I have been doing this (See setst777 false claims about the burka being a requirement for women in Islam and how four witnesses are needed for a victim to prove rape on the past couple of pages). I have done this on other issues as well, but I'm not going to keep addressing the same exact arguments over and over again. This discussion has been ongoing for well over a month now already.
In addition to being a medical doctor, he's also a Sunni Salafi'i Muslim who in 1991 started working in the field of Dawah, and founded the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) which is a non profit organization, making charitable trust and as its Chairman, he actively promotes Islamic understanding through television channels, radio programs, and the internet and through the written word. He is also the chairman of the IRF Educational Trust, and the president of Islamic Dimensions.
Naik says he was inspired by Ahmed Deedat, an Islamic preacher, having met him in 1987. Anthropologist Thomas Blom Hansen has written that Naik’s style of memorising the Quran and Hadith literature in various languages, and his related missionary activity, has made him extremely popular in Muslim and non-Muslim circles. He is a popular figure on various satellite and international TV channels all around the world and he answers the questions raised by his audience about Islam using the Quran and authentic Hadith. He has learnt these by heart and each of his answers is validated by the exact number of the Surah as it appears in the Quran. His knowledge extends not only to the Bible and the Torah (the Jewish scriptures) but also includes the Indian holy books like the Mahabharata and the Bhagwat Gita.
In the special list in 2009 of the “Top 10 Spiritual Gurus of India” Dr Zakir Naik was ranked No. 3. He has been placed in the top 62 in the list of “The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World” published by the George Washington University, USA.Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President & Prime Minister of UAE and Ruler of Dubai, presented the prestigious Dubai International Holy Qur’an Award’s ‘Islamic Personality of 2013’ Award and Citation to Dr Zakir Naik on 29th July 2013, for providing outstanding service to Islam and Muslims at a global level in Media, Education and Philanthropy. The Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, the King of Malaysia, presented to Dr Zakir Naik the highest award of Malaysia the ‘Tokoh Ma’al Hijrah Distinguished International Personality Award for the Year 2013’ for his significant service and contribution to the development of Islam on 5th November 2013. Shaikh Dr. Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Ruler of Sharjah, conferred on Dr Zakir Naik the ‘Sharjah Award for Voluntary Work’ for the year 2013, for his voluntary service for Islam on an international scale, on 16th January 2014. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud presented the prestigious ‘King Faisal International Prize’ – 2015 for ‘Service to Islam’ to Dr Zakir Naik on 1st March 2015 in Riyadh.
Now compare that to the two men below who have been used as references in this thread:
Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., M.S. (Providence, RI), is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Renal Diseases of Rhode Island Hospital. He has published articles and commentary on Islam in the Washington Times, National Review, Revue Politique, FrontPage Magazine.com, and other print and online publications.
Bill Warner is the pen name of Bill French a writer, critic of Islam, and the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is a former Tennessee State University physics professor. Warner graduated from North Carolina State University where he got his PhD in Physics and Mathematics in 1968. He has said that he gained a knowledge of Islam by studying all the Islamic texts he considered relevant from the time he was 30 years old.
If I have a question about Islam and I had to choose from one of the three men above to give me an answer, I'm going to go with Zakir Naik first and foremost because he is a Muslim, and secondly because his credentials far outweigh that of either Bill Warner or Andrew Bostom. It really doesn't matter what the subject, if there is a choice to be made, I'm always going to turn to the individual who has the highest level of education and personal experience in a particular subject or field if I have any questions or concerns.
If you were charged with a crime that could potentially cost you your freedom if you are found guilty, would you choose someone who has only read a lot of books on law and can cite a lot of legal terms and case law, but has never taken any courses on law or ever been inside a courtroom; or would you choose someone who has not only read a lot of books on law and can cite them, but has also formerly studied law and has many years of courtroom experience?
Education and personal experience far outweighs the simple act of quoting text out of some religious books and using them to support an argument, especially in today's world where technology allows anyone with a computer to search the internet for the information they need for support and give the appearance of being an expert.
Your intellectual standards are VERY low to simply rely on a list of academic titles and experiences as a priority.
Note in the case of the court, a lawyer has to be qualified with academic and practical experiences. Thus any lawyer chosen would have the minimal books and real practices.
In the case of experts called as witnesses, the other party will have their own witness to counter or agree with statements made.
As for Zakir Naik [not an Arabic Islamic Scholar], other than good memory recall, he is limited in his Islamic knowledge.
One point is very natural for any Muslim [with salvation at stake] to be very emotional and subjective with his own Islamic knowledge and bias.
From the speeches of Zakir Naik, one will note he is very anti-disbeliever in line with the fundamentals of Salafism\Wahabbism. His messages has subliminal propaganda that influenced the vulnerable to jihad and non-Muslims as evident with the Bangladesh jihadists.
There is no way any believer [with salvation at stake] will ever note any evil and violence elements where there are real evil and violent elements in their religion as in Islam.
On the other hand those who critique Islam has more room to be objective to analyze the roots causes of the terrible evil and violence from the Quran [supported by Ahadith].
This is what Andrew Boston, Bill Warner, and the others are doing.
I have asked you to show evidence where they are wrong in any major and significant way from their quotations of the Quran, Ahadith and Sira. You have not done so, except for some frivolous points.
Note this from Andrew Boston in his referencing to the Quran to support his points;
Alan Johnson: Which are the most important antisemitic motifs in the foundational texts, as you see it?
Andrew Bostom: I think 5:82 is an important motif but it is hardly the most important.
The central anti-Jewish motif in the Koran is found in verse 2:61, repeated at verse 3:112.
This is where the Jews are accused of slaying the Prophets and transgressing against the will of Allah, and so they are condemned and cursed eternally.
Verse 2.61 says ‘shame and misery’ are ‘stamped upon them.’
And this verse is coupled to verses like 5:60, and other verses about the Jews being transformed into apes and pigs, which is part of their curse.
Verse 5:78 describes the curse upon the Jews by David and Jesus, Mary’s son.
There is a related verse, 5:64, which accuses the Jews of being spreaders of war and corruption, a sort of ancient antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas cited this verse during a diatribe against the Jews of Israel, in 2007.) More generally, the Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1390433537d15Bostom.pdf
Show me where he is wrong in justifying his point in claiming the Quran is very anti-semitic.
I have a
long list of verses supporting why Islam is anti-Jew.
Btw, Andrew Boston's books are heavily supported by a long list of references. The same is done by the other critiques of Islam. They are not preaching propaganda and rhetoric from some pulpit without any references.
I haven't said that Wahhabism is the only sect that promotes violence, I have used the term Fundamentalist sects in this thread multible times which would include those who follow the Hanibali and Shafi'i schools of thoughts and I have used the term Islamic extremists in general.
The reason I have focused on Wahhabism so much in this thread is because you and Setst777 have been describing the tenets of this sect to the letter.
If you read the information below, it would be impossible not to draw a parallel between what you and Setst777 are talking about in this thread and Wahhabism.
The Wahhabism that the Saudi monarchy enforces, and on which it bases its legitimacy, is shown in these documents as a fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and sometimes violent ideology. These publications articulate its wrathful dogma, rejecting the coexistence of different religions and explicitly condemning Christians, Jews, all other non-Muslims, as well as non-Wahhabi Muslims. The various Saudi publications gathered for this study state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping such “infidels” in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian
Wahhabi-style Islamic law.
Wahhabism began only 250 years ago with the movement created by fanatical preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd alWahhab. Once a fringe sect in a remote part of the Arabian peninsula, Wahhabi extremism has been given global reach through Saudi government sponsorship and money, particularly over the past quarter century as it has competed with Iran in spreading its version of the faith. With its vast oil wealth and its position as guardian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Saudi Arabia now claims to be the leading power within Islam and the protector of the faith, a belief stated in the Saudi Basic Law. Saudi Foreign Policy Adviser Adel al-Jubeir publicly states that “the role of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world is similar to the role of the Vatican.” Even as the Saudi state asserts that it strives to keep the faith “pure” and free of innovation, it invents a new role for itself as the only legitimate authority on Islam.
Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Wahhabism and other hardline or salafist (literally translated as venerable predecessors) movements are a distinct minority.
Saudi state curriculum for many years has taught children to hate “the other” and support jihad, a malleable term that is used by terrorists to describe and justify their atrocities... Recent converts with limited experience of Islam can be particularly susceptible to the Saudi publications’ toxic message... The spread of Islamic extremism, such as Wahhabism, is the most serious ideological challenge of our times. Wahhabi extremism is more than hate speech; it is a totalitarian ideology of
hatred that can incite to violence.
Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state’s political ideology, and religion is an important part of Saudi education. Saudi Arabia defines itself as an Islamic state, and has established Wahhabism as the official state doctrine. Saudi Wahhabism is an extreme interpretation of Islam based on a dualistic worldview in which the true “monotheists” are obliged until judgment day to “fight” “polytheists,” and “idolators,” including Christians, Jews, Shiites and insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims.
Adherents of Wahhabism constitute a small minority within world Islam [Fewer than 5%]
,yet, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world’s authoritative voice on Islam. Its conquest of the Hejaz in 1924 gave it control of Islam’s two holiest sites and the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. This role, along with its vast oil wealth, has been used by Saudi Arabia to lay claim to being the leading power within all of Islam and the protector of the faith, a claim emphasized in the Saudi Basic Law.
Saudi state textbooks propound a belief that Christians and Jews and other unbelievers have united in a war against Islam that will ultimately end in the complete destruction of such infidels. Like the statements of Osama bin Laden, they advance the belief that the Crusades never ended and continue today in various forms.
Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks:
• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf
The Islamic sect of Wahhabism and it's teachings are what you and Setst777 are describing rather than the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow and anyone with even an ounce of background in Islam or that has taken courses in Islamic studies can see this.
Again you are intellectually dishonest.
How can you blatantly judge what we are doing based on your own personal opinions?
I have already explained to your my approach to the critique of Islam. My focus at present is mainly on the 6236 verses of the Quran for which I have read [the whole] more than 100 times and have done extensive analysis on it to justify why Islam is inherently evil and violence.
All the critical points I made of Islam as inherently evil and violent are supported by verses from the Quran [supported by the Ahadith and Sira].
Btw, I have provided so many quotes from the Quran but you have not countered the critical ones convincingly.
One of my main principles and concept is the STALEMATE DILEMMA. How can you counter this real fact when your are not Allah or a God?
Sets777 is also quoting references which is at least open for you to counter and thus not giving his personal subjective opinions like your ad populum fallacy.
The Quran do exhorts Muslims to do "good" [SLH: salaha - righteous, AynRF: ma'ruf, khyr, brr, tyb, yhr & other ethical acts] and avoid evil [NKR: munkar] but that is within the definition and confine within Islam itself and Muslims, not extended to non-Muslims. As such warring against disbelievers and committing violence on non-Muslims are considered 'good' in the eyes of Allah and will be heavily rewarded.
Note your own ignorance of the evil and violent fundamental of the Shafi'i schools. The majority of your neighbors Shafi'i Muslims who do not practice evil and violence is because they have not be exposed to the true teachings of the Shafi'i school. If they have and did not commit evil on non-Muslims is because they are ignoring such dictates as good human beings and not being good Muslims.
I suggest you read this interview quoted above with Andrew Bostom;
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1390433537d15Bostom.pdf
Bostom's counter to Wahhabism your favorite point;
Schwartz further argues there was no problem until the Wahhabi movement arose. Well, this is ridiculous.
The Wahhabis don’t come into existence until the mid to late 18th century! How do you account for a thousand years of Jihad and Dhimmitude prior to the rise of the Wahhabi movement?
How do you account for Jihad and Dhimmitude among the Shia, who are the Wahhabis arch-enemies, to this day? The degradations that non-Muslims experienced under the Shia were often worse than what they experienced under the Sunni because the Shia found Jews and other infidels physically impure (They take verse 9:28 literally. So literally that once Iran became a Shiite theocracy at the beginning of the sixteenth century, Jews could be beaten, sometimes to death, for going out in the rain. Why? Because their impurity could wash off on to Muslims!) page 22
