Talk:Yasir Qadhi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This is a biography, not a fan site. All information about controversies surrounding Yasir Qadhi-- his Holocaust denial, his denunciation by Dominic Grieve, and his comments against non-Muslims and Shi'a are well-known and have been sourced to recordings of talks made by Qadhi, Grieve, etc.

Qadhi's links to convicted terrorist Ali al-Tamimi is sourced form his own webpage. His connection to Umar Mutallab was reported by CNN. He himself mentioned his being on the US government's terrorist watch list, as reported by the Houston Chronicle and MSNBC.

This page is being continually edited by anonymous users to remove any mention of controversy surrounding Qadhi or any information about his links to terrorists. Piel Divina (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalism to add a "controversy" heading to this entry (under biography). The controversies surrounding Yasir Qadhi are some of the most noteworthy elements of his biography, and have all been sourced to footage of his talks that he himself has put online. To not discuss them is tantamount to making this entry a fan site. Additionally, he frequently refers to himself as a Salafi (which in popular parlance is a Wahhabi), and has been identified as such in the Washington Post article already cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazy polar bear (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the reference to Yasir Qadhi's Salafism removed? If you do a Google Search you will find that the Google Cached version states:

"Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi is a lecturer and Islamic cleric of Salafi persuation (sic) who has authored several books about Islam."

Yet, that was removed and now states:

"Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi is a lecturer and Islamic cleric who has authored several books about Islam."

Why are the Salafis always trying to hide their own Salafism? Wikipedia's rules on biographies state:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

The fact that Yasir Qadhi is a Salafi is one of the most properly sourced facts about him! The Washington Post on the Wahhabi (a.k.a. "Salafi") movement in the USA which is referenced by this very Wikipedia entry (!!!) states:

"Qadhi, who was born in Houston and graduated from Saudi Arabia's Islamic University of Medina, is getting his doctorate in Islamic studies at Yale University -- a sign, he said, of how second-generation Muslims are adapting. 'It's unprecedented that a Salafi is doing a graduate degree at an Ivy League school,' said Qadhi, 31. 'Our forebears would see that as anathema.'"

Wahhabis can insist that they are the so-called "saved sect" all they want. This is America and we champion free speech. Yet, to hide the fact that they are Wahhabis and/or Salafis is purely subterfuge and guile. I protest this trickery in the Wikipedia article so I am putting the Salafi reference back. If it is removed at least this is logged so the guile can be exposed.

As a personal friend of Yasir, he insists he no longer associates with this labeling. Your last paragraph shows your prejudiced reasons for adding the reference. It is a POV point, and you cannot find any other references where he stated this or if he was part of an organization that states it in the mission. You can't force labels on people.
Also keep in mind that due to some splits within the Salafi movement, especially in the US and UK, it's sometimes difficult to define who is "really Salafi" and who isn't. MezzoMezzo 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming to be Qadhi's personal friend is not sufficient evidence to show that he no longer self-identifies as a Salafi. We have two references to him in major news media where his self-identification as a Salafi is a major part of the story. If someone can find a reference to Qadhi abjuring any identification with Salafism, then this can be changed. Piel Divina (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sent a msg to Qadhi through his blog. Got reply back, providing recent reference to Qadhi abjuring identification with salafism. Seems to meet your request. Abureem (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see the reference... We should add to the page something like, "While in the past Qadhi had identified his views as Salafist (citing MSNBC), he has recently abjured any identification with Salafism. (your reference)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piel Divina (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See ref#16 in the article 89.211.43.50 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added common criticisms of Shaykh Qadhi: Although he does refer to himself and the movement as salafi, i've left that out as there seems to be some contention about using the term (i don't know why?) - AN, 1 Sep 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.39.44 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to re-edit, the least they can do is give a reason and/or source. No point acting like jahhil/cowardly bullies in primary school. -- AN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.39.44 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources, wordpress blogs aren't reliable sources... especially for material on living people. ITAQALLAH 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are criticisms & not of a personal nature, and I've sourced the criticism? I hope u can see the subtle difference between a 'criticism' and a 'fact'? Why did you remove the "external link" to the blog?

i understand that they are criticisms. see WP:BLP#Criticism- any such criticisms must be reliably sourced (as established above, blogs are not reliable sources, and should not be used at all in biographies of living people). the link was removed as blogs aren't accepted as external links either: WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. ITAQALLAH 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be a fan site[edit]

Yasir Qadhi is extremely controversial, both within the Muslim community and without. Within the Muslim community, his connections to Wahhabism/Salafism are points of frequent discussion. Outside the Muslim community, his Holocaust denial has generated significant attention and controversy. These are important elements of his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazy polar bear (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The source is the the Washington Post not a blog![edit]

Since when is the Washington Post with whom Yasir openly admitted being a Salafi a "Wordpress Blog". Instead of calling people "jahil" why don't you openly address the fact that Yasir DOES INDEED refer to himself openly as a Salafi yet his followers are desperately trying to conceal this fact! It's almost like Christians insisting Jesus is God when he said no such thing. Yasir openly admits being a Salafi and his followers desperately try and cover up his admissions. Ironic. Again, the source is the WASHINGTON POST and unless you can find a source equally reliable where Yasir says he is NOT a Salafi then call a spade a spade and stop covering it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.183.220 (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sh. Yasir Qadhi is Hafidh of the Qur'an[edit]

Why is there no mention of Sh. Yasir's memorization of the Qur'an? Aside from simply memorizing it, I believe he has memorized it in more than one style of recitation. These are probably his most noble credentials, yet, there is no mention of it. Can someone please consult Sh. Yasir about these credentials and then post them in this Wiki entry? Thank you.

Shiblizaman (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to core content policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Any material presented must be verified by sources, especially when it involves biographies of living people such as this. That's not to say memorisation is doubted, it just means it needs to be appropriately sourced when added. ITAQALLAH 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madkhali pranksters[edit]

There are are some Madkhalis trying to add the issue regarding the 'Pledge'.

apart from the twenty madkhalis still left alive, this information is quite irrelevant to most of the readers of Wikipedia. The Madkhalis are free to write whatever they want on their blogs but they should leave this trivial controversy out of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.81.221 (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to Piel Divina about BLP[edit]

Obviously you are a new user, who signed up specifically to vandalize this post. Yes, there is no problem with adding controversial material, but the neutrality laws for BLP and the strictest criteria for reference material has been ignored by you. While I have tried to be compromising, leaving a lot of your additions, you continue to insist on adding irrelevant, potentially slanderous material to this page. I have sent a notice to Yasir Qadhi through his blog and asked him to directly contact admin to state his own position where applicable. If you keep up with the vandalism and edit-warring, you may be banned as per Wiki's policies Abureem (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As I said in a 'talk' to you earlier, the info about Grieve's statements was placed there specifically because I believed it to be newsworthy, not because I was using him as a mouthpiece. I don't think anyone who wasn't of the MP's (Tory) political persuasion would take it too seriously, but it is of interest to see how controversies about Qadhi have been publically aired in the UK. Likewise for the statement in the (Tory-leaning) Daily Telegraph, which is of note more for its being there in a major newspaper than for what it says. The same could be said of comments made about Qadhi in an editorial (presuambly fact-checked as it wasn't ever called libellous) in the Boston Globe, the link to which I believe you deleted. It is approprate, I think, in a "Controversy" section to discuss controversies about the subject of the article that have appeared in major newspapers or have been brought up by members of parliament, whether or not they're fatuous. Such is the nature of controversy. I didn't create this account to specifically edit about Qadhi, but the amount of vandalism on this page to make it into a fan-site (your own edits notwithstanding) caught my attention. As you can see, I have no interest in taking out your expansions on some of the material I posted, and generally I think a lot of improvement to this entry has been made over the past week through our interaction. Piel Divina (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the cooperation. Abureem (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced material removed[edit]

The material relating to controversies which was sources to blogs, forums, and polemical websites has all been removed as per WP:BLP. Any views of Qadhi which are to be discussed should ideally have some sort of coverage by a reliable third party source so that this doesn't turn into an article of blockquotes about his every musing or observation. Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources are acceptable. Qadhi's founded blog where he makes statements about his views should be considered reliable. Pls explain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source Abuzzzubair (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallah is right. Like WP:SELFPUB says, self sources may be acceptable in certain circumstances, where one can't reasonably expect reliable third party sources. For example, date of birth, city of birth, university of education etc. But, even in these cases they should not be connected to any controversies.VR talk 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objective sources[edit]

If we're going to write somethign hugely controversial about a living person, can we get some objective sources?

This source is not objective, its an opinion piece (which is not the same as factual article), and its incredibly biased. Evidence of that includes saying things like "Wahhabi clerical establishment - purveyors of the most intolerant religious teachings on the planet", "Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a hate-mongering preacher" etc.

I'm removing the source out of interest of WP:BLP.VR talk 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an op-ed in an RS, and therefore appropriate for inclusion (with proper referencing as to what it is).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, let's keep the material out when we're discussing this. Because, we're dealing with a living person here. If the material goes out unfairly, I don't see any harm. But if the material stays in unfairly, this could be very harmful. So I'm removing the statement for the sake of a better encyclopedia, while we sort this out.VR talk 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not appropriate, and reeks of censorship. We have a clear RS in the Boston Globe, and op eds from RSs are routinely and properly reflected in articles. No Wikipedia-guideline basis has been presented to delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, WP:BLP states: "Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."
The source in question is very biased. Hence, I insist on a reliable third party source that reports his comments, not one that editorializes them.VR talk 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't believe there is any showing that the content is biased. Furthermore, the subject we are quoting is allowed to have a POV; the prohibition is on the editors having a POV that leads to the editors not interferes with them accurately reporting what is in RSs. Here, we have an RS reporting the views of this professor and political activist as to the subject of this article, and it is reflected in a non-POV manner. That those views were reflected in an RS bears on their relevance to the subject's notability (in fact, given the paucity of third-party coverage of him and of his writings in RSs, this is important to demonstrate that he is notable enough to have an article, and not just some Yale grad student who isn't notable enough to warrant a wp article). The POV we must guard against is that of an editor seeking to censor that sentence out of the article because they don't like what that sentence, reported by an RS, has to say about the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the this excision goes too far. IMO WP:BLP does not mean individuals have to be protected from carrying any material that shows them in a negative light. It just says it has to be well sourced, and written from a neutral point of view -- which this is. I am concerned that suppressing properly referenced, neutrally written material gives the strong appearnce of a lapse from WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with VR that a completely biased op-ed written by individuals with HISTORY of biased views cannot be considered reliable for BLP.Abureem (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online links[edit]

I removed the claim about Qadhi posting links to articles online for a number of reasons.

  • Is posting links really that big of a deal?
  • When did he post such links? "Recent" is ambiguous. He specifically affirmed the Holocaust (in clear words) in November 2008.
  • A google search for "Qadhi" on Centre for Social Cohesion's website yields no such allegations made by the center.
  • Finally, on which website did Qadhi post these links?

VR talk 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The test is whether an RS reported it. But yes, posting such links, given the background (which also received RS coverage), is a sufficiently big deal. His affirmation of the Holocaust if covered in an RS should be reflected as well. The article reflects the timing relative to his statements, and we need only reflect what the RS says. The search on CSC's site is not definitive -- websites delete material all the time -- and in any event constitutes independent research -- if you find an RS that says he never posted it to that site, though, we could reflect that statement as well as the statement that he did. We need not know which website he posted the links on -- we need only reflect what the RS reported.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. A newspaper cites an indirect claim to another organization's claim of some links on an islamic forum. Yet, neither the newspaper nor the other organization can provide any references or any evidence. And we are supposed to accept this? For BLP, you need the highest sort of confirmation that the person actually did or acted a certain way. The Telegraph should be sued for what could constitute defamation if no evidence is available. And certainly wiki can't participate in such tabloid-type reporting. Abureem (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epeefleche, can you stop using the word "more recently" until you're able to tell us exactly what more recently means. There's no room for ambiguity in this article, given we have dates for important things (denial was in 2001, in 2008 he stated his belief in the Holocaust).VR talk 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it stands that none of the articles and reports obtainable on the website of Centre for Social Cohesion make such an allegation against Qadhi.VR talk 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe your discussing this, extraordinary claims req very strong sources, there is nothing say it was him at all, anyone could post in his name on any forum, there is not support for this at all, I support its removal. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop adding this claim it is completely unsupportable and uncomfirmed and I an exceptional claim about a living person, leave it out. It is uncomfirmable and without support. It could have been anybody. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

controversy section[edit]

To begin with, this is a biography of a living person which means that all contentious material must be directly supported by quality reliable sources. The entire controversy section contains 2 sources. The first is this pledge that was supposedly "met with censure". There is no source that says the pledge was "met with censure" and nothing else in the paragraph is sourced. The other source is this blog entry by Mona el-Tahawy. It is used to source the sentence that Qadhi also faced backlash for his alleged shaking of CNN journalist Mona Eltahawy's hand. Nothing in the source supports the idea that Qadhi "faced a backlash" for shaking her hand and nothing else in the entire paragraph is sourced. The entire section violates WP:BLP and as such I am removing it. Also, before anybody reflexively reverts that removal, please read this. nableezy - 19:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Shi'ism[edit]

I wrote a section on his views on Shi'ism, which seem very polemic. The section was removed because my sources were apparently not verifiable and I would like someone else to go back and determine if they agree. At least one of the sources, from which I got most of my material, I believe was, and perhaps that material could be returned exclusively. It came from what appears to be a very professionally put together lecture series called "The Mahdi Series" easily found on Youtube - It is obviously Yasir Qadhi giving the presentation, and he is giving it in a well prepared, well written, thought out manner. In my understanding and reading of Wikipedia's verifiability policies in regards to Youtube videos, they must in general be taken with a grain of salt unless evidence is demonstrated that it is a reliable source and I believe that was most true in this case. I think what is ultimately necessary in using it is to find a website where he keeps a list of his lectures given, publications, etc. It seems that nothing like this exists? --Sawyer207 (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism[edit]

§His comments from this lecture are very enlightening and should be added to the lecture. Please watch atlest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFARLhJv3JM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.94.219 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab[edit]

Since there is no mention of Qadhi in Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, it seems very strange to mention Abdulmutallab here, as their interactions have no bearing on Qadhi that I'm aware. I think it best removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion; I agree. It's like trying to suggest reverse guilt by association.Parkwells (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salafi[edit]

User Saheehinfo is hell bent on calling Qadhi a "Salafi" and term he no longer identifies with. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYkedPkxlI

I'm hell bent on making sure that the article is accurate. The book "Islam Is a Foreign Country: American Muslims and the Global Crisis of Authority" (page 330) clearly states that "today, American Salafis, such as Shaykh Yasir Qadhi of the AlMaghrib institute are offered as the solution". Saheeh Info 10:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but I dont see this as any different than other article subject's religion. Qadhi quite clearly disclaims that he is a Salafi. He wrote Because of this, I no longer view myself as being a part of any of these Salafī trends discussed in the earlier section. For those who still wish to identify with the label, I pray that you recognize the faults listed above and work to rectify them. Those who choose to abandon such a label have every right and excuse to do so as well. We cant be saying somebody follows some religious practice on the basis of a third party source saying so when the subject himself says he no longer does. This is about categorization, but the same thinking applies here. If the subject says I do not follow X religious belief then that settles whether or not we say he does (we dont in that case). nableezy - 16:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The YOutube-source appears to suffer from WP:SELF. That is not acceptable as source. Please try to find a reliable third-party source. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Counting myself, four editors have reverted attempts by Nableezy and an assortment of IP addresses to use a blog and a Youtube video as sources. The message from the community should have been received loud and clear by now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP, and as such Im taking this to the WP:BLP/N. You arent the community any more than I am. nableezy - 05:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as it is a BLP the relevant policy is WP:BLPSPS. nableezy - 05:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Abu_Ammaar_Yasir_Qadhi nableezy - 05:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to the people that continue to re-add this material, despite their belief that "the community" has spoken, what the community has actually spoken on is crystallized in WP:BLP, specifically Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.

There are now two editors that have objected to this material on good-faith BLP objections and a section opened at the BLP noticeboard. The material should not be restored absent a consensus to do so. nableezy - 15:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links moved to talk[edit]

In case there's something here that could be used as a ref or would help us find more refs: --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More material for the controversy section[edit]

I've recently seen this video. I immediately noted that instead of translating the bits said in what I presume is Arabic, the captions just say "yada yada wuzza wuzza" and the like (even though I understand some of what is said there, with very little knowledge of Arabic or Islam). I also note that there don't seem to be any respectable sources using or referring to this clip. That said, it seems to have been spread widely enough for Qadhi to react to it, calling it a total fabrication, but at the same time conceding that every sentence in the sound clip was taken from a series of lectures given by him - see here. I think it would be great if someone knowledgeable could find neutral sources about this and come up with a NPOV write-up, clarifying exactly how much of a fabrication the sound clip really is. 188.142.221.122 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the recent "holes in the narrative" betweeen Qadhi and Mohammad Hijab in May which both of them deleted. In the last week ( Late Nov) Qadhi personally attacked a number of people in a video with ad hominem . Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR34v-IIyeY&t=1097s then yesterday ( 3rd/4th Dec) he apparently started Doxing people who are in danger of being killed by Islamists! Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X94USOiiJs Qadhi got identities of people from copyright claims against people using quotes of Qadhi the video he had removed from his own channel. Then this information became public!Isaw (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)][reply]

I tried introducing that but it has been removed. Erkin Alp Güney 13:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add again. any time i hear about him, it's about "holes in the islamic narrative" so it'd be insane to not mention it. 115.70.22.143 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polymath?[edit]

I see no justification for this man to be described as a polymath. Amuz (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is a chemical engineer, scuba diver and Islamic scholar. Erkin Alp Güney 10:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article to "Yasir Qadhi"[edit]

Wouldn't it be more better if this article was renamed to Yasir Qadhi instead of Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, most people don't refer to him as his full name. On YouTube, and public speaking events everyone calls him Yasir Qadhi not including the Abu Ammar. It also makes the article name long and not easy to search for him. --12.29.116.64 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I do not believe he is referred to publicly as "Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi" anymore Scholarlydoubt (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. No real need to have the kunya in the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my support to this. We have pretty much reached consensus regarding this issue. Foxhound03 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a technical page move request. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yasir_Qadhi&oldid=1206686097"