Talk:Ahmed Deedat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Other works by Deedat deserving mention in the Article

I've started this section to discuss works of Deedat which either a) haven't been covered in the article OR b) been poorly covered with respect to their notability. While the article is still locked, let's discuss here on what could possible go into it and what could not. Please do expand this section with your views and suggestions 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything that Deedat produced should be listed in the article. Big or small. Editors should be limited only in tussling over what earns the right to be prominent and what does not. I propose a new section entitled "Complete List of His Works" where the following two can be listed.

These are not considered 'major works' and do not fall under the 'notability' mentioned in this new discussion topic. His major works are 1) his debates 2) his arguments on the bible, 3) video lectures that expound on these arguments. His arguments have been properly summarized by me earlier in the 'Writings and Speeches' section.

While well-known, the following two works are second degree works of Deedat. For instance, the Rushdie booklet is a there because the Rushdie incident happened at the time Deedat was in the international limelight. So he wrote on the topic which was making vast headlines at the time in the Christian world. It should get its due place in the article. Dungbeetle (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good enough to me. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'Combat Kit Against Bible Thumpers'

I've tried Googling around and have found that the CombatKit was indeed one of his very strong claims to fame. In fact the first result for the words 'Combat Kit' on Google, directly points to Deedat's book. Moreover, Deedat also seems to have taught courses in the field of Dawah using this book (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brVx4Hax8F8&feature=PlayList&p=17E4D02C0ABD79C8&index=9 and http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=%22Combat+Kit%22&aq=f). In my opinion the book might deserve a special mention in the article primarily due to its notability in context with Deedat. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

'How Rushdie Fooled the West' - 'The Satanic Versus Unexpurgated'

This one's another of Deedat's famous works http://iaislam.tripod.com/TSVE.htm (try Googleing "The Satanic Verses" Deedat), which hasn't been covered well by the article . Deedat's delivered a number of lectures as well on the book as well as on Rush`die: (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9VBE9yZ-qk , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMILzZqvePo , & http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=%22The+Satanic+Verses%22+Deedat&aq=f). I'd say lets try to put in somethign about this in his' Works' section. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Deedat's Talk with American Soliders

Another popular work has oddly disappeared from the page after it had been listed there after my major overhaul from early May, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQnfOWhuras Dungbeetle (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is, that the used references were youtube-links, and we'd better not use them as a source. See above, at the Concerning Youtube-links-section. Anyway, if there are better references for these works, please use them.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think as much as possible of his works should be published. Thanks to people like Jeff5102, this article has been continuously vandalized as he tries to underestimate Deedat's achievements. He keeps whining about using youtube as references and other lame excuses, as if a vid of Deedat saying something isn't much stronger than some anonymous blogger claiming it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdoh (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Burdoh, if you really concern my edits as vandalism, I should say: do something against it, and report me at WP:AIV. We will see what the administrators have to say about my edits. I happen to be curious about that as well. If you don't report me at WP:AIV before the Fourth of July, I consider your complaints against me as baseless, and, like your edits, only as tools to annoy me. Arrivederci! Jeff5102 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed or Ahmad...???

Hey I just got hold of a new video in which Sheikh Deedat spells his name... Watch this from 5:00 to 5:10... He spells it Ahmad, which by the way are the correct spelling of Ahmad.... Should we change it to Ahmad then.... Kindly share your opinions....!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil your (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

the IPCI web-site has it listed as Ahmed Deedat. Which is what we should follow. One video clip is weak evidence compared to the official organization that prints and produces all his materials. How Deedat "likes to" spell his name is irrelevant, hell, he could spell it Ackmed if he likes! How it is listed in official documents and in official print media is what would be considered legal and correct on wikipedia I imagine. Dungbeetle (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats why I brought this up.... I am a bit confused myself.... He himself spelled it with an A, which BTW is the correct way to spell it... But on the other hand, in addition to your comment, even the official website is spelled Ahmed-Deedat.net .... But I think your argument carries more weight, since the official documents spell it with E... Adil your (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOV noticeboard - please comment there

In view of a stalemate over the inclusion of a link to criticism of Deedat by Christian writer John Gilchrist (see discussions above at Talk:Ahmed Deedat#POV Pushing? and later at Talk:Ahmed Deedat#Should we link to the anti-Deedat material at Answering-Islam.org?), I have asked about it at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ahmed Deedat. It would be good if other editors involved added comments there. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Word choice issue

• "intense missionary strivings" is a phrase in the lead that reads to me as overly emotive and not exactly neutral. Couldn't we use the word "evangelism" or the word "proselytism" in place of that phrase? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Official website

the infoxbox says that his official web site is http://ahmed-deedat.net . Is this really his official site? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilchrist and McDowell (again)

This might not have been noticed in the edit war with the sockpuppet, but I added a link to Josh McDowell's book (an 8 MB pdf file [1]) in the "Criticism" section. (I meant to give a full edit summary but I accidentally hit "Enter" after typing "McDowell"). This is a (temporary) compromise instead of adding the link to John Gilchrist's material, and objectors should find it preferable because (a) McDowell is much more well known than Gilchrist (so it can't be excluded on non-notability grounds), and (b) the book is not hosted on answering-islam.org. I've also noted that Deedat (briefly) responded to parts of the book, to hopefully remove POV-pushing concerns.

I still think Gilchrist's material [2] is preferable, because (a) his material is easy to browse (rather than being a single 8 MB download), (b) Gilchrist co-wrote the McDowell book, so his individual material should be just as good (and his material was previously published before bring hosted on answering-islam, it is not self-published); (c) Deedat wrote a whole booklet in response to Gilchrist,[3] (indicating Deedat took him seriously) so we could also link to that.

Anyway, the article is locked now due to the sockpuppet, but discussion on this issue is welcome, i.e. whether the compromise (McDowell) is best, or whether we should also link to Gilchrist, or whether people still object to both... Peter Ballard (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

The removal of the subheadings for the criticism section really leaves it jumbled up. Suggestions on fixing it up?

The previous order of criticisms was far better organised than it's current organisation - i.e. no organisation. --Ali M Saad (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This section mentions that Muhammad Asad was a Qadian. This however is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.98.105 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim apologist or scholar?

One user User:Ari89 has been keen to add "Apologist" in the very first sentence in the lead and even want that to include it as Deedat's profession. To begin with, to make such an emphatic adjective, one must have multiple reliable sources and it is not neutral(not because of the other edits or convictions of the user who is keen to add it). I have added "Muslim scholar" sourced to 2 reliable sources, which since then he had tried to revert to "Apologist" by sourcing to some fringe sources. It is understandable that a world renowned orator and polemist can give some funny feeling to opponents, but calling apologist is not supported by any strong sources and is his POV. Zencv ^Whisper 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources make it clear that he is not a scholar. Westerlund, David, "Ahmed Deedat's Theology of Religion: Apologetics through Polemics", Journal of Religion in Africa, Vol. 33, Fasc. 3, Islamic Thought in 20th-Century Africa (Aug., 2003), pp. 263-278 and Larkin, Brian. "Ahmed Deedat and the form of Islamic Evangelism", Social Text 2008 26(3 96):101-121. Similarly, the Muslim scholar task force does not consider him a scholar but as a "General Writer" for the obvious reasons that he isn't a traditional scholar in the academic sense, or in the Islamic jurist sense.Your erroneous negative stigma against the title apologist is your own personal issue.

And I see no reason to respond to the clearly false attacks and implications against myself made above. --Ari (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not just my stigma. Regardless of whether Muslim task force consider him a scholar or not, calling apologist based on the sources you provided such as "Answering Islam: the crescent in light of the cross." while removing sourced content that I had provided make it a blatant POV push from your side. From the edit history, I see that you attempted the same 2 months ago without attempting to make any concensus. If you continue your disruptive behaviour, I will be forced to take this issue to administrators noticeboard Zencv ^Whisper 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, ignoring the academic peer-reviewed sources provided above and opting for a false attack that this is POV pushing. You have made your agenda clear, and the fact that you can't act honestly in pushing it says so much more. --Ari (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1) If you are aware of what you are doing, you have sourced the word to a list of very fringe and extremist sources. 2) You have removed a sourced content, only so that you can introduce your POV 3) You havent tried to form a consensus before making such a change 4) Even if your "peer reviewed" source says that Deedat is an apologist, would that be enough to justify stating that his profession is "Apologist" and he is an apologist? I have opened a case against your edit warring here. Zencv ^Whisper 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) No, it is backed up by peer-reviewed academic journals (really not necessary) in addition to a number of published books. They are not "very fringy and extremist." In fact, they are more than sufficient for the purpose of backing up a non-controversial and widely accepted detail. (2) I have not removed it, in fact I kept your POV claim (although it is refuted by peer-reviewed academic journals). (3) There is no reason for me to form a consensus on this, see (1). (4) Yes, as his profession was in the field of missionary activity vested in apologetics. So, where are the objections aside from your personal opinion that you do not like the word apologist? --Ari (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a RFC to get some outside opinions, asserting extreme positions onto living people requires high quality citations. Also, please attempt to format citation correctly when adding them as that makes it a lot easier to actually see the quality of them. Presently I strongly oppose asserting that he is any kind of apologist without further discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly stated that Deedat is still alive, so I don't know how much credence we should grant your opinion on the lead sentence when you clearly have not even read it... --Ari (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is not alive, as I said though please seek perhaps a RFC to get outside opinions and please simply stop stuffing in your desired comment when editors are objecting here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So, could you word your objection. The only objections I see here arise from pure ignorance of the article and added content. It is a non controversial edit backed up by verifiable sources. I would love to see a meaningful comment. --Ari (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep it out of the lede and add a section detailing why he is this and who thinks he is that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a non-controversial aspect which the article deals with in great length. Why should it not be in the lead? I would like to see an actual objection.--Ari (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Blindly stuffing it in the lede like that where it can not be attributed or explained is wrong. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A good thing it is explained in the article. --Ari (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A person is dead is NOT a reason to label him in such a biased way. If there is a RS which states that some author consider Deedat a "Genius", that wouldn't be a reason to state that "Deedat is a genius writer, orator....". The same logic applies here. Not only that, some of the sources you have provided are dubious and fringe sources. I personally don't have strong sentiments to state that he is a "scholar", but stating that he is an apologist in the way you have put it in the lead is a clear POV. Until the dispute is resolved it would be fair to keep it as it was before your controversial changes. Zencv ^Whisper 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He is not being labelled in a bias way. You are acting as if I someone is calling him the devil. As I said, your personal anti stigma based on your ignorance on what an apologist is not a sufficient reason to remove reliably sources verifiable content in the lead, especially when that lead is directly related to the content of the article. WP policies regarding reliable sources trump your personal opinion. --Ari (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you again and again assume that I have a stigma? Deedat gained notoreity as an orator and a scholar of comparative religion(now very well sourced). If you then come up with one source where he is called an apologist, why should we have it in the first sentence of the lead? Only to push your POV that he was nothing more than an apologist(whether that means positive or negative). I'd second a previous comment of Off2riorob and recommend that you write it as a separate sentence in a neutral way somewhere else in the article Zencv ^Whisper 20:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not argue you have a stigma, I point out that you admit that the only issue you can raise is that you personally find the description bias. You are yet to provide any legitimate reasons (nor respond to my numerous requests for you to provide one). Even if we look at this post, you can't help but act rather dishonest. For example, you claim that I make a POV edit where "he is nothing more than apologist". Need you really invent obviously false claims? And why it should be in the lead is well explained - how about you finally provide reasons (other than a rant about how you personally don't like cited content) as to why it should be purged from the article? --Ari (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on the word "apologist" to be put as the first word to describe? For many Muslims, he was a hero(and I can find sources for that), but putting it that way would (correctly) be a POV. If he has been accused of being an apologist alright, add it as a sentence. Otherwise you need stronger reason. It is not my stigma against that word, rather in your edit, the article make a conclusion in the lead even though when you read the article in full, you get a picture that he was more than an apologist Zencv ^Whisper 21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a personal stigma against the word. Just take how you described his activities as an apologist. You say he has been "accused of being an apologist." Obviously, you think that him being called an apologist (by multiple neutral sources) is a negative thing. You simply do not understand the world apologist. We can look at the historical and contemporary use, and when someone is an "apologist" it is not a negative accusation. Justin Martyr was an early Christian philosopher and, yes, apologist. Nothing POV about that. Jerome was similarly an early Christian scholar (renowned for his vulgate), priest and, yes, apologist! Contemporary guys: Mike Licona - NT historian with a PhD and apologist! Alister McGrath - professor, theologian, and apologist. --Ari (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

cat muslim scholars, hundreds of names and cat muslim apologists, four names only including this disputed name only four muslim apologists on the whole wiki, I am sure if we cherry pick christian apologist citations we could get support for plenty more apologists, what we need is wikipedia apologists. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool story, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion nor does it make very much sense. Just so you know, the category Muslim apologists is only a month or so old. What you are talking about with "I am sur we can cherry pick christian apologist citations..." makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the Journal of Religion in Africa is an apologetic source? No one here has raised a reason for making this name disputed - especially when numerous RS make it clear. The only objection against the uncontroversial title I can see is that some editors have a negative stigma against the mainstream and ordinary use of apologist. That personal issue has very little to do with Wikipedia. --Ari (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you take a look at Category:Scholars there are:

-14 persons in Category:Hindu scholars

-17 persons in Category:Christian scholars

-37 persons in Category:Jewish scholars

-and 238 persons in Category:Muslim scholars!!

I tend to believe that the word "scholar" has a different meaning in the Islam than in other religions. After all, otherwise I cannot explain why there should be 3.5 more Muslim scholars than scholars of any other religion.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim scholar has a richer historical use with regard to authoritative jurists and commentators. It isn't limited to academics. As the Muslim scholar task force on wp has made clear, Ahmed Deedat does not fall into the category of scholar but a general writer on Islam as he was neither authoritative nor an academic scholar. Anyway, I don't object to the article pointing out that many Muslim sources call him a scholar of "comparative religions". --Ari (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the orbituary, made by Goolam Vahed (of the University of KwaZulu Natal), shows that Vahed uses neither of the words "scholar" or "apologist". Vahed describes Deedat as "president of the Islamic Propagation Centre International (IPCI), icon of millions in the Muslim world, and loathed by many because of his polemics". I should say that the terms president of the Islamic Propagation Centre International (IPCI) and polemist could be taken over in the lead of our article.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Obituary - tertiary source

A lot of material in this article is sourced from an obituary of Deedat. This is a tertiary source, listing information from other sources without attribution; the information needs to come primarily from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources: "Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources". Pol098 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The orbituary is written by Goolam Vahed of the Department of History, University of KwaZulu Natal. It lookls like a reliable source to me, with a neutral point of view. Furthermore, as the article on tertiary sources says:

Depending on the context, tertiary sources might include bibliographies, library catalogs, directories, reading lists and survey articles. Encyclopedias and textbooks are examples of written materials that typically embrace both secondary and tertiary sources, presenting on the one hand commentary and analysis, while on the other attempting to provide a synoptic overview of the material available on the topic.

I fail to see how the orbituary fits in this category.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

hi .. why don't u guys put a better pic for ahmed deedat ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.68.118.24 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Family Background

Is it true Deedat's family was originally hindu brahmin? Does anyone have any info on that?Omerlives

Yes that is trueIlliterate11 04:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)illiterate

This is false, he was a born Muslim. See his biography video documentary.

Above poster may be correct, but BY CASTE, Deedat was a Brahmin. He himself stated this in a debate (explaining how he knew so much about Hinduism, after he had mentioned the names of various Hindu goddesses and gods) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.197.238 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether Deedat's family was originally hindu brahmin or not, fails to hold much sway with anyone who knows what they're talking about. It can almost certainly be said that every Muslim originating from the sub-continent had their forefathers as hindus. So can be said about Muslims in South Africa originating from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.229.154 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Deedat anti-Jewish and anti-Christian ?

The criticism section accuses Deedat of being racist and even more absurd - anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. Deedat spoke and read Hebrew, and often cites the Torah and Bible in his speeches. He has stated several times that "a Muslim is not one unless he believes in Jesus [as a Prophet]" so how is he anti-Christian? In his book he writes about how the Qur'an has a chapter named after Mariam the Jewish mother of Jesus who is called the mother of all nations. He talks about the number of times Jesus is mentioned in the Qur'an (25 times) compared to Muhammed (5 times). He also writes about how Muslims believe in Jesus's virgin birth, the miracles he performed and so on, according to him this is not even accepted by the Anglicans. So tell me man how is he anti-Jewish/Christian? Because he is pointing out the internal inconsistency of the Bible he is labelled racist and dismissed? Because he talks about the major revisions of the Bible, the number of times they have edited and revised the Bible, the number of passages they have taken out because the Church believed that they were fabrications? How poor of an argument is that. They call Deedat names and don't even justify it. His "critics" don't even quote him to support their allegations. To call those "criticisms" is to give them more credit then they deserve. Amazing how insecure these people are! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess you can't say the truth without getting the label of anti-semite. anti-semite if you say the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamLowenstein (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a forum. WP:NOTAFORUMJeff5102 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic origin

I recognize that editor Gandfaru wants to list Ahmed Deedat as being a Gujarati/Surti by ethnicity. That's fine, but he simply MUST provide evidence to support this. No sources in the article show this. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)