Talk:Zakir Naik

Removal of subjective material

This section contains original research, unsubstantiated assertions and partisan views:

"According to Dr. Naik, there is a difference of opinion regarding Yazid and the battle of Karbala. However, many Islamic sects openly state that Yazid was an unjust ruler and didn’t even possess the qualities of being a caliph. He also claimed that the Hadith in which Muhammad ibn Abdullah stated that whoever conquers Constantinople will go to paradise, was in regards to Yazid. In 674 CE, on the orders of Muawiyah I, Yazid led the Umayyad army to conquer Constantinople but was defeated by the Byzantine army, which was comparably smaller than the Umayyad army. So if history means anything, it proves that Yazid never conquered Constantinople; hence, the Hadith is not in regards to him. This also proves the unfortunate extent to which Dr. Naik can go to in order to prove Yazid as a just ruler and a religious person.[49] Even if one considers that Hadith to be in regards to Yazid, for the benefit of doubt, then have we all forgotten the numerous authentic Hadiths in which Muhammad ibn Abdullah stated that Hussain ibn Ali is the Imam of the Ummah and the leader of men in paradise. Many scholars believe that Dr. Naik is simply making fool of his audience by feeding them wrong and corrupt knowledge. It was Sultan Mehmed II that successfully conquered Constantinople."

It also contains un-encyclopedic material including:

"Many scholars believe that Dr. Naik is simply making fool of his audience by feeding them wrong and corrupt knowledge."

Merely asking for inadequate and unhelpful (un-encyclopedic) material not to be moved is insufficient reason not to remove it.

Hello GorgeCustersSabre,

I am going to source my inclusion to the criticism section of the article. Maybe then you’ll know hat it is not my words but the words of reputable Muslims scholars. Salman A Shah (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunni or not?

Recently an issue has emerged after a series of edits by User:Twafotfs inserted the claim that Naik is a Sunni. The sources provided at the time were insufficient to support such an assertion (see User talk:Twafotfs#Zakir Naik). I have since uncovered one reliable source (Warikoo, Kulbhushan; Religion and security in South and Central Asia, Taylor & Francis 2010) which calls Naik "perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India", thus potentially establishing his credentials as a Salafi (he also gets a mention in Roel Meijer's Global Salafism: Islam's new religious movement, Columbia University Press, 2009, as a prominent member of the Salafi movement). However, the man's own statements ("Are Muslims Confused" video) seem to suggest a rejection of the idea of sects within Islam. I'd appreciate it if other editors could weigh in with opinions on this matter: should we use the sources to argue that he's a Salafi (and by extension, a Sunni), or take his own arguments into consideration and assume that he self-identifies as a non-sectarian Muslim? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Our policy is (for living people at least) to go with self-identification (explicit self-identification I should add, no interpretation). You can ask if this is the case at WP:BLPN, but that's the way we handle this issue. In any case WP:NOR means we can't add our interpretations. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. The thing is, he doesn't seem to self-identify explicitly. In response to the question in the video, "So are you a Sunni or what?" Naik's reply is basically, "there shouldn't be any sects in Islam." That's not exactly the same as saying, "I don't actually subscribe to any one Islamic sect." He ducks the question a bit. Is it OR to extrapolate his non-sectarianism from these statements? Yunshui 雲‍水 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost all Muslims will say there should be, or is no, sects in Islam. As will many Christians. But we still refer to JFK, for example, as a Catholic Christian, and someone like Benny Hinn, as a televangelist or Pentecostal. Twafotfs (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Only if they self-identify as such. I've raised this at WP:BLPN#Can we call Zakir Naik Sunni although he doesn't identify himself as such?. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'd say that his statement is a sufficient assertion that he doesn't self-identify as Sunni - and on that basis, we shouldn't describe him as one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe self-identification is required except with respect to categories, infoboxes, and the like. To say he is Sunni in the body would still have to be based on reliable sources, though. From what I can see above, there is insufficient support to say he is Sunni, even in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To categorise or list someone as Sunni is to make the assertion that he is such, and to assert it as if in the voice of Wikipedia. It is the exact equivalent of writing that assertion in the text. We do not make such assertions unless they are verified by reliable sources or are explicit, non-self-serving, self-identifications. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yunshui has very helpfully provided two eminently reliable sources in English that identify him as a Salafi (more than I could do!). Salafis are, by definition, Sunni. I think we ought to abide by common sense here. If someone was referred to in a reliable source as a member of Opus Dei, but not, the words "Roman Catholic", I think we ought to be pretty comfortable labeling that person a Roman Catholic nevertheless. No? Twafotfs (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to Twafotfs, I'd also like to elaborate on my statement above. The rationale for self-identification in categories (WP:BLPCAT) is because a category is a label with no context and no citation. When we add material to the body, we can provide context, and we must provide sources. However, we need to be careful, even in the body, that we do it properly. For example, if we were to say in the body, Nafik is a Sunni, and cite to the Salafi source (above), that would not be acceptable because it's barely better than a label (the category). The only difference is the cite, but there's no context. If, on the other hand, we were to say that so-and-so called Nafik an "influential Salafi", that would be faithful to the source and might warrant inclusion. As I understand the sources we have, though, they conflict, so even if we were to add the Salafi claim, we'd also have to balance it with his own statement about Islam sects. That said, I'm not sure I see that it's noteworthy enough to include the conflicting material.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be cautious here for several reasons. Being a "Salafi ideologue" is not the same as being a Salafi, just as one might be a "Catholic theologian" without being a Catholic (and I know an Islamic lawyer who is not a Muslim). That is, we need to understand whether the word Salafi refers to the ideology he expounds rather than to him personally. There is some reason to believe that he personally does not accept the Salafi label. In which case a more accurate rendition might be that "he is regarded as an exponent of Salafi ideology but personally rejects a sectarian label". Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, and although I'm still not convinced that even properly written, the material is worthy of inclusion, I agree conceptually with Cusop.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that sentence Cusop Dingle. Twafotfs (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain why I think it is worthy of inclusion (I understand it's probably bewildering to you as to why this discussion is even taking place). If you go to the page on, say, David_Koresh, you will see he is listed as a leader of the "Branch Davidian religious sect". The idea of labeling merely "Christian", would I daresay offend most Christians. Likewise, when someone refers to Osama bin Laden as a "Muslim terrorist", for example, it offends many Muslims. But it's not about offense, but clarity. As the page reads now, he is just a Muslim imam and self-appointed spokesperson for Islam. It needs to be made clear that he is a propagator of a fringe, or at least minor, tendency within Islam. His views aren't representative of merely "Islam", in fact, quite the contrary - as the recent controversy over his Yazid remarks make clear, he is actively reviled by many millions of Muslims (in particular the Shi'a). I can see how you might think I am letting my own agenda take precedence here, but I'm confident that my reasoning is sound, given the Koresh example.... Twafotfs (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So does anyone have a problem with me inserting a sentence regarding his Sunni Salafi religion as per Cusop Dingle's suggestion? Twafotfs (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ could we see the sentence first please? And since someone is bound to ask 'who regards him', it should be attributed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"he is regarded as an exponent of the Salafi ideology, but in his own statements he has rejected the relevance of sectarian or Madh'hab designations" Twafotfs (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd tack a citation to the YouTube video (yeah, I know; not usually WP:RS, but it's clearly the man himself speaking) on the end of that to support the second statement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGzsWRLYf9M, to save you looking it up); beyond that, I'm quite happy to see that sentence in the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Zakir Abdul Karim Naik.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zakir Abdul Karim Naik.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)