Talk:Bilal Philips

AfD

According to whom are his books controversial?

Dear Wikipedia: It would be ridiculous to delete this article. Bilal Philips is a major figure of English-language Salafi Islam, which has a worldwide reach. While his name may not be known outside of the Muslim community, he is quite well-known within that community. The existing article neither mentions his several influential publications, nor his political views and role in Salafi Islam. He is controversial especially among Salafis because he belongs to one of the splintered Salafi groupings so that others attack him as a "deviant." In fact, it appears that sometime between 1991 and 1994, he was either expelled from Saudi Arabia or had his visa not renewed, so that he had to migrate to the UAE. When I am able, I will try to fix his article here, but I want to write this right now so no one deletes him. I also want to add that in general Wikipedia is poor on Islamic topics and personages. Hardly any of the famous shaykhs of the past are noticed, and many modern personages are overlooked. This is quite apart from the poor quality of many articles that omit salient facts in the subjects lives or are too one sided. Thus, to go around looking for Muslim personages to delete is not the way to go if one wants to claim universal coverage for Wikipedia. ___

Wikipedia is just stupid as hell. We have a whole fucking article about Snappelopes, a whole article about "Soquids" tons of articles about seperate digimons and burger king items, but a popular religious figure is considered for deletion, because of the balant bias against Islam? Like I said, stupid as hell.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.234.96 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2006‎

Education

Under the sub-heading education, it says that he reverted to Islam. However, there is no citation to prove that he was a Muslim before. Shouldn't this be removed from the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.12.172 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

--Thiru

Edit War?

Ok, looks like I inadvertently jumped into the middle of an earlier edit war. I saw that this article was very sparse so I though I would add the terrorism section to get things started but having just checked the "nominate for delete" discussion, I see that this issue has been raised before and was controversial. I will leave it in because:

1) His denial of a visa in Australia is a matter of record and reported by Australian media and acknowledged by Philips himself. I included his defense.

2) I also included the accusation related to the WTC bombing as well as his defense in which he says nobody on this list was charged. This is an incoherent statement because the term "unindicted" by definition means that there are no charges. The accusation about being an "unindicted co-conspirator" has been made by numerous reputable media and I see no evidence that any retractions have been made or that defamation lawsuits have been filed. On this basis, I will keept this in the article.

4) Same goes for statement about deportation. I included the accusation and his defense.

Sgmiller 11:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you edited in good faith and did a good job, as controversy should be included (in fact, I think I remember vaguely back when it was included but it was deleted). My only suggestion is to keep the statement about his status as a Western individual becoming so notable in the Islamic world, as he does have a relatively high amount of visibility among Muslim people which is rare, especially for a Canadian national. MezzoMezzo 23:43, 2 June 2007(UTC)

Thanks. I took out the statement about his unique status due to lack of referencing in an attempt to force some. I may be wrong but isn't Yusuf Hanson also a "high visibility" Westerner although he lives in Calif? Anyway as long as there is some referencing, lets put it back in although in a way that doesn't sound like a Press Release. Sgmiller 12:49 2 June 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Yusuf does have some public visibility but lacks the education of Philips, who has a PhD in Islamic studies. Both notable, but one more so as an academic and intellectual figure. Your are correct though, that should really be referenced. I'll see what I can do about that. Also, should the section "terrorism" perhaps be changed to something along the lines "alleged ties to terror" or something like that? I hate to water things down but to be specific, I don't believe he has been convicted or even charged at this point. While I know it's not your intention to insinuate that he has, some readers may take it that way. MezzoMezzo 05:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the "Terrorism" section to "Controversy" as you are correct about it being misleading. I also took the liberty of removing the term "well-known" from the opening as it is one of the "peacock terms" listed by Wikipedia and to be avoided. Finally, I think you should re-write the sentence again about his status as a Western scholar. First of all, "pioneering" is another peacock term and should be changed. Second, there are many Western "scholars of Islam." I am not convinced he would be accepted as a "scholar" in the Western sense of an academic or professor but I have to research that. I think you mean he is one of the few Westerners considered to be a scholar by a part of the Islamic community. Perhaps you can write it that way and include a reference. I won't try until you have a chance to do it if you want. Sgmiller 15:11 3 June 2007]UTC)

You are correct, those both fall under the definition of "peacecock terms". As for not trying, be bold, this is a public encyclopedia. I appreciate you wanting to make this a community effort so let's work on it right here on the discussion page. First, we need to decide for sure if he qualifies as a scholar or not. Then, let's say supposedly that we come to the conclusion that he is, we'd need a reference supporting that claim. First part, here is where i'm coming from. He recieved his doctorate in Islamic studies, from the University of Wales I believe. I would suggest that a PhD graduate meets the Western standards of a "scholar". Unfortunately there is not a cut and clear article here on Wikipedia that defines the term, so I could be wrong. Interestingly enough, by the Islamic definition of scholar, if you're meaning the Ulema, I would actually argue that he isn't a scholar, though that's a whole other discussion. MezzoMezzo 14:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me say first that I thank you for your helpful and constructive attitude so far in our work on this page. I am very new to WP editing and jumping into this subject has been interesting to say the least. I hope we can keep it up! As for as the "scholar" issue, let me ponder it for a bit. Also, I have discovered some very interesting interviews that Philips has given, part of which are posted on his website. There is alot of biographical detail and perhaps some further clues about his alleged terrorist connections. I need a bit of a break, however, because WP editing is turning in to a half-time job and I need time to tend to other business for a while. When I get a chance, I will return to both the scholar issue as well as to these interviews. Sgmiller 16:06 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the WP article on "Academic" that redirects from "Scholar." It gives the following definition:

An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education. He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder who does peer-reviewed research. In the United States, the term academic is approximately synonymous with that of the job title professor.

This is what I don't think he meets the Western definition of a scholar since he is not engaged in "peer-reviewed" research nor is he a Professor. Simply obtaining a PHD would not seem to be sufficient. So, I think we should come up with with a term to fit the statement, "He is one of the few Western indviiduals to be accepted as a "XXX" to be accepted by (whatever Islamic community he is part of)." I would be ok with "scholar" here since this sentence makes it clear that he is viewed as such by his community and not in the Western sense of an academic. Also, I am not sure how to describe who exactly accepts him as such. I have a problem with the generic term "Islamic community" since there are many Islamic communities who clearly do not agree with each on many issues including who or who is not a scholar or part of the Ulema. I would argue that Philips is part of the Saudi/Muslim Brotherhood community as opposed to the Sufi or Shiite communities for example. (By the way, are we supposed to keep indenting until there is no more room to write? I don't understand the WP protocols for this sort of thing.) Sgmiller 16:19 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need to keep indenting. As for your time issue, if you would like I can wait until you're ready to finish this. Just some short points:

• You are correct, it would appear that he doesn't quite fit the defenition of scholar as he is not engaged in peer reviewed research.
• To my knowledge he himself doesn't claim to be a scholar and most Muslims don't regard him as such - I would check the Ulema article as an explanation of that.
• This is more a pet peeve of mine than anything else, but he is absolutely not part of the Muslim Brotherhood community, and neither is Saudi Arabia. Philips has said a lot of messed up things but not in that way. This is kind of an issue for me, as the Muslim Brotherhood is a violent terrorist group that unfortunately has some support even among people I know personally and they always try to claim anyone famous as being positive towards them. Dr. Philips hates them (as do I) and has expressed as such before and Saudi Arabia has banned them and deported most of their prominent members. Again, not really related to this article but if there's one positive thing I can do for Islam it's to point out that most of us don't support the Muslim Brotherhood.

Anyway, now that that rant is done, those are my main points. I'm impressed by your dedication early on so i'm willing to wait for you to have more free time to edit if you would prefer to finish this article a bit later. MezzoMezzo 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely MUST go to sleep for a while but I want to straighten things out or at least try to in a quick and dirty way. What I mean by Saudi/Muslim Brotherhood is that it is a matter of historical fact that fleeing MB individuals partly went to Saudi Arabia and took up positions in the important Saudi religious institutions such as the Muslim World League and WAMY and these institutions continue to play an important role in the Muslim Brotherhood in terms of their role in the MB's worldwide expansion. Also, while there may be alot of bad blood in certain Saudi quarters, they (at least the MB I mean) are certainly not gone from Saudi Arabia. In fact, Yousef Qaradawi, undoubtably the real leader of the Muslim Brotherhood outside of Egypt, was recently in Saudi Arabia to do some speaking as I remember. In addition, an extremly well-known French scholar of Islam recenlty told me the are still "all over Saudi Arabia" and if anybody in the Western world would know, it would be him.

Anyway, When I say that I believe that Philips is part of the Saudi/Muslim Brotherhood community I do not mean to suggest that Philips is formally part of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood but rather that he is affiliated with individuals and organizations that are part of the worldwide MB community although that begs the question of how to verify this (later for that). This community, while perhaps not part of the Egyptian organization, adheres to MB ideology, organizational methods, etc and most certainly has strong ties to the Saudi Arabian organizations I mentioned. This will all be very tricky to express and reference properly but, with your help, I shall try to do it fairly, ok? Sgmiller 16:19 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct unfortunately, some prominent members of the MB do still exist in Saudi; in fact, I know of a few of the more prominent ones that haven't been deported. My main point just being was, that on the whole, after allowing MB into the country earlier in the 20th century to the Saudis credit they did realize their mistake and the majority of MB members had to leave. As for Qaradawi, the scholar of deviance and suicide bombing, is most certainly the ideological head of the MB out of Egypt and even inside it I would say, was he really in Saudi recently? If that's the case then i'm a bit disappointed, people like that shouldn't be given a forum to speak. Anyway, as far as Dr. Philips affiliation, that actually may be true though the definition of "affiliatied" itself can vary. Him speaking at the same seminar as a MB can technically be an affiliation even if he wasn't aware of it. I'm not saying that's the only case, i'm just throwing that out there. You have brought up some good points that the article should detail, i'll be ready once you come back. MezzoMezzo 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that we are indenting again! One last commment (its clear than I am addicted) then I will sign off for a while. You raise a most important point about the meaning of terms like "affiliated" and once again, I promise to be very careful when dealing with the connections between people and groups by stating exactly what that connection is rather than throwing around such words carelessly. As far as Qaradawi in Saudi, I am pretty sure he was in Saudi because it got my attention also but I need to check that. The relationship between the MB and that country is a fascinating one although as with many such things, complicated and not always to characterize. Sometime I use the expression Saudi/Muslim Brotherhood as a kind of shortcut to denote the symbiosis of the MB with important Gulf religious organizations and individuals (maybe I should say Gulf/MB??) but again, I will be careful and try to specify exactly. Until later.Sgmiller 19:06 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Qaradawi in Saudi Arabia in December 2006 and sponsored by the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da`wah and Guidance: http://www.iumsonline.net/english/articles/2006/12/08.shtml Sgmiller 19:40 3 June 2007 (UTC)2007]

Doctor title

The Welsh university said to have given him a doctor of xyz title does not have him in their list of graduates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.55.135 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence other than info submitted by himself and others that he has a PhD from the Uni Of Wales. Also, the cite given to back up the claim had no evidence of a PhD from the Uni of Wales either. =.= I have taken the appropriate action... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

his own "university" is not accredited anywhere, btw, the titles are worthless, it is a diploma mill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.48.140 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you call something a diploma mill which only charges about $120 a year and is known for being a free University?105.236.29.52 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The wiki link for Investigative Project on Terrorism is no longer valid which redirects to the page of its Executive director Steven Emerson. Therefore, rephrasing the introduction paragraph is appropriate. — Rammaum^talk_stalk 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dr.bilal philips.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dr.bilal philips.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Quality

Almost all the references for this article are dead links. Additionally, not a single impartial academic reference has been provided. The article therefore requires significant rework.RookTaker (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added a number of reliable sources and removed some nonsense garbage from unreliable websites so the article is now in a healthier state.RookTaker (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bilal Philips. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402102804/http://www.peacetv.tv/en-gb/speakers/drbilal-philips to http://www.peacetv.tv/en-gb/speakers/drbilal-philips
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006113646/http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/bilal-philips-sent-back-29431 to http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/bilal-philips-sent-back-29431

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Views on Apostasy

The article makes several statements suggesting that the subject's views on apostasy from Islam, specifically:

• "Philips strongly supports the killing of ex-Muslims"

• Reference: Philips, Bilal (2002). Contemporary Issues (PDF). BilalPhilips.com. pp. 22–3.

Upon further review of the reference, it quotes a book written by Mr. Philips which provides explanation of the theological justification for the use of capital punishment for apostasy within a certain interpretation of Islam. What the article does not clearly state is the author's view on the subject. To use that reference as proof of his views is inconclusive, as it is written in third person and does not contain a personal statement on his exact views of the subject.

What would be an appropriate reference is a reliable source stating something to the affect of "Mr. Philips over the years has been criticized for his views in support of capital punishment for apostasy in Islam." Could someone please replace the current reference with one that is more clear about the subject's personal views? If none can be found, the statements should be re-written or removed altogether. Djrun (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Views on hand amuptation

In the "Views" section there is a reference to the subject's book on a section he wrote on hand amputation. Has the author's writing on this particular subject been covered in any reliable sources outside of his own book? I'm afraid it may not meet Wkipedia's guidelines on relevancy or reference on its own. Furthermore, the specific book that is referenced here simply appears to be a PDF that was published on his website (note: (c) BilalPhilips.com on the top right-hand corner of the pages). If biographical information was removed from the article due to the fact that it was referenced from his website, then a case can be made for the reference as well. The exception of course is if his book reference is in conjunction with a reliable source reference (e.g.: views pertaining to suicide bombing references).--Djrun (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Djrun, I agree with you and, for the reasons you outline, believe these sentences should be removed from the article. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)