no it's not an open acceptance of terrorism, again don't be so pathetic. There is nothing wrong with saying a terrorist should be terrorised and that statement in no way endorses the murder of civilians. Also, if you want to play semantics then the word 'terrorise' is defined differently to 'terrorist.'
(Original post by .eXe)
Um I don't know why you brought up 9/11. THat video had nothing to do with it. I didn't say anything about it.
The quote I was concerned about had nothing to do with 9/11.
He as a muslim should not be spreading terrorism. However, he clearly says that if Osama is terrorizing
the terrorists, then he is with him. Don't try to shift focus elsewhere because it's only that quote which I am concerned about. It's an open acceptance of terrorism.
Last edited by B-Man.; 21-07-2012 at 15:01.
Yes because before 9/11, Osama bin Laden was known as a nice, lovable and humanitarian person
(Original post by B-Man.)
no it's not an open acceptance of terrorism, again don't be so pathetic. There is nothing wrong with saying a terrorist should be terrorised and that statement in no way endorses the murder of civilians.
Even if what you said is true, and this quote was before 9/11, that doesn't change anything. Osama was always a terrorist and the entire world knew it. THe entire world knew that he was terrorizing the US via suicide bombers, bomb detonations, threatening videos, etc.
Are you telling me that prior to 9/11 Osama was a nice guy, and thus Naik was endorsing his actions? Are you out of your mind?
Naik knows exactly who Osama is and what he has done. Yet, he openly supports him.
In the video, he makes himself sound like an agnostic or some layperson when it comes to Osama. Saying stuff like "I'm not in contact with him". He's making it seem like he has absolutely no idea who Osama is, but you'd be lying to yourself if you actually think that this man doesn't know Osama and his deeds.
The only reason he put in that sentence calling America the terrorists, is to justify Osama's terrorism.
Well I have a news flash for you...that's EXACTLY how the taliban and Al Qaeda justify their terrorism too. They call America the infidel and thus feel thats their bombings, etc are justified because well....they are terrorizing the terrorists.
SO why are they wrong in your eyes, but apparently Naik is not when he and the terrorists both have the exact same opinion?
Unless of course you don't see the taliban and al qaeda as wrong. In which case, you should probably not post here any longer because you too would be advocating for terrorism. If you cannot see such a blatantly obvious parallel then you really have no right to call me pathetic. This isn't some in depth analysis...it's a very basic parallel between Naik and terrorists.
Last edited by .eXe; 21-07-2012 at 15:07.
Why isn't he a scholar?
(Original post by Perseveranze)
Not sure if you're a Muslim or not, but Wikii Islam is amongst the worst sources for getting your information. Even user edited based Wikiepedia banned reference to wikiislam. Only way you would know any legit information about Zakir Naik is through Muslims, who would know his arguments best.
Zakir Naik isn't a scholar, which is why he gets some things wrong from the Fiqh side of matters. Which can be irritating for any Muslims who knows his stuff.
Dr Zakir Naik is a Da'ii and we give him his due respect for that. He knows himself that he is not an Alim in Deen. Thus Ulema have given their decree that he, not being an Alim in deen, should focus his da'wah to what he is good at (i.e. comparative religion), and leave religious answering to the ***aha. - Darul-uloom Deoband
Anyways, let's just say that there's better people to learn about Islam from.
Most who attend his meetings and even the posters above and below me say he is a scholar.
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus
Last edited by .eXe; 21-07-2012 at 16:51.