Talk:Tariq Aziz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dead?

How do we know he died?

As far as I know we don't, and the article doesn't say he did. --Brion 05:03 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

He's dead again.[1] The Vatican, of all things, says he is; the US (i am an idiot btw) frantically denies it[2] but I'll wait til he's paraded by a TV camera. Kwantus 17:11, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

The picture

The picture covers the text, so that it is impossible to read the text without clicking on "Edit this page". Could someone who know how fix that? 131.183.81.100 23:20 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Okay now? -- Infrogmation 23:43 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Advocate for Christians

Didn't he act as an informal patron of Iraqi Christians?

yes, and there are citations for all the christian relalated "citation needed" parts in reference number 3. could someone please link those as the cites? I can't seem to figure out how to do it. On Thermonuclear War 03:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aziz a Christian?

I do not believe that Tariq Aziz is a Christian. A true Christian stands for what The Bible teaches and the Bible teaches against murder, rape, torture, etc...the very things Saddam's regime participated in. He does not belong in the "Christian people" category since he was a major player in that evil regime. In my opinion and going by how the Bible teaches Christians to live, the facts and the fruits of his life show that Aziz is not a Christian. Christians are told not to hang out with sinful people (Ephesians 5:6-7). Saddam's regime is sinful and Aziz stayed with them. We are told "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) Apparantly, Aziz was obeying Saddam instead of God or he would have stood up for his "Christian beliefs". Matthew 7:21 says that not everyone who claims to be a Christian will go to heaven, only those that follow God. Aziz did not follow God by being in that regime. I could go on and on, but I won't. I see absolutely no reason to put him in the "Christian people" category just because he says he is a Christian. True Christians are recognized by their fruits. His fruits are evil.--Phatcat68 12:21 Jul 27, 2005 (US ET)

It seems to me, to use a Christian metaphor, that you cast the first stone. Basically my attitude here is that it is not only good men who should be identified as Christians. If someone self-identifies as a train enthusiast that is good enough for me. If there is a Wikipedia category for train enthusiasts then he should be included. The category is for "train enthusiasts" not "good train enthusiasts". We have no need to examine the purity of his enthusiasm. Besides, you are on a slippery slope. In one Western democracy yesterday it was announced that more than 180,000 abortions happened last year. That country is run by one who identifies himself very publicly as a Christian. But he never speaks out against abortion. He also took his country to war on false pretenses (he deliberately told lies) and in that war 20,000 innocent civilians have died who would not have died if there had been no war. Using your argument Tony Blair cannot be identified as a Christian. Paul Beardsell 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I totally disagree with you when you claim Tony Blair is a Christian. Tony Blair and Tareq Aziz are not Christians any more than Adolf Hitler was Christian. All three persons are mass murderers who murdered innocent Iraqis and Jews and I would like to see Tony Blair tried like Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity under the ICC. I suggest you remove the reference that Tony Blair is a Christian as it is offensive and against Wikipedia policy. You should remove the reference Tareq Aziz is a Christian as most Chaldean Catholics do not consider him a Catholic. As nobody will refer Osama bin Ladin or Saddam Hussein as Muslims because both persons are terrorists like Tony Blair and Tareq Aziz. Islam and Christianity are religion of peace, both which accept Jesus as Christ. John Chow Chee Bhai 02:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But I do not want to use your argument. Nor do I think we should. (But even if we use your argument we cannot see into Tariq Aziz's soul.) That you (presumably another Christian) re-act with distaste that Aziz belongs to the same club is not the point. Creating a category for "saintly christians" is a possibility (although it would be horribly POV) and maybe you should exclude Azis from that category. Paul Beardsell 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It is funny that you said that I cast the first stone. I had this issue with another article that was incorrectly entered into this category. The Bible says "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all ongsuffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2). This verse means that as a Christian, I MUST point out when something is sinful (such as Aziz being part of Saddam's evil regime). Believe me, I am not casting the first stone. I wake up each day realizing the need to pray that Jesus will show me any areas in my life that I need to cleanup and asking forgiveness for my sins that I do know about. I do not believe we should create another category.

As for leaving somebody who is not a "good Christian", Christianity is a lifestyle. True Christians seek Jesus daily and live the way the Bible teaches us to. Yes, I am a born-again Christian and I totally have changed my lifestyle. I quit doing things that interfere with living for Christ and I have allowed it to become my lifestyle. The Bible explains all of the ways Christians should be and I strive for that. Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence that Aziz strives for that. I reference Matthew 7:21 again, Jesus said that not eveybody that claims to be a Christian is going to heaven because some of them are not reallly Christians. I am afraid that Aziz, unless he radically changes his ways, is one of those people. We need to keep this category clear of people who dod not live the faith like it should be lived. One of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7) Besides using his name as a profanity, it also means not to claim Christ as our Saviour and then go out and live the opposite. Aziz's lifestyle fits the opposite. I am not judging him, I am discerning his fruits by his lifestyle as I am told to do. He should not be in the "Christian people" category. People should not get the wrong impression of Christians by seeing his name in this category and I will continue to remove him each time he is added for the above reasons. P.S. I have never heard that Tony Blair claimed to be a Christian. --Phatcat68 08:11 Jul 28, 2005 (US ET)

Tony Blair doesn't just claim to be a Christian, he is one. That he is perhaps not the best Christian is my point: He is still a Christian, but maybe not a good one. Bush similarly. There are countless Christians of whom many Christians such as yourself might not be proud, but they are Christians nonetheless. That Aziz identifies himself as a Christian makes him one. You are very probably right to believe he is not a good one. And, of course, I too would be embarassed by him were I a Christian. Paul Beardsell 12:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Christian project (by which I mean to say nothing bad about Wikipedia). Articles cannot be judged purely from a Christian perspective. And certainly not only from one Christian's POV. What now? We seem to disagree. I have sought others' opinions here. Paul Beardsell 12:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not about my personal opinion. The Bible is the ultimate authority over what a Christian is and what a Christian is not. Jesus himself said that (see Matthew 7:21) not everybody who thinks they are a Christian is one. If somebody does not use The Bible as the authority on what defines a Christian, then they are not using the defining factor that should be used. I agree that Wikipedia is not a "Christian project", but it should have reliable and accurate information. If it is going to do that, people like Tariq Aziz, whom The Bible shows are not true Christians, should not be listed as "Christian people". Phatcat68 08:52, 28 July 2005 (US ET)

I do not share your opinion that the Bible is the "ultimate authority". Throughout Wikipedia people and groups and even nations are identified as Christian. And they are so identified not using your test. Paul Beardsell 13:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

And as I said before: Slippery slope. Unless it is your intention to remove George W. Bush from the list. (Note I do not want him removed from the category. I am just saying using your test he might fail. Controversial, but it illustrates my point.) Paul Beardsell 13:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep comparing George W. Bush to Tariq Aziz. Aziz is part of a murderous regime while Bush has stated his Christian beliefs and attempts to put Christian values back into America. There has never been a "Christian nation" as far as following God 100%, but Bush is at least trying to lean toward the United States following God more. The only things they have in common is the claim of being a Christian and that they are (or were) men of power.

As for The Bible being the ultimate authority on how Christians are defined...The Bible is the Word of God. Ask any Christian and they should tell you that they follow what it says and believe it is the Word of God. If they don't, they need to re-examine why they are a Christian because the name "Christian" comes from being followers of Christ. Jesus was and is the Christ and was God in the flesh, so Christians follow God and The Bible is His Word. That is why it is the ultimate authority and as I explained above, Tariq Aziz does not fall into the category of being a Christian in the least. -- Phatcat68 12:16, 28 July 2005 (US ET)

Bush attempts to impose his values on America. Whether those values are Christian depends on your point of view. Bush is a staunch supporter of the death penalty, which in the opinion of some is diametrically opposed to Christian values. Some people feel that Christian values are about being humble, loving one's neighbor, and helping the poor, while Bush is arrogant and aggressive, and helps only the rich. Yet the fact that Bush's behavior doesn't fit in with their idea of Christian values does not give them the right to deny that he is a Christian. By the same token, the fact that Aziz's behavior doesn't fit in with your idea of Christian values does not give you the right to deny that he is one. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If behavior is what defines a Christian, and Aziz is not a Christian, then neither are about half the Popes. --Carnildo 17:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

'Christian' refers also to an ethnic group here 82.70.155.252 13:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tkexi991 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Tariq Aziz is a Christian - which is evidenced by his personal relationship with the Pope, his advocacy of the Chaldean Christian community, and his refusal to become a Muslim (it would be to his advantage to do so). I also despute the one-sidedness of the main article... there was no innocents in Dujail.

Tariq Aziz is a lapsed Christian and so hardly Christian. AFAIK, the Vatican ex-communicated him for his racist and murderous policies on some 100,000 Kurds, of which 40% were Kurdish Christians. It is an disgrace to call Tareq Aziz a Christian, who is no different from Adolf Hitler. John Chow Chee Bhai 02:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

This is a peculiar argument, and it's difficult to see why anyone's taking it seriously. Of course Aziz is a Christian; that he's not a good person is irrelevant. Perhaps he's a bad Christian, but there's no contradiction between being a Christian and a bad person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Aziz's profession of adherence to Christian doctrine and failure to practise it in some parts of life, public or private, does not allow one to exclude him from being characterised as a Christian. Wikipedia is in no more in a position to name anti-Popes than it is to excommunicate or defrock the subject of an article for hypocrisy or contradiction of anyone's theological views, including their own. Similarly one cannot refuse to reference Saddam Hussein's membership in Iraq's Sunni Arab minority because he is charged with monstrous acts incompatable with Koranic teachings or Jim Bakker as an evangelical because he committed adultery and defrauded his flock.

It would, however, be interesting and properly encyclopaedic to summarise how Aziz is viewed by his co-religionists in Iraq. Have they denounced him? Did they at any time accept him as a member of their community? How unified is that community, and how controversial is Aziz in it? Buffyg 23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Good idea. Paul Beardsell 00:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I must say again, that it is not my beliefs that says Aziz is not a Christian, it comes from the Word of God, The Bible. The Bible shows what a Christian is supposed to act like. That is why it is not as strong as it ought to be...because too many people who claim Christianity don't follow the Bible and nobody believes that it is a necessary thing to do anymore. The Apostles followed it and followed Jesus' teachings and went out and spread those teachings. We Christians have let our religion become so watered down that a person who is in a regime that murders people and allows their President's son to rape women can say that they are a Christian and never speak out against what their own regime does, and everybody accepts his claim. This should not be so. Aziz is not a Christian.

"Perhaps he's a bad Christian, but there's no contradiction between being a Christian and a bad person." This quote I have a major issue with. A person who is trying to be the best Christian they can be will make some mistakes, but they will not knowingly commit evil upon others and will not knowingly commit sin. To say that there is no contradiction between a bad person and a Christian is what I was talking about in the above paragraph. Our religion is not making an impact on society or that statement could not be made and Aziz could never claim to be a Christian and have people believe him. As for the statement about several Popes not being Christians due to their behavior, Matthew 7:21 quotes Jesus as saying that all people who call out to Him (claim to be a Christian and belong to Him) are not all Christians. Only those who follow His teachings truly love Him and are Christians. True Christians want to follow Him because He came to Earth as a human and died for us and rose again on the 3rd day so we could have eternal life if we get saved. That is so impacting that true Christians want to follow Him because we can never pay Him back for what He did for us. Aziz is not doing that by participating in such an evil regime. Aziz is not a Christian and people who do not attempt to follow Jesus are not Christians. Yes, Christians make mistakes but you can tell who loves Jesus more than the world by their fruits. Aziz's fruits are evil. As for what his peers think in Iraq of his claims to be a Christian, it does not matter what other people think...The Bible is the ultimate authority over what a Christian is because it is the Word of God. Phatcat68 21:15, 28 July 2005 (US ET)

Please stop.

While I think Mel's remark unnecessary, I think so only because it's dragging out a sideshow and that the remarks you have just made are ultimately irrelevant to determining whether Aziz should be referenced as a Christian. Wikipedia is not here to advance any line of theological interpretation, dogma, or prescription, which is, I must insist, what you are doing here. If you care to cite a claim from a religious authority with specific reference to Aziz or contemporary Christianity in Iraq (quoting Scripture here is insufficient) to provide evidence that his religious identity was controversial and express this in an NPOV manner without betraying any sign of making an editorial point of your own, that's fine. As I have already stated, there are avenues of approach with which I could fully agree. What you have just said is, however sincere a matter of personal convinction, standing on the soapbox of your religious views. I am not disagreeing with those views; I am trying to emphasise to you that, as dogmatic theology, they are not a usable source of guidance here. I take your disinterest in the views of Iraqi Christians as an indication that your insistence on this point is inconsistent with the encyclopaedic imperative that both demands discussion and limits it to the interests of improving the article. In the context of sectarian politics in Iraq, there are reasons to refer to Aziz as a Christian despite his behaviour in office, just as there is reason to reference Hussein as a Sunni, despite his being regarded as an apostate in most Islamic quarters. Buffyg 01:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In other words, it is your beliefs that say Aziz is not a Christian. It is your belief that the Bible defines what a Christian is, your belief that failure to follow the Bible makes someone not be a Christian, and your belief that Aziz did not attempt to follow the Bible. --Carnildo 01:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would you consider Pope Sergius III, Pope John XII, and Pope Alexander VI to be Christians? --Carnildo 01:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

All Popes or Bishops of Rome are very observant Christians. Only a person who has an anti-Christian bias will claim some Popes were not Christians. --John Chow Chee Bhai 01:28, April 2007 (UTC)

• "While I think Mel's remark unnecessary, I think so only because it's dragging out a sideshow". Er, this page was placed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Religion, and I responded; that's what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I might add that my three short sentences did less to "drag out the sideshow" than your fifteen, often very long sentences. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, in replying to PhatCat68 I meant to acknowledge that your remark that "Perhaps he's a bad Christian, but there's no contradiction between being a Christian and a bad person" was likely to be received as a basis for objection (I'd reckon the the statement is over-generalised and accordingly requires some additional qualifiers) and therefore cause for further debate rather than the provision of criteria that would help build consensus. PhatCat68 has not yet accepted the idea that his reading of the Bible and selection of Scripture citations he regards as authoritative here remain matters of sectarian theological dogma and that using these alone to justify an edit is unacceptable, particularly where PhatCat68 demonstrates that he is uninterested in seeing even how Aziz's specific professed creed views him; we're not going to have any consensus here until this point is accepted. My view is that your remark invited further argument of personal dogma, which is a sideshow and quite different from arriving at a consensus on the edit in question. I did not mean to disparage the rest of your feedback on the RfC or the fact that you did reply. Buffyg 09:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am now finished with this entire argument. Nobody has listened to my argument and I will not bend on my faith. I cannot, so therefore, I am not going to participate in this argument any longer. The Bible teaches that Christians are not to argue with unbelievers once they have shared their viewpoints. I will be doing that as of today. I feel that Carnildo, Paul Beardsell and Mel Etitis are just trying to provoke me anyway, and I do not wish to fall into that trap. If the truth about the matter does not want to be heard, then that tells me that Wikipedia is not such a great encyclopedia when it comes to anything related to Christianity. As for the question about what I think about the Popes Carnildo asked about...please read The Bible and compare their lives to it and you will see what I think, because I know that The Bible is the ultimate authority on what defines a Christian. I am done now. Sorry to violate the RfC when I didn't know what it was. Also, thanks for the heads up on the three-revert rule Carnildo. I give up on this one. I know the truth in my heart...you all can classify Aziz as a "Christian" but God knows his heart. Phatcat68 07:49, 29 July 2005 (US ET)

So, mate, why don't you denounce President Bush as a non-Christian? He often breaks the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Regards, Andrew.

The Bible does not say "Thou shalt not kill" and I believe the translation you are using is bad. The correct translation according to all reputable Catholic scholars is "Thou shalt not murder". There is a big difference between kill and murder. Legitimate killing (in a wartime) is called execution. Saddam Hussein was not murdered by the Iraqi government but rather executed. --John Chow Chee Bhai 01:28, April 2007 (UTC)

Franco and Mussolini were christians...

No they were not just as Adolf Hitler was not a Christian. I'd not consider Saddam Hussein a Muslim as he broke every Islamic law, especially the law that forbids murdering human beings. John Chow Chee Bhai 01:28, April 2007 (UTC)

What is a Christian?

Some people here think that behaving in a manner Jesus himself might (WWJD) or in a manner consistsant with scripture is required to be a christian. If so, adherents.com and the CIA factbook are way off-base, and Christian needs a rewrite ASAP. With so many people defining this in so many ways, and with so many denominations taking extremist stances (I believe Jehovas witnesses think they are the only Christians currently existing, for example), all we can do is allow people to define themselves. If he calls himself christian, he is one, for encyclopedic purposes. If some authority or expert rejects his claim to christianity, that can be cited in the article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. No one can definitively state who is and who is not a Christian. There are differeing definitions of Christian and ultimately it is a No true scotsman logical fallacy. The most palatable way to resolve this is to let people self identify and take their self identification as which religion they adhere to. No one gets to say who is and who is not a Christian, except for the individual making the claim. --JPotter 23:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Right, and if some guy w a tall hat excommunicates them, his POV can be included, but thats all it is, a POV. Ones faith is between them and God, and talk page excommunications my anonymous non-popelike users are not notable ;) Sam Spade 23:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The Meaning of the Name Tariq Azeez

He changed his name to Tariq Aziz, which means "Venerable Path"

The translation of the name is laughable as any Arab will attest that Tariq is different from Tareeq (road or path)... Tariq means that which comes at night http://www.islamonline.net/surah/english/viewSurah.asp?hSurahID=101

Also "Azeez" corresponds exactly to "dear" (and similarly is used, in the possessive form "Azeezy", as a salutation in letters.)

Tariq does not mean History either; History is Tareekh تاريخ