Talk:Abdul Qayum (imam)

SOAS PhD

He may or may not be a PhD graduate of SOAS, but let's have reliable evidence. A blog won't do. Nor will a non-neutral site with which Abdul Qayum is connected. Citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources are essential. Wikipedia requires them. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have listed reliable sources, everywhere the is written he is graduated from SOAS university. Ermejoso (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually he hasn't completed his Phd yet AHLM13 talk 12:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Name change

I took the liberty of changing the page/article name to Abdul Qayum (London imam) because I can find no evidence on the internet that he has been or is now employed as a scholar, that he is routinely described by neutral commentators as a scholar, or that he has produced significant scholarship. He is an imam and, given that his masjid is in London, I thought it best to name him as "London imam". If anyone thinks the page/article title should be just "imam", I won't mind. Please explain here. My thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Maulana abdul qayum is not only an imam. He is well known as scholar, either in UK and in saudi arabia. 1 2 109.154.0.156 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, he is not. If you disagree, then substantiate it. Build a case based on evidence. Thanks, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Why not? There are also those two references and eveyone knows him a famous scholar. Ask sheik sudais or dr zakir naik if they know him. 109.152.52.202 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are just being silly now. This is a serious encyclopedia. Read the guidelines on the burden of proof needed. Citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources are essential. Wikipedia requires them. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How many references do you need? You are being very silly and not me. How dare you to write that Sheikh abdul Qayum " Actually, he is not"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.90.177 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

What happened in this article? Sure that Shaykh Abdul Qayyum is one of the most famous scholar of all UK (he's known to me) and the sources are provided... as regards this article's name, it was created as "Imam Abdul Qayyum", and previously there was a little mistake in "London imam", it shouldn't be written in capital letter and the "'S" wasn't put, therefore I think IMAM is better. AHLM13 talk 12:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

VANDALISM FROM User:GorgeCustersSabre

The article's title is not very important, but the important thing is that the reliable sources deleted. This User:GorgeCustersSabre is a vandal. If you see this article from 7 of May you will understand everything. He deleted all references and contents. He also deleted his private life and also that mawlana Akram Nadwi is studying with him. Then he added all meaningless citation needed and this BLP Tag. He also deleted some categories. Can you look also here [1], where he deleted something. Moreover this User:GorgeCustersSabre for another time deleted his name from [2] Actually i know that M Abdul Qayum finished his Phd in the SOAS. Please can you add all sources which was deleted from this racist user and undo all his revision. If you do so you will be awarded either here and in the hereafter. Please do it for Mawlana Abdul Qayum and not for me. 217.44.73.27 (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am not a vandal and I am not a racist. You and your sockpuppets ruin Wikipedia for everyone else unless checked. I am an honest Muslim Wikipedia editor who fears Allah subhanahu wa taAla. So no more silly and offensive attacks on me please. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:GorgeCustersSabre you are a vandal and racist. You attack articles. Are you an honest muslim? Do you fears Allah RABBUL A-lamin? LOL. By seeing you contributions I can understand that you are muslim on for name. [3], [4] in these articles everyday some strange things is happening. So why don't you go these articles to do something better. I also so that you are supporting some admin and user who write in wikipedia against islam. A question, for you is more important Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or these neutrality of wikipedia? May Allah give you tawfeeq. Wassalam. 109.154.1.137 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I am bored by your cowardly and dishonorable attacks on me. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:GorgeCustersSabre Why have you changed the argument? Answer my question... I know that you don't have any question. 31.52.139.87 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not a forum. Please stop doing so. What shall Shaykh Abdul Qayyum and others think after seeing this article's history? From 7 may I’ve seen sockpuppetry, but I also agree that George Custer's Sabre made this article WP:NPV, in fact most of his contributions seem as WP:VANDAL. This article is spoilt. I shall keep my eyes in this article, although nowadays I’m very busy. Jumma Mubarak. AHLM13 talk 11:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Do not add to accusations of vandalism. I am an honest Wikipedia editor with no axe to grind against (or FOR) Abdul Qayum. Anyway, why say this is not a forum and then add to it yourself with unfair comments which are no different in nature to any other comments here. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is he a world-famous scholar? Maybe. Maybe not. But please let us use reliable evidence to establish it.

Dear fellow editors. I am acting in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines in my effort to keep this page neutral, accurate and reliable. My issue is this: all the "sources" added to say that Qayum is a world famous scholar, or a scholar at all, are in some way related to him or are advocacy pages which fail the test of the burden of proof required by Wikipedia. I am not a "vandal". That's just silly and unhelpful. Let me be clear: I have nothing against Abdul Qayum. I do not know him or his mosque. Yet I just want my fellow editors to stop thinking that "everyone knows" he is this or that. I want to see decent sources that are not blogs, sources connected to this man, or partisan websites advocating a particular ethnic/cultural/national position. Citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources are essential. Wikipedia requires them. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorgeCustersSabre (talk • contribs) 02:58, June 21, 2014

I thought I would add my support for this approach, which is in no way disrespectful to the person being written about. Indeed, it hardly seems likely that Abdul Qayum would advocate the sometimes confrontational and deceptive approach of those who think they are doing a service both to him and to Islam - which, of course, they are not. It should be noted that his bio on the website of the Mosque where he is Chief Imam makes no claim to him having a PhD or being a scholar. As the status of being a scholar is subjective, it is right to insist that this should be supported by appropriate sources if it is to be included; its omission does not mean he isn't a scholar, merely that it has not been properly substantiated.UsamahWard (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

George Custer's Sabre I didn’t say that you are a vandal , but I said that most of your contributions on this article seem like WP:VAN. You had removed the reliable sources, so anybody would have added again them. Therefore in this case I totally agree with those Ip addresses.

UsamahWard, of course Shaykh Abdul Qayum hasn’t completed his Phd. Actually he is mainly known as a famous ISLAMIC SCHOLAR. Even though here is not mentioned that he is, other reliable sources proclaim he is a scholar. I think this mosque’s website must be refreshed. Furthermore, this article should be protected again and I wouldn’t like to engage in an Edit war. Thank you. AHLM13 talk 18:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

AHLM13, I noticed the edit you just made and I think some of what you added is supported, but not all of it. You used a page from bbpower-inspiration (BI) as a source. Without making any judgement on if it's a reliable source, it doesn't support the "most famous scholar" claim. First thing I noticed was the name difference between our page (Qayum) and the BI page (Qayyum). The second thing is this is a really, really small blurb and nothing there supports the claim. They just describe as a religious figure and I'm going to do a partial revert on your edit to remove those aspects. My suggestion for going forward would be for you to continue to look for sources, but post them here, on the talk page, and see what people think. Also realize that "one of ... most famous scholars" without any additional qualifications is a really, really broad claim. You'll probably need multiple sources without any religious connections to substantiate something that broad. Ravensfire (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ravensfire, I hope you are well. I'm sorry, but I believe you are allowing too much to be retained in this article based on really weak sources, some of which are indirectly connected to the subject. Bbpower-inspiration hardly meets Wikipedia guidelines on sources, for example. Please look again at what you've re-added. I won't revert anything yet (or at all) until a few other editors offer their views. My thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently he is studying at SOAS University, does it seem unlikely? AHLM13 talk 12:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't sure about the bbpower-inspiration source. It's an advocacy website, but you can still use them for some basic facts. Anything controversial shouldn't be sourced there. Also, to echo a comment I made on my talk page, the claim "most famous scholar" is an exceptional claim and as such requires exceptional sources. Something like a major piece in a non-connected, non-religious periodical or a truly independent biography, preferrably multiple sources of that ilk are needed. A 3 sentence description in a puff piece from an advocacy website is not even remotely enough. Ravensfire (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

M abdul qayum already finished his phd. I thinkRavensfire is a sockpuppet of User:GorgeCustersSabre. They are doing nearly the same thing. what is this?

Again, you must have a source for this. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what can be verified using independent reliable sources. You might want to read those two articles I just linked. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no sockpuppets and merely want to keep Wikipedia objective, reliable and useful to readers. Unverified statements simply can't be allowed on Wikipedia. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Qayum or Abdul Qayum for subsequent references

The normal Wikipedia convention is that subsequent mentions of a name should be restricted to the surname, as per WP:SURNAME. However, in Arabic this makes no sense for names such as 'Abdul Qayum'; this is recognised in WP:SUR. I would suggest using 'Abdul Qayum' throughout. This would have been the case if he had chose to write his name as Abdulqayum. It would probably also have been the case for variations such as 'Abd al-Qayum.

I wonder if this issue been tackled in other Wikipedia entries for such names. UsamahWard (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear UsamahWard, I think you're absolutely right. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor sources (yet again)

A claim is being made that "by many, he is considered as one of the most influential Muslim scholars of Great Britain". This is extraordinary claim for which very solid sources are needed.The first - [5] is an extremely short blurb from a panel where Qayum is a member. Sorry, this doesn't cut it for me. This isn't a bio - it's from a group who wants to present members of the panel in the highest light possible. For a claim like this, it is not a viable source. It would support Qayum is a member, but that's about it. The second source - [6] would support that IUMS calls Qayum a notable scholar, but I'm not sure about anything else. For AHLM13's excessively broad claim, it offers no support at all. Ravensfire (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A modified version is back - "... the most talented Bengali islamic scholar in Europe." but does have a source that at least appears far better than previous. The book is ISBN 978-1847740526, and includes the page number (thanks for including that, AHLM13). Given everything around this, and that's it's still an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, does someone have access to verify the claim so we can put this issue to rest? It's not available anywhere around me and Google Books of course starts blocking at page 384. A google books search didn't return any hits for Qayum but I've seen several places where it's been spelled Qayyum and got 2 hits using that. Any thoughts? AHLM13, would you mind copying the portion of that page that supports your claim here to assist? Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Largest Bangladeshi claim sources

This edit adding the claim about serving the largest Bangladeshi congregation in Europe. Sources given in that edit were [7] and [8]. I've removed both sources and added a cite needed tag to the claim. I've got issues with both sources. Both of them are short blurbs. The first is a basic bio blurb that's 3 sentences long and doesn't support the claim in any way, shape or form. The second source is a promotional blurb for an event where he's the presenter. It's promotional, self-serving and doesn't meet WP:RS. I'm hoping the editor will address these concerns and work to find a good source so rather than remove the claim I've just added an cite needed tag as a compromise. Ravensfire (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

After reading the above posts, it is clear that AHLM13 first needs to study basic Wikipedia policies. He should clearly understand what an encyclopedia is, and what reliable sources mean. AHLM13, you may personally know a person, and so know his whereabouts. But what about the other readers? How will they trust the information about that given person if you don't provide reliable sources? Again, some people make exaggerated claims (like very famous, the most famous) about their favorite figures just because they are their fans. You can not force it upon others until and unless supported by reliable sources.

I understand that finding reliable sources for proper information often becomes difficult, especially for south Asian figures, because of typical lack of circulation on media. In that case you have to be patient until mews items appear on reliable media.

In the mean time, you and others must stop insulting other editors. If you edit contrary to wiki policies, it is very natural that others will counteract that. Don't take it personally. -AsceticRosé 01:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Name

As a side thought, I've seen several sources that say Qayyum, not Qayum. Are both correct? Only one? Some illumination would be appreciated! Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Abdul "Qayyum" would be the real one. Though, what is your intention? Do you intend to say that "Abd. Qayyum" doesn't indicate him?-- AHLM13 talk 21:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

He uses the spelling Qayum, although a transliteration from the Arabic would normally be Qayyum. I think the article has to run with the form he uses. UsamahWard (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha - thanks for the explanation. Would it make sense to include both spellings? I believe that's been done before if an alternate spelling is used with some frequency. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)