Talk:Hamza Yusuf

Eastern Orthodoxy?!

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)

Most of his youth was spent in the Greek Orthodox Church. It has little to do with his Ethnic Origins. THere are many references available if required. Munawarali (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

POV

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)

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)

POV removed after minor edits. I am not familiar with this person so if there is a lot of criticism of him or something someone else will have to add it. I only removed the gushing. THB 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think the article at its stands in reasonably neutral, but still I would like to make it more fact based. It appears to be moulded around the original Biography of Shaykh Hamza on the Zaytuna website. If I get time I could redraft certain parts of it, within the next week.

One another point to add, though Mr. Hanson has become a pacifist, he in the past has not been neutral on the issue sorrounding Israel and Americas support towards it. It is after 9/11 that Mr.Hanson has made a 180 turn for the better.

Pacifism, a turn for the better? Is that relevant to anything?

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)

More Random thoughts

"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)

Sufi

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)

Hamza yusuf is a proud sufi and he does say he is. He promotes tassawuf. only sufis do that. just google or youtube and you will find him talking about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islam22306 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Islam22306 - You're on Wiki. You need to provide citations for anything you say. "Just google it" is not a citation. - Munawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munawarali (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this may not meet encyclopediac standards, but from a few of Yusuf's speeches/writings I think it can be safely inferred that while he recognizes Sufism as a valuable Islamic science, he believes that authentic Sufism was hijacked and no longer truly exists, and thus may not technically be considered "Sufi". Also the claim that he belongs to the Shadhili order seems dubious - the article it's referenced to says he describes his approach to spirituality as Shadhili, which does not entail he belongs to the order. Moonlight2001 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Moonlight2001

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)

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)

IP edit warring

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

Temp

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

Sufism is actually an important part of the Sunni tradition, and therefore I do not have a problem with the above noted edit. But to say Sheikh Hamza is of the Sufi sect is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.43.73 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sufi / Sunni

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)

Wow, unfortunately you are extremely wrong. Sufism is part of Sunnism. You can be of the Sunni tradition and on the sufi path; they are not mutually exclusive. Although you are correct that there are people who identify themselves as being part of the Sufi sect, Hamza Yusuf does not. Please see the references to this point. In the youtube video referenced, Hamza Yusuf himself states that he is of the Sunni tradition. Please educate yourself on the differences before you make such statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.43.73 (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirection

I have added a redirection template for the politician Humza Yousaf on the basis that he has a similar title to the subject as per WP:DISTINGUISH. I have added this because whilst attempting to search for the subject I mistakenly typed the name ‘Humza’ and found myself on the politician’s page. They have the exact same name just spelt differently, therefore the claim that “it is nowhere near close enough for a mix-up to occur” would seem a matter of opinion. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tanbircdq, yes, you are right that this is "a matter of opinion". But I am an experienced editor and this, sorry to say, IS my opinion. You are basing your unnecessary edit on your own experience, but apparently on nothing else. We disagree. It's not personal. Maybe another editor will join the discussion. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why you felt the need to highlight that you are an “experienced editor,” are you suggesting that your opinion is correct because of this? I did not think this was personal until you made what appears to be a fairly arrogant and patronising statement.

I have made the edit based on the guidelines defined in WP:DISTINGUISH, which states that distinguish is added on “top of articles with deceptively similar titles.” The edit was an application of this in good faith to help others who may encounter a similar problem to myself. Whereas you have repeatedly reverted this edit based on your own opinion that “it is nowhere near close enough for a mix-up to occur.” Since I have given you a valid explanation justifying how a mix-up has and can occur, you have added nothing to support your claim that distinguish should be removed from the article other than your opinion that it is “unnecessary.” As we disagree we will await a third opinion from other editors to reach a consensus on this issue, however in the meantime please avoid WP:EDITWARRING. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tanbircdq, I have made 16,000 edits and never once been accused of edit warring. No need to get personal. I edit in good faith; as you do. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, I apologise if that is how it may seem. I merely asked you why you felt the need to point out that you are an “experienced editor,” which I think in context implies that your opinion is more credible than mine, which I have found quite insulting. 16,000 edits does not make you immune from error either. These comments about yourself appear to be inappropriate and unhelpful for discussion pages, how about we keep the discussion about the topic in question?

I think I have made my point fairly clear; “Humza Yousaf” and “Hamza Yusuf” are the same name spelt differently and therefore deceptively similar titles. If you incorrectly search Humza Yusuf with the intention of attempting to find the subject’s article, you will find that the politician’s page is the only page that appears on the result(s).

If indeed you do not edit war then in the interests of good faith instead of continuing to revert the edit based on your opinion that the names are not close enough for a mix-up and that the edit is unnecessary, is it not more constructive to let the edit stand until a valid reason is put forward for it to be removed? Tanbircdq (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, do you actually have a reason for repeatedly removing this template, or is it just because you're an experienced editor? Shii (tock) 02:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tanbircdq, thank you for your comments. My edits are no more worthy than yours. But I have the right to make my edits, as you do. This is not an edit war; it is merely a difference of opinion. I do not agree with you. Lots of names are similar, some "deceptively" so. They do not all have or need disambiguation / redirection. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Shii, thank you for your question. What is your opinion of the redirection? You don't say. If you think the redirection is helpful or necessary, then YOU should please add it again, or at least say that you want it added again. I always fall in with an editor consensus. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The two names look similar to me, especially since Arabic spelling is not totally standardized. So, I would keep the redirect. Shii (tock) 12:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm replying to the third opinion request. The standard practice with similarly named articles is to distinguish them at the top of the article. Searching for "Hamza Yousaf" redirects here, so it's relatively easy for someone to come to this article when they want to get information at "Humza Yousaf," especially if they're playing the name by ear. It's a convenience to our readers, so that they know that there is an article on Humza Yousaf. Of course, the article on Humza Yousaf has the same "not to be confused with" template. I hope that this is a decent explanation for why the use of this template is so helpful to our readers. Happy editing! Xavexgoem (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and thanks very much to everyone. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I've just read this thread, that GorgeCustersSabre is really arrogant and patronising as well as pretentious. There's fighting a losing battle but no need to make a complete fool of yourself mate, jeez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.17.66.1 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At least I sign my comments and am prepared to admit I'm wrong when I am. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good for you, am I supposed to be impressed by that? Seeing as you're such an experienced editor with 16,000 edits to your good name, maybe you can show me how you managed to master the art of that?

At no point did you admit you were wrong here, as the countless refutations fell on your ignorant ears. All you did was state that you agree with editor consensus. Unless of course you actually still think you were right?

I'm not here to fight any battles with you, I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself again mate. I just read this and pointing out the obvious, as others here seemed to be biting their tongues and being overly polite with you. You didn't come away from this with much credit and made yourself look pretty stupid to be honest. 178.17.66.1 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Youtube?

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)

Dear MezzoMezzo, yes, you are right. I feel the same discomfort. The page is better than it was but there's plenty of room for improvement (same for the Zaytuna College page). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Source

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)

Guardian Newspaper

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)

Honorific prefix

An editor Justice007 removed the honorific prefix from the infobox stating the reason as WP:CREDENTIAL while honorific prefix is allowed in infobox per WP:HONORIFIC. I have also messaged the concern editor about this[1] but didn't get any satisfactory reason so I have added it back. Please, discuss here before reverting me. Thank you. Anothereditorishere (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I still stand on my point, first you provide the reliable sources that the Shaykh falls under WP:HONORIFIC, and where from and how he received and he is well-known with this honorific name, while it is also just a family name (caste) in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and other parts of South Asia even worldwide. Justice007 (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources for the honourific title Shaykh being used for Hamza Yusuf. Please read for example Educating the Muslims of America by Yvonne Y Haddad, p 15. ISBN: 0199705127 or for example media sources such as the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3087728.stm), The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/28/rethinking-islamic-reform-ramadan-yusuf) and al-Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/rizkhan/2007/06/200852519340511165.html). RookTaker (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

All sources have just mentioned the full name, there is not a specific description that supports it is a title. There are multiple reliable sources for this purpose that anyone can claim a part of the name as a title. Justice007 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot understand what you are saying. In the book Educating the Muslims of America we read the following "One of Zaytuna's founders is Shaykh Hamza Yusuf". In the BBC link we read "Our guest today is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, founder of the Zaytuna Institute in California". In the Guardian link we read "Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, a charismatic white California-based American who converted to Islam in 1977". In the al-Jazeera link we read the following "Sheikh Hamza Yusuf The American Islamic scholar discusses building bridges between Islam and the west." It seems absolutely clear that the honourific title Sheikh is used for Hamza Yusuf.RookTaker (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not addressing the question that I am asking, in general terms we also use the main space title of the article to infobox leading name. "Shaykh" is also kind of a degree, if we start to adding to infobox with leading titles, it means we are going to allow all degree holders as like professor, Dr , Mufti, molana, etc. I do not see any article's infobox displaying honorific names such as I mention, and Shaykh is also one of those. Justice007 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Sheik", "Shaikh", "Shekh", "Sheikh" or "Shaykh" is kind of a degree (unless you have several independent reliable references to conclude that). Shaykh is an honorific prefix given to distinguish leaders of Muslim community. Since, there are several mentions of him with this honorific prefix thus I don't see any problem to keep it in infobox.Anothereditorishere (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• You should read the description of the Shaykh, it is even not a degree but just a degree honour, less than a degree. If Shaykh is an honorific prefix given to distinguish leaders of Muslim community., you should prove giving reliable sources that when and where he has been awarded the title and by whom or by which institution??. Please do not insert your own definition. This article is just being edited per WP:I don't like it, content of the article falls under WP:Puffery and WP:Promotional. If you do not mind, you seem to have more than one account, and it falls under WP:Sock puppetry. Justice007 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• The lead section of Shaykh says ...Shaykh — is an honorific in the Arabic language that literally means "elder" and carries the meaning "leader and/or governor". It is commonly used to designate the front man of a tribe... like for Rabbis if we have reliable reference citing name with prefix Rabbi then this is enough to mention him as a Rabbi not necessary to find sources as to when or who gave it to him. And there are sources given that mention Hamza Yusuf with the religious honorific prefix Shaykh. [of religious honorifics and titles] also list Shaykh as honourfic title. You may read this journal[2] too. WP:I don't like it is for Afd. If you think contents falls under WP:Puffery and WP:Promotional then point out for more neutral editing or be bold and remove yourself. I don't have more than one a/c in English Wikipedia. I edit mainly in Bengali Wikipedia but that a/c doesn't exist on English Wikipedia. If you think this is sockpuppetry then feel free to take me to SPI. Thank you.Anothereditorishere (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I consider it reasonable to require a nautral and reliable source to substantiate that someone described as a shaykh has actually received ijazas or completed a recognized course of study. Take the case of Abdur Raheem Green. He has a facebook page in which he self-styles himself as Shaykh. He has no qualifications and no ijazas. He's a daee. If he gets speaking engagements and the organisers start to call him shaykh merely because he calls himself shaykh, what will we do when an editor adds this honorific to his Wikipedia page? Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The following link (http://themuslim500.com/profile/shaykh-murabit-al-hajj) from "The Muslim 500" states that:

Sheikh Murabit al-Hajj is a Mauritanian ascetic and scholar who has devoted his life to worship, learning and teaching Islamic sciences. Based in a remote village in Mauritania, he has trained hundreds if not thousands of scholars, most notably Sheikh Hamza Yusuf (p. 93). At the age of 96 he still continues his daily routine of teaching.

Further, in the book The Story of the Qur'an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life we read that:

"Hamza Yusuf who studied the classical tradition of Islamic law, teached in the Kairaouine Mosque and University of Morroco."

(Ingrid Mattson, The Story of the Qur'an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life, p 225.).

Additionally, as mentioned above we have sources to the BBC, al-Jazeera and the Guardian newspaper that refer to Yusuf as Sheikh. I think the above suffices to show that Yusuf has been authorised to teach and is generally referred to with the honorific title Sheikh. RookTaker (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First the provided source is not a reliable source, second you are just ignoring the reality and fact, if newspapers or anyone are referring him with Shaykh because he has attached that with his name. You should provide sources that support he has received the title by/from reliable third party as like institution or any ministry. Here is the question, Imam, Molana, Mufti, Allama and etc as it is mentioned above long list of titles. Our experience is that we never added that sort of titles, degrees to infobox. There are a lot of Allama with multiple reliable sources, and they are much more qualified than a Shaykh, if that title cannot be added with their names why should be especialy that subject even without reliable sources. Other matter you reverted twice my edits that were per WP:NPOV, you are just promoting the subject with non-encyclopedic language and not applying the rules in the exact concept of meaning.Justice007 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Two sources were provided. The first is "The Muslim 500" which is a report issued annually by the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in the United States. Please can you explain why you think this is not a reliable source? The second source is Ingrid Mattson, The Story of the Qur'an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life, p 225. Ingrid Mattson is a Professor in Islamic studies. Please can you explain why you think this is not a reliable source?

Honorific titles are added to other Wikipedia articles. Please see the following examples:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqi_Usmani

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Qadir_Gilani

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abdul_Qayum

May I ask you to review WP:BATTLEGROUND. You've made a few unwarranted personal accusations against me and @User:Anothereditorishere and I do not appreciate this. Remember, we are here to work together to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. RookTaker (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks

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)

Shaykh

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)

No problem, I have replied on your talk page.Justice007 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I have added a number of sources to this article recently. For some reason these have been repeatedly undone by @User:EditorIslam. Please discuss this here on the talk page and we can try and come up with some form of agreement. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems as though @User:EditorIslam does not consider Hanson to be an "Islamic Scholar (Alim)" and has 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. ISBN 978-9975-428-37-2) 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. ISBN 1933316667).

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 add the references above to the article. RookTaker (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The publication you mention is not a scholarly venue. It is very similar to Times' Global Thinkers and aims to produce consensus by making claims. Yusuf is an immensely popular figure, but not a scholar. To substantiate your claim, you have to cite sources that discuss his contribution to scholarship. The list you mention is useless. Lumbard's work again is not a study of the scholarship of anyone. It is a bunch of essays by people claiming to be scholars. Again, does this work mention Yusuf's contribution to scholarship? Finally, media outlets are simply regurgitating popular conceptions. Here is the simple condition for claiming that he is a scholar: mention his scholarly works or contributions and cite references that discuss them explicitly. As far as I can tell, he has made NO contribution to scholarship. Hence he is not a scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorIslam (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

With no disrespect to EditorIslam, it seems pretty clear from RookTaker's evidence that Hamza Yusuf is a scholar. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We need academics showing how he has contributed to scholarship for him to be called a scholar. I must therefore contest the designation as "scholar" and "Shaykh" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorIslam (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already listed a couple of sources above. I mentioned above that 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. ISBN 978-9975-428-37-2) 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 who is an American professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C..

Additionally, media sources such as the BBC and The Guardian Newspaper are considered credible by Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS RookTaker (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims to Scholarship

@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. ISBN 978-9975-428-37-2) 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. ISBN 1933316667).

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)

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)

Scholarship

RookTaker, with all due respect, this is no way to edit an article. You asked me not to make changes without the issue being resolved. I am afraid you are making changes without resolving the issue. You even deleted the whole section I just added on this talk page to discuss scholarship. Could you please tell us which of the specifically indicated conditions of scholarship as listed by Wikipedia the subject satisfies? Please don't delete this comment. I will not make any changes in the hopes that you will actually address the issue. However, if you don't address the matter and keep reverting to your version, I will assume that you have nothing to say and I will revert to my change. Please see WP:RS, which you yourself kindly alerted me to. Many thanks.

Hi @HelpGod:, I have a few points:

Firstly, I haven't made any changes to the text of the contested portion of the article. It is the same as it has been for months.

Secondly, I haven't deleted the section you added to the talk page - I moved it to the bottom as it was in the wrong place. Wikipedia guidelines state that "To discuss a new topic, start a new section by going to a new line and typing a title like this: == Heading ==, replacing "Heading" with a suitable title for the topic you wish to raise. Place new discussions at the bottom of the page." Please read WP:TPHELP for further details. I will also move this section to the bottom of the page once you have responded.

Regarding your question, we need to source information from reliable, verifiable secondary sources as per Wikipedia guidelines. Examples of reliable sources are the BBC, Guardian newspaper, al-Jazeera etc.... Please read Wikipedia:Suggested_sources for further details. Please also read WP:SOURCE which explains that:

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• university-level textbooks
• books published by respected publishing houses
• magazines
• journals
• mainstream newspapers.

Many media outlets have referred to Hanson as an Islamic 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
• The New Yorker magazine refers to Hanson as "perhaps the most influential Islamic scholar in the Western world". http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/where-islam-meets-america

All of the above are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards and are acceptable to use as evidence.

In addition, we have established academics who have referred to Hanson as an Islamic scholar.

According to the annual publication entitled The 500 Most Influential Muslims Hanson is described as "the Western world’s most influential Islamic scholar." (The 500 Most Influential Muslims, p 86. ISBN 978-9975-428-37-2) 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. ISBN 1933316667).

It should be noted that Hanson acquired most of his Islamic knowledge at the hands of Sheikh Murabit al-Hajj. The following link (http://themuslim500.com/profile/shaykh-murabit-al-hajj) from "The Muslim 500" states that:

Sheikh Murabit al-Hajj is a Mauritanian ascetic and scholar who has devoted his life to worship, learning and teaching Islamic sciences. Based in a remote village in Mauritania, he has trained hundreds if not thousands of scholars, most notably Sheikh Hamza Yusuf (p. 93). At the age of 96 he still continues his daily routine of teaching. Again this is edited by Professor John Esposito.

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. RookTaker (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@RookTaker. Thank you for taking the time to clarify these matters. I was referring specifically to the section on Scholarship that you yourself alerted me to. It seems to me that none of the sources you quote are scholarly so as to establish the claims that the subject is a scholar. The establishment of a person's scholarship must be based on the kinds of sources noted in that section, not on the BBC, etc., which is useful for other types of claims. These are media outlets that cannot help us ascertain a person's standing as a scholar. The subject's notability is not due to his contributions to his scholarship. No source points out such a contribution. The section on Scholarship outlines what kinds of sources can be used for such a claim of scholarship.

Now you have mentioned sources by academics. Of the academic sources you have mentioned, I am afraid that none of them meet the conditions. Let me list them and point out why.

1. 500 Most influential Muslims is prepared by the Royal Islamic Strategic Center in Jordan. It is not published by a university press or a reputable press or journal. It is certainly prepared by John Esposito, but the fact that he is an academic does not make that work an academic or scholarly work. To be that, it will have to be peer reviewed and be published in a suitable venue as described by the section on scholarship. If you read their introduction, you will see that they are measuring influence, not the validity of people's claims to scholarship.

2. The book you mention by Lumbard is published by the Library of Perennial Philosophy which is not an academic or peer reviewed publication.

I don't think you mention any peer reviewed academic source, as is required by the section on scholarship. Please let me know if I missed one. If there is an academic source, as described by the scholarship section, that reviews the subject's work or contribution to scholarship, that will be very helpful.

I will wait for your response before I make any changes. Maybe there is some proper source out there that establishes his contributions to scholarship. If we are at an impasse, a compromise might be to change how the assertion about his scholarship is made. We can say that popular outlets describe him as a scholar. This would be more accurate than saying that he is a scholar. Thanks.

Hi @HelpGod:

The intent of WP:RS is to help editors identify reliable sources. The section on scholarship is meant to help editors identify whether a given source is scholarly and therefore reliable for Wikipedia. The intent is not to determine if a Wikipedia subject is a scholar or not. Likewise, the section on News Organisations is meant to help editors identify whether a given source is reliable. For example, the Sun newspaper is generally not considered reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines whereas sources such as the BBC, Guardian and New Yorker are considered reliable. Please read WP:SOURCES.

Anyhow, The 500 Most Influential Muslims is issued annually in cooperation with Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in the United States. Georgetown University is certainly considered a reputable institute.

In addition to the numerous sources already mentioned above, I have found another source.

According to the book "Finding Mecca in America: How Islam Is Becoming an American Religion" we read that, "Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir, both American converts and Islamic scholars associated with the Zaytuna Institute in California, are increasingly becoming popular among a new generation of American Muslims"

Source: Bilici, Mucahit (2012). Finding Mecca in America: How Islam Is Becoming an American Religion. University of Chicago Press. p. 86. ISBN 0226049566.

Mucahit Bilici is an assistant professor of sociology at John Jay College, City University of New York and CUNY Graduate Center. His book Finding Mecca in America: How Islam Is Becoming an American Religion (University of Chicago Press, 2012) has been reviewed by Jose Casenova who is a professor at the Department of Sociology at Georgetown University, and heads the Berkley Center's Program on Globalization, Religion and the Secular. The University of Chicago Press is considered a reliable publishing house according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Finally, please can you sign your comments by adding four tilda's. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@RookTaker. Thank you. I have added "non-academic" to distinguish him from academic scholars. In none of the sources you mention is there a claim to his contribution to academic scholarship. I suppose he has trained a bit in traditional circles, from what I can tell from the sources. By the way, why does Bilici have a webpage? He does not seem notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpGod (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. All the sources have referred to him as a "scholar", not as a "non-academic scholar". Please leave the text in the way that it has been represented in the sources provided. RookTaker (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry RookTaker. Please demonstrate the academic scholarship of the subject by citing sources. Though no scholarly source cites him as a scholar, I am willing to find a compromise for this impasse by disambiguating the claim to scholarship by qualifying it. If this qualification is incorrect, please show us how. Please leave the text as it has been modified by me unless you can show otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpGod (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear HelpGod, I do not believe that anything RookTaker or anyone else could provide would convinve you. You've become stubborn and now insist on a nonsensical position that HY is a scholar but a non-academic one. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't resort to rudeness and just supply evidence for your claim that he is an academic scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpGod (talk • contribs) 05:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear HelpGod, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes. Thank you. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, HelpGod, you have violated the WP:3RR rule. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully endorse the ample evidence provided by RookTaker from numerous WP:RS supporting the claim that the subject is an Islamic scholar. A claim HelpGod clearly appears to just disagree with regardless of the evidence provided, which is evident from there being no sources supporting the claim of the subject being a non-academic Muslim scholar. Nonetheless, consensus appears to have been reached on the issue. Therefore, unless there are any other editors who support HelpGod's claim, please abide by the consensus and avoid any further WP:EDITWARRING on the page.

Also, are the accounts User:EditorIslam and User:HelpGod being operated by the same person? Tanbircdq (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that, after discussing the matter with RookTaker and without his provision of any academic source, I agreed not to question the designation "scholar" as a compromise. Please note also that GeorgeCusters response has been nothing short of rude. Calling an editor nonsensical or silly violates rules of editing. I am basing my claim that the subject is a non-academic scholar on the definition of scholarship, as offered by Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method. I will happily leave the page as it is if I can be provided with evidence for his academic contributions. If there is no such evidence, we need to disambiguate. I am also happy to use some other suitable wording for such disambiguation. The simple question is: is the subject an academic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpGod (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear HelpGod. I criticised the lack of logic in your persistent edit. It simply doesn't make sense. In that sense it's a bit "silly". By the way, that's a very mild word and very far from a hateful comment. I didn't attack you or lose my temper. Please ... Why not comply with the consensus? Many editors now oppose your point of view. By repeatedly reverting you have violated the three-revert rule. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @HelpGod: - We didn't agree with the phrase "non-academic Muslim scholar" but you insisted in adding this phrase despite being reverted by four editors (me, GorgeCustersSabre, Tanbircdq and Josh3580). Numerous reliable sources have been provided for Hamza Yusuf being referred to as an "Islamic scholar". No evidence has been provided for Hamza Yusuf being referred to as a "non-academic Muslim scholar". As mentioned by @Tanbircdq: consensus appears to have been reached. RookTaker (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @HelpGod:. He is not an academic. But maybe we can cite this fact differently. I have made a change and have provided exact citation for it.

Hi @Sirriasrar:. The actual quote from the book you have referenced is as follows:

Over time, however, the authority of nostalgia for diasporic homelands lost its salience. In the third (contemporary) period, roughly since the nineties, unofficial training abroad in the classical Islamic disciplines, what Usman seeks in Syria, has replaced diasporic nostalgia as the dominant modality of Islamic religious authority. A transnational moral geography of the Islamic East- as an archive of Islamic knowledge and a pedagogical destination- was popularized in the nineties by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, a leading Sunni public intellectual who, like Malcolm X, is an iconic Muslim American student-traveller.

Source: Grewal, Zareena (2014). Finding Mecca in America: How Islam Is Becoming an American Religion. New York University Press. p. 129. ISBN 1479800562.

This is not the exact citation for the edit made (as you claimed): "Hamza Yusuf (born 1960) is an American Islamic scholar with unofficial training in classical Islamic disciplines"

The same book also states that:

In 1998, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf (born Mark Hanson) returned to the US after ten years of what he called "traditional" Islamic training (what I call classical for the sake of clarity), most famously in the deserts of Mauritania.

Source: Grewal, Zareena (2014). Finding Mecca in America: How Islam Is Becoming an American Religion. New York University Press. p. 159. ISBN 1479800562.

The author uses the term classical (not unofficial) which I believe better reflects Yusuf's study. Other sources also use the phrase classical such as:

Hamza Yusuf, born Mark Hanson in 1960, was raised a Greek Orthodox Christian but embraced In 1979, he left the United States for several years to study the classical Islamic religious sciences—including Arabic, Islamic law and ethics, and Islamic philospohy- in the Middle East, North Africa and West Africa.

Source: Curtis, Edward E. (2014). The Columbia Sourcebook of Muslims in the United States. Columbia University Press. p. 405. ISBN 0231139578.

The Guardian newspaper states that:

Trained for more than a decade by the best Islamic scholars in the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Morocco and Mauretania, Yusuf's learning commands considerable respect, particularly with the English-speaking elites of traditionally Muslim states. Jack O'Sullivan, 'If you hate the west, emigrate to a Muslim country' Guardian Newspaper

As mentioned above, please can you not make this edit until we gain a consensus here on the talk page first.

Further, please can you sign your name by using 4 tildes. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@RookTaker, here is the quote again, with an explanation of what it means. I am not claiming to be quoting the source verbatim. I don't know where you got that idea. I am only taking the point and putting it in my own words. The only part of the quote I am taking verbatim is the bit about unofficial training. Please do not revert unless you have an alternative quote challenging the idea that Hamza Yusuf trained in academic or official institutions.

Here is the actual quote:

In the third (contemporary) period, roughly since the nineties, UNOFFICIAL TRAINING ABROAD IN THE CLASSICAL ISLAMIC DISCIPLINES (emphasis mine)...has replaced diasporic nostalgia...A transnational moral geography of the Islamic East... popularized in the nineties by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf...By juxtaposing the journeys...with an account of the rise and fall of the moral geographies...espoused in an earlier generation of student-travelers...SUCH AS HAMZA YUSUF (emphasis mine)...the contemporary phenomenon of Muslim American youth studying abroad in underground pedagogical networks emerges not only as part of a continuous history...

The point being made is that Yusuf got UNOFFICIAL TRAINING in Islam--in other words, not in an academic setting, western or Islamic (which is true by all accounts). It goes on to say that this way of training inspired another generation to get training in UNDERGROUND PEDAGOGICAL NETWORKS (again, UNOFFICIAL and NON-ACADEMIC). This is not meant to detract from anyone; it is just a fact. It is only meant to clarify how he got trained and what kind of scholar he is. I see no reason why you should now revert to your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirriasrar (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@RookTaker. You reverted without any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirriasrar (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sirriasrar, are you HelpGod? Yours, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC

Hi GorgeCustersSabre, both accounts Sirriasrar and HelpGod have been blocked indefinitely for Sock puppetry. RookTaker (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear RookTaker, thanks for letting me know. I don't know why they bother. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

birthdate wrong

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 @RookTaker: revert it . Imad_J (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Imad J:, 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)

C'etait en faite 1956 et 1958 pour quelques annees. Mais si on guard cette date, l'idée qu'il est allé au proche orient pour ces etudes quand il avait 17 ans devient fausse. Alors ces amis changent les dates comme il les convient. C'est interesant que ce qu'il dit lui meme, puisqu'il n'a pas fait le calcul, ne compte pas! Dans un autre endroit il dit aussi qu'il a un doctorat dans le chemin des religions comparées, ce qui est complètement faux! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.163.42.42 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, adding the date "January 1" to 1958 for his birthday seems to represent an entirely fictional date put in an attempt to give a birthday when none is known from reliable sources. All the sources online seem to have been taking it from Wikipedia, but it seems Yusuf has not disclosed the actual date himself anywhere. January 1st seems to be a convenient but improbable filler.Moonlight2001 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Qatar section

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)

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)

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)

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)

Trim controversy section??

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)

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)

Saying that the breakdown of black families is more important than blm is racust

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)

Birthday

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)