Talk:Hamza Yusuf

message: hy exactly is this man from Minnesota with a Scandinavian ethnic origin (and Orthodox Christianity is certainly not prevalent in Scandinavia) listed as "Converts to Islam from Eastern Orthodoxy" and "Former Eastern Orthodox Christians"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelleigh (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodoxy?! 

message: Wikipedia does not exist to propagandize for religious teachers. The article as it stands is fawning and non-neutral. 
I'm so swamped at the moment that I don't know if I'll have time to try to edit it down to something NPOV. It would be nice if someone else could do it. 
I should perhaps add that from what I've seen and read of Hamza Yusuf, I'd probably like the guy. My comments aren't based on prejudice, but on a belief that we have to be completely even-handed. Zora 05:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, THB, for the good edits. The article is sufficiently toned-down that I think we can remove the notice. Are you done? I'll let you remove the notice. Zora 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So far as I know, he's not particularly controversial. He's a traditionalist Sunni Muslim, not a Salafi, not a New Age-y Sufi. That is, he has avoided the extremes that converts sometimes adopt. Zora 23:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire controversy part is baloney. Other than being supported by Daniel Pipes, it has no factual basis. The entire section is biased and unverifiable. It has to be fixed.
There is actually significant controversy around some of Sh. Hamza Yusuf's more moderate positions, and there is particular discomfort amongst selafi/wahabi circles to any philosophizing about heaven, sex, spirituality. They would claim that he's a closet sufi, and have taken to "warning" people about him, as his presentations of islam and jihad are in conflict with theirs. A quote from a well-distributed email critique of Hamza Yusuf by Yusuf Estes reads (in part) as follows:
"There are others involved in this "Sufi" movement as well. I have not sat with them personally nor have they corresponded with me. However, I can assure you that the teachings coming from their sources have serious errors in them and could even be considered leading out of Islam completely.
All this time, this groups such as "sufees" And "Shiites" and "Nation of Islam" and "Ahmadiyyans" and "Rastafarians" and "Moorish Science Temple" and "Ansar Allah" and "Five Percenters" and "Submitters International" are actually doing the thing that you are complaining against me: They are dividing up the Muslims through their various cults and tareeqahs. We ask everyone to come together and unify according to what Allah has ordered us in the first place, and that is to unify under the Quran and the Sunnah.
"
Which essentially summarizes the anti-Hamza Yusuf position- that EVERYTHING but their way is deviation. For the vast majority of muslims however, lumping sufis and shiites with these other groups is preposterous. So there most definitely is controversy. The radical view of islam is not compatible with the moderate one...
the vast majority of Muslims in the Muslim world are sufis. i suppose you've been totally brainwashed by your Salafi/Wahabi shaykhs.
Most studies of world religion will show you fairly clearly that Sufis, while influential in the Muslim world, are a minority and are nowhere near the majority, i.e. 50% or more.  As for controversey, yes, he does have some surrounding him.  I think every article about prominent public figures should have a section for opposing views for the sake of balance and if it makes things quicker I can find some sources for the criticism that can be added to the article. MezzoMezzo 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: "radical view of Islam". I thought there was only one view and that was Allah's and his Messangers (SAW) view. Correct me if i am wrong.
B.AlAmin
Radical simply means different to the norm - it is not a problem unless used pejoratively. 
There are a multitude of views in Islam and it is permitted to have varying legal views so long they are built on a tenable argument based on Quran/Sunnah - the only exception is core credal matters (like one god, one final messenger, Quran is from God, day of judgement etc) which multiple views are impossible due to decisive texts. Jk54 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Random thoughts

message: Sheikh Hamza denies being a Sufi.  without further proof that he IS one, then, the listing that he is a Sufi must be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munawarali (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Moonlight2001, for now I've returned the page back to the consensus version on this point. I remember how long it took to establish the consensus that he is a Sufi, and how equally long it took to establish agreement that he was actually a scholar as opposed to a daaea or preacher. I'm not dogmatic, and won't revert you if you change it again, but I'm also not convinced that your explanation here is quite enough. Can you elaborate more please, using evidence? Thanks so much. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre 02:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Moonlight2001. We have to go by the source and the source does not state that he is Shadhili, it merely states that his approach is Shadhili. MontyKind (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sufi

message: My edit is clearly sourced. So why this reverts? Pass a Method talk 07:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edit warring 

message: I added the sufism in brackets. Muslims can practise Sufism while still being Sunni. Pass a Method talk 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp 

message: Sufism and Sunnism are two different sects of Islam. Just like Shiism, Kharijitism, and "Quran alone". You can't be in two of them at the same time. You are Sunni or Shia. You are Shia or believing in Quran alone. And, You are Sufi or Sunni.
Mr. Yusuf is a Sufi. Not a Sunni. The information should be corrected in and out of brackets. If the sect of a believer will be depicted, then it should be depicted correctly.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufi / Sunni 

message: While the link to Youtube and the subject's own site aren't being used to source controversial information - nobody will claim that Yusuf is secretly a Shi'a or something - I'm not totally comfortable with their inclusion per WP:IRS. Perhaps others could weigh in on keeping the two sources here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then let's think. If we remove those two sources, is the information they support - which is absolutely true as far as I know - in danger of being cut out? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube? 

message: The article contained the following line, "He is one of the leading proponents of classical learning in Islam and has promoted Islamic sciences and classical teaching methodologies throughout the world." This is taken word for word from the book Encyclopedia of Islam in the United States (p 643) by Jocelyne Cesari. The text was amended to the following "He is one of the proponents of classical learning in Islam and has promoted Islamic sciences and classical teaching methodologies".
The Encyclopedia of Islam in the United States is a reliable secondary source (as per WP:RS). I have therefore reverted the text back to the quote from this source. RookTaker (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: The article contained the following line:
The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom reported that he "is arguably the west's most influential Islamic scholar." The source for this is http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/08/religion.uk.
This was removed for no good reason so I have re added it. RookTaker (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian Newspaper 

message: Converted all most all bare links using the semi-automated py script so removing the link-rot template. Thank you. Anothereditorishere (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflinks 

message: This issue seems to have surfaced again (see above). Dear Justice007, my reading of the regulations on honorifics, titles and credential rules out the inclusion of "Shaykh" in the lead. I therefore removed the honorific as per Wikipedia WP:Honorific guidelines. Sorry about that. My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I have replied on your talk page.Justice007 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaykh 

message: @RookTaker.  Thanks for your comment, RookTaker.  Don't we need samples of scholarship and scholarly reviews of work to see if someone is a scholar?  I understand that he is a public and popular figure, but could not find any evidence of scholarly work.  We can't rely on the media and non-scholarly claims to establish someone's scholarship.  Established figures in the academia must assert this claim for someone.  Given this, I have to revert to the old version.
: It seems as though you don't consider Hanson to be an "Islamic Scholar (Alim)" and have consequently made a number of changes to reflect this view. I disagree. According to the annual publication entitled The 500 Most Influential Muslims Hamza Yusuf is described as "the Western world’s most influential Islamic scholar." (The 500 Most Influential Muslims, p 86. ) This is a report issued annually by the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in the United States. It is edited by  Professor John Esposito. 
: Additionally,  Professor Joseph E. B. Lumbard states that Hanson is an Islamic scholar. He writes that "through the works of scholars such as Hamza Yusuf Hanson in America.." (Joseph E. B. Lumbard, Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition: Essays by Western Muslim Scholars, p 40. ).
: Media outlets have also referred to Hanson as a scholar. 
:*According to the Guardian website, "Hamza Yusuf is arguably the west's most influential Islamic scholar." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/08/religion.uk. 
:*The BBC website states that "Hamza Yusuf, a leading Islamic scholar in the US..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1591024.stm. 
:* The Al-Jazeera website states "we discuss the rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric with Islamic scholar Sheikh Hamza Yusuf." http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/rizkhan/2011/03/201139132518104910.html
: We therefore have sources from academic authorities (such as Prof. John Esposito and Prof. Joseph E. B. Lumbard) and media outlets (such as the BBC and The Guardian Newspaper) for Hanson being an Islamic scholar. This I believe suffices according to WP:RS. I will therefore readd the references above to the article. 
:Finally please do not remove content until we come to a conclusion on this page first.RookTaker (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm completely with RookTaker on this one. His argument and evidence are strong. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims to Scholarship 

message: About his born date, as u can c here interview with Alarabia TV  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhV791UyT0o) at 02:05 he said he was born in 1958 NOT as in Google 1960 -Google get the info from Wikipedia-  -the video in Arabic .
i tried to change it but  revert it . Imad_J (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi , please review WP:NOYT regarding the use of Youtube as a reliable source. According to this we read that: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website". The Muslim 500 seems to be a more reliable source as it has been reviewed by Professor John Esposito. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: birthdate wrong

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hamza Yusuf. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112171647/http://binbayyah.net/english/2012/06/19/introducing-global-center-for-renewal-and-guidance/ to http://binbayyah.net/english/2012/06/19/introducing-global-center-for-renewal-and-guidance/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219220136/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008082515395 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008082515395
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the section "Anti-Qatar Stance" as it's source seems to fail the standards of WP:RS. The publication Middle East Eye has  previously been discussed on the reliable noticeboard where it was deemed by editors to be unreliable. Also, the opinion piece in question states that "The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye" which would make it even more flimsy as a source given that it has not gone through a process of editorial rigor. 86.159.114.176 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-inserted the section. Let’s see what other editors think before you unilaterally remove a referenced section. I for one disagree with you about what consutitutre a RS, but we should get other views than just yours and mine. You’ve articulated your view. Now let’s see what others think. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For a WP:BLP, contentious material needs to be removed immediately so I have removed the section again (see the top of this page). It is upon you (or other editors) to prove the veracity of the claims from WP:RS and not upon me to disprove. 86.159.114.176 (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi my friend. I won't enter an edit war, so I won't re-add the material, but let me say this: it is not up to you or me to prove the veracity of any claims. Verifiability means that reliable third-party sources are used to present other people's claims. Even they don't PROVE the varacity of the claims. That's it. In this case you assert the source isn't reliable. Fine. Let's see what others think. I'm not dogmatic. Best wishes to you. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Qatar section 

message: Currently, we have an entire section which is dedicated to the sectarian screechings/character assasination from the Qatar lobby and Muslim Brotherhood. The long and short of it is these propagandists dislike Hamza Yusuf because he is today more friendly to the UAE rather than Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood in America are weirdly associated with the extreme-left; LGBT, Black nationalism, quasi-Marxist critical theory... basically the Ilhan Omar wing of the Democratic Party. I mean, yeah, we should mention that the Qataris/Ikhwanis and their US-based shills dislike him, but it should be an intergrated paragraph within the broader prose, rather than a whole section dedicated to sectarian Qatari propaganda. Alasdair Mac Colla's Ghost (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the reasons that WP style is to not have Controversy sections. It just invites these sorts of additions. I have changed it to a career section which will hopefully help create a more balanced article, with only notable incidents included. Ashmoo (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim controversy section?? 

message: It’s loaded with right wing rhetoric used as a dog whistle to blame the black communities for 1) single parenthood and non traditional relationships 2) ignore the legacy of slavery 
Deleted the statement that had no basis in fact and was certainly POV Kizemet (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saying that the breakdown of black families is more important than blm is racust 

message: Hello all. I’m unable to find a citation for Hamza Yusuf’s birthday. Does anyone have a source? Maryam (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday