Jump to content

Talk:Ahmed Deedat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

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

NPOV

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 have never seen Deedat debate, although I've read his literature. All the friends I have that have seen him debate (who, by the way, are Muslims), though, have felt that he was a very poor debator, who based his arguments as much upon rhetoric and peoples ignorance of Christianity as upon actual reason. I trust that their opinion is correct, partly because they're smart, partly because they would be unlikely to be biased against him, being Muslims, and partly because it is similar to my own experience of reading his literature.
In any case, Wikipedia policy, as set out in WP:NPOV (and WP:Attribution) is that our own opinions are completely irrelevant. What we must do is provide a fair representation of what has already been written in Reliable Sources, being balanced in favour of how far that kind of literature is balanced, rather than in favour of how wikipedians feel he should should be characterised. TJ 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

Maybe YOU think that nothing was wrong with that, but according to the given source, others did have problems with that statement.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

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)

Non-controversial edits

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)

Controversies?

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 --IsleScapeTalk 11:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Deedats have circulated videos.This is about daddy and relation with junior. But I made some changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.83.131.124 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
No balanced view, no source mentioned. The other text selectively picks from an otherwise balanced AlJazeerah article. Finally, why revert the text and add cn tags?--IsleScapeTalk 23:37, 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)

Well then why don't you tell everyone what type of things we're missing in this article?


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)

Removed hate site reference

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)

Reliable sources

Why is Farid Esack and www.crosscurrents.org a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about crosscurrents, though it seems to be archiving a lecture given at UTS. Esack himself is a South African academic and has taught religion and identity related material at various major universities. Last academic year he was visiting Harvard Divinity School. I think he's acceptable. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

yusuf deedat

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)

Actually, reading the reference,[1] it seems that Deedat junior simply took one of Ahmed Deedat's videos and converted it to DVD. In other words, all Deedat junior did was republish his father's work. So yes, it is criticism of Ahmed Deedat. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the orbituary by Goolam Valed, it was even worse: it says:

While most of Deedat’s polemics were against Christianity, he also had outspoken
views on Hindu polytheism. From Hinduism to Islam (1987), a critique of Hindu
beliefs and practices, produced a backlash from both Hindus and Muslims which
Deedat may not have anticipated. ICSA “deplored attempts by any group to degrade
the religious practices of any other community. We urge Mr Deedat to act
responsibly with understanding of the fragile base of South African society.
Mohammed Makki, editor of Muslim Digest, wrote that “never before in the history
of the Muslims of South Africa were relations between Hindus and Muslims so
damaged”

That is something those Deedat-fans never tell here!Jeff5102 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean Deedat-fans....??? You are showing signs of POV....What is it about Deedat that makes you so angry...??? Adil your (talk) 03:50, 25 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)

As far as I am concerned, he didn't destroy the article but only reverted your edits, and you actually reciprocated by reverting his.... And I think that its your edit-war with burdoh that is really destroying this article... Please refrain from it otherwise both of you may end up being blocked... BTW "That is something those Deedat-fans never tell here" is POV... You better watch yourself.... Adil your (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
So your problem is, that I give my point of view in a discussion-page? Interesting. Anyway, if you think that User:Burdoh and/or me should be blocked, please contact WP:AIV and do something against the destruction of this article. Wikipedia would thank you. See also my call to Burdoh at the end of this page.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:37, 28 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)

Why are you not doing it now? If you are that sure that reverting the edits of sock-puppets is the same as "destroying the article", please report me now. The sooner this problem is solved, the better.Jeff5102 (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
OK Gentlemen, let's try to calm down a bit. Like I said, with time we'll find out if User:Burdoh is a sock or not; yes, the sooner the better. WP is NOT a place for sock-puppetry, so regardless of whatever his/her intentions are, socks must be blocked. My advice: If you have anything worth contributing please consider getting yourself a genuine account or contribute using your own IP (see WP:CTW). Regarding Deedat's anti-Hindu video, I can't comment on what he said because I haven't personally seen the tape, but I can say that even if Deedat indeed did say something like that, it was simply his own point-of-view. Rather than mentioning the controversy Yusuf landed in because of the video, how about finding some genuinely strong references mentioning the aftermath that Sheikh Ahmed Deedat father faced following those remarks. See, the obvious point is that statements like those would surely have hurt the sentiments our Hindu friends back then, and it still holds enough material to hurt them today as well, so regardless of whatever age the video is brought up, it will cause controversy. Yusuf Deedat's facing criticism bringing out the tape after his father's death is not something that we need mention, but yes if criticism came during the father's time, then it does deserve a mention; the Goolam Valed Vahed obituary [2] seems like a good place to start looking for references. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The joke and lie by keep saying " Western culture is essentially secular"

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)

    • While many of those who voted for G. W. Bush had religious motives, many others had nationalist/imperialist motives (Project for the New American Century). Bush's decision to invade Iraq accords well with the PNAC.
    • The existence of Israel has nothing to do with the fundementalist creation date. Also, while the temple of Solomon might be mythical, the ancient presence of Hebrew-speaking people in the land is factual. (Merneptah Stele,Hezekiah Tunnel, and the liturgical use of Hebrew by the Samaritan community(Samaritan Hebrew language). Most of the ancestors of the modern Jews were driven (or fled) from Judea following the First and Second Jewish-Roman Wars (First Jewish–Roman War,Simon bar Kokhba and Talk:Simon bar Kokhba) An active community remained in Galilee, in the north(Tiberias).
    • Immediate backgrounds to the existence of the State of Israel are European anti-Semitism, British foreign policy in the early 20th century (Balfour Declaration of 1917), and growing anti-Semitism in the Arab world during the 1930s and 1940s.
    • America is far more religious than Europe, but still is mostly secular, and most Americans are uninterested in the Bible

BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference given in External Sources

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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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 :)

  • "How it all began" :
    • [http://www.islamicvoice.com/September2005/Tribute/ Sheikh Ahmed Deedat - How It All Began], by Fatima Asmal, [[Islamic Voice]], [[2005]]
    • .
  • "Asim Khan" :
    • [http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.iranian/2005-08/msg01967.html The life of Shaikh Ahmed Deedat], Asim Khan, [[August]] 20, 2005,
    • .

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Criticisms

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)

I took it on myself to include some bits about this. What frustrates me is those who blindly follow Deedat ignoring that he holds beliefs contrary to the Qur'an. I guess this is the result of younger generations who are not accustomed to what Deedat really said but only what exerts get released on youtube. His book Resurrection or Resuscitation? directly conflicts with the Qur'an.

--Ali M Saad (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

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)

Direct Impacts

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)

How is his personal effect on unknown individuals in anyway significant? Other than possibly the Pope section the rest has no place in an encyclopedia article. --Ali M Saad (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
He was an Islamic missionary, so it may be relevant that he had managed to convert a few of his opponents, even though the opponents are not as famous as him Zencv Lets discuss 21:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not notable by any standard. It is absurd to list unknown individuals impacted in an encyclopaedia biography of anyone.--Ali M Saad (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
He has impacts on many people's lives. This MUST be included. Do you think that he should have impact on some VIP's to be notable? no SIR! a whole generation of Muslims know their religion better due to him and they can answer the questions about Islam. There are many Dawah organizations founded due to the direct inspiration from deedat's. I think that Ali Saad is doing some anti-deedat propaganda here. Maybe due to some shia-sunni problem in his mind(?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.117 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, those who wrote polemics against him are not better known I guess. This article needs a complete rewrite IMO with proper balance. A biography where the first half(or third in this case) contian just praises and the rest full of criticism published by hitherto unknown journalists or authors are no good. Zencv Lets discuss 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

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)

Much of the introduction is jumbled and irrelevant.

--Ali M Saad (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

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:

  • Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. see also WP:HARM#TEST)
  • Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
  • Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.(WP:RS)

Clearly, Youtube cannot count as a reliable source.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The specific policy is WP:SPS. Youtube is a self-published resource. Therefore, it cannot qualify as a reliable resource. The side argument is that a Youtube video may be a clip of a reliable resource not easily available for free elsewhere. If that is the case, the original video is the reliable resource. The Youtube clip is not. -- kainaw™ 14:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

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:

  • Why should the conversion of some unnotable people be notable?
  • On the stamp, there is no year given, and the name of Deedat is not given as well. And normal stamps of Finland do have those characteristics. What makes me even more suspicious: I cannot find the stamp at the Finnish on-line stamp shop: [3]. I believe it is a fake.
  • Why should we insert criticism of the Stephen Roth Institute, while the given criticism is only found in a casual remark?
  • The article mentioned the criticism of Lloyd V.J. Ridgeon twice. That is not neccesary.

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)

Well you should know that a HUGE number of Muslim extremists worship every word that Deedat uttered. Any change of an article like this one is going to be fought. This article gives a misleading impression of who Deedat was, I think. Just as the first comment above, I believe that this article is somewhat polemical and gives the impression that Deedat is "right" and his opponents are "wrong". I have watched a large number of Deedat videos recently and I am developing an idea of what Deedat was like and what his message was, and this article is quite unbalanced. Deedat had a "standard 6" education, which I gather is equivalent to about "grade 8" or so in the US. Deedat made an immense number of videos, mainly of a combattive nature, and mainly attacking Christianity and Judaism, and advocating violence. The current set of Jihadis/Islamists watch Deedat's videos for inspiration and believe he is giving an accurate portrayal of the situation. Many of the videos are carefully edited for content to show Deedat in a more positive light in his debates. Debates where Deedat was shown up are often not available. Many Muslim scholars criticize Deedat and his methods. And so on. This article does not reflect the situation properly and does not give examples of some of his more outrageous reasoning.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Deedat appears to subscribe to many of the heretical ideas of Ahmadiyya (sometimes derogatorily described as Qadiani). He was motivated by reading Ahmadiyya literature. He repeats many of their arguments. Deedat promoted some heretical numerological theories that "proved" the Quran. This is not described in this article. I do not know if it would be possible to include this in the article without a huge fight however.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Filll - your personal feelings towards Deedat doesnt count as a reason to remove sourced content. Deedat was in no way an extremist, but was a polemist the way many scholars of comparative religion are. Of course, someone who is secular or liberal will find his views annoying and that is alright. Also non Muslims may not like him for what he is. But nevertheless, article should not be a coatrack whereby subject is ostensibly discussed, but only serves the purpose of painting the subject in black. If you really want to know what extremism is, have a look into Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell who has sizeable fans in the most powerful country on earth and how their Wiki article is structured. Deedat was a soft guy compared to them. Zencv Lets discuss 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
@ Filll I have seen just one lecture of Deedat (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, 12 parts, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NIMp2JCsbU&feature=related) where he most clearly speaks out against both racism and religious violence (part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhC8Y56EFc&feature=related). Apart from that, many of his arguments showing contradictions in the bible are debatable to say the least, but his actual message is true and reasonable, and he is clearly a man who speaks out of his own spiritual experience. MariaJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.86.175 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 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)

Jeff5102, I had expressed some disagreements to your comments earlier and that still hold true. Otherwise, I am not against removing protection and editing. I had asked for protection because of the annoyance of an IP editor and its socks Zencv Lets discuss 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot find your disagreements. Are you sure you are not confusing with our Zakir Naik-discussion?Jeff5102 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No, we had discussed it in our respective user talkpages. I had some objection to your removal of sourced content in the lead, but I think that is resolved now(even though I think lead needs a rewrite).
"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] --> this should be OK to remove

Postage Stamp

"On the stamp, there is no year given, and the name of Deedat is not given as well. And normal stamps of Finland do have those characteristics. What makes me even more suspicious: I cannot find the stamp at the Finnish on-line stamp shop:" --> this has to be further verified. Not finding it in online shop may not mean that it never exist. Probably some work need to be done here. Zencv Lets discuss 09:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the stamp: these are the sources I could find concerning the stamp:[4] [5] and [6]. These articles (mostly weblogs) were all published in 2007. If I look at the website of the Finnish Post-museum [7], I cannot find it either. I suggest we can keep the stamp-fragment in, when you can find a reliable source that confirms the issue of the stamp. Otherwise, I think the best thing to do is to delete it.
By the way, Zencv, what is your opinion about the criticism of the Stephen Roth Institute, and the youtube-links?Jeff5102 (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
In Finland, it's possible to order stamps with your own picture in them, the stamp in this page is one of those. Government didn't issue it, someone just paid to have it made. here is the page of "omakuvapostimerkki" (your own picture-stamp) from posti.fi (Finnish governmental post office) [8]. as you can see, the stamp in this page has the same template ("kehys 31", border 31) shown in that page, which isn't used for stamps actually issued by the government. only references to that stamp are english-language blogs, in finnish you can't find a single reference to that stamp. i'm removing the stamp picture and reference from the page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.206.235 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
okay, someone reverted the stamp back because "try googling deedad stamp". yes, you can find several links and references to those few blog posts about the stamp with google, and this proves exactly what? here [9] is an online database of every single stamp ever issued in finland, from the year 1875 to today (approx. 1800 stamps total). you can't find that stamp there. you also still can't find any finnish references about that stamp anywhere, whether it be in the net or printed material, except for the page i linked before, where you can order a stamp just like that for few euros with the picture of any person in it, whether it be ahmed deedat, winnie the pooh, or pol pot. i'm removing the stamp info again. if you revert my changes, again, please provide some actual references, like, even the year or decade when it was supposedly issued, or any info that isn't just a blog rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.206.235 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
For those who don't speak Finnish, Australia also has personalised stamps.[10] So I suggest that the Finnish stamp cannot be added unless an official reference can be provided - a photo of the stamp is insufficient. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

David Westerlund

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)

Westerlund's credentials[2] look fine to me. Nevertheless, unless others want to dispute Dungsniffer's deletion, I do not mind.07:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Major Overhaul

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)

The is no "hidden advertisement" for Answering-Islam.org. I added the link because Gilchrist's writings are (to my knowledge) the most extensive Evangelical Christian response to Deedat, and they happen to be hosted on the Answering-Islam web site. Similarly Answering-Islam happened to be the site which hosts the text of the Josh MacDowell debate. It's POV to have only positive criticism.
I do have doubts about the criticism from Americans Against Hate which seems to be a very minor group. But the ban in France is certainly notable.
The rewrite is also very POV. e.g. "the stuff of legend", "commonly referred to as the Great Debate", "Unfortunately, Deedat did not get to truly capitalize on his greatest moment", "Pope John Paul II's condescending attitude towards Islam". Peter Ballard (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
~Peter, I agree that the parts you mention sound POV indeed. If you want to change it, it is all right with me. Nevertheless, Dungsniffer improved the structure of the article in a great way.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my wording was a bit harsh. Replace "is also very POV" with "contains some very POV language" and accept my apologies. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Language Clean-Up (July 2009)

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 have changed "Islamic Preacher" to "Islamic Missionary" as Deedat was not a "preacher" but a "missionary" if we are to use the terms accurately per their normal English usage. A preacher is equivalent to an "imam" and in the Muslim World, Deedat was not known to be an imam of any mosque. Similarly I have changed "Muslim Scholar" to "Muslim Writer" as Deedat was not officialy a "scholar" as defined in the Muslim World, a title that requires graduation wth formal education from an Islamic seminary. I believe I am the one to originaly introduce the term, so I take it back. Self-studied teachers and researchers in religion are I assume generally referred to as "writers". Dungbeetle (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Its not compulsory to graduate from an Islamic school... In fact he actually taught Zakir naik and many other modern day scholars so calling him a scholar wouldn't be wrong... So I changed it back to scholar but I have kept the "writer" as well, since he also wrote various books... Plus the old intro was a bit better, but the remaining Spelling-Job is OK...!! Adil your (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


"He used English instead of Arabic or any other language to get his message across to Muslim minorities in the western world." This sentence, while on this article for some time, seems to me to be redundant. And if not, it certainly does not belong up in the summary section. If someone wishes to put it back, kindly place it further down in the main article. Hardly anybody uses or has historically used Arabic to communicate to Muslim minorities in the West. Duh! Please provide proof to the contrary before repasting this seriously incorrect statement. Dungbeetle (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


I have replaced in several places "preaching to christians" with "teaching Muslims to preach to christians" because Deedat's MAIN OBJECTIVE was to "produce Ialamic missionaries" and not to "preach directly to christians". Almost all his material and his speaking engagements seem to address Muslims or to provide material that they can use to approach Christians in their midst. Dungbeetle (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing?

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)

No, deleting it is unacceptable. The page in question deals DIRECTLY with Deedat's material. Since Deedat directly attacked Christianity, it is only reasonable to have a page presenting a Christian response. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add, the link is informative. It is clearly labelled "Answering Islam website". People can click on it if they want to see an "Answering islam" perspective against Deedat's arguments, but no one is forcing anyone to follow the link. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Peter; the pages of the site the link links to, is solely about Deedat, not Islam as a whole.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Peter/Jeff et. al.: Are you aware that ALL claims made by the AnsweringIslam website, ARE actually refuted on another website titled WWW.Answering-Christianity.ORG? Now what if someone as over-zealous as the original editor who inserted links to AI, wants to put in some links to AC? BTW Pete, Deedat attacked Christianity because he --like countless other Muslims-- was tired of seeing Christian missionaries attacking Islam over the decades and centuries past. Now could that also be called a 'reasonable' excuse for inserting a statement like "Christian missionaries have always been attempting to win over converts by defiling Islam, with arguments of which most are lies[3]; moreover many of them have also been reluctant to take back their words even when proved wrong[4]. It was this kind of behavior that prompted Deedat to start his work.[5]" 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh BTW,I haven't deleted any of your Answering-Islam links from the article this time and I have my reasons: 1) Peter, the alternate link that I had provided for the transcript of Deedat and Josh McDowell's debate, was NOT a dead one as YOU claimed it to be: http://media.isnet.org/antar/etc/WasChristCrucified.html. When will the saga of such lies end? 2) I'm almost pretty sure that having found no other reasonably reliable source to put forth your points, you were compelled to be drawn towards the pile of filth that the AI website is in order to satisfy your inner urge to prove that Deedat's arguments did indeed have an answer. My simple question is, if at all there ARE answers to Deedat's arguments, then why are there NO reliable sources that YOU can come up with for adding to the references' section? Why are you so drawn to the AI website? C'mon, check out Google, I'm pretty sure you'll find something that is not so polemic and can easily classified be as a reliable source.

'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A few inspiring quotes, in hopes that the lies will end: The Bible tells us, "THEY BEND THEIR TONGUES LIKE THEIR BOW FOR LIES: BUT THEY ARE NOT VALIANT FOR THE TRUTH UPON THE EARTH (Jere 9:3); AND WILL NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH (Jere 9:5). Yet the Scripture also tells us, LYING LIPS ARE ABOMINATION TO THE LORD (Pv 12:22); and A RIGHTEOUS MAN HATETH LYING (Pv 13:5), (Lev 19:11) says-NEITHER LIE ONE TO ANOTHER". The Qur'an tells us "O you who believe! Be reverent to Allah and say the 'right' word" (Qur'an 33:70) and "O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it concerns rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts of your hearts lest you swerve, and if you distort justice or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that you do." (Qur'an 4:135). 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Concerning the Deedat and Josh McDowell debate: I don't care which source is used, as long as the text, given in the source, is correct.
2. The text in the article says: Some Evangelical Christian apologists have written responses to Deedat's material. and gives the Ansering-Islam-link as a source to thse responses. And if you follow the link, you will indeed find responses to Deedats publications. Whether they are correct, outdated, or reliable (or not): it ARE responses to Deedats material, and that is exactly what the text in the article says. I do not see what could be a problem with that link.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The link was dead when I checked it last night. Please assume good faith and don't accuse me of lying. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Peter: OK. I admit I might have been a bit off the 'good faith' track when I said that, I'll try to be a bit more considerate next time. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeff: Point 2 somehow hints exactly at the problem I was trying to highlight: "Whether they are correct, outdated, or reliable (or not): it ARE responses to Deedats material, and that is exactly what the text in the article says". How can we be so lenient when it comes to the words 'Correct' and 'Reliable' when we are dealing with an encyclopedia? I personally feel that we as editors on WP --regardless of our internal differences on a subject-- need to understand that a pretty good percentage of our target audience treats Wikipedia as a source of authentic information. Isn't it our duty to ensure that we only use only those sources which have proven themselves to be reliable? Refraining from engaging in an 'edit-war', I haven't yet removed the link you've re-inserted and am hoping we could all reach a consensus in this discussion. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:12, 21 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)


You're right, name calling certainly doesn't help. Especially when we are speaking about two major religions trying to come to a common ground. Coming to John Gilchrist: well there is a lot of speculation 'out there' about whether the author of all those articles on AI IS indeed Gilchrist himself or it is just a nom de plume, just like you have people with 'muslim-sounding' names contributing to anti-Islam or pro-Christian articles all over the internet and in print-media as well; but for now lets give the man a genuine benefit of the doubt. However, the fact that Gilchrist has been writing rebuttals to Deedat after his death as well, makes it a bit difficult for Deedat to actually refute any of them. (sarcasm, my bad)

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)

All right. This is quite a lot of material placed for one discussed sentence + source. I just want to point out 2 things (again 2 things...):1. John Gilchrist does exist: he appears on a video on Youtube[6]: he is the second guy appearing in this video. 2. Even being NOT a bible scholar, I know Jesus spoke Hebrew. As a jew, he must have done his Bar Mitzvah, and thus, he must have been able to read the (Hebrew) Torah.
Having said this, it is indeed the question if we, as Elazeez puts it, should insert all "allegations & refutations and further refutations & allegations". I haven't made my mind up on that point, yet. I think it is not neccesary, but it wouldn't hurt either, I would say. I guess Elazeez and Peter Ballard can sort that out.:)Jeff5102 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeff5102: Gilchrist exists, yes. But the question people have been asking is does he actually write those articles? Nevertheless, I did say I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt so there's no question of putting up YouTube videos to prove to me that the man lives. Besides, even if it IS in fact a pseudonym, the material IS published by someone believing s/he can refute Deedat's claims, so the statement "Some Evangelical Christian apologists have written responses to Deedat's material" does hold true. The only addition you could do to it now is "however, after Deedat's death in 2005, other Muslim apologists have taken up the task of refuting them< ref> put in links to Answering-Christianity, IRF.net, Islam-Tomorrow.com etc. here < /ref>" . And THAT, Jeff5102, is what I meant by "allegations & refutations and further refutations & allegations" Please understand, once again, that we are dealing with an Encyclopedia and not a blog/forum here, so stuff like this will only prove detrimental to our cause and will 'hurt'.

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)

A cite answering Gilchrist is OK (I think the word "refuting" is POV, though). I'm not too concerned about the finer details; the important thing is that they are linked to in some way so that people can read further on either side of the argument. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Peter: Agreed; the word 'refuting' could be a POV.

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)

Elazeez, you are misunderstanding Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. If you were correct, we would have to delete almost the entire Deedat article, and remove all links to any material by Deedat, because his material - and most of the other sources for the article - are highly POV. However the article is not saying that Deedat's (or Gilchrist's) material is true, merely that it is significant and it exists.
I have already pointed out that Christianity Today regards answering-islam as a significant source in the field of anti-Islam apologetics (if that's the right term).[12] Another example of it being significant is that it is listed by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society as one of several websites blocked by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which was "well known or otherwise of particular interest".[13] Also, Gilchrist is significant enough to have co-authored a book with Josh McDowell - ironically, it's about McDowell's debate with Deedat.[14] Now Gilchrist does not automatically inherit McDowell's notability, but his association with McDowell adds reliability (in the WP:RS sense) to his material as a source. There's another one of his books here,[15] with the publisher(Oasis International) mentioned here,[16] indicating it is not simply a self-published book.
I think all that put together indicates that Gilchrist is not some self-published source, but significant enough to be used as a source for this article. Again, that doesn't make his material correct, but it indicates that a significant Christian author has written against Deedat.
Finally, I googled for speculation that Gilchrist is a fake person or nom de plume. That speculation is confined to the single bulltetin board post you mention above. Perhaps the poster thought Gilchrist was a made-up name. Since you are from a cricket playing nation, I'm sure you won't make that mistake! :)
Like Jeff I'm happy to call for more opinions. But I'm confident that, as an example of an Evangelical Christian response to Deedat, Gilchrist is perfectly appropriate to use. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As you all can see, I asked for a third party to investigate the dispute. Furthermore, It appears that John Gilchrist is also a contributor to the 'reliable' ISNET-site[7]. Funny, isn't it?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:23, 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)

Your desire to exclude polemic content might be appropriate for most Wikipedia articles, but it falls down for this particular article, because Deedat was a polemicist himself! This whole article revolves around the world of Islam-Christianity polemics. If there was no such thing as Islam-Christianity polemics, then Deedat would not be notable and this article would not exist. While I can understand your rationale for excluding polemic content from Islamic articles in general, it makes no sense to exclude it from an article about a guy whose whole claim to fame was as a polemicist. In terms of the reliability of his publishers and associates, I think Gilchrist is more or less on par with Deedat. So how can one justify links to Deedat's material, but not to published books in response to his material?
If your problem is mainly with answering-islam.org, some of Gilchrist's material is published online elsewhere. Even on Isnet.org, as Jeff points out. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Peter: Yes, the point is that websites like AI AC etc. need to be left out of this WP article. If Gilchrist's material was indeed reliable enough then why do you have difficulty finding it elsewhere on the web? And, if in fact you could find some of it on other websites as well, then it would be solely in the interest of WP that you use those links as the reference URLs (instead of AI). 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
"Your desire to exclude polemic content might be appropriate for most Wikipedia articles, but it falls down for this particular article, because Deedat was a polemicist himself!" - Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be applied uniformly and consistently throughout articles. This article, like every other, is constructed using reliable published biographies, journals, articles, news reports and so on. This is how Deedat's significance or importance to any topic, be it polemics or whatever, is verified. It is these sources that will discuss Deedat's life and the noteworthy things he did, the debates he engaged in, what people said about him, - and it is these sources we utilise. It is the same process for any biographical article, whether it's about Hitler or Gandhi. We do not rely upon unreliable sources simply because the man himself is a polemicist.
"In terms of the reliability of his publishers and associates, I think Gilchrist is more or less on par with Deedat. So how can one justify links to Deedat's material, but not to published books in response to his material?" - I don't think it's appropriate to link to Deedat's material in general, but where he has said something about himself then this can be used in his own article, but the article should certainly not rely on it.
Regarding Gilchrist, I'd be inclined to consider him unreliable on the basis that he is not sufficiently qualified to relate information about Deedat, and none of what he has written about Deedat appears in reliablly published sources (if there is such material, then it could potentially be used) but instead appears in media produced by partisan or dubious publishers. I'd be interested in learning more about this isnet.org website, and what he wrote for them. ITAQALLAH 17:24, 26 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)

Itaqallah, if I understand you correctly, then you are advocating that we remove all links to Deedat's dawah material because it "appears in media produced by partisan or dubious publishers". That is consistent, but the end result is silly. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:01, 27 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.

Wikipedia: External links
==Linking to user-submitted video sites==
There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Just as with the vast majority of web pages in general, most videos hosted on Youtube or similar sites do not meet all of these restrictions, and copyright is of particular concern.(WP:EL)
Dungsniffer (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone has deleted my External Links section. I have restored it. It has been deleted again by Jeff5102. I have restored it again. And now mysteriously within 10 minutes from nowhere shows up this admin Bogdangiusca and deletes it again. Look at his edits, and he has nothing to do with this topic nor do such undos on a regular basis. Odd interference. I have asked for an explanation from both Jeff5102 and Bogdangiusca as to why my External Links section below was removed, no valid explanation has been forthcoming. It seems perfectly legit by Wiki rules and adds more substance to the main article as well.
==External Links==
Dungsniffer (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Dungsniffer: I see NO problem with inclusion of those links in a separate section, however my second choice would be including links to 'Transcripts' of those debates and lectures if they are available somewhere on the net. IslamicNetwork (IsNet.org) is a good place to start off with AND I'm sure you'll find a lot of stuff just Google-ing around for reliable references to Deedat on the net or in print media. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:51, 25 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)

They might not be reliable sources for the content they present, but their very existence shows that a debate exists. They are also of value for readers who want to understand the debate. And the point of this article is not to present Deedat in the most favorable possible light, but to provide information for people who want to understand the area in which Deedat worked. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be proselytizing tools for one group or another. So I suggest you allow all the information in that will be useful to readers, instead of trying to filter it so that your readers are left with one particular impression or another. Let them make up their own minds.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Filll: Your statement "Wikipedia articles are not meant to be proselytizing tools for one group or another.": How do we ensure that a reference link is not a 'proselytizing tool' in the hands of one group? The answer is, it NEEDS to come from a reliable source. Please see the policies pertaining to Sources & Reliable Sources. Answering Islam, Gilchrist, Answering Christianity etc. have no reliable source backing them up. Agreed they might all come from notable sources of information according to a particular group of people, however their reliability according to WP standards is yet to be proven. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

And I also think that it doesn't matter what a small society thinks about Deedat.... Or what I think about him....This is an encyclopedia and NOT a comment section... Can I write on Bush's Profile what a small town in the state of Gujrat thinks about him.....NO....What does it have to do with Bush's Life....And that protest in Gujrat doesn't hold that much importance to be mentioned in an ENCYCLOPEDIA.. Hence I think one should remove comments of Amercians against Hate and The Critcal Analysis of his Book by an unknown editor....Adil your (talk) 20:59, 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)

Sorry guys, I wasn't serious.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:49, 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)

sickbed stories

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 orbituary says that "He remained a highly respected figure, and local and international visitors continued to visit him and pay homage to his outstanding work until his death. Many remained in awe of his achievements." As per WP:RS, this is more reliable than what Islam propagation sites have to say.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion while article is locked

The point of locking the article is so that we can discuss issues without edit warring. But first a few comments:

  • New editors are welcome, but please be aware of Wikipedia policies.
  • Please assume good faith (WP:AGF). In particular, an edit you disagree with is not vandalism, so do not call it vandalism. In fact even a biased edit is not vandalism. See WP:Vandal.
  • Please do not put in deliberately misleading edit summaries, like "extra space at the bottom of the page" when in fact a whole lot of content was changed.
  • Please do not blindly revert. I made edits improving the Jimmy Swaggart section - I fixed a dead URL, removed an incorrect description of a minor scholar as a "well-known Christian writer", improved an internal Wikipedia link - and these were all reverted, incorrect URL and all. Perhaps the editor did not like my removal of the statement that the debate had a major impact in the Christian world. If so, revert that, not all the other edits.

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)

Should the DVD circulated by his son be mentioned?

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)

What a son does with the legacy of his father should not reflect on the father. Perhaps a separate section should be created to separate his son's own missionary work. Dungbeetle (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't do that Dungbeetle; refer to the policy on 'POV forking'. Besides, what the son did __after his father's death__ doesn't quite deserve a place in a section talking about 'Criticism' that the father received. If in your opinion the son's work IS in fact notable according to WP standards, then you might want to consider giving him a separate article of his own. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I say maybe. According to the orbituary of Goolam Vahed, Ahmed Deedat had already caused some controversy when he expressed his views on Hindu polytheism in 1987. I should say we at least should include that part. The DVD might be significant as well, but I think it is just a late reaction on the 1987 controversy.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... Deedat's words on that DVD might be 'notable enough' in this article. Now if you could find some reliable (WP:RS) and verifiable (WP:V) sources supporting that a) Deedat did indeed say something like that, and b) it did cause a lot of controversy (in 1987, you say Jeff5102?), I don't think there could be a reason to not let the facts speak for themselves. Put them in, but please be sure you cite your sources well. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not concerned about the sourcing. The orbituary by Goolam Vahed gives proper information, and it is (together with the al-jazeera-piece)the most reliable source in the article.The problem I have are of lay-outreasons: We can:
a)include the hindu-controversy in a special "Deedat and Hinduism"-chapter;
b)nest it in the biography-part;
c)nest it in the criticism-part.
I would prefer b), but we run the risk falling into a POV-Fork-trap. I hope that Elazeez (or any other) has an idea what would be the best way.Jeff5102 (talk) 06:36, 23 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)

Are the conversions of specific people notable enough for the article?

i.e. Gary Miller and Kenneth Jenkins, there may be others.

Gary Miller is one of the earlier works of Deedat and made a great impression on many people. Miller has some literature of his own which is widely distributed among islamic missionary outlets. I think that is sufficient cause to mention his symposium under Deedat's works. Never heard of Kenneth Jenkins though. Dungbeetle (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
No. These persons are not notable enough for their own wikipedia-article. So why should we care about their conversion? Furthermore, as it was written, it was just promotion in favour for Deedat, and WP is no advertisingsite. Jeff5102 (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deedat held a public symposium with Miller when he was a christian, who also travelled all the way to South Africa for this purpose. This is also one of Deedat's earliest works and one of the earliest christian-Muslim dialogues recorded on tape. So it has historical value to boot. Mention of the symposium should be RESTORED in the article. Dungbeetle (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Gary Miller is actually quite popular and had been a devoted chritian missionary before this debate 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... If remarks of Lloyd V. J. Ridgeon are given so much importance in an encyclopedia then I think Gary Miller, who is actually very famous and has written various books and given numerous lectures on comparative religion, is definitely worth mentioning... 119.152.50.173 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we can put Miller in, then. I'm only waiting if Peter Ballard has an opinion on this. Otherwise, we can say that al editors minus me prefer Miller in the article. By the way, if Gary Miller is that famous, isn't it a good idea to make a separate article for him?Jeff5102 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
My 0.02$: From what I could gauge so far, Miller seems to be famous enough to be in mentioned in an article on Deedat, but not as famous (atleast as yet) to deserve his own article. More importantly, we're trying to highlight Deedat's work here so it does make sense to mention whatever the man's done/accomplished during his career. I'd say if Miller debated Deedat, let's mention it. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh me? I didn't have an opinion, I just created the heading :). But since you ask... I agree that we don't just randomly list converts, but it sounds like Miller is notable. I do question whether he publicly debated Deedat as a Christian though. Stories of conversion e.g. [17] [18] only mention him reading the Qur'an in 1978. You'd think if he had publicly debated Deedat these articles would mention it. In fact this link [19] suggests Deedat was not personally involved, instead saying Miller converted "after reading a copy of the Quran that he came upon one day in a bookstore in Canada". I'll defer to other evidence, but so far I've seen no mention of any contact at all with Deedat while he was a Christian; all I've seen so far is that Miller co-operated with Deedat after he converted. Returning to Jenkins, perhaps he belongs as aftermath of the Swaggart debate. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah he did publicly debate Deedat, there is a link in the reference. So I guess we have a consensus on this... Adil your (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Which reference? All I see is an article which makes no mention of Deedat,[20] and a public symposium which seems to be after he (Miller) converted to Islam, not before.[21] Peter Ballard (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No, This was before he reverted to Islam.... Adil your (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Just you saying so is not enough. You need to provide evidence. (And if it is in a video, please provide the exact time through the video, because I'm not going to sit through all 180 minutes). I watched parts of the video, and I don't think he ever says he is a Christian, or denies being a Muslim. In fact he is very complimentary to Islam. So - from what I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong - this was not a debate against Deedat, but a symposium in which he argued alongside Deedat. In other words, I see no need to mention Miller in the article at all, other than as a co-worker with Deedat. (And I'm sure Deedat had lots of co-workers, so what's the point?) Peter Ballard (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW my comments about Miller largely also apply to James Cunningham. The article says that Cunningham "converted after debating with him", but in the video reference he is already a Muslim. Again, if the article claims that Deedat played a part in Cunningham's conversion, then a reference is needed which supports that claim. If Cunningham debated Deedat before converting, a reference is needed which supports that claim. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues in the Jimmy Swaggart section

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)

I would suggest removing the entire "Hock Guan Teh" portion. I left it as is when I re-organized the page, but felt at the time it was not fit to be there. Since people are raising issue with it, my two cents worth is that it really has no business being there.
While the impact of the Swaggart debate on the Christian World is minimal, the impact of the Swaggart Debate on the Muslim minority in the Christian World is very significant and as such the debate merits significant exposure in this article. Dungbeetle (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dungbeetle. The quote of Henry Hock Guan Teh is more about the poor performance of Swaggart, and hardly about the good performance of Deedat. And that is who we are talking about here.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a comment on the Swaggart's performance is OK, but it's a bit odd when it's the only reference. I think the solution is to find other good references on the debate. But it doesn't need to be a paragraph with big quote marks. Perhaps simply note that a Christian writer thought Swaggart took a bad approach, and put the author detail in the footnote. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues in the Pope John Paul II section

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)

the Pope section looks just fine to me. An entire lecture on the topic by Deedat delivered in UK is widely viewable on youtube, so I am not sure what seems to be the problem. Clearly the Pope features significantly in Deedat's preachings on Christian missionary activity. Dungbeetle (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to this version, so I think it is all right this way.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The link to answering-islam.org should be retained. It is a reputable and well-constructed web-site, it has been around for years and is at the forefront of internet-based anti-Islamic propaganda. They go to great lengths to construct detailed rebuttals to Deedat. They are part and parcel of the broader "islamic missionary phenomenon" and resultant "christian backlash" that was unleashed by the efforts of (and is the legacy of) Deedat circa 1984 - 1996. Perhaps a new section entitled "Christian Responses" is in order.
I am certainly against any 'mumbo jumbo' preacher getting up and being quoted on Deedat, but answering-islam is not 'mumbo jumbo' by any standards. Dungbeetle (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
'Reputable'? 'Well-Constructed'? Dungbeetle, now that's a classic example of a POV. What WP needs are references that are (and are in addition to also being backed by) 'Reliable' & 'Verifiable' sources. Please refer to WP:RS and WP:V. In case the AI website IS infact reliable, then it MUST be backed (and its content mentioned) by other sources which themselves meet the said criteria. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what we do with Jenkins and Miller. If we keep them in, we can insert a little story about these christian responses. Otherwise, I think it can inserted at the "External links"-section at most.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Jeff5102, please be reminded that our work here is NOT about 'winning'. The AI website doesn't meet the criterion set by WP:RS and WP:V by miles. Using a debate about another topic (viz. Jenkins & Miller) as a way to justify someone else' vested interest in getting the AI link inside is counter-productive to WP. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That is not what I meant. What I meant was: if the conversions of non-notable people like Jenkins & Miller (and their pro-deedat-stories) are interesting enough to put in the article, then the same goes for the critiques brought by mr. Gilchrist. And of course, it works also to the other way.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:05, 16 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)

You haven't responded to my argument: that John Gilchrist is a published author endorsed by a number of prominent Christians. In other words, he is a reliable source. And it is perfectly appropriate that criticism of Deedat from a reliable source belongs in the article. Of course if you can demonstrate that Answering-Christianity is a reliable source, or if there are other reliable sources defending Deedat, then they can go in also. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with those arguments is that they are all backed by Christian sources only. You see, the main aim of the AI site is to spread its Christian propaganda, and likewise the AC site puts all its efforts towards a similar cause of Islam. Christian organizations/individuals backing AI or Muslims gunning for AC, do not serve as reliable sources on Wikipedia, for it has always been the case that people tend to back those who are working towards a goal common to their own. Just like you Peter Ballard have previously noted (under this section of the very page we now read) "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." (and I agree with the crux of your argument i.e. 'Sometimes genuine misunderstanding, sometimes blinded my missionary zeal', when I try to think of some of the Christian attempts I know of that try to refute some aspects of Islam) —WP needs to rely solely on sources that are backed by reliable and neutral sources themselves. With all due respect, neutrality is what's missing in the arguments that you've put forth Peter Ballard. I still contend that AI link(s) stay out of this article and WP in general. If Gilchrist has other reliable and neutral sources backing him up, lets discuss those for the benefit of article please. Also, if Gilchrist did debate Deedat in 1975 (as your Josh McDowell cite says) lets try finding reliable and neutrally documented evidence for that debate and put it up in the article without much ado over it; there MUST be transcripts and videos available somewhere if the event ever took place. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
But if the problem is neutrality, we are having a big problem here. The article is loaded with references to islamic sites like ISNET, Islamic Network, Islamic Voice or Islamic teachings. I see no reason at all why those islamic sites should be "reliable and neutral", where christian sources should be called "propaganda". Jeff5102 (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
While it's appropriate to be skeptical of extraordinary claims in books, I don't think you need to suggest that Gilchrist would lie about his own biography. In any case, I'll point out that Deedat's own organisation confirms that Gilchrist has debated Deedat. It is currently on the web site's front page,[30] which will probably change soon but the image fragment is here.[31] It's a promotion for a debate (against Shabir Ally) and it reads "John Gilchrist. Practicing attorney from South Africa. Written books on how to preach Christianity to Muslims, on Islam and the Qur'an. Previously debated with Sheikh Ahmed Deedat." Interesting also that Deedat's own organisation is is happy to mention Gilchrist's writings...
Regarding the question of Christian bias in sources: in the area of Christian/Muslim debate, I don't see how one can have a neutral source, certainly not one which both Christians and Muslims will agree on. So Wikipedia should simply present both sides: the Muslim perspective and the Christian perspective. After writing the above, I found the following in WP:NPOV: "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly... Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Peter Ballard (talk) 01:53, 25 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)

No one is suggesting we quote or discuss Gilchrist's material. I'm only saying we need to put in a link to it. We link to Deedat's material (many times) and under the "Criticism" we note that Gilchrist has written a Christian response and we link to it. How is that POV? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Any link from a christian propaganda website like AI is clearly POV.... All it does it attack Islam, and it is being responded by another website called Answering-Christianity.... I personally feel that neither should be mentioned.... And again, the question of response only rises when you put the claims of deedat in detail... Just by mentioning the book and putting a response link right next to it is POV... Adil your (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have provided four independent references demonstrating the notability of John Gilchrist's writings. You cannot discredit these simply by offering your personal opinion of the AI website.
You say, "the question of response only rises when you put the claims of deedat in detail" - it's already abundantly clear from the article that the bulk of Deedat's work was in countering Christianity and the Bible. (Having said that, I don't object to a summary of Deedat's writings, so long as it is done in a neutral manner (see WP:NPOV) using reliable secondary sources (see WP:PSTS)). If you think putting any link to a notable Christian response is POV, then you have a very strange idea of NPOV. If you're worried about the wording or placement of the link, then we can debate that later; let's first establish whether or not it deserves to be mentioned. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:22, 29 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)

I think there is need to develop a consensus before putting something up on the article.... I think my point still stands that since there aren't any claims of deedat mentioned, hence we don't really need to answer those claims... Adil your (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The claims of Deedat are mentioned. The lead says, "of which centered around Islam, Christianity and the Bible", and later the article says things like, "Is the Bible God's Word?", "What The Bible Says About Muhammad", "Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?", "several smaller spin-off titles on specific aspects of Crucifixion", "Muhammad: The Natural Successor to Christ", "Christ in Islam", "in his writings on Crucifixion subscribes to the swoon hypothesis", etc. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
These are his books, not his claims. His claims were "Bible is not the word of God", "Jesus didn't fulfill the sign of Jonah, unless he was alive", "God is not triune, and God does not Beget" and etc etc... Now if these claims are mentioned with a bit of detail, then Gilchrist books can be sourced for answers, but since these claims are not added into the article, and in my opinion are unnecessary, hence providing answers for them is out of the question since the claims themselves are missing... Adil your (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well from the titles it's pretty obvious what his main claims are. But in any case, we have links to his claims (and his complete arguments), so why can't there be a link to a notable Christian response? Remember all I am proposing is a link to Gilchrist's material, I am not proposing inserting Gilchrist's arguments into the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The response is relevant when there is some sort of debate going on.... The books are merely mentioned, hence putting links to a response to those books is irrelevant... One would understand the relevance if we were to put a detailed description of those books and discuss the material in detail... Its absurd to say that "here are the books and here is the response to it, it looks a bit POV"... The response may be relevant if you put this up in a new article of Deedat's work.... Adil your (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Stop putting words into my mouth! I am not saying to put "Here is the response to it". I am saying to write that a notable Christian writer has written a response - not "the response" - which is a fact! It is clear from the article that Deedat has written books attacking Christianity (if it's not clear, it's certainly appropriate to so again), so why is it out of place to mention a notable Christian response? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't putting words into your mouth, I was just saying that this "notable christian response" is irrelevant since we haven't discussed the works of deedat in detail.... And he didn't attack christianity rather wrote about the differences between the teachings of the bible and and the teachings of the church... But since those differences aren't mentioned in this article, and its not the place to do so, hence a response to those claims is unnecessary... Adil your (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well many people would disagree with you about attacking Christianity, including one Muslim quoted in the article who calls his teaching "anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Hindu". But even if you are correct on that point, it is still appropriate to mention a notable book which disagrees with him. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And do not forget that Deedat writes about "Christendom's slow-to-grasp train of thoughts, reluctance to accept the Truth, and feeling of threat to its very existence which have prevailed from the earliest days of the Church" in his pamphlet "His Holiness plays Hide and Seek with the Muslems". I am surprised how this could NOT be seen as "attacking christianity".Jeff5102 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Gilchrist or AI... Their response is related to the quotations of the bible presented by Ahmed Deedat in his various books, not his pamphlets... Adil your (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, contrary to your response at 12:17 22 July 2009, his books are not merely mentioned, they are linked to. So again, why link to his books, but not to a notable critique of them? Peter Ballard (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
His books are linked because this article is called Ahmed Deedat, not Gilchrist.... Just being a critique is no reason to put him up on Deedat's Profile.... And the thing he criticized is not even in the article.... Adil your (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Just being a critique is no reason to put him up on Deedat's Profile" - sorry, that is wrong. Notable critiques belong in the article. This is an encyclopedia article, not a fan page. "And the thing he criticized is not even in the article" - wrong again - Deedat's writings ARE linked to in the article; I counted 12 links to Deedat's writings, not counting videos or transcripts of debates. "this article is called Ahmed Deedat, not Gilchrist" - true, which is why links to Deedat are in the majority. But you can't just exclude criticism altogether. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No one is against criticism, But you are actually criticizing whats not even present in the article... I don't know why is it so hard to understand... You are providing a response to his claims which are not even mentioned, So first we must put up his claims with quotations from bible, and then we can put up a link to Gilchrist response... But since none of his researches or books is discussed in detail, hence putting a response is unnecessary.... Before putting up criticism, we should put up what is being criticized, to maintain NPOV...Adil your (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
We LINK to Deedat's books so we LINK to the criticism. We do not detail what Gilchrist says so we do not need to detail what Deedat says (even though it's obvious enough from the titles of Deedat's books). Why is that hard to understand? Peter Ballard (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And if we are to clarify, the right way is to clarify why Gilchrist is responding. For instance, the article says that Deedat's material is banned in France, and gives the reason: that it is considered "anti-western, antisemitic, inciting to racial hate". The article does not detail how Deedat is (supposedly) antisemitic. That is not necessary. It is only necessary to note the reaction: that the French government believes Deedat's material is antisemitic. Similarly, we could clarify why Gilchrist wrote: because he calls Deedat's books an "attack on the Christian faith".[32] Once we know this, we understand why Gilchrist thought it necessary to write his books. So we could say, "Christian author John Gilchrist considers Deedat's writings an 'attack on the Christian faith' and has written a number of books in response to Deedat's material". This gives a context for Gilchrist's criticism. Again I repeat, Gilchrist's books are notable; it is absurd to exclude a notable book which is written in direct response to Deedat. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to understand because... You are calling Deedat's work "anti-western, antisemitic, inciting to racial hate" and an "attack on the Christian faith" without even telling the reader what did he really say... You are quoting the french authorities and Gilchrist, but are reluctant to tell the reader what Deedat claimed.... Remember this is an article on Deedat not Gilchrist.... So his book or his response doesn't really matter unless we first describe what deedat actually says... And you said "We LINK to Deedat's books so we LINK to the criticism" but its not what your doing... You are merely mentioning the book and then you label it as "Attack on christianity" and produce a response, which is POV... Without even knowing what he said criticism is POV....Remember, this article is called Ahmed Deedat, hence whatever he said or did is more relevant for this article...So the correct way would be to put the work of Deedat in detail with proper quotations from the bible, and then we can put a link to Gilchrist's response.. Let the reader decide for himself instead of pushing your own POV.... Adil your (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, there are 12 links to Deedat's material saying what he really did say. Yet you don't want a single link of criticism. I consider your argument so obviously flawed that I'll insert the link anyway unless someone else supports your argument. If that doesn't work, it's time to go to formal mediation. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If that is so, why are you so reluctant to put what deedat claims.... You are actually putting a link to a book who responds to Deedat for "attacking christianity", when his book is merely pointing out the differences between the teachings of the bible and teachings of the church... Calling it an "Attack" is POV... So instead of being biased towards Gilchrist, We should tell the reader what Deedat claimed and, then put a link to response.... Adil your (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said in my response of 03:22, 29 June 2009, I've no objection to summarising Deedat's teaching as long as it is worded neutrally and uses secondary sources. However, I object to your notion that it is a pre-requisite for putting in a link to Gilchrist's critique. Anyway, I've repeated myself many times, as have you. I think your argument is invalid, you obviously don't. I'd like to hear other opinions. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
We have been pretty repetitive, Yes... I would also like to hear other opinions... Some notable contributors to this article are Jeff, Elazeez and Abd al-Azeez... Should we get their opinion as well...??? Adil your (talk) 16:23, 25 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)

Debates with not notable persons.

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)

User:Jeff5102: Why the dead wiki links? Honestly, all these reds are eye-sores when it comes to WP. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Now answering your question: NO these people might not be so notable (I guess that's what you wanted to portray with those 'reds'?), but then their notability doesn't affect this article. Their notability might only be considered if you were to (for example) cite them as sources of information on Deedat, or maybe mention their points as rebuttals to Deedat, or probably if you wanted to create an entirely new article about them. Mentioning that Deedat debated these people, (with proper references of course,) in an article about Deedat himself, should not be a problem at all. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That is another problem: those guys do not appear in the given reference. But I still do not see why every random debate by Deedat is important for this article.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this article here to catalog the life and works of Ahmed Deedat or is this article here to showcase "what some editors think IS IMPORTANT" and "ignoring what others think IS NOT IMPORTANT"? Any information that relates to Deedat's missionary activity should be listed in this article, regardless of importance. Debate about importance should be limited to comments, opinions and critcisms by others of Deedat. Dungbeetle (talk) 18:06, 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)

Please explain your points User:Jeff5102. It would be in WP's interest that we 'clean-up' stuff that doesn't meet its standards. Personally speaking, I couldn't find any link that is 'dead' or 'unreadable' per say, but I'm assuming WP:Good_faith in listening to what you have to say about the section. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're actually assuming good faith, you don't need to say it. Linking to AGF essentially says, "I think you're an asshole, but I know how to link to policy pages." You may have some valid points, but please keep this a discussion, rather than trying to turn it into a lecture. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(?) User:Kafziel: Doesn't linking also signify that you want the other party to read through (and more importantly, practice) the same? Noticing how Jeff5102 starts his latest comment below, I think it doesn't hurt to jog up your co-editors' memory up a bit does it? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You just proved my point: You weren't assuming good faith at all. You were using it to imply that he is somehow out of line for having an opinion, when in fact he has done nothing wrong. If you insist on making ad hominem attacks rather than discussing the matter at hand, the article will remain locked. Talk about the article, not about Jeff5102. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hurray! Elazeez is assuming good faith! He thinks I deserve a chance to be listened to! How generous!

OK, seriously, on topic: we have:

  • Biography of Ahmed Deedat by the IPCI. - the link provides no biography. However, it does give an announcement for three public debates between Shabir Ally and John Gilchrist. How interesting. I guess Gilchrist can be called "reputable"after all.;) But no biography, so we can delete it.
  • Combat KIT- Against Bible Thumpers By Ahmad Deedat - unreadable text, so we can delete it.
  • Arabs and Israel - Conflict Or Conciliation? by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat - readable text; can be kept in
  • Lectures and Debates of Ahmed Deedat - Downloadable movies; can be kept in
  • A List of Deedat's online books - the (nearly) complete works of Deedat; can be kept in
  • Islamic Propagation Center International - the same link as the biography-is already mentioned in footnote 6. Thus, I will leave it to the guidelines, but I think it is not neccesary to put it here.
  • Ahmad-deedat.co.uk - DVDs and VHS - the site links to Darul Ishaat UK - Online Islamic Store a commercial book store. We can delete it.
  • Books Authored by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat - again a list with Deedats books. As was the fifth link, so this one could be left out.
Any comments?Jeff5102 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  • Combat KIT- Against Bible Thumpers By Ahmad Deedat - Delete/Find Another Link
  • Arabs and Israel - Conflict Or Conciliation? by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat - Keep
  • Lectures and Debates of Ahmed Deedat - Keep
  • A List of Deedat's online books - Keep
  • Islamic Propagation Center International - Keep. Don't see any harm in it.
  • Ahmad-deedat.co.uk - DVDs and VHS - Delete. Wikipedia is not a Sales Catalog.
  • Books Authored by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat - Delete. Forum-link. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
More: A Link to (a readable version of) the Combat Kit can be found at http://www.jamaat.net/combatkit/combat.html, which incidentally is also linked to in the 5th External link titled 'A List of Deedat's online books'. In my opinion, we could do away with a separate link for the Combat Kit and retain the 'List' as it is. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe we have a consensus over here.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's do it when the article is unlocked again. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The 'consensus' I've agreed to pertains to only this subsection, viz. 'External Links' 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. User:Burdoh was restoring the deleted links (as well as undoing other constructive edits). I urge all editors to revert this person's edits. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Just take a look at [33]. His edits are quite similar to earlier edits of a user, who made himself guilty to WP:SOCK. THus I have to spend more time on this article than I want to, but I prefer to fight vandalism on Wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know who User:Burdoh is and I cannot say for sure if he's a Sock or a genuine editor with 'similar views' as someone else. Nevertheless, I've asked him/her for some constructive edits to the article, specifically pointing to the discussion that I've initiated in this section of the talk page. With time we'll know who the person is, and in the meanwhile let's keep a close eye on the page's edit history. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, but like the earlies incarnations of User:IslamForEver1, our friend User:Burdoh

  • Only reverts edits of the Ahmed Deedat-page;
  • Doesn't make any constructive edits;
  • Doesn't like me;
  • doesn't discuss his edits on the discussion-page,
  • discusses by reverting;
  • shows up just after another username of User:IslamForEver1 was banned from editing.

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)

Jeff5102, "Doesn't like me" isn't a good reason to put down in words, even if you really feel so because at times it tends to translate as quite the opposite. I have still to see evidence of your other claims though — and maybe that's because I am just not looking hard enough where I should be. Personally I don't care who s/he is until things start to get out of control on the article, and we all hate it when that happens. With time (InshaAllah) we'll know the wolves from the sheep, and whom to block and whom to keep. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David Westerlund, Ahmed Deedat's Theology of Religion: Apologetics through Polemics. Journal of Religion in Africa, 33(3). 2003 "
  2. ^ http://www.ohioswallow.com/author/David+Westerlund
  3. ^ http://answering-christianity.org/answering_islam_articles_rebuttals.htm
  4. ^ http://answering-christianity.org/quran/jochen_admitting_to_be_liar.htm
  5. ^ http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/founder.asp
  6. ^ Youtube: John Gilchrist and His debate legacy
  7. ^ Articles by John Gilchrist on Isnet
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmed_Deedat/Archive_1&oldid=1136501941"