PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Zakir Naik explanations & Debates



Ansar Al-'Adl
04-27-2005, 09:39 PM
Proving the Existence of Allah to an Atheist

by Dr. Zakir Naik

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST

Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.


LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)


QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE? (http://www.irf.net/book3.zip)


THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.



The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.


CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.


QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.


SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]

Chuck
04-27-2005, 09:44 PM
"regions (of the earth)" addition "of the earth" is meant in Arabic or it is just the understanding of the translators?

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-27-2005, 10:28 PM
:sl: Chuck,
Earth is an addition.
The verse you are referring to is:
http://www.islamicoutlet.com/islamicoutlet.com/images/quran/41_53.gif

The word in arabic is Al-Aafaaq.

Yusuf Ali has translated it as farthest regions. Pickthall as horizons. Khan/Hilali as universe.

Ibn Kathir wrote:

such as conquests and the advent of Islam over various regions and over all other religions.

So we understand that it would mean something like the "furthest frontiers".

:w:

Chuck
04-28-2005, 09:22 PM
that makes more sense

Abdul Fattah
05-03-2005, 03:15 AM
:applaud:
Very nice thread.
Especially the part on congratulating an atheist for using it's brain :)
However there's one lil' comment I'd like to make regarding the logical concept of God. I'm not certain that everbody would accept this concept. Surely a misconception could be at the base of disbelieve with many, but some people just don't "believe" I don't know if it has something tod o with pride, fear, love commen sense, dunno.... some just disagree for the sake of it apperantly

_salam_
05-03-2005, 08:51 AM
All I got to say is Zakir Naik is the man. I remember watching a debate between him and some Christian guy (who I believe runs/works for the website answering-Islam), and not only is it apparent that Dr. Naik has the Qur'an memorized, cause he was referencing verses from it left and right like it was no problem, but he had much of the Bible memorized as well. Which was kind of humorous because the other guy had to sit there and look up the verses out of the Bible and Dr. Naik was just spouting them off like it was no thing. It was truly amazing especially since the other guy had his whole speech all written out and preplanned, and had all these fancy slides to show, and then Dr. Naik just gets up there and does his speech from scratch.

Oh yeah very nice post by the way, I found it quite humorous.

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-03-2005, 05:29 PM
:sl: I know which debate you're talking about, _salam_. :)


Dr. Zakir Naik vs. Dr. William Campbell
Chicago

The Qur'an & The Bible in the light of science
The video can be viewed here:
Part 1 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 01of5.rm)
Part 2 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 02of5.rm)
Part 3 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 03of5.rm)
Part 4 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 04of5.rm)
Part 5 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 05of5.rm)


I totally agree with Br. _salam_ on this debate. It was a humiliating defeat for Answering Islam (and they were forced to admit it), and a tremendous victory by Dr. Zakir Naik.

I highly recommend it to everyone.

Btw, Br. _salam_, did you watch it on the net, or in person? I only watched it on the net.

:w:

Khattab
05-03-2005, 05:49 PM
Yes I remember that talk, I kind of felt sorry for William Campbell at the end, he couldnt answer a single question, he just couldnt speak after his argument had been shot down flat.

_salam_
05-03-2005, 07:05 PM
Oh I just saw the debate online.

Mohsin
08-09-2005, 04:13 PM
I've been meaning to ask this question for a while. Dr Campell in his debate with Zakir Naik said that at the time, the words the Qur'an uses for embyology,the words meant somethin else, and had different meanings than they have today.Zakir Naik's response was that the Qur'an is for all time, so the meanings of the word apply today and perfectly conciliate with science. This is what i gathered he said, correct me if i am wrong and misunderstood
But his explanation doesn't make sense, because if the meanings of the words have been changed, then isn't it a possibility that muslims changed the meaning of the word if, Allah forbid, they realised the Qur'an was not in conciliation with science. Please help on this topic

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-09-2005, 06:16 PM
:sl:
The dictionaries referred to for arabic definitions were recorded in early Islamic history, hence the words were not defined according to scientific understanding.

:w:

Mohsin
08-09-2005, 11:34 PM
:sl:

So what was Dr Campbell on about? his whole argument was based on the example of the meaning of pig, how at the time of Moses and Muhammed PBUT, it meant swine, but now a new meaning of pig is police as slang. So he was saying Muslims and Jews can't say "we are allowed to eat swine as when it says in the Qur'an don't eat pigs it means don't eat police, as thats is what it means, so we can't eat police but can eat swine". So using this argument he was saying how at the time of Muhammed PBUH the meanings were different, and they don't mean clot and congealed blood etc. Zakir Naiks response to this was Qur'an is for all of time so modern meanings can apply, at least that is what i think he said
:w:

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-09-2005, 11:42 PM
:sl:
There's a difference between muhkam verses and mutashabihat verses. The former are the clear verses pertaining to legal rulings, etc. while the latter refers to unclear descriptive verses. So Dr. Zakir Naik is correct that many alternative definitions can be used to understand the mutashabihat.

It might help you to read what was written by Dr. Omar Abdel Rehman:

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;
something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)
Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

References (http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/PlagiarismGreek/12/)

:w:

bronumba1
08-10-2005, 05:00 PM
:sl:
There's a difference between muhkam verses and mutashabihat verses. The former are the clear verses pertaining to legal rulings, etc. while the latter refers to unclear descriptive verses. So Dr. Zakir Naik is correct that many alternative definitions can be used to understand the mutashabihat.

It might help you to read what was written by Dr. Omar Abdel Rehman:


References (http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/PlagiarismGreek/12/)

:w:
cool i didi not know that

Danish
08-11-2005, 12:21 PM
:sl:
mashallah...i didnt know Dr Cambel ran answering-islam...did they mention it in a lecture?

Zuko
08-18-2005, 02:02 PM
Salaam,

I think its okay as long as all he's doing with the knowledge is to show people the contradictions in their religions and prove to them that Islaam is correct... But that's how I feel... Also I've never heard that hadith before, is that the whole thing? Because usually in ahadith the prophet (SAW) explains the reason for forbidding something... But I could be wrong, and correct me if I am...

Salaam

Ummu Amatullah
08-18-2005, 02:14 PM
Asallama Alaikum I heard of that as well.I think studying the scriptures of the Christians and Jews are okay as long as you have a strong eeman.If you don't then study it well you could convert very easily.That's what happened to my cousin.When he was 17 he started to study philosophy.He started to have doubts about Islam,unfortunely he became an atheist.Till today.May Allah open his heart once again ameen.Dr.Zakir Naik I don't think so.Mash'allah he has alot of knowledge and I'm sure he knows what he's doing.

Uthman
08-18-2005, 02:59 PM
:sl:

Does anybody know Umar Ibn Khattab (r.a) was reading a page of the Torah? For what purpose? :)

:w:

Mohsin
08-18-2005, 04:11 PM
I heard a talk, can't remember which one, but someone asked this exact question. They asked Zakir Naik why do you study other people's scriptures, and he put a really good argument forward. He said the hadith was referring to reading Torah Injeel etc. for guidance,that you shouldnt read it for guidance as that was apparently 'Umar RA was doing, and later 'Umar (RA) asked for forgiveness. Zakir Naik went on to use his favourite ayaah, "O people of the book, come to common terms as between us and you", and he said you can come to common terms by studying their sciptures and then agreeing with them for example there is only one God. Also he quoted an ayyah

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

Going on to say how can you argue with people of the book, or come to common terms, or give da'wah to them with our reading their scriptures. I personally think its really good, so many people have reverted to Islam listening to talks from people like Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Jamal Badawi Shabir Ally etc, because of the comparative studies. There is so much stuff you can use, like for example to christians, you can say nowhere does Prophet Isa claim divinity in the Bible, scientific errors how can it be from God, and all the prophecies of prophet Muhammed SAW in Hindu, Buddhist,Jewish and Christian scriptures. How can you do that without reading thier book

Uthman
08-18-2005, 05:16 PM
:sl:

JazakAllah Khayr Moss. :)

:w:

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-18-2005, 07:21 PM
:sl:
The famous schpolars, including thr Ulema of Saudi, have always quoted the Bible (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=44018&dgn=4) just like Dr. Zakir Naik does.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al-Uthaymeen says the following on this issue:

But the seeker of knowledge who has sufficient knowledge to be able to tell truth from falsehood, may be allowed to read (the previous scriptures) in order to refute the falsehood found therein or to leave the followers of the scriptures with no excuse for not knowing that they are false. (Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Rasaa’il Fadeelat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, vol. 1, p. 32-33)
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=10817&dgn=4

Thus, these critics of Dr. Zakir Naik should be warned not to attack the scholars of Islam based on their own poor understanding of the hadith.

:w:

Danish
08-19-2005, 01:29 PM
:sl:
^ truly agree

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-19-2005, 05:59 PM
:sl:

Zakir Naik also has responded to the matter himself:
__________________________________________________
Quoting the Bible for Dawah Purposes

Q. I heard a Maulana saying that it is Biddat to quote the Bible to do Daw’ah to the Ahle-Kitab (People of the Book; i.e. the Jews and the Christians). I would like to get the answer from Dr. Zakir Naik whether it is allowed as he very often quotes the Bible.

A. Although majority of the Muslim Scholars find nothing wrong in the act of quoting the scriptures of Ahle-Kitaab (People of the Book; i.e. the Jews and the Christians) for the purpose of Daw’ah, there are some Muslims who harbour a misconception that it is wrong to do so. Some of the Scholars among them state that ‘those Muslims who quote the Bible are doing Bid’ah’. It will be pertinent to know the relevance of the evidence provided by these people to substantiate their claim. The only Hadith that is very often quoted by them is as follows:

“Narrated Jabir Ibn Abdullah :

Umar ibn al-Khattab brought to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) a copy of the Torah and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, this is a copy of the Torah’. He (Allah’s Messenger) kept quiet and he (Umar) began to read it. The colour of the face of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) underwent a change, whereupon Abu Bakr said: “Would that your mother mourn you, don’t you see the face of Allah’s Messenger?’ Umar saw the face of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and said: ‘I seek refuge with Allah from the wrath of Allah and the wrath of His Messenger. We are well pleased with Allah as Lord, with Islam as religion, and with Muhammad as Prophet’. Whereupon Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said : ‘By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, even if Moses were to appear before you and you were to follow him, leaving me aside, you would certainly stray into error; for if (Moses) were alive (now), and he found my prophetical ministry, he would have definitely followed me’.
(Sunan Ad-Darimi, Vol. 1, Hadith No. 435)

Based on the Hadith quoted above, some scholars insist that it is forbidden for the Muslims to quote the Bible, regardless of the purpose behind quoting it since the Prophet (pbuh) expressed his displeasure when Umar (R.A.) read the Torah. However, here the objection of the prophet (pbuh) was mainly on reading the Torah for guidance, as can be understood by Umar’s prompt reafiirmation and satisfaction with Allah as lord, with Islam as religion and with Muhammad (pbuh) as messenger. The Prophet’s (pbuh) remark further clarifies that even if Moses was alive, he would have definitely followed him, meaning Moses (pbuh) too would have followed the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh). Thus those Muslim Da’ees who quote the Old Testament or the New Testament of the Bible for the purpose of Daw’ah do not quote it with the intention of following them or seeking guidance from them, because the ultimate and the best of the guidance is found in the last and the final testament, the Glorious Qur’an and the authentic Ahadith. Says Allah in the Qur’an:

“This day have I perfected your religion for you completed my favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (Al-Qur’an 5:3)

With regards to quoting the Bible for the purpose of Daw’ah, the authentic sources of knowledge of Islam indicate beyond any doubt that it is permissible for the Muslims to do so.

Let us first analyse the following verse of the Qur’an :

Say : “O people of the book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not from among ourselves Lords and patrons other than Allah.” If then they turn back say: “Bear witness that we (atleast) are Muslims (bowing to Allah’s will).”

In the verse quoted above, Allah instructs Muslims to invite the Ahle-Kitab to common terms, with the first term being the oneness of Allah. How will a Muslim get to common terms without knowing the terms of the faith of Ahle-Kitab? It is either through studying their scriptures, or is it to be presumed that all Muslims are well versed with their term ? If a person tries to know the common terms just by looking at the followers of Christianity, he will be in a dilemma as to what the common terms are, because majority of the Christians believe in many diverse concepts, several of which are contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

Let us analyse some more verses of the Qur’an :

“ All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Law of Moses was revealed. Say: “Bring you the Law (Torah) and study it if you be men of truth.” (Al Qur’an 3:93)

Allah also says : And they (the jews and the Christians) say: “None shall enter paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian”. Those are their (vain) desires. Say :” Produce your proof if you are truthful.” (Al-Qur’an 2:111)

In the verse Quoted above Allah (swt) commands us to demand for proof for the claims of the Jews and the Christians. And they have produced the only proof they have – i.e. the Bible, in over two thousand different languages of the world. Are we going to swallow their ‘proof’ hook, line and sinker? It is presupposed that when Allah commands us to demand for proof, that we would analyse the proof, once it is produced. Otherwise it makes no sense to demand proof.

The following Hadith from Sahih Al Bukhari further substantiates that it is permissible to quote the scriptures of the Ahle-Kitab:

Narrated Abdullah bin Amr

The Prophet said, “Convey (my teachings) to the people even if it were a single sentence, and tell others the stories of Bani Israel, for it is not sinful to do so. And whoever tells a lie on me intentionally, will surely take his place in the (Hell) Fire.”
(Sahih Al Bukhari, Vol. 4, Hadith no. 3461)

There are some scholars who interprets this Hadith by saying that the permission to quote the stories of Bani Israel and that this Hadith refers to the stories mentioned in the Qur’an, and not in the Scriptures of Ahle-Kitab. However, we should understand the Hadith according to the understanding of the narrator of the Hadith, Abdullah bin Amr (R.A.), the companion of the Prophet (pbuh), because the narrator’s understanding would be far more accurate than the different understanding of all the modern interpreters put together.

Ibn Kathir comments on this Hadith as follows: “This Hadith from ‘Abdullah bin Amr was collected by Al-Bukhari (Fath Al Bari 6:572). This is why when ‘Abdullah bin Amr’ had possession of two books from the people of the scriptures on the day (battle) of Yarmuk , he used to narrate what was in them, because of what he understood of the hadith that allowed this practice.”
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Vol. 1, page no. 31)

The Hadith quoted above should be proof enough even for the most skeptics among those who object to quoting the Bible for the purpose of Daw’ah.

Following is the translation of the words of Shaykhul-Islam Ibn-Taymiyyah taken from ‘Majmu’atul-Fatawa’, Vol. 7, Part no. 13, paged 196-197, as well as Tafsir Ibn Kathir, abridged, Vol. 1, page no. 31: “Yet, the Israelite accounts and stories should only be used as supporting evidence, not as evidence themselves. There are three types of these accounts and tales; a kind that we are sure is authentic because we have in our religion something that testifies to its truth. The second type is what we know to be false based on what we have. The third is of neither type. Hence we neither affirm nor deny this type, and we allowed to narrate it because of the Hadith that we mentioned…..”

Let us analyse the following Hadith :

Narrated Ibn Umar

A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet (pbuh) asked them. “What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your book (Torah)?” They replied, “Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “O Allah’s Messenger, tell them to bring the Torah.” The Torah was brought, and then one of the jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the jew, “Lift your hand.” Behold ! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah’s Messenger ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and they were stoned. Ibn ‘Umar added: so both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the jew sheltering the Jewess.
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Hadith No. 6819)

From the Hadith quoted above, we realize that the Prophet (pbuh) punished the jew and the jewess according to the law of Torah since the law was going in accordance with the law of the Qur’an. Here the intention of the Prophet (pbuh) was not to follow the Torah but to implement from it what was conciliating with the Qur’an, i.e. the punishment for adultery. Similarly the easiest way to prove a point to a person who believes in the Bible is to make reference to the Bible. For example, the Bible says in the Gospel of Mark 12:29 “Hear, O Israel; The Lord of our God is one Lord”. By making a Christian believe in one God through this verse, we also make him believe in the first verse of Surah Al-Ikhlas, chapter 112 of the Qur’an says: “He is Allah the One and Only”. This would help negate the concept of Trinity from his mind. Thus we follow the instructions of Allah as mentioned in the verse quoted above from Al-Qur’an 3:64, which says: ‘Say ” O people of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah….”

Thus it can be concluded that it is permissible for the Muslims to quote Bible for the purpose of Daw’ah and all those who object to it should ponder over the evidence provided by us. And Allah Knows the Best.

:w:

mahdisoldier19
02-06-2006, 09:54 PM
Salam Alaikam,

J/c does anyone have any rebuttals between him and other folks. Ive seen his rebuttel with Dr. William campbell he embarresed the guy. Just wondered what you brothers and sisters thought about him and whether or not any of you have good links to vids? on his debates

Shadz111
02-06-2006, 10:33 PM
Salamz bros and sis.

Zakir naik is a scholar of world religions. The guy is just fantastic.
He came down to the London Excel (Global Unity Event) and he was mindblowing. There are usually his talks/speeches on Islam channel and the place is always packed out with muslims and non-muslims.


A few websites:
http://www.drzakirnaik.com/

http://www.irf.net/irf/drzakirnaik/index.htm
wasalam

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-06-2006, 11:48 PM
:sl:
Threads merged. Dr. Naik recently had this debate:
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-events/12590-dr-zakir-naik-sri-sri-ravishankar.html

:w:

Malaikah
02-07-2006, 08:05 AM
:sl: I know which debate you're talking about, _salam_. :)


Dr. Zakir Naik vs. Dr. William Campbell
Chicago

The Qur'an & The Bible in the light of science
The video can be viewed here:
Part 1 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 01of5.rm)
Part 2 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 02of5.rm)
Part 3 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 03of5.rm)
Part 4 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 04of5.rm)
Part 5 (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Videos/Lectures/Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Debates//Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qura'n%20&%20The%20Bible%20in%20the%20light%20of%20science%2 05of5.rm)


:sl:

bro, the links didnt work! :? and i really wanted to check it out..

:w:

akulion
02-07-2006, 08:30 AM
salam alaikum

jazak Allah khair for the wonderful article about dr zakir naiks lecture

I really like how he can take the positive out of the negative

Its indeed a good quality to have masha'Allah

May allah swt grant him jannatul firdaus
ameen

mahdisoldier19
02-07-2006, 07:29 PM
Salam Alaikam

I love dr. Zakir Naik. If your a christian and still think the bible doesnt have errors after watching the Dr. Naik vs Campbell debate. My Allah swt Help your soul

afriend
06-25-2006, 10:23 AM
Let us know when there are new debates will ya?

I'm actually studying and taking notes...;D

saludada
07-05-2006, 12:09 PM
"In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct."

That is incorrect. That is correct only if the both of the only two possible outcomes are equally likely!! ( the article is un-affected by it though )

Fishman
07-05-2006, 03:10 PM
"In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct."

That is incorrect. That is correct only if the both of the only two possible outcomes are equally likely!! ( the article is un-affected by it though )
:sl:
If the Quran was made by men, it would probably state that the earth is flat, because in the dark ages people could not understand the concept of a round Earth, and it was not until the Medieval period that a round Earth was accepted by Europeans.
:w:

Hijrah
07-05-2006, 04:07 PM
Naik is a clever dude Al-Hamdulillah, te dude can really own debates, didn't he debate a hindu as well

bandoo
07-05-2006, 04:13 PM
:sl:
If the Quran was made by men, it would probably state that the earth is flat, because in the dark ages people could not understand the concept of a round Earth, and it was not until the Medieval period that a round Earth was accepted by Europeans.
:w:

According to what I have read in many history of science books, the earth being sphere was already known to Greek and Indian scholars. What Copernicus did was to revive the very old Greek theory only. Let us not wrongly claim that the Quran mentions for the first time in history that earth was spherical. Incidentally, can some kind soul here give me the exact ayat where the Quran states earth to be spherical. Again, what I have read is that the Quran says earth to be round or circular like a pancake (i.e. flat). If it is so, clearly the Quran is NOT saying earth is spherical. To clear my doubt pl give the relevant reference. I have for study with me the Pickethall's English Quran.

Dr Naik must be having a very good memory, but he is also very fast in jumping to conclusions which suit his purpose, which therefore remain unproven and put Islam in bad light.

Bandoo

Hijrah
07-05-2006, 04:31 PM
And when the earth is Spread Out
( سورة الانشقاق , Al-Inshiqaq, Chapter #84, Verse #3)

Obviously if it says the earth is to be SPREAD(Or flattened in Yusuf Ali translations) it indicates that the earth isn't flat as of now...

j4763
07-05-2006, 04:38 PM
And when the earth is Spread Out
( سورة الانشقاق , Al-Inshiqaq, Chapter #84, Verse #3)

Obviously if it says the earth is to be SPREAD(Or flattened in Yusuf Ali translations) it indicates that the earth isn't flat as of now...

Or it could mean spread out flatly? No? Like a pancake?

muslim_friend
07-05-2006, 04:52 PM
SHAPE OF THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL
In early times, people believed that the earth was flat. For centuries, men were afraid to venture out too far, for fear of falling off the edge! Sir Francis Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he sailed around it in 1597.Consider the following Qur’anic verse regarding the alternation of day and night:

“Seest thou not that Allah
merges Night into Day
and He merges Day into Night?”
[Al-Qur’an 31:29]

Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night.The following verse also alludes to the spherical shape of the earth:

“He created the heavens and
the earth in true (proportions):
He makes the Night
overlap the Day,
and the Day
overlap the Night.”
[Al-Qur’an 39:5]

The Arabic word used here is Kawwara meaning ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’– the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical. The earth is not exactly round like a ball, but geo-spherical, i.e. it is flattened at the poles. The following verse contains a description of the earth’s shape:

“And the earth, moreover,
hath He made egg shaped.”
[Al-Qur’an 79:30]

The Arabic word for egg here is dahaahaa which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’an correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’an was revealed was that the earth was flat.-from Zakir Naik's, Qur'an and modern science.

Any comments? :p

Fishman
07-05-2006, 07:21 PM
-from Zakir Naik's, Qur'an and modern science.

Any comments? :p
:sl:
Francis Drake didn't prove the Earth was round, although he was the first to sail round it.
:w:

Hijrah
07-06-2006, 01:34 AM
Salaam-u-alaikum

can we get a re-up on those debates with campbell?

saludada
07-06-2006, 08:03 AM
:sl:
If the Quran was made by men, it would probably state that the earth is flat, because in the dark ages people could not understand the concept of a round Earth, and it was not until the Medieval period that a round Earth was accepted by Europeans.
:w:


How is that relevant to the mathematics mistake!!

duskiness
07-11-2006, 05:56 PM
Any comments? :p

yup - 2
1)Drake wasn't first to prove the Earth was round
2)he wasn't also first to sail round it

n.

Fishman
07-11-2006, 07:28 PM
yup - 2
2)he wasn't also first to sail round it

n.
:sl:
Who was? Was it Magellan or something? If so, I think I just confused their names.
:w:

duskiness
07-11-2006, 08:06 PM
:sl:
Who was? Was it Magellan or something? correct :) or magellan's crew (because he died on the way)
n.

wilberhum
07-11-2006, 08:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
The concept of a spherical Earth was espoused by Pythagoras (approximately 582 BC–507 BC, Greek) apparently on aesthetic grounds, as he also held all other celestial bodies to be spherical. It replaced widespread belief in a flat Earth
A round earth was not a new concept 1400 years ago.

KAding
07-11-2006, 10:08 PM
A round earth was not a new concept 1400 years ago.
Quite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


It is commonly assumed that people from early antiquity generally believed the world was flat, but by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged. At that time Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude and longitude (see clime). His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages

The common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks. Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant states that "The superstitious sailors ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known.[1] Actually, sailors were probably among the first to know of the curvature of Earth from daily observations — seeing how shore landscape features (or masts of other ships) gradually descend/ascend near the horizon.

Fishman
07-12-2006, 07:45 PM
:sl:
If you look at Medieval maps, you can see that at least some people (highly educated priests) thought the Earth was flat. Try searching for 'Mappa Mundi'.

I'm pretty sure that the ancient Greek knowledge did not reach remote places like pre-Islamic Makkah either. Even the Europeans largely forgot about it.
:w:

wilberhum
07-12-2006, 07:59 PM
:sl:
If you look at Medieval maps, you can see that at least some people (highly educated priests) thought the Earth was flat. Try searching for 'Mappa Mundi'.

I'm pretty sure that the ancient Greek knowledge did not reach remote places like pre-Islamic Makkah either. Even the Europeans largely forgot about it.
:w:
Of course lots beleived in a flat earth. But as I said, a round earth was not a new idea. And of course ancient Greek knowledge reach remote places like pre-Islamic Makkah. The world is full of traders and merchants. It was a thriving business there tool

Fishman
07-12-2006, 08:31 PM
And of course ancient Greek knowledge reach remote places like pre-Islamic Makkah. The world is full of traders and merchants. It was a thriving business there tool
:sl:
Are you sure that things that the average European didn't know could have been known by a man in a remote city in the desert?

The Bible contains a number of passages implying a flat Earth, and it was written/corrupted inside a powerful empire. Surely they had much easier access to the Greek knowledge, and yet they got it wrong.
:w:

wilberhum
07-12-2006, 08:51 PM
Are you sure that things that the average European didn't know could have been known by a man in a remote city in the desert?Average? A round earth was not a widely accepted concept even in the 14th century. I simply have shown that it was not a new idea.


The Bible contains a number of passages implying a flat Earth,
Of course. That was the common belief. The Catholic Church even put people to death for saying otherwise. But then all of this has nothing to do with the subject.


written/corrupted
Never want to miss a chance, do you? Sorry on that one. I totally agree. It would be other writings that we disagree on.


Surely they had much easier access to the Greek knowledge
Access to knowledge does not make you knowledgeable. Besides as seen so often on this forum, knowledge is just denied on a basis of not liking it.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 11:50 PM
  2. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 01:55 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 03:07 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2007, 11:45 AM