Talk:Yusuf Estes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars.

It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Talk:Yusuf Estes/Archive1

1 An improved and comprehensive clean-up
2 Major revision
3 Estes glorification campaign
4 Not a chief editor
5 Criticism towards Estes?
6 Misquotes found on websites
7 New tags
8 Someone using article to criticize Sufis and Shia
9 language

[edit] An improved and comprehensive clean-up

The previous versions of this encyclopaedia article were not of good quality, therefore I have taken the necessary measures to improve it, hopefully turning into a more encyclopaedic and accurate piece. If anyone disagrees or is not content with this new version, please contact me first or kindly add the respective comment into this discussion-talk page, so that we can correspond our ideas accordingly. Below are other biographies credited and perhaps even copyright to other individuals. Thanks - Xaxerian, 31st January 2005, 8 GMT.

The disputed tag has been removed, but this article still reads as if it were written by a public relations manager for Yusuf Estes. It is fawning and fulsome. I will work on it when I have time. In the meantime, I'll add the disputed tag. Zora 09:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The title "Shaykh" is missing, the one that precedes the name of Muslim scholars. It should be "Shaykh Yusuf Estes". The article is not "fawning and fulsome" as expressed by user Zora unless of course one dislikes him. I would like it if a picture of the Shaykh was added to the article. --Sindbad the Sailor 07:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

I have rewritten the article completely, and added some links to sites that concern Estes' criticism of Sufism.

I am not sure that my treatment is sufficiently NPOV. The more I read about Estes, the more I disliked him. IMHO, he was a sleazy entrepeneur as a Christian and he's a sleazy entrepeneur as a Muslim. He doesn't seem to have ANY scholarly credentials. He has adopted a "Qur'an-only" approach that is eerily reminiscent of his "Bible-only" upbringing as a Christian.

I'm being forthright about my impressions, because I want the article to strike the NPOV mean between the fawning of the earlier version and the criticism implicit in mine. Zora 07:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Qur'an alone" is a sect started by Rashad Khalifa. Estes is not "Qur'an alone" if he accepts Sunnah. Estes is Sunni, as far as I can tell from his site OneGuy 19:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Estes is not an entrepeneur currently - he would be better defined as an Islamic orator. As stated by the member OneGuy, Estes is indeed Sunni - meaning he believes in the Noble Qur'an and Sunnah, the Example of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon his noble soul. People have different opinions and their judgements are unfortunately influenced in majority through them - though I suggest Estes's critics actually read what he writes - after going through his works myself, I find him to be intelligent, honest, precise and completely accurate to the very core; he grinds home interesting points quite well. Xaxerian 01:05, 26 February 2005 C.E; 16 Muharram 1426 A.H.

I base my estimate of Estes on reading his writings. Perhaps my reading is influenced by my having grown up in a Christian culture (even though I'm a Buddhist) and recognizing stereotypical Bible Belt rhetoric in his Muslim writings. The rhetoric may seem fresh and new to someone who DIDN'T grow up reading it, but it's old hat to me. Not only old hat, but repulsive. Jest folks, anti-intellectual, etc.

But it doesn't matter what I think as long as the article is NPOV and the links are there for readers to visit Estes' sites and draw their own conclusions. Zora 05:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Estes glorification campaign

An anon editor (Mr. Estes? one of his employees? one of his devotees?) went to work on the website, removing everything that could be considered controversial or critical, and turning the article back into a puff piece for Yusuf Estes.

Whoever is doing this, please don't. Not only does it compromise Wikipedia, it reflects badly on Yusuf Estes. Is he ashamed of his writings about Sufis? Is he ashamed of his past life? Someone who professes to lead others to religion should be truthful and humble, not a self-promoting PR flack. Zora 19:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What kind of a Muslim are you? He is a GREAT MUSLIM and spreads the true message of Islam....

I'm not a Muslim <g>. As to the true message of Islam ... well, lots of different people have different ideas about that. Zora 30 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)

? what does that have to do with insulting the man?

You (whoever you are) are not distinguishing between talk pages and articles. Whatever goes in the article has to be NPOV. On the talk pages, editors can reveal their personal opinions. I revealed my personal opinion simply because I do want to be fair, and I felt that I was having a hard time being fair. You have yet to point out anything in the ARTICLE that is untrue. Estes's opposition to Sufism is a matter of record. His lean towards Wahabism/Salafism is obvious. Zora 2 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

How is he self promoting? All he does is preach in all over the world. He has every right to preach and spread Islam the way he sees fit.

Self-promoting is the word I used on this talk page, not in the article. Self-promoting? Name and picture and boasting all over the place. There are many thousands of devout Muslim teachers and scholars alive today who work humbly and selflessly. I'd regard them as a better advertisement for Islam. But that's my own POV. I don't think you'll find it in the article. Zora 2 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

He doesnt do PR work like other authors. He is a speaker and addresses issues on his site. As for SUFIS, like you said, many people have different opinions. Just to be "balanced" you're tarnishing a good man's reputation....

Your own words

"I am not sure that my treatment is sufficiently NPOV. The more I read about Estes, the more I disliked him. IMHO, he was a sleazy entrepeneur as a Christian and he's a sleazy entrepeneur as a Muslim. He doesn't seem to have ANY scholarly credentials. He has adopted a "Qur'an-only" approach that is eerily reminiscent of his "Bible-only" upbringing as a Christian.

Ghee, lets see...Everytime a Muslim changes his faith and BRANDS it all over the internet its a freaking expression of freedom but when a Person converts to Islam its "sleaziness".

When did I say that? You seem to have filed me in the category "Proponents of Ali Sina". I never use that website; it's not reliable. I'm not an ex-Muslim, I'm not a Christian, I'm not a US right-winger. I'm just a Buddhist intellectual <g>. Zora 2 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Please tell me how is he making $$$$ out of spreading Islam?

As a Christian he sold Instruments to churches.....

What is he selling as a Muslim?

Making money as a "religious teacher". My teacher sold and installed refrigerators. Zora 2 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

"religious teacher"??? Who said he was a religious teacher??

HE PAYS AND OPERATES his website and spends countless hours on it speading Islam....

As for his finances I dont think thats any of our business... and you've still yet to prove that he's a "busniness man"

This is a smear campaign PLAIN and SIMPLE

BTW, if you even took time to read his site he clearly says that he is a "learner" and "does not offer a Fatwah" and teaches what he's learned from scholars which ends this conversation by itself.

He NEVER claimed to be an authority on Islam

He is a preacher

You're entire arguement is that

1) He's not a scholar

I suggest you read his works. He is very much a scholar and know what he is talking about

2) He is a business man

PROVE TO ME that he makes money from preaching Islam

He has to eat doesnt he and has to operate his site doesnt he?

3) He is not a fan of Sufism

IN YOUR OWN WORDS "many people have different views on Islam"

He views it the way its viewed in the religion

And all this makes him a bad person?

He has helps THOUSANDS of people enter Islam and is definitely an idol of mines...

He "promotes" his site because this is the day and age we live in....

On the internet you can find 100s of ANTI MUSLIMS sites

For people like Estes he has to compete with them

As for the picture??

Whats wrong with that?

I am not talking about the talk pages

I was talking about the discussion page

I didnt know the difference

' Whoever this anonymous editor is who doesnt understand that talk/discussion (its the same thing) is for discussion and not for more propeganda, you need to stop making edits to wikipedia without reading the NPOV and WP:NOT guideline, and learning how to sign your comments (four tildes, try it). I fully support Zora, especially in light of her excellent chief editorship of the main Islam page. Alex Bartho 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

' I think Zora has some good points. I have done some research on this subject and found certain information to be inaccurate and while trying to update it to reflect this data I hope I have not overstated or understated the case. while I cannot totally agree with everything Zora has said (like "sleazy" etc.), I also cannot totally agree with everything I find on Estes' websites either. So, I just hope something I have done is at least acceptable and of course I realize it is all subject to change in the future anyway. After all, that is the very nature and beauty of this great website. - Keep up the good work Zora (and others). 6:14, 20 February 2006 (CST)

I disagree with user Zora's subtle slander of Shaykh Yusuf Estes. I'll quote the user's words: "Is he ashamed of his writings about Sufis? Is he ashamed of his past life? Someone who professes to lead others to religion should be truthful and humble, not a self-promoting PR flack." This is a clever play to attack the Shaykh and making outrageous specualtions like "An anon editor (Mr. Estes? one of his employees? one of his devotees?)" I can't believe a user is allowed to get away with such open and systematic slander and still be hailed for doing good work on the wikipedia article. This has to be an objective article, and this user is no different from those accused of changing the article. In correcting them, user Zora cleverly manipulates and slanders Shaykh Yusf Estes.--Sindbad the Sailor 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sinbad, I don't think you understand the difference between the article page and the discussion page. The article has to be scrupulously neutral. There's no such requirement on a discussion page. There is a BIG difference between what is said in the article and what I feel free to say here.

He said what he said about Sufis. It's a matter of record. It shouldn't be covered up. If he had made a public apology for denigrating other Muslims, that would have been included too. Has he made any such apology? Or clarified his stand re Salafism and Sufism? That would be worth adding if there were any such material. Zora 07:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Zora, perhaps you could point out to us where he has specifically criticized Sufis. From what I've read, he hasn't distinguished ANY group in his criticism. He has talked about the unification of Muslims under Islam and not diverge into groups and sects, any including Salafis and not just Sufis as you seem to believe. Why do you think he should apologize for doing that? Sadly, the propaganda on this discussion page seems to have seeped on to the article where even the mere title of "Shaykh" is denied to the Muslim scholar. --Sindbad the Sailor 07:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a chief editor

There is no chief editor. I'm certainly not one. I'm not even an admin. Sometimes I can convince people to do things my way and sometimes I can't. Zora 13:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism towards Estes?

I find it hard to believe that someone is actually criticising this warm and friendly man, who unlike many other webmasters treats other religions with equal respect,and helps bridge different communitites together. But Sheikh Yusuf is only 14 years as a muslim, and he himself has said that he is still learning. Perhaps he is trying to spread Islam as much as he can before his time runs out(he's pretty old).Spreading Faith, in Islam is an obligation. Well, no one knows the truth. But as far as I have understood, Yusuf Estes doing this for money is utter nonsense. The man is dedicated. I have been to his lectures, And the show went on till 11 pm. And the same went on for 2 weeks. And he does the same in different parts of the world, sprecifically in USA. Judging from his actions and commitment, I declare that He can't be a fake. So it's wise not to slander someone, without knowing much about that person.

"I find some of opinions expressed here about Yusuf Estes prejudiced. I mean the idea that it'll be asked whether Mr Estes went to work on his page is not required and the speculation probably stems from dislike of him. I would ask his detractors to bring up sources and links to criticisms instead of these childish ad hominem attacks. Also, provide citations that it is always Salafis who disagree with Sufis. Read Yusuf Estes' viewpoint grounded in the Islamic teachings about groups: http://www.islamtomorrow.com/groups/. We must agree to disagree instead of slandering him. He is a well read teacher of Islam. What does the original poster mean by: 'Is he ashamed of his past life? Someone who professes to lead others to religion should be truthful and humble, not a self-promoting PR flack.' This is pure slander and outside the rules of wikipedia." Peace2u

[edit] Misquotes found on websites

I found some websites misquoting him regarding various groups of Muslims, apparently using materials from his site to promote their own understandings(?) while adding to and subtracting from his actual commentary. Having compared his statements from his speeches and lectures online, it is clear he does not hold hardline views against these groups.

Shaykh Yusus Estes criticizes all groups, not just Sufis and Shias as this article suggests. He doesn't slander any of these but provides Islamic verses to prove his point. He calls for the unity in Islam. He is against any catogoric or sectarian definition of Islam. Indeed those same people on the opposite side of Shaykh Yusuf Estes define themselves, too. I'll second the observation made in the first comment.--Sindbad the Sailor 07:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New tags

I added the tags cleanup and no-source to this article. My concerns are 1) That there are zero (as in none) source listed in the article. 2) The article repeats itself over and over, 3) It is a mess to read 4) Is it posiblle to get a picture of the refered person?

Is this man worhty of an encyclopedia article? in not then it should be deleted and removed from the infobox Muslim scholars. template:Muslim scholars

Angelbo 23:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

removed last tag from article. It is no longer cluttered and repeats itself anymore good word

Angelbo 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone using article to criticize Sufis and Shia

The article had been rewritten to criticize Sufis and Shia as extremists, and to downplay any link to Salafism. I rewrote to be fair to Sufis and Shia. It is made very clear that Estes denies being a Salafi. Zora 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Shaykh Yusuf Estes has written against any label whether they be Salafi and Sufi. He draws from a singular Islam, the Islam defined in the Qur'an.--Sindbad the Sailor 07:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So what makes you think that he has the one and only correct view on what Islam is? Other Muslims might well differ.

As for calling Yusuf Estes "Shaykh," we try to stay away from titles in Wikipedia. Titles are controversial. Some people wouldn't want to give them. Frex, so far as I know, Yusuf Estes hasn't completed a course at any recognized Islamic university, or gotten the permission to teach (I'm blanking on the Arabic for that) from a widely recognized teacher. Many Muslims would not want to call him a shaykh, for those reasons. Zora 11:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i understand that he himself states that people only call him "shaykh" as a mark of respect ("shaykh" literally meaning 'old man'). last i heard of him, he was learning from ja'far idris. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So why did you remove the title "Imam" before Ahmed Rida Khan? Imam means "Leader" and his millions of followers/respecters consider him a leader. Let me guess removing this title, which you called "removing POV" was indeed your "POV" as a Wahhabi. Hassanfarooqi 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

i didn't re-insert "shaykh" (and i don't think i would), and i was merely responding to Zora as to why some people call him shaykh. do you understand the difference between that and your skewing of Ahmed Rida Khan? one instance of 'Imam' would be tolerable, but you have yet to explain why every instance of his name should be reverentially preceded with "Imam". with all due respect: yes, he is an Imam to the barelwis, but for the vast majority of humanity (let alone Muslims) he is not. ITAQALLAH 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well for the vast majority of humans Muhammed is not a prophet, so by your logic you should start deleting the title Prophet before Muhammed's name? It is in a lot of wikipedia articles and non-Muslim editors do not delete it. The last time I checked, the title "Saint" was attached to many personalities of different religions in wikipedia and the argument was that their respecters consider him a saint. Hassanfarooqi 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

please see WP:NCP. ITAQALLAH 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So what point of yours does it prove? Muhammed is known as Muhammed only among non-muslims, not Prophet Muhammed. Wikipedia article is titled Muhammed as well. Just like Ahmed Raza Khan is known as Imam Ahmed Raza among his followers/respecters but not by you. As for Yusuf Estes, I just saw a pamphlet from I.C.N.A. (the North American version of Wahhabi influenced Jamat-e-Islami), which has his name as plain Yusuf Estes, no Shaykh. So Yusuf Estes is not known as Shaykh even among his respecters.Hassanfarooqi 22:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

if you had studied the guideline, you would see what point it proves. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Zora, titles are "controversial", huh? How about going to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf's wikipedia article and removing the title "Shaykh"? Well, many Muslims wouldn't want to call other scolars "Shaykh" as well. This just goes to show how your propaganda has seeped on to the main entry. The truth is that Shaykh is a title well deserved by both Hamza Yusuf and Yusuf Estes. These are learned men and widely respected by Muslims. Speaking of "disagreement", there's disagreement between nearly all Muslims. That doesn't prevent them from critiquing the movements in Islam. I can provide you proofs of Sufis critiquing Salafis and vice-versa. You are not a Muslim and you know very little of what Muslims want. This is not a POV based entry, remember? --Sindbad the Sailor 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Shaykh should be used consistently in Hamza Yusuf's article, if it is. But I'm not responsible for all Wikepedia articles. There's some policy, whose name I can't remember, about "don't argue from bad examples elswhere." I've got limited time and energy and I do what I can. As for my not being a Muslim ... well, it is not a requirement that one be a Muslim to work on Islam-related articles. I think it's sufficient that I read, I learn, and I'm not an Islamophobe. Zora 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. When I started editing and you reverted some of my articles, I considered you a Sufiophobe. However when I followed your edits, I realized your neutrality. You are definitely not a Sufiophobe or an Islamophobe.Hassanfarooqi 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)