Talk:Zakir Naik

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

should we analyse "Zakir Naik-25 mistakes in 5 minutes"

Zakir is frequently attacked, insulted, accused of this. Do you think we should analyse it since refuting false things is our non-paid job? IN youtube, Nabeel Qureshi counted this errors. Transcripts are done:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quran_and_Modern_Science_%E2%80%93_Conflict_or_Conciliation#Analysis or http://www.unchangingword.com/naik_refuted.php#evolution

why we should do it? answer is: christian hypocricy. yes, there are errors in Naik's speech. but one thing is worth-mentioning:

Naik, in this speech of his, says "…the reason is because that if you analyze the church, the church was against science previously. (7) " and the objector counts it as an error and says "The church was never against science--- almost all the great European scientists of Galileo's time, including Galileo, were devout Christians. People like Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Pascal were all committed believers in the Bible."

Is not it a fallacy? Zakir did not say "all, every and each christian was against science", he said church and as a refutation to this, the objector brings an arguement which was consisted of several christians. Church is not those christians and those christians were not church. Church was against science.

or, Zakir once says "Depending upon the ecological niches they peck, the beaks kept on becoming long and short. This observation was made in the same species, not in different species"

and the objector counts it as an error and says "The differences Darwin observed between these finches were far more than simply beak length, they included differences in color, size, mating behavior, songs, and preferred food. In fact they were so different that Darwin did not even realize they were all finches."

but I am asking you, does it make Zakir wrong? he did not say "all the differences that exist between them is the length of their beak", how is that a mistake?

Zakir once says "He saw bird pecking at niches" and the objector counts it as a mistake and as a reason why it should be counted as a mistake, he says "birds dont peck at niches, they live in it" Niches are not pecked first before they start to live in it? What the objector says is as absurd as this dialogue:

A: I saw people preparing a food B: Oh, you made a mistake. People do not prepare foods, they eat it. THe list goes on, I realised all of this stupidities as I watched the video. IT would be far better if I or someone else make a video titled "Nabeel Qureshi 20+ mistakes in 5 minutes"

There are several mistakes of Zakir but I think they are due to his accent. He misspelled some words or misrecalled them. example is, Zakir said "THomas Thromton" and the objector says "no person is found with that name", it is true but Darwin had a friend named "Thomas Wharton", Zakir might have meant it. even if he did not mean it, it is an error. so, about 5 errors he has. and Thomas Wharton did disagree with Evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wharton_Jones#Biography

I found a good source for this analysis: http://neutralreply.blogspot.com.tr/p/blog-page_16.html

I am not proZakir, I am against that that false informations. I am against accusing a person for the wrong he did not commit. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sir artur / talk / contribs}