Talk:Zakir Naik/Archive 2

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

Is he a Vegetarian?

Is he a Vegetarian? (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not. He said that if he was designed to be a vegetarian (anatomically), then he would want to be, of course. ;-) --Zybez (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert Wars

Please watch his videos, and "write down" the quotations, and find their meaning. You'll concur with his interpretations.

Okay, lets talk this out one by one. The first thing we need to discuss is the "support of Osama" issue. Please, do not revert blindly. I believe we can reach a consensus.

I think we should keep his views on "Support for OBL" because it's clearly Naik talking and its self explanatory what he said. What do the rest of you think? Outsider2810 02:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a Add

This article looks like a add of zakir naik.This Naik fellow or one of his followers has put up lots of dubious pages like this one. Not impressed, POV.—

Not really since it actually includes some criticism. It should be impartial. --Zybez (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources cleanup

OK everyone... I've been attempting to clean this article up by rewriting/rephrasing things, but there are too many issues to ignore which is why I've tagged this article. The main issue concerns the verifiability of the sources used; whether they are in support, in opposition, or even simply the statement of Zakir Naik's views. I've already tried to address this issues above in Talk:Zakir_Naik#Please_refrain_from_using_forum_posts_as_sources.21. I did come across more problems, mainly that non-English sources are used (e.g. here... while there's nothing technically wrong with that in relation to WP:RS at first glance, I've seen/read the same points being addressed in English sources (videos and online articles). Therefore we should try to use those sources that are in English. So I hope we can all work to make this articles at least presentable, because in all honesty the current state of it is a disgrace. --khello 05:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"The interviewer of Zakir Naik during his "propagation of Other faiths" segment added his own views after the segment. He questioned if Zakir Naik was being any different from the Taliban.[1]"
I'm not so sure this is a valid statement based on the link. The video's edited, and the end segment is a voice over that, to me anyway, doesn't sound like the actual interviewer's voice. What do others think? to me an edited video like this, as opposed to other videos linked to in this article, cannot be deemed verifiable in terms of [WP:RS]. I just want to get others' thoughts on this before i remove it- that whole first paragraph doesn't strike me as verifiable. It is important to have a criticism section, but one that is encyclopedic. --khello 07:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Khello, don't act like you are being NPOV. That criticism is valid. For sure, its the same person who did the interviewing. Its obvious you are a Naik fan and you want to hide the fact that he made himself look like a complete fool.
First of all it is irrelevant whether I am a fan of Naik, and would appreciate it if you don't call me as such. But the fact remains that above mentioned statement cannot be verified based on the source provided. and plus there is nothing to 'hide' regarding him looking like a fool- I think simply stating what he says is proof enough! I only came by this article by chance- I saw a video of his on the net and came here to see what he's about, but was appalled by how poorly referenced and written this article was. And that's why I'm here now: trying to make this article better than it is now.
The end of the above mentioned video [2] is edited as far as I can tell, and the way the source is presented below is fine because it doesn't refer to the end of the video, but what Naik actually said.
As for your alleged "pls do not edit propagation of other faiths section. its valid. other changes i'm willing to seee" revert here, I fail to see how you are trying to NOPVify this article. You blindly reverted to a poorly written, unverifiabley (is that even a word :p) sourced version. There is every reason to have a criticism section, but one that cites verifiable sources, as per WP:RS, and definitely not citing forum posts as they are here and here
and please sign your posts. --khello 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do people think this is a verifiable link? it looks like somewhat of a personal website to me, so I don't think it should go under the external links section of the article. what do you think? --khello 07:08, 14 November 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?"[3]

It has full sources. Outsider2810 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I've removed most of the part from this article, it does NOT look like an encyclopedia artice, rather a flamed persons view on something he/she does NOT agree on.

No correct references No manners of writing 2/3 line paragraphs Not keeping a neutral point of view.

I will from now on keep an eye on this, no more wrong doings are going on here now! 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that you, Akeeq? If there are no references and no "manners of writing" or 2/3 line paragraphs, or out of context quotes, thats not reason enough to delete huge portions of the page without consensus. Its not NPOV? Edit the articles and make them NPOV and give both sides of the arguments. You cant go around deleting huge stuff from a page. This is about Zakir's arguements. They'll stay here. You can try to make the page NPOV, make sure things are being said in context and provide references.--Matt57 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What specific parts are you talking about? You've deleted virtually the whole article. It's not perfect that's true- but I don't see how deleting the whole thing solves anything. I also can't see how simply listing/quoting a person's view can be considered POV. If you feel that there are POV issues, please feel free to NPOVify- deleting everything won't solve anything. I myself expressed concerns about some of the stuff here (namely the criticism section and the sources used or lacking) but we have to be constructive about it. Discuss it here so everyone can be happy! --khello 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that IP was me, I didn't knew that I was not logged in at that time :p. Anyway, well yeah I think your right how I did that was prolly not the right way, but I have major issues with quoting almost everything out of context, especially the part; 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?"
Incorrect, this is just a biased opinion, I have seen the video of him explaining it myself, and the part of "having no church or temple in an islamic state" was never said by Naik. This is propaganda!
Moreever, the Interest part is again out of context.
My point is a biography page should not just go and try to prove someone wrong with out of context incorrect references. And secondly why does this biography goes on with 3 or 4 line paragraphs; it doesn't prove anything. If you see any GA status biographies you wont really find them the way this one has come out. His views "as a whole" should be given out as to what he tries to do/explain. What his agenda is, what his occupation and lifestyle is.
So yes, I later on read the consensus part - my fault. But I would vote for its removal. The major part is a biased story and looks more like a 5th grade essay on someone, not an article about a scholor of religion out of an encyclopedia.Akeeq 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that this is a very poorly written article. Since this article isn't going to disappear, I think a more constructive way would be to edit the bits you see as out of context so that they are in context. As for the specific concern above, I watched the video again and in it the subtitles read
"As far as the second question regarding building of Churches or Temples is concerned. how can we allow this when their religion is wrong? And when their worshiping is also wrong?"
I don't speak Urdu, and hence am not sure whether these subtitles are accurate or the video unedited. Again, I've already expressed this concern in earlier discussions, but if the subtitles are accurate that seems pretty concrete to me. I tried to rewrite some bits of the article earlier but the biggest problem is finding reliable and verifiable sources; especially since all information about Dr. Naik is internet based. The first part of the criticism section, for example, doesn't cite any sources; never mind reliable sources! I've added the {{Fact}} tags to give a chance to the editor who inserted that claim to back it up, but so far nothing yet. So my advice is just do the best you can edit it, and if your edits are fair and accurate, then there would be no complaints! --khello 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Akeeq, if you think the video has been wrongly sub-titled, you should get the consensus of other editors who understand Urdu and then maybe a decision could be made to remove the video links, although this should be the last step and should only be done if there are other videos of those talks with clean titles. The person who made these videos should make the titles as accurate as possible (if the video editors are reading this, please take note: make new videos that are accurate for the titles). For the rest, I agree, you'll just have to work on making the article NPOV and not delete any stuff. This article requires work as Khello also pointed out and I hope you work on it and continue to improve it.--Matt57 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. I'll go through those videos, the problem is I watch Dr. Naiks program on television everyday, I've myself seen most of his shows and/debates with scholars - and I've not yet come across anything like this, I'll try to improve the article to the best of my knowledge. Akeeq 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was right, I have gone through the video, the guy has taken a single line out of the whole video ignoring its context. Here is what he said; We will not allow making churches and idol worship, but that too is ONLY prohibited in Saudi Arabia. The editor, missed the part in red in the article which is from the same reference, so that it gives a negative view. The prohibitation of making churches in Saudi Arabia is a government law by its constitution, it has NOTHING to do with Islam.
Secondly he said; making the analogy with maths that will muslims allow 2+2=6 to be taught in their schools out of context, if you even read the sub-titles you will find out how the guy took it from inbetween and left out its orignial context. Akeeq 05:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, since I dont know the language, I cant verify anything that you did. I would request other editors to please verify the work of Akeeq. Aqeek, also, if something is being taken out of context, you should explain the context, not delete content. You deleted content right now and if you did because it was out of context, thats wrong. You should explain the context instead in more detail. If you deleted anything that he never actually said (out of context or not), then thats OK.

Will other editors please verify the Aqeek's edit here? Thanks --Matt57 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted only a line which said that "he feels no churches or temples should be made in any islamic state" wrong, he never said that. Akeeq 16:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a more reasonable edit than your first where you were deleting all the content. Other editors should confirm this and try to make the content NPOV. --Matt57 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Akeeq, I know Urdu and I can confirm that he did say no churches or temple must be built in a Muslim land. You even admitted it yourself in your own quote: Here is what he said; We will not allow making churches and idol worship," It does not matter what country allows it or does not. What matters is that Naik feels no temple or church should be constructed. In fact, Naik used the sentence, "But this is only followed in Saudi Arabia" to portray how only that country follows the ideal. You are the one trying to misrepresent here. Outsider2810 23:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina challenge

I saw that Nayyer44 wasn't happy here- and I've read through that and I'd have to say I see where s/he's coming from. It seems like it is original research in a sense, because the sources (the hadiths) aren't explicilty related to Ali Sina and Zakir Naik. I think simply stating that Ali Sina "fears for his life" is enough, since he does mention that on his website (I remember reading that somewhere). Consensus? --khello 18:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It was me who put in that hadith reference. I dont know why it doesnt qualify for a reference, but I thought somehow it should be mentioned why he fears to be killed by a reference of some kind. You're welcome to change that if you like. This is the same reference that I used on Ali Sina's own page as well.--Matt57 03:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NOR:

"An edit counts as original research if... [i]t introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments... without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" (emphasis added)

While the hadiths may be used as a pretext against Ali Sina, there isn't a source provided that explicitly connects the threat to Ali Sina to those hadiths. That's how I see it violates WP:NOR, so I've gone ahead and replaced it with a reference where Ali Sina himself (in an email published on his site) cites the "threat to his life". Glad we can sort it out amicably :) --khello 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree thats a better reference.--Matt57 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

HI guys i have just added some info to the page and its just informative and harmless hope u all will agree thanks --mak82hyd

Unfortunatly Mak82hyd, mostly all your edits are directly copy/pasted from various websites (which violates various copyrights), including [4][5][6]. Additionally, regarding your edit here, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri is most definitely an authority on Islam (authority in this instance does not mean he is more muslim than others- it just implies that he is a figure of importance within Islam- to Shi'a muslims especially), and mentioning that in the sentence, in my opinion, gives the reader more context.
On a more general note, you should consult the WP:MOSBIO, which gives a guide on how a biogpraphy article such as this should look like. Some of the information you are adding would definitely improve the article (for example the list of debates, list of publications), but it should be placed under the correct heading (at the end of the article). Also, the "Bio Data" section is redundant, given that all that information is already mentioned in the info box.
Finally, this edit here (I know it's not your account, I'm just pointing it out :))is purely original research and does not belong on wikipedia, unless of course it can be backed up by verifiable secondary sources.
So for the time being, I am going to revert your changes to comply with the various Wikipedia guidlines and policies I mentioned above. Please don't be discouraged and keep contributing once you've familiarized yourself with all of the above policies! Also sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after your post. Happy editing! --khello 08:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks khello its been nice to get some help from senior wikipedians like you. i appreciate ur help ill try to read as many wikipedia guidelines and policies and tries to follow it. i believe truth should be heard and discussed rather than being one sided. ill put every reference as i have done good research. i havce given some for matt in my talk page plz have a look. and also feel free to modify my changes if you think it is less referenced or please ask me to reference if i dont do it rather than deleting it. and english is not my mother tongue so if i make grammer or any mistake plz feel free to modify it. for example Bio data and other things. and khello u were right i was the person who included naiks and ravi shankar video and when he said it has got mistakes and written in hurry, when i didnot had my id. i have added references with time on that. and regarding Grand Ayatollah Montazeri this is the first time i heard his name so i dont think he is a famous authority of islam but if u think he is in shia sect then we should add that info rather than calling him authority of islam as it will be wrong and u know shia and sunni percentage of world. thanksMak82hyd 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Mak82hyd 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mak, what kind of juvenile editing are doing on the page? You left a signature on top of the page. Look at what you're doing to this page. Secondly, do NOT edit 100 times. Use the Preview button. This makes it harder to see what kind of edits you are doing.
Khello, this Mak is a real problem. I feel like reverting all his edits. I'll leave them here for now. Its too much work for now filtering the junk from the non-junk.--Matt57 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks matt for the comments i am learning still and dont worry i wont do any damage to the article. present one looks good. i hope u agree. please have a look and let me know what u think is problem and let me know if u need references for anything more and if u want me to change wordings. as u told me to sign the article when i change it i did. should i just sign user talk and discussions and not articles??? i think so and i will follow. cheers Mak82hyd 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

matt and khello in the article of zakir naik it says " During the event, Naik said, "religious tolerance is important in Islam but tolerance does not mean acceptance." He claimed that people of other religions were misguided and said, "Muslims would have a problem with the Hindu imagery of the god Vishnu." Naik also claimed that the Vedas prophesize the coming of the prophet Muhammad, for which Ravishankar replied, "muslims should now respect the Vedas and not call it scriptures of the unbelievers." "

may i know why time reference in video is not given coz matt told me i should give time reference as well but i am amazed that it was not given for this one Mak82hyd 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The only place where you need to sign is the talk pages when you're writing comments like right now. I agree, if there's a comment about a video, it should talk about the timeline where the comment was said. Feel free to add the timeline. I dont know who added that material in the past. Also note though, these are actual quotes from the video, not conclusions or summaries. If you have a video you should quote the exact material as well. Right now I'll restrict myself to checking the article on Ali Sina. Thats enough work for me.--Matt57 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This does not require citation

Naik points to the verse 4:3 from the Qur'an[16] to explain the Muslim position on polygyny. This verse explains that a man can take more than one wife only if he is able to treat them equally. If he cannot do this, he should have a relationship with only one wife and/or "what your right hands possess" (i.e. female slaves and concubines).

Its pretty self explanatory if you read the Quran and if you read the internally sourced article on what the right hands possess. We don't need to cite every sentence if its logical and we can draw a conclusion ourselves. Are you saying we cannot draw own conclusions????

Why arent you signing your name? Use this button Button sig.png --Matt57 23:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Quran 4:3 According to Yusuf Ali translation: YUSUFALI: If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

it clearly describes that only one if u cant do justice or a captive i want to ask a question whats wrong in marrying a captive or slave or concubine, remember it says marry which is better than rape i hope u understand Mak82hyd 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated references

This article has multiple references to the same Web pages and YouTube videos, so it looks like there are twice as many citataions as there actually are ... I'm going to try to add <ref name="whatever">{{cite web}}</ref> in place of these external links and bring the citations into correct style and avoid the confusion of clicking the same video multiple times. — (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :) Martinp23 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've spent nearly three hours on this so far ... I'll come back to work on it some more later, but in the mean time, maybe someone else will follow my lead (see {{cite web}} for details and the edit history for examples) ... frankly, I think this article gives "conflict of interest" a Bad Name, and I'm trying very hard not to read it for content or point of view ... just culling the external links from the body of the text, and some other editor can decide if they're bogus and should be either replaced or removed ... and please remember to leave either a {{fact}} or a {{verify source}} tag if you delete a link. — (talk · contribs) 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Good Work (talk · contribs)- Much appreciated. This "article" is definitely full of point of view all over, and any attempt to try and NPOVify it has so far been futile. I'll go through the citations and try to sort the junk from the rest. --khello 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Content

Alright guys, I think we should come to an agreement on what to include in this article, and what not to. In its current state, this is what i see wrong with it:

Instead of revert waring, I suggest all the concerned editors reach a compromise/consensus here on the talk page- This is the only way a stable article can be attained. and please do not blindly revert! --khello 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

khello, I have always been nuetral, there are lot of people who are coming and changing it without any proofs. i totally agree with ur point of view and outsider just reverts whatever i do, i have given all the reference and its as neutral as possible. he seems to hate zakir naik, too much hatred man this is wrong. what I am saying is there are people like outsider, who dont want to be neutral and they will not follow it. may be we can ask admin of wikipedia to put restrictions on it. let me know what u thinkMak82hyd 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Zakir is popular for his critical analysis and convincing answers to challenging questions posed by audiences after his public talks. In the last 6 years (by the year 2002), Dr. Zakir Naik has delivered more than 600 public talks in the U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, South Africa, Mauritius, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong, Thailand, Guyana (South America) and many other countries, in addition to numerous public talks in India.
He has successfully participated in several symposia and dialogues with prominent personalities of other faiths. His public dialogue with Dr. William Campbell (of USA), on the topic, “The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of Science” held in city of Chicago, U.S.A., on April 1, 2000 was a resounding success." (emphasis added)
Mak82hyd, the above passage is a good example of what what wikipedia is not. This article should simply offer an objective overview of Zakir Naik, what he does, and his notable critics. The above excerpt that you insist on including is a promotion of Dr. Naik (which is POV), which is something that does not fit in an encyclopedic, biographic entry (on the flip side, neither should it be a hate piece on him). Moreover, it does not follow the accepted format on wikipedia (a Bio Data section). Finally, simply copy/pasting from other websites is a copyright violation, and sometime yesterday and administrator actually tagged that section precisely because of that (a warning which was lost due to Outsider2810's reverts)
On the other hand, the recent reverts also managed to undo some of the NPOVifying that myself and Matt57 have tried to do. That's why I'm trying to get all unhappy editors to discuss their changes/deletions/additions so as to cause the least amount of disruption.
So I think our task for the time being is to filter out all the junk references, eliminate original research, and try to get this article to an acceptable standard/format. I reiterate that this cannot be achieved without having a collaborative effort from all the concerned editors; regardless of whether they hate or love Zakir Naik. Whoever comes to this article should expect a neutral, balanced and objective article. --khello 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree, this is what I was trying to say the first day I entered here, and deleted all of the content (my bad) :p But the section "his beliefs" is not right, it should either be removed or edited to look better atleast. Those two three line paragraphs dont suite Wiki standards. Secondly, I agree with the part that this should only explain about Who Dr. Naik is (A medical doctor & an Islamic Scholor) and what his routine work is (again a medical doctor by practice and da'wah) and a little bit more about his acheivements and might also include his role as the chairperson of IRF. I simply don't agree with these 10/12 "his beliefs" para's, the make nothing but non-sense. And yes., everyone should be neutral. Akeeq 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
khello when somebody tries to put neutral views his haters comes in and write full of lies so there is no other way than revert it. i agree with u if u come up witha plan and all people accept it thats a good idea Mak82hyd 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly where are the "lies", Mak82hyd? --Punekar 17:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference and citation tags lost in revert war

Uhh ... will someone please tell me how replacing

the verse 4:3[] from the [[Qur'an]] to explain


{{Quran|4|73}} to explain

is introducing point of view to the article? Or is

<ref name=irffaq>[ FAQ on Islam]</ref>

somehow less conflict of interest than

 <ref name="faqonislam">{{cite web
 | url =
 | title = FAQ on Islam
 | publisher = Islamic Research Foundation
 | author = Dr. Zakir Naik

I'm not going to play these revert games ... I did the work to try to make it more encyclopedic by using the WikiTools for citations, and you guys reverted it because you either think that the subject's website is cited Too Often (WP:SPAM), or because you think that any mention at all of a subject's website somehow violates WP:COI ... I don't know which it is, nor do I really care (frankly, I have Absolutely No Interest Whatsoever in the subject of this article; I just stumbled across it and went all "Adrian Monk," obsessively "cleaning" it) ... this is one of the reasons why I'm not using a registered user account any longer.

I tried to show you all how to do it The Correct Way (like in Real Articles) ... now I'm taking this article off my watchlist, and you people can play your little games without me. </flame> — (talk · contribs) 05:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mak82Hyd's edits

Few issues prompting the revert:

1. "Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion"

No reference cited - also, the usage of dynamic and reknowned as adjectives is laudatory in nature and not NPOV.

2. "Dr. Zakir is popular for his critical analysis and convincing answers to challenging questions posed by audiences after his public talks."

Popular is not an adjective that is NPOV. "Convincing" depends on who you ask; again not NPOV.

3. " His public dialogue with Dr. William Campbell (of USA), on the topic, “The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of Science” held in city of Chicago, U.S.A., on April 1, 2000 was a resounding success."

"Resounding success" is laudatory and not NPOV. Also, this debate is mentioned in the debate section and is repetition.

4. "Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, the world famous orator on Islam and Comparative Religion, who had called Dr. Zakir, "Deedat plus" in 1994, presented a plaque in May 2000 awarded to Dr. Zakir Abdul-Karim Naik for his achievement in the field of Da’wah and the study of Comparative Religion with the engraving "Son what you have done in 4 years had taken me 40 years to accomplish, Alhamdullilah.”"

World-famous is not NPOV. Neither is the mention of someone totally different. Either way, this is self-aggrandizement and laudatory; not NPOV.

5. "Dr. Zakir Naik appears regularly on many international T.V. Channels in more than 100 countries of the world."

No reference or citation. Cannot stay without that.

Rewite this section and let's develop a consensus; else it will be edited out.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Punekar (talkcontribs) 17:01, 28 November 2006

I agrees a bit punekar and changed it but dont remove the paragraph in which i gave proof of his win with ravi shankar debate, with time in video as well. tell me the reoson why it should not be here --Mak82hyd 17:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"the reoson why it should not be here" is because Wikipedia is not a soapbox (Look! He won this debate against that guy!) Who wins or loses a debate does not matter in the context of an article, being the kind of trivia (information that is interesting without being important) best left on external sites ... just point to a website that has links to the dicussions/videos and move on -- let readers follow the links in citations and draw their own conclusions.
In my opinion (and apparently some other editors agree) the sections "His views", "Debates and dialogues", and "Naik's critics" are unencyclopedic and should be removed in their entirety, but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water (unlike some editors) ... in fact, I don't have enough interest in the subject even to participate in reaching a consensus (let alone make anything beyond "cosmetic" edits), but that's my 2¢ worth. — (talk · contribs) 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

matt , u said that ali sina page is his page and it will be about him so is zakir naik page does not belong to him(if it is his page it shoud be about him) why is all critism and anti naik thing there no one like his achievements written there pleae reply to questions --Mak82hyd 18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mak82hyd -- please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles ... IMHO the Ali Sina page blows chunks even worse than this one, and I'd support deleting it. (But, after my experience with this article, I'm not even going to try fixing the references in that one.) ... and please, learn how to indent in these duscussion page posts! — (talk · contribs) 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mak82hyd -- the references section already has a list of Naik's publications. If you want a list of books he authored to include the new ones you have, please add them there. Also the section on Bilal Phillips is irrelevant in an encylopedia stub on Naik. We need a referenciable precis, not a advertisement. Seek to add information without aggrandizing your hero. Otherwise it will be tagged POV. --Punekar 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Section on Bilal Phillips

Very little additional information is available from the Bilal section and seems to be centric around Phillips' personal fascination with Naik.

Here is a suggested precis of the information from the new section:

"Naik has delivered more than 600 public talks in many countries. He is associated with Islamic televangelism on many internationally available channels [1], religious publications [citation needed], Da'wah (proselytism) training and lecture tours." --Punekar 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on the precis offered? Or is it just going to be blind reverts? --Punekar 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon IP from Glasgow, Scotland - please do not do blind reverts without discussion. --Punekar 01:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Section on Osama

Naik's speech is clear that he supports Osama if "Osama is terrorizing the terrorist, America". These are his words, verbatim. What possible reason for deletion? --Punekar 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The introductory screen for the video linked to the citation for that quote has the text at the bottom of the screen ... does anyone else see that as a WP:COI violation? — (talk · contribs) 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm lost for words... --khello 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
... and when did a long-winded video soundbyte of the subject pontificating that's been posted on YouTube or Google Video become a credible 3rd part source? (Besides which, not everyone has a high-speed connection to be able to view them ... see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided if you are unclear on the concept.) — (talk · contribs) 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:RS#Using_online_sources, the video links would fall under the classification of a 'primary source'. To wit, "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. ". --Punekar 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

This article has been, once again, completely distorted and converted in some sort of Naik advertisement.

In my view, it has beco;e a hopeless case.

giordaano158.169.9.14 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the result was a Keep. Let's endeavour to keep it NPOV. --Punekar (プネカル) 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree with u punekar but u seems to be anti naik and delete whatever i add. i have added with references dont delete it if u want modify it with proper references. Mak82hyd 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mak82hyd, I suggest you stop ascribing intentions to other editors as well as personal attacks. The problem with your Bilal section is that it does not add any more information other than express Bilal's admiration for Naik. I suggest the precis below instead of the section you added. Let me know if this is acceptable to you - "Naik has delivered more than 600 public talks in many countries. He is associated with Islamic televangelism on many internationally available channels [1], religious publications [citation needed], Da'wah (proselytism) training and lecture tours." --Punekar (プネカル) 13:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the section on his books needs to go into the publications section which is right at the bottom. The reason it is reverted is that it is duplicated information. You may have a list of all his notable publications, but you may only do it in the correct section. --Punekar (プネカル) 13:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Punekar , The Bilal Philip section will stay there asi gives lot of info about Dr. Naik and The section Books authored by Zakir Naik cannot be removed as it is his page and the books written by him will stay there and they wont be in publication section on he bottom as its not fair over there. I am gonna add more genuine stuff about him. remember this is nopt anti naik page if u want to critisize him only write it in critizism section or create a new page as anti naik. Mak82hyd 21:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Mak82hyd : The Bilal section does not meet the guidelines. I would urge you to review the published guidelines there before inserting a section that provides no additional information. If you read through it, all it says is that Bilal thinks Naik is the best thing since sliced bread. Great. Unfortunately, Bilal is a non-entity with limited influence. --Punekar (プネカル) 11:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The books have to be under the Publications section, since books are published. This is the case with all biography articles - you may reference other bios such as Robert Grant or Pat Robertson. Ergo, I don't see the relative "fairness" or "unfairness" of this; kindly enlighten me as to why the Naik article cannot follow these general rules. --Punekar (プネカル) 11:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mak82hyd - All views about Naik, whether critical or fawning must assume the form of facts (not factoids) and come under a single encyclopaedia article. You commented that this is "Naik's page". It is not. It is a page on Naik. What this means is that you cannot claim ownership of the page, or for that matter, insist that glowing tributes be paid to your favourite cleric. What this also means is that critical facts about Naik will be part of this page, that the links you dislike will not go away. Reconcile yourself to the fact that we will have to share this space and it is mandatory to discusss what is reverted and why. I am obliged to satisfy wikipedia regulations, as are you.
This editing nugget will help you understand this better - I understand you are new to the editing community and may not be aware of these and other regulations. However, blind reverting will not get you anywhere since there are many eyes looking at this article and all of us having Internet connections just like yours. Too many edits will get you banned, so try to work it out amicably instead. --Punekar (プネカル) 11:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti Muslim Bias

Punekar, U said the books have to be in publication sections and gave some names Robert Grant and Pat Robertson. have u checked their articles if u have not plz go and chck it. one doesnot have any books and one have books in a section called books and thats what i did with Dr. Naik. Dont show ur jealousness of Dr. Naik proofs with hatred on his page. You said it is not his page but a page on him thats what i am saying its a page on him not his critism page even though u wrote lot of views and info about him which shows him in negative aspect. you have not given any positive info about him and when i give that u just revert it even though it has references and extra info about him. you are saying there are hundreds of eyes looking at this article. I know there are hundreds of Anti Naik bias eyes are looking at this article but dont forget there are some eyes which are watching these anti Naik eyes like you as well so be careful when u revert. if some data in edited try to edit it to get npov but dont revert it. will u like if i go and put all critism on hindu articles live Ravi shankar and ur fav article 'no' thats why dont just vandalise this page just because u hate this guy who is called Doctor Genius. if u want to prove him wrong why dont u go and call ur hindu gurus to come and debate him infront of live audience. regarding Bilal philips views its a different site and there are different resources with which u can get these info so dont delete it. Mak82hyd 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mak82hyd's edits/ Naik puffery

Books section

'Mak82hyd - if you realize, there are more than one kind of publication. Books are published, as are CDs and movies. In the Naik publications section, you will find a link to books and a video. If you have seen the Pat Robertson page, you will have noted that the Books section on that page is right at the bottom. Before that you have the biographical information, views, criticisms and finally ends with references. Why should the Naik article not follow the standard wikipedia format ?

Bilal Section

This section is so POV, it's hard to figure out where to begin. Let's look at the language point by point:

- As A medical doctor by professional training, Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion.
Dr. Zakir Naik clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptions about Islam, using the Qur'an, authentic Hadith and other religious
Scriptures as a basis, in conjunction with reason, logic and scientific facts
This line is already in the bio in the first para. Why duplicate?
- He is 37 years old
If you haven't noticed, there is the date of birth mentioned explictly under his photo. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and cannot have an age that is only relevant at the time of writing. Comprende ?
- Philips says Dr. Zakir is popular for his critical analysis and convincing answers to challenging questions posed by audiences after his public talks.
In the last 6 years (by the year 2002), Dr. Zakir Naik has delivered more than 600 public talks in the U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait,
Qatar, Bahrain, South Africa, Mauritius, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong, Thailand, Guyana (South America) and many other countries, in addition
to numerous public talks in India.
This is what Bilal has to say. This is not an article about what Bilal thinks. It is an article about Naik. See the problem  ? I still see some relevant information in this line - which I suggest be compressed into a refenciable precis. Do you understand what a precis is ?
I would put this under Naik supporters -
The Deedat section is also poorly written and is punctuated with POV everywhere. As an example, here are adjectives found in there - world-famous, popular etc. This *cannot* stay.
Also, there is the entire list of what Phillips's website writes about Naik. Have you read or seen an encyclopaedia, my friend? I mean, seriously?

Other edits

Also, in the spate of your blind reverts, I notice you have edited out the following, and I would like to hear your reasoning behind it:

- The subsection in Views on Support for Osama bin Laden. This comes with a verfiable reference - namely, a video featuring Naik himself.

- The subsection in Views on Analogy of Father and Son. Again this is verifiably referenced with Naik quotes.

- Hijab subsection - the line about hijab for men is so grammatically wrong, it makes me wince. Here's the line -

"To the men, Islam prescribes to turn away their gaze if they happen to unintentionally look at stranger women, so that they can avoid immodest thoughts which might enter their minds.".

This needs to read

"For men, he prescribes looking away from women if immodest thoughts enter their minds."

- Debates section - the entire FAQ from can be a refenciable link. Reproduction of text is over the top, and certainly POV.

- Ali Sina section - this section was deleted by you totally. The reason this section found a home under Debates was because of a consensus between Naik supporting editors and the community at large. Unless this section is kept, the entire debates section will be deleted. Please look through discussion history to get a perspective on this.

- Naik's critics section - the quote by RaviShanker was deleted. Again, if the's fawning quotes can remain, why must this go away?

- External Links - all anti-Naik links were deleted. If this is not POV whitewashing, what is?

I will retain the Bilal section marking it POV pending rewrite. I will be the bigger man here until I see some kind of consensus building.

punekar, U have done some good job but it still looks more as anti Naik than about Naik. I hope u will think about it and make it more npov. In the books and publication section U wrote PRO Naik publications its just laughable mate. its his publications and debates. just list it like that. let people who read and listen to them decide what they think. I think u r right in saying section on osama and others remaining are fine. if we are here to discuss i suggest u remove the puffery word as I can call u bias as well. i leave it on you to decide. i will appreciate if u want to make it npov. when bilal section in supporters list why cant so called ali sina challenge is in criticism section is it not pov. and giivng CIA site as reference and saying most of Naiks examples are wrong is just pov. I think what deedat said should be there atleast in his supporters section. u have put anti naik sites first will it not be better to put in the other links section i think Anti Naik section is pov. lets debate with honesty and make this article npov but if u make it more anti Naik bias then remember as u r ready I am ready for the revert war as well. If u make it more Anti Naik Ill make it more Naiks. and If u make it npov ill make it npov as well. Thanks for helping me with this article. Mak82hyd 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets try and make it NPOV

I have made some edits nothing added but just modified if anybody wants to change it please discuss it. I think the present article looks like more npov as it shows both positive and negative views. please discuss if u want a change. Mak82hyd 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Questioning You Tube

Can videos posted randomly on the internet (like You-Tube) be considered reliable sources of what Dr. Naik says to his audiences? I think we must get more reliable sources.Bless sins 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If the videos have him standing there talking I see no reason why. --Zybez (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Slimming down

While Zakir Naik is relevant, he does not justify the mass of information added to his biography which sounds very much like a hagiography.

What's the point of reproducing what Bilal Philips, Ahmed Deedat have to say about him ? you could just as well post 200 other opinions on him.

Also, linking all his material at the Islamic Research Foundation is useless. Interested people will go to IRF and find anything they need (his presence on IRF is conspicuous enough).

Inshort : Wikipedia should not be used as an unpaid advertisement for Dr Z and his dawah material. This is an encyclopedia, not a commercial site.

Best regards Giordaano 15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Naik aficionados are incorrigible.

I notice that the old claim about Naik knowing by heart all results of cricket test matches from 1925 onwards is back again in the article.

Did the International Cricket Council verify this claim ? is it relevant ? more importantly, why does Naik neglect results of matches played before 1925 ? what's so special about 1925 in cricket history ? was he just too lazy to study those old results ?

Anyway, the debate on this particular issue rages on, also outside of wikipedia. Check [7]

Most people are skeptical about this claim

All the best Giordaano 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Giordaana, He does not claim anyhting, its claimed by his supporters thats why it is there. and regarding ur wuestion about why deedat and bilal opinions are there. they are there beacause there is critism section and Ali sina section critisising him so there should be his supporters section as well. plz dont revert just coz hate him. i am trying to be npov and did my best but u seems to be anti naik and reverting him. if it goes on I will report u to be blocked. Mak82hyd 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Misquoted and preposterous!

Many things Dr. Zakir says have been misquoted. To understand what he says fully, u need to listen to his whole speech but in here only a few parts are given as if they have been given so that people can critiscize him. Is not wikipedia a "neutral encyclopdia"!! Let me give u a simple example of misquotation, if a good man says "That robber is destroying people's property. We must catch that man and beat him." You just quote "We.....beat him" and then the wholw world comes to know that good man to be bad! This is precisely what happens in this article. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT NEUTRAL. THIS IS THE 1ST TIME I SAW SUCH A "BIASED" ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA, THIS IS THE 1ST TIME WIKIPEDIA HAS LET ME (and many more ppl) DOWN. SOMEONE PLEASE DELETE THIS BIASED ARTICLE. (Ahnaf 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

ahnaf, I have worked on this article to take out the biased nature, but whenever i try there are lots of anti naik and anti muslim biased people here, so they always take things out of context and put it here. we can just try our best. i invite u to work on this article and others to remove the bias nature of this anti naik people. they want Ali sina comments who is not notable according to wikipedia and deleted but they dont want comments from Ahmed deedat and bilal philips who are great scholars and recognised even by wikipedia. still i would like to tell u one thing I recognised here is there is too much anti muslim bias and this wikipedia is not npov encyclopedia but more like athiest or christian encyclopedia. and also try as well. peace. Mak82hyd 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is a disaster

Why on earth should this article give long excerpts of what Naik thinks about everything and anything, and include long quotations from the "Glorious Quran"? in fact, why should so much space be dedicated to Naik ?

The article should be an expose of Naik's ideas, but not an anthology of quotations on whatever he may think on the most disparate subjects. Why not post hundreds of pages from his books, while we're at it ? That's not the way to construct a good article. The link section also has reached proportions very near to link spamming.

As it is, the article is hopeless. I have tried to tidy it up a bit, but it really seems a propaganda leaflet for Naik and his Islamic Research Foundation.

NPOV ? well...erm...Giordaano 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

G Giordaano 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not Zakir Naik exposed aticle . Its about what he says & what he does . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Giordaano, this is what I have been saying since day one, this should be a wiki biography article, not something to blabber about his thoughts :/ but this is hopeless here. Akeeq 05:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, one hell of a bottomless basket. Best would be to allow only admin to edit this one so that this so called neutral article can be turned into a "readable" one. Peace be on us all. ( 16:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

Giordano says:

I have reduced the article to more reasonable proportions. Long quotations from Naik's work, or from the Quran, have no place in an encyclopedia.

One of the problems of this article is that, since most contributors don't have English as their first language, there is the temptation to include long quotes from Naik's texts. This, however, should be avoided; if possible, a clear exposition of his ideas should replace this random anthology of bits and pieces from his works.

Whenever possible, quotes of the Quran should be replaced by a link to the relevant Surah.

Wikipedia is non-confessional. All this talking about the "noble" Quran takes a confessional point of view. Why also should we always have "Dr. Zakir Naik ?" does anyone speak of "Dr. Sigmund Freud" ?

Someone (preferably of English mother tongue) should also review the language.

Any volunteers ? All the best Giordaano 09:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I attempted the difficult task of making something out of this random mass of material. Attention, please, future editors : it's not possible to insert things like "Naik proved that..." or "Naik successfully showed that..." etc etc. Those are personal opinions.

I also think that judgements on Naik by other people should be linked, but not reproduced "in extenso" on this page.

Also, more attention should be given to grammar. All the best Giordaano 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have actually done is revert back that version that is forced by POV pushers, vandalising important information. Please desist. The quotations definitely need to be reduced . Cheers! F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention : go to the page on Sigmund Freud, or Jaques Lacan. Both these people are medical doctors, but their contribution to culture was mainly as philosophical thinkers.

For this reason, no one speaks of "Dr. Sigmund Freud", or "Dr. Jacques Lacan".

For the same reason, it's ridiculous to have all the time "Dr. Zakir Naik". It's a naive attempt to impress people with his academic title. Naik is not famous as a practicing doctor, but as a dawah preacher.

On the article : it's full of repetiotions. The same books and videos are quoted, repeated. We have quotations by Naik, and quotations by people (Deedat, Phillips) about Naik etc etc

I have tried to clean-up somehow, but we are far from an acceptable text.

I am under no illusion that my reasons will convince those who are persuaded that expressions such as "Dr. Zakir Naik convincingly affirmed that etc etc" have their place on an encyclopedia article.

All the best Giordaano 13:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

you have said what you felt as Naik advertising but never questioned things which are anti naik and not npov. it looks lik u want all -ve of naik to stay there and +ve to be deleted. is it fair? is it npov? what u talking about. talk as npov or keep it shut. Mak82hyd 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indicated my reasons in the above post.Please, feel free to criticize the anti-naik part of the page. Or keep it shut.Giordaano 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I have tried to make a more readable page, by weeding out most of the quotes. Still, the links section contains many useless duplicates. It should still be reviewed.Giordaano 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is back in its rambling form, with useless subdivisions and subchapters, and does not present Naik's views in any coherent way. It is simply a series of quotes by Naik or on Naik, full of repetitions etc etcGiordaano 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

removal of mention of support for Osama bin Laden

Mak82hyd has reverted the article to a version that does not contain Zakir Naik's clear, stated support for Osama bin Laden. This has the effect of whitewashing the article, and so I am reverting it. Wikipedia needs to report facts. — coelacan talk — 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am adding his support. why should not I, even i am proud to support him, he is terrorist to terrorist, even police is terrorist to criminals, one person terrorist is others freedom fighter, In indian independence people who fought for independence are called terrorists, but in india they are celebrated now. even Uk acknowledge it that they are freedom fighters.Mak82hyd 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Every Muslim should be a terrorist to anti social elements in society(naiks view and mine Mak82hyd 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Indian freedom fighters did not fly planes into buildings or massacre women and children willfully. OBL is a lot of things but he fights for nobody's freedom but his own. Indian Freedom fighters, even the violent ones, never willfully targeted civilians like OBL does. The worst instance of terrorist acts by Indian Freedom Fighters was B.B.D bag/Bagha Jatin, and even they regretted that civilians lost their lives. I personally consider Jatin Das to be a terrorist and have no respect for him at all, and I am a fully patriotic Indian. OBL has no such regret. He revels in the deaths of women and children (look at what Taliban did under his direction).Mujahids may have had a moral ground during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but afterwards they became the greatest evil in the world since Nazis.

Indian Freedom Fighters did not want to spread extremist religion all over the world like OBL does but fought for a secular free society. Please don't insult their legacy by comparing them to somebody like OBL. Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down guys Thats what You think of Indian Freedom fighters(or Terrorists) as they are thought by british at that time and even others. what I understand from mak words id OBL might be terrorist for some and freedom fighter for others and I totally agree with him. You are thinking him as terrorist and may be in future he will be regarded as a famous freedom fighter who stood against a imperial , dictator, and monopoly coutry(America). 12:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, this "for anti-social elements inthe society" bit, I don't see any reference for it. I think that amounts to WP:Original research — coelacan talk — 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Terrorism (book) check the reference he says that only for antisocial elements in paragraph 5. I have added it to article. thanks for pointing out. regards. Mak82hyd 20:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mak82hyd. Finding common ground with someone who proudly supports OBL might seem a daunting task, but hey, I suppose that OBL himself may be on wikipedia, having a go at "his" own page.

In any case, part of this Zakir Naik page seem written by Dr Z himself. Most of the material that you are posting are quotes from his own IRF site, which is unabashedly self-promotional, to the point of introducing a sort of "personality cult" (this is, of course, my personal point of view).

Should wikipedia simply take over this naive promotional approach ? no, of course.

While it's interesting to see how Naik presents himself, rambling laudatory quotes from his site, repeating ad nauseam the number of successful debates he took part in, or the list of countries he visited, or the plaques he received etc etc serve no useful purpose, and simply make this page (and Naik) look ridiculous.

So, we should weed out such repetitions, and try to write a few (NPOV) paragraphs ourselves, instead of simply quoting material from other pages.

All the best Giordaano 10:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

it is funny that some people will go to any extent to defame dr. Zakir Naik and Islam. This article is the living proof of wikipedia being exploited by a few. Although this article is big and the suthor somehow chooses to select and misquote out of convience and prejeduice. One may also notice the origial website Dr. Zakir Niak is never given in the links section?

A hopeless shambles

This article is a hopeless shambles. Why ?

well, many Muslims consider that the Naik page on wikipedia is an opportunity to duplicate his dawah (Islamic proselytism) efforts on his many websites.

For non-Muslims, this amounts to waving a red (green ?) flag in front of their eyes.

NPOV ? what's NPOV ?Giordaano 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose we stub it to start anew.Proabivouac 09:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
i would like to see this article severely trimmed. the extensive sections are rather unnecessary. ITAQALLAH 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Stubbing would accomplish this. We have the not-uncommon problem where a person is clearly notable enough to merit an article, but there is hardly any material here worthy of retaining. It is better to admit to our readers that we don't have anything enlightening about Mr. Naik to share at this point.Proabivouac 03:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
stubbing seems acceptable, it will also help reduce the edit warring that the article experiences. ITAQALLAH 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess.

I think we should just delete the whole article, and people can go to to look at his biography.

The stub seems just fine.

Now, I'm confidently waiting for all the fascinating details from his numerous websites to reappear, including the gold plaque offered to him by some other preacher, as well as his views on the hookworm, the shameless pigs, cricket test matches etc etc

Acessorily, put in also a couple of paragraphs of "Dr Zakir Naik, Dr Zakir Naik, Dr Zakir Naik " so everyone will understand that he's a doctor.

Seriously, simply lifting tons of quotes from IRF makes no sense whatsoever. A link to it serves the same purpose. Giordaano 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Begin Re-organizing the Article

Let's create a sub-page: Zakir Naik/New Version and edit there. We can also discuss in that talk page. In the meantime, we can ask that this page be locked or something... Rumpelstiltskin223 07:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the new version is good enough and contains enough factual information to be used now. Should we try to replace it now? Hshiwani 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet had occasion to nominate an article for speedy deletion. The revised version of the article would help me gain the experience, as it contains no RS or 3rd party sources whatsoever--see my comments on the talk page there. Assuming he's real, I would think that real sources other than his institute could be found. I advise keeping the aricle on the sub-page until then. DGG 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with 3rd party sources are that they are biased towards him or against therfore it is hard to pick out the correct information. And regarding if he is real or not, if he wasn't real, who is the guy talking in the videos ;) ? I don't agree on keeping it on the subpage as most of the unbiased information on him is already in the article. Hshiwani 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for Bin Laden?

What the reference is borderline propaganda a channel 5 LOCAL NEWS EXCLUSIVE or something that is designed to scare people who are insanely stupid I am not going to edit this claim out because you very well could have a halfway decent EXAMPLE of him supporting Bin Laden --Ggohtrin 10:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggohtrin (talkcontribs) 10:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Summary by Maryam Muslimah

A medical doctor by professional training, Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion. Dr. Zakir Naik clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptionsDr. Zakir Naik about Islam, using the Qur'an, authentic Hadith and other religious Scriptures as a basis, in conjunction with reason, logic and scientific facts. He is 41 years old.

Dr. Zakir is popular for his critical analysis and convincing answers to challenging questions posed by audiences after his public talks. In the last 6 years (by the year 2002), Dr. Zakir Naik has delivered moDr. Zakir Naikre than 600 public talks in the U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, South Africa, Mauritius, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong, Thailand, Guyana (South America) and many other countries, in addition to numerous public talks in India.Dr. Zakir Naik

He has successfully participated in several symposia and dialogues with prominent personalities of other faiths. His public dialogue with Dr. William Campbell (of USA), on the topic, “The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of Science” held in city of Chicago, U.S.A., on April 1, 2000 was a resounding success.

Sheikh AhDr. Zakir Naikmed Deedat, the world famous orator on Islam and Comparative Religion, who had called Dr. Zakir, "Deedat plus" in 1994, presented a plaque in May 2000 awarded to Dr. Zakir Abdul-Karim Naik for his achievement in the field of Da’wah and the study of Comparative Religion with the engraving "Son what you have done in 4 years had taken me 40 years to accomplish, Alhamdullilah.”Dr. Zakir Naik

Dr. Zakir Naik appears regularly on many international T.V. Channels in more than 100 countries of the world. He is regularly invited for T.V. and Radio interviews. More than a hundred of his talks, dialogues, debates and symposia are available on video cassettes, video CDs and audio cassettes. He has authored books on Islam and Comparative Religion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryam Muslimah (talkcontribs)

Naik's views

While I'm against including long extracts from Naik's works, I think that the reader should have an idea of the subjects Naik deals with in his talks. A few video-links are therefore, in my view, appropriate.

Any deletion should be properly motivated on the discussion page.Giordaano 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Video links are definitely appropriate, although long extracts would not. I have seen lectures of his in English, so it should be possible to find them. However I strongly support having a section on the concepts he deals with. Just a week back, I saw a lecture of his on "Peace channel" (Islam translated to english means peace). He was talking about the similarities between Hinduism and Islam. His views are presented quite well, and his audiences have steadily grown in the last 2 odd years that I have seen them. Having an article without a section on his works is definitely incomplete. I'll do my best to find references of his work, just wanted to say I support the cleanup of this page and support any NPOV additions about his works and talks. Thanks xC | 06:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centaur. The problem is : we already went through all this. We added sections and sections on Naik's views, and the more we added, the more it became controversial.

Why ? well, simply because Naik's views are very controversial, and to present them in a NPOV fashion is, apparently, almost impossible. If you want to check on that, have a look at the videolinks at the bottom of the page.

So, the best option, in my view, is to keep the article as short and simple as possible.Giordaano 09:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are several ideas of his which have caused controversy. I still believe it is possible to provide a well-balanced brief summary of each idea that he discusses, with adequate refs, of course.
If we have an article about him without the very substance that he talks about, then we aren't providing a very good encyclopedic article. At the very least, his ideas could be listed in the article.
I would like to point out that not all his ideas are controversial. Some of his suggestions are, yes, extreme; but some of the points he raises are quite rational. Again, I would strongly propose a brief listing of the main concepts he discusses or talks about.
Looking forward to your views on this. Also, if you're thinking about how to go about putting it in a non-controversial manner, well have a look at Talk:Holocaust denial. Controversial topics will create problems for editors trying to present a balanced article, but it must be done, no matter how many edit wars or rambling discussions it takes. Why, even Mother Teresa's article had issues crop up - Talk:Mother Teresa. Lets give it another chance, I'm sure all the editors could come to some sort of agreement. Thanks xC | 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centaur

well, have a look at how the Naik page had developed months ago : it did tackle many subjects on which Naik had expressed opinions, but views were so polarized that we got absolutely nowhere. Also, the page rapidly became an anthology of quotes from Naik's works. In my view, we should avoid repeating the same errors, and keep the page short and factual. Anyone who is interested in more details on Naik's views can find everything he wants easily, on IRF and Naik's personal page.Giordaano 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As indicated, please, discuss changes on these pages.Giordaano 09:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

determining what videos to link to is subjective, as demonstrated by the fact that you are insisting upon videos on particular topics. this is quite simply unacceptable tendentious editing, in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. i suggest we link to a neutral directory of videos, and keep it at that already got one linked to. ITAQALLAH 02:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Naik has dealt with a huge number of subjects (just check the previous versions of the article if you want to find out). We cannot list them all. Any selection is of course subjective, but it should (at least in theory) be possible to agree on which ones are the most important. E.g. his views on non-Muslims are, in my opinion, quite important, especially in a society like the Indian one.

I think however, that we should avoid pasting extracts from his works or simply reproducing (quoting) what other people have said about him.Giordaano 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

re: [8], please see WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. edits like these are not in line with encyclopedic policy. ITAQALLAH 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. We don't need a secondary source for the views he promulgates via books and other media. Arrow740 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
in the light of the fact that the passage is a BLP violation, and a POV interpretation of a primary source, i consider your reactionary revert to be vandalism. ITAQALLAH 07:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I watched the damn thing, and the translations and the summary we have here are quite correct. The reactionary is you with your removal of damning information. Arrow740 09:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If Itaqallah feels that Naik was mistranslated or misinterpreted he can, of course, edit the way this is presented; However, since we mention the subjects Naik deals with in his talks/interviews, it's impossible not to mention the subject of non-Muslims' rights in Muslim lands. As one can imagine, this is of extreme importance, especially in India.Giordaano 12:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
accusing someone of "advocating the curtailment of freedoms" is your spurious and biased interpretation of a primary source. it amounts to a WP:BLP violation against a living person. yes Arrow740, per WP:BLP we are required to excise "damning information" when it is as poorly sourced and involves as much interpretive bias as this.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.

Giordaano, whatever you feel is "extremely important" may not be so. find a high quality secondary source making your specific point if you wish to convince others that it truly is important. ITAQALLAH 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On the video linked to the paragraph you are deleting, Zakir Naik explains why, in an Islamic State, non-Muslims should not be allowed to propagate their religions, just like in non-Muslim States no one can teach that 2+2=5. If you think my paragraph indicates bias, please provide a better one on that same subject.

Yes, in my view this issue is very important. Please, explain why it isn't.Giordaano 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "If you think my paragraph indicates bias, please provide a better one on that same subject." as per the quote i provided, we must use secondary sources. i can't seem to find a reliable source stating what you want inserted. can you?
  • "Yes, in my view this issue is very important. Please, explain why it isn't." - it's not important just because you believe it to be important. if it's important, it is bound to have been covered by a reliable secondary source. please stop inserting libellous material until you re-express it and find a good secondary source stating it. ITAQALLAH 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the translation correct? Yes. Is the summary correct? Yes. Are these words coming out of Naik's mouth? Yes. Let's move on. And stop calling it libel, the correct term is Sharia. Arrow740 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
the correctness of the translation doesn't matter. look at it this way, would Zakir Naik agree that he is "advocating the curtailment of freedoms.." "suppression of rights" etc.? no, it is a POV deduction from the video (primary source), and a BLP violation. consult the quote above as well as the rest of WP:BLP. by the way, stop soapboxing, Arrow. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What's your problem with the latest thing you reverted: "Naik is also on record [9] advocating the suppression of the rights of non-Muslims to worship outside their homes or teach about their faith in an Islamic country." Arrow740 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
the sentence embodies a clear agenda to smear Zakir Naik. "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability". apart from the fact that it still includes emotive wording such as "on record" and "suppression of the rights", that this insertion seems to be POV driven and a selective analysis dictates that we demand a high quality secondary source. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I suppose that you have a high quality secondary source specifying about Naik that "Topics he speaks on include: "Islam and Modern Science", "Islam and Christianity", and "Islam and secularism", among others". Or is that perhaps somehow selective and POV drivenGiordaano 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ?

yes, indeed i do. it is sourced to Thomas Hansen. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
as i have provided a secondary authoritative source for assertions present in the article, perhaps you should do the same. why don't you prove that its relevance extends beyond your own perception by furnishing a good secondary source? ITAQALLAH 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not distorted the content of Naik's declaration: please, prove otherwise. Nowhere is it specified that we cannot use primary sources. It is extremely reductive to base the whole article simply on the Thomas Hansen book.Giordaano 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

please address the questions. use secondary sources to prove that this view of Naik's merits mention above others, thereby proving its notability, as i have done. otherwise, it becomes a POVmagnet for you to post those views which you perceive as controversial. ITAQALLAH 14:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
as for this edit summary, why don't you look at this? in fact, you were a significant participant in that POV mess, so you know exactly what i am talking about. the consensus was to stub it and stop it from including his views referenced to primary sources. please stop this counter-productive editing. ITAQALLAH 15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be OK, if we had more secondary sources. As it is, we have only the Hansen book. In this situation, in order to give more comprehensive view, you have to resort to his writings. I agree that we should however avoid quoting from his texts. Giordaano 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"As it is, we have only the Hansen book" that is what establishes his notability, and thus the viability of this article. "In this situation, in order to give more comprehensive view, you have to resort to his writings." not at all, we relate what reliable secondary sources have stated about his opinions, and that is all - because it is secondary-source commentary which has made him notable in the first place. we do not resort to cherrypicking controversial 'opinions' from lectures found on youtube as you have done, as that includes an element of significant bias and original research. please do not revert citing talk when the concerns have not been resolved. ITAQALLAH 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly legitimate, if not presented in a distorted fashion. Please refrain from deleting text until the issue is resolvedGiordaano 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

there is no reason to suggest this view is notable, you have simply cherrypicked a particular view of his. as you have not proven the notability of this view (i.e. by showing coverage from a reliable secondary source), there is no reason to include it. ITAQALLAH 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • rather interesting that you don't post on talk when the article is set to your version. you have inadequately addressed the concerns on this page, and as such i am removing the particular statement as per WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As a small suggestion in this controversy, I suggest to check the arabic article here about Zakir Naik by someone. Maybe this will give us an idea about how the matter was solved there.--Wisamzaqoot 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Zakir Naik as a showman

  • It is important to mention the critical views of the people who consider him as a showman. pls do not revert information only because somebody dont like it. phippi46 10:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This source [10] is another criticism, but the journalist was guarded, so I found it difficult to use it as a source. John Vandenberg 10:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that the journalist links "Last year" and "last week" to infer Islamic leaders do not want the likes of Naik to visit Australia. I recall there being a number of articles about the visit, but havent been able to find a better online article yet. John Vandenberg 10:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
FFI is not a reliable source. Per WP:BLP we should only cite relaible sources for criticism. WP:BLP says "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically."Bless sins 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
i concur. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As do I.Proabivouac 19:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Any web site will be unsourced or un realible, if we accept your argument. What about the website of Zakir Naik himself. there is no way to judge this, so pls do not remove the editing, only becasue you dont like it. phippi46 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Phippi46, I completely agree that Naik's website is not a reliable source, and have put much effort into removing content sourced to it. See also Islamic Research Foundation and Peace TV, also Saudi Gazette which Jayvdb just now created to support its citation here and on Peace TV.Proabivouac 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, please do not roll back Peace TV again. Saudi Gazette is a reliable source until you have evidence that it is not! John Vandenberg 04:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, Jaydvb: the burden of notability and reliability are yours.
In the meantime, do not mislabel my or any otheer good faith edits as "vandalism," and do not misuse anti-vandalism tools to edit war.Proabivouac 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created the article Saudi Gazette with evidence of its appropriateness as a reliable source. You are of course free to dispute that, but so far you have come up with nothing.
Your harassment of my contributions in this area are not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. You have yet to provide a good reason why Peace TV should not be mentioned on this article. John Vandenberg 04:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
i don't know much about the Saudi Gazette, but reliability is a notion that must be proven - it is not assumed until disproven. if one can show that the SG is considered a reputable and respected media outlet then there should be no problem with it. ITAQALLAH 09:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Good faith should be assumed of fellow editors, in the interests of reducing friction. The source that I provided was reputable, has an ISSN, and I wrote a stub (Saudi Gazette) to document evidence that it has been pumping out daily newspapers for 30 years. Whats more the source is only being used to demonstrate that Naiks' events and videos are being transmitted on Peace TV, of which he is also the director. This is hardly a leap of faith that is being asked, and there are many other sources that back this up. I have stuck to my guns on using this source because it is a very informative piece that I think the reader should read if they are going into "fact checking mode". John Vandenberg 12:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
i did a quick search, and the Gazette does appear to be cited by other well known organisations[11][12][13], which may be a factor in indicating reliability. as for the FFI material, that is certainly unreliable. ITAQALLAH 09:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
FFI material is a reliable source for the opinion of FFI and Ali Sina. Criticisms by other notable organisations and people are acceptable inclusions in a BIO. Please note that in the Criticisms section, I am only cleaning up the work of Phippi46 (talk · contribs) that I have restored. I have no qualms with others altering the wording to be more neutral, but removing sourced content is not acceptable unless it is accompanied with discussion that is intended to be productive. John Vandenberg 12:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Vandenberg,J, you have to understand the very basic policy of Wikipedia and its neutrality, you are tyring to prove and support a bias Artical, only on Zakir Naik, in order to mentain neutrality, we must present ciritics views as well, if you say that this is not the case, then you should read the reference, where Zakir Naik's organization was involved in communication with FFI. so please do not remove Edits, without any ground. phippi46 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can use the material related to Ali Sina or FFI even if we supposed that it is a reliable source. Usually we take criticisms from an academic reference or from a person (or a report, organization... etc.) that gives NPOV material. Ali Sina (and FFI) can't be considered as an academic reference nor a NPOV source simply because he dedicated himself to support a specific trend (NO matter whether we support it or not). Clearly this is not a neutral source.
I remember that I found some Salafi scholars critisizing Naik (Arabic resources), but I am not sure whether I can depend on these sources yet becuase of lacking neutrality. --Wisamzaqoot 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP:"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." - i don't believe either of the criteria are met in this instance. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The current criticisms section does have issues, which is why I clearly mentioned that I had not written it when I restored it. My personal opinion is that we run afoul of NPOV if we do not mention any criticisms, but BLP trumps NPOV these days, so I'll concede on keeping the Criticisms section off the article until a better version has been written. John Vandenberg 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Google News Archives shows FFI has been mentioned by reliable sources in relation to Zakir Naik. The articles involved cost money to view; maybe someone here has access to LexisNexis ? p.s. I going offline for the rest of today. John Vandenberg 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali Sina's opinion in no way belongs in this article. Who is he to have his opinion here? Ibn Shah 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ali is notable, for one. Two the news link is a reliable source. For Ali's notability, see the Ali Sina's external links, for example the Asia Times coverage. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
why are you linking to a disambiguation page? why not link to the actual title of the article itself? ITAQALLAH 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Because its easier to type that than FFI. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ali Sina is not notable for Wikipedia. If he were notable enough, he would have his own article - that's simple. I can quite easily find articles about random people from random sources at any time and claim that they are notable, but that's not how this encyclopedia works. Consensus has shown that he is not notable; otherwise, again, he would have his own article. The news source may be a reliable source for Ali Sina's opinion, but that does not indicate that the opinion itself is a reliable source as a description for Zakir Naik. Plus, he is an extremist, and the only place his opinions would be relevant is on his own article page, if he had one. If you want to establish that he is a reliable source, please list his academic qualifications or credentials and then we can discuss it further. Ibn Shah 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I will continue to remove this statement unless it can be proven that Ali Sina is reliable, and his opinion here of Zakir Naik is notable and worthy of inclusion. It must also be shown that Ali Sina's criticism is relevant to Zakir Naik's notability as per this section of the BLP policy. I do believe that removing WP:BLP violations are not subject to the 3RR rule. Ibn Shah 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
i think the source is appropriate. Sina's obvious unreliability doesn't necessarily detract from the fact that a decent third party publication states his view on the matter. then again, i am starting to think that Sina's opinion doesn't merit mention here. for one, the article clearly knows nothing about Sina (it describes him as a "moderate Islamist" - is this paper really as reliable as we currently deem?), and Sina's non-notability is already established as per community consensus. ITAQALLAH 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
ah... that BLP link ("If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.") appears to be quite relevant too. i have removed the passage for now pending the fulfilment of the latter clause quoted above and general demonstration that Sina's opinion belongs here. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That reliable thirdparty link is the News website link - its there already. Your application here would be valid if the Ref we gave for the statement was Ali Sina's own website. If you guys want, we can have the FFI article renamed to Ali Sina because technically as Itaqallah said, all the RS's talk about Ali Sina in detail, not FFI. I think this will be beneficial, because unless FFI itself as an organization does something that is discussed by 3rd party sources, then an article should not be created in its name, plus, FFI is all about Ali Sina anyway. Ali is almost all there is to it and besides like in this case, we can use Ali Sina more frequently than we can use FFI because of Ali being mentioned in much more detail in 3rd party sources as compared to FFI. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with a year ago

It appears this article has had a long battle against FFI, with blogs commenting on it back in July 2006[14]. Looking at a version from that era indicates that the current article has less information that it did a year ago. Anyone familiar with why that is? John Vandenberg 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi John this is because Naik is a highly controversial figure. The article, one year ago, consisted mostly of quotes from Naik's works: the anti-Naiks would seek out the most ridiculous quotes from his webpages/videos etc while the pro-Naiks would indulge in unabashed personality cult. This is why the article was stubbed. Slowly, slowly, the present article starts resembling the old one. By the way, the articles on Naik in Wales can be found e.g. here, cost-free [15] (Giordaano)

This comment of mine was removed by Matt 57 (who also asked me to sign my comments)-

"Hey ! we have a new vandal, called Welcome to the Dr Z article (Giordaano)"

Dear Matt: it's against wikiprinciples to edit the discussion page. That name in brackets is my name: Giordaano Giordaano 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if we can find reliable 3rd party sources, all those ridiculous quotes of Naik should be brought back. If there's any "responses" to those quotes, they should also come from RS. Everything on Naik's website qualifies for RS, for the quotes he has said. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, we don't need for the article to get too bloated. On the other hand, there is an amount of controversy surrounding the man and readers need to be aware of that. Perhaps we could make a separate section called "Controversy"? It should be possible to find some third party sources detailing people's criticisms of and issues with the guy. MezzoMezzo 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Criticism would be better--SefringleTalk 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

David Davies comments

I am looking for the response of Dr. Zakir Naik on the comments of David Davies, but I didn't find anything on the internet. Does anyone know about the response of Dr. Naik.

On the other hand, can anyone give us a link to the video where he called the americans pings (I don't think that he said such thing, but let's see). --Wisamzaqoot 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing these comments. According to the guidlines of 'biographies of living persons', it shouldn't be potentially libelous.

If it's a libel, it's a problem for Davies and the newsapaper, not for wikipêdia. Remember that we are simply quoting a reliable secondary source, i.e. "South Wales Echo". The quote should stay. In any case, Naik has mentioned many times that Americans indulge in wife-swapping because, by eating pork, they behave like pigs... just scroll back in this discussion, or check the page as it was 6 months ago, or go to .(Giordaano)

Exactly, you have to worry libel only if its not a 3rd party. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are continuous changes to the page, but no one is discussing them. Sad.Giordaano 08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to add a bibliography to the article, this should be done in the usual form: exact title, date, place of publication etc etc In my view, the links at the bottom of the page are sufficient: they give access to his main articles, as well as to the videos of his conferences. Why repeat those lists in the body of the article ? Giordaano 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


I removed the claims that Naik is a muslim scholar, becuase this is an unsourced claim. There is no evidence within this article that he is a scholar. SefringleTalk 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I will gather the material for you. He is a Hafiz and had studied at prestigious Islamic schools.
Here is a list referring to him as a scholar:
Not only on Islamic websites do they refer to him as a scholar but on the back of his books and DVDs aswell. Robert C Prenic 07:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Zakir Naik is not just an Islamic scholar, he mastered Hinduism, Christianity and other religions. You see this on the debates over religions on Peace TV. Dr. Zakir Naik memorized the Koran as well as many Hadiths, the Bible, all Hindu books, etc. He is unbelievable, he should be the father of all scholars in my opinion. here is one more source explaining his bio [16]--LloydHawk 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Reguarding your last revert, you can't just call edits you don't like "racist anti-muslim" edits (especially when they came from a muslim). Anyway, the older version was better. Yahel Guhan 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. You're suppose to start introduction with the most important points, not mention someone's ethnicity with their occupation. Ethnicity belongs in the biography, which is a detailed description. Also, what he thinks about the Muslim youth is not suppose to go in the intro, that's just the opinion of only one person.--LloydHawk 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of which version is better, please assume good faith. It looks extremely foolish when you make such off-the-deep-end accusations, especially to anyone who's aware of Itaqallah's religious persuasion.--C.Logan 04:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

section bloating

Considering that the Criticism section is almost as large as all of the other sections combined, I think this article is fast becoming a WP:COATRACK and in violation of WP:BLP. This is not the place to list every attack that can be unearthed. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all valid and well sourced criticsm so there's no issue of BLP. We cant get rid of anything in the criticism section. Its all well sourced and very relevant considering the fame of this speaker. Why dont you find stuff to fill up the other sections, instead of trying to cut out the criticism? I dont think there's any policies we're violating here. People need to see the truth about this guy. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 16:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Also I see your fear but dont worry: this is probably going to be all the criticism that this guy will get. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That the criticism is "valid" (which has nothing to do with whether it merits inclusion) and sourced is not sufficient. Currently, the criticism takes up 1,614 characters (294 words), the rest of the article in prose is only 1,267 characters (237 words) - barring the lead which is just a summary. That's what I call overwhelming the article, and a WP:UNDUE problem, as stated in WP:BLP#Criticism:

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

This article isn't a coatrack for every critique ever made. Because of the BLP concerns raised, I shall comment out the excess until a resolution is achieved. ITAQALLAH 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to remove that which I think simply repeats sentiments already expressed. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That was a journalist reporting on an event. I dont think it should be excluded. People need to know about this as well. Its not a minority view by the way. There are many who criticise Naik. Why dont you focus on putting more information in the article in other areas? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any sentiment expressed that hadn't already been repeated? I added as much as possible from Hansen, by the way. I haven't found much else in reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise in Critism of Moham, we have many people who say the same things. That doesnt mean we delete the comments which are similiar. Try to put that stuff back in in another way so it doesnt look "bloated" as you are claiming. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
In that article, however, we don't have the issue of BLP. ITAQALLAH 18:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please summarize Khushwant Singh instead and put that news guy's comments back in. We can remove unnecessary comments but what is important is the number of people from which he got criticism. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some trimming of excess unneeded text from the criticism section and added other information in the article:

Rest of the article (excluding lead): 1717 chars, 318 words

Criticism: 1505 chars, 270 words

Its balanced now and this is as short as we can go. I have improved the lead as well by adding some criticism. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the criticism from the lead as it sounds unduly defamatory and also is unconnected to his notability. I've also done some compressing of the text, a good way to do that is to rely less on quotes. The Sina material has been removed and should not be reinserted without discussion- his absense from this article has been long-standing. ITAQALLAH 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The compression is fine somewhat. Where's the previous discussion for removal of Ali Sina's comments here? We need criticism in the lead. Please put it back or reword it. Also put Cardiff's comment after Khushwant's. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume that by Cardiff you mean David Davies. Davies' comment is in the second paragraph, Khushwant's is in the first. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel Davie's comment should come first and Khushwant's later. Anyway, I'll assess this later. This article is much better than what we had back then. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Itaq, where is the discussion of Ali not being included as a critic? Please add it back. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
By "Ali" do you mean "Ali Sina"? "He" (if such a person exists) is not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Please put back the criticism in the lead first. We can discuss Ali later. Arrow's version of the lead was better than mine. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 08:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A guideline has common-sense exceptions, such as BLP issues. I think mention of criticism in the lead is too much. This appears to be the case in other controversial BLPs also, such as Ann Coulter and Robert Spencer. ITAQALLAH 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine then, I'm ok with the lead not talking about criticism, like we have in the examples you gave. Arrow, that ok with you too? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm currently ok with Ali not being in this article. Everything looks ok except for the arrangement of the criticism. Can you move Khushwant below the Cardiff? The Cardiff criticism is more serious than Khushwant's. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok. ITAQALLAH 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. I didnt know Khushwant was a journalist. I rearranged again, we have all the journalists reports on top (these I think hold more value than others). --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I've made a few slight adjustments (also moved Ahmed's commentary next to the others who make similar comments). ITAQALLAH 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the section is being bloated again. We are under no obligation to report every single incidence, especially when it results in undue and negative focus on this aspect. The controversy sect is currently the largest section in the article, it has no need to be bigger. I have already quoted BLP#Criticism above, so I don't expect to have to do so again. ITAQALLAH 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so the controversy is 50% or so of the rest of the article. How does this violate any policies? Your evaluation is purely subjective. This is an important criticism and of a different kind so it should stay. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
He looks like he's inherently controversial. The internet widely reports on objections made on his comments so this has to be shown in the article. This is not an UNDUE issue, rather its UNDUE if we dont mention the controversies. All of the current controversies are important to be mentioned. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
With that addition, the section outweighs the rest of the article combined barring the lead (which is a summary). 50% of the article dedicated to controversy is massively a WP:UNDUE problem. What part of BLP#Criticism that is quoted above do you need clarification with? Two detailed paragraphs was pushing it, but another paragraph is a complete BLP violation. If you want it included, and I don't believe it needs to be, then reduce the size of the section first. ITAQALLAH 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have included this event, whilst keeping the size of the section roughly the same by removing redundancies or quotes. That should be satisfactory. ITAQALLAH 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply of Zakir Naik on Yazid issue

Plase find below beautiful reply from Ammam Nakhswani on Yazid's Issue. and go to A Reply to Dr. Zakir Naik Regards Shadab —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know why my addition of Ammar's relpy was removed from the article. The facts were properly cited after all. I am reverting to to my version. If any one objects, please notify on the talk page before editing. Muhammad(talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is Ammam Nakhswani, why is he notable, and why is his inclusion necessary here? Furthermore, in no way meets Wikipedia specifications on reliable sources. I think giving excess attention to this issue is not neutral, and is especially problematic on a BLP like this. ITAQALLAH 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ammar Nakshawani is one of the most popular Shia speakers. Since Naik, criticized one of shia Islam's historical viewpoint, it is only fair that the response from a shia scholar be included in his article for the sake of neutral readers to know. Under normal circumstances, al-emaan might not be considered a reliable source, but all that al-emaan does in this case, is to host the speaker's lecture. If you want, I can upload it to you tube. Muhammad(talk) 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Youtube isn't a reliable source either. If his opinion truly is noteworthy, then a third party reliable source will have covered it. For now we don't need any 'responses' from Sunnis/Shias/anyone else with an opinion here. And Naik didn't criticise anything, by the way. ITAQALLAH 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, and it is the duty of an encyclopedia to provide relevant information. Naik spoke something controversial. The rebuttal to his argument should definitely be added to his article. Muhammad(talk) 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. This is an encyclopedia, the suitability of content is decided by our content policies. Currently, the material proposed doesn't meet that. Neither does it meet our BLP policy which says that excess focus on controversy should be avoided on articles about living people (the controversy section is currently the largest in the article it seems). There was no "argument" made by Naik, the furore primarily surrounds his usage of a laudatory phrase, and I think the incident has been given sufficient attention. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
if the controversy section is very long, then why don't we remove some of the other controversies? Why this one specifically? After all that happened due to his remarks, do you really think it is sufficient to have just one sentence describing the controversy? It is the right of the readers to know that someone responded to Naik's allegations. To add to that, the statement "though others believed the comment was blown out of proportion", is not NPOV. Muhammad(talk) 17:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The source, which happens to be a reliable independent one, does say that others thought it was blown out of proportion. One sentence is sufficient, in my view. The reason other controversies haven't been reduced is because they are reliably sourced.
Like I suggested, your argument is much more likely to be stronger if you locate some third party reliable sources relating Nakshawani's specific response (thus demonstrating it is noteworthy). We can then decide on where other coverage can be reduced so as to include this response, if we are to do so at all. ITAQALLAH 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the statement, "though others believed the comment was blown out of proportion", where do you get this from? The reference provided does not directly mention this, and it seems you have assumed it to be so. I still don't understand why a third party source will be required in such a case. Muhammad(talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad, please do not reinsert unreliably sourced material in biographies of living people. WP:BLP makes quite clear that sourcing must be of high standard, and I shall continue to remove poorly sourced content in line with this policy.
As for the issue of blowing out of proportion, the article notes as follows: "However, other Muslim leaders called for calm. Maulana Qasmi from Markaz-ul-Maarif said that some feel too much is being made out of a minor issue. It is better that in the interests of the community, the matter should be closed. Altaf Shaikh, a software engineer, regretted that some vested interests are giving a sectarian color to the issue and creating trouble." ITAQALLAH 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So now suddenly, some software engineer and Maulana Qasmi have become experts? Regarding the lecture of Ammar, a third party reference will be impossible because he spoke these things in the mosque where the news reporters were not present. The lecture from al-emaan should be considered reliable because that is the website of the mosque/community where he gave the lecture. Muhammad(talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
An established news source is a reliable source, and they saw it fit to relate these opinions. Religious partisan websites are not reliable sources. If we don't have a reliable third-party source for a comment, then it's a good indication that we don't need to include it. Please familiarise yourself with WP:SOURCE, WP:RS and WP:BLP. ITAQALLAH 16:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Needs Neutral And Knowledgeable Article Writers

Although it is mentioned in the Wikipedia Article writing rules that the writer's point of view should be neutral, but I myself have seen many examples of attacks, false allegatoins, Xenophobia and Personal hate, on many of the Wikipedia articles regarding Islam and Muslims. For example, Dr. Amir Liaqat Hussain, is one of the most loved religious personalities in Pakistan. Because of his knowledgeable religious tv programmes, many people accepted Islam. Few years back, there was a little controversy regarding his PHD degree. Because the dates mentioned in his Masters and Phd degrees were so close, people thought that his PHD degree was fake. Now, based on this one controversy, a person who was clearly an Anti-Islamist, wrote an article against Amir Liaqat Hussain right here on Wikipedia. And in that article he tried to portray him as a monster, who can destroy the world through his actions and his preaching. There was a huge buch of false allegations in it. And I was like, What? is this website really a neutral encyclopedia?

And as far as this article about Dr. Zakir Naik is concerned, it has always been a product of a person's own thoughts. It has always been filled with lies and misquotations, and false controversies. And the things mentioned in the controversy section are also very naive. If the preacher of a religion tries to prove the superiority of his religion, then is it considered as a controversy? If yes, then a controversy section should be added to the article of every religious personality. And as far as the level of Dr.Naik's talks not going above college level is concerned, if the writer of this article had ever listened to Dr.Naik's talks, He/She would never write such a thing. There's one thing though, Dr. Zakir always tends to speak in a very easy to understand way. So that everyone can understand. And as far as the Welsh MP is concerned who called Dr. Naik as a Hate Mongor, he should be asked for proof. Instead, Dr.Naik always asks Muslims and Non-Muslims to come to common terms and create a Universal Brotherhood.

So my request to the Wikipedia authorities is that they should always check the authenticity of every article and should only allow neutral and knowledgeable writers to write the articles. Otherwise the credibility of Wikipedia will be destroyed. Thank You. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthling2000 (talkcontribs) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section Views on rights of non-Muslims

Dr. Zakir Naik is a very influential religious figure of international reputation.

His views are of considerable signficance.

Note that his views are public and are available as video recordings. You can view the videos yourself.

Removal of this part of the article is inappropriate. If there is anything incorrect, let it be discussed here.--ISKapoor (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Zakir Naik was invited by Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Makhtoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Minister of Defence of the United Arab Emirates, in 1999. He was interviewed by TV commentator Dr. Shahid Masood. Massod asked him a question received from an Indian: "If Muslims are be allowed to propagate their religion in other countries, why should non-Muslims not be allowed to propagate their religion in Islamic countries?"

Zakir Naik responded[2]:

"In some islamic countries, for example in Saudi Arabia etc, propagation of other religions is prohibited. Even construction of any place of worship is prohibited.
...In my reply, I ask the non-Muslims that suppose you are principal of a school and you intend to select a math teacher. Three candidates came and you ask them what will be the total of 2+2. The first replies that 2+2=3 and the second one answers 2+2=4, and the third one answers 2+2=6. I ask these non-muslims that will they allow the candidates to teach in their school who says that 2+2=3 or that 2+2=6? They say no. I ask why? They say because he does not have correct knowledge of mathematics.
Similarly as far as the matters of religion are concerned we know for sure that only Islam is the true religion in the eyes of God. In 3:85 it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong? And when worship is also wrong?
Thus we will surely not allow such wrong things in our country."[3]

Dr. Shahid Masood asked him about a non-Muslim who converts to Islam, and then converts back to a non-Islamic faith. Naik responded:

"if a Muslim becomes non-Muslim, and propagtes his new religion, then there is death penalty for such a person in Islam."[4]
I think the answer as to why this was removed is easily viewable in WP:BLP, so it's best if you read it thoroughly. Who cares about what he thinks about apostates from Islam? Biographies of living people are not the place to spam specific views you have selected, as it's not neutral and not encyclopedic. This article was previously a cruft of all the apparently unsavoury views Naik held, and consensus was to remove it all and build an article based solely upon biographical entries available in reliable sources. This too is in line with the aforementioned policy. ITAQALLAH 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


I have seen WP:BLP. Zakir Naiks views on these topics are important. These are his own words, expressed in front of the interviewer Shahid Masood who is himself a scholar.

Please stop vandalizing the article. It is not about your views, it is about Dr. Zakir Naik. It is not for you to decide that some specific views should be removed because they are "apparently unsavory" according to you.

--ISKapoor (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this has been explained sufficiently above, ISKapoor. This is not the place for you to pursue a tendentious agenda. Either comply with the specifications as mentioned in WP:BLP (that is, providing third party, independent, reliable sources showing the material is in direct connection with his notability), or please cease reinserting this unencyclopedic material. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and mine. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering he is one of the world's best known Islamic scholar, and he regularly interacts with scholars of other religion, his views on the rights of non-Muslims are quite important.--Vikramsingh (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You think it's important. Apparently, multiple reliable sources don't, hence the lack of reliable source coverage. I suggest you read WP:BLP before supporting your colleague ISKapoor. ITAQALLAH 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah: Please stop vandalizing. Don't remove information with proper sources cited.--ISKapoor (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ISKapoor, either ensure your edits conform to WP:BLP, or expect to have this tendentious cruft removed on-sight as per BLP policy. If you continue in this manner, you may very well be blocked. I don't want that, you don't want that. So please cut it out. ITAQALLAH 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please also see, Pakistan's Khaled Ahmed’s article in Daily Times.--ISKapoor (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed's opinion is already in this article. ITAQALLAH 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Regarding your latest edit (that I've prompty reverted) here:
Blog entries are not qualifiable as genuine sources for making citations or references. Your entry of is thus unacceptable. Besides the blog itself has a heading Spreading The Sunni Point of View.
Hope you now understand the reason for my reverting your edits InshaAllah

'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ [17]
  2. ^ Who’s responsible for the stereotypes of Islam? Sudheendra Kulkarni, April 1, 2007
  3. ^ Non-Muslims & Basic Human rights? Zakir Naik
  4. ^ Death Penalty For Apostates (Zakir Naik)