Talk:Zakir Naik/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Zakir Naik's figures

Zakir Naik's figures about male and female population in the USA and the rest of the world are blatantly wrong adn people might use his WRONG figures for their use. Believe it or not, people use Wikipedia for research. We should provide the right information and direct them to links where they can get more information. This is not refutation of Zakir Naik's arguments, it is only pointing people to thr right information (from a reliable source).

If we just leave the wrong information as it is, it looks like this article is just puffing up Naik.

11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Can please please stop adding links to the same site more than once, at least within the same topic area. I also dont think its wiase to be listing telephone numbers which make a profit for the person receving the call. I think if someone is able to view this website then im sure they can also download the lectures for free.


I added the POV tag, after removing "Alhamdulillah" from the article, which doesn't sound very NPOV to me ... ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC

I have removed the POV tag as I don't think it is needed anymore. I deleted the line stating that he is afraid of debating with Ali Sina, as on Sina's webpage ( it merely states that Sina sent the IRF a invite for a debate to Dr Naik, and the IRF replied stating that he does not arrange debates through the IRF's email. Which does not mean he is afraid to debate with him. I also removed the phrase 'glorious Qur'an' because although that is what I would call it, it's a phrase that would not normally be used by non-Muslims, so I thought it would be better for a NPOV. M2k41 15:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Eating pork makes you promiscuous?

I put up a POV tag until I can get to this article. It is completely biased, nothing but fawning praise for this fellow. The para on his "scientific studies" of the pig is completely RIDICULOUS. If the guy doesn't like pigs, he should check out bonobo chimpanzees. Plus, the suggestion that you become like the animals you eat is risible. Zora 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) :I doubt if he said that. An anon has been adding it for the last one day, I have already reverted him once. I will remove his changes again as they are unreferenced. btw, the suggestion that you become like the food you eat is widely mentioned in the vedic regions, but that would be an entirely different discussion. --Gurubrahma 01:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Apologies, he indeed seems to have said that, check the link given in the article. --Gurubrahma 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC

Apparently this guy is an INDIAN Muslim, so he might well be repeating stuff he heard from relatives without realizing that it is Vedic.
This guy, or one of his followers, has populated Wikipedia with a number of articles dedicated to puffing him. A good hard google might reveal something about him. We could also use input from any Mumbaikars who edit here. Zora 01:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

this is a joke

Can I just point out that while factually accurate, this article is ACTUALLY written (or editted) by someone with a huge contempt for the subject. In particular the section on pig psychology is just someone taking the piss. Yes s he did say those stupid quotes, but noone considers it "pig psychology". I found this wikipedia entry laugh out loud funny however and since it is not factually inacurrate I suggest leaving it as is 08:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Added some balance

Review the added link at the bottom for my primary source

Contribution on pig psychology

I am the author of the paragraph on "pig psychology" under "awards"

Yes, I agree that mentioning "a breakthrough in studies about pig and human psychology" is a slight exaggeration of Dr Zair Naik's merits, but I felt that I should keep the same over-enthusiastic and laudatory style used in the rest of the article.

With regard to the fact that his comparative studies are "widely recognized internationally", I would like to point to some interesting discussions held on this subject in a highly regarded UK Academic forum, ("The Student Room"), with contributions from all over the world.

Please check at

and Giordaano

  • "The Student Room" is not a highly regarded academic forum; it's a discussion site for undergraduates. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I'll stop being over-enthusiastic and laudatory.

You will be surprised, however, by the quality of many discussions on "The Student Room", which can be of a very high scientific level, and do include contributions from a very wide range of geographical areas 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert without reason or talk contribution

First of all, why is this Ali Sina thing still here? I have kindly removed it. Ali Sina has never been seen (or heard) and is an internet joke with the one goal of vandalising everything Islamic.

Dr Naik is a highly successful scholar and Ali Sina is just another person on the internet, how does this help readers prove anything if his challenge was shut down? Naik receieves thousands of debates from random people, so what makes this one any different?

And a lot of you have seemed angry at the fact that Naik defeated campbell at the debate, but there is no reason to create falsified categories, REMEMBER WE MUST HELP EDUCATE THE WIKIPEDIA READERS!

thank you

Why is the section titled Naik's Supporters so short as opposed to the one beneath it? That clearly shows the bias in this article.

I have noticed that all critical aspects of this biography were removed in the last edit. I have reverted to reinclude them, although I have also changed the tone slight.

It should be remembered that this man is considered a joke by the non-muslim scientific community, a strongly anti-christian apologetic with a questionable grasp of science. This article on the other hand gives the opposite impression, and actually reads with exactly the same syntax and wording as the subjects own equally absurdly laudatory and self-congratulatory website.

It would not surprise this contributor if the article is written and editted by the subject himself.

Also I have noted that the ONLY critical external link was also removed. What on earth can be the justificaiton for that

I've again removed the weasel-worded critical section. By all means add references to genuine criticism, but all this "it is said" and "he is criticised" isn't acceptable. Tell us who says it and where. I hold no brief for this man, of whom I'd never heard before, but whatever you think of him, the article should be written to Wikipedia standards. The laudatory stuff gives proper references to people and places, why do you think that criticism shouldn't come up to the same standard? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands is misinformation. If I described Osama bin Laden on his wikipedia entry as a highly globally respected political theorist, I would be equally wrong. As youve said, you havnt even heard of this guy and yet you are judging bias? All the information I added is supported by the link I also added, and furthermore a simple google search for him will give dozens and dozens more. Nothing I said was subjective. In fact much of it isnt even critical; the sources I listed ARE what he bases a lot of his views upon. What the heck is wrong with you? What about it is "weasel worded"? You need to justify your bizarre reversions better, particularly if you have 0 knowledge of the subject. By all means rephrase informaiton provided, but why on earth delete it.
Weasel word. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
AND YET AGAIN WHAT JUSTIFICATION can there be for removing the external link to a discussion of this man's arguements? What is wrong with you?

It is my opinion that while your reverts were well intentioned, they were in error Mel. You deleted some useful information, and yet havnt had anything to say about the final paragraph (now editted) describing "The Truth and Excellence of Islam" (ie clear bias). Heavily editted. Alex Bartho

I don't see anything terribly useful that I deleted; the stuff about pigs was so poorly presented that it was impossible to judge either its genuinness, its status, or its point. The anon seems to think that any article that doesn't attack Naik is biased, thus displaying a complete lack of understanding of the NPoV policy, and the nature of an encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything critical of Naik has been removed. This is not correct. References have been given for these criticisms. If it is NPOV, a criticism section should accompany the supporters section. Ali sina has his own article on wikipedia. His challenge should be here. Outsider2810 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal impression

The page as it is now looks like an advertisement for Dr Zakir Naik and the Islamic research foundation. Wikipedia should charge them at least a nominal fee. My section on "pig psychology", albeit of course satyrical, was factually correct. Why was it removed? giordaano87.64.5.236 08:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia. We keep a straight face. I sympathize -- I've added touches of whimsey and fun to articles and had them ironed out. But I understand -- readers don't expect humor and sarcasm, and are going to be seriously confused if they meet it. Zora 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora. I realize that the tone of my entry was inappropriate. I have reformulated my remarks in a more neutral style. I hope that they will stay, and that this page can develop into a more objective description of Dr Naik's theories and activities

giordaano87.65.138.65 09:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, while Naik does appear to hold views that seem frankly absurd to a agnostic or atheist western liberal, he is not considered mainstream enough outside of Muslim popular culture to have revieved much criticism (or indeed recognition of any kind) by respectable sources. Without these sources, this article would be in violation of NPOV to include general criticism of him Alex Bartho 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias Tag

I feel it can now be removed. Agree? Alex Bartho

Well, I didn't agree when you first posted, Alex, but now that I have ruthlessly pruned the article, I think it's NPOV. I'm waiting for other editors to agree, however. Zora 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's better. It looks less like a paid advertisement. OK for me. giordaano87.65.138.65 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks great. I vote for removing the bias tag. --Suresh 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


However, now any ,even vague, reference to the pork eating issue has been removed. Who did this editing? why? giordaano87.64.25.109 08:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If an anonymous editor doesn't give reasons, we won't know. I suspect it was one of Naik's admirers. I reverted. Zora 10:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Others argue this argument was not given by him, what happened is a Hindu said that in a debate, and only as a counter arguement he said "that's why we only eat peaceful animals like sheep, cow, because we want to be peaceful. Its called self-analysis. You can listen to the debate at the website below.
I have actually seen that video , & what happened was that a follower of Jainism said that people who eat animals behave like animals , to that Zakir Naik gave the argument that muslims eat only herbivorus animals . They dont eat animals who eat flesh (carnivorous), & they also dont eat animals who eat filth (like pigs), so that makes muslims peaceful like cows & sheep .

I think rather than quoting from other "he says" sites , the article should only have things that are present on his site , & not from here & there . I think that debate might be present on his site , may be under the title of Vegetarianism , or Jainism e.t.c. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 15:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Naik could have said, "No, that's wrong, what you eat doesn't affect your character", but he accepted the Jain's assumptions. Trying to say that this doesn't count, it's not on his website, whatever, is just an attempt to cover up something embarrassing. We don't do that. I think the article as it stands makes it clear that this is Indian popular opinion and not Muslim belief. Zora 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote on sow-swapping is also on the IRF site (in an even more thought-provoking version) at ;it is part of a faq on Islam which is signed by Naik himself giordaano 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a debate going on. People came to listen to scholars of both religions. They already knew that Naik believes what the Jain guy doesn’t, & Jain Guy believes what Naik doesn’t. They didn’t spend their time & money to hear "I don’t believe what you do ". I don’t know how people do debates in the west, but in this part of the world, its called "Munazara" , & it has been going on for a whole millennium . The main aim is to either to nullify the opponent's logic, or to prove your logic from inside your opponent's logic, such that even if he wins, you win. Muslims would start munazara saying "OK, Jesus is the son of God, then..........”, or, "Krishna is an incarnation of God/Vishnu........”. It doesn’t mean they believe all that, it’s a part of reasoning. Obviously you aren’t talking to them to tell that you don’t believe what they do, they already know it. You can’t possibly have any concrete evidence to disprove incarnation of Vishnu, neither can the other person has any evidence to prove his point. These logical acrobatics are the only way these things have been proved or disproved for a whole millennium.
Just a week ago I was talking to my friend when I said "How can I possibly do all these things in one life". He said "OK, become a Hindu, you will get 99 more". I replied “You give me a guarantee for 99 more lives, I would convert.” Now it doesn’t mean I believe in reincarnation, nor does it mean that if he gives me a guarantee, I would convert. It only means that I have proven my logic through his logic, i.e. I wont convert, since he can’t give me a guarantee. So even if he wins, I win. Similarly Naik here proved that even if Jain logic is correct, eating animals won’t make Muslims savage. You talk to people according to their understanding, not yours. And he never said he believes it or not. If you are more interested in this, search Zakir Naik on FFI . You will find a lot of idiots discussing how to save the world from Zakir Naik , the main reason of this article suddenly gaining popularity . There is no controversy here, & nothing to be embarrassed about. Plz don’t create stuff. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 14:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Now its YOU who is inventing things. Zara has shown direct links to his website (not a transcript of any debate) where he repeats the claims. You are attempting to change his views to what you find more palatable. STOP reverting Zara's edits. Alex Bartho 10:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pork Issue

I think this whole pork thing has become way too overblown, why do we need a special section on it? Can't we just put it back into the background section just stating that it is one his opinions on a particular matter, and just leave it.M2k41 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits by anon(s) reverted

I reverted the edits from two anonIPs that I think were intended to make Naik look bad. I've pushed to make this article fair, rather than hagiography, but it shouldn't be a forum for anonymous attacks either. One of the edits removed the qualifier saying that Naik's beliefs re "you are what you eat" are not shared by all Muslims. Intent? to make Muslims look silly. Naik arguing for polygyny isn't astounding either, and the comment that "some people" are offended by his arguments is completely unsourced. I admit that saying that unmarried women will become "public property" is astonishingly offensive. But I think it's wrong to use Wikipedia to assert that it's offensive, rather than just present it as a fact and let readers be offended or not as they please.

There might be something to be salvaged from that long addition that I junked, but I'm not sure how to go about it. It doesn't seem quite fair to Naik to use the article to present snippets that show him in the worst light. Perhaps the article should be rewritten to emphasize what's distinctive about the Islam that he preaches, or what differentiates him from other people who make a living as public speakers and pundits. Zora 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zora,

I have listened to a lecture he gave on women's rights in Islam. When somebody asked him about why polygyny was allowed in Islam, he said pretty much the same thing, i.e., it will stop women from becoming public property. He also said that polygyny uplifts the status of women...and in my opinion, THAT IS VERY OFFENSIVE!!!


Considering that we have removed everything that appears Bias from this article, then why do we still have a the pork statement? I;m not saying its untrue by this article is now far from neutral.djorgensen

Well, that's what I mean about giving a coherent account of his teachings. So far as I can tell, his specialty, like Ahmed Deedat, consists of giving what I would regard as pseudo-scientific justifications for traditional Muslim beliefs. The Qur'an is a miracle -- because it contains advanced science. Muslim halal rules make sense -- because you are what you eat. Polygyny is good -- because of population imbalances. He is saying that Islam is "modern", but carefully avoiding any real engagement with modernity (which starts with questioning traditional beliefs -- the epiphany of the college freshman who discovers that you can question authority).
Dang, I don't really have time to read his website and publications and give a good precis. You are right, it might be a good idea to imbed that remark re eating pork in a broader context. Zora 12:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should add what his objectives are? All we currently have is a page dedicated to where he was born and studied and what he doesn't eat. Once we have established a section called objectivces and established what are his objectives we might be able to talk about these in an objective manner then.--Damien Jorgensen 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-Indian muslims

Where is teh proof that Indians think "you are what you eat?" Furthermore, where is the proof that only Indians think that way in the whole world? That sounds very dodgy.

Because we had an Indian editor here saying that it's a popular belief in India, with Vedic origins, which seems valid to me, based on my cursory readings in Indian anthropology. (Frex, people with spiritual aspirations also give up onions and garlic, because these are too hot and spicy.) I know that lots of cultures have beliefs in the medicinal value of some foods, but none that have quite the same emphasis on the qualities of the foods being transmitted to the eater. (Chinese, I think, dividing foods into "hot" and "cold" foods, referring not to the temperature at which they are eaten, but to certain essences that need to be balanced.)
But you're right, it would be good to have a citation. Zora 07:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We have now a paragraph on polygyny which praises the Islamic solution to gender unbalance. I think it should not stay like this, I have slightly edited it, but I am not really satisfied. giordaano212.190.74.28 11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that anon is defintitely cherry-picking passages that sound strange to Western ears. I would suppose that Naik has things to say about prayer and charity and being kind to your family and neighbors that would sound eminently commonsensical to most people, but we aren't hearing about those. I would have to read Naik's writings to give a fair account of his thought, however, and based on what I've read so far, I would regard it with same enthusiasm I would to reading the complete works of Mary Baker Eddy. Zora 11:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just made a few changes to the "Islam and Polygyny" section. I added some new facts with citations since I feel that Zakir Naik's information may not be accurate. And Wikipedia must not show wrong information. We need to provide facts.

People seem to have made this a debate page, trying to debate some of Zakir Naiks points and giving their personal views, suggestions and opinions, which is Not accpetable in a Encyclopedia and hence this needs to be reviewed and removed. And also the Views section is Very Very Selective and needs to be removed.

But if you've changed the facts, then it is no longer a summary of Zakir Naik's views! You can't do that!
As for the treatment of his beliefs -- I said that it's inaccurate. Can you do better? Including criticism? of course we do, if it's not original research. It just has to be referenced. Zora 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The views are very selective and people here are trying to give their statistics and points, you just give the views. Not try to debate. Plus the Views are very selective, why not include each and everyone of his view? I am not going to each and every personality and give my views. Will I?

For now i have removed the place where people are giving their views and stats, which is not accpetable.

The statistics are necessary since Zakir Naik is providing blatantly WRONG information. As an encyclopaedia, we need to provide facts if some information is obviously wrong. People use Wikipedia for research and what if someone takes Zakir Naik's figures and uses it? Think about it...I removed the stuff refuting Naik's explanation (him not accounting for lesbianism while accounting for gays and not accounting for the fact that older women over 65 might have been widowed). But I reverted the stats which are necessary.

Women as witnesses

Why not explain why Naik is defending the "woman is half a man" rule? It is true that many people feel that these shari'a rules are unfair to women. Can you think of a way to put this that is not going to upset you? Zora 08:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am neither going to defend his views nor Oppose them here, this is not the place. Many people(including myself) think they are perfectly fair. I dont care what others think or even i think. Period. Monotheist 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Plus this page is not at all informative. It does not talk about his Big Debates, Talks, Schools he founded, Awards etc. Needs a lot of Rework. Monotheist 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Put that in and we'll remove it again. This is not a page for boasting about Naik's achievements.

Its not boasting. It is ABOUT HIM. If you have a personal problem with him, its your problem. Not anyone elses. Its a encyclopedia. Hence all such information about him is needed, its not some personal opinion its about his History.

You seem hell bent on trashing him. I can understand your problem. But there is nothing much you can do.

Planning to remove His Views also after consesus. Monotheist 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get a consensus to do that. He makes his living expounding his views, so they're relevant to the article. If he has views that don't sound so strange to Western ears, please add them. Zora 08:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "Western" only site and i dont care what the "western" world thinks of it. They are entitled to their opinion. I told you what other think/dont think should be left to them. You just present what ZN has to say, not keep harping whether he is right/wrong/weird etc. There are many forums where you can do all such things. 10:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The "His Views" Section should NOT be removed. Who exactly is Zakir Naik without his views? Nobody. He makes a living by visiting places and giving lectures based on his views. But I do agree that the "His Views" section currently portrays a very strange image of Naik but having gone to his website, I could verify all of it. If you have some of his views that portrays him better, you should add it.

His views Looks like these are his ONLY VIEWS, It should be renamed to "Some of His Controversial Views" else Hence this is Unfair. Here refutations SHOULD NOT BE allowed, just because Benny Hinn says he spoke to God, i am not going to his page and Refute his arguements, or for that Matter some Chrisitians believe Jesus rose from the dead. I just place their Beliefs and Views not my Refutations. Hence all such things are completely unacceptable Monotheist 07:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik has innumerable views selectively presenting his controversial views and presenting it as "His Views" on this page is misleading. Apart from this the page needs a revamp. There is much more to the man than just his "Controversial Views". His famous debates with Dr. William Campbell on the topic "The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science" and the more recent one with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on the topic "The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam - in the light of sacred scriptures". need a mention.

As Monotheist earlier mentioned being an encyclopedia page on Dr Zakir Naik this should mention his famous Talks, The organisation and schools he founded and the awards he has won.

In other words, you want to remove the embarrassing stuff and turn the article back into a puff piece for the doctor. This is not going to happen. Zora 08:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Have you ever read an encyclopedia in your life? your above comment shows what kind of intentions you are here for? All they are saying is that either present all his views or dont present at all. I dont think i have ever seen any article as lopsided as this one. Plus innumerable information about the person is missing.
I agree that the presentation is lopsided. We have an anon who is cherry-picking the most embarrassing stuff and putting it up. The embarrassing stuff should not be REMOVED, but it should be BALANCED. So put up some material re Naik's teachings that reflects well on him. Zora 05:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have streamlined certain paragraphs (in particular, all those unverified calculations about gays, unmarriable women etc in the various countries). I also consider that Naik's theories cannot be simply presented as facts. It's always necessary to add "in his opinion", "considers that" etc etc Still, the page mostly looks as an advertisemnt for his institute, his books and, most importantly, himself. giordaano87.65.179.214 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this section: Islam as a Practical Solution part of Zakir Naik's article? It belongs in the Islam article, not Zakir Naik's article.
I wanted to add some "positives" about Naik. As everything in the article so far kind of sounds strange. Maybe it does not belong here, I'm open to debate.

Revert This Page Back

This article on Zakir Naik is very critical of him. It does not serve the purpose of this encyclopedia. Everything needs to be deleted from this article except for the first pargraph. It is obvious that this article was authored by someone who has hatred toward Dr. Naik.

No way, I know that "His Views" shows him in a strange light but these ARE HIS VIEWS. Go to the link provided and see for yourself that these are his own words. This article should not become puffery.

Response to Outsider2810: Then why did you delete the information about the Qur'an and Bible in the Light of Modern Science Debate? That was a debate that Zakir Naik clearly won and you systematically decided to delete that information. I am happy with you keeping the information you put up there, but you also need to add that part back.

OK, I did not do it on purpose. This page has gone through many editions....I will add it back. But please do not delete huge parts of the article again, thats considered wrong.
Ok, I will not delete huge chunks again. But I prefer that you change your tone of the article because your word choice is antagonistic.

Lots of Missing Information on Zakir Naik added.

Major revision

I deleted the material claiming "verbatim quotes" -- that is not noteworthy. The claims to have debated many "scholars" were also removed, as overblown. Christian missionaries or Hindu pundits are not necessarily scholars.

I also reorganized the "views" section. I think that even the Naik-supporters here will think it more readable now. Zora 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are going tooo far this time. You are NOT here to decide what is noteworthy and what is NOT, from this "Anti" attitude of yours.
Just because you CANT take it that does not make it puffery, stop this ridculous attitute of YOURs. RIGHT NOW. These are HIS facts that i am presenting.
Else even HIS VIEWS will go RIGHT NOW. Everyone can see your attitude, this is an Encyclopedia for Gods sake, and it is ABOUT HIM . try to do some reading up. Monotheist 10:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can tell loathesome flattery when I see it. I'm trying to be fair to the guy, but praising him for being able to quote is over the top. Heck, I'm a Buddhist and I can quote the Bible, the Qur'an, and numerous hadith. Does that make me special? Not really. Ditto with the debates. He's not debating real academic scholars; they wouldn't deign to argue with him. He's arguing with other religious types, which is not very novel or impressive. I'm arguing with you but again, that doesn't make me impressive.

If you can get him to debate with Richard Dawkins, that would be noteworthy. Zora 10:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dang it, M, you added the "practical solutions" list again even though I paraphrased it. It wasn't gone, it was just rephrased. Zora 10:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ON WHO IS Noteworthy and WHO is not, and its your problem You just talk about what Zakir Naik did. If he debated with Richard Dawkins(never heard of him), i would mention that too. So your opinion what is worthy and what is not does not matter. I dont even agree with you. So please stop this Monotheist 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to annex the article as puffery for Naik. There will be other editors along to bring it back to a neutral state. I'm not going to revert immediately, because I want to act calmly, and perhaps give others a chance to intervene. You know, if Naik IS a real Muslim, he wouldn't be happy with you for making him look like a publicity-hound. Zora 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the miss, The Rephrasing is not complete. I will re rephrase it. Monotheist 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That the things i added are completly Neutral, you still havent given reasons WHY it should not be there other than your usual "puffery" rants. Puffery or not, these are facts about HIM. The page is ABOUT HIM. So it is obvious that we tell about all the things he did or said. Does that bother you? Monotheist 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But the things you are adding aren't neutral. You think he's wonderful, and you see only the good things about him. You have a POV, a Point Of View. I do not share your POV. I do not think you are neutral. By writing of tiny things as if they were big ones, you are making him sound more important than he is. You think it's wonderful that he's able to quote scriptures other than the Qur'an -- I assure you that it is nothing uncommon at all. You think it's wonderful that he engages in debates, and think the people he debates are important -- they aren't. Zora 11:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Naik is impresive when he starts quoting stuff.--Striver 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


He quotes verbatim of not just the Qur'an but also The Bible and the Hindu Scriptures.

That is what he is famous for. Now this is a fact.

And also the fact that you support his "Controversial Views" to be present on the page but not his debates is sheer hypocrisy.

You selectively want to put parts of what he debates, but do not want to mention the Topic of the debate.

Please understand that this is his Encyclopedia page, not a place for you personal vendetta.

I think this article is much better to read now. I made only two changes to makes it neutral instead being a "support" article. I deleted the sentence which said that even though superficially Islamic laws seem strange, they work. People can reach thie own conclusions about this.

Instead of the title being "Protection of women", I changed it to "conduct of women and polygyny". "Protection of women" seems to assert that Islam protects women because of its laws. Again, people should reach their own conclusions about this. "Conduct of women and polygyny" is more apt for what is written in the paragrapgh.

Zora how many people can you name who can quote Multiple scriptures Verbatim from Memory, please give me their names and link to their videos so that we can all see. Stop your biased views, everyone can see through the hypocrisy.
I told you, I can. I'm a Buddhist. I was raised as a Christian. I've been reading about Islam. I can quote from the texts of all three religions. It's no big deal. It's like admiring the guy because he can tie his shoelaces. Zora 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Too bad you haven't memorized the Qur'an, Bible, Vedas, etc.. WHOLLY!

No Reference given to prove that Zakir Naik talks about Jaziya in Islam and Practicality, please provide references. Removed for now.


This is outrageous.... I Should delete huge chunks of this article because most of these assertions are not referenced. Like this for example:

Naik supports the practice of hijab, or modest dressing and comportment for men and women.

^There is no proof on this assertion.^

Dr. Zakir Naik never has encouraged men to practice Polygamy. There is not one quote anyone could provide in which he encourages anyone to take more than one wife.

Naik also argues that polygyny, or the Muslim practice of taking up to four wives, is in the best interests of women. He believes that there are more women than men of marriageable age in every country. He asserts that:


I have deleted useless statements that did not belong, and have also added useful information. If the False Assertions i have pointed out above are not fixed within the next day, i will delete them, or improve them. This is an encyclopedia! All the information has to be accurate!

NO this is NOT outrageous. I have listened to one of Naik's talks where he was specifically asked how polygyny favours women. He said that it protects women from being immodest and also keeps them from becoming public property. Also, if you go to his website...he tries to "prove" how polygyny is beneficail for women and men.

Naik himself has two wives.

This is a lie, he has only one wife. He says so in the Qur'an and Bible in the Light of Modern Science... which you have not watched. You need to stop with your lies, this is an encyclopedia, not your hate-site.

Naik has 2 wives??? What next????? Please guys learn to behave maturely. There is no proof for this. He has only one wife. As said repeatedly. This is AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not a site for your personal propoganda. If you cant respect the ethics of an Encyclopedia look someplace else, Please. All this degrades the Value of Wikipedia.

Any more Blatant lies will be reported.

I got the information from a very realiable source (a muslim) that Naik has recently married again and he presently has two wives. But I am not sure if it is indeed true. In any case, him having two wives is NOT in the article.

If you want to hear Zakir Naik saying that polygyny favour women, listen to his talk on "The Rights of Women in Islam, part 4." Someone asks him about this specifically during the question and answer period.

You're taking everything out of context. He meant that in the end, it favors women as a whole. You are a fool for making it sound like Naik thinks that it is good for every individual women... you need to change up your tone. This is un-encyclopedia like!

His Views

I am in favour of Completely Revamping/Removing "His Views". The Tone is not right, plus they are very very selective. Need a consensus on this. Monotheist 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I have reviewed the article; I took out most of the material which simply states general Islamic views, which are not specific to Naik, and tried to keep a less bloated style.

The links section is, in my view, too long, and unbalanced, since it contains only one link criticizing Naik, while the rest is, mostly, personality cult.

It's not a good article but, in my view, slightly more readable giordaano212.190.74.28 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Giordaano. That's a big improvement. There's still some stuff I want to change, but first we'll see exactly how the angry Monotheist reacts to your edits. Zora 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No reason given to remove Islam as a Practical solution and only selective views given. My stand still remains either have all the points or remove all the points. Simple.

Removed the Debates section for now since that is not a complete list of his debates, if we have a debate section then we need to list all his debates and dialogs. Please decide on this

People here are removing Stuff in the guise of making it more readable please desist from this behaviour

Zakir Naik well-known?

That's the wrong word. He may be a recognizable name to some Muslims, but to the rest of the world, he's unknown.

I read the New York Times and CNN, plus a dozen other blogs, plus Rediff, Sepia Mutiny, and Outlook for Indian news. His name is not there. Zora 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Read English. it is said what he is "well known" for, not whether he is well known or not. Your benchmark of well known does not matter to us. SunofGod 04:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Neutral point of view means that:

-You cannot present Naik's views as embodying the truth. You cannot say that he proves, shows, demonstrates etc. You can say that he considers, attempts to demonstrate etc.

-You cannot present Islam as solving the main problems of society. This is highly controversial, and would require a careful balancing of pro/con opinions. Furthermore, this is not the place where to conduct this debate. There are pages on Islam, Shariah, Jizyah, hijab etc. This general debate on Islamic principles should not be reproduced here.

Similarly there are other pages on Dietary laws,Polygamy etc. So stop being a Hypocrite, why not remove them too? Plus you dont decide what is honorable and what is not. Hence accordingly it does not make it a NPOV. Let people reach their own conclusions.

A last detail: there are many links exalting Naik and one only criticizing him. It would seem fair to list this one first, instead of hiding it at the bottom of the list. giordaano87.65.189.207 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair? Are you crazy? This is a Zakir Naik Page and his page should be on the front. Not an anti Zakir Naik page. That too from a biased site like answering-islam.

Islam is a Practical Solution is also Zakir Naik's point of view, if that is removed, so will all the other point of views mentioned be removed.SunofGod 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hence reverting.

You guys are deliberately trying to hide Islam has a pratical solution and your biased propoganda is clearly visible.

And Zora if you dont consider him "well known" then stop wasting your time here. Your hypocritical propoganda will not work. And if you think he quoting all scriptures is nothing great and you can do it, please open a Wiki page about yourself.

giordaano's opinion

Outside of Muslim communities, Naik is practically unknown. This is, in fact, one of the major difficulties in constructing a webpage which would aim at NPOV. The only attention Naik has enjoyed outside of Muslim communities, is the answering-Islam website (Christian missionaries).

In my opinion however, this does not mean that Naik or his followers should be allowed to set up a religious propaganda site on wikipedia. Any allegation about the virtues of Naik's theories (or, in fact, about the value and truth of Islam) has to be presented as what it is, i.e. a claim, and not an absolute certainty.

I have tried to rework the webpage in this perspective.

I will, disdainfully, ignore the insults thrown at myself (hypocrisy, craziness etc.) and posted by a contributor who confuses wikipedia with dawah (Islamic proselytism). I also feel that Zora was, unjustly, offended in a most blatant manner.giordaano87.65.189.207 11:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Improved the section of zakat, including the definition of nisaab with regard to livestock (and not only gold , currencies etc), and inserted a general link on zakat giordaano87.65.189.207 13:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion you are trying to make this a Hate site againt Zakir Naik and your hypocrisy is clearly visible with all the links to hate site. No encyclopedia will ever trust such sources. The Links that are already GIVEN are HIS Sites and HIS debates. Does that bother you? I am not giving any other stuff. you guys just want to potray him in bad light and hence want to remove HIS, i repeat HIS debates. Monotheist 13:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC) . Stop this hypocricy.
Just like i would name some of the important movies of Movie actors, here i we are giving the names of his important debates and dialogs. We did not make it a Dawah site by giving his views, you people started it. Now i guess it has back fired on you badly. I can understand your situation. But now you cant do anything much about it since you wanted "his views" to be present. Maybe less of hypocrisy will help the betterment of this page.
What are you trying to give by giving critical links equally? I have never seen any such page, will they ALLOW me to give EQUAL Critical links of Jesus in his page? Or any other personality? One will suffice. Learn to make it an encyclopedia not your false propoganda page.Monotheist 13:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
If the words "Well known for" bothers you so much i will replace it with another term.
I hope Zora will be happy since she had a phobia for the words "well known for". But his facts cannot be removed at any cost.
Sorry guys there was an editing problem with Wikipedia, hence lots of edits. Now it is alright.

I have noticed in many places you have resorted to discussing Islamic LAWS at your own free will. Without reference to Zakir Naik, here we are discussing what Zakir Naik says about WHICH LAWS. We dont want your stories here, this is a Zakir Naik Page, not the place to discuss Islamic laws. If you feel Zakir Naik has said something please provide References Monotheist 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Next time you people want to put something, provide references with respect to Zakir Naik, if you want to discuss Islamic laws other than the ones discussed by Zakir Naik, please look some place else. Monotheist 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Are Vandalising this Article

Some constantly vandalises this article by deleting information on Zakir Naik's most famous debate. -- A debate he clearly won... This whole article should be deleted, cuz Naik has too many haters.... u all can't accept the fact that he provides facts to defeat Christians, Jews, Hindus etc..

I am the person who added the debate!!!!!!!! Not removed it!!!! it is insecure people like others who cant see his work and hell bent on removing it, i am the one who is adding it. Check the history. Monotheist 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, i fixed the title Wallah96

In my view, reference to the debate could stay. It has to be, however, NPOV. I have cleaned up a bit the article. giordaano87.65.189.207 18:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You are fooling people in the guise of "cleaning up" you are just adding the old junk back without references where Zakir Naik says something, and plus we dont need anyones opinion. If they have opinions, they can conduct debates with him and then post it here. Monotheist 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I havent given any opinions on the debate, and hence the debate stays. I havent given any points of my OWN.

some people are feeling insecure and trying to remove it, and i dont see any good reason why.Monotheist 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Christian POV" to Zakir Naik are not necessary here.

Removing references from hate sites. SunofGod 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some one removed Dr. Zakir Naik is well known for quoting verbatim from memory Islamic and other Scriptures without discussing. That is restored. SunofGod 19:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

People are blindly reverting the edits without any explaination or discussion, such people will be reported for Vandalism Monotheist 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You must allow criticism

Wikipedia's organizing principle is NPOV, neutral point of view. We don't take sides! If there's a dispute, we make room for all notable views. We present the arguments for each side and let the reader make the ultimate decision as to whom to believe. Removing links because they're critical of Naik is a direct contravention of NPOV. Guys, play fair. That's the only way this project will work. Zora 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please give a Link if you want, dont give multiple links to the same site. Else we will put a million more links from the IRF site Monotheist 20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting links from hate sites like answering-islam is not NPOV, neutral point of view. SunofGod 20:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes i agree, they also have to understand that we are not giving PRO Zakir Naik sites, but HIS very OWN sites and debates which makes it NPOV. It is HIS page remember? Infact giving links which are critical of him i think violates NPOV. Monotheist 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora you are constantly Reverting BLINDLY. There are many edits which are being LOST because of YOU. Stop this. You are constantly vandalising the page. Monotheist 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, please discuss before making changes. If you have any intentions of making this "project work". Do not vandalize the page. SunofGod 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(cpt -- remove dawa -- if people want videos or books they can find them through Naik's site -- no need to advertize them here)

Zora this is Zakir Naik's page and it will have a mention of his debates. The debate with William Campbell is his most famous one. SunofGod 20:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It has no fame, zip, zilch, no fame at all. It was an event at a Muslim religious gathering which only Muslims attended, and got NO mainstream press at all. It is not notable. Zora 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your standards of being notable does not matter here. It is Zakir Naik's most famous. Period. SunofGod 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I told you THE PAGE IS ABOUT ZAKIR NAIK, WE CARE A HOOT ABOUT WHO ATTENDED AND WHO DIDNT. It is about what ZAKIR NAIK DID IN HIS LIFE. If you think he is not worth the attention, then please leave this place and go edit something else. Monotheist 20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You want to hide the information cause it is an embarressment for you. Which is clearly visible. Monotheist 20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We are neither doing Dawa or whatever you call it, show me one place where something Irrelevent to Zakir Naik has been mentioned. Everything is what he did/said in his life. Monotheist 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to Remind Zora that this is not her personal page to dictate what is notable and what is not. This is an Encyclopedia and everything about Zakir Naik will be mentioned here. Monotheist 20:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Removed the Verified tag for now since everything that is in the page is about Zakir Naik with references.Monotheist 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

People should refrain from adding their own stories and ideas, which are not related to what Zakir Naik said or wrote. Please provide references from now onwards with respect to Zakir Naik Monotheist 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

giordaano's opinion:

Zora is perfectly right. The critical links should stay, and answering-islam is practically the only non-Muslim source on Naik. Some people may consider it a hate site, but this is only their opinion.

This is not Naik's page; it's a page about Naik and his ideas. There should be a reference to the reactions to his ideas and to the controversies in which he is involved. The text is already very unbalanced, and in my view not at all NPOV.

The additions should not be eliminated without specific reasons. Period (as someone here likes to say).giordaano87.64.20.167 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy, not Polygyny

the definition of Polygyny:

  • the mating of a single male with several females
  • A mating strategy in which a male has several female mates

so basically it is a mating system.... Islam allows a form of polygyny -- polygamy. Islam does not allow basic polygyny that people have in mind... the more accurate term is polygamy because it denotes marriage. Polygyny does not strictly mean marriage like polygamy does.. therefore, the subsection in the article should be named polygamy because islam allows polygamy, not just any form of polygyny.

You're mistaken. Polygyny means taking several wives or mates. Polygamy means taking several wives OR several husbands. Polyandry means taking several husbands or mates. From classical Greek, poly, polu, many, gynos, female, gamos, marriage, andros, male. The word polygamy is indeterminate; polygyny or polyandry are more exact. This is basic anthropological usage. Zora 08:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is polygyny, not polygamy. Go to Naik's website, he specifically says that polygyny is permitted and it is inaccurate to call it polygamy.
Also IT IS NOT A FACT that there are more females of marriageable age in every country. Look at any population statistic website. The number of males in the world between 15 and 64 outnumber the number of females.Outsider2810


Outsider, you need to stop adding lies about this subsection: Hijab. You say he encourages/prefers or whatever u want to call it that women cover their body up to their wrists. You are lying, provide a link to one of his videos where he encourages that. And, the hijab is a code of conduct for men and women, not just women.

And i think there are more women from the ages of 15-64 than there are men. Please give me a reliable website that says otherwise; Wallah96 15:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wallah96, I am not the one who is lying. I do not have any agenda to make Naik look bad or to make him look good (unlike you are his supporter). I call it fair and square (I was the one who added "positives" about Naik like the Islamic practice of charity, etc). Here are the CIA estimates of the demographics of the world. It also has statistics on populations. [1]. You will see that the number of men between 15-65 does outnumber the number of women. You will also find many countries for which this is true from the same source.
I am also not lying about him feeling that women should cover themselves up entirely save their face and hands up to their wrists. Go to his own website, [2] and read about what he feels about women and how they should dress.
Another thing you should note is that the way YOU dress is the way YOU conduct YOURSELF. Women dressing in a particular way is not how MEN conduct THEMSELVES. You have called me a liar and unnecessarily changed/edited/vandalised this article WAY TOO MUCH. Please refrain from giving your personal opinions, which are full of bias. Outsider2810Outsider2810Outsider2810
Outsider2810, u say:
"He says that a woman should cover herself entirely except for her face and hands up to her wrists"
but you cannot provide one proof that he says a woman SHOULD dress that way. He says that in Islam, it is required for women to dress that way, but he never said woman SHOULD!
Wallah96 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Wallah96 first of all, please STOP editting my posts on this discussion page. It is bad enough that you keep editting unnecessarily on the main article but do not change my words on th etalk page. You have already don that once before. If you continue it, its going to be bad. Also go to his webpage and read his own words instead of asking for proof all the time. You have been proved wrong more than once. ::::Outsider2810

Balanced solution

I've just had a look at the wikipedia page on Ali Sina (a well-known opponent of Islam). It contains mostly a resumé of his views, and then a section about criticism of his theories. The weblinks also contain both his pages and sites very critical of him.

In due time (if anybody has the patience of wading through the unpalatable theories of Dr. Z, and through e.g. answering-islam) this would be, probably, the best solution Giordaano 10:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wallah96 has edited my post on the talk page, and deleted my last contribution, which I just reinstated. This is a serious offense.Giordaano 10:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have revamped the External Links, his main Link( was missing, no need to give individual links to each and every rebuttal. One Link will suffice.

Please provide References to where ZAKIR NAIK says something. In Islam as a Practical Solution people have added Islamic Laws randomly without references, now corrected in reference to Zakir Naik's Points ONLY

May I ask what you are referring to when you said I edited your post??? and Deleted your contribution?? I have only edited this page to make it more fair and balanced, just check the history page. You can go through my edits, and see that i have only added useful information and edited some false sentences. Wallah96 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wallah, you can edit the article, but you CAN'T edit other people's contributions to the talk page. Well, format perhaps, but not content. Perhaps you didn't understand, but now you know -- and could be blocked if you do it again. Zora 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora What the heck are you talking about? I never edited your post?? I never edit other people's posts in this discussion section... all i do is add my response underneath. Wallah96 03:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I just went to after Giordaano's suggestion of Ali Sina. Sina seems to be a big critic of Naik and he says that Naik "won" that debate with Campbell because of his showmanship, ie, quoting long verses from memory. The crowd had no option but to applaud Naik because of this. I added this to the "debate with campbell" section to make it more NPOV.Outsider2810
Outsider2810 you have not made it NPOV, just the opposite. The Link provided saying he evaded some criticism from Campbell is insufficient. If you actually watch the debate, you will see Naik answers every single criticsm by Campbell. Stop spreading your hate for this man, that part needs to be deleted. Naik did not win because of his showmanship, but rather because he provided facts, which Campbell didn't do. This is far from NPOV, since Naik has so many haters, we might need to get rid of who actually won. The clear answer is Naik.
Wallah96 03:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Zora What the heck are you talking about? I never edited your post. I never edit other people's posts in this discussion section... all i do is add my response underneath. Wallah96 03:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


This article has developed into a much more encyclopedia-like article in the past week... i agree with that... but there is still a lot of hate in the tone.. for example, the Qur'an & Bible .... section

There are blatant lies there, for example, outsider2810 claims:

  • Naik evaded much of Campbell's points and relied on his showmanship (quoting from memory) to gain support

This is clearly false; anyone who has seen the debate knows this is far from the truth. Naik did not evade any of Campbell's points. Just watch the debate!! And on top of that, the website he/she provided had nothing to do with that point. It was just another link to a website wanting to actually debate with Naik -- completely off-topic

Wallah96 03:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wallah96, on 14 March 23:46, you edited my contribution to the talk page. It seems that you know what I want to say better than I do myself. Editing other people's contributions to the talk page is considered as vandalism. Just don't do it again.Giordaano 13:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Giordaano: i am sorry if i have edited one of your posts on the discussion section... but i highly doubt it.

Also, the whole section:

Interactions with Hindus

Naik believes that eating food offered by Hindus/non-muslims as prasad is haraam (meaning forbidden) for muslims [citation needed]. This is seen by some as a deliberate attempt to sabotage the intermingling of muslims with people of other faiths.

should be deleted.... there is no citation whatsoever about this. And by the way, i know that Zakir Naik, if you watch the Qur'an & Bible...debate, says that Muslims are allowed to eat any meat that is slaughtered the Islamic way and if it is slaughtered in the name of ALLAH. Therefore, this whole subsection about interactions with hindus should be deleted... simply because it is a huge lie

Wallah, I actually agree with you on this. I was not able to find any link saying this or any source blaming Naik for sabotaging relationships between people. Outsider2810

Criticisms of Naik

I will probably add some criticisms of Naik soon. I think this section is necessary for this article. What do you people think? :::Outsider2810 I agree entirely. Naik's theories are very controversial; however, I don't think there is much critical material available on the net, beyond answering-islam and

Critical material is NOT available because there cannot be any more, other than clearly farce sites like answering xtianity and faithfreedom. Anyway we dont want your person criticism here, go rant out your critisim somewhere else, its needs to be NPOV, not criticism. Nowhere have we said Naik was correct and given our opinion, we just presented his views and let people decide. This is an Encyclopeidia not your hate site.

Naik seems to be extremely popular among Muslims, but almost unknown outside of Islamic circles.Giordaano 12:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely a LIE(about ZN evading his questions ), please provide proof or references which points. There was not a single one, removed the LIE. Also I feel that we should just provide information about the dialog and not who answered and who did not. We let the people watch and decide instead of giving our opinions. That sections should be made NPOV. Hence arguments from both sides need to be removed

People are giving Multiple links to the same site in external links, removed and replaced with just one. If that continues i tooo will post Multiple links to each and every article from other sites on Zakir Naik(along with rebuttals to each and every link which u posted), if you want to play "fair and square".

The comment on Naik's victory in the debate was also unsourced, so I deleted it. By all means, introduce as many links as you want and other editors find acceptable and meaningful.21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)giordaanoGiordaano 21:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the whole Qur'an & Bible ... section with the links. Some fool deleted all the links to the debate!! THis is unacceptable!
A Woman's Value As A Witness I think this section actually needs the quote from the Qur'an... because this section just says: There is a verse in the Qur'an (2:282) which says that two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. This is not enough for the reader... i think the actual verse of the Qur'an should be added. Wallah96 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The debate was uploaded to the wiki, so is available there. All the other links can be found on Naik's website, which is given. Multiplying links to various PARTS of Naik's website shows clear proselytizing intent. Occam's Razor, updated: do not multiply links without necessity. I also cut down the Answering Islam links. Zora 23:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

can u please give me the link to where it is uploaded? I don't see any reference to it within the article. the link inside that chicago debate section does not lead to any part of the debate. Wallah96 23:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, please don't delete the information about the Qur'an & Bible debate, it is important to give the reader brief background info on the topic. Wallah96 23:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora you are upto your tricks again, you are simply vandalising this page. You have removed the verbatim thing, it is NOT SOMETHING THAT SUPPORTERS CLAIM. It is a fact which is HARD for some people to digest. Monotheist 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Monothiest I agree with you completely. If you watch any of his debates, you will see he has memorized many scriptures Wallah96 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV dispute since all personal, biased, and anti opinions have either been removed or balanced.

I think it should be added back, there is still some biased stuff Wallah96 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Wallah if you feel there is still some biased stuff, let us discuss and get it over with as soon as possible. The Page being in NPOV dispute is not healthy - Monotheist
Wallah the part where it is mentioned that Zakir Naik replied to all of Cambells questions should be removed to make it NPOV i think. Let people decide, what say? -Monotheist
Monothiest I am willing to go along with you if you feel strongly about it. But it is obvious after watching the debate that Dr. Naik responded to every single criticism of Campbell. But i still think that it should stay. Or we should atleast mention how Campbell's Answering Islam site did not put up the debate for people to watch. It is important, b/c that shows you who really won the debate. Wallah96 18:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to find out a solution to remove the neutrality dispute, so please all list out your reasons here, if people have none, then off goes the tag. No point in having it for the sake it it -- Monotheist
This is perplexing. For example, much of Naik's talk with Campbell involved scientific statements that were just quite simply false - such as mountains acting as pegs. (They cannot because they are not shaped like pegs, their "roots" are shallow geophysically, and they do not enter the astenosphere and cannot in any way act as a stabilizer) Some notice needs to be made of this. 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Zora Please Stop Deleting Important Info + Links

Please stop deleting the links in the External Link section of the debate video. Also, stop deleting links to his books. Also, stop deleting information about the actual debate in chicago section. also, stop deleting the fact that he is indeed a hafiz, and not "claimed by his supporters." This is a fact, not claimed!Wallah96 23:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I Also want to add to Zora that this is an encyclopedia.... there should be as much information as possible on Zakir Naik. People use encyclopedias so they can learn as much as possible on the subject. The more links provided, the better. But i agree that there shouldn't be more than a couple of links to the same website, but this is not what is going on. People are actually posting proper links to different sites. What is the harm in that? There is none, the viewer has more options. Wallah96 23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora is a person who just cannot digest facts, Zora if you dont know what a Haafiz is please go find out, also it is a FACT which is hard for you to digest. Sorry thats your problem. If someone wins the oscars i will surely mention that so and so person won the oscars whether a million others have won it or not. So please keep off if you dont have anything good to add the this encyclopedia. Also if you think only his supporters "claim" i can give you links where others also accept he can quote scriptures, even his hard core anti people dont deny it.

Disputed tag stays, as long as you guys want to use this article to propagandize for Zakir Naik and Islam. Your insistence on including the "debate", as noteworthy, and claiming that Naik "won" it, is extremely POV. As for the links -- if links to the books and the video are ON Naik's website, then one link to his website will suffice. By having multiple links to different sections of his website, you are attempting to push readers onto the website.

Ok now for books changed to one link, desist from putting mutiple links for other sites, else i will remove that too. You are here just for Anti - Zakir Naik propoganda. This is a ZN page, not his hate page. Create a new hate site if you want and rant there.

I haven't had much time for this article, as I've been busy with other articles. But my opposition to use of WP for propaganda remains steadfast. Zora 21:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was Interactions with Hindus deleted?

Zakir Naik appeared on Peace TV and very clearly stated (albeit in Hindi) that eating food on which the name of other Gods was taken is haraam and must not be consumed. If this is not a deliberate attempt to prevent socializing and inter-community mingling with non-muslims, I wonder what is?

It was removed my dear friend cause it is not his personal view, its is the Islamic view also. Muslims dont eat anything Hindus do for pooja like prasad. There is nothing to create disharmony. Its is your view that it creates disharmony, we dont need it here.

If that is the case, then this is fact and corroborated by you as well. All the more reason for it to be on the page. Muslims traditionally in India have had more secular leanings and freely participate in Hindu festivals and eat prasad etc. To goad them to a more fundamentalist reading of the religion is nothing but a deliberate attempt to cause communal disharmony. This quote was discussed publicly on NDTV on the Big Fight (March 2006) program in just this context. Hence this is not a personal view, this is a larger issue - some in India would call it an attack on national sensibilities and mischevious behaviour. Edit is being reversed.


There are many links included in the page which point to the same irf site. I don't see why we cannot have several links pointing to the answering-islam site.

Stop deleting them. Also,remarks on this page should be signed, or it's impossible to follow the discussion. And don't edit comments made by other people. giordaanoGiordaano 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The last update on March 27 2006 removed this section without a valid reason. This will be put back as many times as required until a valid reason for exclusion is proferred.

Removed puffery again

The pro-Naik editors seem to be under the delusion that this is their article, to be used for promoting Naik. I am told that if I want to criticize Naik, to start another article. Sorry guys, you have misunderstood Wikipedia's basic tenet, NPOV, neutral point of view. Please read WP:NPOV. Also, we do not do what are called POV forks. An article has to fairly represent all notable views.

Sorry you seem to have mistaken Wikipedia to be your hate site, its not. Show me one encyclopedia in the world which gives hate comments like this and refutes arguements
Also why were the details of his dialogs/debates removed????????? can i know , this shows your sick hate mentality. I repeat This page is about ZN not your hate site. Create your own if you want. Hence anything ZN does and creates will go here. If you dont understand simple english please take a crash course on English.

What kind of impression of Islam are you giving with these antics? Not a good one, I would think. I hope that Islam stands for modesty, truth, and fairness. Zora 22:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora you will soon be reported to for vandalising this page. That inforamation has been here and you are desperate for removal since you cant digest some facts. It hurts you, doesnt it?

What hurts me is seeing WP used for boasting. I edited the page down to a strictly neutral page that says who he is and what he believes. No puffery, no exagerrated claims -- but also, no criticism. Report me all you want -- I don't think any admin is going to listen to you. Zora 08:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not puffery its facts that is hard for you to DIGEST!!!!!!!! I told you its an open fact that he can quote vertbatim... why the hell are you removing it???????? can i know????

Also why were his debates and dialogs removed????

Because being able to quote other scriptures is not particularly wonderful or notable. I can do it myself! As for the debates, same thing. Because they're not notable. No one cares. They were not reported in Time Magazine, or the New York Times, or by the BBC ... they are not news. We say that he speaks at conferences. That's enough. Zora 09:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Zora you are vandalizing this article. How can you say a debate is nothing important?? IT is very important because it was ZN's most famous debate. Someone should report you if you continue to delete stuff. Let's see you quote verbatim verses from other Holy Scriptures. It's not just that, it's that he has memorized the whole scripture, Old Test, New Test, Vedas, Upanishads. etc.. What is your problem??? Why would you put as less information as you can?? This is an encyclopedia... not your hate site. Wallah96 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorized the entire Christian Bible? The entire Rig Veda? The entire Upanishads? I'm willing to believe that he's a hafiz -- that's not so rare. But look at the figures:

  • Qur'an 80K words
  • Bible 783K
  • Gita 20K
  • Upanishads 45K
  • Vedas 331K

That's not including the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. Qur'an, 80K; all the other texts, together, 1179K words. More than fourteen times the size of the Qur'an. You want me to believe that he has memorized the equivalent of fifteen Qur'ans? Go on, pull the other one, it has bells on it.

It is not "hate" to refuse to include partisan and unbelievable claims. Zora 00:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Who made claims that Zakir Naik has memorized ALL The Holy Scriptures? Zora, Hate is when you deliberately try to sabotage the page to hide the debates of Zakir Naik. You repeatedly trying to hide his famous debates shows your insecurity. This is an encyclopedia page, not a place to vent out your frustations. SunofGod 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Who made the claims? Wallah96, right above my latest remark. That is, if he's a real person. All these ZN supporters, arriving with brand-new usernames ... hmmm. Zora 19:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
People are resorting to their sick hate mentality again and again. Why were his famous debates and dicussion removed????????????? If anyone removes them they will be reported, that too without a good reason(cause they dont HAVE ANY REASON). They just want to hide the facts and promote their sick intentions here. Even the dietary laws only certain points are highlighted, the FULL thing needs to be quoted. No need to quote out of CONTEXT. Added it back

This article has become too Big and Wikipedia is giving a warning, trimmed the old discussions.

Anymore changes without discussion will be reverted BACK immediately.

Zora the Vandal

Please keep a watch on the Big Vandal ZORA!!!!!!!!! She is delibrealy hiding information that does not suit her. ZORA you are crossing all limits now, why are you removing his dialogs and debates?????????? If you havent heard of something does NOT mean it is not notable, it means you are an ignorant fool. Thats your PROBLEM NOT OURS!!!!!!!!!!!! You just cant stand Zakir Naiks achievments. If you have a problem then go and debate him. We will make a page for u also in wikipedia.

People are adding some challenge to debate as if its some great thing, I would like to remind people that is there any proof for Ali Sinas existence, has anyone seen the coward, he resorts to attacks, insults etc. And it is a completely HATE SITE. NO ENCYCLOPEIDA IN THE WORLD WILL EVER TAKE SUCH A THING SERIOUSLY. Please desist from giving links on hate sites.

There is NOTHING great about some corward who sits behind a computer and challenges to debate naik, tell him to come out and debate and then I will be the first one to put it in this page. OK? Get that straight. No links to hate sites which uses Vulgur cheap words. It will be removed promptly.

Definition of HIJAB


  • modest dress, for both men and women, although the emphasis is usually on the female. What "hijab" actually means varies widely from place to place.

This is the definition, it does not always denote something related to a woman. It is for both male and female. I am going to correct this information in the article. Wallah96 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made some small edits such as adding transition words, and adding the actual verse from the Qur'an that was cited within the articleWallah96 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete, archive

Wallah, you don't delete stuff when the talk page gets too long. You set up an archive page and then move the old talk into it. I did that. You can look at the code and figure out how I did it, or you can ask me to do it the next time. I had to have my hand held the first time I did archiving :) Zora 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you are desperate to remove his talks and debates??? without a discussion????? You are continously vandalising the article.

Reference NOW GIVEN. So please desist from removing it. Also you are the only editor who has a problem with it, majority dont have any problem. So it remains.

zora i don't understand what you mean. I never deleted any part of the talk page because it got too long. Please explain what you meanWallah96 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


See, Wallah, with a reference we can include the material you want to include. If you want the Indian debate in there, we'd need a reference for that too.

Same goes for Punekar. If you want that episode included, we need a link or a quote. Zora 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NDTV's Big Fight episodes of march 2006 can be purchasd online through their website - The broadcast was on 4 and 5 March 2006.

Zora i don't understand what you mean. I never deleted any part of the talk page because it got too long. Please explain what you mean Wallah96 02:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone lopped off a chunk of comments from the top. If it wasn't you, I apologize. Zora 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that was me, i thought thats how you get rid of old stuff.

Neutrality Dispute

Please discuss on how we can remove it. Please dont attempt to change without discussion.

Sensible comments only please

People are not interested in any discussion shows their sick mentality and their anti Zakir naik stance, they dont have a good reason hence they are vandalising the page.

Any more edits and removal without discussion will be reverted immediately since this page is DISPUTED

People are delibreatly trying to Hide information on Zakir Naik and presenting biased BIGOTED views, this is totally unaccpetable. Anyone continuing to edit without a proper reason will be reported


Firstly, as I said, comments should be signed, or the discussion becomes chaotic.

Ok if you think so Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, why does someone remove systematically the link to faithfreedom ? you may consider it a hate site, but the point is just this, to give different opinions. The link, therefore, will systematically be reposted.

No it is not a decent site, it uses all kinds of words, abuses and accuses. Uses Vulgur language. Plus the challenge to debate is the biggest pathetic attempt by a coward who wants to debate sitting in from of the computer, his very existence is in doubt. Such sources cannot be trusted in an encyclopedia. Hence the link goes. And a challenge to debate is something anyone can put, it is like some kind of joke. Cause if is not even an opinion. Even i can open a page and challenge to debate, it MEANS NOTHING. Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, this page has become a ridiculous propaganda page. In my view, it does Naik

more harm than good, but, of course, this is just a personal opinion. 
I dont think so, the views section was started by certain people and they insisted on having it, i long ago had told that it should not be there or it should be balanced. Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, accusing Zora of vandalism is laughable. She tries to somehow make this page less ridiculous, but all her efforts seem useless.Giordaano 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

i dont know how by hiding what Zakir Naik has done and his famous works she is trying to make it less ridiculous. Its a page of ZN and hence his famous talks have to be there. Those are the reasons he is famous for. But she wants to selectively hide information. What is funny,about it?Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am ready for a discussion first, people here are editing without a proper discussion since they have no good reasons for their edit which is making the situation worse.Monotheist 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats why i am insisting on a discussion first, what you want to edit, add, delete why? etc. But no one really seems interested Monotheist 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wishing Christians is a Wahabi viewpoint

Also wishing christians in chirstmans is not some Zakir Naik special that people have to put it, ask ANY islamic scholar he will tell you that. You are trying to present it as if Zakir naik is trying to create problems. Where did you get that? Its the opinion of majority of Muslim scholars. Why dont you also mention that Zakir Naik talks about similarities between Islam and Hinduism and Christianity? This bridges the divide between Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Why are you not putting that? Monotheist 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Naik only cherry picks and quotes other religious texts out of context to buttress his points. Certainly if you wish, we can include those views here as well. But he has clearly and categorically made his views about wishing Christians on Christmas known. I do not wish to bring in references to other Islamic evangelists out here since this is an article about Naik specifically. What is common knowledge is that Muslim Indians have had no such issues with Christians or Hindus and Naik is deliberately trying to fundamentalize an essentially secular nation. This is mischief, pure and simple and people have a right to know about this man's views.
Additionally I have found a more liberal interpretation at this link:
and this
"A leading Islamic figure in Australia has urged the country's Muslims to ignore decrees he says are being circulated by fundamentalists saying Muslims should avoid everything to do with the current festive season, to the extent of not even wishing their non-Muslim neighbors "Merry Christmas."
Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilaly, who carries the honorary title "mufti of Australia," said a group sympathetic to the Saudi-based Wahabi movement was promoting the decrees."
Bottomline: There is nothing that is "common knowledge" about this. Quite apparently from the links above it can be noted that there is a divide between the radical Wahhabi types and the liberal types. Naik's stand put him in the company of the former and this is definitely a "NAIK SPECIAL".
You are contradicting your self, there are people who say that it is not allowed and the australains Islamic figure has said to ignore it and hence it is very clear that it is not something naik ONLY says. Dude i am an Indian Muslim and i know, since childhood i have never even touched prasad inspite of me having 90% hindu friends. I dont need a zakir naik to tell me that. 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, do NOT mix issues. We are discussing Naik's views regarding wishing Christians on Christmas. We can discuss the prasad issue seperately.
Your contention was that Naik is merely repeating what was "common knowledge" ie. to wish Christians on Christmas was a common view and not Naik-specific. To which, I have pointed out that there is not a consensus on this issue. There are clearly moderates (whom you said did not exist) and there are the Naiks of the world. Naik's view on wishing Christians is not common and certainly mischevious, in that, he tries to artifically create barriers among communities in India that have traditionally not had such issues.
Also, this is a site that is meant to list out Naik's views. That his views may be shared by others is irrelevant to the documentation of the aforementioned.
About your being a muslim Indian - I cannot verify this claim. In any case, there is a wide variety of muslims in India from the liberal and educated Malayalis to the orthodox Deobandis in central India. Again, by and large, this is a peaceful and secular community that mingles freely with both Hindus and Christians. Naik's contentions on prasad consumption are certainly coming from his own interpretation of the Quran. This makes it relevant.
you are simply giving your opinions on how it creates a divide as if Zakir Naik innvented it. etc, thats laughable.
Salman Khurshid from the INC echoes this view, as do Shabana Azmi and Javed Akhtar. Not a personal opinion, just reporting what was discussed on NDTV.
The way you presented it as if Zakir Naik invented that rule, that has been agreed by many scholars, and hence you cannot attribute as if ZN is doing that delibreately,
Naik falls in the bunch of Wahabi fundies who advocate a divisive interpretation of the Quran. Like I pointed out, there is a clear divide among moderate and extremist Islamic evangelists in this regard. Naik has deliberately chosen to hang with the fundies. His choice. We are just reporting it.

never saw that on NDTV though, even if they discussed it does not matter since its not something Zakir Naik made up. Hence your opinion violates NPOV hence removed.

Please read the article again. It says "some Indians feel" - hence there is no NPOV-related issue.
There are lots of indians who feel lots of things about Zakir naik, doesnt mean anything. we cant keep telling what each one feels, as i said its not his personal view, and he is not trying to create any divide, you are only interested in that forgetting all his other talks(Similarities), plus you have parroted the same view TWICE!!!!
This is a popular view held and discussed on a very popular program and relates directly to Naik. Hence it is of relevance. Naik's views on this issue are relevant because nowwhere in the Quran is there a direct statement saying "Don't say Merry Christmas to your friend". This is his narrow Wahabi interpretation as the references state and is therefore indicative of his stance and the category of "scholar" he is. That makes it relevant information. And he *is* trying to divide people - his aim is to radicalize muslim Indians as a community and this is very mischevious. Until I hear a valid response from you, I will keep reverting as many times as needed. This is not your Naik-promotion page, it's supposed to be NPOV.
Whether it is a wahabi interpretation or something else, the fact that you are trying to show that it creates a divide between communities has nothing got to do with it. you are simply ranting the same story twice which is unaccpetable. something which is Unislamic is unislamic does not mean someone is trying to create a divide. it is NPOV, you just say what Zakir Naik says, you dont give your "interpretation" of what his intentions are. people care a hoot about what you or others think his intentions are. 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have clearly cited two independent and verifiable Internet references what clearly prove that it *is* a Wahabi fundie viewpoint. You are yet to refute that. Please do not underestimate my determination to recount facts not just twice, but as many times as it will take.
Does not matter cause you havent shown it to Zaik special and hence its nothing got to do with him, there are a million more things he says, where are they?
Naik holds a Wahabi viewpoint - and Wahabism is an extremist stream of Islam. It is relevant to highlight to the reading public where he stands on that issue so they can clearly see past his glib showmanship.
As for the "million other things", you can add them. What's more, you can count on me to help you ensure they are verifiably accurate. Think of me as your friendly neighbourhood kaffir! :D
Naik's views are not views of a majority like you claim - and in any case, I have not seen verifiable references from you that can prove it. There is nothing islamic or unislamic about wishing Christians since there is NO statement in the Quran that goes "Don't say Merry Christmas". Naik preaches this while being fully cognizant that it is his interpretation and is going to radicalize a peaceful community. This is considered by many prominent muslim Indians as mischevious, and the same is being recounted verbatim. Whether people give "hoots" or not is to be determined by the forum in which such "hooting" takes place. From my references, this "hooting" is happening on national television broadcast to millions of home by people who are prominent leaders of the muslim community in their own right. This is something you cannot sweep under the carpet.
Does not matter cause you havent shown it to Zaik special again, and hence it has nothing got to do with him, specifically, and also i am going to remove them now since you are not quoting which verses he uses and the entire length of his explaination which shows that you are biased, in the prasad thing he proves that Ganesha is a false god and gives reason, can you please post that also next time you are posting it. 15:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a Naik special because he holds that view. If it is so common like you claim, then you should not mind if he is seen to be holding that view by the viewing public. I am adding them in since you are clearly trying to whitewash his image. A piece of advice to you - don't try to defend the indefensible -pi$$ing into the wind is futile. The full quote from his speech in Toronto runs into 15 minutes - the transcript of which runs into several pages. What I have put there is a precis that outlines his basic view on the issue and by Wikipedia's guidelines, that should suffice.
as you also agree that it is not his own words but also in your very own links you have shown that there are people who agree with it, plus i am not here to defend him, i totally agree with that view, so why should i hide it, but the fact that you are trying to claim that it is an attempt to create a divide is unacceptable. 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of "Ganesha the false God" claims of Naik. That just underlines his deviousness further. The recording I have of his Peace TV speech does not have this claim, but for the kind of person Naik is, I would not put it beyond him.
If you have seen only one recording then its your problem, that means you dont have thorough knowledge of Zakir Naiks talks, and hence i dont know what you are doing here other than spreading mischief.

see the Peace A vision of Islam talk, its not a claim, he proves it in his talks from the sotry of Ganesha. 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your outburst is both quaint and comic! Fortunately, I don't need a character certificate from your exalted highness to post on wikipedia, plain facts are good enough. Naik and his ilk have caused enough division in my country. It's time lay Indians like me stood up and exposed them for who they really are.
infact you are violating NPOV by giving baseless comments on his intentions which is unaccpetable. your agenda is quite clear and i will not let you play your agenda here 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be baseless if it were unverifiable. IT is a verifiable source, and hence bereft to NPOV-related concerns. Your agenda, I suspect is to whitewash Naik's controversial comments that will expose this showman for what he really is. Please understand that I am as willing as you to take it as far as it needs to go. Which is why I suggest a civilized debate instead of the selective snipping I have seen so far.
you are doing selective quoting of his talks without giving the full length of his explaination why, which is not acceptable , please post everything if you want to post it. 15:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the full length of the transcript is several pages and an encyclopaedia is expected to host a precis of relevant facts. I would redirect you to Wikipedia context guidelines on this doubt of yours.
i am not telling you to quote each and every one of his line, but how does he arrive at that conclusion MUST be there else it looks like he gives those opinions without any substance 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Every other section has a brief precis and relevant quotes. I am simply following the general look and feel of this article. Whether his opinions have substance or not is for the viewing public to determine with the references we provide. Our job is to simply state facts.

I have created a new section below to discuss since this is becoming unreadable

I cleaned it out again

Claims that Naik is "well-known" for memorizing thousands of pages of sacred text have been supported only by reference to one bizarre website. Ditto the claims that his Chicago debate is "famous". Give references from the BBC, Outlook India, New York Times, some reputable news organization, to prove notability. Otherwise all we have is one Muslim public speaker, not known outside narrow circles in Islam, with supporters making unbelievable claims as to his abilities. We don't have cites against him because nobody cares. Zora 02:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the statements again, it says well known for QUOTING various scriptures verbatim, not memorizing the whole thing
And also can you please explain why are you removing the other stuff in guise of removing that statement??? This clearly shows what you are trying to do here. Monotheist 02:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you crazy that you are asking for sources like CNN, BCC? this is the biggest joke, it is Zakir Naik's most famous. CNN, BBC will not even know who he is, so how do you expect them to tell about this debate. How can his debates be more famous than himself. Try to understand the point. For Zakir Naik thats the most Famous. Period. No one has claimed that the debate is world famous. Monotheist 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you telling me half the articles in wiki should be removed because CNN, BBC dont have it, hahahaha this is a Joke. Monotheist 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What is mentioned there is what Zakir Naik is well known "for". Its not said Zakir Naik is well known. They are 2 different statements. Monotheist 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
and An Inter - Religious dialogue in Bangalore was attended by 50,000 people and its NOT a JOKE. It was covered by every newspaper in Bangalore. So stop removing his famous talks Monotheist 03:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Bangalore event was covered by newspapers, then there should be a reference. Give us a quote and a reference. As for the quoting verbatim -- that's NOT notable. I can quote from the Bible and Qur'an myself, and I'm a non-notable Buddhist. That claim makes Naik look ridiculous. It's like claiming with pride that he can tie his shoes. As Giordano says, Naik's supporters aren't doing him any favors. Zora 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Each and every Newspaper on 22nd January Carried that event. 05:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Also the The Indian Express please pick up the 22nd Jan 2006 Newspaper. 06:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon user who will not take a username, you don't seem to understand that I live in HONOLULU and I do not have access to Indian papers except online. So telling me to "pick up" a copy of the Indian Express is bad advice. I'll check out the Deccan Herald -- too many of my Indian acquaintances have complained of the Times for me to trust it. Zora 06:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh great, no wonder you are acting as if you know everything, your ignorance on these matters is very clear. Its your problem if you dont trust sources, nothing will satisfy you, dont waste time here. Since you live in far away land dont waste time. I am not here to prove you anything. Since you are far away from the place where it took place you have no right to talk about it. 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Mono)
It isn't just me demanding verifiability. Anyone who reads this article wants to know if it's true or not. That's why we're supposed to give sources that other people can check. They can click on the links, or find the book, and see if they think the site or the book is trustworthy. If we don't demand verifiability, and anyone can edit, no one will trust this encyclopedia at all. P.S. I'm going to check out the Times after all -- that Chennai article doesn't seem neutral. Zora 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
hahahahah not neutral.... hahahahahahaha ,what has neutrality got to do with this? oh Man, how much more will you cry!!! Come on, get on with it. The FACT IS THAT THE DEBATE TOOK PLACE AND HENCE IT IS MENTIONED. PERIOD. I have proved that it took place. Now be mature and accept facts. Lets look at other parts of the article now. 06:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop putting this person claims that person claims, this is an encyclopedia. and stop your sick mentality of moving it below which shows that you want to hide facts 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess you have never read an encyclopedia in your life. learn to write proper sentences and stop using sarcasm. 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is different from the usual encyclopedia, anon. Please read WP:NPOV.
I have read it, i am just giving information about Zakir naik and his talks, i am not even giving my opinion. If that 50,000 bothers you we can look into it.
  • Moving something doesn't mean hiding it.
It is. Its like not telling about a Famous Movie from an actor or hiding facts about his famous movies.
  • The reason I said that the Chennai newspaper wasn't neutral is that it gave the most space to the Hindu speaker and estimated only hundreds of people. The Islamic site gave the most space to Zakir Naik and estimated thousands of people. The Times of India just said "many". This is a familiar problem in journalism. Some group organizes a protest and claims that 50,000 people turned out. The police estimate that there were hundreds. Who to believe? All you can do is give the sources and let people make up their own minds as which source is reliable. Zora 07:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
See the pics in the link given which clearly shows the large attendees.
Those shots were taken from a narrow angle, in the dark. It's impossible to judge the number of attendees from those pictures. The shots are compatible with a claim of hundreds, but it's hard to be sure. Do you remember the fuss over the TV footage of the destruction of Saddam's statue. The footage made it look like a huge crowd of people tearing down the statue. A wider angled shot showed that the crowd wasn't all that large -- it's just that it was close to the statue.
Come on watch Peace TV, you will see the large crowd, any the 50,000 is removed now since you are making a BIG issue about it. 17:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You restored your version of the article, with the 50,000 claim, even though there are two newspaper references that don't support that. This is not honest. Zora 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am being very honest since i stay at the place where this took place in Bangalore. But since you dont want to believe i have removed 50,000. Hope that is ok with you now. 17:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Monotheist, this page is not your property, and your opinion is as good as mine. This page is full of Naik propaganda, a link to faothfreedom can do no harm, and contains in fact useful information.Giordaano 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaahaha Ali Sina and useful information is an Oxymoron!!!! it contains blatant lies and abuses and accusations. Plus what are you trying to prove by giving a link to a stupid cowardly challenge? it does not fit into an encyclopedia. check any page only One critical link is given, if required i have never seen any page in Wikipedia which tries to balance by giving equal critical links, and also link to faith freedom is a joke.Then you should allow me to give links to sites which expose Ali Sina, will you allow me to do so? then you can go ahead.
Giordaano you are not following the rules. Why did you put up multiple links to the same site??? There is no need for that. If people want to hate on Zakir Naik or dig up some stuff they don't like about him, they can by themselves. They don't need an encyclopedia of all things giving them links to hate sites.Wallah96 20:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with Wallah96, i keep repeating the same thing to Giordaano but he keeps giving links, as i said only one critcal link will be allowed. Else even that will be removed since it clearly shows people are here to promote hate which is unaccpetable. 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not your page. You don't decide what goes on here and what not.Giordaano 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

if you are biased i am here to stop that, you are so easily giving multiple links to same hate sites and removing all the links given as reference to Zakir naik and his books, can you explain why? Since this is a Zakir naik page, links to his references remain.


Seen you on TV, finally get a place to "revert" and not just listen to a one sided "discourse". On the front page it states that you beleive polygamy is justified as there are more women then men. In the Punjab province of India, due to female foetus's being aborted the men outnumber the women, so is your solution to this situation to allow women to have multiple husband's ? (The same status exists in Haryana state too )

Haphar 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Its not only in those two places that you mentioned. In fact, men between ages 15-64 slightly outnumber women in world populations as well. Outsider2810

I rewrote yet again

I moved all the disputed claims to the bottom and referenced them, as before. The material on prasad and Christmas wishes still needs references. I will not let the Naik supporters use WP for dawa. Zora 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor will i let ZN haters to hide some of his information that they just cannot digest and hence put the information back, and also i gave you references you had a problem with 50,000 and i removed it. now stop showing your true colors. 15:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do some of you continue to post a link to a challenge to debate with Zakir??? This is ridiculous... everyone knows it cannot happen, ali is probably not even a real person. no one has seen him... and ZAkir is a very busy person... Wallah96 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes the link to the challenge is ridiculous, i dont even know why it is here, i have seen even some of my friends boasting that they can beat zakir naik in a debate, hahaha, it does not mean anything and does not contain any useful information, hence desist from giving that link 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The link to the challenge is very serious, and it contains useful information. It will stay.William

Can you tell me what is serious about it??? There is nothing serious about it at all??? Ali Sina is the one who refuses to come out in the open for a Public debate since he will be exposed and there is No information as such. if he has guts he needs to come out and debate since in a written debate anyone will claim anything and it will keep going back and forth and hence it makes no sense. Plus the very existence of him is in doubt, hence removed 07:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Prasad and Wishing Christmas

I have removed this for now since i dont have any references and also never heard of this nor seen this at all in NDTV. Please provide references and then put it back.

Look at the debate on communal vote bank politics in India. Archived footage of aired shows can be purchased from the same site.

Just a simple request - could you please login and then post? Tracking an anonymous user's posts is a little difficult. Thanks.

To Anon IP who rewrites this section to read "false Gods they (Hindus) worship": You will be intrigued to know that Naik never calls Hindu Gods false. He lives in Mumbai where the Shiv Sena rules and he knows what exactly *not* to say that will put his existence in question.

Manners of Communication

My dear friends, I have noticed the way some of you guys have attacked Zora. Though i don't agree with what she says, i still feel you must talk to her with respect and politeness. i think all those who have spoke in favor of Dr. Zakir Naik are Muslims and hence should know that P. Mohammed (pbuh) spoke with utter respect and dignity even when unbelievers said the stupidest of stuff to him. And Zora, i do agree with the fact that this page is about Dr. Naik. All his debates, even the ones you might not consider popular by your definition, should be mentioned. you are no one to decide what is important about Dr. Naik and what is not. --zahid 13:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; i have restored the external links section so that it is more effective. We do not need multiple links to the same site. I have just posted the main site, instead of internal links to that same site.Wallah96 15:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to faithfreedom restored. Link to the wikipedia page on Ali Sina inserted, since some people appear to ignore who he is. William

Reinstated the links. We need as much information as we can get, and these links are very clear. The Ali Sina page on wikipedia is an example of how opponents' views can be referenced.giordaanoGiordaano 08:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Inter-religious debate

Wallah96, why did you remove the stuff I added (with citations I must stress) about the dialogue between Naik and Ravishankar?? I actually listened to most of the dialogue just to learn more about Naik. I could clearly see that Naik tried finding faults with other religions (including hinduism) while Ravishankar could have done the same about Islam but did not and instead spoke from humanist stand point. Naik had an altercation tone but Ravishankar was not going down that road. Outsider2810Outsider2810

And also wallah96, don't take out the word "falsely" believes in the polygyny section since it is INDEED FALSE.

That is your refuation which is not required here and we dont want your personal opinions on the debate/dialog thank you very much 07:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, have you even listened to the dialog? Its NOT my personal opinion. They are Naik's own words. Listen to what he says about other religions within the first hour...I have given the EXACT quote in the article. And its NOT PERSONAL opinion that there are more men than women of marriageable age, its a blatant FACT. You don't give your personal opinions.Outsider2810

I'm baaaaaack :)

I was very busy for a few days, preparing for a Mountain Seat ceremony at my Zen center. It was lovely. So here I am again.

The article makes sense if it's organized as I did it: who is Naik, what does he believe, claims that his supporters make for Naik, criticisms of Naik. I have again removed a dead link, to a deleted article (it is silly to keep replacing it, since that article is DEAD and will not be revived), and the multiple links to Naik's books, videos, etc. It's all there on his website. Multiplying the links is effectively linkspam, trying to use Wikipedia to propagandize, and it's NOT OK. If the Naik supporters want to praise Naik, they can do it in the support section. If the detractors want to criticize him, they can do it in the criticism section. Just be sure to give references for opinions. We're not supposed to add our personal opinions so ... if you want to say something about Naik, pro or con, try to find someone who has published that view.

It's not a good idea to mix the criticism with the views section. I removed all the criticisms, none of which were sourced. If you can find refs, they can go in the crit section. Zora 09:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry in the debate/dialog show me who has praised Naik, only the information is given and also why are you removing links to the dialog which shows clearly you want to hide it. and also its not there in the same site, they are different sites 07:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)(Mono)
Zora you are reverted it in the GUISE of glorification, can you show me what is the glorification in mentioning his debates and dialogs??? you just want to hide it, it is same as mentioning his views, do you have a problem with that?? 07:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is finally taking shape in a somehow logical way. Thanks, Zora, and welcome back.Giordaano 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Giordaano - outstanding work! The page is cleaner and is that much closer to losing the POV tag. -Suresh 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved more criticism

I moved more critical material out of the body of the article into the criticism section. I also incorporated some material that Outsider, I think it was, contributed re Naik's aggressive debate style vs. his Hindu opponent's acceptance of difference.

The criticism section could use more material from Muslims who are critical of Naik. Zora 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outsider2810 I deleted falsely because it cannot be proven there are more marriageable women than men. If you think about it, it would be obvious what Naik is saying. First, a baby boy is more likely to face mortality than a baby girl, it's just the way it is. Second, there are wars going on around the world all the time, and who is fighting those wars?? Men of course. Third, men die at earlier ages than women, in general. So if you take all this into account, it seems pretty obvious that there are more women than men, in all age groups. Wallah96 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Falsely" is the right term to use. Please look at this link : . You may notice the last line in this 2005 data to be :
Population Total Male Female Gender Ratio
World 6,463,063,000 3,248,080,000 3,214,983,000 101
As can be seen, there are more men than women in the world. Wallah - your argument stands disproved. Edit will be reversed.
Wallah96, we have been down this road once before. I had already proven to you that men outnumber women in the 0 to 15 age group and the "marriageable" 15-65 age bracket. This is true in most countries of the world. The CIA has estimated these demographics. Look at this site:
The only age bracket in which women outnumber men is in the 65+ age bracket. By this time, most of the women have already been married or are still married or maybe not even interested in getting married. Don't keep talking in circles. Naik is obviously wrong and so are you. I won't prove this to you again. I had already given this info to you on this page before but this is for the benefit of others. Outsider2810
ANy attempt to Hide his information will not be allowed, any personal comments, opinions, rebuttals etc will not be allowed. 07:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Outsider this is not the place to debate naiks points, please send him a mail if you have any problem with his points, NOT HERE. 07:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon, you have misunderstood Wikipedia if you think you can prevent people from criticizing Naik. Presenting pro and con is exactly what WP is for. Zora 07:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No rebuttals and counter rebuttals allowed here.Then everyone will start giving their opinions, we just say what ZN says. thats all , i have never seen any page like that 08:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then go look at, say, Muawiya I or Battle of Karbala. Zora 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference between a Multiple POV and a rebuttal to someone. Here people are rebutting. This will lead to rebuttals and counter rebuttals. 08:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily, because we're supposed to leave out personal opinions. We only report opinions expressed by others that can be verified, with references. Zora 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes where did i stop people from doing that, but i am not letting personal opinions getting inside the page, everyone would jump in and put whatever they want. 10:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I added back some stuff on the inter religious dialog with ravishankar. During the dialogue, Naik said, "religious tolerance is very important in Islam. However, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. If someone does not hold the same Islamic concept of god, then muslims would have a problem with that person."

This is NOT a criticism of Naik, its a neutral observation. Listen to the dialog, these are his own words and he says this within the first hour.

He never says that, they are YOUR WORDS. He never says Muslims will have a problem. stop spreading your hate here. And dont try to FOOL me about that dialog. He never says muslims will have a problem with the person. plus putting points from the debate, then please go ahead, i will put 10 more points he said and in the other debate what he said. i will sit and put each and every thing that was said. hence we cant sit and decide what to put and what not to put, hence we are not commenting on it59.92.145.46 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
They are not my words. He says them within the first hour of the dialog when he talks about the Hindu God Vishnu and how muslims will have a problem with his portrayal. Outsider2810Outsider2810
And Naik does say, "there are more women than men of marriageable age in the world." Go to his website and read this. Somebody had unnecessarily deleted this quote. And this being false is also a neutral observation, not a criticism. If it was a criticism, we would try and prove that all his points are hogwash. So do not delete stuff just because you dont like it, anon. They happen to be true. Outsider2810

I deleted it because you added your own words??? not acceptable.
Not my words, Naik's. Have you been to his site? Also listen to his lecture on "women in Islam". He clearly says this. stop lying.
Outsider2810 you cannot be serious. Just because a website says there are more women than men does not mean its true... even if it is cia. How can you explain this?? Are you saying more women are born than men??? B/c that is what you would have to say to win this argument, b/c otherwise men fight wars and die; infant mortality is extremely higher for boys than girls, and all this comes from personal observation/experience. I'm sure you have noticed this too. Men die earlier than women, this is all common sense.Wallah96 19:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wallah96, you cannot be serious. Don't interpret things using your personal biases, but examine them with a neutral standpoint. Yes men do die early and that is the reason women outnumber men in the 65+ age bracket. Are you saying you know more than the CIA? Grow up. It will be reverted.

And yes more men are indeed being born than women. Look at the same CIA site to see the relevant stats. Outsider2810

Thats not the only reason he cites, he talks about more men dying, women surviving more during birth etc. and we cant sit and give refutations and counter refutations 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Revert War

Of late, I have seen reverts without reasoning being provided. This is indicative of a breakdown in communication and ultimately this page will reflect the views of those who have more time to revert. Let's talk it out.--Suresh 03:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it funny that you just reverted without a discussion and you are telling us to talk it out, Zora is an expert of reverting and vandalising the page, she just blindly reverts. Time and again i have asked here why she is hiding the talks but His views are shown, she refuses to have a discussion, now you are doing the same thing.
What exactly is this section, if not an attempt to discuss? Contrast this with your blind reverts. --Suresh 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also there is a delibrate attempt to hide information about his talks which i will not allow at any cost. People since they cant give reasons why they are removing it, they are using the guise of puffery etc to remove it. if that continues we have no other choice but to revert it. As long as people desist from giving their opinions there is no problem. That exactly is NPOV. The talks are just mentioned but some of you cannot even digest that, but blantantly want to potray some of his views selectively, which shows what your agenda is here. But i and other editors will not allow it 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)(Monotheist)

Also this is not your hate site, learn to use an appropriate tone. Not your hate tone here. Any such tone will be removed. Also any attempt to refute and counter refute inside the main page will not be allowed. Thats not how an encyclopedia works (Monotheist) 04:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It cannot become a Naik-promo either. The debates are mentioned - just further down in the supporters column. --Suresh 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

From now lets discuss which points need to be there and which are not and why. Please put your points here, since this page is in Dispute, a discussion is a MUST 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you are amenable to reason now and I welcome this wholeheartedly. --Suresh 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The items of dispute as on Apr 06 2006 are as follows:
1. The mention of the debates upfront in their own section as opposed to being in the Naik supporters section.
Hahahah are you joking, that is what he is all about. thats what he is known for, debates and dialogs, and it is just a mention and you want to hide it, it STAYS. No way i will let you remove it. How does it go to supporters section can you explain???? You just want to hide it, if you hide that then i remove all your information also. 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Anon IP from ITC Delhi/using Primus - please take a username - it makes it easier than looking at a DNS-generated IP.
Naik is all about his views. Debates are a *means* to convey these. Also, in the introduction, it is mentioned that he does this. And moving it to a Supporter's section does not "hide" it. If you want, we can move the supporters section *before* his views and the Critics section. --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is an Attempt to HIDE IT CLEARLY and i will not allow it here. what has supporters got to do with it, it is something he has done in his life, if an actors acts in a movie i put it. It is as simple as that. 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if we move it up, and it becomes the first thing you see after his background. Even then? --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is the headling ALSO, what has supporters got to do with it???? Monotheist 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Because only his supporters think it is notable. Like Zora says, produce a single reference in the international media to the Campbell-Naik debate and then we will talk. --Suresh 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
2. The "Permissible Food" section where the phrase "it (prasad) is believed to convey blessings and good fortune." is often replaced by "Since Islam considers these deities as false, Naik feels". My contention is that the former has valid and verifiable references, while nowhere do I see a reference saying "Hindu gods are false" from the Quran or a verifiable Naik quote thereof. I am sure that is what he thinks about Hindu Gods, but he lives in Mumbai and does not verbalize that AFAIK. Otherwise he would face a lynch mob.
He clearly says it in his talk, why do you think he does not allow it, this clearly shows your bias mind, you want to just say a few things and not quote him in whole, either you quote him completely or dont quote him at ALL. you showed your sick mentality by talking about a lynching mob. 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Watch peace Vision of Islam in Chennai he clearly says that and even gives the example of Ganesha as a false god 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I see you giving this reference. So edit the article to link to a recording, transcript, site or article where it can be found. --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The recording of Peace Vision of Islam all CDs are copyrighted and you need to purchase them. It was held in Chennai 2nd Jan, 2005 Monotheist 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the onus is on you to go and edit the article to include a link to the resource. Until then, it's all airy-fairy cr@p.
The recording that I am looking at does not mention the word "false" even once. If you read all his materials, you will realize that his argument is as follows: Hinduism is Religion ver 1.0, Judaism and Christianity are ver 2.0 and Islam is ver 3.0 ie. the most recent.
Also I am ready to believe you provided you give us a clear verifiable reference from Naik that says "Hindu gods are false". Where is the problem?
I told you watch peace vision of islam videos, he is very clear on that.
Thanks for the recommendation. Now go edit the article to put in the reference. --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as lynch mobs go, I didn't say I support them. But if you go to a Mumbai street and shout something like that, you will get lynched. Try it yourself and mail us the results, ok? --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
does not matter, your argements are downright silly and kiddish 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
But you cannot refute it despite that? --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you want me to refute?
The fact that you cannot make a claim in Mumbai (do it in front of Sena Bhavan in Shivaji Park) and live to tell the tale. For good reason, too.
3. The "Christmas Wishes" section where the reference on his Toronto speech is removed. Why would you remove a reference of verifiability?

i didnt remove it, your zora might have done it, she hates any references to his talks for her own reasons, ask her 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
She's not "my" Zora, yaar, c'mon! :D --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
4. The same section mentions that the view has critics and supporters and that sentence is removed as well. Why?
I didnt. dont ask me, i will just revert back if someone blindly reverts. if people resort to blind reverting, i will do the same
So your argument is "Monkey see, monkey do" ? --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so desist from it.
So you're a monkey? Have some self-respect. --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are too because you too agree that you are reverting like a Monkey Monotheist 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL "You too" is your best comeback! Dude, you are so pwned! --Suresh 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
5. The "Naik Supporters" section that has the mention about Naik being supported by Wahabi and Salafi muslims - why is that mention being edited out. It is verifiable and even has a link to that effect.

Same answer as above.
Then let someone else answer it. You make sure that you only revert to a version you agree with. Agreed? --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

as long as you desist from blind reverting
Every revert was preceeded by a discussion, quite unlike you. --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Mine too, plus you are reverting completely, i didnt have a problem with what was there, so you are supposed to edit it and change it not revert it. 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
A term in Hindi describes this adequately - chutiapa.
6. The "Naik Critics" section which removes the reference to the word mischevious. Please hear Salman K in that debate - when Vikram C (NDTV anchor) asks him "Do you consider this mischevious? Why do you condemn certain political parties as communal and leave out clerics?" Salman clearly starts his reply with "I agree with you. Communal politics in India has roots in religious demagogery. The congress party has espoused ...".
Nevev heard this talk at all. plus there are varied opinions on this. Plus these are politicains talking. 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If you cannot be bothered to go to the referenced material, how it that anyone's fault? And so what if Salman is a politician - he can win an election on popularity. I doubt "your" Naik could do it. --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If you dont want to have a discussion says so, stop acting like a 5 year old kid, giving kiddish arguements, anyway after this any more kiddish arguments i will not even bother to reply to you.
Won't reply to me is fine. But crosscheck my reference if you have a problem. --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Additions about Salman K (a politician) and Javed (a lyricist) are superflous in my mind since both names feature as Wikipedia links to their backgrounds.
it will stay, you want to hide the facts that they are not islam scholars, will not allow it here. 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This sounds childish. But I will make this concession to you. Both people have entire wikipedia articles, but that will not satisfy you. --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is a huge internet, so why bother even putting anything, please leave if you dont want to. 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Look up the word superfluous. --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
stop acting smart now, i know it and thats why i pointed out, to make things clear, so that u people dont indulge in hiding facts Monotheist 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I am smart, which is why I know the meaning of superfluous. I want you to find out as well. Repeating information does not uncover or hide facts, it makes it tedious for the reader, is all.
And who are you refering to as "u people" ? --Suresh 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Section on "Polygny" - I keep noticing that Naik's false claim on gender ratios is being removed. When conclusive proof exists to the contrary, that too verifiable, why keep removing this?
Answer already given, no refutations here, it is true that there are more women than men, also thats not the only reason he gives, he talks about accidents and wars etc etc. we cant keep taking into account each and every persons point of view, you just say what Zakir naik has to say and let people decide, no statements for and againt it. 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So the world population reports are wrong, CIA is wrong, Indian census is wrong. Only Naik is right. Dude, you should have this kind of devotion to your country, not to some wild-eyed cleric. --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Shows your mentality the way you are talking. who said about indias population, infact ZN says clearly in india there is more male population ,because you hindus kill female children 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So you have finally come to your "you Hindus this and that" stance. Wonderful. Talk about spitting in the plate you eat from. --Suresh 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Anon IP, with regards to your claim that hindus kill female babies and this being the reason for the indian population male-female ratio. Check out muslim countries like pakistan, saudi Arabia, iraq, Iran, Banglaedsh, UAE, etc. Their ratios are worser.
BTW Naik claim is not true in the world either. Look at the data in and paste in excel. Then work out gender ratios across countries and tell me which is more.
This is not a place to refute such things, then people would want to refute everything and then counter refute it which will not be allowed. Monotheist 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So if Naik claims the earth is flat, it should not be pointed out that his claim is false. --Suresh 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Links to Naik-glorifying websites have to be balanced by critical ones. Ali Sina's challenge is real. His link deserves to stay.
What is real about his challegnge??? is Ali Sina real??? first give me proof he exists. He may not exist in real life and what is so great about a challege, he is a coward who sits behind a computer just because he says challege does not mean anything. I will give you several links that have refuted him. It means NOTHING 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Just because you want to "balance" it does not mean you give a link to every tom, dick and harry, if Zakir naik links are there, they are ther for a reason 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If Ali Sina were a public figure, the "ummah" would take out a supari/fatwa on his head. He is a person who has challenged Naik and it is clearly Naik who refuses. It's a critical site, we even put it under Anti-Naik references. What more do you want? --Suresh 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahahah all this is lame excuses, its a BIG JOKE, there are sooo many critics of Islam like arun shorie, how come Zakir Naik debated william cambell etc. plus ali sina just claims to challege zakir naik, there are no views also there, hence it needs to be removed
Arun Shourie? Did he spar with Naik? I don't think so. Ali Sina? Yes he did. So it goes in.
So??? any tom dick and harry wants to have a debate does not mean you put it up, its no useful information at all. Monotheist 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this. You ask Zora how she can determine what is a "notable" debate or not; but Ali Sina's challenge to debate is something you have assumed the right to classify as non-notable. Hypocrisy has to have limits, yaar. --Suresh 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude there is NOTHING that can you made out in that link, abs nothing. can you tell me the purpose of it?? ZN has replied to it telling, he does not debate with any tom, dick and harry that too on e-mail. You think he has no better work. 12:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of the link is to establish that Naik has critics that he has not answered. Also ZN has NOT replied - it is one of his minions from the Islamic "Research" Foundation, maybe even you! :D
On the one hand, you keep inserting the debates topic claiming it is what he is famous for and what he lives to do. On the other hand, you claim he does not debate. just how confused are you? --Suresh 14:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus you are showing hypocrisy by trying to hide certain information and showing certain, that exactly my friend is hypocrisy, and i will not allow it.
So then you are accepting that removing Ali's link is your hypocrisy. I agree. Which is why I will revert. --Suresh 14:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Whatever he says or whatever you say, the fact remains that there are more men than women except in the 65+ age bracket. Thus, Naik's statements are false.

Why I keep moving the debates down

The Naik supporter here claims that the debates are notable. However, they received no mention in the international press, no magazine articles, etc. We say at the top that he has made many public appearances. These are two of his public appearances. What is the proof that they are notable? Any more notable than, say, a mela, an agricultural fair, a school bazaar, a Rotary meeting, whatever? The Naik supporter seems to think that he "won" these debates and that's why they're notable. But no one else seems to think that he "won" anything.

Zora your lame arguement that it needs to be mentioned in international press is funny , are you implying each and everything in wiki is mentioned in the international press.. hahahahaha you make me laugh. Its about ZN and hence it is Zakir Naiks most famous, if you dont know much about Zakir Naik, its your problem, there is a page on my college too, and lots of details regarding it,so are you telling my college and all its details is mentioned in the international press. I will not let you play your agenda here. Monotheist 08:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If the supporter wants to make a complete list of all the public appearances by Naik, we could put that at the top. I don't see why these two appearances should be singled out.

Cause they are debates and dialogs, i really really have no problem putting all his dialogues, but i am sure you people will CRY Monotheist 08:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The closest Naik has come to notability seems to be the reaction to his views against Christmas wishes or eating prasad, though the proof for that seems to be a TV show that's not easily verifiable. But it's not clear when or how he made those statements re relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Zora 07:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did anyone even say he won or lost???

Zora You dont decide what is notable or what is not. Monotheist 08:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Mojotheist, apply that logic to the Ali sina link too. You dont decide what is notable or what is not. --Suresh 11:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude you are showing complete hypocrisy by add links to some obscure guy whose existence is doubtful but but removing links to his imortant talks/debates, may i ask why??? is this not hypocrisy??? I will not allow that. 12:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Campbell and Naik are obscure too outside the limited bunch of people who know them. Ali's site is clearly one that attracts a lot of people - why discriminate because it is a virtual gathering as opposed to a physical gathering.
So it seems you are willing to keep Ali's link if we accomodate your debate link. Is that a deal? --Suresh 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahahaha are you telling me that Sina is more famous than cambell, dude sina is a internet coward, hardly anyone outside knows him, plus he might not even exist. Right now i will leave that link, but NO WAY you will remove the debates, i will wait for other editors to comment on SINA. You also need to prove his existence. 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If he is really such a weakling, why isnt Naik taking him up on an offer for a written debate. As for being anonymous on the Internet, I think he shares that trait with you. You won't even take a nom de plume on wikipedia. --Punekar 17:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
And what do you mean accomadate the links, as if you are doing me a favour, this is a Zakir Naik page and all his information stays. U kidding me????? if you think ali sinas link is great please go to his page and put whatever you want, like i care, in Zakir Naik page all information about ZAKIR NAIK should be put. Period. Right now i have left the link but will let the other editors decide, desist from blind reverting. 16:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it's a favour. Your debate reference is no more notable than his debate call. After proving your hypocrisy and cornerning you, if I let it slide, then it's a favour. Information and puffery - big difference.
Also what do you mean Zakir Naik is too obscure??? your insecurity that you are showing by hiding his important information is very clear to show how much you are scared of him. hahahahahaa 16:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Outside the Peace TV airtime he gets, this man is a nobody. Get real man - c'mon he's some two-bit twit from Mohammed Ali Road in Mumbai ranting on before a bunch of bearded muslas. He is a nobody and his listeners are nobodies. You behave as if he is PT Usha or Saurav Ganguly. He eats our food and then hobnobs with Paki mullahs and preaches against our country. Even dogs have a greater sense of gratitude.
This is a Wikipedia keep it like one, dont try your stunts here. Monotheist 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Show me one place where our opinions are given, i have removed opinions from both sides and just given information about Zakir Naik, i havent let anyone give their opinion. If some things you can digest does not mean they become false or not noteworthy Monotheist 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Your last sentence would apply to the Ali Sina link too. --Suresh 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also i would like to remind you that i was the one who removed multiple links to his debates/dialogs, removed comments on the debate which said he won etc etc. We need to give information, not opinions 16:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You are yet to edit and put in the links to the Chennai "false god" claim. Stop talking game and do some work. --Punekar 17:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
why do you think naiks says you cannot have prasad, that the very REASON, because they are false GODS. what else reason do you think he gives, the peace vision of islam videos it is clearly there. The videos are copyrighted. I attended that event LIVE. 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't give a flying ... about your social calendar. All I'm asking you to do is *edit* to include a reference. Get with the program already. --Punekar 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved criticism, fixed link, removed link to Comparative religion

Saying that Naik's views are Wahhabi or Salafi I would consider criticism -- particularily in the context of Indian society. So I moved that into the criticism section. If we're to get Monotheist/anon to accept the reworking of the article, we have to be fair.

I fixed the link to bismillah.

Finally, I removed the claim that Naik was a specialist in comparative religion. That's an academic field and it's agnostic and non-sectarian. Naik has no training in it whatsoever. Debating with people from other religions is not comparative religion. Zora 10:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Montheist and Anon IP do not have a problem with Naik being supported by Wahabi/Salafi types. It's only a bystanding casualty of a revert war. Zora, you may want to reconsider that particular reference. After all, if he is supported, then they don't really care who is doing the supporting. --Suresh 10:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Naik explicitly claim to support Salafi views? Then that should be in the views section. If he doesn't claim it, then it's criticism to say that he is, I should think. Zora 11:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik does not support any sect/cult. He is very clear about that.

We are not saying he supports them. We are saying they support him. Big difference. --Suresh 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean they supoort his views?? Please be clear on this 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Naik supports a view, say X. X is a view espoused by Salafi types and nobody else. What is being pointed out is this commonality. Who your friends are says a lot about you. --Punekar 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Dont PUSH YOUR LUCK TOOOO FAR, JUST THE LINK IS SUFFICIENT, YOU ARE PUSHING IT NOW AND I WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HATE AGENDA TO BE PLAYED HERE. GET THAT STRAIGHT. Its something that never happened and its not worth a mention, even the link should not be there, no encyclopedia worth its name will accept such crap. I will remove that link also if you go tooo far. you need to prove his existence FIRST just to add the LINK , also if you are trusting a abusive site like faithfreedom you must be kidding. 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
See I would not be surprised to find out that you work as the office boy at Naik "ISlamic Research Foundation". When you are not researching lint in your belly button, I suggest you look at this link for proof of Ali's existence and public appearance: . After reading this, stop parroting that "Ali does not exist".
Also, since we are accomodating your non-notable debate, you need to accomodate our non-notable debater. Fair trade. Otherwise, we also know how to revert, get it? --Punekar 18:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by Non Notable???? according to you even zakir naik is not notable...
Get 10 people in Mumbai. Ask them if they know Irfan Pathan, Javed Akhtar and Naik. You will be lucky to get anyone who knows him. Then do the same experiment in Paris or Sydney. Let me know. --Punekar 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Get a million people and ask them whether they know sina, not one will know him.hahahahaha 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So then you are accepting my contention that Naik is largely unknown even in Mumbai where he lives. Once we have established that, ten, hundred or a million becomes irrelevant when you talk about being "notable". So both are on par. 0 x 10 = 0 and 0 x 1000 = 0. Get it? --Punekar 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

and you expect the debate to be more notable than naik himself .hahahaa hahaha then why are you even wasting your time here!!!! its just a challege and it means nothing.. and the dialogue came in all the newspapers of bangalore incase u didnt know. plus your debator NEVER DEBATED ZAKIR NAIK. when he debates him i will put it. what are you trying to prove by putting that in an encyclopeida?????

That's right. Ali could not debate Naik even after trying because Naik is running scared. I am telling people that Naik claims to be a debater but spends zero time doing that with a willing opponent.

about reverting that is all you know to do. you show your hate mentality here

At least you get paid by Naik Foundation. You cannot show your devotion to your country, so you show it for Naiks money. --Punekar 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahahahahaah, now starting your Ali Sina abusive tactics no wonder you support him sooo much 19:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So then you accept that you are on Naik's payroll? --Punekar 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother to see where you aer giving the LINK FROM. it is an Islamic HATE SITE??? get that straight.

It's proof of existence like you needed. If I gave you a Fox news link or Al Jazeera you will say something similar. Naik must be paying you well, no? --Punekar 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahahahah that is all you can say??? dont have an arguement come up with some thing kiddish, i understand it burns you to see naik trashing people, thats ok , run along boy, it happens. need proof of his existence 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you write a coherent sentence without a "haha" in it? You are refusing to accept proof when it hits you in the face. No problem. Sleep with one eye open on this page because reverts will happen no matter how hard you try. --Punekar 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to you, i am still waiting for proof of his existence 19:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You got the link to prove that he is a real person. What does it matter which site is hosting that information. I can take a horse to the water, I can't make it drink. --Punekar 01:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding his popularity, at least in the Indian Hindus he is hardly known, seriously saying. He is a much hyped figure in the Muslim community as a 'dynamic orator' on comparative religions and that he has "all the scriptures of the different religions" by "heart". I am a user of orkut, which though may not represent the whole world internet community as such, but it is really popular among the youth of the Indian subcontinent. He has debated with Ravi Shankar in Bangalore, but a huge percentage of Orkut users(Indian Hindus) know about Ravi Shankar while Naik is only known amongst the Muslims, and that too not an outstanding majority. I am sorry I can give no statistics in support simply because it is impossible.(Rishi)


The problem with diagnosing Salafism is that many Salafis claim to be preaching pure Islam, as practiced by the first Muslims. They are not sectarian, everyone else is. They will often respond with indignation to claims that they are Salafi. Salafism has to be diagnosed, from views, and often, verbal tics (frequent refs to the Qur'an and Sunnah alone, use of Salafi spelling). Perhaps this shouldn't go under criticism, but should have a section of its own. "Is Naik a Salafi? a Deobandi?" Zora 18:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

he does not identify himself with any sect, watch his talk unity in the Muslim Ummah. He calls himself Muslim 18:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

The assertion that Naik is wrong in his beliefs re demography doesn't belong in the views section, if we're just trying to give a neutral recounting of what he says. I put it in the criticism section -- where it needs references.

Actually, I don't agree with you here. Its a well known FACT that Naik is wrong. As someone previously said, if Naik said that the earth is flat, we'd have no qualms about saying "false." Its a fact that he is wrong. Describing what he says as false is as neutral as can be.

I also set up a section to discuss whether or not he's a Salafi or Deobandi. Anon, what he SAYS he is doesn't count. As I pointed out, many Salafis insist that they are are just Muslims. That is, the REAL Muslims and everyone else is fake. Zora 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

see we can always have that discussion here what he is, the point i am trying to make it just because some teaching matches one group does not mean that he belongs to that group. i am not sure we can put a discussion on what group he is in the encyclopedia. 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we can. It's a section for pro and con views, if they can be documented. WP is not your usual encyclopedia, where everything is stated as fact; we give lists of opinions and the arguments for them. Zora 19:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the section: Is Naik a Salafi? because it was useless. It contained one sentence that added no useful information whatsoever. Naik considers himself a Muslim, nothing else. He doesn't call himself Hanbali, Shafi, Hanafi, etc... He avoids this and even says so in The Qur'an + Bible .... debate. We have no right to speculate his religion, we can only say what he himself has said. We should not speculate whether he is a wahabi or salafi, or whatever. Wallah96 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Moved that to Naik's supporters section whence it came.

--Punekar 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Punekar, it doesn't belong there. That section should ONLY include arguments that the Naik supporters have endorsed, and allegations of Salafism are clearly not endorsed BY Naik or his supporters. Zora 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a verifiable reference that the viewpoint he endorses falls squarely in that category.*They* support him - and by they, I mean other nutcases like Chaudry Israr Ahmed and such. They are his supporters and that says a lot about who he is.

Revert Wars continued

The deal with the Islamobots is this: you can list the debates you think of as "notable" if and only if you give airtime to Ali's challenge equally. Accept this and the reverts will stop.

One of the arguments made was that there are many "Tom, Dick and Harry" types that challenge Naik. I could not find another challenger to Naik except Ali Sina on the Internet. This is because Naik himself is a nobody outside the Islamobot circles. So there are no Toms, Dicks or Harrys outside of Sina which makes him every bit as "notable" as the Naiks and William Campbells (who is also a nobody). --Punekar 21:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide sources indicating that Ali Sina's existence is disputed; personal views will be deleted.Giordaano 07:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

first you need to prove to us that he actually exists. No one has even seen a picture of him. Wallah96 18:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wallah96 It is not only the CIA which says there are more men than women in many countries and also the world...the census of many countries says so as well. Check them out. So stop vandalising unnecessarily.

And listem to the dialog between ravishankar and naik. It is not "allegedly" that ravishankar avoided polemics. Its true. Outsider2810

I will say this very clearly - if Naik's Islamobots continue to delete Ali Sina, we will delete references to his debates. You *cannot* have one without the other. Either both appear, or none appears. That's the deal. --Punekar 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not questioning the women:male population ratio. I am questioning the existance of ali sinaWallah96 05:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's Ali's public appearance:
Wallah - if you delete Ali's debate again, the entire section on Naik's debate will also go. --Punekar 11:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

WALLAH96 keeps vandalising this article as and when he pleases. Wallah desist from doing this or I am going to take appropriate action. If you don't know the truth, learn it from Zakir Naik's dialogues and speeches. Very cleverly, you are avoiding answering me because you know you are lying. Outsider2810

OUTSIDER2810 I am lying about what?? be more clear.
Also, i am fine with you including Ali Sina's debate, though i still think he is a fake, even though you provided that link. i still think he is a creation of an anti-islamic coalition. Wallah96 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Wallah, "anti-Islamic coalition"?? Naik is not a Roosevelt or a Fidel Castro. Who on earth would go through all that trouble to create a coalition simply to oppose him. I mean, dude, get a grip on reality. What you're saying sounds like the Elders of Zion cr@p. --Punekar 19:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
PUNEKAR are you really that gullible? You seriously don't think the American media, which you are heavily influenced by, is against Islam?? You need to get a grip on reality, you are influenced by propaganda by the media. It's reality, the powers that be of this world, or whatever you wanna call them, leaders, politicians, they hate Islam and want to do whatever they can to discredit it. And when there is someone like Zakir Naik who is extremely sharp and intelligent, they wish to discredit him and take all necessary steps. Wallah96 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I see the light now. It's a grand coalition of the evil Joos, Hindoos and Christians! They are also in cahoots with the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion. The Martians used to support them but they converted to Islam and arent kaafir aliens anymore. To arms!! :D
Simple Q: How many times has Naik featured on American media? Like CBS or Fox News or whatever else. I'd really like to hear how about how they are all conspiring to discredit him. --Punekar 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorting out sections, links

I'm trying to get this article to conform to a common WP style, that does seem to contain controversy. We have a neutral section that contains only material on which all sides agree, which constitutes the groundwork of the article, and then sections for each set of views on the case -- in this case, pro and anti Naik. Both the pro and the con side are trying to insert their POV in other parts of the article. If we do this, then all organization collapses in a mess of arguments and counter-arguments that is just not reader-friendly. This article is for READERS, it isn't a debate forum for us. So I again moved pro and con stuff back into the pro and con categories. Please, leave it there. Don't say "it's a fact" and put it back where it doesn't belong. If it's an argument, if it's disputed, it belongs in the proper pro and con category.

I also pruned the links. The Naik supporters keep putting back a great many links that are basically proselytizing links -- download our propaganda! That stuff is available through Naik's websites, which ARE linked. So the supporters are basically "double-linking", trying to make their propaganda more prominent. WP is not a soapbox. The Ali Sina supporters keep putting up claims for the Ali Sina website and a para claiming that Naik is refusing to debate Ali Sina. Ali Sina may have a small but devoted following, but he's just as problematic, and just as borderline notable, as Naik. Soapboxing behavior again. Folks, your websites are linked. If people are interested, they'll got to your websites. Don't try to use this article to channel readers one way or the other. That's putting private aims ahead of the good of our project as a whole. Consider -- it looks good for your side to be modest, truthful, and public-spirited. Compete to be good, not to be more strident. Zora 08:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, how about we remove the link to Ali Sina's site but keep his citation and call to debate. That would work just as well and by the rules, would not be multiple links to the same site. --Punekar 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Punekar, someone refusing to debate isn't dubious behavior to be displayed as a black mark. If Ali Sina wanted to debate ME, I'd refuse. I'd refuse to go on the Howard Stern show or Bill O'Reilly's show. It's just plain silly to engage in a debate where your opponent is also the referee; you can expect to be mocked. A debate hosted by a neutral third party -- like the League of Women Voters -- is a different matter. Plus one can legimately question the value of debates in discussing ideas. I much prefer discussions where both sides are open to change and the exchange produces comments like, "Hey, that's a good point ... but if that's true, then ..." I think it's neat when a discussion changes my views. I've grown by it, not "lost". Zora 18:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I agree that debates are fora to expand intellectual horizons. Clearly that is not how Naik's supporters see it. Also I do not think Ali demands to be a referee in the debate. He simply wants a written debate and that is all. He's not asking for a physical talk-a-thon with Naik at all. So that eliminates the need for a referee (which in a debate is a not an established or even neccessary role, BTW). Your comparison with a Howard Stern/Bill show is spurious because in both cases, you would expect to be in a physically intimidating situation. This is hardly the case when you are sitting behind a computer in the comfort of your home. Like you are me are currently debating the value of this link/para - quite apparently, we are in no need of referees nor do we feel intimidated.
If you notice, nobody is calling Naik's refusal a "black mark". The para is very matter of fact that he is being challenged, but fails to answer. For a normal person like you or me, this would be fine. But Naik claims to be a public figure and a vocal prosletyser of Islam and his supporters allege that he is known for debates and discussion. Therefore, Naik's refusal to debate Sina may be seen in several lights:
a. He may either think less of Ali or have an undue air of self-importance ;
b. He may be great at oratory in front of a cheering audience but fears this may not translate into confidence in a written engagement;
c. He may genuinely not have time from speaking engagements, which means his supporters are wrong about debates being his primary activity
Essentially, we cannot know why Ali is being refused an opportunity, but it is of relevance because he specifically seeks out Naik and has made repeated attempts at discussion/debate. I think as far a notability goes, we have made the point that neither is more "notable" than the other, except perhaps in the minds of Naik's coterie. --Punekar 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, why do you keep deleting "falsely/despite evidence" from the polygyny section? It IS a fact, thats why its there. Discuss this here (this goes to zora and others as well) before you remove it again. If Naik belives that the earth is the centre of the universe, wouldn't we say, "he falsely believes?" I would like to tell you right now that I'm not here to make Naik look bad or look good. I have also posted some "good" things about him in the article.

And can someone please tell who Ali Sina actually is???


Ali Sina claims to be an apostate Muslim who must hide his real name, lest he be killed. He is very anti-Muslim and a great favorite of U.S. rightwingers. At least that's my POV. Look at his article; dunno what state it's in now, it was a battlefield for a long time.
As for why I'm moving your comments to the criticism section, Outsider -- we will not get the Naik supporters to stop reverting unless we can prove to them that we're scrupulously trying to be fair. That means giving all of Naik's views in neutral language, with no criticism, and putting criticism in the criticism section. As I said, if we can divide the article into three sections (neutral, pro, anti) and keep all the material in its proper place, then the controversy is going to go away. If you don't agree with the "pro" claims for Naik, you can at least agree that "Naik's supporters say that ... " If the supporters don't agree with your criticism, they can agree with "Naik's critics say that ..." Because in both cases it's true. We're stepping back one step. That's the way NPOV is supposed to work. We may be close to it in this article, after months of squabbling. Let's not blow it by trying to put criticism in the neutral section. Zora 04:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


I did some research and found out that I was wrong in describing Campbell as a minister. It's also wrong to call him a scholar; in the preface to his book, he says that he's a medical doctor and that he took three years out of his practice to write the book. I gave a link to the book, and also links to Maurice Bucaille, whom he was writing to refute. That puts the whole debate into another light -- two Scriptural literalists arguing from the same perspective for different books. This would be irrelevant to all Muslims and Christians who aren't scriptural literalists.

I also moved the claim to "known for ..." to the pro-Naik section; he is not known for his quoting to anyone save his fans. I also removed all the links to books and videos again. This is starting to approach linkspam levels. Guys, his website is linked, readers will find everything there if they're interested. WP is not an opportunity to shove it in their face. Zora 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Some edits

I made some minor edits, including rewording some sentences and removing the paragraph about the so-called "challenge" from the Islamophobe Ali Sina: I doubt that Dr. Zakir Naik would even want to be bothered by this individual or waste his time with him, as Ali Sina is not exactly a known-figure outside the WWW (even the name "Ali Sina" is a pseudonym). I've also removed some links not related to the whole nature of the article, which is basically a biography of Dr. Zakir Naik. I will be keeping tabs on it and be working on it in the coming days. Menj 09:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Menj: What you doubt or don't about Ali Sina is irrelevant. His challenge is out there for the viewing public - if he is really so insignificant, then it should not matter to include the reference. The same could be said by many about Naik - that he is a nobody outside Mohammed Ali Road in Mumbai. I would urge you to read the entire arguments for and against (sections above) in the discussion before you make any changes. Another revert war is not in anyone's interest. --Punekar 12:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, kindly explain your rationale for removing all anti-Naik references from the links section. This article may be a fact sheet on Naik, but it cannot serve as a pro-Naik prosletysing opportunity - by Wikipedia rules. --Punekar 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Ali Sina is not even a noted scholar or anyone of significant importance. Why must the article include his "challenge"? I have made many challenges to Ali Sina in the past but no one mentions it in Ali Sina's "biography", did they? I do not see any significance in mentioning this at all. Also, we have not heard anything from Dr. Zakir's side on the matter, so until this is noted, I feel that it should not be mentioned at all, otherwise it will be seen as going into Ali Sina's favour and therefore goes against the NPOV rules. Therefore I am removing that paragraph.
Ali's challenge is quite public and he is as "notable" or "non-notable" as Naik depending on whom you ask. As you can see from his site, his challenge has been active for over three years in which time lots of folks, both pro and anti-Naik have tried to convince Naik to pick it up to no avail. You are right about the fact that Naik himself has not responded. It is his lackeys from the Islamic "Research" Foundation that have told Ali to go take a hike. Which is why the wording of Ali's challenge is what it currently is. It says "Naik's supporters have informed Ali that he is not important enough" as opposed to "Naik has refused Ali".
Please explain to me why keeping this line is against NPOV - because it clearly does not accuse Naik of anything. It's not in anyone's favour least of all, Ali. --Punekar 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the anti-Naik references, I personally don't see why it should be included but in any case, I guess I should follow Wikipedia rules in including them. My apologies for the hastiness in removing them. Menj 13:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, Menj. What we are doing here is not posting an article to glorify Naik. This has to be in the form of a Wikipedia factfile. We know, of course, Naik is human and fallible as the rest of us. So let's not seek to suppress opinions in any form, no matter how personally distasteful we may find them.

You Are What You Eat

i totally agree with Naik's statement saying that you are what you eat, i eat meat and i consider myself more violent than any vegetarian i have met, maybe that's because i'm vehshi (savage) at heart.

Dispute Tag Removal - Vote here


this, admittedly, is not a great article. It is, however, amazing that we managed to reach (somehow) a consensus on how Naik should be presented. Yet another triumph for wikipedia and NPOV. To other contributors : should we remove the tags ?Giordaano 08:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye. --Punekar 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Stop Deleting Links

Why do you continue to delete links to the debate? And NO, they are not posted twice. You keep deleting the only links to the debate, they are not existant in the article, only in the external links. You are confusing it (maybe) with a link to a book he has written. It is not a link to the debate. so stop deleting the link, are you scared people will see Zakir Naik triumph? Wallah96 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you've put a link IN the article to the article. I thought that was an external link. Remove that and condense the video links to ONE line in the pro-Naik section and I'll stop removing it. You have also linked to the books twice. You are using this article to PUSH his stuff on people and that is not the purpose of WP. WP is not a soapbox. I am not "afraid" that people will look at his stuff -- I rather suspect that more people than you think would find it hilarious rather than convincing. But I care enough about WP being neutral that I don't want to see any article pushing a POV, whether I agree with the POV or not. Zora 03:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I am deleting the links to two of the books from the external links and within the article i am posting the link to the page where you can download all his books, since you are such a pest. I still don't understand how people will find it 'hilarious'. You are seriously anti-naik, what is wrong with posting the link within the article, where it won't add clutter, and also in the external links section? You seriously are paranoid that people will read some of Naik's works and see some of his debates. Wallah96 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, he'd win converts by being a happy and loving person. You never convert people by arguing with them. You just anger them. But when life hurts, people look for someone who seems to have the secret for dealing with the pain. So far as I can tell, Naik's appeal is to Muslims alone. He reassures them that what they believe is "scientific" and "modern" and competitive with other faiths. I do believe, Wallah, that your efforts here are hurting dawa rather than helping it. But that's your problem. Mine is to keep WP neutral. Zora 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


The sentence re the debate that you keep trying to add is just plain bad English. It is clumsy and evasive. It is the kind of thing that an English teacher would slash in red pencil.

As for the links -- dang it, I gave way and let you have an extra section down in the links section to put all your dawa. But you insist on putting it in the article too. You can't have it TWICE. That isn't NPOV. Zora 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Those links you are referring to are links to specific books. I am just merely posting a link to where you can download all his books. What is wrong with that?? It is NPOV b/c it is important to mention whether Zakir Naik has written on a subject that is mentioned in the article, for example the dialogue in chicago was a subject he went on to write about. and since the book is available for free, i linked it. Wallah96 21:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Your perception of "important" doesn't match other people's. Nor is advertising OK just because the material is FREE. ONE link. My suggestion is that it's easiest for the reader if all the links are in one section and not scattered through the article. Zora 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked at the Village Pump and someone referred me to the WP:SPAM policy page. Please read that page. What you're doing is spamming, and you should stop. Zora 00:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora i read the page, and this is what it says: Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy.
I don't see how i am advertising Zakir Naik. Within this whole article, there is only one link to the page where you can download each of his e-books Zakir Naik has made free. The rest are direct links to the book, and there is no reason to delete those links b/c they are germane to the context of that part of the article.Wallah96 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, Zora, since you don't like the sentence in the "debate in chicago" section, why don't you make it better? You keep deleting it and saying it is "bad english" or an "ugly sentence". Why don't you try and make it more concise and just basically better? It is important to give the background of the debate, it would be stupid not to. It's like me saying the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl this year. I should atleast mention that the sport is football and the league is NFL and the score and so on... With the "debate in chicago", all that is said in the article is that it was a debate between a christian and muslim, nothing else. It should atleast be mentioned the method of the debate, and how the verses were analyzed from each book.Wallah96 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
WHY is it important to give the background of the debate? I don't see that anyone save you cares. A Muslim and a Christian debated. Yes, so? If people want to find out more, they can check out the Naik website.
WP doesn't have to give all the details ... as I keep reminding the editors who write a six-inch-long synopsis of a Bollywood movie. That dang debate already has a great deal more space than it deserves, as a completely non-notable event. Zora 06:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Only a hater like you would think that. WHy in the world wouldn't you give atleast a one sentence background on a debate you post??? What kind of stupidity is that?? Just randomnly post a section for a debate without mentioning the format of the debate?? And no one is writing a "six-inch-long synopsis" in this article, all i ask is one sentence. And i even encourage you to be the one to write it.
It seems to me that you are scared to allow people to view the debate, b/c we all know Zakir Naik is brilliant and can defend the Qur'an from ignorant attackers. You are afraid more and more people will see the Qur'an for what it really is -- The word of GOD ALMIGHTY!Wallah96 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't hate, congratulate
Also, hate it or love it, the Debate in Chicago was his most prominent debate to date, so it deserves the space it gets, actually it deserves more... but i am afraid that will not be possible b/c of haters like you.Wallah96 03:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, I will be deleting this pargraph from the article because it is completely false and there are infact no critics who even charge this to Zakir Naik:

As an example of Naik's strident style, critics point to Naik's strategy in the Bangalore debate. Naik criticized other religions and Hinduism in particular.

First off, i've seen this dialogue on google video, and there is no criticism of the Hindu Religion, no one claims that. These "critics" of Zakir Naik are Zora and other people on wikipedia who have fabricated these allegations out of nothing. Second, Zora, and other haters should actually watch the dialogue before ignorantly posting stuff on his article. Wallah96 16:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gere is the link:

Yes he did insult the intelligence of hindus when he questioned the imagery they used to portray god. He also insulted them when he cited an example saying that, "a father should correct his son by stopping him from jumping from a building" and analogously, "a muslim must correct a hindu."

Changes made

1. I added the line, "He writes in his website that human males are polygynous by nature and that a polygynous male is less likely to cheat on his wife" in the polygyny section to expandd his views on the subject. This quote can be found at

2. I was able to verify the section on Riba or interest which was added. "Naik believes that muslims should not receive, give or witness interest-related financial transactions. He declares that it is haraam (forbidden) for muslims to own credit cards, take loans, get insurance. He takes this further and says that it is also forbidden for muslims to work in banks.[3]

3. Don't give videos/audios of Naik's talks within the article. That is very much promoting Naik and is not NPOV.

4. In the section "inter-religious dialogue in bangalore," it is better to use words like "claimed" and "said" instead of "explained" or "gave example." That is more NPOV. "Exxplained" or "gave example" has factual connotations and it is only Naik's OPINION that people from other religions are misguided, not fact. Outsider2810 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For point 2, you have taken it out of context. He did not say it is haraam to take credit cards, loans, or insurance. You have left out a huge part and mislead the people who read this article. He said it is haraam to work at a bank that charges interest, it is haraam to take a loan on interest, and he never said credit cards are haraam period. Credit cards are permissible, according to him, so long as you pay the amount due fully, instead of at installments (where you have to pay interest). your writing is very misleading.Wallah96 02:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Wallah, I know it is hard for you to believe that your hero is saying such things. But it is 100% true. I don't know if you follow Hindi/Urdu, but please view this video link -( ) If you wish, I can translate what he is saying. Please go to 11:12 and then 13:38 in that clip. He is clearly saying that "Meray hisaab say credit card bilkul haraam hai" and that while some ulema think credit cards are okay, I think it is totally haraam and only debit cards should be used. Again, he mentions explictly the fact that taking loans whether it is at a personal or national level or getting insurance is also haraam. This is all verbatim. Also the part about muslims not working banks is right there at 16:50 in the clip. He says they should quit and find a new job as soon as possible. --Punekar 10:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Wallah, you have converted this page into some kind of propaganda page. Not cool. Makes you look like a fundie. If you are trying to make a point, this is not the way.

Outsider you need to be more specific to me when you say i am vandalising this page... this is complete gargbage. I have only put in truths, while people like you put in huge blatant lies about zakir naik in this article. There are other things i want to edit, but i fear you haters will b*tch at me and report me. This is not what i want, i would rather discuss the problems. One problem is the Riba section, it is taken completely out of context and the context is not there in the article. This is outrageous b/c he meant interest-charging banks, not Islamic banks. this has to be mentioned. i have other sections i want to edit and discuss, and will do later. just don't b*tch and give me exact references instead of just constantly using ur mantra of: stop vandalising Wallah96 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Also, Naik's claim that pigs are the most shameless animals is not correct, in particular given the despicable sexual habits of bonobo chimpanzees[4]."
Okay who's the wise guy who put this line in ?? :D

Well, did it... the inspiration came from an early comment by Zora on this talk page, Archive 1 (Zora 18:54, 14 January 2006): "If the guy doesn't like pigs, he should check out bonobo chimpanzees." Dear friends, I checked out Bonobo chimpanzees on wikipedia, and it's appalling: "Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex. This happens within the immediate family as well as outside of it, and often involves adults and children." How could Dr Zakir Naik possibly claim that pigs are more shameless than that ?

It would clearly be against NPOV to let Dr Z's claim stand unopposed. It would also indicate a clear anti-pig bias.

All the best giordaano--Giordaano 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon ! Don't you think this whole business of anthropomorphising pigs as "shameless" and chimps as "despicable" reeks of the maturity of a 4th grader! :) -Punekar

OK, OK. I took out the "despicable". I agree that if Bonobos are happy behaving the way they do, who are we to judge them ? however the "shameless" pigs are entirely the responsibility of Dr Z and his heavy anti-pig bias.-- 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) giordaano

Wallah, you are unfortunately trying to not write the truths here. I don't like how you say, "Naik nullified some criticism that he was hostile towards Hinduism". Let people make that decision themselves whether he did or not.

For the Riba section, I agree he meant interest charging banks. But how many non-interest banks are there in this world? Outsider2810 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic banking" is a flourishing sector of financial services. It does not charge interest (at least in theory; in practice the borrower always ends up paying of course, and probably even more than in traditional banking) -- 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the "Muslim Integration..." section b/c it is useless.. You cannot possibly expect to post every singel one of his little "views" on this page. It is about the most important of his views... the quotes posted in the section were not noteworthy.. while some quotes that are, you guys decide to delete them b/c you can't handle the fact that he has so much influence and knowledge Wallah96 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this (Muslim integration section) just plain isn't relevant to this page

Puffery in Introduction

This is perhaps being repeated ad nauseum, but this page cannot become a Naik-promotion exercise. It's an encyclopaedia, not a paid ad. So, whosoever is adding in the puffery, please do not test our resolve to revert as many times as required. It's a button click, and we have access to the Internet just like you. However, if you wish to discuss why you think this is appropriate and perhaps belongs on this page, please feel free to discuss. Yours humbly...Punekar

dont be jaleous from Naik's Intro...hehehehhe

Is Zakir Naik the sort of person who would approve of breaking rules that apply to everyone? Would he like his followers to flout WP guidelines? If yes, it's a sad sad reflection on a man who pretends to teach morality. If no, then do the right thing and stop bringing your teacher into disrepute. Zora 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

i think that not enough introduction for a great scholar like Dr. Zakir Naik and second thing Dawah Means "inviting others to Islam" . the intro which i m giving is best of zakir naik .plz dont change it again thanks

Dawah is proselytism. "Invitation" is a far weaker word and does not convey the full meaning.

are u anti-naik or pro-naik?

The main point is to be pro-truth. --Punekar 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unknown person deleting the Anti-Naik sections - kindly give us a rationale for your actions. --Punekar 03:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

is he sunni or shia

It is important to mention that he is sunni or shia. I think he is sunni, but i dont have the source. It is important to mention his denomination in the article because shia and sunni hadiths defer a lot. And he mostly (I suppose) refers to sunni hadiths. --nids(♂) 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Is Naik really able to quote all results of Cricket test matches since 1925 ? who has checked on this ? did the International Cricket Council certify his claim ? giordaano

It doesn't matter. This is what his supporters claim about him. They could also claim that he can fly and morph into a giant squid. Let it remain - it only shows how silly they are.--Punekar 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

punekar and other "upper caste" homo sapiens here, how about shady activities of upper caste sangh junta?. why dont you go and make them human - the lathi wielding khaki chaddis r-es-es in other forums, or sati deaths or for that matter draupadi having 5 husbands glory. Ahmed 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much spam

Firstly, who the hell is Ali Sina? does he even really exist has anyone ever seen him? All links, linking back to his website are spam, just to promote Ali Sina. He is just a clown, who has been refuted by Nadir Ahmad, and and his supports are who? a bunch of Internet-warriors who have no life sit around posting on a forum. Some ex-Muslim women and housewife's, who have absolutely nothing better to do apart from post on a forum and make comments like "nuke mecca", "Muslims are stupid" so I think the links to faithfreedom need to be removed. Its just spam. --Street Scholar 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs restructuring,its all selectively written to through a bad light upon him . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has been the scene of extensive editorial warfare for months and in its present form is acceptable to Naik's supporters. It's true that if you don't share Naik's beliefs, he comes off looking silly. However, his supporters, who do share his beliefs, feel that his positions are presented fairly.

There are many Muslims who would find Naik's attitudes and beliefs unpalatable. A searching look at Naik is no attack on Islam. Zora 01:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly its not a searching look, its a biased look. And things like Others have pointed out that pigs' sexual behaviour is by far not the most shameless among animal species as, e.g. bonobo chimpanzees routinely indulge in promiscuous sex ........even the choice of words tell that this level of stupidity can only come from the mind of a Sina worshiper .
I'm not a Sina worshipper at all, but I think any animal ethologist would agree that bonobos are astonishingly sexual. More so than pigs. We have one editor here who is a Sina follower and keeps trying to insert Ali Sina material. I stay out of it. Zora 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Its stupid & funny at the same time . What does Islam has to do with sexual behaviour of monkeys . Martians might have even weirder taste in sex . But whats the point. Does Islam allowes eating martians ? F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 02:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
What is strange to both of us is the argument that you should not eat an animal because you will become like it if you do. In my opinion, that is basically a South Asian folk belief, often used against eating meat in general. Many Hindu ascetics also abstain from onions and garlic, which are conceived to have a bad effect on the character. Naik is Indian, using an Indian argument to reach other Indians. He is trying to justify sharia as rational rather than merely arbitrary, and he advances things that SEEM rational to him, as an Indian. That's why those arguments don't seem strange to his supporters, who are also Indian. We could put that in the article, actually, if we only had a reference for it. Of course it's going to seem strange to other Muslims who don't share those folk beliefs. Zora 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well his logic works for millions of people. Actually it started as an argument for eating "peaceloving" herbivores . And its perfect for all devoted hindus who dont eat animal because they might become like animals. It should be mentioned that its South/South East asian belief, not found in Quran & Sunnah, & it proves that eating cows & sheep will make you behave like these peaceful animals, & not beasts . But by any means this article is definitely not a place for discussing a monkey's mojo . And a logic thats not even logical . These things are better left at FFI . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c
If there are notable people who dont like his veiws , it should be mentioned, not anon people following anon guru on anon website . Secondly he has got lots of other views that will be more palatable to everybody . We dont see them anywhere on the article . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ali Sina should be there as far as I am concerned. I am not a follower of Ali sina but looking at the website, there are some valid criticisms of Niak. Sina, it seems actually went through the whole Naik-Campbell debate word by word and systematically dismantled Niak - I have not read the whole thing to be sure about that though.

Also I am not sure about the cricket. Does Niak really know the results of all cricket test matches from 1925 onwards? That sounds strange... Outsider2810 03:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard that he also knows by heart all train timetables for the whole of India, but would that be relevant for this discussion ? and, do many trains in India follow the timetable by the way ? Giordaano 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Outsider, I don't understand your logic did Zakir have the debate with Ali Sina? NO? so Ali Sina is going through it word for word to prove what? this is just a blatant attack on Zakir by Sina, firstly he calls Zakir a "showman" this is clear ad-hominim attack to discredit Zakir. Zakir has said he would debate Sina is he can attack 10,000 audience and to a live public debate, Sina's played out argument is "Oh I'm too scared Muslims might kill me" Translation: "I can only do email debates so my buddies can help me" if Sina is so much worried about his "safety" then he can always hide his face I mean there are various things he can do. And we all know Sina can't attract 10,000 people he is particularly an unknown entity on the world scene. He has a hard time debating Muslims like Nadir Ahmad[5] and he is wanting to debate someone like Zakir get real! --Street Scholar 15:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty faulty reasoning. Sina's refutation of Naik is valid; you don't have to engage in face to face debate with others to refute their points. Further, I would agree with Sina here on written debate not on the point of being killed by a Muslim, but that spoken debates are not so much so as debates to determine the veracity of an idea, but debates geared towards winning the audience. Naik got away with an incredible amount of quote-mining and inaninities. For example, the Q&A section, he mentioned a quote from a Thomas Thompton who sent a letter to Darwin in 1861 - no such letter exists. Or, he made the claim that mountains stabilize the Earth. This is a completely false idea.
Written debate doesn't allow for that kind of stuff. If you quote-mine, you get caught. If you distort the evidence, you'll get caught. If you give pseudo-science, you'll be caught on it. As I like to say about written debates "It takes only a second for a baby to puke, but a long time afterward to clean it up." Why, for example, do you suppose that biologists invariably crush creationists in written debate? Because for every lie they concoct, they will be called on that. So, I think Sina's right here.
However, Sina does have bias against Islam and so it would be hard to find a critical, objective look at Naik. I guess we can start with his faulty science, since that's a pretty objective measure. We can mention, for example, that mountains contain geophysically shallow roots, non-peg-like roots, and that their roots do not extend into the astenosphere and therefore, can pose no stabilizing effect. 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know much about Ali Sina other than reading his site for critics' opinions on Naik. I read Sina's analysis on the Naik-Campbell debate (finally) and it is my opinion that Sina did dismantle Naik. Outsider2810 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cricket >> vandalism?

Outsider2810, you should take a look at this page. Obviousely, someone was joking about the cricket thing, and noone ever noticed that. Do not add this sentence again, unless you have a reference with an appropriate credibility. - Aateyya 04:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have myself expressed disbelief in Naik's claim to know all cricket test matches results since 1925. However, I feel that we should give Naik the benefit of the doubt. Before we remove it, we should check accurately that it's untrue. Otherwise, it should stay.

By the way, are we sure that he actually knows by heart the Vedas etc ? those are huge textsGiordaano 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

To repeat the figures cited earlier:
* Qur'an 80K words
* Bible 783K
* Gita 20K
* Upanishads 45K
* Vedas 331K
That's not including the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. Qur'an, 80K; all the other texts, together, 1179K words. More than fourteen times the size of the Qur'an. You want us to believe that he has memorized the equivalent of fifteen Qur'ans? Zora 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Zora, since you have already researched all this, I would like to know that how many equivalents of qurans do we need to summarize all the cricket results.nids(♂) 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, that I don't know. The only cricket game I've ever watched was in the movie Lagaan. Zora 12:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Zora, no offense dear but I think you should stick to watching Hindi movies and leave the editing to the men. Thank you. --Street Scholar 15:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


No, Giordaano. It's nonesense to say that we should keep what vandals wrote at Wikipedia! The page was edited by one of them and someone should have reverted it, but it seems that nobody has seen this edit. As for memorizing other scriptures, Zora, I don't know about that. I agree with you that this is unbelievable number of words for a human brain to memorize. But he is 'supposed' to memorize Quran, Hadith, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. That's because he is in the field of comparative religion, & that's like a homework for him that he must do. Besides I've seen people (specially those who work in Dawah) who DO memorize the scriptures I mentioned. It's not hard to do so if you started learning when you were 2 year old. (This is not a joke) - Aateyya 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Lots of religious traditions memorize scriptures. Comparative religion, as an academic discipline, is something entirely different. I've DONE comparative religions, in anthropology, and we didn't memorize scriptures. You might end up with some of it memorized, just from frequent citations, but it was assumed that you had a printed text in front of you and could look up what you needed. Aateyya, you're assuming that the scholar of religion is like a hafiz or a Brahmin, and that is emphatically not the case. I also doubt your assertion that you know people who have memorized the entire Qur'an, Bible, Vedas, etc. Qur'an yes; there are millions of hafiz. Some Christians memorizing entire books of the Bible? Yes. Brahmins memorizing entire Vedas or Sutras? Yes. All of those, no. Zora 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I totally agree with you that it's unbelievable for a human to memorize all these scriptures. However, I assure you that I do know people who memorize Quran, Tafseer, Hadith, Old Testament, and New Testament. I did not mention Vedas or any other scripture (no offense meant). Actually, some Arab who work in Dawah also memorize lots of poems, mostly related to religion & ancient history (in addition to the previous 5 scriptures). - Aateyya 07:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Idol Worship in Islam

I added a section on his views comparing the "idol worship" in Hindusism and Islam. I'm not sure if I was able to express it well. There is also a note for this in the critics' section. Outsider2810 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, Outsider. It didn't seem particularly helpful to me, and the critic's view that you gave was unreferenced -- it seemed to be your own. Also, I reverted the bit describing Ali Sina as an apostate. Since he's anonymous, we don't know that he is. We know that he claims to be -- that's all we can say.
Perhaps I was too hasty in removing the first bit re the Kaaba, but it seemed sketchy and undeveloped. There are differences of opinion within Islam as to the meaning of the Kaaba (see the Kaaba and Black Stone articles) and if you're going to talk about Naik's views in those regards, you'd need to situate him in the Muslim context. Since we have no quotes from critics of Muslim views of the Kaaba, there doesn't seem much point in elaborating Naik's views. The title of the section was also somewhat POV.
Myself, I'd say that Muslims have turned Muhammad and the Qur'an into idols, but since that isn't a charge leveled at Naik, it doesn't belong here. Zora 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Outsider, a post on Ali Sina's blog is not encyclopedic. That is not a good reference -- and I'll bet I could come up with a policy that says so. Zora 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Zora, if you have to revert it again, please do so. I do think that you are more NPOV as the more I read about Naik, the more POV I become (lol!) and so maybe I'm biased...I wasn't in the beginning. However, I would also like to see what others have to say about this. Thanks. Outsider2810 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why link to posts on faithfreedom?

In the Naik's critics section, for a reference to the kabbah, it links to this post on faithfreedom, now I can make 100s of posts on various different forums of supporting Zakir. The point I am making is this really a sufficient reference for a encyclopedia article, we don't even know who the poster he is just some random person making a comment. I think it should be removed. There is also another reference linking back to a Hindutva forum and a post made by some random person --Street Scholar 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to realise that this is the Internet and many different kinds of people make up websites. One the references in the "supporters" section is also from a random website created by some random person. That link shows that there are people questioning Naik's claims. That post was created in January of this year as well. Outsider2810 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Forum posts are not appropriate sources. Please read WP:RS. BhaiSaab talk 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
ok then we play it your way. I have deleted what the supporters supposedly said as well. Outsider2810 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. BhaiSaab talk 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
fine for me the supporters' section. Outsider2810 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
And I will also tell you why it is OK to have forum topics as sources. Its because we are talking about what different critics claim about Naik. What the critics does not have to be fact. They can claim anything as their OPINION. However, if we were talking about a live debate or news item, then we SHOULD have news websites.Outsider2810 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you have reinserted the forum-sourced statements. The fact is that these claims are not published by reliable sources. If you read WP:RS, you'll understand the policy on this. I could go on any forum I want and make a post. Would that post be a reliable source to use on Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Please do not reinsert those sentences without proper references. BhaiSaab talk 09:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know what sourcing is? Things which are common knowledge do not have to be sourced. If you see any debate of Naik, it's obvious that he has a strident debating style. And as for claims by critics, forum topics are alright. It shows he has got people talking about him. Remember, I am not using those forum topics to "prove" a scientific fact...I'm using them to show that Naik has critics. It's not a forum topic where one person discusses things with himself, its a lot of ppl discussing Naik.

Also, I AM willing to listen. I would like more people's opinions on this before you go changing things all of a sudden. And I want those people to be non-muslims and muslims alike. Outsider2810 16:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but regardless of your intent, Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources specifically states that "posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." BhaiSaab talk 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Outsider2810, I don't know why you insist on including forum posts as sources! I really can't see how you can justify including them in an encyclopedic article. While I completely agree that most of the stuff he says needs to be criticised (personally i think some stuff is just crazy), we need verifiable sources as per WP:RS! what unkown bob said on a forum definetly doesn't fit that criteria... so please can we come to the agreement that we should remove these unverifiable sources? --khello 07:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Why is the section titled Naik's Supporters so short as opposed to the one beneath it? That clearly shows the bias in this article.

link sabotage

some links (in particular the anti-Naik ones) are being sabotaged by slightly modifying the web address, so that the links will not work anymore.

Tsk, tsk. 10:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ali sina was fake

Ali Sina's web site was all fake, in his web site he has proved nothing except that he knows how to put " Empty Accusations ".

and i can prove it; for further discussion contact:

Guys please remember this wikipedia article is dedicated to Dr. Zakir Naik , will it not be justice if he is invited or his student representatives to write about Dr. Naik, rather than making false accusations of Dr. Naik and in his absence . this is totally unfair . if any attempt is made to correct the prejudice about this man you call that vandalism, all the while you allow unfair criticism in the name of "balanced view".

Ahmed 05:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Propagation of Other faiths in Islamic state

Zakir Naik says that propagation of other religions within an Islamic state is forbidden. While he appreciates people of other religions allowing Muslims to freely propagate Islam in their country, he feels there should not be any church or temple in an Islamic state. He makes an analogy to math and claims, "2+2 is only equal to 4, not 3 or 6. Similarly, truth is one and it is only Islam. Will non-Muslims allow 2+2 = 6 to be taught in their schools?"

Does this even make sense? it seems like such analogy can be used to prove almost anything!

Please refrain from using forum posts as sources!

Please make sure that all sources comply with WP:RS. Any random person can say anything on a web forum!--khello 04:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on some points Khello. See, I am willing to discuss this.

I agree about the "pig criticism" for sure. I have slightly chaneged it in other ways too. I have not removed all forum sources because some important points are raised there. Also, these posts are not usd to source anything about Naik. These posts are just showing that different people are debating Naik. What they say may or may not be true but critics, they are.

What do you think? Outsider2810 00:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've been a way for a while! Now the issue at hand: I think this whole article requires a complete cleanup. I mean the criticism section i think is a joke: nearly every WP policy has been ignored, especially WP:RS and WP:NOR!
First of all, forum postings in the context of this article can never, I think, be justified. it goes back to the very reason why WP:RS states "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources"- any random person can post anything s/he wants! This is, after all, an encyclopedia. So we should stick to using verifiable sources.
Second, there's evidence that WP:OR has also been violated. The point about disputing Naik's figures as outdated, someone linked to some CIA statistics. while this may indeed show Naik's facts and figures to be wrong, it still constitutes original research: if you want to make a point use already-published, verifiable sources!
So regardless of our POVs, or the POVs of all the random users on the various forums on the internet, anything that is to be included in this article should adhere to WP policies.
Now I'm not going to remove all these violations straight away, but would rather us come to a mutual position to get this article to an acceptable standard: as it stands now this is probably one of the worst I've seen here.--khello 17:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sinas antics

Has anyone read this:

Ali Sina back in 99 used to post EFnet under the name afreethinker. If you read this article you will realize Sina has mental problems. But Sina worshipers like Zora just love to discredit this stuff and worship Sina like a god! --Street Scholar 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking comments back to forums for reference

If the same person keeps adding the same shit into wiki, then I'll be hard-pressed to request RfA its funny how Zora keeps over looking this transgression. --Street Scholar 21:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a couple of months of wikibreak and I've been trying to limit my activities on WP. I was pushing myself too hard and getting exhausted and cranky. See my userpage. Zora 05:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)