Talk:Ali al-Tamimi

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.

"Islamic scholar"

While he did apparently teach at an Islamic center, what exactly qualifies him to be included in the Muslim scholars category? I am not that familiar with him but from what I have read here his formal education was in biology, not religion. MezzoMezzo 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali Al-Tamimi or Ali Al-Timimi?

News reports seem to use the two spellings interchangeably. It does appear that the "Al" should be capitalized, which makes sense for the last name of an American. The website altimimi.org uses the "Al-Timimi" spelling exclusively; it seems to me like the "Al-Tamimi" spelling is used more in more negative news reports — but that's not to say it's the wrong spelling. In any event, the page should move somewhere more correct: Ali Al-Tamimi or Ali Al-Timimi. Discuss. --Quuxplusone 21:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no real opinion. I just wrote the article as it was a red link on Current Events. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Court records spell the name Al-Timimi.

The man's name is Tamimi and the "al" should not be capitalized. I've always seen/heard him reffered to as Tam. and the al is never capitalized in any arabic to english writing. On the other hand it doesnt make much difference... freestylefrappe 22:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment

In the name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

  Hello. Peace be upon on the followers of guidance. 

You find in this case, as well as some others, that he was targetted and discriminated against. Normally, a crime occurs, and then the person is charged with the crime that he did. The person is targetted, and then a crime is searched for on the person. A person or group should not be targetted, and charged because of animosity and zealousness against the person or the group, but the whole population must be looked at equally, and people charged according to the seriousness of their crimes.

He believes in the afterlife and that all grudges will be settled in front of God in the afterlife. He believes that people should not transgress and in this world's life, and that people should keep patient until the afterlife. That is what he tells others. He teaches the congregation about the greatness of the afterlife. He teaches them to keep it in mind, and that the justice will occur on the day of judgement, where He God alone will repay everyone their just due.

Islam is the belief in One God, and obeying the commands of God, and abstaining from His prohibitions. The wrongs that people do are not from the teachings of Islam, but the actions of a few extremists that do not reflect the teachings of Islam or its followers. These wrong doers do not follow the imams and the scholars, but follow their own thinking and ideologies.

Muslims believe in the afterlife and keep in mind that everyone will be in front of God on the day of judgement, and He will repay everyone for their deeds. With this belief, we keep patient and tolerant of others, that might have done wrong. Everyone will have to meet their Creator, and He will give people what they deserve. The life of this world is short compared to the next life, which is eternal. God will give the full, complete and just accounting.

Do you have a point related to the article? or are u just upset because he was arrested...freestylefrappe 18:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

How does being found guilty of inciting terrorism with little evidence make one a convicted terrorist? No terrorist act was committed. Even the judge felt the federal sentencing guidelines were draconian. Including "convited terrorist" in the introduction makes this article non neutral. Why is removing this described as vandalism? Without an explanation, I will have to dispute NPOV. freestylefrappe, if you disagree with some content, please do not continue to mark it as vandalism. --Tamil 04:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Paradox

Weird that the article says he was convicted for terrorism and yet again describing him as being against terrorism in private and public. Clearly something is wrong.The Sphinx (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because he was convicted of the trumped up charges, but on flimsy grounds with an exceedingly unjust punishment. Though he was convicted in the American court, his own words (public and private) indicate, to anyone with half a brain, what he believed concerning "terrorism". Conviction doesn't prove actual association with a belief/deed, and we have several examples in American history where African-Americans and others have been similarly charged (even executed) on equally ridiculous grounds. In fact, that's one of the reasons that opponents of the death penalty cite against it (that there is no surety in many court procedures). 75.165.27.11 (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC) محمد (Sept 10, 2008) 75.165.27.11 (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the charges we not trumped up at all. Yes, it's true that a conviction does not mean someone is necessarily guilty -- it only means they're guilty in the eyes of the court. So, now, the question is as follows: is he really guilty or was he wrongly convicted. Well, in this case, there isn't much of a gray area. The evidence against him is OVERWHELMING. Unfortunately, though, the government was too stupid to follow the law through the entirety of its investigation -- the investigators performed an illegal wiretap. And their misjudgement may now foul up everything they've done so far. At the very least, it'll screw up the preceptions of the case in the eyes of the public. But, as far as the man's guilt is concerned, there's little doubt of that -- he promoted terrorism and the evidence supports that. For better or worse, the flawed legal system does not exonerate him. In fact, everything points to the fact that the system did its job correctly -- there is a mountain of reasonable evidence against the man. And, even without that lamentable wiretap, the rest of the evidence points clearly to his guilt. If there was evidence to the contrary, than the situation would be different. Then there would be a chance that he was actually innocent. But, as of now, everything points in the other direction. So it seems that this wasn't a case of wrongful conviction. ask123 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Stance on terrorism

We don't know if he is for or against terrorism. All we know is what he has said. So I removed the sentence saying that he "was noted for being against terrorism, both in public and in private." "Noted" by whom? That's a bit of a weasel word. And what does that say about how he really feels? Not much. It's like quoting a politicians speech -- is it what he really feels or what he wants to say? A person will say all kinds of things to shape others perceptions of him/her. Only he can know his true feelings on the matter. ask123 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Links screwed up

Most of the links are news articles. Those articles should be incorporated into the references. They should be used to back up the material. The External Links section is for other things, like links to the person's homepage or, in this case, links to his lectures. ask123 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the section per WP:EL. I'll post what I removed here in case anybody wants to use the sources to build up the article.

• Download Sheikh Ali al-Tamimi Lectures
• Ali al-Tamimi Audio and Video lectures
• "14 year flashback: Accusations of "Fundamentalism" and "Terrorism"
• April 2004 Dept of Justice Press Release
• "The Education of Ali Al-Timimi" (Registration required) by Milton Viorst, The Atlantic Monthly, June 2006
• Ali al-Tamimi Audio Lectures
• Muslim man convicted of urging holy war
• Prosecution Called 'Overzealous'
• Muslim cleric convicted
• Spreading Saudi Fundamentalism in the US
• Muslim lecturer fits easily in two worlds
• "Prosecuted, Not Persecuted: Why a Muslim scholar probably crossed the First Amendment line" - by Rod Smolla, Slate.com, July 27, 2005

ThemFromSpace 01:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)