Talk:iERA
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IERA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 190 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Controversial leaders and speakers/Hamza Tzortzis
editSimilar to AR Green, this article contains content pertaining to controversial incidents about Hamza Tzortzis that took place outside of his official capacity working with iERA. I am assuming the Charities Commission "concerns about previous statements made by the charity’s trustees and other speakers associated with the charity" is what is being used to justify including content pertaining to Hamza Tzortzis, but please correct me if this is not the case. The article on Hamza Tzortzis would be more appropriate to list out all the different controversies surrounding him. For the iERA article, how much of those details should remain and how much of it can be summarized in one or two sentences? --Djrun (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because there are only one or two reliable sources that contain this statement for "concerns", a strong case for Weight should be made to merge the Hamza Tzortzis sub-section into the Controversial leaders and speakers section. I propose including one sentence that summarizes Tzortzis' controversies, and one sentence for rebuttals (to preserve a neutral point of view). Djrun (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Controversial leaders and speakers/Zakir N.
editIn order to assess the relevancy and weight of information pertaining to Zakir Naik in this article, I will attempt to listed reliable sources related to Mr Naik's association with iERA. If I have missed any, please add:
- 'Anti-Semitic’ charity under investigation - "Two of the charity’s advisers are Bilal Philips and Dr Zakir Naik, who have both been banned from entering the UK by Theresa May, the Home Secretary."
- Watchdog raps ‘reckless’ Islamic charity - "Speakers promoted by Iera and members of its advisory council include an Indian preacher called Zakir Naik and Bilal Philips...Both were barred from entering Britain in 2010 because of security concerns."
Controversial leaders and speakers/Bilal Philips
editIn order to assess the relevancy and weight of information pertaining to Bilal Philips in this article, I will attempt to listed reliable sources related to Mr Philip's association with iERA. If I have missed any, please add:
- 'Anti-Semitic’ charity under investigation - "Two of the charity’s advisers are Bilal Philips and Dr Zakir Naik, who have both been banned from entering the UK by Theresa May, the Home Secretary."
- Watchdog raps ‘reckless’ Islamic charity - "Speakers promoted by Iera and members of its advisory council include an Indian preacher called Zakir Naik and Bilal Philips...Both were barred from entering Britain in 2010 because of security concerns."
- Leading Islamic charity told by watchdog to distance itself from extremism - ""The charities watchdog also criticised iERA over its partnership with Islamic University Online, an organisation founded by Dr Bilal Philips, who was banned from the UK for his extremist views by Theresa May in 2010 while she was Home Secretary...Turning to the charity’s links to Dr Bilal Philips, the regulator noted that it is “publicly known” that he has been banned from the UK due to his extremist views and deemed the relationship “high risk”."
"Saqib Sattar, vice-Chairman at iERA, said: “The charity has robust policies and procedures in place to manage risk and has been able to demonstrate compliance. The Commission has provided further advice and guidance on this area which the charity has taken on board."
""The Commission did not find any evidence within the CEMB's report which substantiated the allegations against our organisation or our speakers to be 'extremists' or 'hate preachers'. The issue of 'extremism' was never a concern throughout the period of the investigation. Most importantly, the Commission found no evidence of 'extremism' in its final report."