly traffic in excess of 3 million hits. This is notable. FACT: Al-Buti differed with Albani on some of his views, and they had a debate. This is notable. All of this demonstrates that Al-Buti is a notable Muslim scholar who was a contemporary of Albani. For the sake of neutrality, references to their debate and Al-Buti's book are not only relevant, they are essential. If all criticism is omitted from the article, then it will be in violation of WP:NPOV. Thirteen36 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It really is your duty to provide proof of notability per WP:N, which you have done now. Rather than have a separate criticism section though, I would suggest it just be worked into the contemporary evaluation section. Also, there is the retelling of the debate from the perspective of Albani's students available on the web. I would suggest that this be included as a footnote as well for the sake of balance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This articles entirely POV

I'm ashame of the article which nominated to be neutral but full of bias view. Albani is a contraversial figure and should be treated as one, no matter how great you admire him, not just Al Buti, many of other as Habib al-Rahman al-A`zami, The Moroccan hadith scholar `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, The Syrian hadith scholar `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, The Egyptian Hadith scholar Muhammad `Awwama and Mahmud Sa`id Mamduh, Saudi hadith scholar Isma`il ibn Muhammad al-Ansar have produce books and risalah to refute albani views on various issues.

Adyabdul (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've add the contraversial points, with citations, to establish that this man is a contraversial figure. Adyabdul (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

None of those additions were even close to being acceptable, I hate to say. They were based off of masud.co.uk, ummah.net, and sunnah.org. Please check the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and also the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. Those are all polemical sites run by people such as Keller, Masud, and Kabbani - they're sectarian views, and are neither academic nor neutral. If you want to add information from reliable sources such as BBC or Arab News or something similar than that is fine, but what you put up wasn't acceptable for an encyclopedia at all. Please read this section specifically - it would be no more neutral than to fill articles on people like Keller and Haddad with criticism sourced solely from Albani's website. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, your view is so much based on the views that is whatever opinion pointed out by Sufi as you said is sectarian. I hate to say that your view is unacceptable, Syaikh Nuh Reliance of the Traveller is very popular indeed, and the fact is the only western translation which received certificate from Al Azhar university, which can be proof of his scholarly approval by Al Azhar, he is the students of Hadith Master Syaikh Syuaib Arnaut, to verify his credibility in science of hadith. He is the leading jurist in Shafi'i school, i'm quoting his opinion in term of CRITICS, if you can state views from orientalist, why couldnt we quote from this scholar? I think this syaikh is listed as specialist in Islamic law here in WP please refer to Nuh Ha Mim Kellar.

I never state any Masud nor Kabbani opinion in here, or any anonymous unreliable and unreferrable resources, i state my citation clearly for every passage and for WP:N sake it must be in the article any opposing view as Albani himself is a very contraversial figure. You are trying to discredit all the other website from other than salafi, it is indeed against WP:N, are you saying that masud.co.uk, ummah.net, and sunnah.org are somehow sectarian but salafimanhaj.com, theclearpath.com and almuttaqoon.com are not? Your sources is clearly by the SALAFI point of view, and my source is based on Traditionalist point of view. For Allah's sake open your eyes, my brother. You can quote from a forum, but yet i cannot quote from the academic articles? Who are the the neutral man here?

Let the reader choose which one to follow, our job here is to state the opinions of various resources.Allah is my witness, i've done my job to the readers Adyabdul (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As you have point out, for the sake of WP:N and Wikipedia:Reliable sources please remove any view referencing to any salafi (it is sectarian view my broher) web, especially resources which cannot be referred as stated below:

^ a b c d A Brief Biography of Ash-Shaikh Al-Muhaddith Abu 'Abdir-Rahmaan Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaani by Dr. 'Aasim 'Abdullaah al-Qaryooti - ???

^ ad-Dustoor, 10 August 1999 - What is this??

^ a b c Al Muttaqoon -> Muhammed Nasir-ud-Deen al-Albaanee - IT IS A FORUM!

^ a b al-Asalaah, Issue #23, Pg. 76-77 - Magazine or what??

^ Biography of Shaikh Muhammad Naasiruddin al-Albaani by Shaykh 'Ali Hasan al-Halabi - Can english speaker refer to this article?

^ On The Issue of the Jordanian Mashaaykh, SalafiManhaj, 20 August 2006 - Sectarian brother!

^ "Contribution of Shaykh Nasir al Din Albani to Hadith Literature",PhD thesis of Dr. Muied-uz-Zafar, Department of Islamic Studies, AMU, Aligarh, India, Supervisor: Professor Muhammad Mazhar Yasin Siddiqui, 2005) - This one seems to be okay

^ Al-Buti Online - oooo... Sectarian again

^ Al-La Madhhabiyya: Abandoning the Madhhabs is the Most Dangerous Bid‘ah Threatening the Islamic Shari‘ah, Dar al-Farabi, Damascus, Syria, 2003 - this one seems to be academic enough

Shaykh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. fatwa-online.com. Retrieved on 27 December 2006. Muhaddith Shaikh Muhammad Naasir-ud-Din al-Albani. al-manhaj.com (19th August 2005). Retrieved on 27 December 2006. --- A no no.. sectarian

Arent you agree? Please be consistent.. Adyabdul (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there must be consistency. This means removing links and sources of both slants which appear to be unreliable. The guidelines for reliability can be seen here: WP:RS. Hence, we should be using good print materials in the form of scholarly books, journals, articles, and so on. Pro- or anti- Albani websites should really not be used as sources here, especially if reliability cannot be established. ITAQALLAH 11:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the most recent edits were a move in the right direction. Yes, we need to remove unreliable sources on both sides.

• Regarding the forum and SalafiManhaj yeah, take them out. They're the same as sites like Al-Buti Online, just with the opposite view.
• The bios by al-Halabi and Dr. Qaryooti are both brief and in English, and are often used in lieu of an "about the author" section in translations of Albani's books. Just standard info - when he was born, where he lived, etc.
• ad-Dustoor and al-Asalaah are both magzines and if I am not mistaken those two citations specifically are available online somewhere, I believe I can find them if you want to see them.
• As for Fatwa-Online it is in the footnotes section but doesn't actually appear to be referenced in the article. So i'm a bit confused on that one.

So yes, I do believe there should be consistency. Sites like both SalafiManhaj and sunna.org, ummah.net, or masud.co.uk aren't scholastic websites; they're made for popular consumption by people with a specific point of view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Hadith and it's related material as science

The words and actions of the Prophet Mohammad surely do not fall under the bracket of scientific knowledge, do they? The author appears to be attempting to legitimise or sell his religion to the reader by mentioning science in reference to Hadith, and a proper cleanup or an entire rewrite is necessary.

Check the Science of hadith as a reference for that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I answered that same question on the talk page of Science of hadith. Supertouch (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes?

What is the notes section? It is in the format of references but does not actually refer to anything... Is this a British thing? Supertouch (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is overwhelmed by criticism and refutation of that criticism

This article needs a definite overhaul. The detractors section can be reduced to a list without compromising its intent, the criticisms section summarized and then categorized - issues pertaining to fiqh, to aqidah and so on - and then the refutations of the criticism section can be summarized - I haven't read it in its entirety, but it seems rather unorganized at first glance. Supertouch (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all of that material as it was copied from http://www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/al_albani.htm and I checked the wayback machine to verify that the archied article predates the appearance of teh material in this article as it was from Sept 30, 2000. -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wphq!!!

User: User:Wphq deserves an award for resolving that simmering edit war with User:Rob Lockett. Cutting and pasting from a sectarian website and then not referencing that website (at least not that I saw) is rather unscrupulous. Supertouch (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

I have removed some cut and paste material from [5] which is being repeatedly added to the article.--Supertouch (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

School

The article mentions school of thought to be "originally hanafi". Noting that he is a renowned salafi and that he has reverted from the hanafi school and also he has condemned the taqleed concept, along with the fact that most of his methodology and fatwas differ from hanafiism, it will be most appropriate to change the school of thought to ahlehadis or salafi in the right hand box.Abdunnoor Patankar (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to improve a biased section

Okay, I understand the need for another section (the Controversy section) to show the negative views of some people, as stated in the above discussions, but it is COMPLETELY BIASED. Most of it is copied and pasted. I am not saying that there is something wrong with the information. All I am requesting is that the negative opinions of SOME people about the subject person be represented in an appropriate manner, and not be an outright defamation. Here I will further go into detail:

- There is no neutrality, since most of it is copied and pasted from a source with no neutrality (remember Wikipedia offers NEUTRAL content).

- The user did not edit much to make it neutral, rather it seems that anything that hasn't been copied and pasted from the source is a biased opinion from himself. eg. "he had not a real knowledge in Hadith, and his classifications of hadith are not to be taken serious"

- The usage of words from the source should be brought down to an understandable level, not only english words but the arabic transliterated words. eg. "staunchly and vociferously" and "SAHIH", "DAEEF", "sanad", "fiqh", "madhhab" and many others...

- The tone of the section isn't neutral. The use of words and structure creates a tone that is completely intended for persuasive influence. eg. "SAHIH!!!", "displaying hypocrisy when they go around making it a priority to attack the followers of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali schools of Sacred Law".

- The title of the section is "Controversy"; this does not seem to be an appropriate title. It is a noun and seems to be referring to an event. It is supposed to be a counter to the heading above entitled "Positive Views and Admirers"; therefore, it should have a similar type of heading, but of course being opposite in meaning.

- The section DOES NOT stick to what its supposed to be speaking of. It goes off into other subjects, which are NOT relevant to this entire article. eg. "These people seem to contradict themselves, as well as displaying hypocrisy when they go around making it a priority to attack the followers of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali schools of Sacred Law; even though they themselves are practising taqleed of an individual(s)!" ...this has nothing to with Muhammad Nasiruddin...

It is apparent that the "Controversy" section has been edited and put in recently, thus many Wikipedians may not have caught sight of it as yet. All of what I have said is not from MY opinion about Muhammad Nasiruddin; I am merely trying to improve the quality of this article and particularly the section spoken about above. If no changes are made, then I will try to edit the article myself (following guidelines while I do so).

Thanks alot. Hamzah1995 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Wahhabism and Salafism

There has been some disussion on user pages regarding the subject's relationship with these two movements. I think most can agree that it's a complicated relationship, but let's start with seeing if we can gather more sources. This would help the article in general as it's already undersourced. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mujaddid title

I have removed the title "Mujaddid" for al-Albani as this is not a universal view held by all Muslims. Using this title would certainly fail Wikipedia guidelines of impartiality. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for further information. (CheckDigit1) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

We have at least 2 spellings of the name: Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani and Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albani. I think the actual spelling should be Nasir al-Din al-Albani.RookTaker (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Name in Arabic

One editor seems insistent on adding Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's name in Arabic script, even though he was an Albanian, not an Arab. Sure, the origins of his names are Arabic, but following that logic would necessitate every single Michael or Gabriel in the world having his name also written in Hebrew, because both Michael and Gabriel were originally Hebrew names. Clearly that would be ridiculous. If another language is going to added to this intro, it shouldn't be Arabic, but the Albanian language. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes a ton of sense, actually; I really don't know why someone would choose to write it in a language other than that of the article's subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism" and "controversy"

These cannot be two sections but one section. Messiaindarain (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What does that even mean? Saheeh Info 10:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Please keep negative/ positive / criticism under this section.

My suggestion is to merge the "Legacy" section with this section as "legacy and criticism" or "Evaluation."103.198.136.31 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Criticism" and "controversy" sections are too long; affirmative, they can merged. However,they cannot be merged with "Legacy" section.Messiaindarain (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not change the current, format without prior discussion on this section of the talk page.Messiaindarain (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass copyright violations, poorly sourced material etc...

2 editors (@Escravoes: and @Messiaindarain:) have performed a number of mass problematic edits over the last few days on this article. This includes clear copyright violation, blatent PoV pushing, sourcing to unreliable sites etc.... I can't go through all of the edits here as there are too many to number, but will give a number of examples to illustrate the point.

• Early influences section

This is a new section added by (@Escravoes: and @Messiaindarain:). It is sourced from:

1. http://www.maroc.nl/forums/islam-en-meer/74746-reply-op-leugens-over-albanee-ra7iemmoe-allah.html. Clearly this fails WP:IRS and should not be added. It also fails WP:NPOV as the site is just a polemic defence of Nasir Albani.
2. http://immamalbani.blogspot.co.uk/p/biography-of-immam-nasir.html. This is another unacademic polemical defence of the subject and fails WP:IRS and WP:NPOV.
3. http://darussalam.net/inside/227-Sheikh-Albani1.pdf As above, this is a non academic fan site and fails WP:IRS and WP:NPOV.

Given that none of this is even remotely reliable, it has no place in an encyclopedia.

• A new section entitled "Positive"

This is a clear copyright violation from: http://www.masjidhalton.com/pdf/miscellaneous/Fatwas-Albanee.pdf and al-manhaj.com. Per WP:COPYRIGHT this needs to be removed straight away. Additionally, http://www.masjidhalton.com site is not an academic website and clearly fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

• A number of subtle PoV pushing edits have been made also. For example, the original version of the article read:

Though he was largely self-taught,...

and was sourced from:

1. Awakening Islam, Stephane Lacroix, Harvard University Press, isbn=9780674061071, page=119
2. Producing Islamic Knowledge: Transmission and dissemination in Western Europe, Martin van Bruinessen, Routledge, isbn=9781136932854
3. Global Salafism: Islam's new religious movement, Roel Meijer, Hurst & Co., page=63

The last source states that: In this way he became a self-taught expert on Islam, learning from the books rather then the ulema. One of his biographers even states that al-Albani was distinguished in religious circles by how few ijazats (certificates) he possessed.

This was changed to: Though he was largely self-taught by his father Nooh Najaati bin Aadam, who was the mufti of Albania and a graduate from the Institute of Shari'ah, Istanbul, Turkey.

In addition to the fact that the sentence makes no sense (largely self taught by his father???), it is also a blatant manipulation of the sources since none of them state this.

Contentious edits such as above have been removed by other editors also, such as @Oshwah: and @GorgeCustersSabre:. I will therefore (once again) be removing all the contentious material from copyright violations and unreliable PoV sites.

May I urge @Escravoes: and @Messiaindarain: not to reinstate unreliable or copyrighted material into the article unless they have discussed it first. Saheeh Info 05:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Saheeh Info:

• You have an issue with the MuslimMatters.org website as you cite it being POV pushing. The site is not a blog as you suggest but is a notable exception to the WP:RS issue that you cited. As for the author, Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, if you look into the issue as researcher and not solely an editor (my bad), its part of his larger PhD studies at Yale University.

You are accusing me of POV pushing when your POV issues, as you want both "controversy" and "Criticism" sections, despite that not being a preferred style (see Section headings).

You accuse me of banding together Escravoes, which from his talk page you can see that I am not. I did contribute to both the "Criticism" and "legacy" section.

Please do not resort to blanket undos when you edit. Thanks!!! :) Regards, Messiaindarain (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Messiaindarain, I hope you are well. In what way is the MuslimMatters.org website a "notable exception to the WP:RS"?. That's an unsustainable claim, in my view. It is not a reliable source. Neither are these: http://www.maroc.nl/forums/islam-en-meer/74746-reply-op-leugens-over-albanee-ra7iemmoe-allah.html. http://immamalbani.blogspot.co.uk/p/biography-of-immam-nasir.html. http://darussalam.net/inside/227-Sheikh-Albani1.pdf Rwgards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Messiaindarain:, I didn't cite MuslimMatters.org as "POV pushing", neither did I claim that "it is a blog". I stated that it failed WP:IRS. Read my edit summaries

1. MuslimMatters.org is not a reliable source. Fails WP:IRS
2. Restored reliable info. Formatting was better before. MuslimMatters.org is not a WP:RS.

YOU need to prove that this website / article satisfies WP:IRS. Look at the article in it's current stable state - there are sources from reliable books such as Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement by Oxford University Press. That is the kind of source we need.

I also did not claim that you are "banding together" with the other editor. You did however, clearly restore his copypaste violation, unreliable sources and POV pushing in this edit. Look, it's very simple. If you can back up your edits from reliable sources then their is no problem. If you use sources such as:

1. http://www.maroc.nl/forums/islam-en-meer/74746-reply-op-leugens-over-albanee-ra7iemmoe-allah.html
2. http://immamalbani.blogspot.co.uk/p/biography-of-immam-nasir.html
3. http://darussalam.net/inside/227-Sheikh-Albani1.pdf

they will get reverted. Saheeh Info 09:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Block

for good faith edits.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting that an editor who seems keen to ignore what amounted to an editor consensus is himself pushing a POV and introducing weak sources. The MuslimMatters.org website is not a "notable exception to the WP:RS"?. That's unsustainable. It is not a reliable source. Neither are these: http://www.maroc.nl/forums/islam-en-meer/74746-reply-op-leugens-over-albanee-ra7iemmoe-allah.html. http://immamalbani.blogspot.co.uk/p/biography-of-immam-nasir.html. http://darussalam.net/inside/227-Sheikh-Albani1.pdf Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree with @GorgeCustersSabre:. The sources used are just lame.Saheeh Info 09:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Photo

There seems to be a lack of a photo on the Main Page of Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani. I uploaded a photo of him on the Multimedia. Here the Image Source: Al-Albani.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al-Albani.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadsafi1212 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5PwCqkfzF?url=http://abdurrahman.org/tawheed/tawassul-albaani.htm to http://abdurrahman.org/tawheed/tawassul-albaani.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sunni or Salafi?

Al Albani was a Salafi and the Salafi sect is repudiated by all traditional Sunnis. We, Sunnis, do not consider salafis to be Sunnis as they reject traditional methods of information transmission of the Sunnis in favour of a completely different approach. They reject the fiqh and theology of the Sunnis in favour of the suppositions of a few of their favourite "scholars" (some of whom are not even recognised as scholars at all by Sunnis). The Salafis also do not consider themselves to be Sunnis but rather to be Salafis.

Despite this, my edit to the article changing his denomination to Salafi was reverted. The only thing that this accomplishes is perpetuating the dangerous misinformation that Salafis are Sunnis, which is a claim rejected by most Sunnis and most Salafis. Given that the status of Salafis as Sunnis is only partially accepted at best, yet everyone understands al Albani to be a Salafi, and he is named as a Salafi in the article itself, his sect in the sidebar should be listed as Salafi, not Sunni. Khanates (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani → Al-Albani Al-Albani is far far much the WP:COMMONNAME than Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. See the [Ngrams]. Hoping for a quick move. AlbaniFanman (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@AlbaniFanman: I can see some validity in your argument, but was this the only al-Albani in the Midde East? I think that a move may confuse readers if an article about another al-Albani is created in the future.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:, sorry for the late reply. If you search Al-Albani on Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar, only this Salafi scholar only appears up. There's no other Middle Eastern guy.AlbaniFanman (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.