Talk:Nuh Ha Mim Keller/Archive 1

The perspective of a Florida Mexican
the person who is criticizing shaykh nuh doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. i know shaykh nuh wants women to wear the niqaab when they're in jordan, or at one of the retreat, but that is because he is very strict about not creating a sexual atmosphere (as opposed to the isna conference in chicago, where everything is sexualized), and he wants people to be serious if they are coming to learn. i know he actually discourages western women from wearing it when they return home, so i have no idea what that guy is beefing about when he says the shaykh forces women to wear it (there are in fact a couple of female 'friends' on my facebook profile in the tareeq who don't wear it). he never forces anyone to do anything. he is a fiqh master in the shaafi madhhab, and i find it beyond belief that he would force anyone to do anything, as the Quran very clearly states that "there is no compulsion in religion."

as for the him going after "financial and manpower lucrativeness", that's total slander. i've seen his house (it's very small), i've seen the way he lives (very modestly [by our standards he'd probably be eligible for state financial assistance down here in florida]). he is very simple. his apple computer is probably as old as i am. the few gifts that he does accept from people have religious connotations to them (i.e., books, prayer beads, etc.). he has no car. his income comes from the royalties on his books. give me a break.

the divorce thing is baloney. my roommate in jordan had a friend who was divorced and him and his wife BOTH were in the tareeq.

the thing about the man being the center of the universe is nonsense too. men are the head of the households in all three of the abrahamic religions, and he tells men that. but i've never heard him denigrate or insult a woman, ever. his wife is very outspoken and he actually makes very witty jokes about her during his lessons, about how she runs his life. granted, i've never heard all of his lessons, and i was only there for 9 or 10 months, but i find it hard to believe that he would tell women they're inferior. that's absurd.

there is however one thing on there from the critical guy that's true: his students DO sometimes act cultish in their behavior. some of them go over the deep end and say that if what he says is not followed then your life will perish. but he's never said that, or even implied it. if they go nuts then why should he be blamed for it? that's retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabidhaze (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one point of view. Keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing the relevance of article content, not actually debating the subject of the articles. MezzoMezzo 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Florida Mexican:

With all due respect, you don't really know what you're talking about. I can tell, by your comments, that your experience with this group and the man is limited, while the information and critiques which seem to have prompted your post reflect the knowledge and experience of people associated with these individuals for many years. As for the "cultish" behavior which you've described in his followers centered on the person of Keller himself, he is well aware of it, and certainly sanctions it. He has his ears and eyes.

To the Critical Guy (aka Bigsky?)
Critical guy, you need to find something else to make your life goal besides "warning" people of some nefarious danger that you yourself can't quite articulate. Apparently, no one else knows what they're talking about except you. How convenient. I think everyone's aware that niqab is required of women at the retreats and in Amman. No one has ever made a secret of that. In fact when he comes to American he openly tells the women they must wear it. If a woman don't like it, she don't have to join. As for "sanctioning" cultish behavior, well, kissing hands is pretty common amongst Sufis, especially kissing the Shaikh's hands. Nothing new or hidden there.

Shaikh's are supposed to provide discipline to their students. Thats why people go to them. No one forces students to go to the Shadhili tariqa. No one prevents them from leaving. As for wives and divorces and mind control of women.....: divorce in the Muslim community in general is estimated at about 50 percent or more. Really high. So you can't assume that the cause of some of these divorces is the tariqa or the Shaikh. Its very possible these couples would have problems had they never even heard of a tariqa. If anything, its quite possible the Shaikh is trying to help these people in bad relationships as best he can. In a failing relationship, any advice can fail to yield results. I've seen divorce first-hand....everyone blames everyone for whose to blame for the divorce. Husband blames wife, wife blames husband, parents-in-law blame each other, husband blames family counselor, wife blames the imam they went to for advice. So yes, maybe these couples or the couple had a bad marriage experience...but that may not be anyone's fault except that the marriage just wasn't going to work no matter what anyone did. Its possible maybe the husband was a nut anyway. Or maybe the wife was a nut. No one can save a relationship like that, and no one is the cause of the failure except the very individuals in the marriage. You can't generalize based on the experience of one person, or even two.

So Bigsky guy, you need to be absolutely sure, in fact be willing to bet your akhira on it, that every letter, word and sentence is verified and verifiable before you go around "saving" everyone with your statements. All that talk about money and manipulation, those are pretty serious allegations which you havn't subtantiated even in the slightest.

Regardless of whatever you think of him, he still would be classified by anyone of traditional learning as a bona-fide Alim. There's an old saying about scholars: beware of backbiting scholars because backs of scholars are poison. Tinmanners (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That was an exercise in futility. What was written above has no bearing on what was written as critiques of this cult and its leaders. People get divorced. Yes. It's either the fault of the man or the woman. Or both. Yes. Do the women who wear niqab at the gatherings, and within the borders of Syria and Jordan know that they have to wear niqab? They would have to be idiots if they didn't.   I'm sorry if I gave the impression that my "life's goal" was to warn people about the nefarious danger. Your mocking tone doesn't change the reality of the situation, which is very real and very well known at HQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.41.118 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Divorce and niqab
As far as divorce being forbidden or not tolerated, that is more in spirit and not in law. I am a member of Sheikh Nuh's tariq and he himself advised me to divorce my ex, as the situation was impossible. What is meant by divorce not being accepted in the tariq is in relation to the growing number of divorces in the Muslim community. His statement is to make people think about the person whom they are about the marry, and to not jump into anything thinking that divorce is the easy way out. It is important to note that the Shadhili tariqa is Shari'a based, and he does not make statements forbidding things that are allowed by Islamic law.

Women in the tariq are asked to wear niqab at the yearly gatherings (Suhba), just like men are asked to cover their heads. This is to create an environment of concentration and free from distractions. As far as outside of the suhba, women are not forced to wear niqab. Actually, he does not recommend women living in the West to wear the niqab, as it draws negative attention, especially in this day and age.

Sheikh Nuh is a murshid (spiritual guide) and he gives advice, that's it. He does not dictate the rules of one's life and is not a leader. Like he told me once, "I am a guide, not a leader. All I do is point in a direction, but it is up to you to take that path or not." Painting him as some control-freak, forcing items in the shari'a and forbidding others, is slanderous and dishonest.

--To My Dear Anonymous Murid -

Thank you for sharing your story of your ex. I suppose the only situations that are impossible are the ones dictated by Mr. Keller. Mr. Keller may think and may in fact be following the letter of the law. But that is not what my warning entails. The goings on of which I am aware are much more subtle. And insidious.

Women in the group are in fact forced to wear the niqab when in certain countries and in the environs of this group and in Amman. That much is clear, and enforced. I am sure Mr. Keller feels no compunction in owning to it. I also know that women are forced to wear certain colour of clothing (abayas only of course). Maybe some do of their own accord. That is possible. But the compulsion is there for all. BigSky 08:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

--

Big Sky, you must understand that Sheikh Nuh is the murshid in a tariqa. He only "enforces" dress codes on those who have made bayah (swore allegiance to) with him. People do not take a tariqa so that they can go against the Sheikh's directions. In fact, they do just the opposite. What is wrong with wearing niqab? Or even making your students wear niqab? He is not asking his Parisian murids to wear niqab, nor is he his students in Canada. Only those who have chosen to live in his community in Jordan. He is simply implementing the shari'a. Nothing more.

Talk of "insidious" acts sounds more like a description of Darth Vader. If this is just empty talk or a personal beef, then it should stop, but if there are real issues then that is another matter entirely. So far, it appears to be the former.

Talk about this being personal!! All the murids who are responding may or may not have personal knowledge of the issues I referred to. More than likely, you don't. So you would be doing yourselves a service by ceasing to defend what you have no knowledge of. If you think this is simply about slapping niqabs on women, you are laughable. Though I maintain that is a rather symbolic illustration for what does happen.

--

Sky, I find it interesting that you make accusations and then do not bother to expand on them. All you mentioned was niqab, "milking the US", and divorce. When each one of those items were brought up for discussion, you skirt the issue and seem to take offense that people wish for there to be some sort of substance behind a claim, and not just: "I know things you do not." This is the talk page, after all. And frankly, you aren't saying anything. So please, enlighten us.

I find it interesting that Mr. Keller hides behind these types of bully-tactic followers of a spiritual path, who do such a disservice to tasawwuf. You are part of the reason why this particular group continues to gather such a pathetic reputation, among people who've seen it for more than a blink of an eye.


 * Let's make it clear at the outset that this is not about "bully-tactics". The people who edit an article on wikipedia are people who have some kind of interest in it. When an anonymous person comes and says this particular group continues to gather such a pathetic reputation, among people who've seen it for more than a blink of an eye. and doesn't have anything to substantiate their case except ad-hominem attacks against those who refute his arguments, people are not going to be too happy. --Nkv 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To the person above who finds "this discussion problematic," I would agree with you, since this isn't a court of law, and I haven't proven much.  There would be definite repercussions if my identity or other details were known.  My purpose is to warn, raise a red flag, and urge everyone to take what you hear with a grain of salt.  There are many people inside the group, there since the "beginning," who are fairly trapped.  It is no longer the organisation they joined, and the message changed as Mr. Keller's fortunes change.

Is it true that Dr. Laura Schlessinger is required reading by this man for his students? Birmingham220 22:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is untrue - Its an muslim tariqa, and the only 'required reading' is that of Islam. If benefit can be had from other literature then by logic it is recommended by Islam, but still not a 'requirement'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AN-MEL (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The enthusiastic endorsement of the anachronistic views of the Islam-bashing Laura Schlessinger by the leadership of this group, including Keller, is well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.41.118 (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
If anyone wants to mention a note about Shaykh Nuh's Tariq, please do so in a paragraph and link it directly from the main article page. A Long dicussion is not something that someone reading an encyclopaedia entry can go through when they're just looking for information. --Nkv 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you truly wanted to "avoid a long discussion" then you should have deleted all comments, not just mine. This long discussion is on the talk page, not the encyclopaedia entry. No worries. My intent is to warn people about this group. There exist serious problems with them, my inability to expound on them in this medium notwithstanding.
 * Okay. I'll leave this here and remove the link to the talk page from the main article. Leaving the link there makes this a part of the entry in some sense and hence will have to be formatted to look like an actual entry and not a discussion. --Nkv 06:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why there's a link to salafipublications.com on the page, the article therein does not simply question or criticize Sheikh Nuh, it is inches away from calling him disbeliever and other slander. This is serious. I believe that the Salafi point of view is to be respected, for the sake of adab and ikhtilaf, but this is extreme.\
 * I feel so too but since it 'is' an article that's criticising the subject of this article, it's relevant. Lack of adab and all are separate issues. --Nkv 09:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous comments on this page clearly demonstrate that some wish to "warn" other against the "dangers" of this group without any proof, simply because they dont agree with some aspects...Is there a way that link can be removed so that if someone wants to learn about Salafism, they can simply go to the "Salafism" page? pRhyme Minister 07:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the criticism is unjustified, feel free to edit them and leave a note on the talk page saying why you did so. Thats how wikipedia works. :) --Nkv 09:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My, my, what a beautifully constructed PR web page we have going now. I have never seen "Sufis" so concerned about public image as these. As for disagreeing with "aspects," using a Sufi tariqa to secure one's place in this dunya is definitely something I disagree with.BigSky
 * If there are any references for what you say, add them. No matter how good your intentions are, it's quite hard for people to see it as anything but slander if you're not substantiating what you're saying with something. I do hope you understand. --Nkv 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop using the talk page as a soapbox!
Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your own views. If you have some well-sourced information you wish to add to the article, that backs the currently unverified claim that he has been criticised for being misogynist and has complete control over his murids, then please add it. If you don't, then stop this bickering. Unverified, unsourced opinions which are potentially libellous (as these are), have no place in the article. Read the top of the page on bios of living persons. Artichoke84 17:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS THE DISCUSSION PAGE. You have no right to censor the views expressed here. Take a look around Wikipedia. No one has touched your precious main page. This "biography" page is simply a PR tool for this man, and in no way approaches the reality of him. Stop removing this discussion.
 * Please edit the main page to reflect the "reality of him" with suitable citations. --Nkv 06:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * a) This is the discussion page for the article, not a discussion forum. It's not a place for anyone to spam "original research" (and I use that term tentatively) that could never be included in an article without it becoming potentially libellous. If you have something to add in the form of verifiable criticism by a well-known scholar or some other influential character, please add it.


 * b) This article is hardly a glowing encomium. It's too short to be satisfactory, but it states most of the facts about his life without being extremely favourable or extremely critical.


 * c) I don't have the power to censor -- I'm requesting that everyone show the good manners to follow the rules of the site. If you want to engage in polemics, it's very easy to create a website of your own these days. Artichoke84 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, polemics was never the central argument, as the start of the critique will show. The article is not "too critical"?? It's not critical at all. The article is obviously crafted very carefully for public relations and self-promotional purposes, one of very few Sufi shaikhs to present himself thusly on Wikipedia, I might add. The article is meant to be laudatory but without obvious ostentation. A sort of immodest modesty. For the uninitiated, brilliant marketing job. As for showing good manners, if the comments in response to the initial critiques are any indication, the good manners with his sycophants go out the door when even a whiff of critique rises, whether or not it's justified.
 * If you think that the article is lacking in criticism or balance, edit for for God's sake rather than gripe about it how bad it is on the Talk page. You seem to have some strong ideas about the subject of the article. If you're so sure that the page contains "immodest modesty" or that it's "crafted very carefully for public relations and self-promotional purposes", fix it! Or is there something else you're trying to say which I'm too daft to understand? --Nkv 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nkv-If you are the one who wrote this article and your intent is not PR/marketing/solicitation of manpower and funds, then this is not directed at you. Until I am able to persuade the mainstream scholars I know to "go on the record" about the acitivities of this group, I will continue to scour for a "well-known scholar or some other influential character" who will publicly voice the critiques which are well known in private circles, some of them enumerated above. I completely understand that you don't know me from Adam, so to speak, so choose not to believe me, when there are many, many followers of the man telling you otherwise. I won't adjust the article until I have the proper back up for it.
 * You sound sincere. I don't dispute that but like you said, unless you can back up what you're saying, it will just sound like libel. If you have more information about what you're saying, please let me know. If the criticism you're referring to are from a Salafi perspective (ie. Sufism is Bid'a), they're already mentioned in the article. --Nkv 06:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As was iterated at the beginning, this has absolutely nothing to do with Salafism, or theological / philosophical questions. This is about something much worse. It is about questions regarding the power and manipulation which individuals wield over the lives of hundreds, holding them captive with psychological tactics. It is about C.S. Lewis' "The Inner Ring" realized to a most ridiculous degree.

Some people have just too much time on their hands.

Are you referring to yourself?

that's interesting, as i've heard Sheikh Nuh recommend reading 'the inner ring' so that murids can understand how a clique does not exist in the tariqa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.176.231 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"No clique in the tariqa." That's probably the funniest thing I've read today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.201.188 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Impartial?
Nkv - You can't have a page about a person followed by a "criticism" (that is if you consider slander and strawmans to be criticism which is clearly absurd) without a counter criticism. This quite clearly damages any impartiality regarding this article and it would simply become a public mouthpiece for one particular group with an agenda.
 * Salams. I disagree with every point in both those links. I think they're mostly mudslinging. The only reason for putting them there is to inform readers of the article that there are people (Salafis) who criticise Shaykh Nuh. Otherwise, it imparts the idea that there are no people who are criticial of him thus compromising the "fairness" of the article. --Nkv 10:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondly the links are all essentially derived from the same website and belong to one group which actually confirms what I have said above. Both links are from a Salafi "viewpoint". If that is the case then it is a promotion of one group's view which does not constitute "general" criticism and it is misleading at best.
 * Sure, Perhaps we should mention that. Maybe we can make the sections like follows
 * "Nuh Keller has been criticised by the Salafi movement for many of his positiong. Refer and [allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/nuh_ha_mim_keller.htm]."
 * The articles are worth linking to IMHO since if you do a google search for Shaykh Nuh, the come up in the second or third place. While they're not too factual, we should atleast let people know that they're there. --Nkv 10:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if they are "not too factual" then that indicates that many elements of these articles would be considered defamation. See here :
 * Not too factual only in my opinion. Most of the Salafis I think would find those critiques right on target. --Nkv 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles[2], talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

There's no harm in mentioning that he received criticisms from those that hold a Salafi viewpoint to show fairness in the article. But people can search via the Salafi link to know why as this is part of an ongoing discourse between proponants of Sufism and Salafism. For the time being these links constitiute defamation. - Sl
 * The only significant group which I know that has critiques of him published online are the Salafis. Also, it's the 3rd or 4th link when you do a google search for his name. If you think that's irrelevant, fine. I don't think it's worth discussing. --Nkv 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before it's perfectly within Wikipedia policy to mention criticism or differing opinions on the persons creed. My issue is the neutrality of the article is compromised without a counter argument against quite clearly defamatory and strawman criticisms linked on this article. However in the spirit of unaniminity and not wanting this issue to continue (no doubt it will) perhaps it would be best if you expanded the section and linked this to a new page about the ongoing debate about tassawaf rather than allowing personal attacks on the individual.- Sl
 * Do you think it would be okay if there was a note along with the criticism which mentions this point (ie. That the Salafis are opposed to Tasawwuf in general and the criticism reflects this attitude)? Will that balance the criticism? I just get the feeling that having a pro + con (all his accolades + the criticism of the Salafis) is more balanced than only the pros even if there is no rebuttal. The Shaykh and his followers themselves probably see these articles as not worth responding to. Anyway, I don't think it's really of much consequence what WP says about him so I'll just leave it. Peace. --Nkv 16:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again people forget that defamatory links contravene Wikipedia policy. - SL

Violation of Rules
Opposing views section removed as they violate "Biographies of living persons" rules. It violates NPOV and Verifiability. - AN-MEL 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are all in line with the official Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. They are well-sourced, in English, and provide a legitimate opposing point of view on Mr. Keller.  While we are all free to disagree with opposing views, simply showcasing them as an external link is perfectly in line with site policy as long as they are not given undue weight in the actual content of the article.  They will be added again.  Please do not remove them simply because they may offend some, and especially when they clearly aren't violating any policies. MezzoMezzo 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse they're violating policies, those websites were brought under attention due to their libelous nature. If you actually read those websites they are not impartial or upholding a neutral pov and extremely libelous. There is a difference between Disagreements and attacks. They should be removed not due to 'offence' but because they're tasteless. Furthermore the website itself is not correct as it uses false information and literally misquotes published works by Nuh Keller.

ATLEAST a note should be added before the links to express their lack of credibility and nature. AN-MEL 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Extra note from WP:EL: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". AN-MEL 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the websites as naturally, disputed material should be avoided as a default. Perhaps we can re-enter those websites after a discussion AN-MEL 00:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read both sites and am not sure exactly what you're talking about. Libel is making a false claim to slander somebody and I have seen nothing of the sort on those sites.  If you feel that they quote Nuh Keller incorrectly then please provide proof and we can resolve the issue, which I will be glad to do.  But for the time being, I haven't seen any factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, just opposing views which in and of itself is not in violation of any policies.


 * As for being "tasteless", that is just an opinion. You are entitled to it but we cannot simply delete content based on our own opinions.  While the websites in questions do provide that - opinions that are opposing the individual in the article - they are simply provided as external links of well-known points of view on a controversial man so the reader may make up their own mind.


 * Lastly, there is no rule saying that disputed material should be avoided as a default to my knowledge. Again, I understand that you're coming from a policy point of view as you do seem to have familiarized yourself with the rules but in regard to that specific statement, I am not aware of any site policies stating such.  Just explain why you feel the site provides factually inaccurate information and we can talk.  But for the time being, opposing views in and of themselves are absolutely in line with site policy and shouldn't be removed simply because they're "tasteless" (which to be honest sounds the same as being offensive). MezzoMezzo 01:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Reliance
It appears that a lot of the contributors to this article are motivated by pure malice. Take for example the section describing the appendices of the Reliance of the Traveller as 'primarily polemical' while a brief glance at the contents page shows subjects ranging from Ibn Hajar's 'list of enormities to 'fasting and praying at northerly latitudes', there are also chapters on Holding one's tongue, delusions, commanding the right and forbidding the wrong etc., all of which go unmentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The entirety of the text isn't exactly relevant to the article; the translator has, however, added polemical sections not in the original text. Please assume good faith and don't outright accuse others of malice before discussing. MezzoMezzo 09:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: The translator added all the books from Book P onwards, pages 649 to 1115, which include a vast array of subjects. To say it is 'primarily' polemical is, quite frankly, dishonest. The whole article seems to have been hijacked by people who have some personal problems with the sheikh and has lost its impartiality. And I would question why you think the polemical sections of the Reliance are relevant to the article, but not the rest? It would appear you have some vested interest in drawing attention to an aspect of his work that you dislike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I deleted the rantings against the sheikh. I'm sure you'll be quick to reinstate them, but this is not the place for venting personal opinions. The pejorative language used, pseudointellectualism, neo-sufis etc. etc., calls into question any objectivity the article may claim to have. By any measure, the Reliance is a masterpiece translation, far from being pseudointellectual, it is a very thorough and carefully translated and meticulously edited work writen in a style that is accessible to any Muslim. Port in the Storm, again, a painstaking study of the qibla issue of North America, hardly pseudo intellectual. Dala'il al-Khayrat, again, where is the pseudo intellectualism in that? Neo-sufi is another one, what is it supposed to mean exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse other editors of dishonesty, hijacking, or lack of impartiality without strong evidence. I really think you should review the official Civility policy and the Assume good faith behavioral guideline, because throwing out accusations is not the way to make your voice heard.


 * Also, the talk page is not for discussing issues related to article subjects; if I gave the impression that I was trying to do that then I apologize. The talk page is for discussing the issues related specifically to the article itself.  I understand you disagree with the opposing views on the man, but not everybody holds such a high opinion of him; as editors, it is our job to display all sides of the story and make available  for readers of Wikipedia relevant information on the topic.  Nobody here is saying that the article shoud  call him a pseudo-intellectual or neo-Sufi; however, critics have called him such things and the article should make note that they did.


 * If you feel the article is too strongly favoring the opposing POV than by all means, please make the case here as this is the place to do it. However, simply deleting any information you feel is too critical of Mr. Keller is also POV; we need to be balanced. MezzoMezzo 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would extend the same civility to the ulema of this religion as you expect others to have with anonymous web bods. The article is so infested with bitter comments that it is surprising anyone would even try to pretend it is balanced. Take these example:

1) "Nuh Ha Mim Keller possesses ijazas, or "certificates of authorisation", in Islamic jurisprudence from sheikhs in Syria and Jordan although he is not considered to be a scholar outside of neo-sufi circles."

- on the one hand, the anoymous author grudgingly admits that he has ijazas in fiqh - i.e. Muslim scholars have certified that he is well grounded in Islamic jurisprudence, then without so much as a comma, the bitter wikipedia editor, or whoever he thinks he is, goes on to contradict this with a completely unsubstantiated comment.

2) "...his criticism of modern Islamic movements for being modern. This last point is particularly notable as the majority of his followers are thoroughly modern, urban, middle-class Muslims", without the slightest attempt at analysing what he has to say about modernism, the wikipediaist can only present a puerile arguement about the supposed background of his students which has nothing to do with anything.

3) "Although he has often made reference to his 'traditionalist' learning in hadith, boasting that he has studied with the respected hadith scholar Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut," I don't suuppose the wikipedia editor could provide us with a reference for this boast? You would consider this an impartial and balanced way of saying that he studied with sheikh Shu'ayb? Give me a break, and more to the point, give yourself a break.

I'll delete it. You rewrite the points you want to make in a balanced way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.202 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to warn you once again to please abide by the official Civility policy and the Assume good faith behavioral guideline. I understand that you take issue with the way the information is represented in this article, and you have the right to both be bold and to criticize the way it is written.  You do not have the right to attack other editors personally and question their motives simply for making critical information available.  You seem like a fairly intelligent person so I don't expect to have to remind you of tis again.
 * The comment is actually substantiated in the footnotes provided. Nobody is saying he isn't a scholar - it is simply a reference to critical reception.  Please do not accuse the person(s) who wrote that section of being bitter in writing it, either.
 * Whether or not it's an argument or a puerile one is your own opinion, but regardless it is publicly known criticism of a sometimes controversial individual. Again, nobody is saying this is objective fact, but rather opinion about the man, and to simply remove it because you disagree with it flies in the face of the official Neutral point of view policy.
 * I will remove the POV word boast, but do not personally attack me as you did in this point again. I am trying to work with you here so we can improve the article, this isn't some sort of a debate.
 * To recap, you have a right to take issue with the way the article was written; you do not have the right to attack the intentions of other editors and you shouldn't delete material you disagree with entirely. MezzoMezzo 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: The footnotes are to anonymous salafi diatribes against sheikh Nuh, hardly worth the bytes they are written in. If that qualifies as a reference, I'm sorry, but without intending any rudeness, your standards are low. There isn't even a caveat that his detractors are salafi-wahhabi heretics who haven't even the courage to use a made up name. We have no way to scrutinise these boys, how grounded they are in the sciences of the religion and what authority they have to comment on a scholar. I'll delete anything referring to these boys until you can find some criticisms by a scholar of note whose learning we can scrutinise.

Your defense of the modernism point makes little sense to me. My opinion is that it is a childish statement, your opinion is that it is an opinion held about the sheikh (note the passive ambiguous tense), and therefore it should stay? What makes your opinion override mine then? You also sound like an intelligent man, tell me, do you think that if sheikh Nuh's only qualm with modernist movements was their modernness, that his students would have anything whatever to do with the modern world? It's a lot more nuanced than that, Mezzo, I don't think you're quite ready to present this criticism to the world. Let's get rid of it for now.

I thank you for removing that awful word boast, but again, unless you can provide referenceable sources, I'm sorry, the whole thing is going. You can't expect us to take the word of an anonymous critic writing on Allahuakbar.net or wherever seriously. I don't need to remind you how easy it is to set up a website and write something on it. Scholarly criticism, I'm afraid, requires a little more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should review the Citing sources style guideline on the page. Sites such as Faithweb and Allaahuakbar are used as references on numerous articles and are in line with Wikipedia policies and standards; for you to remove them simply because you consider their authors heretical or lacking courage is a violation of the official Neutral point of view policy.  I'm not throwing these things out there to impress you; i'm hoping that you read them because in the long term they'll help you as an editor.


 * As for the comments on modernism, you're missing the point entirely. Not only are you trying to debate the article subject - Mr. Keller's position on modernism - here on the talk page, but you're also taking this as a "my opinion versus the references opinion".  These are both incorrect.  As I said before, nobody has to agree with the criticism, but it is well know and thus should be made available to the readers of Wikipedia.  Whether it is correct is not for you or I to decide, but rather each individual reader.  The above policy is relevant here as well, as you need to understand that you can't delete things simply because you think they're wrong.


 * As I said before, I understand that you don't agree with the criticism but you have swept through and deleted half of this article because it doesn't jive with your point of view, and nobody is going to tolerate that here or on other articles. You'll save yourself a lot of frustration if you review those guidelines I posted and the official policy and understand that we have to allow opposing points of view to be represented as well; neutrality means not swinging too far in either direction. MezzoMezzo 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please discuss any potential rewrites or large deletions here, this shouldn't turn into an edit war. MezzoMezzo 19:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: thanks for the policies I'll read them when I get time to indulge myself into this fantasy where we all pretend to be encyclopedia editors. The references may be good enough for sloppy writers, and you'll notice that I've been leaving them there for you as a peace offering at the bottom of the article under opposing views, but that's all the exposure they should have for an article of this sort. Even that is generous. Giving them the kind of prominence you have, from the opening paragraph till the end is nothing short of ridiculous.

You're missing my point on modernism. I am merely explaining to you why I am deleting it. You are yet to produce a reference for this claim, yet to demonstrate that it is 'well known', yet to explain why the background of his students is worth taking a swipe at, and so it remains childish conjecture and ripe for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to take the policies seriously, than by what standard are you declaring them unfit for an article of this sort? This is Wikipedia, so we go by the official Wikipedia policies.  If you can't explain why, with this site's own policies to back you up, why these shouldn't be allowed as references then you shouldn't delete them.  You finding them childish and ridiculous isn't a basis for their deletion as the personal point of view of editors isn't supposed to influence articles; again, please see the official Neutral point of view policy.


 * As for the modernism point, I caught your point entirely and pointed out that it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you or I think, or whether the accusations against the guy are correct or not.  As I already told you, they are indeed referenced in the already cited sources and thus are substantiated; again, it isn't substantiated that the accusations are fact but rather that many people hold that opinion.  If you cannot explain to me why those sources aren't viable per official site policy, and you continue to openly mock said policies ("this fantasy where we all pretend to be encyclopedia editors") then your deletions will be considered as both disruptive and edit warring and will not be allowed.  Please think this over because I am trying to help you as an editor at this site in the long run. MezzoMezzo 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: I'm sorry Mezzo, but whatever standards you want, those two references are useless. As I assumed, wikipedia's editorial style guide is no different from anyone else's on this matter:

"Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

Reliable_sources

so, once again, Baba's hatchet is set to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, you checked it out. You're jumping ahead of yourself, though; you posted the section about poor fact-checking and/or no editorial oversight without explaining how this relates to the named sources.  In addition, you once again deleted entire sections instead of using a dispute tag or fact tags.  You mentioned earlier that you don't consider the sources valid but you need to actually explain why first, not agreeing with them doesn't count. MezzoMezzo 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba: It's obvious. They are not valid because they are anonymous, it's impossible to evaluate the merit of an anonymous reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is clearly incorrect. The site is run by Abu Ubaydullah Anwar and the rest of the brothers at the Ansar as-Sunnah Library, about which you can read more about [allaahuakbar.net/sadaqah_appeal.htm here].  In addition, the material available on Nuh Keller on that site was prepared by a number of well known du'at including Abu Rumaisa, Abu 'Iyad as-Salafi, and Abu Talha Dawud Burbank.  In regard to oversight, they have two known web sponsors that may be found here and here and if you take issue with the site than you can take it up with them.  It is by no means anonymous nor free from evaluation.


 * Also, you really need to review the official Neutral point of view policy as your recent additions are just not acceptable at all. The tone of the edits clearly reflects negatively on the critics with statements such as "detractors who most likely have difficulty understanding what he is saying assume" and "Despite his scholarly integrity, two unknown authors have seen fit to accuse him of mistranslating and misquoting texts in order to support his polemical arguments" when it should be neutral in tone toward both the subject and its critics.  In addition, you go way overboard with positive point of view with stuff like "With its incredible detail, accuracy and comprehensiveness, it remains unsurpassed among books on Islamic jurisprudence in English" and you've also added honorifics as well.  I understand you're relatively new to using site policies but you really need to watch it with the POV here, you almost crossed the line with these last ones.


 * Since we've established the notability of the critical sources and identified the insertions of POV, i'm going to go ahead and restore the article to its previous version as there was nothing wrong with that one. Look over the stuff I showed you and hopefully it should help you out a bit. MezzoMezzo 03:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP issues
there are some WP:BLP issues involving this article. while Nuh Keller has indeed been criticised, this criticism must have been reported in reliable sources (the criteria for which are available here). irrespective of my personal opinion, faithweb and allaahuakbar.net aren't what we consider reliable for use on Wikipedia, and neither are websites that swing in the opposite direction. if you can find press reports or decent publications that report some of the criticism directed towards him, that's something different. at the same time, adulatory material should be removed and whatever is factual about him should just be stated neutrally. let's keep opinions out of this article.  ITAQALLAH  09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was rash before then, as I trust your judgment. I'll see what I can do. MezzoMezzo 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally i'd be at the gym Thursday but it's Ramadan, and to conserve energy I don't do much Thursdays. I decided to do a quick search for this since I have the free time and found some things. Not sure what to do with this for the time being but for what it's worth, I thought i'd bring it up.

I think the information from allaahuakbar.net has been taken from a few other sites, the first I noticed being Calgary Islam. If you check their Brief Clarification about Nuh Keller you'll notice a lot of the same information contained. Similarly if you check out Troid, you'll find Abu Iyyad's The Devil's Deception of Nuh Keller which, having been on their old site layout as well, I think originally came from them; their Names and Attributes of Allah article also has specific detailed criticism in regard to Keller's Arabic linguistic skills and hadith authentication, I don't think that was used by the other sites but it came up in a search I did.

Salafi Publications also has Abu Iyyad and Abu Talha's Keller Unveiled article, which I also think was used by the other sites though I am fairly sure that they (spubs) are the originators of it. I also think faithweb is down anyway for the time being rendering it unusable.

Spubs and Troid have been used as references in numerous articles on here, i'm not sure about Calgary Islam as I am not familiar with that site but from what I can tell they seem ok as far as publications go. MezzoMezzo 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: I done a lot of work on the article, please don't simply undo changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You blatantly inserted your own POV into the article; such changes will be removed. As Itaqallah brought up, I may have been rash before in regard to references, but that's not a green light to throw in peacock words and honorifics. MezzoMezzo 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, I have removed the recent insertions of POV and added the neutrality dispute tag. Let's please discuss all the issues up front here before trashing and/or rewriting the entire article. MezzoMezzo 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Mezzo, I think that's downright rude. If you want to revert it back completely, then revert it to the basic version with simple straight facts which I have been reverting to. I added a lot of stuff about the qibla, the history of his rise to prominence, some fiqh positions he holds, I don't see why you think you have the right to delete all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here on Wikipedia we are encouraged to be bold; this is part of editing and shouldn't be taken personally. Nobody here is trying to be rude to you or disrespect you, as it is entirely possible for two reasonable editors to disagree.  As for your edits.

"Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller rose to prominence in the early nineties after the publication of the fiqh manual, Reliance of the Traveller, a careful translation of sheikh Ibn Naqib al-Misri's Umdat al-Salik with copious explanatory notes by Jordan's Mufti, sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, sheikh Muhammad ibn 'Allan al-Bakri, and others."
 * I was under the impression that he was known before he translated the Reliance, but regardless his prominence and rise to it is a matter of perception here, as is the claim that his translation was careful and that the notes were copious; all three of these issues are out of line with the official Neutral point of view policy.

'''[Baba] copious is a measurable term, you clearly haven't seen the Reliance, almost every paragrah is interspersed with notes. Careful is fine, I challenge you to bring an example of a sloppily translated sentence in the Reliance''' In addition, there is already material about the Reliance under translations so it is redundant to place it here. It is also not the only thing that he is known for. In addition, you removed the neutrality dispute tag which I put up there specifically for you; I don't understand why you removed it. "The sheikh was part of a vanguard of English-speaking Muslim scholars who presented the case for traditional Islam in the West after years of discourse dominated by Ikhwani-salafi thinking. He argued that Muslim scholars have traditionally adhered to the four orthodox schools of fiqh, the two main schools of theology, and the well-known paths of Sufism, mirroring the pivotal hadith of Jibril which divides religion into three categories: Islam, Iman and Ihsan, where Islam is outward practice, Iman the creed, and Ihsan the realisation of faith."
 * Whether he was part of some sort of "vanguard", was presenting the case for "traditional" Islam, whether or not discourse in the West was dominated by ikhwani-salafi thinking, and whether his comments mirror the hadith of Jibril are all your own personal opinions.

'''[Baba] I knew you wouldn't like that, vanguard is not positive or negative, just the first line of attack, and he certainly was among the first to clearly articulate the sunni orthodox view of the salafi heresies in English. The comments about the mirroring was his arguement, read it again Mez'''

"Following a lecture tour in 1995 and the subsequent publication of his lectures in which he systematically demolishes Salafi thought, a few individuals proceeded to self-publish anonymous diatribes against him on the Internet."
 * Whether or not he demolished anyone's thought is a matter of opinion, as is the claim that the criticism constitutes a diatribe. You also didn't substantiate the claim that a lecture tour was what sparked the criticism.

'''[Baba] This line was especially for you. I knew you would be upset if I compeletely deleted that precious reference to those two neo-kharijite articles, so I worked it into the intro. Do you like it?'''

"With its incredible detail, accuracy and comprehensiveness, it remains unsurpassed among books on Islamic jurisprudence in English. Critics note that there is hardly a question a Muslim has about the central subjects of Islamic jurisprudence that is not addressed in it. The book also contains appendices that defend the positions of traditional madhhab-based forms of Islam."
 * Whether the detail is incredible accurate or comprehensive, whether or not it is unsurpassed, and whether or not his defense is of "traditional" forms of Islam is all a matter of opinion and the claim about critics noting there is hardly a question unanswered is an unsubstantiated claim.

[Baba] you got me there mezzie, need to do some more work on that section 
 * On top of this, the section you added on "A Port in the Storm" is overly long compared to the subsections on his other books and does not establish the notability of the details mentioned about it.

 [baba] it is a phenomenal book that is really underappreciated. I will expand on this at some point, but look at those qiblas established by the sahaba hundreds of miles from Makka, amazing in their accuracy, the error is too small to be corrected by turning to the left or the right, and this without the aid of a compass. No one has done a study like this, it is definitaly something for the bio This goes double for his fiqh positions, as not only is there no proof of those fiqh positions over his other positions, but as you said tose positions are completely in line with mainstream traditional opinion and since they aren't out of the ordinary there really isn't anything special about them. '''[Baba] which planet are you living on? You need to get away from the computer and travel a bit. You ever been to a Muslim country Mezzie?'''

"Keller has drawn minor criticism from anonymous Muslims. Despite his scholarly integrity, two unknown authors have seen fit to accuse him of mistranslating and misquoting texts in order to support his polemical arguments."
 * Whether or not the criticism is minor is only your opinion and, as I pointed out earlier, the claim that the critics are anonymous is clearly false. I'm not saying those references should stay as Itaqallah brought up some legitimate issues, I am just saying that what you inserted here is factually inaccurate.  In addition, the comments about Keller's scholarly integrity is just your own point of view and the pronoun "his" before polemical arguments suggests that the critics are correct and is not only not neutral but swings things over to the critics' point of view, which I know you disagree with so I don't know why you'd add that.

'''[Baba] For all intents and purposes, the references are anonymous. You can't expect a reader to go hunting around salafi bookshops for the name of the author. My comment is correct. The his was jsut left over from your version, you can delete it if you want'''


 * As you can see here, we don't want the article to swing too far in either direction. There is nothing rude about correcting an article and removing point of view, as this is an improvement of the site and not a personal slight against any editor.


 * There is also something important you need to be aware of: with your last revert, you have violated the official Three-revert rule policy. I understand this as you are new and may not have been familiar with this policy, but you need to go and revert your own edit now as you'll understand upon reading the text of the policy.  I'll leave you a comment on your talk page about this as well so you are aware of it and hopefully, you'll be able to avoid edit warring in the future.


 * After you've reverted your edit, I think we should discuss the issues with the representation of the criticism and the above sources that I found. We should hammer everything out here on the talk page to as to avoid any more reverting issues and reach a consensus.  This way, we can get a version of this article that we all agree to, as reverting back and forth isn't going to accomplish anything. MezzoMezzo 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: you obviously have a lot of free time on your hands. Are you guys salafis? We have three choices: 1) My edition of the article despite your objections (answered above) 2) Your edition despite 50% of the content drawn from two unacceptable references 3) The raw edition with neither my edits or yours

I'm not interested in arguing back and forth with you here, but I will not accept that your version is allowed to remain published with a significant portion of it based on dubious sources, while mine with your objections, which I have answered above, is deleted. None are as serious as basing half the article on spruious sources. It may be that the only version of the article we are both likely to agree with is the raw edition. What do you say Mezzo? I'll leave it for you to decide, but I'll be very dissapointed if I come back here tomorrow and find your version still live.
 * Please do not edit my comments in the future, as it makes the talk page look like a big mess. While i'm not the best at formatting myself, I think the Manual of Style guideline might help here.  As for your comments, I am a bit confused by some of them:


 * "copious is a measurable term, you clearly haven't seen the Reliance, almost every paragrah is interspersed with notes. Careful is fine, I challenge you to bring an example of a sloppily translated sentence in the Reliance"


 * Copious is a term meaning a great deal of something, but the exact measure is not known. Also, I never said the Reliance was sloppily translated so please don't put words in my mouth.  This isn't about my point of view against yours, but rather getting all point of view out for the sake of neutrality.


 * "I knew you wouldn't like that, vanguard is not positive or negative, just the first line of attack, and he certainly was among the first to clearly articulate the sunni orthodox view of the salafi heresies in English. The comments about the mirroring was his arguement, read it again Mez"

Vanguard is a bit vague, and in an encyclopedia it is best to use the most literal language possible. Also, whether or not his view is the orthodox Sunni view and whether or not the Salafi view is a heresy is merely your opinion, as is the notion that Keller's articulation of the hadith of Jibril was "correct" in a sense. There is no need to read it again because, like before, this is not about my point of view against yours but rather getting all point of view out for the sake of neutrality.


 * "This line was especially for you. I knew you would be upset if I compeletely deleted that precious reference to those two neo-kharijite articles, so I worked it into the intro. Do you like it?"


 * You didn't address my concerns, so i'll assume you're deferring on this as well.


 * "it is a phenomenal book that is really underappreciated. I will expand on this at some point, but look at those qiblas established by the sahaba hundreds of miles from Makka, amazing in their accuracy, the error is too small to be corrected by turning to the left or the right, and this without the aid of a compass. No one has done a study like this, it is definitaly something for the bio"


 * Whether it is a phenomenal book that is underappreciated, whether the accuracy of the qibla angles are amazing, whether the error is small, and whether no one has done a study like this is unsubstantiated opinion. The same goes for this being something for the bio, as you simply saying it is doesn't actually prove anything.


 * "which planet are you living on? You need to get away from the computer and travel a bit. You ever been to a Muslim country Mezzie?"


 * I'm not in the mood for games. You acknowledged that those fiqh opinions were from traditional Sunni thought and I agree.  The issue is, why are they notable?  Keller has issues literally hundreds of fiqh rulings aside from those.


 * "For all intents and purposes, the references are anonymous. You can't expect a reader to go hunting around salafi bookshops for the name of the author. My comment is correct. The his was jsut left over from your version, you can delete it if you want"


 * If you go to the allaahuakbar reference, there are several articles available on the page to be clicked on on which you may find the authors, though this point is moot as the articles on there, as I mentioned above, were taken from other sites to begin with. In addition, the new references are rather well documented and the authors known though I am still waiting for Itaqallah to weigh in on this.


 * "I'm not interested in arguing back and forth with you here, but I will not accept that your version is allowed to remain published with a significant portion of it based on dubious sources, while mine with your objections, which I have answered above, is deleted. None are as serious as basing half the article on spruious sources. It may be that the only version of the article we are both likely to agree with is the raw edition. What do you say Mezzo? I'll leave it for you to decide, but I'll be very dissapointed if I come back here tomorrow and find your version still live."


 * You keep calling the sources dubious even in the face of all evidence, as I pointed out the authors are known. You also have not answered my objections in a satisfactory manner and almost seemed to be dodging me at times.  Regardless, the criticism has now been found on multiple sources other than the original two and to say it should be deleted based on ambiguous and in some cases incorrect issues you take with said sources is a bit silly.  While we should work out disputes, Wikipedia is not a democracy; we go by what is based on site policy, not on what we can agree to leave alone.  You haven't addresses the new sources I found above and I think that even you can agree that, since an encyclopedia should be neutral, criticism should be made available to readers no matter how much we disagree with it.  I also noticed that you have failed to revert your edits; as I have said before, you violated the official Three-revert rule policy which is alright because I don't think you were aware of it, but you need to go back and change that now before we continue. MezzoMezzo 23:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

it is important to be consistent. sources like sunnipath or masud would not be acceptable on an article like Yasir Qadhi, and i am sure they would be vehemently rejected. in the same manner, poor sourcing in this article with regards to criticism of him should be removed on-sight. that's got nothing to do with whether or not i personally like him - but using these kind of sources will only prove to be self-defeating when the same standard of sources are used to push allegations on al-`Awdah's/al-Hawali's/al-Madkhali's/anyone else's article.

if criticism of Nuh Keller is significant (and connected to his notability), then we should be able to find reports of it in reliable published material. i would say that for the most part, websites aren't up to the bar as far as reliable sources on BLP's go. they aren't peer reviewed, they aren't subjected to the kind of standards demanded by respected media outlets, academic journals, books, encyclopedias, and so on. the only exceptions i can think of is online outlets of news websites, governmental websites, websites under the control of a respected publishing agency, or websites close to the subject in question (i.e. used as primary sources). any promotional material or prose that reads like veneration (which was present in the previous version by User:Baba farouq) should also be removed. see WP:RS (and WP:RS in particular) to better understand what is considered reliable.  ITAQALLAH  14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As always, the clarity you bring has diffused a tense situation. All opinions aside, what you say here does make sense and seem correct - for now, I think your edit is fine and am willing to drop the subject. MezzoMezzo 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: Thanks for being fair and reasonable brother itaqi. So where do we go from here? I have been preparing some more information about the sheikh and would like to publish it, I'm always open to being edited, with overly venerational stuff toned down etc., but my additions get always get reversed rather than edited. I'm also curious to know the reason for Mezzo's interest in the sheikh, apart from the online articles he doesn't seem particular conversant with his work. It seems strange that there should be such a fierce editor working on the bio of an author when he appears to have read virtually nothing of his works, what can he possibly contribute of value? The polemic articles published on masud.co.uk were written in 1995, sheikh Nuh has moved on since, there is plenty to say about the man apart from those articles, the bio needs to move on from there. I was trying to do this, and Mezzo kept reverting my additions arguing they are irrelevant - it seems like for him the only relevant thing about sheikh Nuh is his polemic articles against wahhabis and the rebuttals. I'm afraid sheikh Nuh is much bigger than I have prepared some more information about his fascinating research into the qibla and a short section on how he put the Dala'il together. InshaAllah at some point I'd like to put something together about the Reliance as well. However Mezzo appears to believe that it is somehow irrelevant to analyse the work of an author in his bio? To me this is ridiculous, what are we supposed to write about other than his works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba farouq (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The interest of individual editors is not important. This is about content, not editors or points of view.  As for your recent edits, you didn't establish the notability of your insertions as I explained multiple times.  In addition to the official Biographies of living persons policy, I think WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR might be of help in regard to this matter.  Also, please keep your personal comments about other editors to yourself, i've had to remind you of this too many times now. MezzoMezzo 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[Baba] bro, I was writing to the other brother, we clearly don't get on. You will never accept the notability of anything I insert, however notable it is, that's the problem. You didn't even believe that those two references were unnacceptable until Itaqillah pointed it out twice. I'm sure my rudeness to you doesn't help, but don't you think that if you are setting yourself up as the main editor of this article, that you should be able to demonstrate more than a just basic handle on the subject? It's not just a question of being a wiki nerd, which is very admirable by the way, but have you read any of his books?

Itaqillah, there is a nonsense sentence that needs to be removed, in the Port in a Storm entry "and which once is full of polemics against non-Sufis/Ash'aris." This is untrue, quite the opposite in fact. The book defends the same qibla that the salafis and ihkwani people follow, it was two different groups of traditional Muslims,in fact, who decided to pray southeast instead, based on the Mercator projection.

I would remove it myself, but the way Mezzo feels towards me at the moment, he would probably raise an objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.131.119 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I will accept the notability of something you add if you can prove the notability of it, so please don't accuse me of such an attitude.
 * 2) I recognized it when Itaqallah pointed it out because he did so in a polite manner while properly explaining via site guidelines, which he has done for me in the past.
 * 3) I'm not trying to set myself up as the main editor of this article, so again please don't accuse me of such things.
 * 4) I have no objection at all to you removing the objectionable sentence and you really need to cool it with the personal jabs.
 * Take a page from the other guy's book, if you can work with me instead of taking this personally as some sort of debate between me and you then we can get this whole thing sorted out quicker. As I mentioned in my comments to you on your talk page, my intention was never for you to take anything I say personally and I expect the same respectful form of disagreement from other editors. MezzoMezzo 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: OK Mezzo, let's try it. I read the links you provided, and I like them. Do you have any links describing what counts as being notable? 84.13.159.210 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, i'm prepared to leave it as it is and settle for what the article is now. If you would prefer we work to expand it though, then I will help; look up to not my last comment, but the one before it.  There are some good guidelines there. MezzoMezzo 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Baba here: yeah I read them already, and I like them. Let's leave the article as it is for now, I'll edit the stuff I've written already in accordance with wikipedia's stipulations probably after Ramadan. Baba farouq 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sheikh's Madhab
Is there a reason Sh. Nuh's madhab is listed as hanafi? While he has studied both the Shafi'i and Hanafi madhabs, it is my understanding that he is shafi'i.  He mentions this in several suhba recordings. Rahmaa (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly couldn't say. Do we have any references either way? MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CD 5 of the January 99 Suhba includes a track where the Sheikh discusses a shafi'i ruling, and in it, he states that he follows the shafi'i madhab. There are more references in other CDs, but that's the one I can remember off the top of my head and confirm.  I see that it's already been changed on the page, so I guess all is well. Rahmaa (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proof that he has ijazas in any of the Islamic madahib? My understanding is that he does not, something which is directly in contravention to what has been written in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.201.188 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandalism
Please do not undo other editor's additions without discussing your reasoning here. --Baba farouq (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)