Talk:Rabee al-Madkhali

Fair use rationale for Image:Saudi arabia.jpg

Image:Saudi arabia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Utter Rubbish

Wow. This article is completely biased against Shaykh Rabee, and seems to support Shiaism. There is no such thing as 'madkhalism', and he is with the major salafi scholars of Saudi Arabia. Here is his bio: http://www.fatwa-online.com/scholarsbiographies/15thcentury/rabeealmadkhalee.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.250.127 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a Salafist website made for translating fatwas from Saudi Arabia, widely coped and pasted on English language discussion forums. It's neither reliable nor professional as a source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I find the article really helpful and I can see the people following this seikh doing just what this article says about them, Alhmdulillah I am not one of them! Destapandolaverdad (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the works section here?

The list of the subject's works seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as it's random with no reliable proof that any of the books listed are notable. Similarly, none of the reliable sources for the subject's bio mention any such works, and his books don't seem to be what he's known for. I'd suggest removing the whole section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the works section is to list in the English language what Rabee' al-Madkhali has written in support of the Islam. It is completely listed in his 15 volume compilation of his writing which span over decades. Your attempt to defame any notability regarding his writings is a potshot and indicated your utter negative bias towards him and his work. He is completely known as an author to anyone who knows of him and your failure to fathom that indicated you have no business editing this page whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerrycan Muslim (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, first of all, you need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks as it isn't appropriate to accuse an editor right off the bat of defamation and having "no business editing this page whatsoever." Secondly, you should go back and read WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in general. The site is based on policies and guidelines, not arguing. Please don't make the edits you did again as they violated a number of said policies, and as a new user it's always preferable to slow down in the beginning. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Good Sir, it is in no way meant as an 'attack'. It is stating fact of your proven historical ability to not be negatively biased against someone who you are 'writing' about. I am not here to argue, hence why, I barely touched your 'opinion' and added a counter 'opinion' with multiple sources including audio evidence. I welcome you to expand on your points within the page of Dr Rabee while I check and verify the citations you made for authenticity. In the mean time I welcome an alternative Wiki editor to examine the page for 'neutrality' issues. Also, FYI I am proceeding at a very slow pace. There is much work to be done on other articles you have negatively slanted as well as positively slanted for others. But all in due time. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, it would be 'enlightening' to hear you expound on what criterion you utilise when deleting text that has been sourced. Because to my 'untrained' eye it seems you discriminately delete anything that does not fit the narrative you wish to set fourth for this page. How is it that your sources are 'legitimate' while in a previous mass culls you deleted things which were authentically cited? What's the point in deleting photo evidence of things which are directly linked to the individual this page is about? How is it that documented evidence such as his lineage is being deleted? I wonder if you hold the same standard of neutrality for someone like Abu Abd al-RahmanIbn Aqil page that you frequently edit as you do for this one amongst others. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand you're new here and all the regulations can be overwhelming, but you really should review the policies I mentioned. Whether one is violating said policies or not is not based on one's own opinion of what, say, a personal attack is; it's based on the guidelines established here on Wikipedia itself.

Accusing someone of defamation without discussing the issue with them first is technically a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks; you should check this one out well.

Regarding the sources you posted, then I did not post my initial reasoning because your account is brand new and Wikipedia is frequently hit by one-issue editors who cause disruption for a short time. It has happened on this article especially, and generally new editors who ignore WP:CAREFUL tend to disappear quickly. In short, there were a number of issues with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and in cases like this, the best thing to do is post any suggested sources here on the talk page before inserting them into an article, and gaining Wikipedia:Consensus before moving on.

Regarding the images, check out WP:NOTGALLERY and then open discussions about each suggested image here. On Wikipedia, gaining consensus on a talk page and reading the feedback of the community is generally the way to engage in good editing.

It is also important for you in particular to read and understand WP:WIKIHOUND as well as Wikipedia:Harassment in general. You already tried to out my identity here twice and had the edits suppressed, and you have apparently been monitoring my edits on other pages. Specifically following one editor around because you think they're biased, but without proven grounds for doing so, will rarely yield the desired results on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Assume good faith is quite relevant here.

All the rules can seem overwhelming at first, but they exist in order to improve the encyclopedia and smooth out the editing process. Please read the links I have posted and in the future, refrain from personal attacks and any sort of stalking behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:mezzomezzo you are absolutely right about new rules and me being rough around the edges here and I shall do my homework with policy as well, I can assure you. However, why were your sources not posted in the talk section prior to being utilised? You saw it fit to put your sources up without seeking consensus. A detailed explanation to my previous points would be much appreciated, however my instinct tells me we will need arbitration here. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked WP:NOTGALLERY and fail to see what aspect of it you interpreted that would lead the the deletion of the photos I posted onto WikiCommons. Explanation on that too please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerrycan Muslim (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, you've had this account for two days and you have tried to out me twice and launched into a measure of personal attacking. The onus for detailed explanations lies on you; we can take this to dispute resolution (that comes before arbitration) if you would like but for the time being, you need to cool off. Read the policies I posted and explain why you want to make said changes to the article; your behavior unfortunately resembles that of numerous one-subject editors who have disruptively edited religion based articles - including this one - and that, coupled with your recent violations, does reduce your ability to edit so aggressively.

Look, I am helping you in a way here. If you take my advice, check out all the policies I mentioned and explain clearly - here or via WP:DR - why you want to implement said changes, you have a good chance of being understood properly and achieving some sort of agreement. If you continue with the WP:BATTLEGROUND, then things likely won't end well for you here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You deleted sourced information with no explanation, therefore the onus of proof is upon you to explain why. If it was unsourced information I could understand your point. None the less, I explained in this section the relevance of detailing the written works of the person. I await answers to that as well as my previous enquiries in this thread. Much obliged user:MezzoMezzo Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works, sir. You just tried to out another editor twice after creating an account only two days ago, and have made edits only to this article. You have also made it clear that despite being new, you have been monitoring my own edits and intend to continue doing so. Now falling into certain violations is not uncommon when editors are new, but given your aggressive stance and the fact that you made clear you know me personally and dislike my editing, I have to once again reiterate my insistance that you defend your edits before going any further. It's not unreasonable of me to suspect that this could be some sort of a personal thing, and though your edits trying to out me were supressed, the editors who removed them are aware of what you said.

Seriously, check the relevant policies and go through suggestion by suggestion. Typically, these things take time which isn't the end of the world. Talk:Qamaruzzaman Azmi is one example I can think of where such a process took place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I defend my massive update to the edits by inviting you to explain what is wrong with them. You make many erroneous assumptions. First of which is that I monitor your posts. I looked at your edits once to get a better idea of the methodology you utilize in your edits in order to understand why you edit in the manner that you do. That is abundantly clear to me know and there was never a continued effort on my part to look any further. Secondly, I do not know you personally and I have never had the good fortune to meet you in person. Therefore I have nothing against you personally but rather find your editing to be odd. My newness is not up for debate. It's apparent for all and I sincerely appreciate your patience in that regard. However my actions are based from an academic background and not founded in your false assumptions. I tackle one issue at a time and therefore to you it seems that I intend to only post on one particular page. Again, this is a false assumption and I fully intend to move on once I feel neutrality has been restored to this page. Mistakes of wiki manners in the part of a newcomer should not be used in order to skirt answering legitimate questions. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I asked for the specific edits where you outed me to be removed, but I don't feel shy in letting it be known that you did try to out me twice. You're straight up lying now, and the admin who saw your attempt and expunged it also knows that. You know very well who I am apparently and while it's good that you want to play ball now, you aren't simply going to play it off like it didn't happen.

You clearly came here from knowing who I am on the outside and while I won't mention how, you know, and anyone who sees this will know and can check with User:Risker to confirm. Explain each edit before doing it, individually instead of adding 23,000 bytes to the article, and wait for consensus to form (using dispute resolution if you choose to). You aren't in any position to be making demands of other editors in regard to accepting what you're pushing, period. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And yes, I am openly accusing you of violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with the edits you did. That's okay because you're new, but just so there isn't any mincing of words. Your behavior and your edits (which used the subject's own website and "themadkhalis.com" as sources) have me 100% convinced that at least initially, you came here as a defender of the subject of this article and his movement, Madkhalism. You can quote me on that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not once addressed you asking to have that removed because for me it is a non-issue that occurred from someone who didn't know it was prohibited. Not sure what you're carrying on about in regards to that.

Your assumptions are absolutely erroneous (again). I did NOT come to this page or any other knowing who you were. I was looking for information and found the entry for Dr Rabee to be completely biased in a negative way to the reality of things. This caused me to look at the history of the page and who had edited things in such a hazardous manner. Not until after that, when seeking advice about fixing it was I informed who you are. But rest assured I will not mention that again here. However I am saddened to read that you think I am a liar. That and other instances here goes against so much of the WP:EQ of which I read which I would expect a veteran editor like yourself not to make. And I am happy for user:risker to know that.

With that in mind, I take umbrage with you initially and automatically assuming that I am/was a 'defender of the subject of this article or his movement'. That seems to go against 'Assume good faith' on your part. More to the point, to illuminate the problematic nature of this page as it currently stands, I bring your attention to the following: "Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views, instead of supporting one over another..." found in WP:EQ under: "a few things to bear in mind." So a website that translates the speech of a person from Arabic to English and provides the actual recording is extremely beneficial as far as a source. Whether it is on an unknown page or not because the audio file they provide is the actual source not the website itself. If I am stating, for example, that "the famous Dr. Jack Jones stated that Nurse Jill Johnson is a renowned nurse in his experience and expert medical opinion" and it is on the webpage of Nurse Jill Johnson, how is that not a relevant source in establishing the capabilities and expertise of Nurse Jill Johnson, exactly? The audio is the evidence not the actual website and that's why I added secondary citing for them as well in other locations when available.

Anyways I'll move on attempting to balance this article Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You also know from reading the policy on assuming good faith that there is a limit, and when someone tries to out you (along with throwing in a personal insult) that tends to be eroded very quickly. And I know that you know who I am; why did you bring up the article about Ibn Aqil, even though I haven't edited it in six months? You would have had to scroll through pages and pages of my contribs, noticing other articles which I edited much more frequently but you chose that one. You and I both know why, but if you do want to move on then let's move on. Understand that I know what's going on.

As for the official website, then no it isn't a good source, nor are websites which exist solely to spread propaganda about the subject. We can discuss that in detail below in the coming days. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Source and relevance of this sentence?

"Madkhali is the father-in-law of anti-government cleric Musa al-Qarni."

What is the reference for this and it's relevance? It would seem more informative to list his children like Muhammad b. Rabee al-Madhkalee who is seen by some as a scholar in his own right and the author of books than who might or might not be his son-in -law. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's uncited and I don't see any sources myself, it would be prudent to delete it in that case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, prudent indeed. I'll let the individual who added it on Feb 12th 2013 have the honor. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos

I added four photos which I uploaded on WP:COMMONS to this page and they were deleted without much explanation. I was referred to WP:NOTGALLERY by an editor but did not see anything explicitly stated there helps me to understand the reason for deletion.

Upon looking at WP:PERTINENCE it would seem to me that the photos fill every requirement. Such as: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation." As well as, "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information."

Thanks in advance. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's good, you should have the background now to jump into this. Can you post the links to the four photos on Wikimedia Commons? Other users (there are ways to get feedback from more than just myself by the way, I can give some links for on-Wiki community forums for soliciting such advice) will want to see them so they can understand the relevance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to picture one showing the 15 volume collection of a lot of Dr Rabee's written work. [[1]] This picture would tie in nicely as a visual to show the prolific nature of his peer-reviewed published work of which contains work of importance and some note. See Roy, Oliver (2012) Whatever Happened to the Islamists? and Hasan, Noohaidi (2006 ) Laskar Jihad.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the headway that has been made with discussing the addition of a works section, that picture seems like a great addition. What about the other images? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Works of Dr Rabee

As user:MezzoMezzo started this thread and it has gone in a different direction I would like to re-evaluate the necessity of including the list of writings which Dr Rabee has authored. I detailed it previously as thirty in number, showing a prolific nature in my opinion, with multiple citations but it was deleted. I have a list of more works he has written but I didn't include them due to not have a citation on hand and find it strange that the cited ones were deletes in entirety. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are a few issues, the first of which is that for the entire selection there was only one citation included. It isn't a policy violation but it generally isn't done; exceptionally prolific authors may also have works which are unknown or simply have no academic focus on them. Not everybody is Isaac Asimov.

The second issue is what we find in the conditions for P:ABOUTSELF and WP:NOTADVERTISING. One of the main characterisations of the subject and his movement is a somewhat self-serving/self-promoting nature; that, coupled with the tendency of both the subject's official website and the fansite themadkhalis.com to provide such long lists of works would make the article look like fancruft.

The second issue is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no reason to doubt that all those works are real, but why do they need to be included? Is there any third-party, mainstream academic coverage explaining the impact of such works within the field? I do believe, when doing research for sources on the subject, that some academic sources do mention a handful of works to be included. I would suggest looking back through those and focusing instead on books with mainstream, third-party coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with Manhaj al-Anbiyyah which Lacroix & Holoch (2011: 212) state was "very controversial" as well as being the book that made him famous within the "Saudi religious field". Further on, they (Ibid:220-221) mention the "tazkiyyah wars" and challenge to Dr Rabee's "authority" (which is one would NEVER assume Dr Rabee' had from the current wiki page) which led to "exchanges of refutations" between Bashumayyil, Al-Duwaysh and Dr Rabee respectively. So, that seems kinda noteworthy too.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Good researching. If you have the time, could you suggest a draft version of a blurb about that work here in this section of the discussion incorporating both sources?

As an aside, links from OCLC affiliates like WorldCat, while not necessary, are also good to throw in as a citation for books. They also provide good info like ISBN numbers, publisher info, etc. It's a good way to get quick info on published works. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to make a section for scholarly works of Dr Rabee as follows:

Scholarly Works

Al-Madkhali has authored over 30 works in the field of Hadith and Islamic sciences, much of which has been compiled into a 15 volume set (Zafiri, K., "Thabt mu'allafat al-shaykh Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali" Meijer says to see this book in Politicing Jarh p380). In 1984, the book which brought him fame in the Saudi religious field was “Manhaj Al-Anbiyah Fi Da’wah Ila Allah” (The Methodology of the Prophets in Calling to Allah), caused controversy over his criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood and their methods of calling to the religion (Dawah) (Lacroix & Holoch (2011: 212).Al-Madkhalee insisted that priority in calling to Allah should be given to correcting Islamic creed (Lacroix, Awakening Islam. Page 212). Some observers state that Al-Madkhalee is most noted for his refutations of Islamic thinker, Sayyid Qutb. Al-Madkhalee received acclamations for his works refuting Sayyid Qutb from other Salafist scholars such as Salih Al-Fawzan, Muqbil Al Wadi’i, Muhammad b. Salih al-Uthaymin, and Al-Albani (Roel Meijer, "Politicizing al-jarh wa-l-ta'dil: Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali and the transnational battle for religious authority." Taken from The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam: Essays in Honor of Harald Motzki, pg. 380 and 386. Eds. Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2011.). Of his four books on Sayyid Qutb, “Adhwa Islamiyyah ala aqidat Sayyid Qutb wa fikrihi” is considered the most important(Ibid: 386). Apart from his controversial works in refutations, Al-Madkhalee has authored several books in the field of Hadith. His Master’s thesis, “Between the two Imams: Muslim and Daruqutni” is recommended by some of Saudi’s senior scholars (such as Abdul-Karim Al Khudair) for experienced students of Hadith (http://www.khudheir.com/text/1167). Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A Question of bias in sources

user:MezzoMezzo please expound on the reasons why I am facing resistance in utilizing common-knowledge biographical information about Dr. Rabee from the website like Rabee.net when people like Lacroix (and others) rely on it for information in his book? Please see page 330 of Awakening Islam citation number 87.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, it really isn't upon anyone else to explain the reason for resistance at this time. While Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, you got your start here - before I even responded to anything - with an attempt at outing my identity along with a personal attack in addition to a number of policy violations within the article itself. These together - especially the outing attempt - destroy the assumption of good faith rather quickly. Given the history of vandalism and fanboyism on this article by new users who are followers of the Madkhalist movement, it's fair to say that the onus is more on you to explain why you want certain changes to the community at large. The assumption of good faith is usually regained after missteps like this, especially from new users, but it takes time and dedication.

Regarding your specific question here, then per WP:BLPSELFPUB the concern is self-service as well as sections or paragraphs inserted which are based solely on the subject's own books and/or sites. Now if they can be worked in with other sources already there then it's ok, even if other sources to quote those. The reason is that professional, peer-reviewed sources by recognized and respected publishers such as we see from the Lacroix source are known to inspect their own sources beforehand; additionally, anything the author wants to publish is inspected again by editors for said publications and thus the process is trusted. This is in order to adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Another issue is bias. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it's actually not a problem if the source is merely biased as long as it is reliable, but we as editors must not be biased when using said sources. This is where a measure of subjectivity can come into play, as how do we decide on the correct language when presenting a reliable yet biased source?

• Regarding the question on reliability of sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a great forum for seeking community input on the status of a given source.
• Regarding neutrality in presentation of reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is a way to gain community input. People tend to respond promptly at both locations.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a draft version of suggested text here first and then, after we work on it here, bumping it over to the noticeboards as there doesn't seem to be anyone else watching our discussions here and making suggestions. Could you suggest text incorporating sources tied to the subject in a neutral way which also incorporate third-party sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I can do that. Understand that when I ask things such as this it is more so to pick your brain and breadth of experience and not personal. Secondly, are you aware of the peer-reviewed nature of Islamic books written and published in the Arabic language?

Also in my defense, and to prove that I did not utilize those sources any differently than other academics have in their research and writings, I never touched the criticisms which are already present on the page. I merely added praises to balance it out. If I was like the individuals you have had to deal with in the past then surely I would have made an attempt to delete the criticisms. This undoubtedly shows my intentions here are not biased anymore than yours (for example) or any other editor on wiki.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Very much aware; I have work experience as a contractor both editing and translating for universities in the Middle East, which involved both written editing/translating as well as verbal, on-the-spot translation both ways for mathematics and agricultural science faculties. Additionally, I have access to a few databases which include publications from religious institutions like Umm al-Qura and Qarawiyyin Unis - that's something about me that most people actually don't know. If you would like access to such publications for Wiki purposes I can try to help but my access is limited.

One thing to keep in mind regarding peer review in the Mideast is that it's reliability is low; frequently, peer review consists of a series of "yes-men" greenlighting each others' work due to nepotism and this is quite strong even at religious universities. The result is that the quality of research can range from acceptable to poor, as brain drain causes even religious scholars to often emigrate to the West. I'd trust pubs from McGill more than Madinah, for example, though the latter could be acceptable after editor scrutiny. That's why the reliable source noticeboard is so important, as many of the regulars there are themselves academics. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a very strong claim. Do you have any empirical data you can reference that has looked into that subject to back it up? I have in fact been told it is the complete opposite (In the Islamic sphere, anyways) and that books and papers are rigorously checked and when ideas in opposition to the Saudi State "Permanent Committee for Research and Religious Rulings" Islamic ideology have been checked/reviewed they did not hesitate to criticize. As have individual committee members on their own accord when asked to review books. Without evidence this claim (of weakness in Middle Eastern academic peer-reviewed work) seems elitist against them from a Western perspective.

When it comes to sources such as Meijer and Lacroix utilizing the same biographical data source to establish their points, like Rabee.net (for example) what is the problem in us using it to establish the lineage (for example) of Dr Rabee? Especially when it has been published in Arabic books, such as "at-Ta'asuub-udh-Dhameem wa Aathaaruhu" and even translated and placed (in full) into published English Islamic books such as "A Study on Selected Ahaadeeth of the Prophet. If the source(s) was dodgy then surely the publisher or peer-reviewer of Meijer or Lacroix (amongst others) would have taken umbrage with them.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a strong claim one you get familiar with the Middle Eastern education system. I don't have sources on hand but one thing you will find tons of research about is the decrepit educational methods here, even at unis and in all majors. Rote memorization is still favored, just as it was in the West or Japan up until two hundred years or so ago. I wish I could attach PDF files to talk pages as examples and there might be a way, but that's one thing on Wikipedia I really don't know about at all. But an example is one of the many PhD dissertations I keep on my old hard drive and simply haven't deleted yet; from a Saudi Arabian uni no less, though I have others like this. It's just about ahadith a scholar included in his collection which he thought were authentic but most others did not. In a modern country like the University of Chicago, for example, that would be a good senior project for a bachelor's degree but it isn't really heavy research; it's just cross checking what other guys said about one guy's work. A high schooler can do it, but in the Mideast it's acceptable in grad school. Obviously the sciences aren't as bad, but still poor. I once edited a research piece by an environmental engineer about water tables over a period of time under land in dry areas used to farm corn. That was probably the best thing I had read in the Mideast both among things I edited and things I just read on my own in journals or university libraries, but it was short and ended before it got interesting.

Religion is ten times worse, because it's impossible to fail and they send all the dunces there. In fact, that's a well-known part of Middle Eastern and South Asian culture. "Oh, he failed out of math? That's ok, let him study Islam. How can he fail in that? He's doing it for the sake of Allah." This is such a common meme in the culture that even those born outside the Middle East make jokes about it.

Anyway, the discussion isn't over whether what I said above should be stated in an article so bringing sources is a waste of time. The point is, peer-reviewed work in the Middle East will be subject to scrutiny like anything else but at the relevant noticeboard, I and most likely others will bring up issues of reliability, especially religious works which are often just polemical tracts without academic value; authors too often simply want to make a point about why their view is right instead of giving readers and overview of a topic. So by all means make suggestions, but I hope this advice here will help prepare you for the "sales pitch" so to speak.

Regarding the last question about including Rabee's website or sources from respected publishers quoting his website, then I answered that in my previous comment. I don't mean to be blunt but you just asked the same question I already answered, and I have already written too much, so just refer to what I said previously. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am asking for further explanation based on your position that these sources don't meet some criterion, which you admit you haven't based on any empirical data (just your personal observations) which I feel is stifling sound information being placed on this page. Particularly when I see that similar types of Arabic sources, as well as sites like Salaf.com and fatwaonline have been used on other English pages, such as Muqbil Wad'i and Badi udeen Sindi. It is completely baffling and makes Wiki look like an unprofessional and unbalanced site.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm disappointed that you seem to keep going this route but such is life. Per WP:AOBF, accusing another editor of bad faith really ought to be substantiated via diffs as it could otherwise fall into WP:NPA. If you take issue with what I am trying to explain to you, there are proper forums where you can go with that.

As for other articles, then the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a good read that might clarify why that line of argumentation typically doesn't work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? What on Earth are you talking about? Where have I accused you in this thread of acting in bad faith?Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally, accusing other editors of stifling sound information being placed on pages necessitates bad faith on the part of the accused, if accurate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I said that your own policy against certain sources is stifling sound information which has benefitted other pages of likeminded individuals to Dr Rabee. I never said you were. Also, in my speech there is nothing to which one could guess my intention. Rather I am following Wiki guidelines and attempting to point this out to you in the hopes that you see the untenable nature of your position on a site like wiki.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any policies of my own; I am only trying to explain to you how the site works. Now if I misunderstood your comment then I apologize for that, but it's inappropriate for you to accuse me of having an untenable position when you not only already violated a number of site policies and guidelines with your first round of major edits, but have demonstrated brashness in your comments on this talk page despite being new and not fully understanding said policies and guidelines.

I am trying to help you here if you would only realize that. If you want to argue and throw accusations, I guarantee you won't succeed with anything here. Cool off and give it some thought. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, allow me to explain further. I was referring to your position of attempting to disregard Middle Eastern published sources and other websites on Wiki which have been good enough for people such as Muqbil Wadi'i and Badi-ud-Deen Shah's page. This is the untenable position I am referring to. Due to the same sites and Middle Eastern published sources being used on like-minded people to Dr Rabee. Nothing more; nothing less. I wish you would respond to this directly so I don't have to seek arbitration for it. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I already responded to it above and explained why it's non an acceptable argument on Wiki. I would love for this to go to another forum though; you're just arguing in circles now, in this case for the sake of arguing it seems. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

To drive the point home: On Badi-ud-Deen Shah's page it states as follows: "During his time in Medina, Rashidi was also a teacher of Rabee Al-Madkhali and Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi'i.[5]" And source 5 is as follows: (Biography of Rabee al-Madkhali from Fatwa-Online). However, you have previously deleted information sourced from this particular site and defended such action above in the thread named 'utter rubbish'. So, in conclusion, if I had placed the same information from Badi-ud-Deen's page onto this page you would obviously delete it as your previous action has proven and your above speech indicates. This is unfair and unjust in my opinion.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is almost a joke now. Please go READ the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists page as I suggested earlier and you will understand that your line of arguing here isn't accepted by the Wikipedia community. It's not that I don't understand your point; it's that your point is moot. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I promise you that I am not here for the enjoyment of arguing. I merely feel this page is not balanced and seek to rectify that. That being said, I read that and notice that it seems to be referring to content. While I am not referring to content whatsoever. I am commenting on you as a gatekeeper disallowing similar sources (NOT CONTENT) which are being utilized on other pages. Seems extremely different, however, if you can point me to where it is referring to citations in regards to that I would be grateful.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is basically trolling now. I'm not going for the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT cycle. I explained why. It's clear, in terms of the point you keep repeating. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not trolling. Just asking for a balanced article. I guess as you don't believe that we seek moderation. I will look into that process now.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Current Activity Section

Is there a specific reason why the Current Activity Section is so bare? In fact, for some strange reason the education and employment stuff that is in this section is almost two decades old at a minimum. It's well-known that Dr. Rabee is currently authoring books and giving classes twice a week and I had provided photographic evidence of that previously that was deleted. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of the fact that there are only a few editors who have taken an interest in this page and none of us have taken the time to search for more info.

Now regarding photography, then on Wikipedia it actually isn't counted as a legit source; per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, published sources (online or in print) are required. Whether one editor says that a claim is "well-known" isn't of importance if there are no reliable sources to confirm the claim. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, while technically an essay, is endorsed by the site as reflective of community culture and the way "the system works." It's a good read to get what I'm saying here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So a page such as http://miraath.net/Radio_Table/rt_1435-04-29.jpg showing that would suffice then?Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

First, this appears to be a jpeg so what is the importance of images in this case? They aren't sources.

Second, miraath.net fails WP:QUESTIONABLE big time as it is one of the sites run by the Madkhalist movement, just like the English site themadkhalis.com. It's about as reliable as athary or madkhalis.com (without "the"), which is to say not at all.

If you can find a mainstream publisher with a respected editorial board quoting such sites then we can cite said mainstream publication instead, otherwise such sites are out of the question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The initial intro

Apologies, but I'm not familiar with the name of the initial paragraph on a wiki page. Is it called an introduction?

I would like to reword it as follows:

"Rabee' Ibn Haadee 'Umayr al-Madkhalee (ربيع بن هادي عمير المدخلي) is counted as one of the chief theologians in contemporary Salafism (Amghar, S., 2007 Salafism and Radicalization of young European Muslims IN European Islam: Challenges for Public Policy and Society. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies p38-51) and a former head of the Department of Sunnah in the Department of Higher Studies at the Islamic University of Madinah. Al-Madkhalee is a well-known Salafist Muslim scholar who is considered one of Salafism's most radical thinkers. He is often referred to as the founder of the Madkhalism movement by his critics and observers[1][2][3], although he contests this statement (https://ia600805.us.archive.org/16/items/SamirAbouAlBaraaItems/RadShRabee_NabzSalafis-Madakhila.mp3) and other Salafist scholars even deny its existence" (Al-Fawzan, S., 2010 Wajib Talibul 'Ilm ba'd at-Takharruj, Islamic University of Madinah. Lecture given 16th of July 2010. Http://iu.edu.sa/News/Pages/706.aspx) (Mandikar, F. 2013 Muhammad Aman Al-Jami and Rabi bin Hadi Al-Madkhali. Al-Watan Newapaper, Kuwait City, Kuwait. Http://alwatan.kuwait.tt/articledetails.aspx?id=270942&YearQuarter=20132). Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The POV you're pushing here is beyond ridiculous. First of all, this article isn't the place for you to argue about denial of Madkhalism - it's simply irrelevant to this article.

Secondly, an MP3 file of the subject himself speaking is neither a reliable source nor is it appropriate for you to be using that as a means of trying to subtly argue against conclusions drawn by mainstream scholarship in this article.

Thirdly, it's a bit dishonest to claim that only the subject's critics refer to him as the founder of his own movement. Those who do so are recognized academic scholars in political science and Middle Eastern studies; this is a clear attempt to play off the criticism and present an overly positive picture.

Beyond all that, this process isn't following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section anyway. The intro section ("lead") is a summary of what's found below in the main body of the article; it should primarily just repeat things already found below and as changes are made to the article's body, it might have to be altered slightly multiple times creating a lot more work. It's typically the last thing touched during work on article content.

What we're looking at with the above suggestion are major violations of WP:NPOV, WP:IRS and WP:NOTADVOCATE. If you like the subject of the article and want to ensure that false information isn't spread then fine, but I'm going to call it for what it is: what you're suggesting here is that Wikipedia essentially becomes a forum to deny any truths about this man found inconvenient by his movement and to essentially use the site to proselytize. That's not what Wikipedia is for. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ on almost all accounts. As he is cited to be the supposed founder of this 'movement' it seems extremely important that his opinion on the matter is taken into account. I have never denied the existence of Madkhalism, ever. I feel aggrieved that you have tried to put words in my mouth. I merely feel a balanced page would take into account what the person who the movement is attributed to says in response to their claims.

No, I say leave both criticism and praise and let the reader decide. That's called being neutral in the academic field I was educated in. What is the problem with that idea?!

Thank you for the information about the 'lead' take that onboard 100%. However, if I was as you claim then I would be suggesting that we delete the criticisms. Clearly, the fact that I have NEVER even brought that subject up shows that you are far off-target. I'm asking for a balanced article.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Nobody is going to buy that. The specific wording you're using makes it clear that you do want to insinuate that Madkhalism doesn't exist. I'll go on record saying that. This isn't neutrality, this is a creative use of WP:WEASEL.

As for what the person says in response, then Wikipedia isn't here for you to just decide the rules as you go along. Try to actually read the policies I have mentioned. What you're suggesting here is so off the wall promotional that it can't even be tweaked to be better. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Which wording, exactly?Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In light of the discussion here I have looked through the article but do not see anything therein suggesting the following sentence: "He is the founder of the Madkhalism movement and is considered one of Salafism's most radical thinkers." I suggest it be removed from the lead until it is substantiated somewhere in the article. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Without even going to deep, it's almost here in the very first source word-for-word. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I failed to be clear. What I meant is that the "lead" is basically utilized to signpost the article or rehash it, as you noted above. However, I don't find anything within this Wikipedia page that mentions Madkhali being the founder Madkhalism. I recognize that the link says that. I'm noting that the wiki article does't say that ACCEPT in the 'lead'. I hope I have been clearer. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I get what you mean now. To remedy the situation, would you suggest the addition of a little blurb about that somewhere in the body of the article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the procedure from what I understood.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Amerrycan Muslim, hello. Alright, we could work this in with the discussion at the bottom of the page - many of the sources about the subject and the movement are the same. Enough of them are already here that we could probably just revisit them and form something based on that - it would save time. I've been working on another project right now and likely will be for a few weeks, though obviously you're busy on another point as well. If you prefer to write a draft for a small blurb or mention here then that's fine, though if you're too busy I can try to write something within the next few days. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lineage section

I would like to add a section about the lineage of Dr Rabee cited from Maktaba Shameela, Brachman, and Meijer as follows:

Lineage: Rabee Al-Madkhalee is from the tribe of Madakhila in Saudi Arabia’s southern area of Jazan, and it is one of the tribes originating from Ibn Yashjab Ibn Qahtan, founder of the famous tribe of Bani Shubail (Source: http://shamela.ws/index.php/author/1547). He was born in 1931 (1352 Hijri) in the village of al-Jaraadiyah, west of Samitah by three kilometers (Brachman, J.M., Global Jihadism: Theory and Practice, pg. 30. London: Routledge, 2008. ISBN 9781134055418) and (Meijer, R., "Politicizing al-jarh wa-l-ta'dil: Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali and the transnational battle for religious authority." Taken from The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam: Essays in Honor of Harald Motzki, pg. 377. Eds. Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2011.). Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerrycan Muslim (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a very relevant and well-written suggestion; now, do you think this should fall under biography, or be its own section? Technically there isn't really a set standard, at least that I know of. The article on Suyuti for example has lineage as a subsection, while for Shafi'i it seems to be a standalone section (but poorly sourced). Also, does the original Arabic source here say Ibn Yashjab bin Qahtan? I can't get it to load on my browser, but from what I know, the Madakhila are traced via ----> Ibn Yashjab bin Ya'rab bin Qahtan. I don't remember where I read that exactly but it sticks in my mind clearly and I can't see the shamela link. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Education Section

I would like to update the Education section as follows:

"Education Madkhali was born in 1931 in al-Jaraadiyah, a small village to the west of the town of Samitah, in the southern area of Saudi Arabia, though his tribe is originally from Jizan.[4][5] This should be deleted or moved as it doesn't appear to be related to his education

Existing biographies note that Rabee Al-Madkhalee began seeking knowledge in his village from local scholars like Ahmad b. Muhammad Jabir Al-Madkhalee and Muhammad b. Jabir Al-Madkhalee after he turned eight years old ("A short biography of Shaykh Rabee' bin Hadi Al Madkhalee." Hakmy.com (Accessed March 9th, 2014) and Meijer, R., "Politicizing al-jarh wa-l-ta'dil: Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali and the transnational battle for religious authority." Taken from The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam: Essays in Honor of Harald Motzki, pg. 377. Eds. Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2011). His most notable teacher before his study at the Ma’had al-’Ilmi in Saamitah was Nasir Khlufah Mubaraki (one of Shaykh Al-Qara’wee’s most senior students). After completing several classical Islamic texts with him, he started his education at the Ma’had al-’ilmi in Saamitah. The most notable of his teachers were: Al-Hafidh Ahmad bin Ahmad Al-Hakami Shaykh Muhammad bin Ahmad Al-Hakami Shaykh Ahmad bin Yahya Al-Najmi Shaykh Muhammad Aman Al-Jami Shaykh Muhammad Saghir Al-Khamisi ("A short biography of Shaykh Rabee' bin Hadi Al Madkhalee." Hakmy.com (Accessed March 9th, 2014) http://shamela.ws/index.php/author/1547) AND Meijer, R., "Politicizing al-jarh wa-l-ta'dil: Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali and the transnational battle for religious authority." Taken from The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam: Essays in Honor of Harald Motzki, pg. 377. Eds. Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2011)

In 1961, he entered the Faculty of Sharia in Riyadh for two months and then switched to the Faculty of Sharia at the Islamic University of Madinah, where his most notable teachers were: Former Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Baz Shaykh Muhammad Nasiruddin Al-Albani Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin Al-Abbad Shaykh Muhammad Amin Al-Shanqiti Shaykh Saleh Al-Iraqi Shaykh Abdul-Ghaffar Hasan Al-Hindi (Roel Meijer, "Politicizing al-jarh wa-l-ta'dil: Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali and the transnational battle for religious authority." Taken from The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam: Essays in Honor of Harald Motzki, pg. 377. Eds. Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2011)

He graduated four years later with excellence.[4] After working at the University, he returned to complete his higher education. He received his Master’s degree after publishing his thesis, “Between Muslim and Daruqutni” and achieved his doctorate with distinction with his dissertation. After completing his Doctorate at Umm al-Qura in 1980, Madkhali returned to the Islamic University of Madinah where he taught at the Faculty of Hadith and later became the head of the Department of Sunnah in the Department of Higher Studies. He held the chair until his retirement in the mid-1990s.[9]" Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerrycan Muslim (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the first part, yeah, it isn't education but I think your lineage suggestion handles that info.

Regarding everything else, then this is a huge improvement from the original edits. It's always better to use the original, mainstream sources like Meijer, Versteegh etc. in the citations first because of the trust with those publishers, and second because of verifiability; per WP:NONENG, non-English sources are allowed, but if we have an English source and a non-English source for the same exact info, the English one should take priority to allow readers to independently verify the text. So there's no opposition from my end, and as I said earlier, I don't think anyone else is caring for articles like this or Islam-related articles in general, so this suggestion could probably just be implemented without further ado. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly Works

I would like to make a section for scholarly works of Dr Rabee as follows:

Scholarly Works

Al-Madkhali has authored over 30 works in the field of Hadith and Islamic sciences, much of which has been compiled into a 15 volume set (Zafiri, K., "Thabt mu'allafat al-shaykh Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali" Meijer says to see this book in Politicing Jarh p380). In 1984, the book which brought him fame in the Saudi religious field was “Manhaj Al-Anbiyah Fi Da’wah Ila Allah” (The Methodology of the Prophets in Calling to Allah), caused controversy over his criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood and their methods of calling to the religion (Dawah) (Lacroix & Holoch (2011: 212).Al-Madkhalee insisted that priority in calling to Allah should be given to correcting Islamic creed (Lacroix, Awakening Islam. Page 212). Some observers state that Al-Madkhalee is most noted for his refutations of Islamic thinker, Sayyid Qutb. Al-Madkhalee received acclamations for his works refuting Sayyid Qutb from other Salafist scholars such as Salih Al-Fawzan, Muqbil Al Wadi’i, Muhammad b. Salih al-Uthaymin, and Al-Albani (Roel Meijer, "Politicizing al-jarh wa-l-ta'dil: Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali and the transnational battle for religious authority." Taken from The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam: Essays in Honor of Harald Motzki, pg. 380 and 386. Eds. Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2011.). Of his four books on Sayyid Qutb, “Adhwa Islamiyyah ala aqidat Sayyid Qutb wa fikrihi” is considered the most important(Ibid: 386). Apart from his controversial works in refutations, Al-Madkhalee has authored several books in the field of Hadith. His Master’s thesis, “Between the two Imams: Muslim and Daruqutni” is recommended by some of Saudi’s senior scholars (such as Abdul-Karim Al Khudair) for experienced students of Hadith (http://www.khudheir.com/text/1167). Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized that this should go in other talk section. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, this is an excellent suggestion for a new section about the subject's works and way better than the plain list that had been here before. I do have some suggestions for adjusting the language to be clearer for readers, though. Most readers of Wikipedia aren't Muslim, so terms like "calling to the religion" may not be familiar to them. I don't have a better suggestion in my mind at this moment, but what we could do (unfortunately I don't think anyone else is working on this article other than the two of us) is insert this version with this language for the time being but later, a different wording could be figured out. Non-Muslims simply don't use the term "calling to Christianity" or "calling to (religion X, Y or Z)" so the phrase, even if it's used in the sources, seems kind of awkward. That's just my personal opinion from a stylistic point of view.

Now, the way in which the Khudair source is used is tricky. Mentioning his name in parenthesis like that could fall into WP:PRIMARY. The thing about sources is that they can be primary or secondary depending on how they're used. As a few of us Islam-interested editors realized in the whole Talk:Muawiyah I fiasco, the language used can change that; Tabari's history is a primary source for Tabari's own opinion, for example, but a secondary source for simply stating which ruler was poisoned by which cousin or which general conquered which city. The source is Khudeir's own site; does citing that to give him as an example fall into primary? I'm honestly not sure. I guess it isn't a huge deal because the statement it cites isn't controversial, but I feel like it might be better to delete the portion of the sentence in parenthesis. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I added this to the article. I tried bypassing the awkwardness of 'calling' but admittedly it may still need attention with the wording.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is good work actually. I do have another suggestion - if we look at articles like Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz or Malik ibn Anas and others, typically the works are in a separate section from the biography. Considering that the section here is actually better written and source than those, it might be able to stand on its own. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, those same sources likely have info about Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz and others. This has actually been very productive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Section?

Should this be in the "current activity"?

After completing his Doctorate at Umm al-Qura in 1980, Madkhali returned to the Islamic University of Madinah where he taught at the Faculty of Hadith and later became the head of the Department of Sunnah in the Department of Higher Studies. He held the chair until his retirement in the mid-1990s.[9]

Since he is listed as retired seems odd to be in this particular section.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it does. It isn't current activity but it isn't education either. Can we get enough sources on the subject's career (which is different from the works suggestion you've built above) to make that a separate subsection between current activity and education? MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. There is information in Arabic stating career type information like lecturing and authoring but I haven't come across anything I can recall at the moment in English. And, even if there is, I imagine it would be a single sentence, maybe two. Similar to what is present now. Making a separate section of 'employment' or something seems too much. Tough one.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How about combining education and career into one section? Basically just adding these two sentences?Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, that might be the best solution. Hopefully in the future, there will be time to find some more info and expand the section on his life. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag bearer quote

user:MezzoMezzo, I was wondering what your opinion was on which section this information should go in... Current Activity?

Contemporary Hadith scholar, Nasiruddin Al-Albani regarded Al-Madkhalee to be knowledgeable in the field of hadith, particularly in Al-Jarh wa-l-Ta’dil, mentioning that Madkhali is the, “Flag-bearer of Al-Jarh wa-l-Ta’dil in our era.” Meijer in Politicing Jarh page 380 Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amerrycan Muslim, taking the entire citation into account makes the suggested line a bit problematic; the very next page of the same book is cited for the line: "Despite this, Madkhali's followers have what is seen by analysts as an obsession with his defense, often claiming praise from these scholars, though such praise is contested by Madkhali's detractors." So the suggested text gives an example of praise which is claimed by the subject's followers and contested by his detractors, according to the same source. Is there a way both pages 380 and 381 can be worked into the same paragraph of the article in a logically consistent fashion? MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I find it difficult to utilize Meijer with his numerous errors on basics things such as 'tours in Europe' and 'televised preaching' that he mentions on page 381, amongst many other basic factual inaccuracies/mistranslations that I have come across in previous academic research on Salafism in Europe. Nonetheless, in the spirit of advancing both sides of Meijer's argument, a succinct paragraph with Albani's, as well as the fact that Madkhali's detractors' disagree seems balanced.

In 2012, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought named Al-Madkhali as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world.[1] However, opinions on Al-Madkhali vary between supporters and opponents. Contemporary Hadith scholar, Nasiruddin Albani regarded Al-Madkhali to be knowledgeable in the field of hadith, particularly in Al-Jarh wa-l-Ta’dil. Al-Albani stated that, “the carrier of the flag of [knowledge] of Jarh wa Ta'deel today, in this present time, and rightfully so, is our brother Dr. Rabee’, and those who refute him do so without any knowledge." Supporters of Madkhali utilize this and other praises in an attempt to establish their view that he is supported by other major contemporary Islamic scholars. Roel Meijer notes that some analysts view Madkhali’s followers as having an obsession with his defense and continuously cite scholarly praise of him as a mechanism "for maintaining, defending and enhancing this authority", which is contested by Madkhali's detractors.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, totally awesome. No opposition from my end at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Removing Contentious claim lacking evidence within cited works

I am going to remove lines in the "Education and Career" section of this page which I have researched and found to be lacking in clearly supported evidence by the cited work. Additionally, the claims are highly contentious and controversial about a living figure and and seem to go against the spirit of WP:ALIVE. The claims that I could not find when looking at the sourced materials in the previously stated section are as follows:

1) "a member of the Muslim Brotherhood for most of his adult life" 2) "a supporter of Juhayman al-Otaybi" 3) "Madkhali was forced to renounce his views after the Grand Mosque Seizure in late 1979"

These 3 statements are referenced in two separate books; (1) George Joffé, Islamist Radicalisation in Europe and the Middle East: Reassessing the Causes of Terrorism, pg. 317. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013 and (2) Stephane Lacroix, Awakening Islam, pgs. 102 and 212. Trns. George Holoch. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2011. After looking at the pages cited in these two references I am unable to fathom which text from these two authors supports these three independent claims.

None of the sources (Joffe, pp.317; Lacroix, pp. 74-77; Lacroix, pp. 102, 212) state that Al-Madkhali was ever a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s not even implied in the cited text or other academic articles on Salafism and Al-Madkhali. Also, “most of his adult life” is definitely a preposterous statement considering that the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideology only started in Saudi Arabia around 1965, this contradicts the notion that Al-Madkhali was with the JSM, who opposed the Muslim Brotherhood openly. The claim itself is problematic and not supported by the literature. Lacroix did state on page 75 (Between Revolution and Apoliticism), that the “Jamis” (he earlier refers to Muhammad Aman al Jami and Rabi al Madkhali as the figureheads) as speaking out against the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1960s.

None of these sources, as well as other academic articles on the topic, mention that Al-Madkhali was ever a supporter of Juhayman Al-Otaybi. Joffe doesn’t state that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood nor a supporter of Al-Otaybi. Saying that Al-Madkhali was a supporter of Juhayman al-Otaybi is a misrepresentation of the facts and literature available on the topic. Joffe stated on page 317 that Al-Madkhali “initially opposed the Saudi state”, but no mention of support for Al-Otaybi- he does state that Al-Madkhali was a member of the JSM, he only stated that the 1979 events co-opted his “initial opposition”, no mention of participation in it. Joffe refers to Lacroix’s “Between Revolution and Apoliticism” (Pages 74 to 77 in Global Salafism). Lacroix doesn’t make any mention of Al-Madkhali supporting Al-Otaybi either. In Awakening Islam, Lacroix said that Al-Madkhali was a “former sympathizer of the early forms of the JSM”. The JSM was not led by Al-Otaybi according to all the scholarly literature on the topic- Lacroix and Hegghammer stated that specifically. The pre-Ikhwan JSM (Ikhwan as in Juhayman’s offshoot of the JSM, not the Muslim brotherhood) was run by a Shoura of 4 to 5 members with Al-Otaybi as a member of the council with Abu Bakr Al Jaza’iri as the deputy guide (or the chair of the shoura) and Ibn Baz as the official guide (Hegghammer & Lacroix, 2007). To say that Al-Madkhali was a supporter of Al-Otaybi until the Grand Mosque incident is absurd and not stated anywhere in the literature. It’s strongly proven in the literature that Al-Otaybi severed ties with the JSM after the debate with Al-Jaza’iri (in 1973 according to Hegghammer and Lacroix).

In regards to the 3rd claim that "Madkhali was forced to renounce his views after the Grand Mosque Seizure in late 1979" then, again, I fail to see anywhere in the cited text whereby this could even implied, let is it stated explicitly.

I've read through all these sources numerous times and I cannot find any support for those specific statements. Perhaps if another person went through them and see something different, I'd be grateful.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have also reviewed "Yael Shahar for the NATO Science for Peace and Security, "The Internet as a Tool for Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism." Taken from Responses to Cyber Terrorism, pg. 109. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2008. ISBN 9781586038366" and have not found any speech from the author which indicates to me the words that are written on the main page from this particular citation. There is no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, Madkhali being a critic, being the target of mainstream salfism's ire, nor political and security analysts referring to Madkhali as an opponent of the Salafist movement whatsoever at the citation referenced.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

While reviewing the small booklet: " Natana DeLong-Bas, Wahhabism: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide, pg. 8. Oxford University Press, 2011." I was unable to see how it could be utilized to support the text for citation 23. Madkhali is only mentioned twice therein; once is as a citation and the other as a short explanation regarding the author of the citation. Explanation would be appreciated. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Upon inspection, it does seem that some liberty was taken with the contentious material. I will take a look into some of the sources now. What I'm finding on page 317 of George Joffé's book (contentious material removed here):

"Another faction was the Madakhila, the followers of Saudi scholar Rabi' al-Madkhali. Certain adherents of this thought, including al-Madkhali, initially opposed the Saudi state, but were co-opted following the 1979 events in Mecca. Led by al-Madkhali, they subsequently became the Al Saud's staunchest apologists."

We then find in Stephane Lacroix's work on page 102:

"Contrary to the rejectionists, the majority of the Ahl al-Hadith particularly the few ulema who had managed to reach an institutional position in the Saudi system, notably at the Islamic University of Medina like Rabi al-Madkhali - submitted to the Saudi authorities and, anxious to avoid any identification with their rejectionist cousins, thereafter demonstrated unstinting loyalty. Many of those who adopted this position were former sympathizers of the early forms of the JSM, like Falih al-Harbi and Rabi al-Madkhali himself. In the wake of the events of 1979, they had to clear themselves of the suspicion that weighed on everyone who had ever had ties to the movement."

We find then on page 212:

"Although he was a student of al-Albani and had briefly been close to the JSM in the 1970s, al-Madkhali had managed not to go to prison and thereafter displayed exemplary loyalty to the regime."

Now, this was the contentious text removed:

"and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood for most of his adult life and a supporter of Juhayman al-Otaybi, Madkhali was forced to renounce his views after the Grand Mosque Seizure in late 1979."

The "for most of his life" is clearly a mathemiatical error on my own part due to not paying enough attention to the topic, and although it is publicly known that Madkhali was once in the MB, I haven't searched for a source on that and if the claim is contentious and he is alive, it may not be worth the time to trawl for a source; I think we can all agree that it can reasonably stay deleted for now.

Now regarding the JSM, then it has been a long time since I've looked any of this up. From what I remember, JSM was Otaybi's group. Can you mention where in Hegghammer and Lacroix's work (page #) the issue is discussed?

As for the comment on renouncing his views after 1979, that seems clear and it was wide enough in the country at the time (there was a veritable witch hunt back then) that I don't see why it shouldn't be reinserted into the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look at the second piece of contentious information which was removed, we find the following text:

"Though once a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and ideological follower of Sayyid Qutb, Madkhali is now a harsh critic of the Brotherood, Qutb and the Islamic revival. He is frequently the target of the Salafist mainstream's ire, to the point where political and security analysts have actually referred to Madkhali as an opponent of the Salafist movement as a whole."

The text was attributed to the Yael Shahar source which can be found in the diff. On page 109, Shahar states:

"Another example of the vulnerability of the j.. movement given by Brachman and McCants comes from Abu Qatada's work, Between Two Methods. Abu Qatada is scathing in his criticism of a popular Saudi cleric, Rabi al-Madkhali, a serious rival of the Salafi movement..."

I didn't finish the J word as I don't want to get caught by some NSA filter. Anyway, although it's known that Madkhali was once in the MB the issue here is the same as before: it's contentious and finding just one source for such a claim may not be enough, so I personally have no opposition to the comment being left out. Also, the fact that Madkhali essentially jacks Qutb's ideas is only written by his opponents. I wrote it after viewing some of those works and didn't think about it twice, but in retrospect it is rather contentious and is probably better being deleted unless mainstream academic scholarship ever starts analyzing that (they aren't now).

Now, some things go without saying. We know that he is a harsh critic of the Islamic revival and of Qutb and the MB now; although there is no specific citation for that comment, it's found in most other sources here and I don't think there should be any opposition to that comment specifically.

Regarding him being the target of the Salafist mainstream and an opponent of the movement as a whole, then that part is in the source right there. Additionally, Yael Shahar is a scholar of the field at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism. For attribution's sake, we could replace "security analysts" with "Yael Shahar of the IICT" but either way I don't see why that specific part shouldn't be put back in the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the academic sources mention that Al-Madkhali was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, in fact, they state that he has been an opponent of the Brotherhood since the 60’s. Further removing any substance to this claim, the subject himself says he was never a member of MB in some of his books like "adh-Dharee'ah", “Al-Inqidhadh”

Sources on the topic of Juhayman and the JSM, clearly establish that the JSM was not equivalent to Juhaymaan. He was a founding member until he split from the JSM around 1977 (Lacroix “Revolutionary and apolitical Islam” in Global Salafism, page 74 states that Juhayman split from the JSM, in Awakening Islam, page 92, he mentions that the split officially occurred in 1977, while there was a rift and tensions between Juhayman and the JSM for sometime prior to this.) For example Hegghammer & Lacroix on Page 106 they state: “The group known as al-Jamaa al-Salafiyya al-Muhtasiba took shape in Medina in the mid-1960s. It was formed by a small group of religious students who for some time had been proselytizing in the city’s poorer neighborhoods.” After describing the incident that led to the formation of the JSM, they state on page 107: “The JSM had no official executive leader but was governed by a consultative council (majlis al-shur¯ a¯) of five or six members, which included four of the founding members and al-Jazairi.” The founding members were: Nasser ibn Hussein, Suleiman ibn Sheteiwi, Saad Al Tamimi, and Juhayman Al-Otaibi with Ibn Baz as the religious authority and Abu Bakr Al Jaza’iri as his deputy, in direct supervision of the council. Equating JSM to Juhayman is more than misleading. The sources quoted (and others) do not claim that Al-Madkhali was a follower of Juhayman, they state that he was a “sympathizer of the early JSM” and “ had briefly been close to the JSM in the 1970s” (Lacroix, Awakening Islam, 102, 212). Coupling “follower of Juhayman” and “forced to renounced his views after the Grand Mosque Seizure in late 1979” implies involvement and support, which are not supported by any of the cited sources.

As for being “forced to renounce his views”, then this also implies involvement. Lacroix’s statement: “they had to clear themselves of the suspicion that weighed on everyone who had ever had ties to the movement” and Joffe’s statement “but were co-opted following the 1979 events in Mecca.” do not imply involvement with the 1979 attacks. As you said, basically everyone who ever had ties to JSM in general had to clear their names from involvement with Juhayman’s attacks. I recommend using similar wording, if not quoting, Lacroix.

The question stands on whether Shahar refers to Al-Madkhali is an opponent of the Salafist movement, Abu Qatadah’s view of the Salafi movement (referred to as an example in the chapter of “What we learn from Jihadist websites and Forums”) or whether Abu Qatadah is a serious rival of the Salafi movement that Al-Madkhali ascribes to. Shahar clearly stated that Brachman and McCant cited Abu Qatada’s (the extremist Jihadist- as they claimed) criticism of Al-Madkhali as an example of “the vulnerability of the Jihadi movement”. Shahar stated that Brachman and McCant cited Abu Qatada’s opposition to Al-Madkhali out of fear of his threat to their Jihadist ideology. To state that the analysts referred to him as an opponent of the Salafist movement is a misrepresentation of the cited text. To further prove this, just look at what Brachman and McCant stated on page 13 of their Stealing Al-Qaeda’s Book where they speak about Abu Qatada’s criticism of Al-Madkhali. Shahar referring “a serious rival to the salafi movement” to Al-Madkhali contradicts the source Shahar uses to establish the example. Instead, it seems more likely that the statement is referring to Abu Qatada’s view (which seems to be the most correct because that’s what Brachman and McCant do not insinuate that at all, in fact, they state that Al-Madkhali is a salafi whom is often the target of Abu Qatada’s criticism). In addition to that, Shahar is quoting Brachman and McCant’s example, where they stated on page 109 that Abu Qatada’s sharpest criticisms extended to Salafis. He states: “ In these articles, one Salafi above all others is the object of Abu Qatada’s ire: Rabi` al‐Madkhali. Abu Qatada rages at this “so‐called Salafi” for challenging jihadi notions of leadership.” Quoting Abu Qatada’s “Between two methods”.

The problematic nature with all of these unsubstantiated claims is that they have been taken from Wikipedia by any Tom, Dick or Abdul as gospel and sent out on Internet forums and the such and have potentially caused irreparable damage to a living person’s reputation. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a living person but regardless of your focus on Abu Qatada here, Shahar's intent is clear. I will quote his statement again:

Another example of the vulnerability of the j.. movement given by Brachman and McCants comes from Abu Qatada's work, Between Two Methods. Abu Qatada is scathing in his criticism of a popular Saudi cleric, Rabi al-Madkhali, a serious rival of the Salafi movement.

Notice the second sentence:

Abu Qatada is scathing in his criticism of a popular Saudi cleric, Rabi al-Madkhali, a serious rival of the Salafi movement

That is an adjective clause describing al-Madkhali. It's 100% clear. Now if there is concern about how a living person is protrayed - and that is always a concern - then the answer is to simply turn to WP:IMPARTIAL. The quote can be attributed as the opinion of Shahar alone, but as for his opinion then it seems crystal clear. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean with the word 'of'. So are weto believe that Shahar is implying here that Madkhali, as a serious rival to the Salafi movement, is to be considered not Salafi or from the Salafi movement? If so, what does s/he base that on?Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Amerrycan Muslim, just tagging to make sure you get the alert. I'm not sure as it has been a while since I gave the entire document a read-through. If you feel it warrants one, I can cut down on editing some other articles for now and we can both give it another look over the next few days. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Up to you. Here is the entire section (3.1.2) where Madkhali is mentioned in the Shahar article.

"Another example of the vulnerability if the jihad movement given by Brachman and McCants comes from Abu Qatada's work, Between Two Methods. Abu Qatada is scathing in his criticism of a popular Saudi cleric, Rabi' al Madkhali, a serious rival of the Salafi movement. "This man is content to claim that he is a Salafi so that he can be an imam for some inexperienced boys whom he feeds slogans and shimmering phrases." Jihadi ideologues are very open about which Muslim religious leaders they most fear.

Brachman and McCants point out that although a specific enemy may no longer be a threat, by understanding why he was a threat in the past, we can look for -- and perhaps exploit -- similarly threatening enemies in the present.

Why was Madkhali a threat? To begin with, he was a quietest, and was supported by the Saudi government. More importantly, his popularity and outreach were such that he was able to draw off young recruits from the radical movements."

Howeverin the next section (3.1.3) Shaher talks about lessons learned from this example he took from Brachman and McCants and says: "For his part, Abu Qatada provides us with some keys as to what sort of rival cleric is the greatest threat to the movement. The answer seems to be one who manages to appeal effectively to the same target audience, the youth and yet who espouses a program directly at odds with that of the jihadi movement."

The wiki article currently says: "He is frequently the target of the Salafist mainstream's ire, and security analyst Yael Shahar has actually referred to Madkhali as an opponent of the Salafist movement."

It seems to me when reading Shaher's analyses in section 3.1.3 (Lessons Learned) that he believes Abu Qatada is a so-called "Salafi-jihadi" and Madkhali is a "Quietist Salafi" according to Wiktorowicz (2006) breakdown of Salafis into three categories. Shaher says that they are appealing to the same audience. If you are happy to word it so that this is clear then I am happy. Something along the lines of "Security analyst Yael Shahar believes that Madkhali is frequently the target of Jihadist Salafists ire, such as Abu Qatada, due to Madkhali's ability siphon off potential recruits to his quietist version of Salafism, as opposed to Abu Qatada's "more radical" understanding."Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That isn't accurate. It's clear from Shahar's words that he/she (?) views Madkhali as a rival of the Salafi movement, not just one specific strain. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It is very accurate. Shahar says Madkhali is supported by the Saudi government, which has a strong arm of Salafi scholars officially apart of it who shape law and policy, in turn making it a safe claim that the government is in large part established upon Salafism. Shahar also says that Madkhali is "quietist", which is a hallmark of the Salafist belief, to the point that Madkhali is labeled as being at the forefront of Jami'yah.

Shahar is an internet counter-terrorism expert. Not an islamic expert. The EXAMPLE she created was due to what she says she read from Brachman & McCants. And if we look at Brachman and McCants (2006:13) then it is clear that they say, "In these articles, one Salafi above all others is the object of Abu Qatada’s ire: Rabi` al‐Madkhali." If we are to accept that Shaher has made a mistake during her attempt to reword then it should be deleted. If we are to accept that she hasn't made a mistake then it is first of all outside her expertise and secondly, similar to saying the Earth is flat, and should thus be worded as such to indicate the strangeness of her belief.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. I am open to WP:3O on this point if you still disagree.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion about the source, but it isn't for editors to simply dispute reliable sources on article talk pages. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would probably be better if you would like to discuss the source's accuracy. As a courtesy, if you choose to go that route it would be fair to leave a note on this talk page so that interested editors (probably just me, but it's better to go through the motions) can follow. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Or we could just word the paragraph to show that Shahar's opinion is extremely strange and virtually every other source referring to the subject (such as Brachman & McCants) states Madkhali is a Salafist and not a rival to it. I'll start listing all the sources indicating this here to show that, as well as cite the information to balance the claim that he has no 'authority' and is not a part of the religious establishment in KSA.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to rewording actually, if it's based on compromise. But as a request, can we make a new section here on the talk page? This one is getting long. We could start by just compiling quotes from various authors. This might actually allow the subsection in question to be expanded, which is always a good thing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I always suppor compromise and rewording articles to be better, but I would avoid openly stating whose opinion is strange and who isn't - that's another thing we as editors should avoid. Readers will decide for themselves. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I am tired of counting colons. When the article is worded in away that gives balance I am willing to leave it to the reader to decide. However, as an academic, I have no quals in giving my opinion on something like Shaher's error in light of the substantial evidence that contradicts it, particularly when it is has a prominent place within this article. Got real work to do now, so I won't be looking at this until tomorrow.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No rush; one way or another, we can fix this. Just keep in mind: the goal here is to describe how the subject of the article has been described, not to prove one or more sources wrong or lionize the subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Madkhali a 'rival' of Salafi Movement or apart of it?

As discussed in this section called 'Removing Contentious claim' this is to establish the evidence in regards to whether Madkhali is a 'rival of the Salafist movement' as Shahar's words seem to indicate or if he is actually considered to be from among the Salafist movement. user:MezzoMezzo believes that Shahar's words from the following text are clear-cut and leave little doubt that Shahar views Madkhali as a 'serious rival' of Salafism.

Shahar states in her work, 'The Internet as a Tool for Intelligence and Counter Terrorism' in section 3.1.2:

"Another example of the vulnerability if the jihad movement given by Brachman and McCants comes from Abu Qatada's work, Between Two Methods. Abu Qatada is scathing in his criticism of a popular Saudi cleric, Rabi' al Madkhali, a serious rival of the Salafi movement. "This man is content to claim that he is a Salafi so that he can be an imam for some inexperienced boys whom he feeds slogans and shimmering phrases." Jihadi ideologues are very open about which Muslim religious leaders they most fear.

Brachman and McCants point out that although a specific enemy may no longer be a threat, by understanding why he was a threat in the past, we can look for -- and perhaps exploit -- similarly threatening enemies in the present.

Why was Madkhali a threat? To begin with, he was a quietest, and was supported by the Saudi government. More importantly, his popularity and outreach were such that he was able to draw off young recruits from the radical movements."

And in the next section (3.1.3) Shahar talks about lessons learned from this example she took from Brachman and McCants', 'Stealing Al-Qa’ida’s Playbook' and says:

"For his part, Abu Qatada provides us with some keys as to what sort of rival cleric is the greatest threat to the movement. The answer seems to be one who manages to appeal effectively to the same target audience, the youth and yet who espouses a program directly at odds with that of the jihadi movement."

This is the only two places where I was able to find any reference to Madkhali within Shahar's work.

The sentence under scrutiny here is "Abu Qatada is scathing in his criticism of a popular Saudi cleric, Rabi' al Madkhali, a serious rival of the Salafi movement. (italics mine)

I believe that Shahar, while rewording her text from Brachman & McCants made an error and meant to say that Abu Qatada sees Madkhali as a serious rival. This seems clear to me when looking at Brachman & McCants as they say that "In these articles, one Salafi above all others is the object of Abu Qatada’s ire: Rabi` al‐Madkhali. on page 13. As well, Shahar herself indicates that Madkhali is "quietest" and that Abu Qatada belongs to the 'jihad movement'. These are two of the three categories of Salafists according to Wiktorowicz's (2006) breakdown of Salafists and Salafism. Shahar also says that they are appealing to the same audience.

Even if we were to believe that she didn't make an error while rewording from Brachman & McCants then we must weigh up her statement against the other available works on Madkhali. Do any of those make the claim that Madkhali is either a 'serious rival' of Salafism or indicate that he is NOT to be considered from amongst the Salafist? Here are some statements on Madkhali to consider:

• 1) “Generally, many of the Salafi youths and scholars during the 1980s and 1990s in Egypt studied religion from prominent Salafi scholars in Saudi Arabia, mainly Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, Muhammad bin Saleh al-Uthaimin, Rabi‘ bin Hadi al-Madkhali, and ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Barak...” (Anani, K. and Malik, M. (2013: 60) Pious Way to Politics: The Rise of Political Salafism in Post-Mubarak Egypt. Digest of Middle East Studies 22(1) p57-73)

• 2) His effort to support Bin Bāz tied him to Bin Bāz defenders, including Muammad Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī, Rabī‘ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī and Zayd Muhammad ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī. They are important Saudi Salafi authorities... (Noorhadi (2005) LASKAR JIHAD: ISLAM, MILITANCY AND THE QUEST FOR IDENTITY IN POST-NEW ORDER INDONESIA. p75)

• 3) “People like Zayd Muhammad ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī, Rabī’ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī and ‘Abd al-Razzāq bin ‘Abd al-Muhsin al-‘Abbād were indeed important figures who, because of their influence in the Salafi movement, could facilitate support from foundations for Salafi da‘wa activities in Indonesia.” (Noorhadi (2005) LASKAR JIHAD: ISLAM, MILITANCY AND THE QUEST FOR IDENTITY IN POST-NEW ORDER INDONESIA. p80)

• 4) “In Europe, this current is for the most part found in Wahhabi inspired Salafism. Linked to the official religious institution in Saudi Arabia (Dar el Ifta) and to the different Islamic universities in that country, this movement has counted among its chief theologians Ibn Baz, the former Mufti of the kingdom, Al-Albani, and Ibn Uthaymin (who died in 2001). Fawzan, Al-Madkhali and the Great Mufti of the Saudi Kingdom, Al-Cheikh, and the Yemenite Muqbil (who also died in 2001) have been the contemporary representatives of this movement... The Saudi Rabi Ibn Had Al (Madkhali) is without a doubt the official spokesman for this tendency in Saudi Arabia. Former head of the department of the Sunni sciences at the University of Median, he was a student of Al-Albani at this same university. Extremely vehement towards revolutionary Salafis, and the Muslim Brotherhood, he is the doctrinal reference for many Muslims in Europe who claim links to Wahhabi-inspired Salafism. He currently occupies a chair at the University of Medina.” (Amghar, S. SALAFISM AND RADICALISATION OF YOUNG EUROPEAN MUSLIMS p43-44)

• 5) "Muqbil’s effort to support Bin Baz interlocked him with Bin Baz defenders in Saudi Arabia, including Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Muhammad bin Salih al-‘Uthaimin, Rabi’ Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali and Zaid Muhammad ibn Hadi al-Madkhali. These figures are important Saudi Salafi authorities with whom the ustadhs of the Salafi madrasahs have also established linkages.” (Hasan, N. (2011) IN ISLAMIC STUDIES AND ISLAMIC EDUCATION IN CONTEMPORARY SOUTHEAST ASIA. BUSTAMAM-AHMAD, K. & JORY, P. Kuala Lumpur: Yayasan Ilmuwan p107)

This is just 5 statements out of more than 25 that I can reference here that to prove the point that Madkhali is not seen by writers in this field to be outside of Salafism. It seems to me that if Shahar did intend this the way it is worded and she believes that Madkhali is a 'serious rival' to the Salafi movement then she has overstepped her expertise and her opinion is contrary to the overwhelming opinions of those who actually write specifically on Salafism.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Amerrycan Muslim, while your effort is incredible, I don't quite understand what the goal is. I'll be brief:

• Shahar's intent is clear. Your insistence that she miswrote is simply baseless, and it's based on your analysis of the words of others. Grammatically, syntactically, the phrase you put in italics up there is referring to Madkhali.
• Whether or not Shahar's view is shared by others is irrelevant to its inclusion in the article. The source by Shahar is considered reliable and can be included in the article.

If you would like to suggest a change in wording, then that's fine. The talk page, however, isn't a place for editors to dispute what is contained in reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The goal is to simply present a balanced article that reflects facts that can be backed up with evidence. I have witnessed how erroneous information regrading this particular individual has spread on certain forums and websites as gospel amongst those that are either too lazy or (more likely too) biased to actually research the statements before accepting them. As I said previously, I have researched Madkhali as well as Salafism for university work and have an abundance of material and notes to refer back to.

I'm not sure I fathom how you consider it to be 'baseless'. I am looking at Shahar's statement and base it in light of the source she cites directly from, who says he is a Salafist. If Shahar believes he is a rival to Salafism, while the source she cites says the opposite, then I believe she made a simple mistake. Nothing nefarious. While not remotely attempting to discredit her, or the journal this article can be found in, as reliable source I see that this statement of hers falls into WP:FRINGE due to the consensus from writers/researchers on Salafism that he is a part of the movement and not a rival to it.

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field.

Nonetheless, as I said previously I am open to rewording it to reflect that it is Shahar's opinion but contrary to the expert opinion of every other writer/researcher in the field. The article currently states that: "He is frequently the target of the Salafist mainstream's ire (Sorry, what is the source of this part? I don't see it in Shahar'sarticle.), and security analyst Yael Shahar has actually referred to Madkhali as an opponent of the Salafist movement."

I propose: "While Internet and Counter-Terrorism expert Yael Shahar (2006:109) believes that Madkhali is a threat and "serious rival of the Salafi movement" due to his "popularity and outreach" as well as his ability "to draw off young recruits from the more radical movements", the vast majority of writers on Salafism, such as Heffelfinger, de Koning, Hegghammer & Lacroix, Haykel, Hasan, Kepel and Bonnefoy believe Madkhali to be Salafist. Amghar (2007:44) goes so far as to say that, "Madkhali is without a doubt the official spokesman for this (Salafist) tendency in Saudi Arabia" and "extremely vehement towards revolutionary Salafis, and the Muslim Brotherhood, he is the doctrinal reference for many Muslims in Europe who claim links to Wahhabi-inspired Salafism."

I imagine that you may want to rephrase some of the quotes to shorten it.Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Amerrycan Muslim. The rewording idea is fine, as in general between the two of us pulling back and forth has ended up with things in the middle up to now.

As a style issue, if Shahar's view is against the majority of analysts (and it is) then mentioning individuals without Wikipedia articles in the "such as" line seems redundant, as the reader will see such names when they click on the citations. Additionally, the presentation of Amghar's comments from 2007 are a bit dated - I don't know of any other authors going so far as to say that the subject is the official spokesman, and Roel Meijer asserted in 2011 (four years later) that Madkhali had lost most of his audience in Saudi Arabia. The later source does seem more accurate, as any mention of Madkhali is almost totally absent in mainstream Saudi religious discourse (channels such as Majd, newspapers like Watan and Jazira, etc.) while the commonly accepted spokespeople for the Saudi establishment (the Permanent Committee, Ministry of Islamic Affairs reps, etc.) are known through such mainstream routes.

I wouldn't necessarily advocate leaving out the comment of Amghar but per Wikipedia:Updating information and WP:UNDUE (the latter of which we are invoking above), the inclusion of Meijer's latter comment as a form of balance would be better in line with our neutrality policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Amerrycan Muslim, awesome initiative on resolving the issue. There were a few changes I made, as some remarks weren't what had been planned here. As mentioned above, more recent studies have mentioned the drying up of Madkhali's popularity to an extent, so mentions of popularity and outreach seem outdated, especially as none of them seem to be less than six years old. Additionally, the assertion that the majority of writers on Salafism have said anything on the subject of this article seems untenable as we didn't actually do a survey of all writers on Salafism; just all writers on the subject of this article. Aside from that, it's golden. We should be able to move on to the next issue now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

user:MezzoMezzo Why remove the analysis by Shahar that explains why she sees him as a rival. I find that extremely relevant to explain her rationale if we are going to include her minority opinion. I wrote it above in my initial draft and you didn't mention it to be objectionable. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Amerrycan Muslim, you're absolutely right, it was already in your comments above. I looked at the post-discussion edits and somehow didn't recognize it. Regarding those comments, though, then it's the same rationale per the point about Amghar above. I hinted at something on the talk page in my edit summary but I forgot to actually say what specifically I was referring to. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

user:MezzoMezzo Then why not just leave out all of Shahar? If she is utilizing old information for her strange opinion within a more recent article then it seems all the more reason to delete the whole thing. For me it seems all or none in regards to her opinion. If we are to include it as a minority opinion we should include her rationale whether it is dated or not.

In regards to newer information highlighting Madkhali's status within Salafism then I found this: Boubekeur & Roy (2012:291) say "Madkhali is a Saudi Salafi leader..." while Heffelfinger (2011:80) says Madkhali is "a prominent Salafi shaykh from Saudi Arabia." Lacroix (2011:102) says that Madkhali did manage to "reach an institutional position in the Saudi system..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerrycan Muslim (talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Amerrycan Muslim: I never thought of it that way before but reading your comment now (re: Shahar), it makes total sense. Maybe we can do this: just remove reference to the issue for now though we can keep all the sources in mind, as they could be used to cite already existing material in the article or to expand on non-controversial topics.

About the popularity issue, then he did indeed reach an institutional position in the 80s, he retired in the 90s so the Lacroix reference would be better bulking up the education and career section. Boubekeur and Roy don't really give much regarding popularity, as being a leader could mean being a community leader, political leader, cultural icon, and so forth. The full passage in their work might be more helpful.

Now Heffelfinger might be more promising but a full passage would be preferred here as well; among who is he prominent? Where exactly? I'm saying this as the sources at Madkhalism#History, second paragraph down, mention the dwindling level of support for the subject's movement in Saudi Arabia. It would require a second look as I added some of that stuff almost half a year ago and some of it back in 2013, and I can't remember the full passages, but that would probably be a good way to start. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref confusion

An edit by Amerrycan Muslim on 23 March 2014 (diff) introduced the following (with "[4]" as shown):

He graduated four years later with excellence.[4]

Would someone please work out what [4] refers to (<ref name=mot377/>?), and confirm that it verifies the statement, and fix that text in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi user:Johnuniq, that should be with the 4th reference. I will amend it now. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

An IP wants this edit which adds various assertions, some of which are sourced to youtube. Please see WP:RS because youtube is very rarely reliable for anything because such works are easily manufactured and may be hoaxes, or may have been edited. I have removed "and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani" regarding acclamations as that has been challenged and its mention seems WP:UNDUE at any rate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)