Zakir Naik- a very clever fraud

Zakir Naik is now a name probably uttered by Muslims more than their prophet’s name. If they utter prophet’s name, they have to read a “du’a” named “darud shareef” according to Islamic code. So it is less a hazard to utter Zakir Naik than Mohammad.

A few years ago, a cartoon of Mohammad was published in a denish newspaper and Muslim people got very angry. They burned some of the embassy of the country Denmark. So, we can see how safe it is to utter the name of Mohammad.

Some more years ago, a film was made named “Laurence of Arabia”. There was a dialogue in that film, where a man said about the hero- “He is one kind of prophet.”

Nothing was burned. No Muslim protested.

Though it is a sin to compare anyone with prophet.

But we can see, commiting this sin is safe.

So, now, there shouldn't be any wrong with us saying that Zakir Naik is “one kind of prophet.” At least we will not be punished according to Sharia law. It is very logical to say him “one kind of prophet”, because he is doing more than the hero did in “Laurence of Arabia” for Muslims.

Now let's see how this “one kind of prophet” is preaching Islam.

People found a rocket scientist in him! Look, these are the title of some youtube videos and playlists on him-
Awesome answer, by Dr. Zakir Naik, to a very harsh question!
Doctor Zakir Naik is an amazing debator and speaker!
Zakir Naik is a great scientist
Zakir Naik is a scientist

So, he is an amazing debater, amazing speaker, amazing scientist etc.

Then, he must be a rational person. But, actually he is a joker.

And now you must be shocked.

And wondering that -

"How? How come Zakir Naik be a joker? What is this Tamoso telling us? Have he gone crazy? Who is he to call Zakir Naik a joker? Who does he thing he is? Does he have any quality to say that? Does he have any right to say that?"

There is a famous proverb in Bangla-কপালের নাম গোপাল, ঠকঠকালে ঠকঠক. which means ” fate's name is Gopal, if you hurt him with a stick, it will just sound thok thok thok.” This means- “what is lotted can not be blotted.” Let’s translate the Bangla proverb in English rhythmically . It could be like this- ” fate is Mrs. Kate, if you ring her, she will sound- ding ding ding!”

Now, look at a joke-

A nurse gave a patient a plate full of rice. Then she was gone. After eating, the patient started to scream- nurse, hey nurse!

She quickly came hearing the scream.

-Sir, why are you calling me?

-who will take the plate away? Argh, I am just frustrated! Nobody cares for me! Actually this is my fate. Fate is Mrs. Kate, if you ring her, she will sound- ding ding ding! Hey, do you think that really there is a Mrs. Kate who if you will ring, sounds ding ding ding?

This is purely a joke. But it seems that the patient was saying something sexual! But in real, this is just a joke. But it can present the thing is sexual. It is just playing a grammatical trick.

Now let’s see a video clip where Zakir Naik answered the famous questions- who created god? Which actually means “Who is the god of the god(!!!)?”

What did you hear? It was just a joke. If we think, god can’t be created just like a man can’t give birth to a child, then it will mean nothing. Because according to nature a man can’t give birth to a child. But-

1. God is above the nature, it is said by the believers. Then he shouldn’t be judged by something which is according to nature. If he is so, then he also becomes something according to nature! Then he will also need of a creator for must. Because it is said by the believers that god created nature.

2. If I say such a thing like a man can’t give birth to a child to proof that god has no creator, then I can say thousand things to proof it. Because it is a natural law that man can’t give birth to a child, not a theory of science. And there are millions of natural laws like it. Again it is going to point 1 circle, which will never end. Because, it seems that it is also a natural law that god can’t be created. Which means- according to nature, god can’t be created. Clearly see, some questions must come here. Who is the creator of natural laws? Which actually means- Who is the creator of nature? If god created natural laws, then, this law “he can’t be created” is also made by him. Then, before creating this law or rule, surely it didn’t exist. Because it was not made then. So, then, once upon a time this law or natural rule did not exist. Then, that time, surely god could be created. After he created the law, then he could no more be created. Then, surely we can ask, if in there was a time when god could be created, then was he a creature of anyone? If so, who is he, or who is she? again the question comes here- who created god?

This proofs that there is no law such “god can’t be created” or god can’t create a law which will make him someone who can’t be created. Then, if he just can’t make a simple law which will protect him from being created, how come he could make other natural laws? If he could make any natural law, he must make this one,too. Because if he can’t make this one, then another god is coming, who will take one more god (again look at the point 1). So, if he can’t create the natural law, he can’t create the nature also. Because,

Natural law = Nature
(Because, without natural law, nature is meaningless. Not in grammar maybe, but in the reality)

If he can’t create the nature, then he can’t create anything.

Who can’t create anything, how can he be creator?

So, it seems clearly that there is no creator. And, if there is no creator, there is no god. Because god’s main job is creating. And if he can’t create something, he can’t punish it or give it the direction to do any work, too.

So, it is totally meaningless to believe a god.

So, then, it is totally meaningless to believe that god can’t be created. Because, when there is no god, then it is out of question to create him.

Recent days, a song became very popular- “god is a power”. Believers may now harp on the same tune and say- god is a natural law himself. Actually this is how they answer. But here is also a problem- if god is a natural law himself, then who is the creator of that law? Again the same circle. Now the believer who knows grammar very well (like Zakir Naik), could play a new trick. He or she could say now- god is a natural law which can’t be created. Just erase “a natural law which”, then again it is the same circle. And even if it would be true, then also a question would come- who then created the other natural laws? Can a natural law create another one? If so, then there is no need for god. Without god, natural laws can be created then (which is the real truth). Now, again someone may say - god is the only natural law which can create another natural law. Then a question comes, can then god create any natural law which can create another one? If he can, then his creation will be another god, because things will not remain anymore as before and god will no more be the only one natural law which can create another one. Again a circle of god will come, but this time with a starting god. And if so, then there is not only one god who only have the power to create, there are thousands then. So, the monotheistic religions like Islam will be proved false then.

Now, just replace word “natural law” with the word "power" from the last passage . Then question yourself, is god really a power?

Religion says, when even a ship also needs a driver, how can this world has no driver? So, there must be a god. We say, if even a ship also needs a driver, how can the great god who have all the powers, has no driver? Then the question comes, who is the god of the god? Means, who created god? This the question which made all the troubles above.

Now, look at Zakir Naik. Is he really not a joker?

He indeed joked with the man who asked him the question. You could see how the people were laughing at him. In such a situation the man was in, can any person think something rationally?
And he was just playing a grammatical trick. When he asked first if John gives birth to a child, then what would it be, boy or girl, it sounded like as John a doctor, when he does an operation of giving birth to a baby from any woman, he could not guess that it’s a boy or a girl. Nobody could guess what he meant. Even when the man replied “boy”, and he laughed, nobody could understand that he will say “by definition, a man can’t give birth to a child”. They laughed because they thought it was stupid to say it was a boy.

The truth is, Zakir Naik always creates such situations to fool the questioner and the listeners! You can see his other videos, you will notice that almost every time he laughs at the questioner and embarrass him or her. He uses grammatical tricks often and often uses jokes. Can he really feel what is logical and what is not? Does he really know what is logic and what is a joke?
Is he really not a fraud? Or a person who knows nothing?

4 মন্তব্য(গুলি):


২৫ জানুয়ারী, ২০১০ ২:৫৩ AM

Ek bar ei dr. Zakir ("doctor"..... kon university koto ghush diye graduaton kine niyeche, eta obosshoi ami jante pari na) bolechilo je jodi keu tar jukti joy korte parbe, tobe she har manbe. She ta o bole je, tar pokkhe Allah er ggen ba jana thake.
Ami kintu tar jukti joy korechi, ar shetake batil korte perechi.
Allah er ashol ggen, er ashol jana, lokder nomro kore, ohonkar korbe na. Ekta uttom gache jokhon fhol hoe, tokhon tar shakha nichu hoye jae, tai na?
Kintu ei "dr" Zakir ohonkare purno, ar torkobitorko khujhe shudhu tar nam aro boro korar jonno.
Fhole, nihshondehe tar moddhe Allah er ggen, ba jana, ekebare nai.
Ar jara tar kotha shune, tara shobai ahua purno mittha kotha shune manche.


১৪ জুলাই, ২০১০ ৩:০২ PM

He is right. Tamoso Deep is a greast fool.
You are wrong

  তমসো দীপ

১৯ আগস্ট, ২০১০ ৮:৩২ AM

জনাব নামহীন,

If Zakir Naik is right and I am a fool, that is good for you. But when you complete everything by saying that "he is a fool", does it show you have any sense of logic? Show some logic at first to prove why I am a fool. Otherwise, oil your own wheel.


৫ জানুয়ারী, ২০১২ ১২:১৬ AM

chup thak madarchod, zakir naik kon fraud giri korse? tor maire lagaise?