Jump to content

Talk:Abu Hamza al-Masri/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

News article

this news story might be of help for more specifics and more info:

cheers, Kingturtle 05:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Benefits

What kind of benefits was he recieving? The vaugeness of this statment could be misread as POV? For exemaple, he only has one hand (having lost it in the Afghan war with Russia), so most likely as a resident he was entitled to some kind of diability benefit. The implication of the text is that he was recieving unemployment benefit while working, or perhaps some benefit fraudulently acquired? --Salimfadhley 12:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Getting benefits" is not in itself a crime, and therefore it is pretty much an irrelevant point to make in a description of an individual. The statement appears to have been made purely to imply that Hamza must have been getting the benefits fraudulantly, or to imply that giving benefits to such a horrible person is waste of "tax payers' money". I would suggest that the author of the article has no knowledge of the facts regarding any benefits that Hamza may or may not have received, and is simply regurgitating shock-horror headlines from tabloid newspapers. (unsigned)

I'm going to remove "Abu Hamza was at one point gaining £1,030.65 a week in benefits." as it's not sourced, and seems very unlikely. There is nothing wrong with claiming benefits you are entitled to and the figure is way in excess of the benefits amounts people actually receive. The government hasn't charged him with benefit fraud as far as I know. Secretlondon 16:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is, of course, that Hamza, who is relying on the British govt not to extradite him to the USA, and is funded by the UK taxpayers, uses his position to attack his host country. Or so it is alleged. Exile 18:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well having worked in benefit office, it is possible that he was claiming that much benefit a week. It is a sad case whilst now he is in prison that it is costing the tax payer £25,000 a week to protect him.

Whilst most of you would not appreciate my view, he should be deported and tried for past crimes in any country that can provide evidence that he has commited any sort of crime.

If he hated this country so much, why did he stay here?

It's comfortable, and he likely saw it as a way to bring down the enemy from within. Which is, after all, the Islamists' best chance of destroying the West (and could be working). We all know how they'd fare in any form of open combat.

Because we are mugs here, and always will be. He should have been bundled onto the next CIA flight to pass through the UK the moment the US asked for him.

I feel that the first few lines of the 'State support' section should be further reworded to be more factual and less POV. Perhaps also this section should be moved to further down the article, taking its place after more significant information. The current wording and position suggests priorities slightly more akin to the Daily Mail than Wikipedia. 194.73.118.78 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)CA

I would like an update to the status of his second wife and her further entitlement to social housing (after the original property was bought under the buy to let scheme and another property brought with the proceeds transferred ownership and then rented out in the private sector). It would be good if the following article was verified and not mere heresay. I can understand the need to be factual rather than Daily Mail speculation but there is a social housing crisis in the country and it is human interest to understand if this scarce resource has been fairly and legally allocated. It is alleged that she qualified for further social housing because of the breakdown in her relationship with her husband but this is disputed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409997&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

What a large proportion of the British public object to regarding the benefits issue and Hamza, is that a very bad person who costs the UK so much in other ways (policing, the courts etc) and whose presence is very detrimental to the UK has had so much taxpayers money spent on benefits for him. That he immigrated and chose to produce such a large number of children in an already severely overcrowded country, and didn't pay his way at all, is not taken well by most people. That he hates the country which has given him so much, and that he doesn't obey the law, nor have any respect for the UK, makes us feel he was laughing at us. Even if he was legally entitled to all his benefits, he abused the British legal system by entering the UK on a student visa (for which he would have had to tell the British authorities he would return to his native Egypt), yet he bigamously (for her) married a UK citizen the following year, subsequently gained UK citizenship for himself, had a child with her, divorced then married another woman, and had seven more children with her. That eight children is a very unusually large number for one person to produce, in both the UK and his native Egypt, strongly suggests that he bred to milk the benefits system and gain a large council house. That is something that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth of people who use contraception, support themselves financially and cannot get council housing themselves whilst people like him jumped the queue. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are supporting themselves, why would they need council housing, you muppet?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.149.5 (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Extradition

The statement "However, as part of the European Union the United Kingdom is party to an agreement whereby extradition should be refused to any country which has the death penalty." is slightly incorrect.

EU countries do extradite to the USA, however, they insist that the recieving country does not pass a death sentance. CS Miller 12:37, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect from Abu Hamza

I think this redirection should be replaced by a disambiguation, since there are (where) two notorious Abu Hamzas. Besides Abu Hamza al-Masri, there is also Abu Hamza Rabia, an Al Qaida commander killed in Pakistan on the 03-Dec-2005. --Pinnecco 11:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ex-wife?

There are two different names given for his wife in the article, "Valerie Fleming" and "Valerie Traverso". Either one is incorrect or it's not clear he was married twice to different Valeries.

Yhwman 00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)yhwman

It looks like Valerie Traverso is now known as Valerie Fleming, but the details in a number of sources are a bit inconsistent (e.g. year of marriage)...

--Leigh 17:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

People_of_the_Book

Should there be a mention about this, and his preachings of Jews/Christians being enemies of Islam? Sceptre (Talk) 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

NO!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Arabic spelling

In the Arabic spelling of Abu Hamza's name, the alif on the far left should be on the far right, to the right of the ba' (before it in Arabic !). I have tried to move it but the font defeats me.

Versions of Microsoft Internet explorer have problems editing right-to-left text mixed with left-to-right punctuation in some cases. I fixed it by replacing the raw Unicode text with HTML entities (as I did a while back when there was the same problem with Hebrew text in the "Land of Israel" article). AnonMoos 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

Could we get sources for the Sky News amputation story and his Columbia remarks? Also, any ideas on how to make it more clear he is referring to Palestine, Texas? My first thought was "gee, this guy is dumb". (Then I hovered over the link and felt dumb myself.) crazyeddie 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the comparison to Nick Griffin should be sourced or removed, there are plenty of claims made there, without any citations to back them up. Rockpocket 06:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The comparisons to Nick Griffin should definitely be removed. This section is rambling and off-the-point. I'm not saying that it is completely irrelevant to this article, but it should be no more than an observation that accusations of double standards in British Law have been fuelled by comparisons between the court cases of Abu Hamsa & Griffin. And then only if sources can be provided. Beerathon 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Added cleanup tag due to above problems. Kyaa the Catlord 10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article needs severe trimming, it currently reads like a collection of red-top tabloid factoids (and we all know how honest tabloids are) - I would do it, but to trim back to only leave what is sourced would mean an article (that is currently linked to front page) looking particularly thread bear. It is also going to be difficult to get exacting sources on much of this stuff anyway, given the controversial nature of the man subjectivity in source material tends to goes out the window, and hence the sources themselves would be fairly useless in providing validity to the article.SFC9394 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Trimming would just be a start. The structure of this article is a mess. Someone needs to spend a bit of time knocking this into shape. If I can spare a bit of time I'll take a crack at it this weekend. Beerathon 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Nick Griffin

I cannot find any sources that prove the existence of a substantial debate regarding double standards in British Law that directly relates to the Hamsa/Griffin cases. I've heard people alluding to the idea on TV a couple of times, but I cannot find any particular focus on the issue (except in this article). Reviewing the article's history, it appears that once the section was added, it was jumped on by numerous users who have expanded on and edited without regard to being relevant article's core subject. The result is a load of usubstantiated waffle and conjecture. If someone can locate some source material on this subject then maybe we can reconsider its inclusion in some capacity (see my comments in the Sources? section above). In the mean time I am going to remove the section. Beerathon 12:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources here and here put comparisons in with Nick Griffin, but no more than that. Sapient 12:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I have noted comparisons with Griffin under the section covering Hamza's court case, but I did not make specific reference to the idea that it has sparked a debate over racial bias in the British Courts System. The BBC source shows that the Chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission believes that the differing verdicts may suggest 'that controversial figures in one community might get treated differently than others', but this does not constitute any kind of formal accusation. Beerathon 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This comparison I think is pretty superficial. The main charges against Hamza were incitement to murder - a markedly different thing to incitement to racial hatred. Griffin was acquitted on only half of his charges and faces a re-trial. The charges he was acquitted on related to a speech about Stephen Lawrence. Most people would find what he said was objectionable and racist, but the law is not against racist speech per se. The jury must have felt that the crucial element of incitement was missing - at least thats how I read it. It should also be noted that Hamza was acquitted on a few charges of the same offence. Chris 11/02/05
Claiming that Hamza and Griffin are similar or 'two side of the same coin' are ridiculous. Hamza told his followers to murder non-Muslims; Griffin never told his supporters to kill anyone. As such, Hamza was convicted of soliciting murder, whereas Griffin has never even been arrested for anything like that. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

Let's get a more NPOV image, and one that doesn't say "haha, look at the drugged-out man with the hook!", he's not a pirate. Yes, he has a hook, no, we wouldn't show that odd pose as somebody's main pic if they weren't handicapped.

http://www.gunculture.net/images/uploads/captain_hook.jpg looks good to me (ignore file name :P )

http://www.voanews.com/persian/images/ap_muslim_cleric_Abu_Hamza_al-Masri_file_150.jpg isn't bad except the man behind him somewhat screams "terrorist" in Western minds

http://www.ouwho.co.uk/fark/abu_hamster.jpg could be cropped (as much as I love his new toy)

Your pick, just pick one Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 12:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But I like this one, he looks like a pirate. Kyaa the Catlord 13:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the line in the article stating "He apparently enjoys provoking outrage and has readily posed for photographs holding his "hook" right hand to his eye" appears to be true. See this BBC profile photo. If he is indeed a pirate (heck, there have been well documented Somali Pirates attacking ships, and Somalis are by-and-large Muslim), then that may mean there's an entirely new breed of seafaring terrorists for the world to deal with. Now, while I know President Bush might prefer to simply send out a fleet of submarines to sink these dasdardly Islamo-fascist pirates terrorists of the high seas, I would suggest using different, eons-old arch-nemesis of pirates: the Ninja. ---Bobak 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is definately hard to call a picture of him showing off his "hook" as POV since it is his claim to fame. I'll send my crack squad of busty lesbian ninja pirates to aid the efforts in Somalia. :D Kyaa the Catlord 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Compared to Nick Griffin I thought he was harmless.
Talking about supposed race differences is far more harmful that murdering people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.90.187 (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'd rather be talked about than murdered but obviously your experience leads you to the opposite conclusion. pablohablo. 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

According to a POPULUS survey from December 2005, Muslims in Britain oppose his views by a factor of two-to-one; however, among the age group 18-24, the figures are reversed, and 2 out of 3 who expressed an opinion agree with his views. [1]

Presumably that refers to "Younger Muslims are also more likely than those in general to agree with Abu Hamza (by 27% to 13%)" in the reference. But that isn't what those numbers mean. The 13% is the %ge of all who agree, not the %ge of 18-24 who disagree. The latter figure is not given.

Thanks to whoever changed the reference, which now bears this out

Sued?

The article states:

In 2004 while remanded in prison, he sued for a further £200 per week in benefits [2].

Yet the source quotes a Daily Mirror report that he "is to sue welfare officials for thousands of pounds (dollars) in extra state benefits". There are plenty of examples of tabloids reporting things that are going to happen, yet never do. I can find no evidence that he ever sued, thus i've changed the article accordingly. If anyone can find a source confirming he did sue, go ahead and revert.Rockpocket 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hand and eye missing

Does anyone know for sure how his hand and eye were lost? Merecat 04:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is both hands -- said to be a war injury. -- Geo Swan 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The BBC's just broadcast a special "I was a spy within al-Qaeda" Newsnight programme. The featured spy said he was present when Abu Hamza lost his hands, and that it was an accidental nitrogycerin explosion. This happened while they were together in a training camp in Afghanistan. If anyone's interested the programme should be available on the BBC's website for a while. aLii 23:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Demining project in Afghanistan [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moonlight Mile (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The article says "He lost both hands and an eye whilst allegedly on a mining project near Jalalabad, during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan." The reference cited doesn't go into any details, but I think this should be a demining project as per the above source. Gamesh (Gil) (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is in desperate need of a cleanup - at points the article becomes frankly unreadable. There have obviously been some recent edits which are extremely badly written. I note for example the references to abu hamza's bigamy. The article is becoming an embarrasment.

Reviewing the changes made this morning, to what was a pretty decent article, i can find no improvements. For that matter, aside from the confusing explanation of bigamy and occasional ?notes to self?, there was little new information added. Thus i reverted back to the version, in place this morning, that has been stable for weeks. Rockpocket 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

al-Masri redirect

I think there should be a disambig for al-Masri, or an introductory note. There are a number of guys with that moniker: this here guy, then Khalid al-Masri who drew some strings pre-9-11, Khalid El-Masri who got on the CIA's wrong side, and the guy who quite probably will draw al-Qaeda's strings in Iraq (although that might be an individual called "Abdullah bin Rashed al-Baghdadi" instead) is given as Abu al-Masri. Then you have Mohammed Atef AKA Abu Hafs al-Masri, killed NOV-16-2001 in Afghanistan and head of the local chapter of Ansar al-Islam. Certainly, a nondescript moniker like "al-Masri" - "the one from (Islamic) Egypt" - fits many people, and as such it is a nom de guerre of Egyptian-born jihadists - or just ordinary Khalids - that we'll see over and over again.

Not neutral

This man is notorious for his levels of state support and yet this article doesn't mention them. Every article on Hamza mentions it. THerefore this article completely fails to comply with NPOV as it does not mention this issue, which is one of his best known attributes

Here are som references

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/news/individual_tin_news.php?news_id=133

'Hamza had snapped up the flat for £75,000 under "right-to-buy" laws and then gave it to his son after the council moved him to a bigger property nearby.

But despite the deal, which generated a £150,000 windfall, British-born Mostafa is still demanding his £200-a-month Jobseeker's Allowance.

Mostafa, 24, who served a jail sentence for terrorism in Yemen, attended a job centre in Wembley, north-west London, to sign on for his money.

Last night politicians demanded an investigation into Mostafa's finances.

Hamza, jailed earlier this month for incitement to murder and race-hate offences, is estimated to have cost taxpayers more than £4million in state handouts, police costs and legal aid.

Tory MP Greg Hands said:

"The son sounds like he is exploiting our benefits system in the same way that the father did."

Mr Hands, whose Hammersmith and Fulham constituency covers the area where Hamza and his family live, added: "This family have been doing this for years. '

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006060382,00.html

"Housing benefit pays the rent for their £550,000 five-bed council home in Shepherd’s Bush, West London — while the £34.61 weekly council tax is covered by another allowance.

Nadjet, who wed Hamza in 1984, receives income support of £379.46 a week, child tax credits worth £200 a week and £62.60 child benefit. Her children are 18, 17, 15, 12, ten, nine and six."

"Abu Hamza al-Masri, currently in British jail on incitement to murder charges, plans to sue the government for the £200 a week in welfare he says he is owed for almost three years. According to the Sun, which broke this story, Abu Hamza already is getting plenty of other benefits:

£2 million of taxpayer funds to pay for his now-seven-year legal battle against deportation; Special help in jail to bathe, dress, and eat due to his disabilities, as well as a personal nurse who visits him daily; and A new hook (on which, see the Oct. 20, 2004 update of this entry)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.39.187 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While this info should perhaps be mentioned in the article, the fact that it is not does not make the article non-neutral. I have therefore removed the npov tag. Perhaps you should try writing a new section for the above information? aLii 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate language

Removed the word "paki" where it said paki citizenship. Will keep an eye on this page to check for any further vandalism.81.213.125.244 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The last line of the Quotations section seems suspiciously like vandalism, but I'm not an expert in the field. Guille (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More detail

The real debate about Hamza is concerning his status as a citizen, as a possible refugee and about his status under international and domestic law. Perhaps someone with some knowledge of these issues could write about them. For this, of course, more detail will be required: when, and under what circumstances did he enter the UK. What was his status then and now? How does his case link up with broader debates about leave to remain in the UK and political activity etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.86.148.142 (talk • contribs).

I've just read a profile of Abu Hamza on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4644960.stm) which seems significantly more helpful than the current Wikipedia content specifically the brief detail on his life up to now and not just his media fame since '99. I have no knowledge on the subject so don't want to mess with what's here but maybe it could be of use in getting the article more encyclopedic... extraordinary 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

His name was Mustafa Kamel at birth, but he goes by Abu Hamza now: where did that come from? His son's name is given as Mohammed Mustafa Kamel, did he perhaps have another son named Hamza that would explain the name ("father of Hamza")? --Saforrest (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom

Is it worth mentioning that in the 2007 movie The Kingdom, the head terrorist in the film was also called Abu Hamza? I mean, that can't be just a coincidence, right? Additionally, while he's a touch short of the full hook, he had fingers missing from one of his hands (which indicated to the protagonists in the film that he was a bomb-maker.) 88.109.54.255 (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh?

Was he a Sheikh? Can this be verified? What entitled someone to be given this title? Officially? 81.156.13.254 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship?

Which citizenship(s) does he currently hold? The British authorities wanted to remove his British citizenship - did they succeed? Does he still hold his Egyptian citizenship? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion from Finsbury Park Mosque

The article claims that the Charity Commission removed him from his position in the Finsbury Park Mosque but cites no reference. It is my understanding that he was never a trustee of the charity that presumable has responsibility for it which would suggest that the charity commission could have no involvement. The article linked by reference 10 states that the Police removed him and his followers, sealed the mosque and then later returned it to the trustees. Does anyone have any more information?--MarkBarl (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my understanding too - many at the mosque were embarassed and intimidated by his presence, which was never official. I'll look for a reference later. pablohablo. 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The charity commission couldn't remove an imam from a mosque - all they could do was remove the charity status of the mosque. What did happen? Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a ref. Apparently the Charity Commission did remove him by barring him from the premises: "But by the time the Charity Commission stepped in, the watchdog found Abu Hamza had effectively intimidated the trustees into giving him control" ... "The commission eventually barred Abu Hamza from the premises - but he continued to use the building right up until police closed it down in January 2003 amid a major al-Qaeda associated investigation."Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Balkans

"In the early 1990s, he lived in Bosnia, with an identity document under the name of Adam Eaman, "where he fought to protect Bosnians from the Serbs and Croats during the Bosnian Genocide" i find this quite oposite of neutral coz it implicates two things: first that he helped Bosnians which is a term used for Christian Serbs and Croats and Muslim Bosniaks who live there, term is incorrect and should be Bosniaks as this is an nation first recognized during and after Bosnian war and describes only Muslims (not to be confused with Medieval Bosnia and Bosnians who were Bogumil and Christian and related with Serbian and Croat Kingdoms) and second problem is using terms as "protect" instead of "fought alongside" and "during Bosnian Genocide" instead of "Bosnian War" - it's quite bias and it gives us a wrong picture of one nation victim, as truth is all sides had their armies and commited war crimes, Serbian and Croatian are more-less already exposed whilst Bosniak are still waiting some favourable political atmosphere in the West and US (ceirtainly not while Saudis still finance those mentioned). If we say "where he fought alongside Bosniaks against the Serbs and Croats during the Bosnian War" it would make much more truthfull picture for someone who wants to know more about Abu Hamzas involvment- but i understand why Bosniaks today want to wash their hands of people like him and countless others mercenaries who are today accused of terrorism in Western countries and against non-Muslims.Jarovid (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What's he now in prison for?

The article currently states "Hamza (who is serving a terrorist-related jail term in Britan [sic - OK, I'll fix that]" and also "By November 2009 he would normally have been eligible for release" (for the terrorist-related jail term. Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gap

The article should explain his ascent to position of Imam of Finsbury Park Mosque. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Lost an eye and both hands

at the beginning of the article: "He lost an eye an both his hands in an act of sheer bravery in honour of Barrack Obama."?????? --93.23.40.205 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Name Corrected

I corrected the name, in arabic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.88.95 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

His "proper" name, et al..

I think that his name, properly rendered, is probably simply "Abu Hamza", without a surname. There should had been a hyphen between the two names, which is a secret, hidden one, known only perhaps to Arabs, Arabic-speakers or certain Muslims. To call him "Hamza" or "Mr. Hamza" would probably be the equivalent of calling e.g., a "Jean-Pierre", from France, as "Mr. Pierre" or "M. (Monsieur) Pierre", and it might cause offence. I would refer you to [4] , [5] and [6]. The person ([7]) who changed his "surname" over ([8]), has a Turkish name ("Cengiz" is the Turkish form and rendering of "Genghis"), and one wonders if this was purely unintentional, or otherwise.

I do not believe that there was ever any evidence to substantiate the claim that he is ever a "naturalised", or a "registered", British citizen, with a (right to apply and to hold a) full British passport (if it was done before the 1 January 1983, his name(s) and address would had been published in a list in the London Gazette), and he was born long after Egypt was no longer a British "protected state" (similar to a full protectorate). (Indeed he is (as of yet) one, after all, reportedly in the year 1986. My over-sight.)

I also think that the special distinction that RAF Mildenhall is a special air base, used only by the USAF, instead of by the RAF, is important, or pertinent, and should not really be removed under any circumstances.

The name "Mustapha Kamel Mustapha" was also used by Her Majesty's Government and in some earlier judicial proceedings. Anyway, I thank you. -- KC9TV 15:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't finish reading this article because of incorrect use of his name. Hamza is a proper name, the kunya (agnomen) he goes by is "Abu Hamza" which translates to "Father of Hamza". So why is this article referring to him as Hamza only? It should use his laqab "al-Masri" as is the case in many other articles or the name "Abu Hamza" should be used together. Using Hamza by itself makes no sense at all. -SPM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.166.107 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we have a motivation section?

Early in the article it says 'His initial reaction to life in Britain was to describe it as "a paradise, where you could do anything you wanted"'. He seems to have changed his mind since then. Why has he done this, has he spoken about it? Was he himself 'radicalised' or whatever? It would be interesting to know.

I am assuming, of course, that "a paradise, where you could do anything you wanted" was meant positively. Without qualification that's how it reads. If he meant it in a bad way that should be explained. Lessthanideal (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The only person who knows if he was radicalised in the UK is Hamza. It is not well documented when he started to have radical beliefs. The Soviet war in Afghanistan started in Dec 1979, the same year that Hamza arrived in the UK, so if what is reported is true, (that he sustained his amputations during that war) the amputations must have occurred between Dec 1979 and Feb 1989 and Hamza would have had to have gone from the UK in order to arrive in Afghanistan during that time so he could be injured, which would suggest he was radicalised whilst in the UK.
As for him believeing that life in the UK is a paradise where you could do anything you wanted, the current situation he is in and his past convictions for offences against the person as well as a conviction under the terrorism act, shows that he was mistaken. The UK, like other countries, is not a place where people could (or can) do anything they wanted.Markdarrly (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Arabic in a section and in the article

Has a native Arabic speaker looked over the "Religious life" section? My very rudimentary Arabic tells me "al ansar" means "the helpers/the supporters", not "the victor". I'd fix it, but there may be some usage where the term has that meaning...

Bottom line, a native speaker-check over would not hurt. -96.231.112.101 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abu Hamza al-Masri/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs reference citations and formal references. Badbilltucker 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Hamza_al-Masri/Archive_1&oldid=718094742"