Talk:Ahmed Deedat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Image:Gujaratmap.png	This article is maintained by the Gujarat workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars. note:the project includes non-Muslim scholars.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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)

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

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Family Background 3 Clean up 4 Controversies?

[edit] 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. 2. There is no evidence to corroborate the conclusions the author draws on the nature of the bible or the Qur'an.

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)

[edit] Family Background

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

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 --IsleScape^Talk 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?--IsleScape^Talk 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)