Talk:Zakir Naik

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/11/28. The result of the discussion was keep.

Misrepresentation of facts on Dr. Naik's page

On Dr. Naik's page it is written that he follows Sunni Islam, which is not true. The whole world knows about it.

The entire teachings of Dr. Naik on TV, in gatherings and in his writings clearly establish the fact that he follows Salafi Islam. Therefore, it is important that this fact is recognized and appreciated by everyone, including Dr. Naik himself. If "Dr. Naik prefers to write his faith as "Sunni Islam", this is misrepresentation of facts. He is supposed to be an Islamic scholar, therefore, truth should reflect from his page. When he is a scholar of Salafi Islam, how come it is said that he is Sunni. This will be far from the truth and not as per the established rules of Wikipedia.

The whole life of Dr. Naik is spent in believing and preaching Salafi Islam. Every lecture, every CD you find will show his beliefs very clearly. In such a situation, it is important that his believes are clearly written on his page. If you do not do it, it will be injustice to Dr. Naik, injustice to Wikipedia and misrepresentation of facts for the world.

Therefore, it is important that "Sunni Islam" should be replaced from "Salafi Islam" on his page.

---

Removing reliably referenced material without explanation

I've taken a look at the changes in the article over just the past couple of days and took note of two occurrences of what appears to be reliably sourced information removed with their accompanying references. Please do not remove properly sourced material from the article without discussing it on the articles talk page first. It's quite common for statements to conflict in any properly put together article, that doesn't mean that we simply throw away the one's we happen to disagree with; it means the article has to be rewritten to explain the discrepancies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) §

Disruptive edits

Your edits have been objected to by multiple editors. See wp:consensus on how we form consensus. As it stands, your contentious edits violate various policies, especially not maintaining to a neutral point of view (wp:npov) and being unsourced (wp:verifiability).

Some clear examples in the edit war version that has been objected to:

• Journalist Sushi Das is now known as a "amateur writer and columnist" yet her profile in a leading mainstream national newspaper introduces her as "senior writer and columnist"[1]
• The lead know contains "prolific" with a citation from a fan site of Zakir Naik. This is not a reliable source nor is there any reason to include weasel words in the lead.
• Why are you removing the criticisms by Khushwant Singh?
• Why is polemical commentary being added? E.g. "Near the end of the debate a weary Dr. Campbell said, "Well, Dr. Naik has brought up some real problems," admitting to the presence of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible"

Wikipedia's biographies of living people are not fansites or apologetics for authors. --Ari (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved, while maintaining proper organization of headings and subheadings. If not, please don't hesitate to contact me Ari.

The Well Wisher (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC) The Well Wisher (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You addressed none of the issues and simply restored your Awliya's contentious edits. Jeff5102 was correct right in reporting you as another sockpuppet. --Ari (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel before you should have reverted back to the original version you should have checked with me personally. However, since I have the Merged version saved, I will show you that those issues had been resolved:

Problem #1:

• Journalist Sushi Das is now known as a "amateur writer and columnist" yet her profile in a leading mainstream national newspaper introduces her as "senior writer and columnist"

Fix #1:

In 2004, Naik visited New Zealand[25] and then the Australian capital at the invitation of Islamic Information and Services Network of Australasia. At his conference in Melbourne, senior writer and columnist... ::This is indeed a fix and not a contentious reversion to Awliyas version.

Problem #2:

• The lead know contains "prolific" with a citation from a fan site of Zakir Naik. This is not a reliable source nor is there any reason to include weasel words in the lead.

Fix #2:

Zakir Abdul Karim Naik (Urdu: ذاکر عبدالکریم نائیک, Hindi: ज़ाकिर अब्दुल करीम नायक; born 18 October 1965) is a renowned [1] Muslim public speaker, and writer on the subject of Islam and other comparative religion. :: The citation is from: http://www.peacetv.in/sp-dr_zakir.php, an authentic source material citing his 'prolific' activities. Renowned is a better word, so I changed that.

Problem #3:

• Why are you removing the criticisms by Khushwant Singh?

Fix #3:

Khushwant Singh, a prominent Indian journalist, politician and author argues that Naik's pronouncements are "juvenile" and said that "they seldom rise above the level of undergraduate college debates, where contestants vie with each other to score brownie points". ::As you can see it has not been removed.

Problem #4:

• Why is polemical commentary being added? E.g. "Near the end of the debate a weary Dr. Campbell said, "Well, Dr. Naik has brought up some real problems," admitting to the presence of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible"

Fix #4:

That was more than evident so I reworded it: Near the end of his time to speak Dr. Campbell remarked, "Well, Dr. Naik has brought up some real problems," admitting to the presence of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. [19] Campbell also proclaimed, that in his opinion, Naik had failed to convince him about several verses in the Qur'an that explicitly dealt with embryology. This debate was widely seen as an accomplishment by Muslims for Naik, furthering to help to increase his popularity. :: This isn't an act of controversy or polemics as you put it. This is reported on the transcript of the debate. You would only find this 'polemical' if you had subscribed to a certain faith.

You did say that I did nothing of the sort to fix those blatant errors, but I clearly did as I just quoted them by reference. Could you please revert it back to the old page if me reverting it will cause an uproar?

The Well Wisher (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this page for a week, and before I did that I reverted to the last version by Ari, who requested the protection. I did this because I was reluctant to protect on versions created by accounts with very few edits, given that it's an article about a living person. Please use the week to reach a compromise, and please also make sure that all your edits are sourced to high-quality sources, per WP:BLP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SV.

For discussions I have listed just some of the major issues above. Personally, I cannot see a justification for them but please convince me. --Ari (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Everyone

I feel that among the three available ‘revert-choices’ of the article I feel that my version is far more systematically organized and has a more authentic historical appeal. It contains more pertinent, unbiased information. It is often assumed that when writing a biography of a religious professional the writer’s bias is most often come across by readers. However, my version of the article strictly adheres to the guidelines that have been set out by Wikipedia. I feel it is therefore my obligation to restore my article in an effort to uphold Wikipedia’s integrity as a ‘scholarly resort’ for people of all beliefs and faiths. Grammar, punctuation, and stylized organization are all profound key elements in an effective Wikipedia article. I request that if other users have any suggestions or constructive criticisms about my work do address them here. I am therefore reverting the current article back to its former self. Kbonline (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The comments above were made by a sock-puppet, who is blocked from Wikipedia. By the way, this user acted far less civilized in other discussionsJeff5102 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Naik banned from entering Britain

“ An Indian preacher has been banned from entering the UK for his "unacceptable behaviour," the home secretary says..Zakir Naik, a 44-year-old television preacher, had been due to give a series of lectures in London and Sheffield. ”

[2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.193.229 (talk • contribs)

Ms May

please remove MS from mays name as it violates WPs policy --123.237.195.131 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Naik's Views On Islamic Terrorism

Users Spine.Cleaver and Saju wiki have been banned as both being sockpuppets of the same, and previously blocked, user Hi all, In this recently added section, don't we think we need to add parts from his speech where he criticized innocent killing as well ? Correct me if I am wrong, this somehow looks very biased to me. As we all know he is very much known for speaking against violence and terrorism, we'll have tons of references for it, I believe he mentioned it directly in his very last press release too. We could also include the quotation he normally takes from the Holy Quran. Thankx ! Saju wiki (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use those references you got. However, as far as I can read in the article, he thinks that 9/11 was an insiders job by the George W. Bush-government. How could he disapprove islamic terrorism, if he doesn't believe in islamic terrorism?

Anyway, I just wanted to say that you should be careful in editing the text. Before you know it, it will contradict itself.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, well, the text that is written in the article regarding his comments on terrorism, should be given with correct context or else like you said, it'll easily appear as a contradiction. He was trying to give the correct literal meaning to the word "Terrorism" in that lecture, as you know now a days it's referred to just one matter. if you really observe all his complete lectures, it's impossible to find a contradiction. What I have noticed a lot is that, very easily his unequivocal statements that gives his direct opinions about some issues are plainly ignored/discarded. What do you think about that ? I am attaching some references below for this topic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"... even if you agree for the sake of argument that OBL did it ( 9/11 attacks ) it is not justified for killing innocent human beings ... " --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007 [3]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"If he(OBL) is on the truth, if he is fighting the enimies of Islam, iam for him, I don't know what he is doing, iam not in touch with him, i don't know him personally, I read on newpapers. If he is terrorizing the terrorist, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, Iam with him. Every muslim should be a terrorist, the thing is that if he is terrorizing a terrorist, he is following islam. Whether He (OBL) is (following islam ) not I don't know ! But please don't tell outside that Zakir Naik is for OBL, I cannot base my judgments as a Daee only on News, But you as a muslim without checking (Authenticity), laying alligations is also wrong"-- PUB Auditorium, Singapore 17th Oct 1998 [4]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"As far as OBL is concenred, I don't know, I haven't met him, I haven't interrogated him, he is neither my friend, neither my enemy, I cannot base my answer based on news from BBC and CNN" --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 007[5]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"How can you ever justify killing innocent people? But in the same breath as condemning those responsible we must also condemn those responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon" -- Expo Islamia conference in Manchester.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

“As far as terrorist is concerned, I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist… What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorizes. When a robber sees a policeman he’s terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber… Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every antisocial element. I’m aware that terrorist more commonly is used for a person who terrorises an innocent person. In that context no muslim should be a terrorist ! he should not at all terrify any innocent person. He should be a selective terrorist, terrorist only to antisocial elements" -- PUB Auditorium, Singapore 17th Oct 1998 [6]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have spoken out on numerous occasions against all and any acts of terrorism and I have unequivocally condemned such acts of violence; acts including 9/11, 7/7 and 7/11 (serial train bombings in Mumbai) which are completely and absolutely unjustifiable on any basis,” eminent Islamic scholar Dr Zakir Naik had said on June 11" -- Press Release June 11 2010.[7]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Terrorism has no place in Islamic life" -- Article by Zakir Naik [8]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have spoken out on numerous occasions against all and any acts of terrorism and I have unequivocally condemned such acts of violence; acts including 9/11, 7/7 and 7/11 (serial Train bombing in Mumbai) which are completely and absolutely unjustifiable on any basis" -- Article by Zakir Naik [9]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Terrorism is not a speciality of the muslims, it is not even encouraged in Islam ! It is prohibited in Islam !" --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007 [10]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Majority of other religions, they say innocent human beings should not be killed, and the leader of all these religions ( in this concept) is islam". --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007 [11]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"The word terrorism keeps on changing based on geographical location and historical facts ... Islam condemns all forms of ( bad ) terrorism ! All forms of acts that kill innocent human beings" --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"All forms of terrorism which involves killing innocent human being are to be condemned ! whether it's done by muslims or non-muslims" --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007[12]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Islam prohibits the use of wrong means to achieve a right goal ! There cannot be any justification !" --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007[13]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Irrespective, whether it's 9/11 the twin tower attack, or the 7th of july where more than 50 innocent people where killed in the london bomb blast ... or whether it be the serial bomb blast in bombay where more than 250 people where killed, or the bomb blast that took place recently, on 11th of July 2006 where more than 200 people were killed are to be condemned ! it is prohibited ! You cannot justify killing of any human being !" --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007 [14]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Usual quotation he gives from the Quran.

"In the Glorious Qur’an it says; In chapter 5, Verse 32; “That if any one killed a person (whether Muslim or no-Muslim), unless it be for murder or for spreading corruption in the land it would be as if he has killed the whole of humanity" -- Article by Zakir Naik --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007[15]

" ... and further says if you save any single human being, it is as though you have saved the whole human kind" --SRS Auditorium, Chennai September 2007[16]

-------------------------------------------------------------------- Saju wiki (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Saju Wiki, I want to add that the quote below was not given in 1998 but in 1996. Kindly make a note of that:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"If he(OBL) is on the truth, if he is fighting the enimies of Islam, iam for him, I don't know what he is doing, iam not in touch with him, i don't know him personally, I read on newpapers. If he is terrorizing the terrorist, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, Iam with him. Every muslim should be a terrorist, the thing is that if he is terrorizing a terrorist, he is following islam. Whether He (OBL) is (following islam ) not I don't know ! But please don't tell outside that Zakir Naik is for OBL, I cannot base my judgments as a Daee only on News, But you as a muslim without checking (Authenticity), laying alligations is also wrong"-- PUB Auditorium, Singapore 17th Oct 1998 [17]

-------------------------------------------------------------------- Dhulfiqar 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note the authenticity of the source -> [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all, you know what, I intially had the same confusion. what date to put, I know they were different in what BBC and even what IRF gave. but you see w.r.t the reference I gave I need to be honest right ? when this show was broadcasted the dates shown was exactly what I gave. Please check here [19]. I did not want to give a date which is different in the reference I provided, it could very well, be on 1996, I was focused more on the content of the speach. Hope I made my point clear. But the real point of discussion should be on the clearity/honesty/authenticity of information provided in wiki. Why should we project information which is exactly contrary to what the speaker was intending to say. Hope we'll all be able to focus and agree on that issue. If we all agree, I would actually request Jeff5102 to change it. Thankx ! Saju wiki (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest adding the necessary quotes into the Naik wiki. It would give the article a more neutral point of view. Dhulfiqar 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

To Ari89, to say that the government solely indicted him on his speech is a false allegation if there is evidence to the contrary.

Please read wp:OR, WP:Verifiability, wp:npov and wp:synth before going on. --Ari (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with wp:OR, WP:Verifiability, wp:npov and wp:synth. If I may ask, what do you find unjustified about my edits? Dhulfiqar 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

please get some reliable sources if you want to write that Naik has some other view about terrorism. these youtube videos and some site called twocircles.net cannot be considered as credible sources. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Deshabhakta, What is more reliable information other than statements from the speaker himself ? When you say youtube is not reliable information did you also consider the fact that UK started these proceedings based on reports that relayed on YouTube and GoogleVideo ?

Check the "sources" of extracts provided by them to substantiate their views [20].

Check the article page one more time it says clearly right before the quotation "In a widely watched 2007 [YouTube] video, he says the following:"

Check the reference for the speech extract currently provided in the article itself (reference# 4,32 or [21] and [22]) describes references to youtube !

What we can do at the moment is point back to the same source (YouTube) for accurate information.

But once again our main topic is still not that, let me highlight them again 1.) Provide full context of his speech, especially the one that is provided in wiki. 2.) Other quotations from him that validate and emphasis his views. All am trying to say is why should we be reluctant to provide key facts ? Especially in a place like wiki where we are responsible to provide unbiased authentic information. Saju wiki (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------

I agreed Saju Wiki. The government did base its ban off several YouTube videos. It's outrageous how we cannot consider something as news worthy, at the least be able to cite it, when the UK government went ahead with cancellation of his visa. Please visit Zakir Naik's official Ban Exclusion website: http://www.zakirnaikban.com/. Dhulfiqar 05:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

Once again, refer to the policies you claim to know so well. We are reporting what the Home Office gave reasons for; we can easily report that Naik contests the ban. We do say that in the article. However, we are not going to call these "false allegations" because you personally believe this to be the case. --Ari (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please visit the references Saju Wiki and I have contributed in our posts. These are not personal opinions, but facts as reported by reliable sources. The UK's report is a primary source, whereas what you deem news worthy are secondary and tertiary reports. Naik's personal testimonies are just as reliable, considering this information is coming from him. I've invited you to view our references, but you've shown disregard by being elusive to my posts on your Talk Page and this Page. I hope we can settle this cordially. We have two contesting factions, Naik and Media News - which one takes precedence over the other? Neither. We must provide both views. Naik's article is chalk-full of negative connotations. The article is NOT neutral. Dhulfiqar 06:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

You state: "We have two contesting factions, Naik and Media News - which one takes precedence over the other? Neither." Then hold to that. Calling them "false allegations" is an editorial value judgement and attempts to undercut the fact that the Home Office has made a decision. --Ari (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but on a few things. Lets take the last sentence of the first paragraph as an example; "Naik has been denied entry into United Kingdom and Canada since June 2010 owing to his soft approach on Islamic Terrorism." Who said "owing to his soft approach on Islamic Terrorism?" I've seen all of his videos, and he's unanimously declared terrorism to be a foreign element to Islam's teachings, please refer to Saju Wiki's references and quotes. The article is relying on four news reports which just happen to be tertiary sources: based on a report that's based off another report, which is yet based off of UK's press statements. Those statements were made off of several YouTube videos. We must include that Zakir Naik claims to have evidence against the UK's decision that have derided him of his efforts to spread Islam. Before I go ahead with the edits, I want to hear your opinions. Dhulfiqar 08:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason provided was for his comments relating to terrorism as unacceptable behaviour as far as I can tell. How do you possibly know what the basis for their decision was? You seem to assume that your role as an editor is to be an apologist for Zakir Naik. The section in the article states that he will reportedly contest the ban; that is sufficient. It is not going to be a for and against debate manufactured by individual editors. --Ari (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Making the unfair presumption that I'm an apologist of any sort is unacceptable, if not down right demeaning, based on my disagreement with the neutrality of the article. Please visit the Zakir Naik article and note how the neutrality of the article is disputed. The article is filled with negative connotations and reporting, but none seem to be positive. Why is this so when is he is so well known in Muslim circles to be a positive character? How I and other editors came to know the basis of Naik's exlusion ban was simply done by reading the four inline citations given in the Wiki article itself. To say one doesn't know the 'basis' of Naik's ban is, in my opinion, rather childish when one knows the extent of media coverage he's been getting lately. I'm astonished you don't know the reasons for his ban - you seem to be an avid editor, but poorly informed. For your clarification, and only yours, I will be posting reference links that provides the basis for Naik's exclusion (the first two are the same so I suggest you visit http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/index.php/press-release):

Evidence 1: http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/images/stories/Dr%20Zakir%20Naik%20Statement%2011th%20June%202010.pdf

Evidence 2: http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/images/stories/Dr%20Zakir%20Naik%20Statement%2011th%20June%202010.pdf

Evidence 3: http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/index.php/press-release/61

His comments that have been deemed as 'unacceptable' are out of context. This article requires to integrate the viewpoints of both contesting parties for fairer a picture. It seems you don't want to want to settle the diplomatically, you would rather have it, excuse the pun, 'your way'. Dhulfiqar 09:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, where exactly do they say that those specific talks are the only problem? Calling me ignorant while failing to produce what I am apparently ignorant of is redundant. To repeat everything I have said: we are not going to make value judgements on the reasons simply because you believe they were "false allegations". The Home Dept gave their reason, we report the reason, not your opinion on the reasons (or your guesswork on the specific reasons.) --Ari (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just went through the View History section of Naik and see that I have violated the 24-hour constrain as defined by the 3RR. I wish to self-report my ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos are in no way reliable sources. they are hosted by unknown and anonymous people. They might have been doctored. Zakir's own website or something called zakirnaikexclusion.com owned by people whose credibility is unknown cannot be considered as RS. If you want to mention the context in which Zakir made such a speech on terrorism, please get a citation from a reliable source. --Deshabhakta (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ari,

Please let us focus on the topic for which I opened this discussion, For the other issues/topics, Let us take it to your talk page, I'll also join if possible.Comming back to the issues with this article, let me try my best to be brief,can you please answer a few things for me ?

When you said "We are reporting what the Home Office gave reasons for; we can easily report that Naik contests the ban. We do say that in the article." There are two things here ...

Reasons ( Thanks Dhulfiqar, for bring that point up )

1.) You also said "The reason provided was for his comments relating to terrorism as unacceptable behaviour as far as I can tell" and that is more or less what came from the Home office, why is that not given as "the reason" in the article ? Instead something entirely different and new ! ("owing to his soft approach on Islamic Terrorism" ). Iam totaly with Dhulfiqar on that. Now since you also believe one's opinion/assumptions shouldn't be in any form part of the article, don't you think it's the opinion of the editor that has ended up being there ? Iam thinking the Home office wouldn't like that statement either. I would kindly encourage you to adopt your word uniformly and not selectivly.

2.) The Home office gave an official letter to IRF, the reason stated there is different, that letter has some context of the speech that is cited in the article, not all though, they are not anybody's opinions on reasons for the ban, but what really came from the home office. Did you really go thru those references that Dhulfiqar gave ? why is the article ignoring that ?

Imbalance

1.) The article gives information that Zakir is banned, plus the opinion about reasons of why, on the other hand it also stated Zakir is contesting, But, no reasons and facts with which Zakir is contesting, and why he is contesting (remember this article is all about Zakir !), don't you think there is an imbalance there ? Please sincerely and logically think keeping in mind that this article needs to be neutral.

Deshabhakta,

your recent post looks almost the same. I thought I replied to that. May I please ask you, if you are concerned about youtube's credibility, Why this cautious silence for the present article's youtube references ? Had the home office thought exactly the same as you did earlier,I believe this issue wouldn't have arised in the first place. Saju wiki (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

@Deshabhakta - Naik was indicted on the charges for promoting terrorist activities based off of several YouTube videos by UK's Home Secretary. The reasons why he was banned is clearly outlined by the article, but the reason why he's contesting the ban is not given. Why the double-standards? Your arguments have so many loopholes that it's worth noting you'd make a poor editorial manager. For your information http://zakirnaikexclusion.com is hosted by Naik himself - and to prove that to you, please visit http://irf.net, Naik's homepage. I'm beginning to seriously doubt your competency. Your inability to recognize Naik's homepage is an RS is proof of your ineptness as an editor. --Dhulfiqar 07:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

Please guys, let us just wait till reliable 3rd-party sources find out about the truth concerning Naik's views. Otherwise, the talkpages become a discussion-forum with original research, and that is not what Wikipedia is meant for.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Jeff5102 - I wast just issued a friendly warning not to single out individuals, but I strongly disagree with your opinion on how 3rd-party, or tertiary reports, are 'truth'. That is absurd, would't you agree? Every political & historical scientist produce evidence on the basis of primary sources, not secondary or tertiary reports. --Dhulfiqar 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

Even if political & historical scientists ONLY produce evidence on the basis of primary sources, then again, we are writing an encyclopedia over here. We are NO scientists. If you try to make this article ONLY on the basis of primary sources, you violate the WP:OR-rules.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said, i have no issue with mentioning the other viewpoint of Zakir and also the context in which he made the listed statement on terrorism but it should be sourced from reliable sources. Zakir's own sources will violate RS and OR. YouTube videos posted by some anonymous person should in no way be acceptable. If the ban is because of a particlar YouTube video, it is not that video that is being used as source to say something on this article. It is a mentioning of that video in a reliable source (WSJ). I hope the difference is quite clear. If a reliable news source tells us the context in which Zakir made that statement about terrorism and also his alternate/other views on terrorism, they can certainly be added to this article. --Deshabhakta (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Jeff5102 - Political & history personalities do not ONLY produce evidence based on primary sources, but use third-party sources to help portray what happened, or is happening accurately. The fact that this article has no primary sources is a disgrace in itself. I concur with you, we're not scientists and therefore our opinions do not matter at all when it comes to authoring a Wikipedia article. Did I say that this Wikipedia article should be solely based on primary sources? I'm going to ask you to refrain from putting words into my mouth. I checked WP:OR, and have verified it with a few other editors whether we would be violating the rule if we sourced a few primary sources in light of Naik's recent exclusion from Canada and Britain - and they unanimously agreed it would not. Furthermore, we're not making personal opinions here. I kindly ask you again to understand my platform.

@ Deshabhaka - Don't think I don't know what your screen name means. I'm happy to see you agree with our staunch beliefs in citing reliable sources, and within its rightful context. I did full research on the RS and OR regulatory rules of Wikipedia, and I must say that we are in full concordance with it. I ask you to peruse over the RS and OR rules again and point out to me exactly what rule we'll be violating if we cite Naik's sources. Thank you for addressing this issue appropriately.

--Dhulfiqar 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

I did not put words in your mouth. Of course, Naiks own opinion from his own website can be put in the article. That would be fair. However, we cannot say: "Naik has done nothing wrong" (with his own site as a reference). We could only say: "Naik argues that he did nothing wrong" (with his own site as a reference). Only when third party sources or court rulings say that Naik did not do anything wrong, we can put it in as a fact. Thus, we leave judgements to others. After all, this is an encyclopedia; not a courtroom.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Users Spine.Cleaver and Saju wiki have been banned as both being sockpuppets of the same, and previously blocked, user

The above statement is no longer valid ! For now I will just say that, I will be going forward in resolving this dispute by another process.Saju wiki (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no other process; you must have consensus for the edit. You do not, especially as it violated numerous WP policies. Discuss the edit and stop trying to edit war it in. --Ari (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are variety of other process Ari, (WP:DR) Iam working on that right now, I've posted all my concerns with your edits and reasons for my edits above, Why are you not answering them ? Instead you seem to be more focused on banning users. And trying to redicule them in the discussion board. May I also know what policies did I violate ? Instead of wasting everybody's time why don't you take your time and read what I've posted in the discussion page ? You are trying to use wiki to only project what you wish. Wiki is not the place for that.Saju wiki (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there are not. Dispute resolution requires you discuss and justify the POV edits. You can keep threatening, but all you have to do is explain why a biography of a living person is going to now be Saju Wiki's defence of Zakir Naik's ban in the UK and Canada. In your non-consensus edits that you are intent on edit warring in instead of discussing, you are making the lead be dominated by Naik's defence of the charged. The lead is not a place for arguments. Then under biography you repeat a defence for Zakir Naik and then some. Then you go on to original research. So, the article is not going to be dominated by advocacy of Zakir Naik's defence against the exclusion orders. We have said everything that needs to be said - such as he is challening it, he thinks it was a political decision. We do not need to say that ten times over. Your edit warring is quite boring. --Ari (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, I don't want to get involved in editing this article; I was only looking at it because of the recent sock issues. But just in passing I do think it's fair to add Naik's defence in brief to the lead, per BLP, if we're going to include the ban there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, SV. I agree with you, my issue is with excessive (and repeated) advocacy. I have removed the ban from the lead and confined it to the dedicated section. It is a peripheral event unless you're after a platform to attack Naik or defend Naik. The dedicated section which is only a paragraph or so contains both the reasons for the ban as well as Naik's plan (and reasons) for contesting it. That is really all that there needs to be. --Ari (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

SV, Thanks for pointing that out. I have been trying to convey the same through my previous discussion attempts, As you can see there is a sudden agreement on it now. Now the same rule has to be also applied to the section "Naik's Views On Islamic Terrorism", why are his other quotations being deleted all the time ? Reason's for my edits are again mentioned above. Saju wiki (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff5102, those reference does not say he has a soft approach to terrorism, on the basis of those references you cannot derive such a statement. Having that statement there is a clear indiciation of a POV. The reason why the exclusion order was given is mentioned right below that statement, which is fine w.r.t to the references. Now for the section about his views, why are his other quotations being removed ? Saju wiki (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The reference DID say that he was banned in Canada, and actually I thought that THAT was the problem.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I just happened to see this news item. Perhaps it can be used in the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. However, I have no idea how we could work "“He was asked not to talk, by who I cannot disclose,”" into the article. --Ari (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I just thought I'd ask. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate this stupid so called intellectual discussion about an evil man whose life has no meaning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.152.113 (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've added full protection for a week because of the back and forth to give people a time to reach an agreement. The best thing in cases like this is to rely on the way the issues were reported by reliable secondary sources, e.g. newspapers. Please give me a shout if it can be unprotected before the week is up. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - 13 July 2010

For any monitoring admin, these edits are what lead to this article being protected due to edit warring w/o consensus:

Hi,

My Request is for only 2 sections,I've mentioned this in the discussion page of the article many times, did not yet get any attention from anyone.

1.) UK Exclusion order

The very first line that is given in the article is a POV, it state Zakir Naik has a "soft approach" to terrorism, This statement is outside the reference provided, and which is really not true and which is not the reason why he was given the exclusion order, the actual reason is given right below that statement, So I would request you to remove the very first line of that section.

2.) Zakir Naiks views on terrorism

I wanted to add his other quotations also so that the article looks neutral, right now this section appears as a very harsh critic of him, he is very known to condemn any sort of violence, there are also very lengthy critical sections underneath, called "Fatwas", "Critisims" ..etc all added to give a negative imperssion about him, on which iam not commenting right now, But in this particular section his unequivocal statements criticising about violence and terrorism are all ignored. Ignoring them really does not give a true picture of him. Please look into it. Iam attaching the content i pasted earlier in this section for your convenience. If we cannot add them removing this section is also okay by me.

---

Dr. Zakir Naik stated that the official letter he received by the British Home Office, UK Border Agency, dated 16th June 2010 had one of his speech's extract and is as follows:

"As far as terrorist is concerned, I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorises. When a robber sees a policeman he’s terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element. I’m aware that terrorist more commonly is used for a person who terrorises an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorise a single innocent human being. The Muslims should selectively terrorise the anti-social element, and many times, two different labels are given to the same activity of the same individual. Before any person gives any label to any individual for any of his actions, we have to first analyse, for what reason is he doing that?"

In a press release that followed immediately after the exclusion order Naik stated:

"I have spoken out on numerous occasions against all and any acts of terrorism and I have unequivocally condemned such acts of violence; acts including 9/11, 7/7 and 7/11(Serial Train bombing in Mumbai) which are completely and absolutly unjustifiable on any basis."

---

Saju wiki (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we are not going to start this edit war again through use of edit request. Sorry to break it to you, but now that the article is locked you are going to need to start discussing the edits that were opposed by multiple editors.

1. You need third party reliable sources on Naik's views on terrorism, not editors patching up quotes. See WP:PRIMARY
2. It is unnecessary to go into so much detail about his UK exclusion. As we have seen, you use expansions on that section as a platform for advocacy. See WP:SOAP

--Ari (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, Please try to understand that all that I am trying to do is make this article clean and neutral, I am sorry but I cannot and will not stop until that is achieved. For that it was myself who asked for Admin's review, because you know as much as I do that the discussions that I was trying to bring up where all consistently ignored. And the users who were trying to contest against the neutrality of this article were all forced to shutup by issuing a block, including me. I am again sorry to remind you all this, but this is really not the way anyone would love to go about with. I am trying to get an admin review done on all of them as well.

I am very glad that the lead of the article is clean now, with SV's help.I still did not get any answer on how you could conclude and concur that he has a soft approach to terrorism. I agree we need not go to the details of the exclusion order, but at the same time we need to make sure that the brief message is accurate. And why are we shy in putting his other quotations to give the idea on what his ( Zakir Naik ) real views are. About primary source, I would like to know if IRF's own website or Zakir's own spokesman cannot be counted as primary, if not I can find out other sources. -- Saju wiki (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Saju, the Wikipedia position is that if we publish reliably sourced allegations about a living person, then it's fair that we also post a rebuttal that has been published by secondary sources. If no such rebuttal has been published, then we can use the subject's self-published material. But we must not use it to the point of offering the subject a platform to elaborate on his views. It must be a brief rebuttal and no more than that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with you there SV, Not to elaborate,but give at least one rebuttal on the section "Naik's views on Islamic Terrorism", just to make the article neutral and accurate. Also to verify the comment about this "soft approach", those are the concerns I was trying to indicate. Saju wiki (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the monitoring Admin, we still don't have a reason for why this statement is added to the article.

"Naik has been denied entry into United Kingdom and Canada since June 2010 owing to his alleged soft approach on Islamic Terrorism".

No reference given states this as the reason for the exclusion ! This statement is a conclusion falsely made. -- Saju wiki (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the parts which were sourced ONLY to Naiks Website, as they were violating the WP:SELFPUB-rule. As SV said elsewhere, we can use a site like this as a source for anything except the most basic details about itself that you can't obtain from anywhere else, and which are harmless. and it shouldn't be used to turn Wikipedia into a platform for information that no independent source has been fit to report.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.98.143.55, 14 July 2010

{{editprotected}}

(Please change this paragraph...)

He cited an article by Edward Said published in the Time Magazine, which said that 60,000 books about Islam and the Orient have been written between 1800 and 1950 alone.

(with this one)

He cited an article by Edward Said published in the Time Magazine, which said that 60,000 books against Islam and the Orient have been written between 1800 and 1950 alone. 81.98.143.55 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not done with justice. Just check out the Time Magazin article, and see what it reads.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss before reverting !

This is just a friendly reminder to discuss before reverting the article. I've made 2 changes.

1.) Removed a statement that has still not been validated with the reference provided.

2.) In the section about his view on terrorism, irrelevant information about other people have been added,removed them and added one more quotation from him as a rebuttal. Saju wiki (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, These are the statements I had to remove from the article.

"Naik has been denied entry into United Kingdom and Canada since June 2010 owing to his positive comments about Islamic Terrorism."

"Nail's views on terrorism have lead to his exclusion from the United Kingdom and Canada"

"Naik has been associated with terrorists including"

These statements are no where to be found in the references, these might be what you think about him, but they are not actual facts or what media is reporting, please try to avoid putting such personal views in the article. As far as i can read now, the reason for the exclusion order is already given in the brief section,which aligns with the references provided, we need not twist it and repeat it all over the place.

I've also corrected some spelling mistakes that came in through your edits. -- Saju wiki (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(1 and 2) The sources, including Zakir Naik himself, state that it was regarding his comments about terrorism. You are the one who provided the quote so I don't quite understand why you are acting ignorant of ti.

(3) The sources state that they have had a connection with Naik; it is referenced as well. I notice you removed the entire long standing section. --

If the references says the reason, you should give that exact same reason right ? what iam seeing is a statement given as an opinion by you, by bringing in terms like "positive comments", "soft approach" (what ever that means ), The reference I provided does not say, what you wrote in the article Ari, you know that very well.

I removed their names, because it does not match the title. The brief section should be talking about his views on the topic, if you want to add those guys details you might have to start new article about "them". I see the exact same thing in the below section about apostacy, why give biography of Nizam here ? it should be in his article, if there is one.

Moreover you use the terms like "association" , "connection" those are really broad terms it can mean a lot of things, why don't we stick with accuracy here ? and report nothing but facts ? Reason for his exclusion is very well given in the brief, all iam asking you is to refrain from putting your opinions. -- Saju wiki (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) I have not provided my opinion. It is what the third party reliable sources have stated, you can personally disagree with the sources but that is not my problem. (2) Numerous third party reliable sources have presented a connection between these individuals and Zakir Naik. It is not my or your personal judgement on the matter but what is verifiable. (3) I did not add the details of apostasy (or the above issue for that matter) so I don't really care for your attacks against me as somehow responsible for that content.

Evidently, you are going to need to do something better than attack me or implying that I wrote a TIME Magazine article or something ridiculous. --Ari (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I did dispute some POV content in the article, and that is all I have been doing, Please stop treating this as personal attacks, It's really unfortunate that I've to repeat the same thing again. I'll give it one more try.

My concern is with this statement:

"Naik has been denied entry into United Kingdom and Canada since June 2010 owing to his comments about Islamic Terrorism"

UK Exclusion ( Can we come up with the above given statement,with the below given references ? )

------------

Ref[16] Says "...was banned from Britain last week for unacceptable behaviour..."

Ref[17] Says "According to Home Secretary Theresa May, the televangelist has made "numerous comments" that are evidence of his "unacceptable behavior."

Ref[18] Says "Ms May said: "Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour."

Ref[19] No clear reason given

Ref[20] Says "Reason: his entry is not conducive for public good."

Canada ( Also about Canadian stand ? )

--------

Ref[16] Says "Citizenship and Immigration Canada declined to comment on the case yesterday, citing the Privacy Act."

Ref[17] No reference

Ref[18] No reference

Ref[19] No reference

Ref[20] No reference

Looking at it, we've have no choice but to conclude that it's your point of view. What exactly is the concern in removing that statement ? Keeping in mind that the statement right below it gives the accurate reason of exclusion.

-- Saju wiki (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just annoying by now. If you think the sentence is wrong, then fix it. But give up on trying to use a single sentence as a pretence to repeatedly force your POV into the article. Multiple editors have objected to them so you are going to have to discuss the actual issues. All that said, the sources you introduced made clear reference to his comments about terrorism - and you even extracted that into the article. Some integrity around here won't be going too far. --Ari (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I would suggest to replace the youtube-movie with the Maledivian man with this transcript of the same discussion: [23]. Furthermore, we'd better delete the youtube-video's as source in the same paragraph. After all, youtube-videos are not preferred as a source, and I do not see any good in showing mr. Naik saying the same thing over and over again. Any objections?

Furthermore, I am busy with reviewing the edits of User:Дунгане about the history of muslims in China. Also a subject with muslims, but far less contraversial, luckily.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to be a follower of Sir zakirnaik.he is the perfect man and i cant express my feelings.thank you sir.Gnankumar (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

I have been watching this page for several weeks, and have made both edits and reversions (to previous versions) with the aim of strengthening its neutality, yet I'm dismayed by how cavalier with issues of truth, objectivity and bias are both the critics AND devotees of Dr Naik. I do not have either a positive or negative opinion of the man. I just respectfully ask anyone who wants to edit this page to provide evidence for any claims made, and for anyone who wants to delete things they don't like reading to refrain and instead to provide countering information (and source-based evidence).GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Gorge CustersSabre

May be you are truly unaware of Islamic sensitivities, may be not. To let you know, there are three distinct identities of Muslims, viz, Sunnis, Shias and Salafis.

Salafism or Salafi thought or Salafi school of thought was started in Saudi Arabia some time back. Their distinct faith is (1) God has hands, eyes, face and a distinct body and sits on the sky though his shape is not known to people. God is separated from people, sitting alone on the sky and knows people only by his Knowledge. - This belief is in total contrast with Sunni Islam.

Salafis do not believe in blind following of Imams (established Jurists) of Islam. They say that everyone should read Quran and Ahadith and deduce fiqh rules independently. They respect the Imams, but they consider that blind following of Imams is shirk. They started a new school of thought in Islam which is known as Salafi - This belief is in total contrast with Sunni Islam. All Sunni people believe in all 4 Imams of Fiqh and consider it important to follow them if you want to be on the right path of Islam.

Deobandis, who also call themselves Sunnis differ with Barelvi Sunnis in the issue of visiting the graves of Shaikhs. But they also believe in following of Imams as compulsory element of Islam.

Barelvi Sunnis believe visiting of Graves as important aspect of Islam. There are some more issues, which are not needed to be explained here.

Dr. Zakir Naik preaches all basic beliefs of Salafi Islam openly, on TV which is aired free of cost to over 100 countries.

The entire teachings of Dr. Naik on TV, in gatherings and in his writings clearly establish the fact that he follows Salafi Islam. Therefore, it is important that this fact is recognized and appreciated by people who follow Salafi Islam. If you write "Dr. Naik's faith as Sunni Islam", it will be misrepresentation of facts. When he is a scholar of Salafi Islam, how come we say that he is Sunni Scholar. This will be far from the truth and not as per the established rules of Wikipedia. We appreciate Wikipedia for their presentation of facts and their insistence on supporting evidence. Indeed, we are fan of Wikipedia and are very impressed from their network and feel lucky to have a site like Wikipedia on Internet.

The whole life of Dr. Naik is spent in believing and preaching Salafi Islam. Every lecture, every CD you find will show his beliefs very clearly. In such a situation, it is important that his believes are clearly written on his page. If you do not do it, it will be injustice to Dr. Naik, injustice to Wikipedia and misrepresentation of facts for the world.

We hope, we made our point very clear to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guide99 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We will appreciate it very much if you revert back and write "Salafi Islam", in place of "Sunni Islam". It is in the interest of facts and truthfulness of information on Wikipedia.

We are neither follower of Dr. Naik nor his critics. We would like to maintain neutrality. We want factual information about him to be placed on Wikipedia and we hope you agree with us.

Thanks Mr. Gorge CustersSabre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guide99 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

EDIT DISPUTE

Dr. Mr. OrangeMike

There is a genuine dispute of edit on Dr. Zakir Naik's page. I explained above that it is in the best interest of (Wikipedia, Dr. Naik, and truthfulness of information) and neutrality that the edit is not reverted. I thought I was protecting the image of Wikipedia.

However, you are senior and I was aghast to receive your note on my edit page. Could you kindly let me know that do I deserve to be answered on my above explanation by Mr. GeorgeClusterSabre or not? I would appreciate to be explained, answered properly and convinced, rather than silenced menacingly.

I would appreciate your kind advise Mr. OrangeMike. I want to be good contributor to Wikipedia and contribute positively. Please guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guide99 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)