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 Bansalitsme (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 13 July 2019 (→‎@The revealer: new section). 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.

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'.

Criticism and Controversy

This part needs a rewrite. It is too large to be read properly. Maybe someone can bring some structure in it? I'll see what I can do too. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to reply 2 years later, but I agree. Wikipedia style is to avoid controversy sections. Almost everything Naik does is controversial. It is a key part of his notability. The article would be better served if the whole 'Criticism and Controversy' section was merged into the main text. Ashmoo (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taslima Nasrin

@MPS1992 and The revealer: What is your issue with either Taslima Nasrin or Zee News? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman, I don’t understand it either. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mentioning that he controversial in the first paragraph

Hey, I believe we need to change the first sentence from "Zakir Naik is an Indian Islamic preacher" to "Zakir Naik is a controversial Indian Islamic preacher" He is controversial, it doesn't make sense that people need to read two paragraph to know that. It should be mention in the first paragraph. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38259592 https://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/controversial-preacher-zakir-naik-charged-radicalism-insulting-other-religions https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/controversial-islamic-preacher-zakir-naik-seeking-citizenship-in-malaysia/articleshow/58913810.cms https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/6/15/activists-want-indias-hate-preacher-zakir-naik-banned-from-lebanon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.74 (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is 'controversial' means almost nothing. All Muslims are controversial in the eyes of many Hindus and Christians. And all Sunni Muslims are controversial in the eyes of Shia Muslims. It is better to explain what the 'controversy' means, with concrete examples. Ashmoo (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. And in any case, we have sources to support the claim that he is controversial.סוסמעופף (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the lead

Hi, yesterday I made a small change to the structure of the second part of the lead, from "he is regarded as an exponent of the Salafi ideology, and as a radical Islamic televangelist propagating Wahhabism" to "he is regarded as an exponent of the Salafi ideology. According to some sources, He is considered as a radical Islamic, propagating Wahhabism as a televangelist", because in the previous way, It seemed that the opinions are the same while Salafi movement is different from wahabism (which is considered radical islam while Salafi movement is not), so I thought that it should be clarified by explaining that each opinion is different. and also "he is regarded" makes it seem as the only view of him, while he actually rejects secularism in Islam as the article says. I discussed the matter with user:RegentsPark who undid the revision in his talk page and he told me that the original text read better, It's sadly because of me not being a native speaker, so I couldn't find a better style, He told me to go ahead with the edit, but I thought it would be better to look for some other thoughts here, to make this part more clear (and continue to be best to read), thanks MohamedTalk 23:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have some problems here. The linked article Televangelism says "Televangelism is the use of media, specifically radio and television, to communicate Christianity." Which I think everyone can agree is not correct in this case.
I wonder if we can say something like this:
Although he has publicly disclaimed sectarianism in Islam,[23] he is regarded as an exponent of the Salafi ideology,[20][24] and by some sources as a radical Islamist[13][25][26] promoting Wahhabism.[21][25][27][28][29]
What does everyone think? Including @RegentsPark:. MPS1992 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2018

Fact about Zakir:Reference (Redacted)

Sanathan542 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You just copied and pasted text from the source you provided; this is a blatant copyright violation, and I've removed it here. Moreover, your request is unclear as to exactly what change(s) you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

I request the deletion of this part "He also said[87] that Muslims have the right to sex with their female slaves[29][31][88]" Not sure what kind of joke is this and how can you put such fake claims and yet apply the semi-protection badge over this false atrociousness. Revise the legitimacy of these sources, For example there is one from "https://www.indiatoday.in/" a site that writes continuously made up nonsense about others for the sake of their desperate government that despises Zakir Naik. There is no proof anywhere for this, same case with others in short. Therefore I request the deletion of this desperate attempt to fake and lie about the truth, conceiving something else as completely different and manipulating/ changing facts, is not and should not be permitted on wikipedia .

 Not done: Verified by multiple sources. NiciVampireHeart 16:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 currebt situation with proper source. Before making changes please talk. Bansalitsme (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zakir_Naik&oldid=906073001"