Recently Dr Zakir Naik was refused entry to Britain, so I thought I'd have a meander through his past words to see if the UK government was right to exclude him.
So, this is a breakdown of the video "Atheist (Nasthik) Girl Questions Dr Zakir (1/2)" - http://youtu.be/Tuvux9ase8w
1. "Who will decide what is good and what is bad" (1min 47 secs) HE GETS A ROUND OF APPLAUSE! Can the audience not see that the subtext of this seemingly simple answer is...
"The Old men who are my bosses have already decided what is good and bad for you. If we let everybody just choose the best bits of religions, we lose control of you."
The answer should be, of course, individuals can decide, peacefully, for themselves.
2. "I challenge any human being to point out a single principle of Islam which is against humanity as a whole" (3mins 50secs) ANOTHER ROUND OF APPLAUSE! The indoctrination of audience is astonishing and frightening. Their reaction shows that they are all totally convinced that nobody would ever be able to meet his challenge! So, I suspect they, at least, are going to be a bit shocked and cross but hey you only live once so, I'll take that challenge doc. If you've not read them yet Dr Zakir Naik, please see...
At no point does he wander into the territory of exploring a better solution! The only alternative he offers is "single women must become public property" He goes on to spout "in Islam when you have a second wife you have to give equal rights, she has honour, she has respect." (7 mins 30 secs) The obvious inference here, that a woman cannot be honoured or respected unless she is the property of a man, is a disgracefully misogynistic and archaic statement of the foulest order. Public property! Obviously women should not have to be owned by a man in order to live within society. Society should support women who wish to live alone to do so.
There global population consists of 3,442,850,573 men and a remarkably similar 3,386,509,865 women (Stats from Geohive.com)
For point 4 I'm going to switch to a different emission of crud from this twister of truth. You don't have to watch the whole clip because about 7 of the 9 minutes length can be summed up in "blah, blah, blah", "that's condescending", "that's misleading".
Dr Zakir Naik repeatedly asks the following question as bullet points throughout this speech...
Dr Zakir Naik primes the audience, controls their thought direction, and then suggests that the only answer an atheist could provide is 'the creator' which gives a false positive to support the 'keep them believing' agenda of his example.
In fact, the only answer an atheist could reasonably give to the question...
Whilst wild assumptions must be made to conclude any other answer, I suggest that given the fact that the most impressive libraries of antiquity were destroyed before the Qur'an was written, it's more likely that the information for which Muhammad claimed divine origin actually originated in one of the destroyed repositories.
Anyway, that's your lot, I think after some dissection that the UK government got it right. On initial impressions Dr Zakir Naik looks like a kindly, simple, even buffoon-like chap but this man is no idiot. He is clever and dangerous and manipulates an audience with consummate kills of a state of the art charlatan psychic.
This is one of the Too Many Questions
So, this is a breakdown of the video "Atheist (Nasthik) Girl Questions Dr Zakir (1/2)" - http://youtu.be/Tuvux9ase8w
1. "Who will decide what is good and what is bad" (1min 47 secs) HE GETS A ROUND OF APPLAUSE! Can the audience not see that the subtext of this seemingly simple answer is...
"The Old men who are my bosses have already decided what is good and bad for you. If we let everybody just choose the best bits of religions, we lose control of you."
The answer should be, of course, individuals can decide, peacefully, for themselves.
Dictatorship from the Dark Ages is not required.
2. "I challenge any human being to point out a single principle of Islam which is against humanity as a whole" (3mins 50secs) ANOTHER ROUND OF APPLAUSE! The indoctrination of audience is astonishing and frightening. Their reaction shows that they are all totally convinced that nobody would ever be able to meet his challenge! So, I suspect they, at least, are going to be a bit shocked and cross but hey you only live once so, I'll take that challenge doc. If you've not read them yet Dr Zakir Naik, please see...
The Fuss about Fitna3. His reasons for why men should have more than 1 wife (this is a precis of his words because he goes on a bit.) "using logic there are more women in the world than men." (4 mins 50 secs) his reasons are to support the Qur'an's Ham-fisted solution to any problem that there may be between man and female population 'men are allowed more than 1 wife'
Islam - The Stranglehold Religion?
Burka - Symbol of Enslavement
Savage Islam 1 - Blasphemy
Savage Islam 2 - The Imperfect Book
Savage Islam 3 - The Violent Book
Savage Islam 4 - Inferior Morality
Savage Islam 5 - Global Domination
Savage Islam 6 - False Prophet
Savage Islam 7 - Evil by Inaction
At no point does he wander into the territory of exploring a better solution! The only alternative he offers is "single women must become public property" He goes on to spout "in Islam when you have a second wife you have to give equal rights, she has honour, she has respect." (7 mins 30 secs) The obvious inference here, that a woman cannot be honoured or respected unless she is the property of a man, is a disgracefully misogynistic and archaic statement of the foulest order. Public property! Obviously women should not have to be owned by a man in order to live within society. Society should support women who wish to live alone to do so.
A human, is its own property!
And the words 'have to' (meaning 'must') suggests that without Islam a man is incapable of honouring / respecting a second wife!There global population consists of 3,442,850,573 men and a remarkably similar 3,386,509,865 women (Stats from Geohive.com)
3,442,850,573 / 3,386,509,865 = 1.017 Men for each Woman
That sounds to me distinctly like Women should have the option of more than 1 husband!
Dr Zakir Naik's words seem to me to be twisty and dishonourable.
Is Dr Zakir Naik mistaken or deliberately deceptive?
Even if his life depended on it, would you trust him to tell, or even recognise the truth?
Is Dr Zakir Naik mistaken or deliberately deceptive?
Even if his life depended on it, would you trust him to tell, or even recognise the truth?
For point 4 I'm going to switch to a different emission of crud from this twister of truth. You don't have to watch the whole clip because about 7 of the 9 minutes length can be summed up in "blah, blah, blah", "that's condescending", "that's misleading".
(I've included another clip by subach at the end of this post
that deals with the numerous twists of truth in the speech.)
that deals with the numerous twists of truth in the speech.)
As an aside, before I get into my final point, at 6 minutes and 30 seconds, Dr Zakir Naik recites of a list of chapters and verses. The audience give him a rousing round of applause but their adulation is more about how accomplished a parrot he is. This kind of display of recitation was the stuff of children's performances in Victorian parlour games.4. My main focus for this point is the first 1 minute and 45 seconds were he sets up the premise and last 30 seconds or so wear he makes his 'point'.
I find it worrying that the audience considers his ability to relay his brain-washing worthy of applause!
I can only assume that, in Islam, being an automaton is praised higher than original thinking!
Dr Zakir Naik repeatedly asks the following question as bullet points throughout this speech...
"How could he (Muhammad) have known that 1400 years ago?"
I am sure the doc is aware that this question is entirely different from proving a god exists but the posing of the question encourages the audience to mentally conclude "god did it" Dr Zakir Naik primes the audience, controls their thought direction, and then suggests that the only answer an atheist could provide is 'the creator' which gives a false positive to support the 'keep them believing' agenda of his example.
In fact, the only answer an atheist could reasonably give to the question...
"How could he have known that 1400 years ago?"
is
is
"I don't know and, on current evidence, it appears neither does anybody else."
Whilst wild assumptions must be made to conclude any other answer, I suggest that given the fact that the most impressive libraries of antiquity were destroyed before the Qur'an was written, it's more likely that the information for which Muhammad claimed divine origin actually originated in one of the destroyed repositories.
Anyway, that's your lot, I think after some dissection that the UK government got it right. On initial impressions Dr Zakir Naik looks like a kindly, simple, even buffoon-like chap but this man is no idiot. He is clever and dangerous and manipulates an audience with consummate kills of a state of the art charlatan psychic.
Dr Zakir Naik is appealing to the high court agaisnt the ban
Want out of the Qur'an's hideously oppressive pack of lies?
Give Council of ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) a try
Please Note
Before this post was written,
Allah was asked to prevent its publication if he thought it offensive or blasphemous.
He did not, therefore it's sanctioned.
Before this post was written,
Allah was asked to prevent its publication if he thought it offensive or blasphemous.
He did not, therefore it's sanctioned.
PEACE (As-Salamu Alaykum)
Crispy
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
