Talk:Ismail ibn Musa Menk

Name of page
Ismail ibn Musa Menk IS his name. The norm on Wikipedia is to use the subject's name as the title of a biographical page. See the Manual of Style guidelines for biographies located HERE. Please don't change the page to Mufti Menk or a variation of it without explaining your logic here on this talk page. Then we will see what other editors think. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

George Cluster, you may criticize anyone with facts and reference under the tab of criticism. It doesn't mean that what you mention and say is only right. There need to be followed certain ethics and terms. Meanwhile we are also in touch with Wikipedia team officially and claim on you for defaming. Final humble request to you. Agi wiki (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your reply doesn't even make sense. Please comply with Wikipedia guidelines. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything will make sense my dear friend. You just wait.... And see... You agenda is is personal and to tarnish.... Agi wiki (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no agenda aside from to keep Wikipedia accurate, reliable and neutral. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

GorgeCusterSabre your edits are Non neutral, biased non accurate and in reliable. I agree with Agi wiki and there are a number of serious complaints that will be escalated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have fixed and copy edited per MOS and NPOV, I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

References/Sources

 * That are the sources to cite the content if needed. Justice007 (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity?
A youtube video of Mufti Menk talking about his ethnicity and a reliable article written about Gujarati Muslims in Africa are "unreliable sources" but a random article from archive was an acceptable source to prove he is "yemeni". What an absolute clown infested circus this website has become. FourierFlow (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, this mufti is not Yemeni, his parents were both from villages in Bharuch. I corrected it to Gujarati Muslim. User:GorgeCustersSabre please don't revert it again to that nonsensical poorly sourced article you cited. FourierFlow (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

From his dress, name and place of education, he appears to be of Saudi origin, but the article doesn't clarify on this. Obviously, from his looks he is not a Black Zimbabwean. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe has many ethnicities. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Claíomh Solais - I take this to be an offensive and racist comment. I think you should retract. Does someone have to be a particular skin tone or wear certain clothes to be a citizen of a specific country? This sort of commentary lacks maturity.Contaldo80 (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They were not talking about citizenship but ethnicity. Also is it WP:UNDUE for half his article to be about one controversial statement. I am not saying that we should add WP:TRIVIA but a family background could be included. However I accept his skin tone and clothing probably should not be mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Homophobic" blah-blah-blah
Shouldn't this section be named something else? Use of the neologism "homophobia" is essentially pro-homosexuality political apologia, if we're being realistic. The use of the phrase is meant to convey that the subject of the article is wrong or shouldn't have those opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, who are we to judge? This man is clearly an Arab and a Muslim, as well as that he is living/born in an Africa country... all three of those cultures reject homosexuality, so why are we placing Anglo-Saxon liberal preferences or norms onto the subject of the article? Rhodesia is over. He is clearly opposed to homosexuality and that is a fair and balanced way to present this information without propaganda or bias against his opinion. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your concerns. What would you suggest? "Views on homosexuality" ? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * While I don't necessarily agree with your general view of the word, I do agree with your overall concerns. I agree that Emir of Wikipedia's suggestion works well. Pure RED  &#124;  talk to me   &#124; 20:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pro-homosexuality political apologia...liberal agenda...blah blah blah". A little culture war being valiantly fought by a desperate rear guard. No. A "view on homosexuality" is stating that you think it should be criminalised. Calling gay people "worse than animals" is simply homophobic abuse. Let's not try to dress it all up. And the view that "he is a Muslim, as well as that he is living/born in an Africa country... all three of those cultures reject homosexuality" is deeply patronising, reveals a colonial mindset and is factually incorrect. Spare us the politics Claíomh Solais - I've heard plenty of it now. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the whole "Homophobia" section should be removed. If you define homophobia as believing that engaging in homosexual behaviour is morally wrong -- then every Muslim is homophobic. Does that mean we should add a "homophobia" section for every living Muslim on Wikipedia? Of course not. It's ridiculous, superfluous, and frankly, Islamophobic. It's only out of my respect for democracy that I don't delete the whole section right now without asking for thoughts. 21fafs (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a better suggestion? And I am not sure if has this on their watchlist. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. If we are to avoid homophobic then could we at least have something line "Controversy concerning views on homosexuality". They are quite extreme comments he makes. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. Let's give it a day or two and if their is WP:SILENCE then we'll change it to "Controversy concerning views on homosexuality". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The word controversy could be used but I think we'd have to state who exactly found it controversial. Did any of the people who attend his Mosque find the comments controversial? Has there been any press coverage from Zimbabwe itself where local opinion has attacked him or put him under pressure? We are only using The Huffington Post in the article as a source at the moment, which is an American liberal publication. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you regularly use the phrase Claíomh Solais that "with all due respect to the animals, homosexuals are worse than animals"? If you do then perhaps you're right that the statement is not controversial. Even though a speaking tour to universities was cancelled on the back of it. Or is the problem that we should expect those outside of the "liberal western media" to have a lower threshold in terms of what's acceptable as abuse? Presumably because of their cultural context? Something you are clearly fond of reminding us about. Who knows - maybe it's not controversial to hang someone by the neck for being gay - because no-one in Iran would find that controversial. I understand from media for example that it's not necessarily controversial in India to gang rape a woman. Tell you what, why not test this out. How about you post comments on my talk page to the effect that you know I am gay and think I am filthy and worse than an animal. And then we can see whether that proves controversial or not. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is probably why words like "controversy" and so on are usually avoided, because they fall foul of WP:WEASEL and are subjective. What you as a British-based homosexual find to be controversial, may not be controversial to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (particularly not in Iran or Saudi Arabia where homosexuals are routinely executed). Given that the subject of the article is based in Zimbabwe, I think we need to lean heavily to what people in Zimbabwe are saying, mention "international" (imperialist, Teutonic) opinion if we must but attribute it clearly to them in the article by name. That is reasonable and fair. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, Claíomh Solais, the problem that you run into - not just on this article - but most articles you edit, is that you make it personal. I don't know why on earth you need to make the point (as you do above) that I am a "British-based homosexual" in an attempt to refute my arguments. This is incredibly lazy, and a sad attempt of clutching at straws. If you want me to have a similar go at identifying what drives your particular obsessions then I'm very happy to - I think I have lots of material. And why not call me "gay" (if you think it's relevant) or talk about "gay rights" or does that make me too human - does "homosexual" help put sufficient distance and sound more like I have a medical condition? At least you're not yet calling me a "homosexualist". To return to the article, Ismail ibn Musa Menk is indeed Grand Mufti of Zimbabwe. Prior to colonisation in the 19th century there is less evidence of the stigmatisation of homosexuality in Zimbabwe - this seems to have been introduced by religious missionaries. I accept, however, that most Zimbabweans are hostile to LGBT rights. Nevertheless, the material in the article deals with Menk's reception in the west - the source from the Huffington Post calls him "homophobic". And a speaking tour of six British universities was cancelled due to him being seen as controversial. This led to Menk retracting his comments, claiming they were "misunderstood". By all means - if you think it's warranted - then provide material with verifiable sources that say he's not controversial in Zimbabwe. But for the moment the heading seems perfectly legitimate to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I can understand why Solais highlighted a personal fact of Contaldo. In my view it wasn't an attempt to refute an argument, but just showing a possible bias. The history of Zimbabwe is irrelevant unless mentioned in the source. T, assuming you are referring to tran(s) is also irrelevant as Menk didn't comment. If the article is dealing with his reception in the West then we need to fix that issue. It doesn't matter if the source calls him "homophobic" as a WP:BIASEDSOURCE doesn't mean we shoulnd't be WP:NEUTRAL. If a speaking tour of six university were cancelled then the views are controversial to some. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I thought it was impertinent of Claíomh Solais to refer either to my nationality or my sexuality. It's not accidental - if you follow this editor's edits they rage continuously against British imperialists and gay activists. My point about the history of Zimbabwe was to refute the casual implications that Zimbabweans - by nature - are unsympathetic to homosexuality. The facts suggest this is a colonial and religious imposition. LGBT is a common term - so I doubt we need to be that specific in terms of distancing ourselves from the T - but in any case the material doesn't refer to LGBT. What makes you think the Huffington Post is a biased source? I stand by my earlier point if you likewise think that referring to gay people as worse than animals is not always controversial then I suggest you make the implication on my personal talk page and then we can determine the extent to which such a term might be controversial in the context of wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You chose to put your nationality and sexuality prominently on your userpage. Nobody forced you to do that. Solais can rage against those types of people but the person in this article is neither. Whether Zimbabweans are unsympathetic to homosexuality is also irrelevant as they are not mentioned in the source. If you don't have any improvements to the article then I suggest we end this discussion now then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My nationality and sexuality are not "prominent" on my talkpage. But even if they are it is hardly the point. It was impertinent to use my background to argue against my edits. This was lazy and intellectually dishonest. Editors are minded to neutrally and objectively discuss how to improve articles, not bring in irrelevant personal details. I am content with the article as it currently stands. My intervention was arguing against the changes suggested by Claíomh Solais. My interaction was not with you, and so from my point of view this discussion is one that has had little value for me and which I can happily agree should end. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear I was content with "Controversy concerning views on homosexuality". This had consensus. Not what we have now.Contaldo80 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing
This article became very whitewashed comapring to the older versions. It mentions nowhere that he insulted millions of Shia Muslims on multiple occasions. It also mentions nowhere that he is a salafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Are these notable things to include? If so, go ahead and include them, so long as you can verify them with reliable third-party sources and express your point in a neutral way. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with a source that is not neutral but is WP:BIASED. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ban from Singapore
Today he was banned from entering Singapore, the reason given - extremist views. It’s not the first time when countries refuse him entry. Surely not for preaching moderate Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk)

Hello. The very long statement from the Zimbabwe Council of Islamic Scholars is exculpatory in tone and not at all neutral. I do not believe that quoting it so thoroughly provides balance. When one reads it, one thinks, "well, they would say that!". If the quotation were to stay in a very long form, we would need to provide more balance by elaborating on the allegations. Then the whole section would be disproportionate within an article of this size. I would like the opinions of other editors, please. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversial views
Hello - I added a section on controversial views citing one example where Menk states "99% of modern popstars are Satanists" (no I'm not joking). It was deleted as Youtube is not an RS. However, it seems pertinent to the other issue of whether the Singapore ban is justified (i.e. is he a moderate or an extremist). Not using his primary method of preaching (i.e. Youtube and Facebook) makes it quite difficult to evidence this otherwise. I note that Wikipedia guidelines do not say outright that Youtube is not an RS, just that "editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video". In this case the video is of Menk himself and uploaded by Islam Broadcast. There's no editing and no suggestion that these are not Menk's views. Given the broader context I think the clip should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennynicely (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Kennynicely, I hope you are well. I removed the point referenced by YouTube in accordance with WP:CITEVIDEO. Maybe you can search for a reliable third-party that isn't YouTube. Regards,George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks GorgeCustersSabre - I did look at that. It doesn't say don't use YouTube as far as I can tell, it says "You should be fairly certain that the content in the YouTube video is indeed actually from the source you are citing."  and I am pretty certain given the uploader and the content that this is a genuine video.  However, I'll defer to your judgment as you've got a lot more editing experience than me!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennynicely (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * :: Dear Kennynicely, I hope you are well. I see your point. I checked to see whether YouTube is used on the Zakir Naik page. It is. I've therefore added the material back to the Menk page, in a slightly edited form. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * :: :: Thank you GorgeCustersSabre for taking the time to look and your update! I'll keep looking for a better source, he's been asked about it on Twitter in the past but doesn't seem to respond much to this sort of question! Kennynicely ) 10:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

My recent edits
Today I removed a lot of superfluous text that contained mostly puffery and non-verifiable assertions about how wonderful Menk is. He may be wonderful. I don't know. But the assertions were either unreferenced or inadequately references. Blog sites simply won't do. Wikipedia requires a neutral tone and reliable and published third-party sources. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your campaign seems to be systematic in defaming an individual in a non neutral un reliable biased manner, it seems you have an agenda to promote your own views quit strongly, the assertion made by the previous editor seemed a lot more accurate and neutral than your edit and references.

Do bear in mind all will be exposed very soon and I trust you are prepared for the legal consequences of your actions. Good Luck :) kindmind  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please give me an explanation as to why my edits are removed. This is my first time making an edit on Mufti Menk's page. The page is completely devoid of all the goodness that is in Mufti Menk and I'm not a one-sided person. All the content was neutral. I recently added his views on Anti-Terrorism, Anti-Extremism, some info about his book "Motivational Moments" and his work as a Humanitarian and these are all, and I literally mean ALL based on references. It is IMPOSSIBLE that all the changes I've made are wrong. EVERYTHING CANNOT BE WRONG. Notable citations were done and every paragraph had atleast 2 references. I'm going to revert back until I get the proper reasons as to why my content is reverted. Copy paste my content here and highlight each and every wrong line or word so I may know how willing you are to prove your accuracy in comparison to mine. I also advise you to read every single word of the updated version so because as I said, EVERYTHING CANNOT BE WRONG or BIASED! I demand to know the reason! MarkusJannssen (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * One more thing. How on earth is "Author of Motivational Moments" getting removed? As I said, EVERYTHING CANNOT BE BIASED. Either you are reverting my changes with a blind eye or you're too narrow-minded to know the difference between what needs to be there and what not. MarkusJannssen (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is your first time making an edit to this page, how come you are writing exactly the same thing as the editor KindMind (e.g. vs ) ? We don't write the kind of gushing prose in those diffs or phrases like "his empowering words instil hope and patience in people across the globe daily" in an neutral encyclopaedia. Please stop edit warring. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , it does seem dodgy that you are making exactly the same edits on the Menk article as . Are you the same person? Either way, instead of edit warring put your suggestions for the article here on the talk page. Other editors can then help you with any issues that you might have. MontyKind (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Salafi?
The Singapore newspaper TODAY identified Menk as a Salafi. It is a reliable third-party source. If you think Menk is not a Salafi you will be obliged to provide a source of your own that meets Wikipedia RS criteria. Then other editors will have their say. In the meantime you can’t just claim that this source is obsolete and remove its statement. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

he has him self never identified him self as a Salafi so how are you trying to reference this as a fact ??. is it because you belong to a different sect and perhaps have strong opposing views and vested interest to promote your Islamic sect views and demote others who are different. Remove the reference with immediate effect it is a lie and un reliable/ in accurate and breaches multiple WP rules. He Cleary states in the video from his own mouth he is just a Muslim, so how are you going to challenge that ?

check this reference : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfdEA8Mmh5Q

Kindmind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the Salafi part until a better source can be produced.

Views on Satanic influences on Western society
Hi, I am removing the section called Views on Satanic influences on Western society, because reference cited for the section is not reliable.

It is a YouTube's link, which generally not considered reliable or credible on Wikipedia. As it self produced material, and it cannot be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia.

Though, YouTube link can be used when the it is from official channel of any notable media house. Also, Please note, cited YouTube link is dead. It is not working. Feel free to revert the edits, only if you have a better and reliable source to meet the verifiability. Thanks.42.107.24.225 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia guidelines do not prevent all use of YouTube in all circumstances. Plus I have found the same clip on a different URL. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 06:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * But It is still questionable, why his Views on Satanic influences on Western society is important to mention on Wikipedia when no media publication cares about it. Not a single media house covers it or talking about it. It might be controversial, but who cares? Why is it encyclopedic? It's not. Please read. Videos_as_references, It clearly mentions Editors should also consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube. I invite other editors who were previously engaged in the discussion here, and also inviting some active Wikipedia administrators to share their views and to resolve the issue @. Thanks.42.107.15.33 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We disagree on the issue. It’s not personal and I wish you a happy day. Moreover, I won’t argue against any editor consensus that emerges. I’m not dogmatic and I have nothing invested in this issue. It’s just that, from my vantage point, I think such a remarkable claim is fairly dramatic and is certainly encyclopaedic. Check out Zakir Naik’s page, for a similar example, and you’ll also see YouTube quoted to represent his viewpoints. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In general, a video clip of him speaking can be usable as a source for what he wants to say about his views on a subject but unless they have been discussed by others they're probably not significant in his career.  DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. It has no significance as it has not been discussed by others (media houses). So, I'm removing the section. George, better you come with other reliable sources along with YouTube link. Thanks.42.107.31.126 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear friends, it’s ok. I’m not dogmatic. I thought this seemed a noteworthy claim to mention. You all disagree. I won’t go against the majority view. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre 04:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

New edits reverted
Hi, You have recently reverted my edits saying trying to push agenda, though I had no such intention. My edits complied Wikipedia's policy and were verifiable by third-party reliable source. Then what went wrong with you, you reverted my edit?

The second edit was just a factual correction. The Majlisul Ulama Zimbabwe is not Menk’s own institution. It is a registered Islamic Welfare Organisation founded in 1975. Its membership comprises of 98 Islamic Scholars, Madrassah Teachers, Imaams, as well as other Religious Personnel serving the Muslim community in Zimbabwe, says its own. So, what was wrong there. I would like to hear your opinion. 42.107.28.31 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey awaiting your reply. 42.107.20.51 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It IS his institution in any fairly read sense. He works there. He is by far the most prominent employee there. It pays his salary. If someone were to ask me what the company I work for has as a policy on this or that, I would say, "at my institution we do this". That's fair usage. George Custer's Sabre 02:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mufti menk.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mufti Menk New.jpg

Place of Birth
I revised his place of birth in relation to the time period in which he was born, the city of Harare was named Salisbury until 1982. Also, the Republic of Zimbabwe was declared in 1980. Before then, in 1975 the name of the country was Rhodesia. This should be revised in the place of birth section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.97.47 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

redirects
musa menk Mufti Menk

Jurisprudence
I made this edit here where I changed the mention of his Jurisprudence from 'Hanbali' to 'studying all four schools'. Accordingly he does not follow the Hanbali school. I added an additional source to evidence this (where it mentions he studied "Comparative Fiqh" i.e. all four schools).

It should be noted that I was the original person who added that he follows the Hanbali school (before this the field in the infobox was blank and before that it stated "Zahiri" which is also unsourced).

My view changed on this with research into the sources - I misinterpreted one foreign language source as stating he had studied the "fourth school". In reality it states he studied all "four schools" and this is backed by the other source that states he studied comparative fiqh. This is also in-line with what we know about Islamic University of Madinah, students there do not generally specialise in one Sunni fiqh school (and they view such a thing as repugnant), rather they "study all four" in a Comparative Fiqh program, generally adhering to no specific school. You can view the relevant faculty pages on their website too.

In summary, whilst he initially studied Hanafi jurisprudence and then studied comparative jurisprudence ("all four schools"), no Madhhab should be added.

I noticed in one edit you reverted my removal of the mention of the Hanbali school, although I'm not sure if you were doing that as part of reverting some other intermediary edits.

Would you contest me removing the mention of the Hanbali school and reinstating that source again? ParthikS8 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Which fiqa did he follow
Which fiqha did he follow 103.50.159.167 (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * He initially followed the Hanafi Fiqh. This can be concluded due to him praying in the Hanafi method here, check this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Vis8sFq4A&list=LL&index=7&t=519s
 * Moreover, since he studied from Darul Uloom Kantharia, a hanafi school madrassa, it corroborates the above fact.
 * However, he is also seen lately praying in the Shafi/Hanbali method. Check this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSsqUXpFoRk&t=1896s
 * Neverthless, he adheres to a madhab. Mammar1998 (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing homophobia section
I am requesting to remove the homophobia section of the article. His views are simply that homosexuality is a sin and that behaving in homosexual behaviour is wrong. If that's homophobia, then every Muslim is homophobic. What we DON'T do is add a "homophobia" section to every Muslim with a Wikipedia article. It is, as I put it in a reply to the other homophobia thread, superfluous and Islamophobic to include that. What do you think 21fafs (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you think all Muslims are homophobic as that's clearly false. See for instance LGBT people and Islam. It's in this article because of all the publicity he received. Doug Weller  talk 07:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Doug weller, The subject matter is an Islamic scholar and would inevitable give his perspective according to his religion just like every Muslim or conservative Christian scholar on many matters that would be disagreed upon in West. As for the tour cancellation, it was not really that big of a controversy and seems undue and go against the things outlined in WP:RECENCY. So, I would also recommend its removal. 182.183.45.116 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 11 years is not recent. It was clearly controversial enough to be included. Doug Weller  talk 13:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)