Talk:Zakir Naik/Archive 5

Back to Hinduism from Islam
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8gvVMDj0Xs&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.198.211 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Views on apostasy
This was edited and then its also uncited and a bit contensious, I did a quick search but some results where looking not WP:RS so I have brought it here for an interested party to cite and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Naik has stated that any Muslim is free to convert out of Islam if the person so chooses, but added that if a Muslim converts and then speaks against Islam it should be considered as treason. Naik stated that under Islamic law this is punishable by death.


 * I fixed it. It was all in the news after Naik had prreched in the Maledives. Please see the references.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Jeff. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

debate with hindu leaders
Hi - a citation was added to this and as a reviewer I had a look at it and the citation was of low quality and primary and all the others were the same in the section - so I have moved the lot of it here - please assert independent notability through WP:RS reliable sources and replace thanks. Cited as it is none of it is wikipedia notable. Scribd docs are not reliable all the others are blogs or primary also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate with Hindu leaders
Naik argued in his writings that the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures allude to the coming of Muhammad.

http://irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201&Itemid=131

This evoked strong criticism from Hindus in general and the Arya Samaj in particular, who consider the Vedas to be revealed texts. Because Naik claimed to have defeated Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in a debate,

http://agniveer.com/terms/eligibility-rules-for-debate/?cid=3144

he was challenged to debate the Arya Samaj on this issue

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8142696/Official-Challenge-to-Dr-Zakir-Naik-by-Sarvdeshik-Arya-Pratinidhi-Sabha

After he refused to officially respond, a detailed rebuttal of Naik's views along with the details of his communications with the IRF was made online by the Arya Samaj

http://agniveer.com/category/misc/zakir-naik/

discussion and comments
Have any independent wikipedia reliable sources reported this? Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-01-22/bangalore/27801779_1_hinduism-zakir-naik-religion Very well known. Please revert. .असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 19:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a small assertion of notability but without any detail all it asserts is that they had a discussion and it attracted people.

In January 2006 at a inter-religious dialog on understanding God in Bangalore in front of large crowds, Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living Foundation and Naik spoke on their concept of God in Hinduism and Islam. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-01-22/bangalore/27801779_1_hinduism-zakir-naik-religion Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it is already there in the Zakir_Naik and I added your citation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was just reading the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the criticism section, and they seem to have personal views in them. e.g. "this proves the unfortunate extent to which dr. naik can go", "dr. naik is making fool of his audience", "if Karbala was political war then why Hussain ibn Ali embarked..." I'm not sure, but they could use some cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisrune (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I missed that. I've removed it all as original research, and a WP:BLP violation. I've informed the editor also. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug. An anonymous user blanked the Fatwa-section, just before you edited it. I guess you overlooked it, but I will not reinstate it, as there is a chance that you kept the deletion on purpose (like another WP:BLP-issue). Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Caliph Yazid
Where is this part gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.12.203 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out a clarification on the sentence regarding the Caliph Yazid. May you please edit the fact that he was not hated by Muslims, but a just a sect of the Muslims. The sentence is very misleading. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.174.80 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Journey to Europe in december, 2011
Zakir Naik plans a journey to Turkey, Bosnia, Kosova and Germany in 2011, december, as a short-film indicates, which shows Naik cruising through the Turkish city of Istanbul by car and accompagnied by German Salafi-sheykh Muhamed Ciftci (Braunschweig). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=devTw6_ju8A see also http://dawa-news.net/2011/03/24/dr-zakir-naik-kommt-nach-deutschland/, there citation from Einladung zum Paradies i.e. Pierre Vogel. 91.61.202.210 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of subjective material
This section contains original research, unsubstantiated assertions and partisan views:

"According to Dr. Naik, there is a difference of opinion regarding Yazid and the battle of Karbala. However, many Islamic sects openly state that Yazid was an unjust ruler and didn’t even possess the qualities of being a caliph. He also claimed that the Hadith in which Muhammad ibn Abdullah stated that whoever conquers Constantinople will go to paradise, was in regards to Yazid. In 674 CE, on the orders of Muawiyah I, Yazid led the Umayyad army to conquer Constantinople but was defeated by the Byzantine army, which was comparably smaller than the Umayyad army. So if history means anything, it proves that Yazid never conquered Constantinople; hence, the Hadith is not in regards to him. This also proves the unfortunate extent to which Dr. Naik can go to in order to prove Yazid as a just ruler and a religious person.[49] Even if one considers that Hadith to be in regards to Yazid, for the benefit of doubt, then have we all forgotten the numerous authentic Hadiths in which Muhammad ibn Abdullah stated that Hussain ibn Ali is the Imam of the Ummah and the leader of men in paradise. Many scholars believe that Dr. Naik is simply making fool of his audience by feeding them wrong and corrupt knowledge. It was Sultan Mehmed II that successfully conquered Constantinople."

It also contains un-encyclopedic material including:

"Many scholars believe that Dr. Naik is simply making fool of his audience by feeding them wrong and corrupt knowledge."

Merely asking for inadequate and unhelpful (un-encyclopedic) material not to be moved is insufficient reason not to remove it.


 * Hello GorgeCustersSabre,


 * I am going to source my inclusion to the criticism section of the article. Maybe then you’ll know hat it is not my words but the words of reputable Muslims scholars. Salman A Shah (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Repetition of Naik's views and refutations of criticism
Dear User:Iqbal89, yes, with no disrespect to you, I intend to revert your edits, which now provide an unnecessary repetition of Naik's views and refutations of criticism. His refutations in the terrorism section above are more than adequate, and a fair reading of the article directly links the issue at the heart of each section. You asked for arbitration. Good. That's reasonable. So please go ahead and initiate this. I will of course live with the consensus view that emerges from the editor community. I trust you will too. If you choose not to initiate wider Wikipedia edit involvement, I do plan to revert your edits. That is fair, isn't it? By the way, we are not the only people who edit this page. It may be that, regardless of what you think of my edits, or I think of yours, someone else may change either or both. That’s how things work. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One possible compromise is to omit both Naik and Theresa May's comments, namely "May said of the exclusion..." to the end of the sentence. To be fair, if we allow one party to say something then we should also allow the other party to respond (see also WP:STRUCTURE). Wiqi( 55 ) 08:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be happy with that compromise. I hope User:Iqbal89 will be. If so, the issue is resolved very gracefully. Thanks Wiqi55. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For the moment I've reverted Iqbal's latest reversion. Edit-warring is not the way to go with this. In addition, this is not an arbitrable issue. Arbitration is reserved for conduct issues, not for content issues. If the issue here cannot be worked out, then it can proceed with the various forms of dispute resolution, but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. Meanwhile, Iqbal can contribute his views here, and hopefully it can be resolved at this level.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Bbb23, thank you for your intervention and advice. A compromise (or editor consensus) on this page is indeed the best solution. RegardsGorgeCustersSabre (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Blind Taqlid
I really do advise removing the word "blind". It is an insulting pejorative, plus is it actually in the source provided? Blind taqlid is like saying a "****** Muslim" or "****** Muslim". I think thus it is best the word is removed as it causes controversy and I am still unsure if it actually appears in the reference. Even if it does, best to remove the adjective, and leave the quote as simply "taqlid". ServantofAllah93 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear ServantofAllah93, I hope you are well. After carefully studying on Google Books the entire source cited in the footnote, I must admit that the source (Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement, p. 141 ) does not say that Zakir Naik believes in "a strong emphasis on individual scholarship and the rejection of 'blind Taqlid', which has led him to repudiate the relevance of sectarian or Madh'hab designations, all the while reaffirming their importance"). The source does not even say that Naik has used the words '"blind Taqlid". The phrase is included in the source, but is not attributed to Naik. I have thus deleted the entire sentence. Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so very much brother. I think this is officially the first time someone has actually listened to and heeded what I have said on this new account of mine, rather than immediately undoing my work and dismissing my edits out of hand. Hopefully this will continue in future. Again thank you, and keep well. ServantofAllah93 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear ServantofAllah93, I am sorry to learn you have had bad experiences. I've had a few too, but on the whole I think Wikipedia is terrific and worth contributing to. It works really well when editors communicate with each other and try to explain their edits. I wish you peace and happiness. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Copying deleted paragraph here
Sources must discuss Naik - what reliable sources are used below that discuss Naik?

While being lauded by some of his Muslim contemporaries for his dawah work and for the fact he has brought people to Islam, he has been criticised for his opposition to taqlid; that is, the following of one of the four accepted madhabs, or schools, of Islam. Taqlid is one of the established principles of Islam, so fundamental in fact that some have accused those who reject it of "deviancy", a much weightier claim than the word might otherwise indicate. However, Naik's claims have been repeatedly challenged.

Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunni or not?
Recently an issue has emerged after a series of edits by User:Twafotfs inserted the claim that Naik is a Sunni. The sources provided at the time were insufficient to support such an assertion (see User talk:Twafotfs). I have since uncovered one reliable source (Warikoo, Kulbhushan; Religion and security in South and Central Asia, Taylor & Francis 2010) which calls Naik "perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India", thus potentially establishing his credentials as a Salafi (he also gets a mention in Roel Meijer's Global Salafism: Islam's new religious movement, Columbia University Press, 2009, as a prominent member of the Salafi movement). However, the man's own statements ("Are Muslims Confused" video) seem to suggest a rejection of the idea of sects within Islam. I'd appreciate it if other editors could weigh in with opinions on this matter: should we use the sources to argue that he's a Salafi (and by extension, a Sunni), or take his own arguments into consideration and assume that he self-identifies as a non-sectarian Muslim? Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Our policy is (for living people at least) to go with self-identification (explicit self-identification I should add, no interpretation). You can ask if this is the case at WP:BLPN, but that's the way we handle this issue. In any case WP:NOR means we can't add our interpretations. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug. The thing is, he doesn't seem to self-identify explicitly. In response to the question in the video, "So are you a Sunni or what?" Naik's reply is basically, "there shouldn't be any sects in Islam." That's not exactly the same as saying, "I don't actually subscribe to any one Islamic sect." He ducks the question a bit. Is it OR to extrapolate his non-sectarianism from these statements? Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost all Muslims will say there should be, or is no, sects in Islam. As will many Christians. But we still refer to JFK, for example, as a Catholic Christian, and someone like Benny Hinn, as a televangelist or Pentecostal. Twafotfs (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Only if they self-identify as such. I've raised this at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'd say that his statement is a sufficient assertion that he doesn't self-identify as Sunni - and on that basis, we shouldn't describe him as one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe self-identification is required except with respect to categories, infoboxes, and the like. To say he is Sunni in the body would still have to be based on reliable sources, though. From what I can see above, there is insufficient support to say he is Sunni, even in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To categorise or list someone as Sunni is to make the assertion that he is such, and to assert it as if in the voice of Wikipedia. It is the exact equivalent of writing that assertion in the text.  We do not make such assertions unless they are verified by reliable sources or are explicit, non-self-serving, self-identifications.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yunshui has very helpfully provided two eminently reliable sources in English that identify him as a Salafi (more than I could do!). Salafis are, by definition, Sunni. I think we ought to abide by common sense here. If someone was referred to in a reliable source as a member of Opus Dei, but not, the words "Roman Catholic", I think we ought to be pretty comfortable labeling that person a Roman Catholic nevertheless. No? Twafotfs (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to Twafotfs, I'd also like to elaborate on my statement above. The rationale for self-identification in categories (WP:BLPCAT) is because a category is a label with no context and no citation. When we add material to the body, we can provide context, and we must provide sources. However, we need to be careful, even in the body, that we do it properly. For example, if we were to say in the body, Nafik is a Sunni, and cite to the Salafi source (above), that would not be acceptable because it's barely better than a label (the category). The only difference is the cite, but there's no context. If, on the other hand, we were to say that so-and-so called Nafik an "influential Salafi", that would be faithful to the source and might warrant inclusion. As I understand the sources we have, though, they conflict, so even if we were to add the Salafi claim, we'd also have to balance it with his own statement about Islam sects. That said, I'm not sure I see that it's noteworthy enough to include the conflicting material.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be cautious here for several reasons. Being a "Salafi ideologue" is not the same as being a Salafi, just as one might be a "Catholic theologian" without being a Catholic (and I know an Islamic lawyer who is not a Muslim).  That is, we need to understand whether the word Salafi refers to the ideology he expounds rather than to him personally.  There is some reason to believe that he personally does not accept the Salafi label.  In which case a more accurate rendition might be that "he is regarded as an exponent of Salafi ideology but personally rejects a sectarian label".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed the same thing, and although I'm still not convinced that even properly written, the material is worthy of inclusion, I agree conceptually with Cusop.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that sentence Cusop Dingle. Twafotfs (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me explain why I think it is worthy of inclusion (I understand it's probably bewildering to you as to why this discussion is even taking place). If you go to the page on, say, David_Koresh, you will see he is listed as a leader of the "Branch Davidian religious sect". The idea of labeling merely "Christian", would I daresay offend most Christians. Likewise, when someone refers to Osama bin Laden as a "Muslim terrorist", for example, it offends many Muslims. But it's not about offense, but clarity. As the page reads now, he is just a Muslim imam and self-appointed spokesperson for Islam. It needs to be made clear that he is a propagator of a fringe, or at least minor, tendency within Islam. His views aren't representative of merely "Islam", in fact, quite the contrary - as the recent controversy over his Yazid remarks make clear, he is actively reviled by many millions of Muslims (in particular the Shi'a). I can see how you might think I am letting my own agenda take precedence here, but I'm confident that my reasoning is sound, given the Koresh example.... Twafotfs (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So does anyone have a problem with me inserting a sentence regarding his Sunni Salafi religion as per Cusop Dingle's suggestion? Twafotfs (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

could we see the sentence first please? And since someone is bound to ask 'who regards him', it should be attributed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "he is regarded as an exponent of the Salafi ideology, but in his own statements he has rejected the relevance of sectarian or Madh'hab designations" Twafotfs (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd tack a citation to the YouTube video (yeah, I know; not usually WP:RS, but it's clearly the man himself speaking) on the end of that to support the second statement (, to save you looking it up); beyond that, I'm quite happy to see that sentence in the article. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really a disappoint that some people are fighting on for which school of Islam he is! Zakir Naik never stated his School of teachings and even stated that in Islam, it is Haram (Unacceptable) to divide Muslims. Enforcing Salafi ideology without any strong evidence is Vandalism. The reference provided for his belief in Religion was a report by K. Warikoo entitling "Religion and Security in South and Central Asia". This is totally irrelevant. Again, Mr. K. Warikoo′s view on Security of South and Central Asia not only seems biased also hypocritic. Shah-E-Zaman (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments here and on my talk page. You've convinced me that we can't accept an outside source as to what Naik believes. I've changed the infobox to Islam.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, and think that changing the infobox designation, while leaving "He is regarded as an exponent of the Salafi ideology" in the lead seems confusing. I'm puzzled as to why the source is "irrelevant". It is a reasonable third-party source. Sorry Bbb23, but I am uncomfortable with the removal of a referenced statement because of an assertion that the referenced work is "irrelevant". Best wishes,George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it because it was irrelevant. The religion field in the infobox is treated like a category for the purpose of WP:BLPCAT. Therefore, we have to have a source in which Naik self-identifies as Salafi; without that, we can't put it in the infobox. I confess to not having read the discussion above that predates this mini-discussion. I'm not going to undo what you did as I don't have the time right now to fully analyze the issue, so it wouldn't be fair of me to do so. I'll try to get to it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

@(talk) 1.Salafism is not a religious belief. Which means any Shia-Sunni, Maliki or Whatever the School of Teaching,can be a Salafi. It's a Movement. Like Jihad. It's a 'religious' movement.

2.Mr. K. Warikoo, Professor of Jaharlal Nehru University never quoted Mr. Zakir Naik as Salafi.

3. The link attached with Salafi as belief actually a link of 'Regional Political study on Central and South Asia',a book. 4.Moreover, this book got lots of sensitive issues on Taliban and Pakistan. It labeled Chinese Muslim populations as a threat(!) to China.

Shah-E-Zaman (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is simple. Naik is reported by reliable sources to be a Salafi, but as one will notice on the article for Salafism, it is a sub-category of Sunnism, just like Sufism. It is a movement and thus not a denomination; denomination refers to Sunni, Shi'ite, Ibadhiyyah or Ahmadiyyah. Hence for the info box, it should simply read "Sunni Islam" as with virtually all other Muslim public speakers here on Wikipedia, while the fact that he is a proponent of Salafi ideology can be mentioned in the lead of the article, as this is what Naik is known for. He is undeniable a Sunni, however, because Salafism is, again, a sub-category; a Salafi that isn't Sunni would be like an Isma'ili that isn't Shi'ite, it doesn't make any sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Lectures and debates
Later there were rumors that he distributed the whole debate on DVD with edits in order to make him look superior

The source of this is the comments section on the times of india web page. How can this be a valid source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.151.124 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It can't, so I've reverted it. Thanks.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
Hi. This page is regularly edited by both those who are against Zakir Naik and those who support him. It is regularly the victim of vandalism and I would like to request some form of protection for the article. There are often libelous edits which go against the neutrality policies. I'm unaware of how to properly request semi-protection but I'm sure someone or another will see this and help me out. Thanks :-) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've submitted the request. Try using twinkle; it has an automated way to request protection, among other things. In the meantime, I ask all editors to issue warnings to vandals so that they can be dealt with. If no warnings are issued, not bans can be emplaced.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Koran or Quran
I've seen it changed to one or the other on this article, is there an argument for one or the other? Mo ainm ~Talk  12:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We should use the name our article uses, Quran, unless there is a content-specific reason not to. The spelling's been argued to death over there. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Salafi
There appears to be a dispute about Naik's ideology. While I am well aware that he has repeatedly said creating sects is against the Qu'ran, the ideology he has expressed in his talks has been described (as cited) to be Salafist. Students of comparative religion would want to know this and I don't think it serves any purpose to continually erase sourced content. I've reverted twice already and I'm not going to again in light of WP:3RR. Let's discuss this. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a biased site?
This site is highly prejudiced. Isn't this a public forum where people can post their views of anyone mentioned in Wikipedia? I wonder why even truth posted about this controversial hate preacher had been erased? This Talk area is meant to educate people and help them know about the true colors of seemingly famous persons. If there is so much bias then Wikipedia should be closed down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.242.92 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a public forum where people can post their views of anyone mentioned in Wikipedia? No it's not. Please see WP:TALK. I wonder why even truth posted about this controversial hate preacher had been erased? I wonder why you think your "truth" belongs in an encyclopedia. This Talk area is meant to educate people and help them know about the true colors of seemingly famous persons. No, it's not. Again, see WP:TALK.
 * Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. We're always glad to have impacted the wider public with our work.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

islamic scholar
is dr.zakir naik a islamic scholar..?

i always believe that he is a aalim-e-dean..but some of the people says he is not aalim ..

so i want to know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.165.227 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC) #

Of course he is one of the best known scholar.. 109.157.151.98 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Without an independent reliable source, you cannot claim this to be true. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

zakir naik' terrorism
I am a person of no religion though I am borne Meitei(Hindu). I want to talk about terrorism. If all the written in the holy books are true, we must follow it, it says in one of the video. Is it right to be terrorized(meaning killing innocent)? I strongly believe the no idol, no statue of God, but first of all I want to say is that stop spreading the religion to other people because unless or until all Muslims completely follow the Koran which say not to kill innocent, people are not going to stop criticize you. First let all the Muslims follow the Koran completely than you start spreading, even whole of the world might follow Koran. And there is no point of spreading the religion, if it is God will. If God is one and Prophet Mohammad is the last messenger, why God will make him put in such a difficult situation where there is lot of diversity in this world. And I want to know about the multiple marriage practiced in Muslims, what is the principle behind it, is it a way to explode this world with population. Who are you actually, are you the next messenger of god to unite all religions. if that is so then god is truly great. I only believe in the religion "humanity", so lets save this humanity from extinction, lets join hand together, lets never interfere another religion, you follows Koran completely and lets the fellow Muslims do no things against Koran. Humanity is my religion. thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.37.201.90 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly You didnot request anything. Secondly this is not the place to discuss these sort of things. but i want to answer this question. there is a principle behind Islam's multiple marriage. Do u know that America has much greater no. of women than men. Who is going to marry them. No other religion permits multiple marriage so where do they go. Well Islam provides a middle-way solution to the problem. Islam permits upto 4 marriages. If you can't handle the 2 wives of them JUSTLY then marry 1. If u cant handle 3 wives marry 2. If you cant do that than a single wife is enough. Islam doesn't force men to marry. Its their wish. It might sound awkward but its the best way to the problem. If you want to know more than you can talk to me in any other way (on twitter or facebook). Hope I answered the question A.A.Wasif |  Talk   09:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Zakir naik's "Marathi" Ethnicity
He was born and brought up in Mumbai,Maharashtra...Having a 'Naik' surname which is a 'Marathi surname', predominantly used by the Marathi Brahmins(i.e Deshastha Brahmins) of Maharashtra. zakir Naik may be converted to Islam long ago, but his 'Ethnicity' will always be a Marathi. He is a Marathi Muslim.

so set his Ethnicity to Marathi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdd1 (talk • contribs)
 * You are maybe right, but this is biography of living person, read WP:BLP, things like religion, ethnicity, birth date etc should be supported by reliable source. You provide reliable source for his ethnicity then it can be included, and don't get involved in edit war, you may get blocked. -- Human 3015   TALK   12:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Zakir Naik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106064624/http://www.irf.net:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=74 to http://www.irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=74

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

view on gays and lesbians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuID-GS--k0

I think it is better to include in the section about his view. He has clear view that LGBT is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.136.6 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * His religion is Islam, so you would expect that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many Muslims, Christians and Jews that manage to reconcile their religion with LGBT rights, in fact even talk about the important of their rights. There was even Anglican priest that supported gay marriage. And not all Muslims, Christians and Jews talk against LGBT rights. Zakir Naik talk against LGBT right, so it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.136.7 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2016
 * "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news." Lord Northcliffe.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * not all Islamic preachers talk about LGBT, some do, and Zakir does, I believe it should be mentioned, after all we are in the 21 century, and preachers are more aware that this kind of talked is condemned. Zakir still choose to condemn LGBT, and claim some nonsense about them. I believe it should be mention, and it is not obvious that it talked bad about LGBT, even though he is Islamic preacher. Also this is not about news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.136.7 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on what reliable secondary sources say. YouTube videos are primary sources - and not always trustworthy.  (People who edit up footage for TV news and documentaries are extremely devious and untrustworthy; they edit footage to make it look as though people are saying something that they are not.)  See WP:BLPPRIMARY--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016
Remove Zakir Naik's Salafi tag

Tamimaddari (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no source where Zakir Naik says himself as salafi. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBTryvPmVYk he even speaks against salafi's. So the line telling zakir naik as salafi needs to be edited.Tamimaddari (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But cited sources describe him as Salafi.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But since he is a living person so we need a reliable source where he self identifies to actually include it in the article.Bongaosl (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No we don't, Bongaosl. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT states Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question so I have removed the category Indian Salafis from the article. Bongaosl (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, do not add the removed category unless you have at least one RS where he self-identifies his belief as Salafi. Bongaosl (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

controversial remarks
Have made some edits to the article, adding his controversial remarks. I understand we must be careful about WP:BLP, but to leave out his reamrk about the "inside job" and Bush is leaving out what he is most famous for.

''Although he has publicly disclaimed sectarianism in Islam, he has also attracted much publicity for declaring that “even a fool will know" that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job” orchestrated by US President George W. Bush. Naik has won several awards for his preaching including the 2015 King Faisal International Prize for Services to Islam, but also denied entry into the United Kingdom and Canada. ''

BoogaLouie (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I will go on and remove the "Views on sexual relations" section, because what's written there is misleading and biased, and nowhere in the provided links "72 virgins" where mentioned. As for sexual relationships and slavery, it was taken out of context, Zakir Naik said multiple times that this kind of sex existed when slavery existed up until the beginning of the 20th century and that was the Islamic (and other cultures view) at that time regarding slavery. --Alphath4 (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Female sex slaves"
The primary source used for "Female sex slaves" (tarekfatah.com) has serious neutrality issues as its is self published by Tarek Fatah, someone with known bias.Messiaindarain (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source?
This is a opinion piece on the Huffington Post published under the Blog. How this source can be used as a RS? Bongaosl (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEWSBLOG.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it states acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process and the writer is Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism so this is not even independent. Bongaosl (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We cannot add an Imam's opinion as a reliable source if it is about his religion. Bongaosl (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You will be telling me next that books by biologists are not reliable sources for articles on biology.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I never told you that so this is your original research. Please, stick to policy based arguments. Last time you undid my edit without checking my rationale. So, do you think a Muslim cleric's blog post is a reliable source for citing religious belief of another Muslim cleric? Please, prove me wrong with reference to proper guidelines if you don't agree with me. (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Bongaosl, your edits have become increasingly disruptive and your comments increasingly adversarial. Please try to work with other editors, not against them. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear George Custer&#39;s Sabre, your edits are blatant reverting that includes removal of sourced content and it is disruptive so please, do not blindly revert to an old revision instead of addressing your concern here on the talk page. And please, show my which edits are "disruptive" and which comments are "adversarial". Bongaosl (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why have you stuck "(POV)" into the sentence about sex with slaves? The information on sex with slaves is well cited.  It seems to me that this is an example of disruptive behaviour.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your claim that Naik said that sex with "female prisoners of war" is allowed is not supported by the text of the citations. The citations only support sex with female slaves.  Of the sources [16] says "He is the same man who had earlier said that 'Quran allows Muslims to have sex with female slaves'."  Source [66] says "His conservatism has led him to make statements endorsing the use of female sex slaves and allegedly expressing sympathy for terrorists."  Source [65] is a video in which Nail talks about how a man can have sex with his female slave and can also give her her freedom and marry her.  In the video he also claims that Islamic law is far superior to how prisoners of war are treated under UN rules and to how prisoners are treated at Guantanamo Bay.  It is only the headline of Source [65] and its comments section that says "Indian cleric Zakir Naik defends Islamic Law permitting rape of female POWs. Justifies Islamic slavery by comparing it to Gitmo".  Repeatedly adding information not supported by the text of the citations is disruptive.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all I never made that claim. The "claim" you're referring to me wasn't added by me (pls check my additions in the article) so I didn't make the "disruptive" edit. Secondly, if you're referring to this edit then I just simply reverted GorgeCustersSabre's edit as he basically reverted to an old revision without discussing his reason or the edits made by other editors and thus all intermediate edits were added back on the article. Hope, I make it clear to you. We can further discuss such issues in the article to improve it. Bongaosl (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed it. Bongaosl (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * * The claim that Naik said that sex with "female prisoners of war" is allowed has been added with a RS. So, that claim doesn't seem wrong. Bongaosl (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 one external links on Zakir Naik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7836557/Home-secretary-Theresa-May-bans-radical-preacher-Zakir-Naik-from-entering-UK.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_muslim-group-welcomes-ban-on-preacher_1399601
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=33845
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10854375/site/newsweek/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25960&Itemid=146
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/29/1093717837783.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-clash-of-ignorance/2005/08/06/1123125843879.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theage.com.au/news/sushi-das/between-two-worlds/2005/07/27/1122143904716.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/controversial-muslim-televangelist-zakir-naik-banned-from-toronto-conference/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222065912/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130827113937/http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/30405 to http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/30405
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130908221122/http://minivannews.com/files/2010/05/Dr_Zakir_Naik_and_Nazim-1.pdf to http://minivannews.com/files/2010/05/Dr_Zakir_Naik_and_Nazim-1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_zakir-naik-will-fight-back-as-canada-bans-him-too_1400073
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-most-powerful-indians-in-2010-no.-8190/575690/0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-most-powerful-indians-in-2009-8084/432810/0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704365204575317833268479268.html?mod=asia_opinion
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/255454.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050305/saturday/above.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103053714/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_storm-over-fatwa-against-scholar-zakir-naik_1204534

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Zakir Naik's views
The views section includes his views only on few selective topics. Can we add his views on ISIS? Bongaosl (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think it all should be deleted. We're having a lot of edit warring over nonsense he says like sex slaves and terrorism and I think it becomes undue. I don't dispute Zakir has said these things and we have reliable sources (or YouTube) quoting him but I'd prefer to stick to academic writing about him than what we have now. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it is better to use academic or research articles for sourcing but I don't think it is a good idea to remove everything to avoid edit warnnings specialy his views like we have for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. We can focus on improving the article and keep originial reasearch, undue weight out of it. Bongaosl (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should add his view on ISIS. It is more important than the other views. Sharif uddin (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Apostasy
Since people erroneously keep undoing my change on Apostasy, I have started this. Kindly discuss before you undo again.

1) Two of the three cited links related to Naik's views expressed in Maldives do not work, and the third uses the term 'Islamic State' and not 'Islamic rule', and there is a difference between the two

2) I have cited the unedited YouTube video link, which people can see for themselves

3) The quote from wiki is partial, incorrect and does not reflect what is being said in that video, and people can judge fairly

4) The YouTube link is a reliable source and not an Original Research

5) Irrespective of whether you agree on points 1-4, the "second source" mentioned is in fact not a second source at all

6) It is an article that quotes from the same maldives video in #1

7) You people should edit without bias and read the truth that I state before simply undoing as per your whims

Finally, here is another link that supports the need for Islamic State and not just a country with major muslim population. http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/221/is-punishment-for-leaving-islam-death

Shahidt (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me explain. First, I read your edit summaries. When you (a new editor) writes something like "don't revert me" and you're using YouTube as a source I know I need to immediately revert you. Productive editors don't do stuff like that. Secondly, the link you're citing is probably a copyright violation so we shouldn't link to it, anyway. Besides that, you're tilting at some windmill about an Islamic state, not about Zakir's views on apostasy, as evidenced by you pointing out a link above about "the need for Islamic State" which isn't the subject here. You removed content supported by a citation in Scroll.in. That website is a secondary source talking about something Zakir said. It wasn't necessarily the talk you're pointing to; maybe it was. It doesn't matter. For you to quote Zakir directly via YouTube is a primary source. I don't mind keeping that quote. That doesn't however, give you permission to remove another citations paraphrase. If your argument is that Scroll.in isn't a reliable source or misquoted Zakir, we can see what the consensus says. I'd like to remind you that you're already reverted other editors thrice today so you are prohibited by WP:3RR from doing so again. Finally, I'm a fan of Zakir. I'm not editing this out of whim. I'm trying to keep partisans from trying to hijack this article to twist it to fit your ideology. I don't want partisanship anywhere on Wikipedia, per WP:NPOV. Perhaps you should consider that you have biases. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have marked up the two dead links. One of these is a dead link due to a legal dispute concerning the ownership of Haveeru Daily - I guess it will stop being a dead link at some time.  Often bots find archived versions if marked up.


 * The third citation does not use the term "Islamic State" [a proper noun]; it uses the term "Islamic state" [a common noun] that means a state with Islamic rule.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Cited sources do not verify the quote and Haveeru Daily didn't provide the entire conversation which seems more like an opinion piece. Since, that conversation video exists on youtube so it can be used only for the quote. The scroll source was written by Shoaib Daniyal so it can be added with proper attribution. Bongaosl (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In the video Zakir Naik emphasies on the differences of Muslim majority countries and countries governed by Shariah law in the context of apostasy so it should be mentioned otherwise it will be misquoting. I think to avoid WP:CHERRYPICK we should keep the exact quotation putting any original research, opinions aside. Bongaosl (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My views are similar to Bongaosl, in the paragraph immediately above. Can "experienced editors" tell me how you'd treat the following case. Let's say a pro colonial website quoted an American as, "American killing of the British was justified", while in the video the American may have said, "American killing of the British was justified, since it was in defense of their freedom". The meaning changes completely when quoted partly. Whoever sees the video can see in plain truth that the secondary source of quotation is partial and biased in itself. I may be biased, but I am for the truth, not falsehood. Shahidt (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. The YouTube video (which shouldn't even be a source) shows Zakir giving a talk. Separately, other websites say Zakir said something similar. You claim that the website misquoted Zakir because you think they were talking about the same talk the video shows. I say the website is it's own cite and maybe they're talking about a different talk Zakir gave. We can use that website. We can't use YouTube so it doesn't matter what Zakir actually said. This may sound crazy to you but Wikipedia only cares about verifiability, not truth. Does that make sense? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not true that youtube video can't be used. The screenshot on the source confirms this video. Since, present sources are more like opinion pieces, do not support the quote and not credible enough nor we have multiple RS to assert his views so to avoid any original research, systematic bias or WP:CHERRYPICK we should include the exact quote made by Zakir Naik and also keep the present sources with proper attribution such as According to Haveeru Daily... etc. and let the reader decide from an unbiased view. Bongaosl (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you type the exact quote of Zakir Naik from this? Bongaosl (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read what I said. That particular link is from some unknown uploader. Per WP:ELNEVER: "material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked". I guess you could use it as a cite without linking. Why not find the link from PeaceTV? I've also said above "For you to quote Zakir directly via YouTube is a primary source. I don't mind keeping that quote." The longer issue is that Shahidt doesn't like what some commentators have said about Zakir and now can only claim that they're misquoting him by pointing to a YouTube video. I'm trying to avoid primary sources and stick to secondary sources, even if they're slanted, which I don't know that they are. I'll accept your suggestion about keeping the quote assuming you can find a better URL and qualifying the other sources as "According to Haveeru Daily...". That sounds like a good compromise. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was only one tour by Zakir Naik to the Maldives and the video I have cited is the one used by all those articles. See the link below.

https://www.focusmaldives.com/news/zakir-naik-dhaka-attack-and-his-controversial-maldives-visit-all-you-need-to-know/ You only had to read the each of those original cited articles on wiki and then see the original video from 6:05 to verify whether the quoted text and what Naik said were the same. The fact that you choose to use a secondary article, means you choose their bias as well and also their errors. The least you could do was delete the sentence starting with "Another source...", since both sources are the same - the video.

@Bongaosl Sorry, I am not going to make any further edits and only came since I was pinged. I have seen enough half truths in here to see wikiality prevail. Chris, the experienced editor, can make changes, if he wishes. Shahidt (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
WP:1RR now applies to this article. --Neil N  talk to me 16:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you're an admin overseeing activities on this page. I would like to share my experience. In the last fortnight much has happened around this person Zakir Naik. But thats not what I was/am interested in. When google thrown up the wikipedia info in its search results, I found that the content was obsolete as well as biased. I took up the task of updating the article which has now been completed to some satisfactory extent. In the process, I faced certain nuances from other editors/anonymous users but I am very well aware that its the part of parcel. (chuckles) However I saw a notification on the edit page which alerts me saying "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Its a good step which I hope would reduce vandalism. However, I need a clarification on certain issue. Thats the reason I am writing this to you. You see there's an editor Sharif uddin who is very much interested in portraying Mr Naik as the rock star of tele-evangelism and a proponent of modern Islam but does not want the sentence The version of Islam that he preaches is said to be "incompatible with modern world in the introduction part of the article. The editor has already admitted of being a FAN of Naik. Now, I am confused to figure out a way to deal with this situation. With revert restrictions in place, Is there a way where I can ensure that the article is in accordance with guidelines under WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:COI & WP:ADVOCACY. Please let me know about the way forward. Regards, Anand2202 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have pointed out the issue as per the guideline. Will wait & watch how the things turn out to be. Waiting for your guidance though! :) Anand2202 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Anand2202, see WP:DRR for what steps you can take if that sentence has proper sources. You may want to go to dispute resolution if the issue has been thoroughly discussed here or open a RFC with neutral wording. --Neil N  talk to me 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to know whether my claim stands out with any credibility and weightage or not? By the way, thank you very much for your quick response! :) Anand2202 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Anand2202, what is your specific claim? Please note I cannot comment on content matters, except in very general terms, per WP:INVOLVED. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 18:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, ok NeilN, let me clarify. For example, I see the ongoing edits on the page such as this where a direct quote taken from source has been altered in order to dampen the severity of the content! With reverting restrictions in place, should I continue to revert the changes boldly? or should I keep persuading the editor to discuss the matter here on talk page? Or should I report the editor to be blocked? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand2202 (talk • contribs)
 * No. No more bold editing. Now it's discussion only until there's consensus which is why I'm quitting this article. WMF doesn't pay me to babysit crazies. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting for blocking anyone whom you can not tolerate is totally bias of wiki rule, Anand2202. Sharif uddin (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And I also gave citations for this edit which you mentioned in the last comment, Anand2202. If the admin does not check them he may surely think by your recent comments that I am totally guilty for such edit wars of today. So I request the admins that please check all the revision history before considering any of decisions about both of us. And again Anand2202, kindly please try to be totally neutral when you comment. Sharif uddin (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As Chris says, no more bold reverting. As far I can see, the quote was replaced, not altered, and a new source was provided. This is a content issue that needs to be discussed. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the previous edit the quote was given according to the following citation as a "doctored tape" which was ""if you kill a single human being it is as though you have killed the whole of humanity," and with the new citation which is enough reliable too, you may please check, I gave the full quotation which clarifies the actual meaning of that qoute which is ""the Quran says so - if anyone kills an innocent human being, Muslim or non-Muslim, it is as though he has killed the whole humanity, So how can any Muslim kill innocent human being?". And I edited the quote long before Chris's comment, when Anand2202 was also continuing his edit. Therefore, now what you have to say you may please say it.  Sharif uddin (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As a new editor to this article who happened to come here do to lot of traffic attracting here I would suggest that now that 1RR has been placed it would be good that every controversial edit be discussed here. For simplicity it would be good if different sections on talk page are started to every different topic. Not to mention that flooding the talk page with many subsections and proposals would only prevent new editors to come and resolve the issues. Wikipedia isn't compulsory and has no time limit. Requesting Anand2202 and others to take it point by point. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)