Talk:Abu Izzadeen

Did he really mock victims of "9/11 & 7/7"?

I watched the video, the title of which is biased,and put across a certain point of view, and I don't think he mocked the victims per se, It ssemed he found it amusing that a lady was there who was also at the previous bombing in 1993. Dark humour,certainly, but mocking? Also I don't think he threatens that there will be more attacks,he says there is likely to be more attacks if the actions of the British govenment and the west continue. Quite the difference in a court of law under incitement laws.

It is something that needs to be cleared up, and it is also repeated on the al-Ghurabaa entry. AnarchoGhost (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible violations of Neutral POV, reliable sources guidelines

The article states that Izzadeen "claimed to have attended terror training camps in Afghanistan", and cited two links, neither of which indicate that he made any such claims. Can some verifiable sources be provided for these claims?

Also, the statement that he "has openly stated that he wishes to die as a suicide bomber" is cited back to the claims of an anonymous undercover reporter in a piece by the Times of London. The Times, however, failed to provide any kind of direct quote from Izzadeen. This, to me, is troubling. Did Izzadeen say, for example, that Iraqis / Afghanis dying while trying to kill occupiers were, essentially, holy warriors, and that he wished that when he died, he could die as well as they did? If so, this has a very different meaning than a direct quote that he wants to actually be a suicide bomber.

As the Times article doesn't provide any such direct statement, and given the anonymous nature of the reporter, it seems to me that what was said wasn't entirely "openly stated", as claimed. For this reason, I am editing the article to say that "An undercover reporter claims to have heard Izzadeen state that he wished to die as a suicide bomber."

Video link

This link entitled, "British Islamist parasite defends London bombings" is problematic due to BLP concerns. Is there another more neutral link for that video? (→Netscott) 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of a source is irrelevant. You cannot source to a blog under any circumstances, so if the content is re-added it will need to be either from Youtube or a non-blog source. KazakhPol 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you're only half correct... blogs that are under the editorial control of reliable sources can be cited. What cannot be cited is personal blogs, etc. (→Netscott) 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deen parenthetical definition

I've been trying to keep from the quote of this man being dumbed down by referring to "deen" simply as "religion". There's no reason to not include a fuller explanation of this word particularly when the very sources cited for it describe "deen" as "Muslim code of life". Hugedummy (talk · contribs) appears to think it is essential to not provide a fuller understanding of this word and I'm left wondering, why not? (→Netscott) 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are linking to the term then the level of detail in the description on this page is moot. 'Religion', and 'Muslim code of life', are both incorrect, so that may have been why Hugedummy did not want that definition. Islam is deen. Communism is deen. Deen is not the Muslim code of life. KazakhPol 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello KazakhPol, welcome to the talk page. I suggest we use the very cited article for the quote per verifiability and just use "Muslim code of life"... Otherwise can you provide another reliable source that has the quote and is using the world "ideology"? To be perfectly honest despite having studied this for quite some time I've never seen the term "ideology" used to as a translation for "deen". (→Netscott) 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Taqiudeen an-Nabhani, in The Islamic State, defines deen as ideology. KazakhPol 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest if we do not simply use the cited source (as is the typical Wikipedia convention in this type of case) we use a well recognized and neutral source for the definition. I must admit that any one word attempt at specifying what "deen" is appears very problematic knowing what I know about the term. (→Netscott) 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be uncivil, but if you know so much about 'deen', why did you suggest "Muslim code of life" when the article on deen says it's also used by Christians, Jews, and ancient Persians... KazakhPol 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Again that is the convention on Wikipedia, we utilize the wording as it is used in our cited sources. (→Netscott) 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked by Scott to give my opinion on this matter. Well, i got to illustrate three points but first let me give here an etymological background of the Arabic term:

• Deen (root D-Y-N د ـ ي ـ ن) literally means a debt. In a religious context it means obedience to some authority.

1. The term Deen is not solely restricted to Islam in particular.
2. It is often translated as religion for convenience since there is no equivalent single satisfactory non-Arabic words.
3. The term Deen covers not only the religious aspects but also morality, practices and everything related to a belief. It deals with all aspects of human life; belief, intellectual, moral and practical. In fact, it is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

So, in our context, Izzadeen refered to the Muslim code of life according to Islam's teachings. Maybe a footnote should be added to clarify those points. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Section title

I propose that we change the section title of "political activities" to something a little more descriptive. Honestly, that seems to be majorly sugar-coating the article as the individual openly supports terrorism. There are much less controversial figures that have more descriptive titles. I really think something like "alleged support of terrorism" or at the very least "controversy" would be more apt. I'm looking for some feedback on this. MezzoMezzo 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Feb 2007

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/02/05/leading-london-islamist-put-on-trial-for-supporting-terrorism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert C Prenic (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Release

The BBC article covering his release indicates that he has served all but 1 year, but I'm having trouble reconciling this; he would have been remanded in Nov 2005 for this to fit. I'll leave it to others to find out what actually happened. CS Miller (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abu Izzadeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1250721,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/08/britain.arrest.reut/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427115757/http://uk.news.yahoo.com:80/afp/20070424/tuk-britain-attacks-arrests-a7ad41d_1.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070424/tuk-britain-attacks-arrests-a7ad41d_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

The source number 10 has been deleted from the times website, nice censorship, although it was archived and can be accessed with this link: http://archive.is/qrU7N

Please update the number 10 source to accurately go to the right destination. 96.230.228.124 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Already done the archived link seems to have been already added at this time, is currently source #16 Cannolis (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Arab-born wife?

"He and his Arab-born wife Mokhtaria were married in 1998." What does Arab-born mean? Arab is an ethnic designation, like Black, Jewish or Slavic, that can refer to people from many countries. If Izzadeen's wife was born in Saudi Arabia, the article should say so. If her country of birth is not known, maybe it would be better not to refer to it at all? Richmetcalf (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right: it's meaningless. I've removed the idiom and changed the syntax ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Westminster Attack

There are a reliable sources identifying Izzadeen as the attacker. I think that someone could start editing?

• The Independent

GNozaki (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The BBC announced his name, but are currently back-pedaling.. apparently he's still in prison.. personally I'm waiting for it to hit news.bbc.com JeffUK (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

So are Channel 4! 2.121.174.48 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The independent have contradicted this themselves.. let's wait for an official announcement, or at least a wider consensus:

"However there were conflicting reports after a producer working for the US news network ABC said she had spoken to Izzadeen's solicitor, who “confirms to me that he is still in jail and could not have been the attacker”." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/abu-izzadeen-london-attacker-named-met-police-westminster-terror-a7644661.html JeffUK (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Independent have now taken their original report down. Keri (t · c) 19:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Channel 4 just stated they'd been told that Abu Izzadeen is still in prison. Keri (t · c) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not confirmed. The Independent (and apparently Channel 4) have retracted the report. We should await official confirmation of identity at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• Izzadeen's solicitor has stated he is still imprisoned at this time AusLondonder (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Channel Four and the journalist have now admitted they were wrong about Izzadeen. Shows the importance of us not including every bit of media speculation AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope

Needs an edit to remove death which is unverified except by retracted speculation and highly likely to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.212.139 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a small blurb in the bio noting that he was widely misidentified as being the perpetrator of the Westminster Attack? TAG (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if you could provide a source for that.. I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic ..besides until the attacker is named officially, we can't say that he was misidentified any more than we can say that he did it. JeffUK (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)