Jump to content

Talk:Zakir Naik

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emdad Tafsir (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 18 May 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

@Sharif uddin:

As per our interaction happened today, I do understand that you're a fan of Zakir Naik. I also understand that you would not like to see any content that is critical of Naik. See your edits - all you are doing is moving content here and there without any rationality and/or logical summary and altering the sentences which are framed in coherence with its source. I can't go on reverting your edits forever. When I checked your talk page, others have also warned you on similar instances. I therefore appeal to you to look at the content with an editor's perspective. Please leave aside your fanfare. I see no rationality in your decision to alter the place of contents in article. At least briefly describe the logic in your edit summaries. Wikipedia article is a dynamic phenomenon. It develops over a period of time. The information is placed by the content creator with a certain sense of article's layout. If your not adding info with any substance in it, then its better not to carry out such disruptive changes. You seem to have a clear conflict of interest, Please refer to guidelines. Thank You! –Anand2202 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharif uddin:, You haven't replied to my earlier post on your talk page either.
@Anand2202:, I have added info with my edit and you already have improved that with editing and thank you for that. Now I hope there is clearance of misunderstanding now. Thanks brother. Sharif uddin (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relevantly, why you are linking extremism with the wikilink radical. They both are not the same. Besides the citation next to the link [1] does't refer him as extremist but as a radicalist. So why you are forcefully making him extremist by tweaking continuous random reverts? Please clarify that. Sharif uddin (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seriously? You think I AM FORCEFULLY making him AN EXTREMIST? (Laughs) How funny can you get? I mean, look at the definitions of both words. In the context of the article, the person appears more of an extremist view rather than a radical. Its obvious from all the sources cited in reference. On the contrary, Isn't it you who DO NOT want to associate the term "extremist" with him? Like you want to portray Naik as the rock star of tele-evangelism and a proponent of modern Islam but not as someone whose version of Islam (that he preaches) is said to be "incompatible with modern world? Wake up to the reality, my dear fellow editor. You are the one who is advocating on behalf on Naik and that constitutes a Conflict of Interest thus making you unfit for the article's editing. Please go through WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY guidelines. And please do not distort the contents in the article. Because when advocates of specific views prioritize their agendas over the project's goals or factions with different agendas, battling to install their favored content, edit-warring and other disruptions ensue. @Sharif uddin: Please understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy. Stop the agenda-based editing and let's achieve the encyclopedia's goals. Anand2202 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One the contrary it is you Anand2202 who seem to be totally against Naik and all your edits seem to be overflowing with hate towards him. I don't really understand where did you get that extremist thing about him? Do you really think calling others as fans absolves yourself of the clear hatred that you posses towards him? Sure we are fulfilling wiki's goals and you are definitely not helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.205.234 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey why has it been mentioned that zakir naik has been offered red corner notice? where is the source for it? The Red Corner notice "Taken up" is not the same as red corner notice assigned. I understand that as a Kafir, you would hate all true Muslims expecially Zakir Naik. But this is going too far. I will have to do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsaini1986 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of problems which need to be fixed

1. "Unlike many Islamic preachers, his lectures are colloquial, given in English, not Urdu or Arabic, and he usually wears a suit and tie" This line given in the first paragraph doesn't mean anything. Numerous Islamic preachers are like this (e. g. Hamza Tzortzis, A.R. Green, Ahmed Deedat, Nouman Ali Khan etc). So this should be removed.

2. "His preaching is currently banned in India, Bangladesh, Canada and the United Kingdom" Zakir Naik's preaching is not banned in these places. Zakir Naik cannot enter UK but peace TV is broadcasted there. In Bangladesh, Peace TV is banned but still Dr. Zakir's lectures can be found in YouTube and according to trackalytics, most fans of Zakir Naik are from Bangladesh. So this line must be modified.

Solved Emdadtafsir (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The misspelling of his name

I noticed that the person's name was spelt "ज़किर" (zuh-kir) instead of "ज़ाकिर" (zakir) as it's meant to be spelt. could someone insert the "आ" vowel between the 1st 2 letters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.45.165 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2016

Mumbai Police report reveals brain wash in zakir naik schools

http://zeenews.india.com/news/mumbai/mumbai-police-report-reveals-astonishing-details-of-zakir-naiks-islamic-school-details-inside_1919205.html [1]

References

  1. ^ According to the police probe, the school also has a branch in Chennai which is "conceived, planned, and developed by Dr Zakir Naik" and asks Muslims to stay away from non-Islamic schools. The 71-page report said that the school's literature is aimed at making the students “insular”. "Societal influences upon a child should be analysed critically. An un-Islamic environment can result in the corruption of a virtuous Muslim's Islamic understanding, upbringing and values. It is therefore recommended that Muslim parents educate their children in an Islamic school to prevent them from falling prey to the bad influences and immorality prevalent in society," the report quotes the school's literature as saying. "Some of the school's literature, which is also available on its website, is highly controversial and objectionable, and could produce indoctrinated individuals," the Mirror quoted a senior police officer as saying. A paragraph on the school's introduction on its website said the school looks after its students' needs even in 'afterlife'.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

change ""He also said that Muslims have the right to sex with their female slaves[29][31][88] where he referred to slaves as "prisoners of war"."".to ""Dr Zakir Naik says that according to Islam its legal for a Muslim to marry any woman of his choice who has been widowed or has lost his husband for considerable time period after war. having sex is another thing entirely and is completely prohibited in Islam and Dr Zakir Naik's ideology. he also says that "Prophet SAW strictly prohibited any violence on children, women, people who lay their weapons down and nature(trees etc) during, after or in the cause of war". since Islam allows polygamy, rather than to have illegal relationship with women affected from the war, its the duty of Muslims to take them in their protection by marrying them.""

this link further clarifies further https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig1nJDMvOR4 MusaImran47 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Reliable sources are cited for the current wording and a self-published source is cited for the proposed wording. Please start a discussion either on the talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard. SITH (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe come up with a better rationale

To editor Векочел: That Zakir is called a televangelist is cited in the article. Your argument is invalid. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The revealer:

I have undid your revision which was done without proper explantion. The statement clearly mentions about the Dr Zakir Naik's current situation with proper source. Before making changes please talk. Bansalitsme (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bansalitsme:You didn't mention what you changed. This is very wrong and I think this is enough to revert ones edits. What you have done is unencyclopedic. It is being told who the person is and suddenly a line on different topic comes up. You'll find relevant place to add that kind of lines below. Thirdly, the information given is probably wrong. I'm seeing numerous news material which says red corner notice has not been made. Read WP:RS and you should remove this yourself.The revealer (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And again, wikipedia needs highly sourced referencing. Your reference giving style is incorrect as well. The biggest point: your reference is outdated. It's from april and now's july. So it's not the current state of Zakir Naik.The revealer (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence, "Indian prime minister Narendra Modi slammed Zakir Naik in one of his electoral publicity speeches in May 2019, saying that, Sri Lanka bombing was inspired by him and in spite of that the Congress supports Zakir Naik.", the word Congress should link to the, "Indian National Congress" and not as in the article at present.

Thanks, I have made this change. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 10:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed

This has been removed, "Naik states that it is permissible to beat one's wife "gently". He argues that "as far as the family is concerned, a man is the leader. So, he has the right", but he should beat his wife "lightly".[1] He also said[2] that Muslims have the right to rape their female slaves[3][1][4] where he referred to "prisoners of war" as slaves.[5]"

Please re-insert it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.248.124 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference hp10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Tarek Fatah (13 November 2013). "Indian cleric Zakir Naik defends Islamic Law permitting rape of female POWs. Justifies Islamic slavery by comparing it to Gitmo". tarekfatah.com. Archived from the original on 21 July 2015. Retrieved 19 July 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "Zakir Naik, who said Muslims can have sex with female slaves, gets Saudi Arabia's highest honour". India Today. 3 March 2015. Archived from the original on 11 January 2016. Retrieved 24 January 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Tharoor, Ishaan (4 March 2015). "The Saudi king gave a prize to an Islamic scholar who says 9/11 was an 'inside job'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Zakir Naik, from being a liberal Muslim to Islamist". The New Indian Express. 14 July 2016. Archived from the original on 15 July 2016. Retrieved 15 July 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
The material you want restored was removed by Umshazayn and has since been restored. In fact they have deleted it more than once; in one of the edit summaries it was stated to be "quoted out of context". This amounts to a content dispute and you've done the right thing to open a discussion here on the talk page. The disputed content is supposed to be discussed here and a consensus reached. Continuing to remove and restore it amounts to an edit war. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been re-inserted, please do so at least now!
Bansalitsme please do the needful!
Khestwol please do the needful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.248.124 (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the help-me tag for this one, please don't use that for a content concern. A discussion needs to take place to determine whether this should be added/removed and a helper shouldn't make this change. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 10:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted this edit [2] mostly because it doesn't give a clear reason for the edit ("anti-Zakir Naik agenda") and some of newly added references are dubious (youtube, linked to the subject). I didn't notice any change in content, just addition of new references.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now with this edit, more matter has been removed without a reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/917358063 and the matter about, "permissible to beat one's wife "gently"" (my first complaint) has not been re-inserted!
Bansalitsme please do the needful!
Khestwol please do the needful!
DreamLinker please do the needful!

Dr Zakir Naik Wiki Page - concerns over edits

Hi all, i am concerned that there is alot of mis-information on the page and very biased. I have been trying to make edits which keep getting re-stored. Can you advise how to proceed or shall i share all my edits on this forum and await its approval as i have been unsuccessfully trying for the last few months. Your assistance will be very much appreciated Plutowriter123 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman Would you please have a look at this?The revealer (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris Troutman are you able to respond to my questions. If possible i could share all the information first for your approval.82.68.38.166 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me; I removed this page from my watchlist. I've quit editing Wikipedia articles because of WMF's bad behavior. This biography attracts the attention of partisans who either deify or condemn Zakir. Further, all biographies of living people now fall under discretionary sanctions, so it's not worth my time to argue with crazies. I recommend you ask for help at WikiProject Islam. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chris Troutman, I am very sad to read this. You’re a fabulous editor. These controversial Muslim biographies do attract what you call “the crazies”, and you’ve been really helpful in keeping them as reliable, neutral in tone and properly cited as possible. I’m personally grateful to you. Hope you might at some point come back to them. All good wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

In the view of women, he has stated in a talk, that beating a woman is the equivalent to hitting her with a handkerchief, and that it is symbolic. 2601:183:282:1180:BCED:88DA:9B4B:ABAE (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim 16:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zakir_Naik&oldid=957288541"