Zakir Naik

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
Post Reply
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Zakir Naik

Post by manfred »

As SAM has on occasion referred to this man, and many Muslims see him as a scholar of some standing and also their best apologist, I wonder if people wan to say something about him as a person and about his talks and teachings.

I have some material together, but I rather wait to see what others like to say first.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by manfred »

OK, let's start this off by putting this little gem.... He says he is going to "PROVE" "SCIENTIFICALLY" and with "LOGIC" the existence of both heaven and hell, for "ATHEISTS"....

We have quite a few Atheists here on this forum, so please watch tell us all if you have "reverted" to Islam as a result... (If not, tell us why not, perhaps....)

Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by Hombre »

Ahhhhh! that "Muslim Scholar". I have watched few of his talks - with his "scholarly" posture when arguing against western scholars on Islam. I was rather more interested to learn his tactic - more then substance of his argument, and found few indicators.

1. He talks with such confidence & authoritative manner which lead those gullible in the crowd to believe anything he says (much like trump does).
2. He speak fast - which makes it difficult to follow him or catch him lying or at best distorting facts.
3. When it comes to public oral polemics with western scholars on Islam - his venu is always in an Islamic country in front of friendly crowd.
4. To "prove" his point on validity of Muhammad & that of Islam - he often recites passages (chapter & exact sentences), from the Hebrew Bible, New-Testament, Hindu Scriptures & as desert he throws in some passages from Buddha scriptures. All that w/o ever referring to written notes. The only source he does not recite from is the book of Humus & Fallafel.

Nonetheless, he is a good entertainer & fun to watch.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by manfred »

Yes, that guy, and you are probably referring to what is illustrateded here:

Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by Hombre »

that's one is good, but I was referring to the video clip where he recites passages from other holy books.

There is no doubt the guy is no dummy, the only sad part is he wastes all this intelligence on non-sense. The only conclusion which I could derive is - this guy must have had a difficult childhood, with school bullies and denigration by his peers, such that it left him with major scars. Now he tries to show to everyone how smart he is & knows so much about religion & science.

I used to watch him untill he recited passages from the HB to which I found utter rubbish and stopped watching him

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by Takeiteasynow »

In the first video Zakir Naik equates God with 'the supranatural', 'the power and 'something'. He must be an polytheist.

... consulting Islamic theology ...

Burn him!
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by manfred »

When you first look at his stuff, you get the idea that he is rather like an Islamic version of a preacher in the American bible belt... Entertaining but somewhat shallow. A superficial look may give the impression of a relatively harmless guy. This is false.

Unfortunately there is more to him than that.... He has been banned in the UK and in Canada for justifying terror terror attacks, specifically saying "all Muslims should be terrorists" in at least two speeches. After some people killing in the name of Islam in Dhaka and quoting him as an inspiration, he is also banned from entering Bangladesh, and shortly afterwards in Sri Lanka. He can also not return to India, his home country where he is wanted for laundering drug money for Al Qaida.

Currently he is in Malaysia, and the authorities there are also worried about him creating strife and bloodshed... He is popular in parts of Indonesia, so when things are getting tricky in Malaysia, that may well be his next stop.

He is a multi-millionaire, and the "donations" are far too much to be believable, so the Indian state prosecutor very much would like to to arrest him.

https://theaseanpost.com/article/zakir- ... l-preacher" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by Fernando »

manfred wrote:OK, let's start this off by putting this little gem.... He says he is going to "PROVE" "SCIENTIFICALLY" and with "LOGIC" the existence of both heaven and hell, for "ATHEISTS"....

We have quite a few Atheists here on this forum, so please watch tell us all if you have "reverted" to Islam as a result... (If not, tell us why not, perhaps....)
As you say in another post Manfred, he speaks so quickly and indistinctly that he can wriggle without its being immediately obvious. About a third of the way through, he asks the chap (who isn't an atheist btw) "is robbing good or bad" but once his tirade is under way it becomes "is robbing bad for me [the robber]?" A simple bait and switch like that proves nothing at all, except that he is a charlatan - and a lying one, at that. He even switches further: he says robbing is good for the hypothetical him as he is has the police in his pocket, so he is immune to any consequences whereas other robbers would not be.
Athough, of course, despite his false argument, he may well believe that robbing is good: after all, Mohammed was a robber.
All that apart, he is working another deception by confusing fact and morality. His "good or bad" comes after his example of unknown fruit being edible or poisonous - completely different kinds of questions.
Finally, in the last minute or so, he comes up with his incontrovertible proof: injustices on Earth go unpunished on Earth, therefor there must be a Hell in which the perpetrators are punished: how else can there be right or wrong? Which is an infantile non sequitur.
Not converted - nor reverted: I don't believe I was born a Muslim either!
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by SAM »

Christian apologists hate him. :lol:
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Zakir Naik

Post by manfred »

If that really is the best on offer, then no wonder Muslims convert generally using violence.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply