Mankind were one community..

Well, I wont ask any body to like him if he doesnt want to, but the article was pretty damn stupid.

This brand of preaching was invented by Deedat, as a retaliation to Christian missionary tactics. So his techniques mirror missionary techniques. You might not like the style, but the end result is pretty awesome. Zakir Naik took from him, and expanded the techniques to hinduism, his techniques being much more refined then the techniques of "radical""militant" hindus (you wont get any news about hindu militancy on your media, or the fact that the current indian PM is a psycho hindu mass-murderer who has killed at least a few thousand muslims, a few hundred of them pakistani tourists burnt alive. When asked how did he feel about them, he said "well you feel sad when a few SOBs get killed")

Anyways, the end result of zakir naik's product is pretty awesome. He is the only guy in India who can actually tell muslims and hindus that there are similarities between their religions, and the fundamentals arnt mutually exclusive.

I have read Gita and Principal Upanishads BTW, You will find very monothestic/monistic message there. Quite different from the "idol worship" layman hinduism. Yes I understand its the same at a level, but on a more mundane level its not. "The One" should be worshiped as "The One", not as many. Thats the main message of Zakir Naik.
 
Last edited:
farhan said:
Well, I wont ask any body to like him if he doesnt want to, but the article was pretty damn stupid.
Click to expand...
lol
farhan said:
This brand of preaching was invented by Deedat, as a retaliation to Christian missionary tactics. So his techniques mirror missionary techniques. You might not like the style, but the end result is pretty awesome. Zakir Naik took from him, and expanded the techniques to hinduism, his techniques being much more refined then the techniques of "radical""militant" hindus (you wont get any news about hindu militancy on your media, or the fact that the current indian PM is a psycho hindu mass-murderer who has killed at least a few thousand muslims, a few hundred of them pakistani tourists burnt alive. When asked how did he feel about them, he said "well you feel sad when a few SOBs get killed")

Anyways, the end result of zakir naik's product is pretty awesome. He is the only guy in India who can actually tell muslims and hindus that there are similarities between their religions, and the fundamentals arnt mutually exclusive.

I have read Gita and Principal Upanishads BTW, You will find very monothestic/monistic message there. Quite different from the "idol worship" layman hinduism. Yes I understand its the same at a level, but on a more mundane level its not. "The One" should be worshiped as "The One", not as many. Thats the main message of Zakir Naik.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that somebody is able to comment on something like that. I balk at the complexities if all the Hindu religions and the Muslim groups. That is a lot of information.
 
Since this has now become a conversation on Dr. Naik and in turn Sh. Ahmed Deedat. I think I will just say my feelings on each. Dr. Naik as I said I do not agree with. From his antics on Christianity (as a former Christian myself), he has veered way off from what his teacher Mr Deedat had taught. He incorporates blame and politics and even even conducts a website to condemn the US Government (specifically Bush... to which he has a lot of support) for the "Black flag" attack on 9/11. He has claimed his evidence which is highly biased and without actual verifiable evidence. He is not alone, he has many other "Dawaists" (Islamic version of the "Bible Thumpers") feeding his claim as well. Now the things he says are not the easiest to understand outside of a Middle Eastern Muslim mindset. I was only able to understand past the apparent "hate speech" after being friends with several middle easterners. The points used in the articles Senthil posted use some phrases out of context. To my knowledge (I've heard many of his lectures) he has never actually advocated aggression. In fact many of his lectures are on why we are not supposed to be aggressive. I've stopped listening to him after hearing some of his answers to Muslims (especially new Muslims) and driving some away from actual practice because of them.

Ahmed Deedat I would put in a whole other category. He may not have understood Christian belief outside of the Bible, but he knew the Bible quite well (English KJV, RSV, etc). He was usually very respectful to his guests. He allowed many people to come (and went to them when requested) to discuss comparative religion. He was always very generous, but direct. He was quick to use Bible references to correct mistakes that he perceived, but would settle if someone could actually show where they came up with their idea.

Senthil said:
I believe one of those faiths is vastly more complicated than the other. 1000 scriptures versus 1 scripture is a clue. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
And yet in that 1 scripture we can deduce all we need to know, without contradictions or figuring out which line we should throw out. As I understand several of the Hindu scriptures are completely contradictory to each other. I will admit, this is 3rd hand knowledge and am very possibly wrong, but I don't know if I have a lifetime to find out by learning them all. From what I've heard of them, there are many parts that are almost (once translated to english) word for word what is in the Quran.
 
do you have any links for proper hate speech by ZN. or answers that drive people away from practice. Last of his shows that I saw was his debate with SS Ravi shankar. It has been 8 years now, I dont know what he has been doing afterwards.
 
I just go by what my government has decided. I am unable to determine personally what is hate and what isn't. I've been accused of hate myself, as has mostly anyone with strong opinions in defense of their faith. The Canadian government (I'm Canadian) does have hate speech laws in effect. Two famous incidents involved a teacher who taught for many years that the Jewish holocaust was a hoax, and a First Nations chief who was highly outspoken. I can't remember all the details about that one. But the Canadian government did ban him from entering our country based on that. It wasn't based on 'terrorism' or any other reason as far as I know.

I'm happy that some moderates in all faiths (including BigJoeNobody above) take a stand and disagree with the more outspoken and radical elements in their faith. I stand against violence and I consider proseltysing a subtle form of violence. It destroys families and much more. I stand against it in Hinduism too.

As far as promoting violence goes, it may not be direct. Marx is often said to have promoted violence, which is false. What he said was a conjecture that 'the end result may need to be achieved by violence.' I think he would have preferred talking. But of course what happened was people did use violence. So some people feel that violence is necessary to promote their ideas. Hitler used the Hindu Scripture The Bhagavad Gita to support his nasty war, feeling it was a just war. The Bhagavad Gita basically says, 'A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do."

But people like Dr. Naik, however good his personal intentions are, I don't feel are good for humanity. I think the spirit of interfaith is live and let live, not to use interfaith as a way to try to convince everyone that your way is the right way. This world needs to learn how to get along without violence, by talking, by respecting people, not referring to other groups as unclean, etc.

I've never in my life understood how anyone feels the need to convince others that their view is so wrong, and it needs to be changed. In extreme cases of violence, criminality, total selfishness, yes, we need to do something. But for relatively minor things like the way God is worshipped? Definitely no.
 
farhan said:
answers that drive people away from practice
Click to expand...
He answered one girl who was new to Islam. She asked him if her father who had recently passed away (as a Christian) would be possible to meet her in Jannah. His response was that he was a Kufir, and could never be in paradise. She moved back from the mic in complete tears.

I know of 1 person who had heard this (or similar as I cannot be sure it is same circumstance) and decided to stop practicing in light of why worship a deity who is so unaccepting.

I do not know of when this one was taken, nor where to find it now (I'm sure youtube somewhere).
 
Thats sad. Nobody can decide who cant go to heaven, let God judge that.
 
My wife and I were on a plane one time when a Muslim fellow assigned to the isle seat next to us asked to change his seat. The flight attendant was rather put out and asked him if he something against mixed marriages. He said no and added that he thought ours was a perfect union since neither Christian nor Hindu would be separated in the fires of hell. My wife and I got a good chuckle out of it, but the flight attendant was quite upset and later apologized after re-seating the gentleman.
 
farhan said:
Thats sad. Nobody can decide who cant go to heaven, let God judge that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But she asked another mortal anyway. Supposedly because he had some form of higher knowledge. This is a dangerous habit too many people follow. A whole lot of people seem quite content to speak for God. They should all be treated with the same contempt they deserve for such hubris. Not that asking a holy person what their opinion is is wrong. As long as they make it clear their answer is their opinion of what they understand of their holy books. There is not a mortal on this planet who has the authority to say they speak God's opinion. They just don't.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Agreed. But she asked another mortal anyway. Supposedly because he had some form of higher knowledge. This is a dangerous habit too many people follow. A whole lot of people seem quite content to speak for God. They should all be treated with the same contempt they deserve for such hubris. Not that asking a holy person what their opinion is is wrong. As long as they make it clear their answer is their opinion of what they understand of their holy books. There is not a mortal on this planet who has the authority to say they speak God's opinion. They just don't.
Click to expand...
In Islam we have safeguards for such a thing, but it is rarely followed by those in the limelight. Many sources show that to give answers, one must know the answer. If they get it wrong they will have to answer why they taught it that way on Judgement Day. There are things that within Islam that can be covered in absolute right/wrong terms, but not everything. The other things which cannot be proven, are supposed to be labelled as the Scholar's or Teacher's opinion. Of which it is not necessary to be followed.
 
He teaches/promotes Salifi/wahabists? Interfaith? NOT.... suicide bombers and haters of all other religions? Promoter of taliban style sharia law, saudi style subjugation of religion and suicide bombing as a way to heaven.... warped hadiths and hate....sheesh.
 
wil said:
He teaches/promotes Salifi/wahabists? Interfaith? NOT.... suicide bombers and haters of all other religions? Promoter of taliban style sharia law, saudi style subjugation of religion and suicide bombing as a way to heaven.... warped hadiths and hate....sheesh.
Click to expand...
1. He is a Dawaist, not interfaith talker. In other words a Islamic evangelist.

2. while he is a supporter of Shariah Law for Muslims, he has many times stated how he doesn't believe he can force others to follow it if it is not their belief.

3. I've listened to a 3 hr long speech by him about how suicide bombing is wrong and a direct path to hell (to which he used islamic sources to prove. As I said, I am not a fan of Dr. Naik, but hateful/ promoter of violence he is not.
 
farhan said:
Quite different from the "idol worship" layman hinduism. Yes I understand its the same at a level, but on a more mundane level its not. "The One" should be worshiped as "The One", not as many.
Click to expand...
I had a long ride with a Hindu priest.... he said paraphrased ~ To my daughter I am Father, to my wife a husband, to my nephew an uncle, to my mom a son...they all see me differently but I am the same person.... we each see G!d differently....but there is only one... our gods are manifestations of the one as different people see G!d at different times....sometimes G!d is a voice, sometimes a bush, different to Ezekiel, different to Mohamed, different to Moses, different to you and to me....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top