Talk:Tufail Ahmad

Criticism section

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

In August 2015, a Pakistan-based blog published a post "Tufail Ahmad -an extreme right wing RSS Stooge at MEMRI". It said "the Tufail Ahmad doctrine of dealing with Pakistanis – by setting the narrative in a way that is perpetually skewed against Pakistan and Pakistanis."

The Pakistani blog, which is affiliated with Yasser Latif Hamdani and Raza Rumi, published the criticism of Tufail Ahmad after he wrote a piece arguing that Raza Rumi was primarily advancing the narrative of Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) about India-Pakistan talks. In his article titled as "Raza Rumi -- When Silence is Murder," Ahmad observed: "Rumi is totally silent on the ISI’s jihadist hideouts in Bahawalpur, Rawalpindi, Muridke and Muzaffarabad. These jihadist hideouts are fundamental obstacles to talks [between India and Pakistan]. But in the Indian media Rumi advances the ISI’s narrative."

Ahmad further questioned Raza Rumi for his silence on human rights issues in Pakistan's Balochistan province, saying: "In September 2012, Pakistan’s Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was more honest than Raza Rumi when he called for: 'an end to military operations against the Baloch and for the disbanding of the ‘death squads’ of the intelligence agencies operating in Balochistan.' It will be good if Rumi imbibed even quarter-of-a-percent of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s honesty on Balochistan, especially because not a week has passed in the recent decade when a Baloch man hasn’t been picked up by ISI, only for his dead body to be found by roadside."

Earlier in June 2014 also, Yasser Latif Hamdani, dissected Tufail's article in the Indian Express on the politics of the India-Pakistan Partition. It seems Hamdani's criticism followed after Tufail Ahmad wrote a column in the leading newspaper The New Indian Express, noting that key forecasts about Pakistan's future made by Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad -- India's first education minister, an internationally respected Islamic scholar and a leading freedom fighter -- were proving right in contemporary times.

In his article titled "Prophecy Playing Out in Pakistan," Ahmad noted some of the key forecasts made by Maulana Azad: one, Azad was a respected Islamic scholar and argued that Islam could not be the basis for creating countries, warning that the Muslim League’s politics for the creation of Pakistan "will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan”; two, Azad understood that the separatist demand for Pakistan was rooted in the hatred of Hindus; three, Maulana Azad understood that Pakistan will be unable to govern itself and its stability will be tested; four, Azad predicted that East Pakistan will secede from West Pakistan; and others.

On 17 July 2016, Zafarul Islam Khan, rebutted claims of Tufail Ahmad of Indian Urdu Newspaper spreading radicalisation. Ahmad's article had appeared in Dailyo. Accusing Ahmad for mis-translating and mis-quoting Urdu press, Khan wrote that Ahmad, "who earlier served BBC's Urdu service and has now suddenly emerged as an "Islamic expert" because, like Taslima Nasreen, Tarek Fateh et al, he writes what pleases the Islamophobes." It should be also mentioned that Zafarul Islam Khan and his magazine The Milli Gazette are of Islamist persuasion. In his own article, Zafarul Islam Khan notes that he could note trace the original article in Rozanama Sahafat based on which Tufail Ahmad wrote his article. Khan noted: "We searched the epapers of all the three editions of Sahafat from Delhi, Lucknow and Mumbai of the given date (November 23), but failed to find the article Tufail Ahmad finds so offensive."

It's not clear if Tufail Ahmad has responded to Zafarul Islam Khan's article. However, it does appear that Khan did not do his home work properly. Because, it appears Khan was searching for Roznama Sahafat of November 23 but Tufail Ahmad's original article mentions Urdu dailies including Roznama Sahafat of June 23, 2016. This date is significant because -- as per Ahmad's article -- it coincided with the 17th day of Ramadan, a day on which Indian Urdu newspapers published a series of articles marking the Ghazwa-e-Badr (the Battle of Badr), the first war of Islam waged by Prophet Muhammad.

As per his article, it seems Zafarul Islam Khan failed to trace another Urdu newspaper cited by Tufail Ahmad but still went on to criticize him. Khan wrote: "The author further quotes Mumbai's Urdu Times (December 26, 2014) as saying in an article that an apostate should be killed. Since Urdu Times archives do not offer the epaper of that period, it was not possible to verify if Tufail Ahmad was honest in his quoting." However, the article cited by Ahmad from Roznama Urdu Times has been widely available on the internet. For example, as per a full translation of the article from Roznama Urdu Times of December 26, 2014, the Urdu Times advocated -- by citing the Koranic verses and Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad -- that all Muslims converting to Islam should be killed. The article notes: "The first interpreter of the Koran, Prophet Muhammad, has clearly ordered the killing of a person becoming apostate [i.e. leaving Islam]." It will be fair to observe that Tufail Ahmad is strongly opposed to jihadism and its associated viewpoints, while those criticizing him appear to be on the Islamist side.

References

@Wikiercomer and Satya1757: Welcome to Wikipedia. The text above that both of you contributed violates several Wikipedia policies.

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

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

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

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

Of the examples given by Tufail Ahmad:

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

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

@Kautilya3: This summary makes me laugh. You seem to be a big fan of those cheap keys and guides available to pass exams atleast in North India. The writer of those keys, notes, guides had no idea what the subject it, but still he would write keys and guides for all standards and all subjects. He would come up with funny comparison tables and laughable numerated lists as summaries. You seem to be Tufail's teacher, your misquoting is way above his. We should let other editors to read both articles. As you are a fan of Tufail (as are thousands of Right Wing Hindu Nationalists in India) and you an interested party as you created this Tufail "fan" page. The scholars in the 200 million strong Indian Muslim community had till now ignored this sellout. But not any more. Just today another rebuttal of his article on Turkey which he writes to please his Zionist masters. Here it is. More to come and then we will talk and discuss what is DUE and what is not. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiercomer (talk • contribs)

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

Ok, noted. Will you please remember to sign your posts? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

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