Talk:Zaid Shakir

Imzaid

Text document with red question mark.svg This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable in the future. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (October 2011)

EARLY LIFE (quote) - Zaid Shakir participates as a speaker at Islamic Society of North America annual conferences.

YEARS ABROAD (quote) - ......and writing and speaking frequently on a host of issues.

The above 2 citations have been corrected with references no. 1 and no. 2 above: Imzaid 05:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The above 2 citations have been corrected with references no. 1 and no. 2 above: Imzaid 09:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

Some quotes:

• Shakir is amongst the most respected and influential Muslim scholars in the West[citation needed],
• widely regarded as an articulate voice on Islam and African-American issues and as a visionary leader in the emergence of an Islamic community and tradition that is indigenous to America.
• accepted Islam (should be converted to Islam)
• continued his tireless community activism

That's an eulogy, not NPOV. {{wikify}}{{sources}} goes without saying. --tickle me 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really--it can't be a eulogy if he's not dead! In any event, there's an articne in the 6/18/2006 New York TImes that essentially confirms all of this. [1] and which seems to provide enough info to serve as a citation for most of what's said in the Wikipedia article.Andrewjnyc 02:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to refer to eulogy - all hail to Mr. Shakir, may he live long and prosper. As for the sources: if there are, they should be added using the <ref> syntax, so readers can evaluate the paragraph's factuality. --tickle me 07:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The cite they add to this quote 'Shakir is amongst the most respected and influential Muslim scholars in the West' is from his own institute!Opiner 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too, Opiner. For the time being, i'm going to remove that as his own site is obviously not going to be an objective source. If anyone else has a third party source then please use that. MezzoMezzo 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that MezzoMezzo. I'll remove the POV tag... Alcarillo 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have a problem with the statement "...Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser ...attacked what he deemed Shakir's "pathetic response" to the Fort Hood shooting in which the Imam stated "that the US war machine is the single greatest threat to world peace." Jasser said that "as an American Muslim," he "was frankly offended" by Shakir's remarks which reflected his "disdain for our military."

This statement in not written in a disinterested, non-disparaging tone to be consistent with NPOV. Further, the quotation is taken out of context, even from Jasser's own article where he quotes Shakir more fully as saying, "Imam Zaid Shakir writes: This is my response to the Fort Hood tragedy and events both associated with it and ensuing from it. I begin by expressing my deepest condolences to the families of all of the dead and wounded. There is no legitimate reason for their deaths, just as I firmly believe there is no legitimate reason for the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have perished as a result of those two conflicts. Even though I disagree with the continued prosecution of those wars, and even though I believe that the US war machine is the single greatest threat to world peace, I must commend the top military brass at Fort Hood, and President Obama for encouraging restraint and for refusing to attribute the crime allegedly perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan to Islam. We pray that God bless us to see peace and sanity prevail during these tense times." The current quote only mentions the war machine statement and ignores the empathic statements, prayer for peace, commendation of the military's response to the incident, and there being no legitimate reason for the killings in Shakir's view. Finally, I want to make clear, I don't have a problem with citing Jasser as a critic who feels that shakir's response is inadequate (for whatever reasons he feels that they are inadequate) but language such as "pathetic" is not NPOV in tone nor disinterested in presentation and not suitable for an encylopedic entry. (67.171.67.81 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your comments. I've deleted Zasser's comment on Shakir's "pathetic response" and added more context to Shakir's response on the shooting. I think it is now adequately NPOV. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I'm new at this (and wasn't sure if i needed to ask before editing). I made a couple of small changes and added links to where the quotes can be found and provided another POV to balance the one quoted while hopefully maintaining NPOV. Seem ok? (67.171.67.81 (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I think the changes you made were excessive. The whole quote doesn't need to be given -- moreso the spirit of it. And the secondary quote you added is not a response to criticism of his remarks, so doesn't belong. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with you that the whole quote is excessive. However, i think listing another influential muslim's comment is germane to the UNDUE argument. Afterall, Zasser's comments are made as "an american muslim". Therefore, the opinion of american muslims regarding shakir's comments on fort hood should be balanced according to their actual presence in the american muslim community. ISNA is a large (perhaps largest) US muslim organization, listing 400,000 members per the reference on its wikipedia page. Therefore, its president's comments regarding shakir's comments on fort hood are informative to the reader regarding what other US muslims think about shakir's comments on the fort hood tragedy (without this balance, zasser's comments have undue weight and he opened that door by stating his criticism as "an American Muslim"). Perhaps the lead in to zasser's comments can start with "Some in the American muslim community have criticized Shakir's comments on events such as the Fort hood killings," then going on to the info that is there now followed by a sentence about how others in the US muslim community have supported his comments. I think that presentation of differing views within the community are most accurate in portraying splits in the American muslim community on this individual and his comments. Finally, a link to the comments in question, since they are readily available, seems germane. (68.162.180.93 (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I largely agree with what you have said and I reverted to your version though with some changes that make it more concise. I think it's pretty fair with those edits. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it reads fairly with the edits and conciseness is always a plus. Thanks (128.147.39.26 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Hope for conversion

This paragraph "Imam Shakir has expressed a hope that the people of the United States submit to Islam, "Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country. I think it would help people, and if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it's helped a lot of people in my community"

Stands on its own and has a reliable source. Let the reader decide what to think about it. Fred Talk 14:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Like the recent change. Looks good. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion needed

Please discuss the specific information contained in the article here rather than repeatedly reverting from one version to another. Fred Talk 12:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the deleted paragraph, his quote was printed out of context in the NY Times interview (2006). We have the original audio of Goodstein's interview and the written response to the editor regarding the printed quote on file as well. However, this letter was not made public.

As for User: Plot Spoiler, you and the unknown User need to back off from editing this page period. Besides adding the Criticism category ( I have edited), there have been continual deletions of my verified public postings from the following categories: Early life (citations), External links and further reading, Articles and Videos for the last week.It appears there is a personal agenda, and it is not appreciated or professional to impose unsavory intentions. Monteil (talk) 9:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

First, why did you sign under a different user name instead of ImZaid? Second, make your changes one edit at a time because many of the edits you are making are inappropriate on a number of levels: 1)Inserting commercial links 2)Insert a spam number of external links 3)Deleting/altering sourced material. I'm not going to capitulate to your bullying -- just make the edits one at a time, format them properly and respected Wikipedia policies. And place an EDIT SUMMARY. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

She is welcome to have two accounts so long as they are not used inappropriately. Otherwise your requests are reasonable. Wholesale reversions of the article from one version to another get us nowhere. Fred Talk 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be resolved easily. Just one edit at a time. You can make constructive additions Ms. Shakir but you should be aware of a policy called WP:Conflict of interest given that you're his WIFE! You also might want to familiarize yourself with WP:Advert and WP:External links because your edits constantly violate these policies. Instead of attached a long list of articles Imam Shakir wrote, instead include those which are relevant into the article itself. You have some positive additions but a lot of it does not respect Wikipedia policy. Also, make sure that the references you are including ACTUALLY reference the sourced material! Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Second,I am the wife of Zaid Shakir and set-up this page 2yrs.ago. Most importantly, I never had this headache until this week. It is not about bullying, but one needs to learn ethics. If you pay attention to correspondence on this page, I was in direct contact with Fred Bauer all week.

This is for the Administrator of Imzaid's page to include the following edit that had been posted for the last year, repeated as an edit all week (constantly deleted by another User), and re-posted as an edit yesterday May 20,2010. It is the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Imzaid's main page:

He is one of the signatories of A Common Word Between Us and You, an open letter by Islamic scholars to Christian leaders, calling for peace and understanding. Monteil (talk) 9:39am, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzaid (talk • contribs)

1) Where is the source? 2) Read WP:Lead - the lead is supposed to reflect and summarize the material in the body of the article -- not add distinct information. 3) Why is this open letter significant in the first place? Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The significance of the open letter is explained in the article about it: A Common Word Between Us and You Fred Talk 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To the Administrator, here are the answers to the above questions with edits. Thus, please post it (2)back as requested:

1)

2)He is one of the signatories of A Common Word Between Us and You, an open letter by Islamic scholars to Christian leaders, calling for peace and understanding, and has become the world’s leading interfaith dialogue initiative.

3)This reason it is important is that "A Common Word between Us and You" is an open letter, dated 13th October 2007, from leaders of the Muslim faith to leaders of the Christian faith. It calls for peace between Muslims and Christians and tries to work for common ground and understanding among both faiths, in line with the Biblical and Quranic commandment to love God, and one’s neighbour. In the short time since its release, “A Common Word” has become the world’s leading interfaith dialogue initiative between Christians and Muslims. It is unprecedented in its scope and success in both the Christian and the Muslim world. The success of the initiative was acknowledged in its being awarded the “Eugen Biser Award” in 2008. That year saw “A Common Word” also receive the “Building Bridges Award” from the UK’s Association of Muslim Social Scientists. Monteil (talk) 10:39pm, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzaid (talk • contribs)

The use of the term "pathetic" in the criticism section is not NPOV. The writing should be presented in a disinterested tone as per NPOV. Calling something "pathetic" does not fit this criteria. While we can say that some took offense at his comments or that some muslims found his comments offensive, to say that someone thought his comments were pathetic is not at all appropriate. More neutral terms (e.g., criticized or found objectionable or offensive, etc) should be used. The use of quotations does not remove the need to present information in a disinterested tone. I cannot quote someone as calling GWB's opinions as "idiotic" and include such a statement as NPOV because I am documenting someone else's opinion and using quotes. Similarly, if someone feels Ingrid Mattson's quotes are too laudatory, they they should be reworded to express her support of Shakir's sentiments and their solid grounding in islamic ... Kitkat21 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR: As of today, it appears that an unsavory User is up to the old tricks again! The edits posted since the block page removal on May 23, 2010 had been reverted twice today.

I also deleted the following paragraph that was added today. It is misleading and not being accepted. I clarified Goodstein's interview last week in the discussion above: Imam Shakir has expressed a hope that the people of the United States convert to Islam, "Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country. I think it would help people, and if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it's helped a lot of people in my community." [8]^ # ^ "U.S. Muslim Clerics Seek a Modern Middle Ground" On page 4 of an article by Laurie Goodstein in The New York Times June 18, 2006

It is not professional to have page tag going on and reverting edits that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If this continues, I request legal input regarding the entire discussion on this page, and reversion since April 23, 2010.

I am a new editor for Imzaid and never had this problem in 2yrs. Monteil (talk) 3:18pm, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzaid (talk • contribs)

Here is the proper signature for the above Imzaid discussion today, May 25 2010 at 3:18pm. Monteil (talk)4:15pm, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzaid (talk • contribs)

Concerning the current revision as of 07:07, 27 May 2010 (edit) (undo) Jac16888 (talk | contribs) m (→Talkback: new section), you need to read the entire Discussion page for the month of May 2010. Secondly, a devious unknown User has been removing posts to this page (External links - websites, articles, and videos) as well. I have posted everything mentioned above on Zaid Shakir AS IT SHOULD BE. As for the "New York Times" article footnote no. 8, I also posted the CORRECT URL link. It seems this User is bent on posting the quote from this article, but has ill will intentions overall and had plagiarized it which is illegal. Since Monteil Monteil talk page has been deleted, I will continue to use the Imzaid talk page instead. As I had stated in my last comment on the Discussion page, after 2 years without any issues, this back and forth fiasco started April 30, 2010. And, I prefer to converse with Wikipedia's legal team. Imzaid (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "legal team"; just one person who assisted you in editing appropriately. You need to continue your discourse with others who edit this page and raise various issues. This talk page is the place to do it. I'll take a look at footnote No. 8. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see that was from two years ago. I hope all is well now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wife's name

The name of the subject's wife doesn't need heavy duty reliable published sourcing. This edit is based on a misunderstanding of our policy. People know their own name and it is not subject to challenge by third parties in the absence of some issue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Integrate or delete notice

Per WP:BLP NPOV is especially important. Critique sections have long been phased out of Wikipedia, hence the tag. The tag is a notice to all editors to integrate the material if they feel it important, delete it if not. per this page, (opinion) the contents in that section are of no significance to merit inclusion in the bio period. Tags rational is self-explanatory in this case. --Inayity (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Excessive quoting

In the "recent work in America" section (I'm not fond of that name either), there is an excessive amount of quoting at the bottom. These should be rewritten in narrative form though at the moment I don't have the energy for such rewrites myself. Perhaps someone could take the time to do so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Category

What is the justification for the category Category:Muslim apologists? Where is the evidence that the subject has defended Islam against criticism? Tanbircdq (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hostility is unbecoming. I intend to un-follow this page. I intend not to respond further. Let's just leave things as they are. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete the cat it is so stupid it is beyond debate.--Inayity (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)