Talk:Tufail Ahmad

Criticism section
Copied below is the criticism section that got added today. Please discuss it and cut it down to two small paragraphs. Anything more than that would be UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The text above that both of you contributed violates several Wikipedia policies.
 * Only published sources can be used as per WP:RS, not blog posts.
 * The text we write should follow WP:NPOV, including material we quote from other authors. Statements that are blatantly opinionated or partisan are not allowed.
 * Finally, by WP:DUE, the material has to proportionate to the overall importance of the issue within the article. If a single op-ed of Tufail Ahmad is being criticised, I am afraid it can be no more than a single sentence keeping the overall size of the article in view.
 * Since this is a WP:BLP page, all these policies are doubly enforced.

Please discuss among yourselves and come up with a consensus piece of text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why dont you edit it, Kautilya3? As you didn't even like my smaller contribution. Satya1757 is man of many words. Moreover, is erasing something better or having it "undue"? Please ask some professional editor to edit to your satisfaction Wikiercomer (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now read the two articles by Tufail Ahmad and Zafarul Islam Khan in Daily-O. Tufail Ahmad says that the Urdu dailies in India propagate radical Islam, and gives several examples. In his supposed critique of the piece, Khan's article is full of polemics. I can accept that MEMRI is a pro-Israeli organisation, but Khan hasn't said that Ahmad himself is pro-Israeli. So it doesn't stick. Moreover, Khan is not a disinterested party either. He himself runs a sectarian newspaper and has plenty of connections to Arab countries.

Of the examples given by Tufail Ahmad:
 * 1) Roznama Sangam characterised Ghazwa-e-Badr as establishing the "philosophy of jihad." This is not contradicted by Khan.
 * 2) Roznama Shaafat said that maal-e-ghanimat is the "most legitimate halal" form of income for Muslims. This is not contradicted by Khan. Khan takes issue with Ahmad interpreting maal-e-ghanimat as "goods seized from non-Muslims" and says it is war booty collected from the battle-ground only. But, Roznama Shaafat is quite explicit: "the infidels are enemies of Allah and their properties are halal". Nothing about battle-ground there.
 * 3) Roznama Inquilab praised the "sprit of jihad" by citing Umar bin Jam who is supposed to have said "Wow, wow, between me and paradise, the only time left is before they kill me." This is not contradicted by Khan.
 * 4) Roznama Sahafat said that the Orlando attack was a conspiracy to make Donald Trump the President. Khan says that it says something milder. OK.
 * 5) Roznama Sahafat said that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by American intelligence agencies. Khan doesn't contradict this.
 * 6) Nai Duniya said that the father of the Orlando shooter was a CIA agent. Khan doesn't contradict this.
 * 7) Nai Duniya justified killing of 700-900 Jews of Banu Quraiza. Khan doesn't contradict this, but justifies the killing himself.
 * 8) Urdu Times said that apostates should be beheaded. Khan couldn't verify it, but disbelieves that it would have said so.

So, only one of the 8 examples has been "refuted," and that too not in any serious way. I don't believe that this article warrants a "criticism" section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This summary makes me laugh. You seem to be a big fan of those cheap keys and guides available to pass exams atleast in North India. The writer of those keys, notes, guides had no idea what the subject it, but still he would write keys and guides for all standards and all subjects. He would come up with funny comparison tables and laughable numerated lists as summaries. You seem to be Tufail's teacher, your misquoting is way above his. We should let other editors to read both articles. As you are a fan of Tufail (as are thousands of Right Wing Hindu Nationalists in India) and you an interested party as you created this Tufail "fan" page. The scholars in the 200 million strong Indian Muslim community had till now ignored this sellout. But not any more. Just today another rebuttal of his article on Turkey which he writes to please his Zionist masters. Here it is. More to come and then we will talk and discuss what is DUE and what is not. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiercomer (talk • contribs)


 * Of the example 4 above with regard to the Orlando shooting story in Roznama Sahafat, Tufail Ahmad noted in his rebuttal piece: "Zafarul Islam's heart is so shut to truth that his eyes refuse to see the article's headline in bold which reads: 'Orlando Shooting – Donald Trump ko Amriki Sadar Bananey ki Saazish (Orlando Shooting – the Conspiracy to Make Donald Trump the American President).'" -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya1757 (talk • contribs)
 * Ok, noted. Will you please remember to sign your posts? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. I will learn how to do it. Satya1757 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)