![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
See here for some information that might be able to be salvaged, but on the whole it's not so great. gren グレン 07:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The link claiming he was an antisemite is false, asserting without any evidence besides lipservice. Please take it down.
Need to Wikify this page, will do it in a day or two. User:Monotheist User talk:Monotheist
While this page is a strong start, it gives the distinct impression that Deedat is 'right' and his critics 'wrong' and also downplays criticism, when in fact he is a highly controversial figure not just to christians but also to science.. Needs a rewrite.
Alex Bartho
14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to organize this page
Hero worship. Evidence used in analysis of Deedat's work prooves too much, he cannot be personally accredited with conversion without evidence and the argument in the conclusion that he demonstrated the Qur'an logically flows with the Bible is just that - an argument. Or rather a position within an argument - a point of view unsubstantianted by the supplied evidence, nor could it be considering there has been no reconciliation on the matter between the two camps on the issue.
Also the author's unsubstantiated theological perspectives bleed through the article:
e.g.
"This in turn had led to a rash of anti-Deedat sites, whilst some make legitimate claims of Deedats (at times) offensive and blunt style, they have had little success in countering the most popular of Deedat's arguments. This is mainly due to the reliance on sources external to the Bible which are subject to various interpretations, whilst Deedat has limited (as much as possible) his argument to the Bible (because Christian missionaries traditionally ignore any external sources that contradicts the Bible in debates). Another problem of these sites is that they attempt to duplicate the Deedat template, e.g. criticism of the Qur'an, which on record has had rare success only because the nature of both books are different, eg while the Bible is filled with recorded history and events, the Qur'an claims to be a revealed preaching text, only using history when it is relevant to highlighting the moral of a story."
1. There is no evidence supplied for the conclusion the author draws of why or even if criticism of deedat (anti-deedat is a value judgement) was unsuccesful.
As a general note I think this is a good rough draft - once the article is cleaned up to meet wikistandards I feel many of these issues will sort themselves out.
I find this article is an accurate portrayal of Deedat. In most of Deedat's debates, he clearly has the upper hand as his arguments are far from emotional. He uses a very logical approach to arguing his perspective, especially taking Biblical verses in their context to support his arguments. I suggest that people should watch Deedat's debates before making comments saying that he didn't win (or take dominance) in most, if not all, of them.
What was tis man's formal religious education? I find it alarming that he did not know Greek o Hebrew. Sort of undermines his credibility as a revered bilblical scholar.
I find this to be absolutely biased section and anything here cannot be mentioned as criticism. Just for example he is criticized for saying: "Indian Muslims were 'fortunate' that their Hindu forefathers 'saw the light' and converted to Islam" Whats wrong if he says that? He is supposed to say that. This is nothing to criticize. Someone please clean this section and add something only if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.117 ( talk) 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article needs massive clean up. Arbusto 07:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to say that prior to judge wether this account about deedat is accurate or not, we must see the videos and judge for ourselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.184.118 ( talk) 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add this link http://www.halaltube.com/category/ahmed-deedat to the External Links section. It's just a site with a listing of many of his lectures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahideenryder ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing section because: para 1 is primary statement para 2 is misguiding the links with Saudi Binladin Group, as Osama Bin Laden! para 2 is about his son. This artcile is supposed to be on Ahmed Deedat -- Isle Scape Talk 11:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is not very balanced. It reads more like an essay critical of Deedat and as someone who came to learn more about the man, I found little neutral or non biased commnetary. 72.74.16.200 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
REGARDING: "The
Stephen Roth Institute also accuses Deedat of being an
anti-Semite"
A search of The Stephen Roth Institute does NOT reveal that it makes any such claims itself. It merely REPORTS an unsubstantiated claim. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.106.119.15 (
talk)
02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a link after the word "anti-semitic" in the beginning that linked to a site named Americans Against Hate, which is an anti-Islamic hate site. I removed that link since it's against the basic principles of neutrality. One such aspect of this site's unreliability is this:
"STOP THE MOSQUE (STM) was spearheaded by a group of concerned individuals who believe that radical mosques or Islamic centers do not belong in American neighborhoods. STM will use all legal means necessary to prohibit these types of institutions from being built"
http://www.americansagainsthate.org/stm/
The site is full of other similar "watch" programs of Muslim charities and organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoticClown ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is Farid Esack and www.crosscurrents.org a reliable source? Bless sins ( talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
i do not agree with the inclusion of the 2006 anti-hindu video made by his son yusuf deedat. after all the title of this article is "Ahmed Deedat" not "Yusuf Deedat." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Av6330 ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
agree!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.117 ( talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed...!!! Adil your ( talk) 11:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
But Ahmed Deedat feautues in the DVD, so it IS appropriate. Peter Ballard ( talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the orbituary by Goolam Valed, it was even worse: it says:
That is something those Deedat-fans never tell here! Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Who says I am angry about Deedat? I am only angry at a guy who is under the names of User:Bel3afia, User:Burdoh, or one of the names you can find at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of IslamForEver1. His work here is quite destructive, I must say. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand english... I said its your edit-war thats destroying the article so stop reverting each other and try to form a consensus... But if you keep on reverting like this then yes, i will report you... Adil your ( talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia You have said in the Criticisms section of Ahmad Deedat that
{..the Bible does nothing to convince Westerners of the truth of Islam since Western culture is essentially secular}
That is a JOKE and LIE
Bush whom Was "democraticly Elected Twice " said that " god /his god told him to Invade Iraq"... !!That is Not Secular
And why Israel exist?..Is not because of this Bible that estimated the creation of the whole cosmos to be less than 6000 years ago ( 6000 years AFTER Jericho been built)and about the mythical Solomon temple that has NO archeological traces?
The WEST is Not Secular. 82.5.167.237 ( talk) 10:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Other wise you all have to admit that you are NOT objective and that all your motives(wars occupation of Palestine, Iraq, and expelling Palestinians from their Native home land and deny them from returning ) are NOT secular, but based on instructions from mythical book called the bible that state fairy tales stories
82.5.167.237 ( talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
BobGriffin-Nukraya ( talk) 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The website of Islamic Research Foundation is http://www.irf.net not the Christian reference given to Islamic Research Foundation - which is merrily a spam google adds page. Please change it... [[[User:SuleimanAliKhan|SuleimanAliKhan]] ( talk) 11:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Many Muslims criticised Deedat. For example, Deedat held a viewpoint different to that of the Qur'an regarding the crucifixion of Jesus/Isa.
Also, the Muslim Digest did an issue criticising Deedat. -- Ali M Saad ( talk) 18:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Ali M Saad ( talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we are witnessing blatantly biased and poor quality edits from IP 72.81.208.215 whose aim seems to be to peacock the profile of Deedat. Adding section title like Honors by Muslims and Non-Muslims just because one country issued a postage stamp is quite silly Zencv Lets discuss 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The Direct Impacts subheading serves no purpose. Unless anyone can think of a reason why we should include Deedat's personal impact on non-notable persons I will remove this section. Similarly, the mention of a debate with the previous Pope does not belong in that section. -- Ali M Saad ( talk) 15:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it may not deserve a sub-heading, but they are indeed significant . In this case, I would rename Lectures and debates section to Lectures, debates and impacts. Zencv Lets discuss 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I added back the removed sourced contents in the lead. To make it more neutral, I had removed some of the POV style weasel words. Zencv Lets discuss 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Ali M Saad ( talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
When I started editing this article, there were lots of peacock style headings and sentences. Now I am afraid that its a coatrack. Just like cheap praises have been removed, irrelevant or poorly sourced criticisms should also be removed Zencv Lets discuss 08:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If you've read the policies, you can see that youtube.com is no third-party independent reliable source. It is in fact a public video sharing website - and videos of Deedat on there are primary sources. It's third party independent (i.e. secondary) reliable sources which decide that, by deeming it worthy of substantial coverage - and not you. Sources should apply to these specifications:
Clearly, Youtube cannot count as a reliable source. Jeff5102 ( talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely stupid to mention David Westurlunds purely ENTIRELY PERSONAL OPINION about deedat. Who the Hell is he to comment on our hero. It is like asking Osama's opinion on Bush. Deedat was never defensive. He was aggressive and put stalwarts like Jimmy Swaggarts to absolute shame. In my words "He put an end to the torture inflicted upon the muslims by the christian missionaries who used to enter their houses and make fun of Muhammad so that the muslims convert to christianity due to shame". He reversed this situation and he reached a point where he could say this: "If the entire christian world is terrified of this OLD MAN, then there must be something wrong with your religion".--Shaikh Ahmed deedat. People here claim that Deedat was wrong. He challenged every pope, every Bishop and every PAID SERVANT OF GOD for OPEN PUBLIC DEBATES, why did they NOT PROVE HIM WRONG? To take David Westurlund's opinion is silly, If I say David Westerlund or Jimmy Swaggart is a bastard, will you take it?.)
I don't know why this should be a good text: "Among Deedat's close friends were Goolam Hoosein Vanker and Taahir Rasool, whom many refer to as 'the unsung heroes of Deedat's career'. They formed a study circle to look at the teachings of the Quran, and in 1956 Deedat and Vanker set up the IPCI in Durban.[4]
In 1957, Deedat, together two of his close friends, Goolam Hoosein Vanker and Taahir Rasool, founded the Islamic Propagation Centre International (IPCI)..." It looks as a repetition of the same texts to me.
Furthermore:
And finally, I do not like the idea that my work on this article is called 'vandalism' by an anonymous user. Thus, it is simply reverted. I guess that is not the policy that made Wikipedia the great encyclopedia it has become. Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyone who wants to give some critical remarks to my comments? Otherwise, we might unprotect the page, and edit it according to my comments. Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The following minor information has been moved down to its own section entitled "His Method" on the main page. It does not qualify as material significant enough to be put up top as major information about Ahmed Deedat. Nor is David Westerlund someone of any stature in the missionary world whose comment is notable to be "defining" Ahmed Deedat.
"According to David Westerlund, Deedat aimed at providing Muslims with theological tools for defending themselves against the intense missionary strivings of many Christian denominations. He used English instead of Arabic or any other language to get his message across to Muslim minorities in the western world. [1] Dungsniffer ( talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done a major overhaul of the 'Lectures and Debates' Section. I have split it up and added and expanded a 'Writings' Section. Also expanded the 'Honors' Section. I am intimately familiar with Ahmed Deedat's works and the Lectures section was very poorly structured and missing many of his important works. I have left the Criticism and Early Life section pretty much as is. Dungsniffer ( talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Aw shucks, i ended up expanding the 'Early Life' section as well. I have renamed it Biography and added significantly to it based primarily on the Deedat's own interview about his early missionary activity. Dungsniffer ( talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section contains many quotations and remarks by people that are simply making fun or degrading the works of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat... I don't think that these remarks should be placed in his profile since they carry no weight in terms of logic nor refute any of his claims... Another thing I see is that Answering-Islam.com has a hidden advertisment in the article, So that must also be cleaned up... It says that they have written texts answering Deedat's question but those texts are already answered by Dr.Zakir Naik....So that claim is also wrong....So I think we ought to remove any Negative or abusing criticism and keep only POSITIVE CRITICISM.....peace.... Adil your ( talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello friends. I have done some langage clean-up of my original write-up and re-configuration of extant article from some months back. Being that many things have been added and subtracted and added back again and subtracted and then added again over that time period. Have improved grammar in several places as well. To give a more well-rounded narrative. Important changes to note:
I too have made some changes to Debates' section since I possess some knowledge in that area. Haven't edited the Biography section much though except for the part about his Illness and Death.
The re-inclusion of a link to the 'answering-islam' website after I removed it seems like POV-pushing to me, and I really can't see the need for it. Moreover, the website is not targetted to just Deedat but towards Islam as a whole and thus its inclusion directly falls under WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion. Writing a statement like "Some Evangelical Christian apologists have written responses to Deedat's material" as an excuse for putting in a link to that site is only a case of POV pushing and should not find a place in an encyclopedia.
I am proceeding to delete that link, keeping the statement intact because I do believe that the statement holds good but the website does not. Please do not re-include the website without explaining its dire necessity here first. Thanks. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 10:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A few comments on answering-islam.org.
First, to avoid any notion of secrecy, I must disclose that I have contributed a small number of articles to answering-islam.org in the distant past. (Last update 2002 I think). But I am not active there now, but even if I was, I have 8000+ Wikipedia edits behind me, and I believe I have a history of editing neutrally, which anyone can check. I put the edit in because the Deedat article had lots of links to Deedat's material, but none - none! - to any responses. I believe I did this in a way which was clearly labelled, in the appropriate section, and in general appropriate for Wikipedia. A link is certainly appropriate because many readers will want to read not only Deedat's material, but responses to it.
I don't think call answering-islam a "pile of filth" is helpful. That is certainly not an objective opinion. I have read a number of Islamic attempts to refute aspects of Christianity. Frankly, a lot of them I find laughable, in the sense that they complete misunderstand the Bible or Christianity. Arguments even I can refute in 5 seconds because some basic point is being missed. (There's even one like that in this Ahmed Deedat Wikipedia article!) And I'm sure Muslims think the same of a lot of Christian material. A lot of this arises from misunderstanding each other. Sometimes genuine misunderstanding, sometimes blinded my missionary zeal. But name-calling doesn't help.
You say that every single argument on the anwering-islam site has been refuted at answering-christianity.org. Refuted according to who? That may be your opinion, it is certainly not objective fact.
Now from the evangelical Christian point of view, answering-islam.org IS a reliable source. For instance Christianity Today, probably the leading evangelical Christian magazine in the world, gave a list of Islamic "Evangelism & Apologetics" resouces in 2002. [11] It listed 4 books and 2 web sites: one of the sites being answering-islam.org
And if there was a better evangelical response to Deedat, answering-islam would probably link to it anyway. Since it hasn't, I've trusted them that John Gilchrist's is the most thorough response. The lack of responses by major big-name authors doesn't mean they can't answer Deedat, more likely it's because they haven't heard of him.
So in summary, answering-islam is a reliable source, and it's probably got the most thorough evangelical Christian response to Deedat's material. So it certainly deserves a link somewhere in the article. Peter Ballard ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I haven't been as active in this field of Dawah as long as you claim to be in Christian evangelism and so I cannot make claims of finding any Christian arguments laughable per say, but then I do believe that Deedat's work, along with his making popular of the book 'Izharul Haq' written by distinguished 19th century scholar, Rahmatullah Kairanvi, against the Christian offensive in India during the British era, DID indeed pave the way for Muslims around the world to have a strong tool to defend themselves from a) humiliation due to lack of knowledge of their own faith alongwith Christianity and b) subsequent submission and entrapment in the webs of deceit spun in order to catch gullible Muslims unawares and maneuver them into a conversion of their faith. There's no denying that the missionary zeal with which Christians have been working in the field of evangelism, has been many orders more enthusiastic than what we Muslims have done so far.
Deedat's logical analysis and questioning of the Christian faith by way of debate on the theory of whether Jesus Christ (pbuh) was really crucified and if yes then was his (pbuh) prophecy in Matthew 12:39-40 about the 'sign of Jonah' (pbuh) (I'm sure you must have heard about this one) false, was indeed quite a good question that we Muslims were given to ask the evangelists and bible-thumping missionaries knocking our doors and attempting to throw metaphoric filth at Islam.
Yes, Gilchrist has refuted Deedat saying that the early Hebrew way of calculating days and that of present-day English is different and hence the sign of 3-days and 3-nights is complete. However he fails to realize that in calculating Friday evening, the whole of Saturday, and the sunrise of Sunday, as 3 days according to Hebrew, he has actually missed out on the 3nights part of the prophecy! Moreover, it might also be helpful to recall that the the mother tongue of Jesus was NOT Hebrew but Aramaic, which today is officially an Endangered language. Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, why would he make a prophecy in a language that was not his strong point? Now I am not sure how Aramaic speakers calculated days and nights, but I surely cannot find a way of finding 3 nights in that period from Friday evening to Sunday Morning. Plus, these were just my personal thoughts, when I read his article and I'm pretty sure there must be other more logical refutations as well.
A number of refutations to John Gilchrist have been published (no not by Deedat, but) by many authors, including those on Answering-Christianity http://www.answering-christianity.com/yahya_ahmed/Rebuttal_to_John_Gilchrist_1.htm as well as on a number of other websites and forums (eg. http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/48870-refute-john-gilchrist.html ) (try Google-ing around). Dr. Zakir Naik has been quite active in the field too.
Between all this, the point to be realized is, there are allegations & refutations and further refutations & allegations available for a number of things that people come up with, but do they deserve a place in an encyclopedia? 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 07:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your second point: Hebrew, Aramaic or English, Jeff5102, I still couldn't find myself counting 3-nights in the time between the evening of Good Friday and morning of Easter Sunday. Nevertheless again, I do not consider this as a forum for a debate on the roots/teachings of Christianity and also understand that both parties, yourself and me, might not be well-equipped in answering any questions like these. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 11:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the best solution should be, that we make a Legacy-section, in which we can write, that on the one hand, Deedat made Christians study the Bible more intensely, so that they could solve the problems which were adduced by Deedat< ref >the Answering Islam-link < /ref >, while several Muslims (like Zakir Naik,ec) are maintaining the heritage of Deedat < ref > some links to Answering-Christianity, IRF.net,< /ref >., if that is still needed after we mentioned Naik< /ref>. So, we are avoiding the 'refutation'-part. and the article can have a happy end, without the 'hurt'. Peter, Elazeez, do you think that could work? Jeff5102 ( talk) 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeff5102: In creating a separate section to represent POVs, we're actually getting carried away towards a mutated version of a POV Fork -- quite unacceptable by WP standards. Besides, you've missed the point. My point is (and always WAS) that polemic POV sites like Answering-Islam, Answering-Christianity etc. need to be left out of an encyclopedia article. You see, Gilchrist's (or anybody else for that matter) saying that he refutes Deedat could also be categorised as a POV by substantial parts of our target audience. The ONLY thing that sets apart a Non-POV cite from a POV one, is that the former comes from a reliably neutral source while the latter does not; and THAT Peter & Jeff5102, makes it acceptable for inclusion on WP. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 06:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
A 'POV fork' in WP is concering " an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article." I do not believe, that christian responses, or islamic responses to christian responses, are treated in the rest of this article. So, if the three of us cannot agree on this subject, maybe sonmeone can ask for a WP:3O. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think attempting to argue that polemical websites like answering-islam/answeing-christianity may be regarded as reliable sources - in an article about one of their opponents, no less - is an inherently lost cause. Peter, your points about AI imply notability, not reliability. Same with Gilchrist, authoring a book or two does not make you reliable when the publisher itself is not a respected authority. Refer to WP:RS for what is to be expected from publishers. Association with Josh McDowell, who himself is a polemicist according to his article, really does not amount to anything in terms of reliability. Gilchrist himself doesn't seem to be reliable in terms of meeting any of the requirements listed in content policies/guidelines. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is, that Gilchrist/Answering-Islam-reference is not used as "information about Deedat", but to show that there are "evangelical responses to Deedat."
If a sentence was put in, like "Deedat is an ignorant hate-monger< ref >Answering Islam </ ref>" or "Deedat mistakenly argues that...< ref >Answering Islam </ ref>" , I should say that that sentence should be deleted immediately. In that case, their claim might be true, but then, the source is obviously too biased.
However, the reference was linked to the following sentence: "Some Evangelical Christian apologists have written responses to Deedat's material." We now have the question, whether we may use a site, containing responses of Evangelical Christian apologists, to prove that Evangelical Christian apologists made a response. That is silly.
And concerning Isnet.org: see the references below. Furthermore, it also published the transcript of the debate between Ahmed Deedat and Josh McDowell (like AI did as well, by the way). Jeff5102 ( talk) 21:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added a new section External Links to the main article where all of Deedat's Youtube links will henceforth be pasted. As the portion from the "External Links Instruction Page" below shows, youtube video links in an External Links section are fine as long as they are non-copyright material. Which is the case with all Deedat videos on youtube.
O, please, I gave you some compliments on the work you did on this article earlier. Don't act too angry if there is a disagreement over here. Look, there is already a link to movies of Lectures and Debates of Ahmed Deedat in the external sources -section. I do not see why we should have included those movies twice in the same article. Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why youtube videos are necessarily 'important' - if so verify their importance. If it's just a compilation of talks hand-picked by a particular editor then I don't believe it's necessary. We can provide one link to a website with a video archive and in my view that is sufficient.
Secondly, sources like Answering-Islam, Answering-Christianity etc. are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia - one may refer to WP:RS and WP:V. This has long been the consensus on Islam-related articles. If AI's or any evangelical Christian's attacks on Deedat are noteworthy then it will have been mentioned by a third party reliable source, and that is what we rely upon. Partisan websites of either skew are not relied upon for content. ITAQALLAH 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay Guys.....I think Most of us would agree that we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry give his comments about Sheikh Deedat... If everyone started giving his own "critical analysis"....Then we are going to spoil the article... And we must also keep in mind that this is a PROFILE of a person in an ENCYCLOPEDIA... So We have to provide a unbiased correct Information regarding his Life... Adil your ( talk) 20:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::Interesting. That point of view should also exclude the conversions of Gary Miller and Kenneth L. Jenkins as well as the review by Henry Hock Guan Teh. Furthermore, it would exclude all debates expept for the
Jimmy Swaggart- and the
Josh McDowell-debate. After all, who cares for Stanley Sjöberg, Dr. Robert Douglas PhD, Wesley H. Wakefield or Floyd E. Clark? Maybe the
Anis Shorrosh-could stay, but as far as I could see his only claim to fame was debating Ahmed Deedat. And of course, only the critism of
Farid Esack could survive. The rest of the critics are hardly notable people. Is that what you want, or am I pushing it too far?
Jeff5102 (
talk)
12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well if you had been serious, then it wouldn't make any sense....Since these were all DEBATES.... NOT COMMENTS....!!! 119.152.9.57 ( talk) 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The stories of attempted conversions by Christians when he was sick ("Illness and Death 1996-2005" section) sound like very one-sided accounts of what happened. They should at the very least be prefaced by the word "reportedly", but I think it is better to simply say that he had Christian visitors who were unsuccessful in converting him, and have the reference for further reading. Peter Ballard ( talk) 12:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The point of locking the article is so that we can discuss issues without edit warring. But first a few comments:
Now, onto the content. I've created a subsection (below) for each one. Please add a subsection if I've missed any. Peter Ballard ( talk) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I say yes, because it appears to simply be an Ahmed Deedat video, which his son republished as a DVD. Also it was criticised by many South African Muslims, which I think is very significant. Peter Ballard ( talk) 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah... We should only keep what Ahmed Deedat said or did himself, not what his don did after his death... Adil your ( talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
i.e. Gary Miller and Kenneth Jenkins, there may be others.
I must say I'm puzzled why my edits here keep getting reverted. Henry Hock Guan Teh is not a well-known writer (just try googling for him, there's not much once you remove Wikipedia and its mirrors). And I don't see any need to name him except in the footnotes - what he says is pretty uncontroversial and is I think agreed by thoughtful people on either side.
Perhaps the real objection is that I removed the comment that the debate had a major impact in the Christian world, but I stand by that. I don't know of any evidence of any "major impact". Peter Ballard ( talk) 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Specifically: Is a youtube video sufficient evidence that Deedat debated Pope John Paul II?
On second thoughts, the current version has no reference to Youtube, but has this much better reference. [22] Perhaps this section is already settled? Peter Ballard ( talk) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Answering-Islam is separate to the Jenkins + Miller question. But after further searching I'm now sure it is notable enough to include. In answer to the objection above, Answering-Islam is "backed by Reliable and Verifiable sources". Christianity Today, probably the leading evangelical Christian magazine in the world, has endorsed it many times over the years. I found nine different times between 2000 and 2008 before I stopped looking. Here are just three, from 2000, [23], 2004, [24] and 2008. [25]
But the response to Deedat is actually the work of John Gilchrist. This is of a higher reliability (in the Wikipedia sense) than most other material on Answering-Islam, because it is a set of published books, which are merely hosted on the Answering-Islam web site. They were originally published by a small South African Christian publisher (it's unclear whether the publisher was "Jesus to the Muslims" or "Roodeport Mission Press", sources vary). A small publishing house like that would ordinarily be a dubious source, but I can offer three very strong sources which vouch for the reliability of Gilchrist's books (from an evangelical Christian perspective):
1. Christianity Today directly endorses one of John Gilchrist's books; the 2004 link above says, "Answering Islam has a page of essays and articles on "The Christian Witness to the Muslim."", and links to the Gilchrist book of that name on the AI site. [26] This book directly answers some of Deedat's material in a few places, e.g. chapters 6c, 7b and 9b.
2. Ravi Zacharias, a prominent evangelical Christian writer, has also endorsed Gilchrist's work. In 1995 he wrote, "The Christian Witness to the Muslim and Muhammad and the Religion of Islam" by John Gilchrist (Republic of South Africa: Roodepoort Mission Press, 1988; contact: Jesus to the Muslims, P.O. Box 1804, Benoni, R.S.A.). An outstanding two-volume set." [27] Again, note that a book is being endorsed which (in part) directly argues against Deedat.
3. But most importantly, Gilchrist has co-authored a book with prominent Christian apologist Josh McDowell. This book is about McDowell's debate with Deedat. [28] The entire book (unfortunately just an 8 MB scan, not searchable text) can be downloaded. [29] The actual debate is page 140 onwards, but before that there is a whole lot of background, including some of Gilchrist's material which directly quotes and argues against Deedat's. I assume that McDowell co-operated with Gilchrist because he recognised Gilchrist as an expert on Christian-Islam debate. In other words, McDowell endorses Gilchrist's material. By the way, the book also says that Gilchrist debated Deedat in 1975. In fact Gilchrist is probably notable enough to have his own short Wikipedia page.
Now this McDowell/Gilchrist book clearly qualifies as a notable Christian response to Deedat, so Gilchrist's individual material - which expands on what is in that book - must qualify also. But Gilchrist's individual material is more accessible - it's small, web pages, instead of a single 8 MB unsearchable file. So we should definitely link to it: it's a Christian response to Deedat, by a notable Christian writer. I suggest we insert a sentence or short paragraph which reads something like this: "John Gilchrist, a South African Christian writer who debated Deedat in 1975, has written an evangelical Christian response to much of Deedat's material" (link to http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/index.html ) Peter Ballard ( talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No, we can't put the response in the article since there are multiple responses given to Answering-Islam and other writers by Answering-Christianity... Now if we put that link as a response to answering Islam, then someone might come along saying he has a response to that as well. So instead of putting responses, and further responses, we have to keep ourselves on the topic and that is the life of Ahmed Deedat... Adil your ( talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to put the response of John Gilchrist, then you must put the claims of Deedat first with proper references from bible, which BTW include that Jesus was not God, The gospels are un-authentic and crucifixion never happened according to the bible, Jesus never resurrected and never fulfilled the sign of Jonah...and the famous Ezekiel 23.... If there is a consensus that all these works of Deedat should be put up in detail with proper references and quotations, then I guess there is logic behind the idea of putting up a response, but just by saying that "He wrote this book, and here is the response to it" feels like POV to me.... Adil your ( talk) 04:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about Gilchrist's response, with pretty well the wording I suggested on 18 June. Peter Ballard ( talk) 13:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No one else wants to discuss it, it seems. I think we should seek some sort of formal mediation. Though looking through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, it's not entirely clear where we should go. To me it's all about the source's reliability - indicating I think the place to go is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - but it seems to me that Adil's concerns are more about implicit POV pushing. So where, if anywhere, should we go? p.s. Another possibility is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Peter Ballard ( talk) 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Help desk, I should say. Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ahmed Deedat. Other editors are invited to contribute. Peter Ballard ( talk) 11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The debates with Shorrosh, McDowell, Swaggart and Sjöberg were notable. But what about the debates with Dr. Robert Douglas (?), PhD ( Zwimmer Institute(?)) Or Wesley H. Wakefield (?) (Bishop General of the Bible Holiness Movement of Vancouver(?)). Or Pastor Eric Bock in Copenhagen? Is there any secundary source which reviews these debates? Or are there transcripts?And otherwise, why should we include those guys? Jeff5102 ( talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, we are talking about an article in an encyclopedia - and not about an exhaustive biography, which covers EVERY little detail of Deedats life. Otherwise, we can include all the matches Real Madrid played at the Real Madrid-article. THat wouldn't be interesting enough, I think. And please, let the sources speak for themselves. If those debates with Eric Bock or mr. Douglas are important enough to be placed over here, there should at least be some evidence that these debates are worth publishing. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess we shouldn't give a detailed version of the debate but at least it should be mentioned that Ahmed Deedat had debated with eric brock and Douglous... One more thing I think is worth Mentioning is Gary Miller... He is actually quite popular and has been a devouted chritian missionary and his conversion after the debate is a very important event... He has even written books on religion and is actually more popular then some of the professors mentioned in the article... Adil your ( talk) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We should have a critical look at the External links-section. There are some dead links, links to islamic bookstores, a link to an unreadable book and two links to a collection of Deedats books. We can do a better job on that. Jeff5102 ( talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, seriously, on topic: we have:
It is possible, but like the earlies incarnations of User:IslamForEver1, our friend User:Burdoh
Of course, it could all be a coincidence, but the odds are heavily against it. To give an example: we agreed that the link Ahmad-deedat.co.uk has no purpose in this article. I cannot find any reason why it should be reinserted. Still User:Burdoh put it back. Why should he have done that, I wonder? Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
See here for some information that might be able to be salvaged, but on the whole it's not so great. gren グレン 07:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The link claiming he was an antisemite is false, asserting without any evidence besides lipservice. Please take it down.
Need to Wikify this page, will do it in a day or two. User:Monotheist User talk:Monotheist
While this page is a strong start, it gives the distinct impression that Deedat is 'right' and his critics 'wrong' and also downplays criticism, when in fact he is a highly controversial figure not just to christians but also to science.. Needs a rewrite.
Alex Bartho
14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to organize this page
Hero worship. Evidence used in analysis of Deedat's work prooves too much, he cannot be personally accredited with conversion without evidence and the argument in the conclusion that he demonstrated the Qur'an logically flows with the Bible is just that - an argument. Or rather a position within an argument - a point of view unsubstantianted by the supplied evidence, nor could it be considering there has been no reconciliation on the matter between the two camps on the issue.
Also the author's unsubstantiated theological perspectives bleed through the article:
e.g.
"This in turn had led to a rash of anti-Deedat sites, whilst some make legitimate claims of Deedats (at times) offensive and blunt style, they have had little success in countering the most popular of Deedat's arguments. This is mainly due to the reliance on sources external to the Bible which are subject to various interpretations, whilst Deedat has limited (as much as possible) his argument to the Bible (because Christian missionaries traditionally ignore any external sources that contradicts the Bible in debates). Another problem of these sites is that they attempt to duplicate the Deedat template, e.g. criticism of the Qur'an, which on record has had rare success only because the nature of both books are different, eg while the Bible is filled with recorded history and events, the Qur'an claims to be a revealed preaching text, only using history when it is relevant to highlighting the moral of a story."
1. There is no evidence supplied for the conclusion the author draws of why or even if criticism of deedat (anti-deedat is a value judgement) was unsuccesful.
As a general note I think this is a good rough draft - once the article is cleaned up to meet wikistandards I feel many of these issues will sort themselves out.
I find this article is an accurate portrayal of Deedat. In most of Deedat's debates, he clearly has the upper hand as his arguments are far from emotional. He uses a very logical approach to arguing his perspective, especially taking Biblical verses in their context to support his arguments. I suggest that people should watch Deedat's debates before making comments saying that he didn't win (or take dominance) in most, if not all, of them.
What was tis man's formal religious education? I find it alarming that he did not know Greek o Hebrew. Sort of undermines his credibility as a revered bilblical scholar.
I find this to be absolutely biased section and anything here cannot be mentioned as criticism. Just for example he is criticized for saying: "Indian Muslims were 'fortunate' that their Hindu forefathers 'saw the light' and converted to Islam" Whats wrong if he says that? He is supposed to say that. This is nothing to criticize. Someone please clean this section and add something only if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.117 ( talk) 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article needs massive clean up. Arbusto 07:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to say that prior to judge wether this account about deedat is accurate or not, we must see the videos and judge for ourselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.184.118 ( talk) 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add this link http://www.halaltube.com/category/ahmed-deedat to the External Links section. It's just a site with a listing of many of his lectures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahideenryder ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing section because: para 1 is primary statement para 2 is misguiding the links with Saudi Binladin Group, as Osama Bin Laden! para 2 is about his son. This artcile is supposed to be on Ahmed Deedat -- Isle Scape Talk 11:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is not very balanced. It reads more like an essay critical of Deedat and as someone who came to learn more about the man, I found little neutral or non biased commnetary. 72.74.16.200 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
REGARDING: "The
Stephen Roth Institute also accuses Deedat of being an
anti-Semite"
A search of The Stephen Roth Institute does NOT reveal that it makes any such claims itself. It merely REPORTS an unsubstantiated claim. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.106.119.15 (
talk)
02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a link after the word "anti-semitic" in the beginning that linked to a site named Americans Against Hate, which is an anti-Islamic hate site. I removed that link since it's against the basic principles of neutrality. One such aspect of this site's unreliability is this:
"STOP THE MOSQUE (STM) was spearheaded by a group of concerned individuals who believe that radical mosques or Islamic centers do not belong in American neighborhoods. STM will use all legal means necessary to prohibit these types of institutions from being built"
http://www.americansagainsthate.org/stm/
The site is full of other similar "watch" programs of Muslim charities and organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoticClown ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is Farid Esack and www.crosscurrents.org a reliable source? Bless sins ( talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
i do not agree with the inclusion of the 2006 anti-hindu video made by his son yusuf deedat. after all the title of this article is "Ahmed Deedat" not "Yusuf Deedat." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Av6330 ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
agree!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.117 ( talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed...!!! Adil your ( talk) 11:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
But Ahmed Deedat feautues in the DVD, so it IS appropriate. Peter Ballard ( talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the orbituary by Goolam Valed, it was even worse: it says:
That is something those Deedat-fans never tell here! Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Who says I am angry about Deedat? I am only angry at a guy who is under the names of User:Bel3afia, User:Burdoh, or one of the names you can find at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of IslamForEver1. His work here is quite destructive, I must say. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand english... I said its your edit-war thats destroying the article so stop reverting each other and try to form a consensus... But if you keep on reverting like this then yes, i will report you... Adil your ( talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia You have said in the Criticisms section of Ahmad Deedat that
{..the Bible does nothing to convince Westerners of the truth of Islam since Western culture is essentially secular}
That is a JOKE and LIE
Bush whom Was "democraticly Elected Twice " said that " god /his god told him to Invade Iraq"... !!That is Not Secular
And why Israel exist?..Is not because of this Bible that estimated the creation of the whole cosmos to be less than 6000 years ago ( 6000 years AFTER Jericho been built)and about the mythical Solomon temple that has NO archeological traces?
The WEST is Not Secular. 82.5.167.237 ( talk) 10:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Other wise you all have to admit that you are NOT objective and that all your motives(wars occupation of Palestine, Iraq, and expelling Palestinians from their Native home land and deny them from returning ) are NOT secular, but based on instructions from mythical book called the bible that state fairy tales stories
82.5.167.237 ( talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
BobGriffin-Nukraya ( talk) 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The website of Islamic Research Foundation is http://www.irf.net not the Christian reference given to Islamic Research Foundation - which is merrily a spam google adds page. Please change it... [[[User:SuleimanAliKhan|SuleimanAliKhan]] ( talk) 11:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Many Muslims criticised Deedat. For example, Deedat held a viewpoint different to that of the Qur'an regarding the crucifixion of Jesus/Isa.
Also, the Muslim Digest did an issue criticising Deedat. -- Ali M Saad ( talk) 18:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Ali M Saad ( talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we are witnessing blatantly biased and poor quality edits from IP 72.81.208.215 whose aim seems to be to peacock the profile of Deedat. Adding section title like Honors by Muslims and Non-Muslims just because one country issued a postage stamp is quite silly Zencv Lets discuss 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The Direct Impacts subheading serves no purpose. Unless anyone can think of a reason why we should include Deedat's personal impact on non-notable persons I will remove this section. Similarly, the mention of a debate with the previous Pope does not belong in that section. -- Ali M Saad ( talk) 15:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it may not deserve a sub-heading, but they are indeed significant . In this case, I would rename Lectures and debates section to Lectures, debates and impacts. Zencv Lets discuss 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I added back the removed sourced contents in the lead. To make it more neutral, I had removed some of the POV style weasel words. Zencv Lets discuss 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Ali M Saad ( talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
When I started editing this article, there were lots of peacock style headings and sentences. Now I am afraid that its a coatrack. Just like cheap praises have been removed, irrelevant or poorly sourced criticisms should also be removed Zencv Lets discuss 08:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If you've read the policies, you can see that youtube.com is no third-party independent reliable source. It is in fact a public video sharing website - and videos of Deedat on there are primary sources. It's third party independent (i.e. secondary) reliable sources which decide that, by deeming it worthy of substantial coverage - and not you. Sources should apply to these specifications:
Clearly, Youtube cannot count as a reliable source. Jeff5102 ( talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely stupid to mention David Westurlunds purely ENTIRELY PERSONAL OPINION about deedat. Who the Hell is he to comment on our hero. It is like asking Osama's opinion on Bush. Deedat was never defensive. He was aggressive and put stalwarts like Jimmy Swaggarts to absolute shame. In my words "He put an end to the torture inflicted upon the muslims by the christian missionaries who used to enter their houses and make fun of Muhammad so that the muslims convert to christianity due to shame". He reversed this situation and he reached a point where he could say this: "If the entire christian world is terrified of this OLD MAN, then there must be something wrong with your religion".--Shaikh Ahmed deedat. People here claim that Deedat was wrong. He challenged every pope, every Bishop and every PAID SERVANT OF GOD for OPEN PUBLIC DEBATES, why did they NOT PROVE HIM WRONG? To take David Westurlund's opinion is silly, If I say David Westerlund or Jimmy Swaggart is a bastard, will you take it?.)
I don't know why this should be a good text: "Among Deedat's close friends were Goolam Hoosein Vanker and Taahir Rasool, whom many refer to as 'the unsung heroes of Deedat's career'. They formed a study circle to look at the teachings of the Quran, and in 1956 Deedat and Vanker set up the IPCI in Durban.[4]
In 1957, Deedat, together two of his close friends, Goolam Hoosein Vanker and Taahir Rasool, founded the Islamic Propagation Centre International (IPCI)..." It looks as a repetition of the same texts to me.
Furthermore:
And finally, I do not like the idea that my work on this article is called 'vandalism' by an anonymous user. Thus, it is simply reverted. I guess that is not the policy that made Wikipedia the great encyclopedia it has become. Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyone who wants to give some critical remarks to my comments? Otherwise, we might unprotect the page, and edit it according to my comments. Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The following minor information has been moved down to its own section entitled "His Method" on the main page. It does not qualify as material significant enough to be put up top as major information about Ahmed Deedat. Nor is David Westerlund someone of any stature in the missionary world whose comment is notable to be "defining" Ahmed Deedat.
"According to David Westerlund, Deedat aimed at providing Muslims with theological tools for defending themselves against the intense missionary strivings of many Christian denominations. He used English instead of Arabic or any other language to get his message across to Muslim minorities in the western world. [1] Dungsniffer ( talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done a major overhaul of the 'Lectures and Debates' Section. I have split it up and added and expanded a 'Writings' Section. Also expanded the 'Honors' Section. I am intimately familiar with Ahmed Deedat's works and the Lectures section was very poorly structured and missing many of his important works. I have left the Criticism and Early Life section pretty much as is. Dungsniffer ( talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Aw shucks, i ended up expanding the 'Early Life' section as well. I have renamed it Biography and added significantly to it based primarily on the Deedat's own interview about his early missionary activity. Dungsniffer ( talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section contains many quotations and remarks by people that are simply making fun or degrading the works of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat... I don't think that these remarks should be placed in his profile since they carry no weight in terms of logic nor refute any of his claims... Another thing I see is that Answering-Islam.com has a hidden advertisment in the article, So that must also be cleaned up... It says that they have written texts answering Deedat's question but those texts are already answered by Dr.Zakir Naik....So that claim is also wrong....So I think we ought to remove any Negative or abusing criticism and keep only POSITIVE CRITICISM.....peace.... Adil your ( talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello friends. I have done some langage clean-up of my original write-up and re-configuration of extant article from some months back. Being that many things have been added and subtracted and added back again and subtracted and then added again over that time period. Have improved grammar in several places as well. To give a more well-rounded narrative. Important changes to note:
I too have made some changes to Debates' section since I possess some knowledge in that area. Haven't edited the Biography section much though except for the part about his Illness and Death.
The re-inclusion of a link to the 'answering-islam' website after I removed it seems like POV-pushing to me, and I really can't see the need for it. Moreover, the website is not targetted to just Deedat but towards Islam as a whole and thus its inclusion directly falls under WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion. Writing a statement like "Some Evangelical Christian apologists have written responses to Deedat's material" as an excuse for putting in a link to that site is only a case of POV pushing and should not find a place in an encyclopedia.
I am proceeding to delete that link, keeping the statement intact because I do believe that the statement holds good but the website does not. Please do not re-include the website without explaining its dire necessity here first. Thanks. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 10:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A few comments on answering-islam.org.
First, to avoid any notion of secrecy, I must disclose that I have contributed a small number of articles to answering-islam.org in the distant past. (Last update 2002 I think). But I am not active there now, but even if I was, I have 8000+ Wikipedia edits behind me, and I believe I have a history of editing neutrally, which anyone can check. I put the edit in because the Deedat article had lots of links to Deedat's material, but none - none! - to any responses. I believe I did this in a way which was clearly labelled, in the appropriate section, and in general appropriate for Wikipedia. A link is certainly appropriate because many readers will want to read not only Deedat's material, but responses to it.
I don't think call answering-islam a "pile of filth" is helpful. That is certainly not an objective opinion. I have read a number of Islamic attempts to refute aspects of Christianity. Frankly, a lot of them I find laughable, in the sense that they complete misunderstand the Bible or Christianity. Arguments even I can refute in 5 seconds because some basic point is being missed. (There's even one like that in this Ahmed Deedat Wikipedia article!) And I'm sure Muslims think the same of a lot of Christian material. A lot of this arises from misunderstanding each other. Sometimes genuine misunderstanding, sometimes blinded my missionary zeal. But name-calling doesn't help.
You say that every single argument on the anwering-islam site has been refuted at answering-christianity.org. Refuted according to who? That may be your opinion, it is certainly not objective fact.
Now from the evangelical Christian point of view, answering-islam.org IS a reliable source. For instance Christianity Today, probably the leading evangelical Christian magazine in the world, gave a list of Islamic "Evangelism & Apologetics" resouces in 2002. [11] It listed 4 books and 2 web sites: one of the sites being answering-islam.org
And if there was a better evangelical response to Deedat, answering-islam would probably link to it anyway. Since it hasn't, I've trusted them that John Gilchrist's is the most thorough response. The lack of responses by major big-name authors doesn't mean they can't answer Deedat, more likely it's because they haven't heard of him.
So in summary, answering-islam is a reliable source, and it's probably got the most thorough evangelical Christian response to Deedat's material. So it certainly deserves a link somewhere in the article. Peter Ballard ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I haven't been as active in this field of Dawah as long as you claim to be in Christian evangelism and so I cannot make claims of finding any Christian arguments laughable per say, but then I do believe that Deedat's work, along with his making popular of the book 'Izharul Haq' written by distinguished 19th century scholar, Rahmatullah Kairanvi, against the Christian offensive in India during the British era, DID indeed pave the way for Muslims around the world to have a strong tool to defend themselves from a) humiliation due to lack of knowledge of their own faith alongwith Christianity and b) subsequent submission and entrapment in the webs of deceit spun in order to catch gullible Muslims unawares and maneuver them into a conversion of their faith. There's no denying that the missionary zeal with which Christians have been working in the field of evangelism, has been many orders more enthusiastic than what we Muslims have done so far.
Deedat's logical analysis and questioning of the Christian faith by way of debate on the theory of whether Jesus Christ (pbuh) was really crucified and if yes then was his (pbuh) prophecy in Matthew 12:39-40 about the 'sign of Jonah' (pbuh) (I'm sure you must have heard about this one) false, was indeed quite a good question that we Muslims were given to ask the evangelists and bible-thumping missionaries knocking our doors and attempting to throw metaphoric filth at Islam.
Yes, Gilchrist has refuted Deedat saying that the early Hebrew way of calculating days and that of present-day English is different and hence the sign of 3-days and 3-nights is complete. However he fails to realize that in calculating Friday evening, the whole of Saturday, and the sunrise of Sunday, as 3 days according to Hebrew, he has actually missed out on the 3nights part of the prophecy! Moreover, it might also be helpful to recall that the the mother tongue of Jesus was NOT Hebrew but Aramaic, which today is officially an Endangered language. Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, why would he make a prophecy in a language that was not his strong point? Now I am not sure how Aramaic speakers calculated days and nights, but I surely cannot find a way of finding 3 nights in that period from Friday evening to Sunday Morning. Plus, these were just my personal thoughts, when I read his article and I'm pretty sure there must be other more logical refutations as well.
A number of refutations to John Gilchrist have been published (no not by Deedat, but) by many authors, including those on Answering-Christianity http://www.answering-christianity.com/yahya_ahmed/Rebuttal_to_John_Gilchrist_1.htm as well as on a number of other websites and forums (eg. http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/48870-refute-john-gilchrist.html ) (try Google-ing around). Dr. Zakir Naik has been quite active in the field too.
Between all this, the point to be realized is, there are allegations & refutations and further refutations & allegations available for a number of things that people come up with, but do they deserve a place in an encyclopedia? 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 07:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your second point: Hebrew, Aramaic or English, Jeff5102, I still couldn't find myself counting 3-nights in the time between the evening of Good Friday and morning of Easter Sunday. Nevertheless again, I do not consider this as a forum for a debate on the roots/teachings of Christianity and also understand that both parties, yourself and me, might not be well-equipped in answering any questions like these. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 11:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the best solution should be, that we make a Legacy-section, in which we can write, that on the one hand, Deedat made Christians study the Bible more intensely, so that they could solve the problems which were adduced by Deedat< ref >the Answering Islam-link < /ref >, while several Muslims (like Zakir Naik,ec) are maintaining the heritage of Deedat < ref > some links to Answering-Christianity, IRF.net,< /ref >., if that is still needed after we mentioned Naik< /ref>. So, we are avoiding the 'refutation'-part. and the article can have a happy end, without the 'hurt'. Peter, Elazeez, do you think that could work? Jeff5102 ( talk) 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeff5102: In creating a separate section to represent POVs, we're actually getting carried away towards a mutated version of a POV Fork -- quite unacceptable by WP standards. Besides, you've missed the point. My point is (and always WAS) that polemic POV sites like Answering-Islam, Answering-Christianity etc. need to be left out of an encyclopedia article. You see, Gilchrist's (or anybody else for that matter) saying that he refutes Deedat could also be categorised as a POV by substantial parts of our target audience. The ONLY thing that sets apart a Non-POV cite from a POV one, is that the former comes from a reliably neutral source while the latter does not; and THAT Peter & Jeff5102, makes it acceptable for inclusion on WP. 'Abd el 'Azeez ( talk) 06:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
A 'POV fork' in WP is concering " an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article." I do not believe, that christian responses, or islamic responses to christian responses, are treated in the rest of this article. So, if the three of us cannot agree on this subject, maybe sonmeone can ask for a WP:3O. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think attempting to argue that polemical websites like answering-islam/answeing-christianity may be regarded as reliable sources - in an article about one of their opponents, no less - is an inherently lost cause. Peter, your points about AI imply notability, not reliability. Same with Gilchrist, authoring a book or two does not make you reliable when the publisher itself is not a respected authority. Refer to WP:RS for what is to be expected from publishers. Association with Josh McDowell, who himself is a polemicist according to his article, really does not amount to anything in terms of reliability. Gilchrist himself doesn't seem to be reliable in terms of meeting any of the requirements listed in content policies/guidelines. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is, that Gilchrist/Answering-Islam-reference is not used as "information about Deedat", but to show that there are "evangelical responses to Deedat."
If a sentence was put in, like "Deedat is an ignorant hate-monger< ref >Answering Islam </ ref>" or "Deedat mistakenly argues that...< ref >Answering Islam </ ref>" , I should say that that sentence should be deleted immediately. In that case, their claim might be true, but then, the source is obviously too biased.
However, the reference was linked to the following sentence: "Some Evangelical Christian apologists have written responses to Deedat's material." We now have the question, whether we may use a site, containing responses of Evangelical Christian apologists, to prove that Evangelical Christian apologists made a response. That is silly.
And concerning Isnet.org: see the references below. Furthermore, it also published the transcript of the debate between Ahmed Deedat and Josh McDowell (like AI did as well, by the way). Jeff5102 ( talk) 21:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added a new section External Links to the main article where all of Deedat's Youtube links will henceforth be pasted. As the portion from the "External Links Instruction Page" below shows, youtube video links in an External Links section are fine as long as they are non-copyright material. Which is the case with all Deedat videos on youtube.
O, please, I gave you some compliments on the work you did on this article earlier. Don't act too angry if there is a disagreement over here. Look, there is already a link to movies of Lectures and Debates of Ahmed Deedat in the external sources -section. I do not see why we should have included those movies twice in the same article. Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why youtube videos are necessarily 'important' - if so verify their importance. If it's just a compilation of talks hand-picked by a particular editor then I don't believe it's necessary. We can provide one link to a website with a video archive and in my view that is sufficient.
Secondly, sources like Answering-Islam, Answering-Christianity etc. are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia - one may refer to WP:RS and WP:V. This has long been the consensus on Islam-related articles. If AI's or any evangelical Christian's attacks on Deedat are noteworthy then it will have been mentioned by a third party reliable source, and that is what we rely upon. Partisan websites of either skew are not relied upon for content. ITAQALLAH 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay Guys.....I think Most of us would agree that we can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry give his comments about Sheikh Deedat... If everyone started giving his own "critical analysis"....Then we are going to spoil the article... And we must also keep in mind that this is a PROFILE of a person in an ENCYCLOPEDIA... So We have to provide a unbiased correct Information regarding his Life... Adil your ( talk) 20:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::Interesting. That point of view should also exclude the conversions of Gary Miller and Kenneth L. Jenkins as well as the review by Henry Hock Guan Teh. Furthermore, it would exclude all debates expept for the
Jimmy Swaggart- and the
Josh McDowell-debate. After all, who cares for Stanley Sjöberg, Dr. Robert Douglas PhD, Wesley H. Wakefield or Floyd E. Clark? Maybe the
Anis Shorrosh-could stay, but as far as I could see his only claim to fame was debating Ahmed Deedat. And of course, only the critism of
Farid Esack could survive. The rest of the critics are hardly notable people. Is that what you want, or am I pushing it too far?
Jeff5102 (
talk)
12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well if you had been serious, then it wouldn't make any sense....Since these were all DEBATES.... NOT COMMENTS....!!! 119.152.9.57 ( talk) 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The stories of attempted conversions by Christians when he was sick ("Illness and Death 1996-2005" section) sound like very one-sided accounts of what happened. They should at the very least be prefaced by the word "reportedly", but I think it is better to simply say that he had Christian visitors who were unsuccessful in converting him, and have the reference for further reading. Peter Ballard ( talk) 12:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The point of locking the article is so that we can discuss issues without edit warring. But first a few comments:
Now, onto the content. I've created a subsection (below) for each one. Please add a subsection if I've missed any. Peter Ballard ( talk) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I say yes, because it appears to simply be an Ahmed Deedat video, which his son republished as a DVD. Also it was criticised by many South African Muslims, which I think is very significant. Peter Ballard ( talk) 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah... We should only keep what Ahmed Deedat said or did himself, not what his don did after his death... Adil your ( talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
i.e. Gary Miller and Kenneth Jenkins, there may be others.
I must say I'm puzzled why my edits here keep getting reverted. Henry Hock Guan Teh is not a well-known writer (just try googling for him, there's not much once you remove Wikipedia and its mirrors). And I don't see any need to name him except in the footnotes - what he says is pretty uncontroversial and is I think agreed by thoughtful people on either side.
Perhaps the real objection is that I removed the comment that the debate had a major impact in the Christian world, but I stand by that. I don't know of any evidence of any "major impact". Peter Ballard ( talk) 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Specifically: Is a youtube video sufficient evidence that Deedat debated Pope John Paul II?
On second thoughts, the current version has no reference to Youtube, but has this much better reference. [22] Perhaps this section is already settled? Peter Ballard ( talk) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Answering-Islam is separate to the Jenkins + Miller question. But after further searching I'm now sure it is notable enough to include. In answer to the objection above, Answering-Islam is "backed by Reliable and Verifiable sources". Christianity Today, probably the leading evangelical Christian magazine in the world, has endorsed it many times over the years. I found nine different times between 2000 and 2008 before I stopped looking. Here are just three, from 2000, [23], 2004, [24] and 2008. [25]
But the response to Deedat is actually the work of John Gilchrist. This is of a higher reliability (in the Wikipedia sense) than most other material on Answering-Islam, because it is a set of published books, which are merely hosted on the Answering-Islam web site. They were originally published by a small South African Christian publisher (it's unclear whether the publisher was "Jesus to the Muslims" or "Roodeport Mission Press", sources vary). A small publishing house like that would ordinarily be a dubious source, but I can offer three very strong sources which vouch for the reliability of Gilchrist's books (from an evangelical Christian perspective):
1. Christianity Today directly endorses one of John Gilchrist's books; the 2004 link above says, "Answering Islam has a page of essays and articles on "The Christian Witness to the Muslim."", and links to the Gilchrist book of that name on the AI site. [26] This book directly answers some of Deedat's material in a few places, e.g. chapters 6c, 7b and 9b.
2. Ravi Zacharias, a prominent evangelical Christian writer, has also endorsed Gilchrist's work. In 1995 he wrote, "The Christian Witness to the Muslim and Muhammad and the Religion of Islam" by John Gilchrist (Republic of South Africa: Roodepoort Mission Press, 1988; contact: Jesus to the Muslims, P.O. Box 1804, Benoni, R.S.A.). An outstanding two-volume set." [27] Again, note that a book is being endorsed which (in part) directly argues against Deedat.
3. But most importantly, Gilchrist has co-authored a book with prominent Christian apologist Josh McDowell. This book is about McDowell's debate with Deedat. [28] The entire book (unfortunately just an 8 MB scan, not searchable text) can be downloaded. [29] The actual debate is page 140 onwards, but before that there is a whole lot of background, including some of Gilchrist's material which directly quotes and argues against Deedat's. I assume that McDowell co-operated with Gilchrist because he recognised Gilchrist as an expert on Christian-Islam debate. In other words, McDowell endorses Gilchrist's material. By the way, the book also says that Gilchrist debated Deedat in 1975. In fact Gilchrist is probably notable enough to have his own short Wikipedia page.
Now this McDowell/Gilchrist book clearly qualifies as a notable Christian response to Deedat, so Gilchrist's individual material - which expands on what is in that book - must qualify also. But Gilchrist's individual material is more accessible - it's small, web pages, instead of a single 8 MB unsearchable file. So we should definitely link to it: it's a Christian response to Deedat, by a notable Christian writer. I suggest we insert a sentence or short paragraph which reads something like this: "John Gilchrist, a South African Christian writer who debated Deedat in 1975, has written an evangelical Christian response to much of Deedat's material" (link to http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/index.html ) Peter Ballard ( talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No, we can't put the response in the article since there are multiple responses given to Answering-Islam and other writers by Answering-Christianity... Now if we put that link as a response to answering Islam, then someone might come along saying he has a response to that as well. So instead of putting responses, and further responses, we have to keep ourselves on the topic and that is the life of Ahmed Deedat... Adil your ( talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to put the response of John Gilchrist, then you must put the claims of Deedat first with proper references from bible, which BTW include that Jesus was not God, The gospels are un-authentic and crucifixion never happened according to the bible, Jesus never resurrected and never fulfilled the sign of Jonah...and the famous Ezekiel 23.... If there is a consensus that all these works of Deedat should be put up in detail with proper references and quotations, then I guess there is logic behind the idea of putting up a response, but just by saying that "He wrote this book, and here is the response to it" feels like POV to me.... Adil your ( talk) 04:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about Gilchrist's response, with pretty well the wording I suggested on 18 June. Peter Ballard ( talk) 13:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No one else wants to discuss it, it seems. I think we should seek some sort of formal mediation. Though looking through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, it's not entirely clear where we should go. To me it's all about the source's reliability - indicating I think the place to go is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - but it seems to me that Adil's concerns are more about implicit POV pushing. So where, if anywhere, should we go? p.s. Another possibility is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Peter Ballard ( talk) 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Help desk, I should say. Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ahmed Deedat. Other editors are invited to contribute. Peter Ballard ( talk) 11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The debates with Shorrosh, McDowell, Swaggart and Sjöberg were notable. But what about the debates with Dr. Robert Douglas (?), PhD ( Zwimmer Institute(?)) Or Wesley H. Wakefield (?) (Bishop General of the Bible Holiness Movement of Vancouver(?)). Or Pastor Eric Bock in Copenhagen? Is there any secundary source which reviews these debates? Or are there transcripts?And otherwise, why should we include those guys? Jeff5102 ( talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, we are talking about an article in an encyclopedia - and not about an exhaustive biography, which covers EVERY little detail of Deedats life. Otherwise, we can include all the matches Real Madrid played at the Real Madrid-article. THat wouldn't be interesting enough, I think. And please, let the sources speak for themselves. If those debates with Eric Bock or mr. Douglas are important enough to be placed over here, there should at least be some evidence that these debates are worth publishing. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess we shouldn't give a detailed version of the debate but at least it should be mentioned that Ahmed Deedat had debated with eric brock and Douglous... One more thing I think is worth Mentioning is Gary Miller... He is actually quite popular and has been a devouted chritian missionary and his conversion after the debate is a very important event... He has even written books on religion and is actually more popular then some of the professors mentioned in the article... Adil your ( talk) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We should have a critical look at the External links-section. There are some dead links, links to islamic bookstores, a link to an unreadable book and two links to a collection of Deedats books. We can do a better job on that. Jeff5102 ( talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, seriously, on topic: we have:
It is possible, but like the earlies incarnations of User:IslamForEver1, our friend User:Burdoh
Of course, it could all be a coincidence, but the odds are heavily against it. To give an example: we agreed that the link Ahmad-deedat.co.uk has no purpose in this article. I cannot find any reason why it should be reinserted. Still User:Burdoh put it back. Why should he have done that, I wonder? Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)