This blog is best viewed with the latest browser and an open mind!

Sunday, September 17, 2006

From Zakir Naik to Irshad Manji

Much as I want, I can no longer avoid blogging this ... my jaamé sabr runneth over. Someone who wore a Hijab during the days she was my student, has just sent me a long email from Canada about her "journey from the strengthening of blind faith under evangelists like Mr. Zakir Naik to an enlightened modern view of Islam, partially through reading Ms. Manji's excellent book." She has requested anonymity, while becoming less 'anonymous' in real life: She's dropped her Hijab! My reaction, of course, was 'Khajoor say giree, Babool mayñ atkee!' (The equivalent phrase in English is 'From the Frying Pan into the Fire'). Much as both these names have become well-known and have attracted large followings, one reason for the attraction lies in the right mix of truth with fiction and the scholarly image they project to their audiences who, for the most part, are not knowledgeable enough to challenge what are often ignorant remarks, at best.

Mr. Zakir Naik has managed very successfully to exploit the fallacious connection - one not incredibly difficult among products of an education system that teaches people to value memory over understanding - between scholarship and his truly amazing ability to quote verbatim, off the cuff and with equal ease, from the holy books of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism.
Here is how a website about Famous Muslims describes him:
A medical doctor by degree, Dr. Zakir Naik is renowned as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion. Any Person who listens to his question and answers session is going to be astonished and overwhelmed as he clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptions about Islam, using the Quran, authentic Hadith reciting each and giving each Surat, Ayat number (by heart) and he has not only learned Quran and Hadith by heart but has also learned several Bibles, the Talmud and the Torah (the Jewish scriptures), the Mahabharata and the Bhagvad Gita (the Hindu holy books), and other scriptures and gives very satisfying answer in conjunction with reason, logic and scientific facts. He has learned hundred and thousands of pages from different books by heart and has the knowledge of scientific and mathematical facts and theories. Dr. Zakir is popular for his critical analysis and convincing answers to challenging questions posed by audiences specially non-muslims, after his public lecture.
With such a stunning photographic memory, in another day and age, when what The Bushtard has called The Third Awakening was not the primary concern of large masses, he would probably have been part of Ripley's Wonders or P T Barnum's entourage. To his credit is the fact that he is no loony fundo, inciting murder and mayhem unlike many of his extremist counterparts in all religions, and that his TV Channel is promoting Interfaith Dialogue (a tricky matter) and Peace, (Amen!)
There is little to fault him, since much of what his speech contains are just quotations, accurately repeated from the sources. I have no problem, too, with the conclusions that Mr. Naik occasionally draws; like everyone of us, he has the right to be wrong. It is when he chooses to delve into the many areas not obviously within his scope that his ignorance (and that of the mesmerized, nodding audience) stuns me. Since I really find Mr Naik of no particular interest - other than as entertainment (of the Shakuntala Devi kind) or as an occasional measure of a section of the Ummah's pulse - I shall only quote one example from his program that I watched last week on Peace TV.
In response to a question about the calendars in use in Arabia, prior to the Hijri-based calendar being adopted by Muslims, he went on to describe the various Lunar Calendars and the Gregorian Calendar, mocking the amusing and obviously paradoxical sounding statement, that Christ was born in 6 BC, without bothering to explain how this came about and leaving some (like one 'teacher' who discussed this the next day with me) to think that it was part of some strange Christian belief. :-) But that is not which I found ridiculous ... after all, it could be argued that this was not the place or occasion for such details. It was when he spoke of AD that an ignorance - surprising for someone who must have come across this term in many works on Christ and Christianity - showed up.
Having rightly stated that AD stands for Anno Domini, Zakir Naik proceeded to translate this to mean "After Death" - a popular misconception, in the same way as the idea that SOS stands for "Save Our Souls" which, of course, it does not! - and then went further on to make the hilarious observation that Muslims would not follow this, anyway, because they do not believe in Christ's Death. Anno Domini, a Latin phrase, means 'In the Year of Our Lord'. And it starts where BC ends. That is, at the time of Christ's birth, not after his Death (or Disappearance - for those who prefer to subscribe to this view). Just reflect: if what Mr. Naik says is the case, what abbreviation or system would he (or anyone else) use to date an event that took place during the 33 years of Jesus's life on earth? As for its possible prevalence in the Arabia pre-Islam, no such luck. Anno Domini dating was not adopted until the 8th Century CE (CE= Christian Era, a term often used instead of AD for its relative 'neutrality').
As an informational aside, the currently common Gregorian Calendar, was introduced only as late as 1582, by Pope Gregory. Russia adopted it as late as 1918 and countries in Europe adopted it at different periods, with Greece being the last to do so in 1923! Imagine the difficulties of communicating any dates to anyone in the intervening years. And for a bit of fun, try and guess the name of an imprtant person who was born on Oct 9, 1582 ...
Let me now move on to the much more interesting and complex matter of Ms. Irshad Manji. Her name first caught my eye rather late, since her book was not sold in most Pakistani bookstores. Bookshop owners are, naturally, afraid of possible book-burning mobs - not a farfetched fear given the hooliganism previous protestors have displayed. Her comments on the Jalalabad Riots were emailed to me and, if nothing else, since then The Huffington Post has become a regular site to visit.
Intrigued by her, I have occasionally been following many of her articles and interviews with amusement and amazement. While admiring her courage to challenge traditions and ideas forced upon her, to be accepted without question, I increasingly began to feel that she plays to the gallery and, in doing so, fails to pay heed to a wonderful bit of old advice about how to act when confronted with subjects one has little knowledge of: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Unfortunately, her misinterpretations and misunderstanding do more harm than good to her causes (such as Project Ijtihad that, with a little refinement and practicalities, could provide much-needed support to Muslim women). Most times, her genuine, often sensible and well-meaning advice or criticism is lost on Muslims who do not wish to hear anything she says, because of the way she says them. As my friend Isa says in his comment on my post about Pervez Hoodbhoy's recent TV ouburst, "If the idea is to convert people to your way of thinking then it helps to be heard." Were she to just shrug away these people, she'd be left with an audience for whom these issues are of no deep interest.
There are are bound to be people who find some of her ideas and ways of expression downright insulting (and not without reason). Others find her claiming to be a Muslim itself odd, especially when she denies some of the very basics of their beliefs, such as the purity of the Qur'an as an unaltered word of God, as she does in the Jalalabad post mentioned above. Surely, among Muslims there are people who can engage her in a debate and, as always happens in such encounters, provided both sides come with open minds, each could learn much from the other. I am, quite obviously, not talking about those who indulge in vulgarisms and character assassination, on her site and elsewhere, for matters that are not the topic of her writings and lectures on Islam but of her personal concern.
This summer, particularly after a 'nonversation' with 2 young Hijab-clad Pakistani girls, back from their North American colleges, who said many negative things about Ms Manji but had not read a word by her or could even quote anything they had heard, I decided to read the much acclaimed and hated book myself. The Urdu edition is made available on the website as a FREE download - along with the Arabic and Persian editions - on the reasonable premise that the book is unlikely to be sold openly in countries where these languages are generally spoken. Although the site does show a Pakistan edition under 'Buy the Book', the link leads only to an online version. As for the other versions, it is unclear whether it is to boost sales that some editions conveniently drop the 'Today' - adding a different twist to the title - or whether some add it to tone matters down. I found the Urdu downloadable and online editions difficult to read as the scan resolution was too low to enlarge without horrible jaggies and my eyes can no longer cope with the original size. So I finally obtained an English print edition from India a month ago.
Irshad Manji's The Trouble With Islam Today has been quite a roller-coaster of an experience. I would certainly recommend the book to all but the easily inflamed. But recommendation does not mean approval for all she says. In fact, I will be writing a fuller review of the book in the next fortnight, and taking issue with some of its misrepresentations and falsehoods that mar what could have been a very interesting critique of the Muslim society today. I would have done it in sooner, but an imminent trip to Bangkok, in connection with a Drik Partnership meeting, has me engaged in a host of other activities.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Abdul Ghaffar Sahito said...

I write to register my protest at the deletion of comments representing differing points of view from the entry "Good Governance Early Muslim Style" at the WhirledView blog. The notice at the end of the said page says: "The comments to this entry are closed."

The last comment, which generated several reactions (now censored out), accuses an 8th century group of free-thinking intellectuals, Motazilites, of killing 'Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, a ridiculous accusation that flies in the face of all the accumulated historical research as well as common sense, as the said murder took place in 661 AD, about a century before the Motazilites made their first appearance.

Motazilites have been respcted as leading light of reason in Islamic thinking by all those who have made efforts to promote a spirit of free enquiry against the backdrop of the idea of blind following advocated by Al-Ghazali who favoured a ban on the study of all physical and social sciences that questioned the narrow-minded interpretation of scriptures. Al-Ghazali would be very happy to have found new comrades at the WhirledView blog for whom protecting certain individuals against criticism is more impotant than historical accuracy.

17 September, 2006 13:06

Blogger the olive ream said...

Great post ZAK and highly informative. I am familiar with Zakir Naik but not Irshad Manji. I will accept your recommendation to source out her book. I am certainly intrigued.

The trouble with debating religion is that it is highly tinged with one's own personal belief, no matter how hard one attempts to present an unbiased version to the world.

At the end, one has to realize that true debate and discussion can only be successful if both sides are willing to listen and open up to alternate views. This is hardly ever the case, as everyone hides their personal opinion under the guise of an open and free discussion.

It is basically in one ear and out the other, until we gets a chance to push our view point which we expect the other person to swallow based on our own reasoning.

17 September, 2006 22:25

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@ sahito

I have no idea why you have chosen to protest on my blog. Like you, I was also just a reader of that post (and had nevr visited the blog earlier). I am certainly not connected with it in any way. I had protested about the direction the debate had taken and had requested that the comments not be expunged. Obviously the owners of the blog thought otherwise.

Closing the comments immediately after Fahmida's accusations - debatable or false, according to you and others - is an injudicious and unfair approach. I am no longer interested in any goings on at that website.

18 September, 2006 01:38

Anonymous saf said...

ignorant as i am on the topic not far from religion. u did get some old gears running. as they say..islam is peace, muslims have made it a crime.

as a girl who chose hijab on her own account when aunties n sister were against it, i would love to read Ms. Manji's book, but sadly its banned n blocked in my side of the world, i can only hope to get an insight on her two cents..sum day

18 September, 2006 04:09

Blogger X --- said...

I'd agree on your opinion on Dr. Naik. I respect the man for helping so many people out, but truly, his lectures seem to be too...."just skimming the surfacr sort"...Ms. Manji, I to am not familir of, but do you guys know a Dr. Farhat?

very popular female lecturer here....but ive heard her on a few occasions, and quite honestly....she seems pretty incomplete too!

18 September, 2006 07:12

Blogger vintage said...

i dont know about the Manji woman, really, haven't seen, heard or read anything by her. when it comes to Naik, me-thinks be becomes a bit too aggressive while speaking and doesn't really pay attention 'listening' to what the other person is trying to say. he has become too full of himself and loves hearing his own voice.

as for his channel Peace, i hate it. it's another one of those Islam and religion-promoting channels that are springing around the cable network everywhere and are like complete clones of each other. i dont know how Peace TV has anything to do with 'Peace'.

20 September, 2006 15:59

Blogger Zakintosh said...


"incomplete" is the best description of farhat hashmi that i have heard ... it fits most of these people perfectly.


the "peace" connection has to do with the islam=peace (which has become a greater focus than islam=submission theme that was a lot more common in my childhood).

21 September, 2006 09:40

Anonymous rayhan said...

Well Zakir Naik's understanding of AD is better than that of Zakir Nakhlowi's who probably thinks that the Latin phrase is a reference to the famous Annu Domni of your time.

22 September, 2006 12:55

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Vintage:

Are you a Muslim? Coz you don't really seem to know the definition of Islam. Why does the propogation of Islam bother you so much? It's the only channel running under the laws of the Shariah and you still hate it?! I guess you need to open your eyes and broaden your vision or you'll end up being another follower of Irshad Manji!
May Allah guide us!

26 September, 2006 01:33

Anonymous Amal said...

@ Zakintosh:

"It is when he chooses to delve into the many areas not obviously within his scope that his ignorance (and that of the mesmerized, nodding audience) stuns me."

You've done the same thing. You 'delved' into something beyond your 'scope' indicating your 'ignorance'. You quoted information on Dr. Zakir Naik from a site ( that's not even complete and you expect it to be authentic?

“he has not only learned Quran and Hadith by heart but has also learned several Bibles, the Talmud and the Torah”

I have heard Zakir Naik himself say that he hasn’t learned the Quran by heart let alone Bible, Thamud and the Torah! Since you watch him occasionally only to entertain yourself and observe faults in him you obviously would have missed out on this. He doesn’t claim himself to be a scholar and often tells his ‘ignorant’ and ‘mesmerized’ audience to follow not what he says but what the Quran and the Sahih Hadith teaches us.

As for Anno Domini….you might be more knowledgeable on many subjects where Zakir Naik lacks. I think you expected too much out of him but he’s just a human and can make mistakes. I’m not sure how right you are when you attempt to correctly translate ‘AD’ because you haven’t ‘bothered to explain how this came about’ either…. providing no reference…and also because the reference of SOS that you’ve hyperlinked took me to wikipedia that even I can edit!

Dr. Zakir Naik’s ‘photographic memory’ is God-gifted and he is utilizing this gift to a great potential if not the maximum. He is inviting people towards Islam, an obligation on all Muslims…and he has succeeded in converting Non-Muslims on many occasions which proves that he doesn’t preach to the converted only. In fact his main aim in launching Peace Tv was to reach out to the non-Muslims throughout the world and spread the word of God. He maybe ignorant but he has definitely achieved a lot. And what have we done besides mocking the ignorance of people who are striving in the way of Allah…removing ignorance from the minds of the ignorant…

26 September, 2006 04:18

Blogger Zakintosh said...


Thanks for taking so much time out to write your comments. My response, below, is not meant to 'argue' with you, for you are entitled to your views, especially the nobler ones in your last para.

However, I do wish to correct some inaccuracies in your comments and clarify certain points about which I am not entirely ignorant.

1. You write: "You quoted information on Dr. Zakir Naik from a site ( that's not even complete and you expect it to be authentic?"

Incomplete does not mean Inauthentic. If the information on this site is inauthentic, will it become authentic merely by completion?

My point was that his photographic memory was being 'perceived' as scholarship. The quote from the site successfully made that point. Its authors have provided the information you deem to be inauthentic (and you may well be right) because they have made the fallacious connection I refer to. How far overboard they went is not under discussion.

2. When I said "There is little to fault him...", it was not meant to imply that I watch him to "observe faults in him", as you sadly conclude. This has never been my intention or interest.

3. You state: "I’m not sure how right you are when you attempt to correctly translate ‘AD’ because you haven’t ‘bothered to explain how this came about’ either ... providing no reference"

I was not "attempting to translate" AD (or Anno Domini) nor saw any reason to provide a reference in support. The abbreviation and phrase, often including the translation (In The Year of Our Lord) are commonly used, internationally, and - until very recently - in most of my own country's legal documents. I also wrote about that years ago in the popular press, requesting a change to CE, because the large majority of Pakistanis obviously do not consider Jesus Christ as their "Lord".

Any good reference work, off or online, will inform you that AD means exactly what I wrote. The Oxford English Dictionary is one that you may be willing to accept, for example. I am sure you will find it there.

As to how 'this' came about, I am not sure what you meant by the word 'this'. If you meant I should have explained why someone chose to use the term, AD, it was presumably chosen for a reason similar to why some now choose A.H. (for After Hijrat) when refering to years in the Hjiri calendar.

What seems to have triggered your response, in this specific matter, was what I wrote with reference to his introducing a point which, because of its obvious paradoxical nature, IMHO required an explanation - if it were not meant to be used as mere mockery. I accepted that he may not have had the time to delve into details on that occasion. I see no comparison between that situation and my merely providing a definition of a term.

I did provide a reference that may help, somewhat. If you click on "how this came about" in the paragraph that refers to Christ's birthdate issue, you'll learn through the linked article that "The Christian era ("A.D.") was calculated in the 6th century by a Scythian monk ..."

4. SOS :-) ...

Your comment makes two points. One that belittles Wikipedia and the other that (through it) it casts doubt on my contention that SOS does not stand for the popularly thought 'Save Our Souls'.

For the first point, contrary to popular opinion (and a conservative one that will take some time to wash away), the Wikipedia is as accurate and reliable as most books of reference. For serious work it also requires just as much judiciousness in use as would any other source. Take a look at

For the second part, I could ask you to take my word for it! I am sure that 25 years of being a sailor, with around 15 of them in command of globe-trotting merchant ships wherein I encountered this term repeatedly in our Code of Signals manuals, would be ample reason - even if it were not a requirement - for me to 'know' what SOS stands for. But that is not enough, or too personal, I suppose. So, I recommend a respected website on boating

(It may also be useful to know that neither the OED nor the Encyclopaedia Brittanica mention any 'meaning' other than stating that SOS is a distress signal.)

Oh .. and one final point regarding Wikipedia entries: As for editing it and purposefully altering facts, you say that you can. I know you can. But, like most people, you did not! And my faith in you, despite our differences of opinion, says that if you did, you'd edit out the mistakes that creep in - after necessary verification - and not knowingly add to them. Vandalism is not what most people engage in. 'Good', contrary to what cynics have us thinking, continues to be the prime force among humans, unless they are led astray by politics and other games of power.

26 September, 2006 09:04

Anonymous anand sharma said...


As for Zakir Naik's photographic memory being God-gifted, I guess my 'sievic' one is, too. Pity that even He doesn't give us level playing fields.

26 September, 2006 12:20

Anonymous amal said...

1. I knew you’d catch me there :) I wasn’t so clear. What I meant was that a website displaying html code on its homepage gives an impression of poor designing, incompleteness and a non-serious approach so chances of its content being authentic are not so high. But it was a well chosen site to prove your perceived scholarship point. There is a misconception among people as information is not usually verified before it’s passed on. I can only be wrong regarding Zakir Naik’s memorizing if he had lied, so it’s either that site or him.

2. I’m sorry I shouldn’t have assumed since only God knows the intentions of the hearts.

3. By “how this came about” I meant that you haven’t provided a reference for the definition of the term A.D. for which you’ve already given an explanation that it was not needed although imo it was since that was the point for which you were trying to prove him wrong. Your definition maybe right but then as I said earlier he can’t be perfect and needs knowledgeable people like you to correct his mistakes… for the betterment of the Muslim ummah.

4. I have no reason to edit any entry of wikipedia but what I was trying to say was that anyone can edit the information and I’ve come across a couple of sites that don’t believe that wikipedia is a reliable source of information but again those sites could be wrong.

28 September, 2006 02:26

Anonymous amal said...

@ anand sharma:

I'm sorry but I don't understand the jargon you've used. What were you trying to convey?

28 September, 2006 02:27

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The author seems to be of the type who has been influenced by the western media, the love of the life of this world so I only ask you to recognize your God the Lord of all the worlds and worship and obey His commands and read Quran, as this will be the best remedy inshaAllah. Tawhid in short. Then Risaalah and then Aakhirah.

As for Irshad Manji, she is a typical example of "Yureedoona li yuthfi uu Nur Allahi bi Afwahihim" --- but "W Allahu Muthimmu Nurihi Wa lau Karihal mushrikoon" Surah Saff, verse 8.


"They intend to put out the Light of Allāh (i.e. the religion of Islām, this Qur'ān, and Prophet Muhammad) with their mouths. But Allāh will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it)."

28 September, 2006 02:48

Anonymous anand sharma said...

Jargon? I did not use any.
What I was saying (not trying to convey) that if a photographic memory is a given by god then so is a sieve-like one. No one would consider the second one a gift. I am at a disadvantage against Naik from birth, so there is no level playing field. A benevolent creator is expected to at least set life up that way.
As for your comment re AD/zakintosh, he did not need to provide the information because he was not asking Naik to provide info for BC. He felt, rightly imo, that an explanation was needed for why Christ's birth is now considered to be 6 years Before Christ. That is why he used the word paradox in his explanation. Maybe you did not catch it.

28 September, 2006 09:16

Anonymous rahyan said...

Speaking of paradoxes, just read the Manji book and am unimpressed. I ajso cannot understand her desire to remain within Islam while disagreeing with some of its most basic tenets.

28 September, 2006 14:30

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's her choice, rayhan. Who is anyone else to question her decision?

28 September, 2006 23:26

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zakintosh! you're promoting a book of a lesbian! Irshad Manji doesn't follow the basics of Islam so she can NOT be called a Muslim. Why are you SO blinded, don't you know she's degrading the religion of Allah and deviating ignorant Muslims with weakened Faiths, like that student of yours?! You say some of her ideas are sensible, do you think ideas coming from a Lesbian would mean anything in Allah's view? this is ridiculous! wake up!

07 October, 2006 05:11

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@anonymous just above this comment (how does one tell you all apart?):
1. "... you're promoting a book of a lesbian!" --- Promoting it? I only aim to comment upon it. I have issues with her inaccurate statements and certain aspects of her approach. That does not detract from some of the justified criticism she levels at Muslims. If this post gets others to read and engage her (or other readers) in a sensible discussion or debate, that's fine. Her book is about Islam and her view of it. It is not about lesbianism. I read books by loads of writers, remaining totally oblivious to (and disinterested in) their sexual or other orientations or involvements. Oscar Wilde and Mir Taqi Mir are read for their literary worth which is not reduced by their homosexuality. Ghalib is not discarded because of his un-Islamic act of drinking. And I am allowing you space to comment on my blog, knowing nothing about your gender, morality, religio-political affinity.
2. "... she can NOT be called a Muslim." --- I am not sure who holds the right (and from where such rights are derived) to call someone else a Muslim or non-Muslim, other than the person himself/herself. Such intolerant and stupid opinions are what led to the Ahmadis becoming non-Muslims in Pakistan (although they continue to be classed as Muslims, because they say so, in many countries). The clergy among Sunnis frequently call Shias, Aga Khanis, Bohris 'non-Muslims', as - I suppose - they, in turn, refer to various Sunnis. I have read a serious treatise by a leading Barelvi Sunni scholar claim that Deobandi Sunnis are Kafirs. I am disinterested in the lot of them.
3. " you think ideas coming from a Lesbian would mean anything in Allah's view?" --- Since (unlike the clergy and you) I do not presume to know what Allah's "views" are (or even if His knowledge is definable as a 'view'), i really cannot answer this. But I can, with absolute certainty, state that 'sensible' views can come from any human being who may or may not subscribe to holy writs, just as insensible views constantly flow from the mouths of many who do.

07 October, 2006 13:19

Blogger Jawad Zakariya said...

Hi Zak, good article.

I tend to agree with your comments on Zakir Naik, I too have often felt that he misleads (relatively simple) people into believing that what he is saying is indeed scholarly when most of the time it is nothing more than rote quotation. (Though you gotta agree, its some feat of memory). I always tend to think that he would have done rather well in that most vile of institutions I was once forced to attend, the King Edward Medical College, where parrots like him tended to do very well. He also always reminds me of a character with a similarly impressive memory from Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The 39 Steps’, Mr. Memory. And I always fancy that at some point in his discussion Zakir Naik will stop and say, “Am I Right, Sir”, just like the aforementioned character.

I watched his channel only once and was lucky enough to tune in at a time when someone in the audience asked him the exact same question that I would have. “If the logic behind the existence of God is the fact that all things require a creator, then who created God?” I was intrigued and listened intently for the words of wisdom that would pour forth. Instead all I got for the next 15 minutes was a typically Zakir performance, quotations and bravado and lots of chest thumping (metaphorical) and nothing more than the blowing of hot air, as he proceeded to take the discussion into other matters so that the audience would forget what the actual question had been. While channel surfing, I’ve never felt the need to stop at his channel ever again.

As for Irshad Manji, she’s nothing more than a publicity whore (as you’ve noted, though not quite in those same words :-)), and she’s welcome to that, as long as I don’t have to listen to her ramblings.

07 October, 2006 23:06

Anonymous rayhan said...

While you can mock Dr Naik in your stupidity, he continues to make progress for Islam by answering questions with his graceful and impeccable logic. Watch him provide the ultimate answer

17 October, 2006 19:15

Blogger Zakintosh said...

Dr Umair - a young friend I've made at T2F - sent me this link by email

It's a piece on Zakir Naik by Khushwant Singh, for those interested.

18 May, 2008 09:06

Blogger Zakintosh said...

Just realized that the 'ultimate answer' video the late rayhan referred to is no longer accessible. YouTube states: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

Does anyone have a copy we could embed here ... or a link to where it may still exist?

18 May, 2008 09:09

Anonymous Sabreena said...

Salam alaykum,
Yes,best viewed with an open mind:

A true muslim is one who submits his will to His Creator. Just one advice for you Zakintosh: Empty your cup first and ask your Creator to refill it with truth and "wisdom" and greater reasoning.

[30:24] And among His Signs, He shows you the lightning, by way both of fear and of hope, and He sends down rain from the sky and with it gives life to the earth after it is dead: verily in that are Signs for those who use their reason. [30:24]
“Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls)” From 13: 11

24 March, 2010 04:52

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@Sabreena - Hahaha

24 March, 2010 07:20

Anonymous Sabreena said...

May Allah guide you bro :1

24 March, 2010 17:15

Blogger Loga'Abdullah said...

I reviewed Irshad Manji’s book here – I think you may find it interesting

Feel free to contact me if you have any comments or suggestions about this book review.

30 April, 2010 21:59


Post a Comment

<< Home