[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by kka25)


Is this how he wants to promote religion?

I guess so. He's convinced me; I'm throwing away all my bacon and I'm never going to a dance party ever again. Allahu akbar.

[B-Man.]

(Original post by .eXe)
Check out this great insight of wisdom.

Main quote to focus on: "If he [Osama] is terrorizing the terrorists [America], then I [Zakir Naik] am for him."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

He said that before 9/11 so don't be so pathetic. He also called 9/11 a terrorist attack and stated that the attack was against Islam.

[.eXe]

(Original post by B-Man.)

that was amazing lol

[.eXe]

(Original post by B-Man.)
He said that before 9/11 so don't be so pathetic. He also called 9/11 a terrorist attack and stated that the attack was against Islam.

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.

[B-Man.]

(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.

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.'

[.eXe]

(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.

Yes because before 9/11, Osama bin Laden was known as a nice, lovable and humanitarian person

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.

[.eXe]

(Original post by samir12)
I dont see how thats an acceptance of terrorism He's supporting Obama on terrorizing terrorists which I'm pretty sure this is a bad thing for terrorists unless they like being terrorized

He's playing innocent. I am surprised you don't see that lol. He is making it seem like he has no idea who Osama is. The entire world knows Osama as a terrorist leader....but apparently Naik doesn't seem to know this.

[Xotol]

He has a great memory but is extremely misleading. I can see why ignorant Muslims would be impressed by him (I certainly was a few years ago), but it only takes some knowledge of science and common sense to know that he is talking out of his ass.

His views on evolution make no sense (it's obvious he has no idea what he's talking about when he calls it 'just' a theory), and some of his logic is downright ridiculous.

(Original post by B-Man.)

That was hilarious. My favourite part was 'mango translates to the earth spherical' lol.

[de_monies]

(Original post by Steevee)
Bascially, if you're a Muslim, you'll love him.

What a sweeping generalisation. My thoughts about him are on parallel with "Tazarooni"

Though don't let actual Muslim's opinions of him let that get in the way of your generalisations

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by kka25)
Could you spare me some sources for this?

Things he says that aren't true:

He claims that the Earth is shaped like an ostrich egg, since the Earth is not entirely spherical, but compressed at the poles. However, this means that the Earth is actually shaped like an oblate spheroid, while the egg is shaped like a prolate spheroid.

He claims that in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species", it says that he found birds pecking at niches, and depending on which ones they pecked, their beaks became longer and shorter. This book doesn't say anything of the sort. When refuting evolution, he also refers to several scientists who have published works contrary to Darwin's theory - either misrepresenting what they have said, or apparently making up names of scientists who don't even exist (a supposed 'Sir Whitemeat'?)


Things he says that don't make sense:

A questioner (actually a friend of mine) asked him "Is it prohibited to say 'Merry Christmas' to a Christian?" and Naik replied yes, because in doing so, you are accepting that Christ is the Son of God. The questioner contended that nobody understands the phrase "Merry Christmas" to mean acceptance that Christ is the Son of God, and in fact God himself should know that this is not what you mean when you say it. You only say it to be friendly towards someone. And Naik replied "Well why don't you drink alcohol with them if you want to be friendly towards them?". Of course this argument is faulty, since alcohol is explicitly prohibited in the Qur'an. Saying the words "Merry Christmas" is not.

He claims that polygamy is permitted in Islam because otherwise there would be a surplus of women who cannot get married, forcing them to become "public property", being the mildest term he can use to describe them. I don't know what he thinks he means by "public property" - but in any case, there is nothing Islamically wrong with a woman not being married. It is not obligatory for every woman to get married. So Islam itself disagrees with the idea that a woman who is unmarried automatically becomes "public property".


Things he says which are repeats of what others have said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN_Mx0oIijc - Zakir Naik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMn2I3du1MU - Ahmed Deedat
Incidentally anyone with a GCSE in Classics or Ancient Greek would be able to tell you that this argument he is repeating is wrong anyway.

Other examples including his response to the Sign of Jonah, his response to accusations that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) suffered from mythomania appear to be taken directly from the lectures of Ahmed Deedat and Gary Miller, respectively.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Luxray)
He may know the Quran off by heart which is commendable but some of the stuff he says really makes no sense at all and some of it is downright crazy.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Rebuttals_to_Zakir_Naik

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.

[Luffy.]

He is a very good Islamic scholar but dont listen to only one, listen to lots of them so you can understand Islam better. I mean if you are a muslim or want to learn about Islam.

[.eXe]

(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.

Why isn't he a scholar?

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

[Khanem]

(Original post by Luffy.)
He is a very good Islamic scholar but dont listen to only one, listen to lots of them so you can understand Islam better. I mean if you are a muslim or want to learn about Islam.

hmm, I agree....

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by .eXe)
Why isn't he a scholar?

Most who attend his meetings and even those guy above me say he is a scholar.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus

When you get a chance, please ask them to give you a single quote from Zakir Naik himself, saying he is a Scholar.

[yomomalomo]

The man is hilarious. I have never know a scholar, scientist or whatever he regards himself as, to make so many basic historical and scientific errors in every show. This is before taking into account his numerous logical fallacies, which are telling of his serious ineptitude.

A good watch would be 25 errors in 5 minutes (showing cuts of errors from different shows and speeches). How anyone, Muslim or not could believe what he says is beyond me, let alone applaud him for it.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
When you get a chance, please ask them to give you a single quote from Zakir Naik himself, saying he is a Scholar.

I don't need to do that. I KNOW he isn't a scholar. But have u seen the number of people that attend his meetings and clap when he talks nonsense against Christians and Hindus?

To those millions he is a scholar. That's all it takes. I don't need to do A test sample with two people on TSR to know that tons of Muslims think he's a scholar. The fact that he puts Dr. before his name also propagates that notion further

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by Luxray)
Thats a fair point but the site must hold a few truths for examples I've seen a programme where he said "The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property." Public property....really?! a woman does not HAVE to marry, she can still lead a religious and happy life without one.

I've seen that programme too and that's the episode which made me stop listening to him. There are women who can live independently and Dr. Naik is implying that women need to marry another man or else they will be vulnerable their whole life or something.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by .eXe)
I don't need to do that. I KNOW he isn't a scholar. But have u seen the number of people that attend his meetings and clap when he talks nonsense against Christians and Hindus?

To those millions he is a scholar. That's all it takes. I don't need to do A test sample with two people on TSR to know that tons of Muslims think he's a scholar. The fact that he puts Dr. before his name also propagates that notion further

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus

To be fair, though. He's perfectly within his right to use the honorific of Dr. as he holds an accredited medical degree.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
To be fair, though. He's perfectly within his right to use the honorific of Dr. as he holds an accredited medical degree.

Oh I know that, I didn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to use it. I just pointed out that the salutation helps promote his image of being a scholarly, learned man.