Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 1

When we deal with the subject of Islam, it has come to my attention that obviously you have a wide range of understanding of the key apologetic issues amongst the Muslim people. Some have little to no understanding at all, and some are a little bit more red, but when it comes to popular Islam, it seems that the most popular name today is Zakir Naik.

Zakir Naik as a Repeat of Ahmed Deedat

Now, he, of course, as we have demonstrated in previous videos, is pretty much just continuing the work of Ahmed Didat. His arguments are sometimes word for word identical to Ahmed Didat, and what concerns me is I don't see a lot of evidence that Dr. Naik has gone beyond Ahmed Didat, especially in the fact that, well, many people have demonstrated that Ahmed Didat made many fundamental basic errors that really, for a serious Christian, make his apologetics, well, significantly less than compelling, shall we say.

It might be the nicest way to put it. Bogus would be the more modern way of putting it. We have documented many of Ahmed Didat's errors in the past on this YouTube channel, but Dr. Zakir Naik continues to use the same type of argumentation.

It basically goes like this. You say, Jesus never said I am God, worship me. Then you run through an entire list of out-of-context verses, and you do it really, really fast so that you are really impressing the Muslim audience, but not the Christian audience that actually knows their scriptures.

Now, if you're talking to a Christian who doesn't know their Bible, they could be totally blown away by someone who can just quote verses very, very quickly. Of course, anybody could do that with the Koran, too, and I suppose in that way impress Muslims who don't know their scriptures very well.

But from a Christian perspective, that wouldn't be an appropriate thing to do. That would not honor al-Haqq, the truth, would it? Because that's sort of what politicians do, not what people who are dealing with God's truth do.

And so I was directed recently to the appearance of Zakir Naik on The Dean Show. Now we have interacted with The Dean Show before. I realized when I was starting to look at this that I never finished one series I was doing when I was going through the top ten reasons why Jesus isn't God.

It's amazing how much time The Dean Show spends on, well, attacking Christianity rather than other things, but maybe that's just because that's what I'm directed to. That could be a possibility. I will leave that out there as something that is a possibility.

But they do do it a lot, and in this clip with this session with Zakir Naik, first thing to go for is that particular subject. But in the process, Zakir Naik once again demonstrates that neither he nor Ahmad Didat actually understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

They do not understand the presentation of the doctrine. They do not understand it historically. They do not understand it biblically. And if Zakir Naik is the best-known Islamic apologist, what does that say?

Shouldn't the best-known Islamic apologist at least be accurate in his statements concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? Wouldn't just simple truth and honesty and even just respect require that? I think it would.

So we're going to look at what Zakir Naik had to say and provide a response. And once again, I would love to see someone arrange an opportunity to debate Zakir Naik. Maybe over more than one night, because there are some very important topics to address, and it would be very useful, I think, to find out, can this man actually go beyond the speed reading of verses and actually deal with the text?

As it was originally written, against someone who knows that text well, that's what I'd like to find out. I would be honored to have that opportunity of defending the gospel of Jesus Christ in that context.

We would be very happy to see that happen. So let's take a look at Zakir Naik. We start with the host of the program. Seems like a really nice guy, Eddie. Wouldn't want to mess with him. Seems like a pretty big guy.

I guess he's into martial arts and stuff like that. But notice his description of Zakir Naik as the doctor of dawah. I'm not just the one saying, here is the big man. This should be the most accurate presentation that we find.

That's what the Muslims themselves are saying. Let's take a look at it.

The Host Introduces Zakir Naik and the Topic of Christ’s Deity

By popular demand, people have been requesting, people have been asking, why don't you have this man on the show? And you know what? Today, he's here. The true Dr. Adawah, Dr. Zakir Naik, when we come back, you don't want to be in trouble.

Amen.

Yes.

So we're going to get straight to the topic. There's some confusion out there. People are worshipping the sun. They're worshipping the moon. They're worshipping a man. So in this particular show, because you're an expert on this topic, we want to give the top reasons why the creator of the heavens and the earth, God Almighty, in Arabic we say Allah, is not a man, never was a man, never tried to be a man.

If we analyze all the major religions of the world, except for Islam, all the other major religions of the world, they believe that Almighty God became a human being once or more number of times.

Yes.

All the major religions except Islam, they believe that Almighty God either once or many times became a human being. And they believe in a philosophy known as anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism means that Almighty God taking forms and He becomes a human being.

And when we ask them that why does Almighty God have to become a human being? So they say that Almighty God, He's so holy, He's so pure, He's so noble. He does not know the shortcomings of the human beings.

He does not know how do the human beings feel when he's hurt, when he's angry, when he requires certain things. He doesn't know the requirements of the human being, how do they feel, etc. That's the reason Almighty God came into this world and became a human being to know what is good or what is bad for the human being.

On the face of it, it sounds to be a very good logic. Almighty God, so holy, so pure, so noble, does not know the shortcomings of the human being, does not know how a human being feels when he's hurt, when he's in problems.

So it sounds to be good. But I tell them that suppose I happen to manufacture a DVD player. I create a DVD player. Because I'm a manufacturer of a DVD player, do I have to become a DVD player to know what is good or what is bad for the DVD player?

Because I'm the manufacturer, I'm the creator, I don't have to become a DVD player. So what do I do? I write an instruction manual that if you want to play the DVD, insert the DVD and press the play button.

If you want to skip, press the skip button. If you want to stop, press the stop button. I don't have to become a DVD player to know what is good or what is bad for the DVD player. Because I'm the creator.

Similarly, Almighty God, he is the creator of the human being. So he does not have to become a human being to know what is good or what is bad for the.

Human being.

What does he do? He chooses a man amongst men. And he communicates with them on a higher level, who we call as messengers of Allah.

Subhanahu wa ta 'ala.

He doesn't have to come himself. And the last and final message, the last and final instruction manual for the human beings is the Glorious Quran.

Now, this wasn't really the central aspect of my concerns about what Dr. Naik says, however, I've never argued that the incarnation is based upon God needing to know what it's like to be a man. That's not a biblical presentation.

The necessity of the incarnation really has to do with God's decree and with the means by which forgiveness of sins is provided, and that is through the sacrifice of Christ. And the union of God's people with Christ, those are all important things, but it's not God needed to know what it was like to be a man.

That's just not a biblical presentation. And so, I have to wonder who it is that Eddie is talking about or that Zucker Naik is talking about when he talks about people saying these things, that, well, God needed to know what it was like to be a man.

That's just simply not a Christian perspective. At this point then, Dr. Naik goes into his, how many completely out of context verses can I fire off at you? Very, very quickly so as to impress your routine.

And so, we're going to listen to this so you can get the effect, you can understand, you know, why someone who is ignorant of the Bible might find this to be very impressive or weighty. But then look at the text and see that Dr. Naik is not dealing with the Bible in any kind of serious fashion, but is just giving a standard form of argumentation.

The Claim That Jesus Never Said “I Am God, Worship Me”

Now tell us, now it's known commonly that people take one that is beloved to our hearts. We love him as one of the mightiest messengers of God, but many are claiming that he said he was God, that he's the son of God.

There's some confusion here. What do we have to say about this?

Yes, I do agree that most of the Christians, they believe that Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, he claimed divinity. Many of the Christians believe that Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, he was God. But if you read the Bible, there is not a single unequivocal statement, not a single unambiguous statement.

In the complete Bible, where Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, himself says that I am God or where he says worship me.

Anywhere in the Bible.

If any Christian can point out a single unequivocal statement, a single unambiguous statement where Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, himself says that I am God or where he says worship me, I'm ready to accept Christianity.

In fact,.

Now, before we go to the rapid fire section here, we hear this all the time because of Achaemenididat and because of the fact that this argument has just been repeated over and over again. We've dealt with it many times.

We've gone through the biblical evidence so many times where Jesus says things, does things that no mere prophet could ever say and do. He claims the prerogatives of God. He identifies himself as the Son of God.

He accepts the worship of his disciples, which no prophet could ever allow someone to do. He uses the names of God. It's just, there's just so much evidence that is to be found. And of course, notice the implicit restriction of the information to Jesus' words.

They have to do this because they know, well, I don't know if Zachary Knight knows this, but at least people in the past know that if you allow the New Testament as it existed in the days of Muhammad to speak as a whole, there's no question that Jesus Christ identified as God in that text, despite all the liberals who cut the text up.

There's no question of this fact. So we've dealt with it before, but you just keep hearing this argument over and over and over again, and just ask the question, why do you limit it to such a narrow range?

He says, well, if anyone could just show me an unambiguous text where Jesus claimed to be God and said, worship me, then I will become a Christian.

Why?

Why isn't the words of those who recorded his words for us good enough for you? You see, it's a rigged question. It's quite honestly, not an honest question at all because Jesus didn't write any books.

Now the writer of the Quran may have been confused enough to think that the Injil was a book written by Jesus. There's clear evidence that that's what he thought, or at least can be interpreted that.

Way.

But that's due to the ignorance of the writer of the Quran, not due to the historical realities. And again, when Muslims take that later error and make it the standard by elevating it to be the word of God and saying, well, this is what it is, so there must be some lost book back there that no one's ever heard of called the Injil, it only shows the circular nature of accepting unfounded assertions that are historically contradicted by reality and making them the standard by which you look at everything.

And yet we see our Muslim friends doing this all the time, just constantly. So there's no reason to accept this rather dishonest argument, no matter how often it is repeated. So now we come to the rapid fire.

How many verses can we use out of context, a section that is so commonly associated with Socrates?

If you read the Bible, it mentions the Gospel of John, chapter number 14, verse number 28. Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, said, my Father is greater than I. Gospel of John, chapter number 10, verse number 29, my Father is greater than all.

Gospel of Matthew, chapter number 12, verse number 28, I cast out the devil with the Spirit.

Of God.

Gospel of Luke, chapter number 11, verse number 20, I with the finger of God cast out the.

Devil.

Gospel of John, chapter number 5, verse number 20, I can of my own self do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just. For I seek not my will, the will of Almighty God. It's mentioned in Gospel of John, chapter 5, verse 30, that not my will, but God's will.

Anyone who says it's not my will, but God's will, is a Muslim. So Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, he was a Muslim. And there are some

Okay, so there's our rapid-fire shot, and he's going to do that again toward the end. Throw out a bunch of verses and assume that your Islamic audience is going to hear them in such a way as they think that you're supporting your point.

The reality is that the knowledgeable Christian is sitting there going, why are you disrespecting me by attacking a straw man? None of those texts are overly relevant to what I actually believe. Let's start off with the first, John 14, 28.

At least this is one that's used by a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses. But in reality, in context, you won't hear the Jehovah's Witnesses citing the context either. It's interesting that only two verses earlier is where Jesus talks about the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in his name, is the paraclete, which many Muslims, including Ahmadiyyat, thought was actually about Muhammad when it is about the Holy Spirit of God, and is in no way, shape, or form to be connected with Muhammad, nor could it have meant that in the original language as it was originally written in its original context.

But then Jesus says in verse 27, peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives, do I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled, nor let it be fearful. You have heard that I said to you, I go away and I will come to you.

If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am. So what people do who deny the deity of Christ is you take the last portion of a sentence, as Zachariah and Ike did, you isolate it, and say, see, the Father is greater than Jesus.

That means Jesus can't be God. Well, again, if you are satisfied with that kind of argumentation, then you really have no basis for ever being upset if your children take your sentences apart, such as, clean your room, and then we'll go to have pizza.

And they just forget to clean the room part and just want to go have pizza. You'll have no reason for objecting because that's what you've been doing to the Christian scriptures anyways, right? Yeah, if we actually look at it in context, what Jesus is talking about is his return.

To heaven.

He's going to prepare a place for us. Is that what prophets do? And he specifically says, I go away and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father. Well, why would that cause them to rejoice that he's going to the Father?

For any plain old human being, that's called dying. But Jesus explained this in his high priestly prayer in John chapter 17. He talks about how he existed in the presence of the Father before the world came into existence, and in fact, he shared the very glory of the Father before creation itself.

Now the Old Testament told us that Yahweh does not share his glory with anyone. So if Jesus can say that before creation itself, he was glorified in the presence of the Father, then his point is to his disciples, if you loved me and you weren't just thinking about yourselves, when I tell you that I'm going back to the presence of the Father, then, and if I've already explained to you earlier in this chapter that if you've seen me, you've seen the Father, not identifying himself as the Father, but as the one who gives us the perfect revelation of who the Father is, then they should have rejoiced.

But their love for Christ was imperfect. So when Jesus says the Father is greater than I am, what he's saying is, I'm going back to a greater status than I have now. No longer walking the dusty roads of Galilee, no longer putting up with the constant attacks of his enemies.

He's going back to that higher position that was his. And therefore, they should have rejoiced. So it's not saying the Father is ontologically superior to me, but Jesus had become flesh. He had entered into human existence, and so for this period of what Christian theologians call his humiliation, then of course he can say the Father is greater than I am.

And he's going to go back into the presence of the Father, into that glorious position, and that's the very glorious position that we see when we see Jesus after the ascension in books like Revelation given to John, where Jesus is glorified and ruling over his churches.

So John 14, 28 does not deny the deity of Christ in any way, shape, or form, neither does it substantiate Zacher Naik's abuse of it when we allow the text to speak for itself. But it seems to me that the modus operandi is throw these things out and just hope no one ever looks.

And I just ask you to ask yourself, why would that be how you do things? The next was John 10, 29, which again is ironic because this text is so full of the exaltation of Jesus. In John 10, 27, Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me, and I give eternal life to them.

And Jesus can give eternal life. Can Muhammad give eternal life? I know the thought process, the thought process that Zacher Naik is going to explain later, and we're going to continue doing this because this first response is getting really long, so I'll continue it in the next response.

But he's going to say when he deals with John 14, 6, well Moses could have said, I am the way, the truth, and life, no one comes to the Father but by me. No, he never could have said that. Because this is his teachings, no one comes to God except by the teachings of the prophet.

That's not what Jesus says, no one comes but by me. And Jesus says, I give eternal life to them. Eternal life is in the hand of Christ. Because he is, in fact, the Son of God. He says, I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Just think for a moment what it means for any human being to say that to have eternal life is to be in his hand. Is that not the very prerogative of God? Is that not a very description of what it means to be saved, to have a right relationship with God, is to be in his hand?

And yet it's Jesus' hand. My Father who has given them to me is greater than all. That's what he wanted to focus on. He's greater than all. And no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. And I and the Father are one.

Now, later on he is going to demonstrate that he does not understand the doctrine that he so confidently denies. He is going to demonstrate that, like Achaemenida, he thought we were identifying Jesus with the Father on the basis of texts like this.

We do not. His argument here from 1029 is that the Father is greater than all. Well, again, this relationship between the Father and the Son, which we're going to expand upon when we look at John chapter 5, which has already been enunciated by this time we get to John chapter 10, is one that recognizes that the Son has voluntarily entered into human flesh.

It's not the Father who came into human flesh. It's the Son who's entered into human flesh. And he has voluntarily taken the role in salvation that he has. His point in John 10 is not to deny the centrality of his role in salvation, but to say there is perfect harmony between the Father and the Son in the salvation of God's people.

Jesus isn't some rogue deity seeking to take glory from the one true God. The one true God eternally exists as three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so, Zachary Knight thinks this is an objection only because Zachary Knight is ignorant of the doctrine that he's denying.

And we'll show that specifically in a later portion. This also comes out in his citation from Matthew chapter 12 and Luke chapter 11, where Jesus says he casts out demons by the Spirit of God. How is that an objection?

Unless what you're doing is you're assuming, well if he was God he'd do it by his own power. But Jesus has entered into human flesh, and as part of so doing, he voluntarily becomes reliant upon the power of the Spirit of God as our example for his followers who likewise will be dependent upon the very same Spirit that will be active in them.

And so, how is that an objection that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit work in harmony with one another? Is that not exactly what we believe? This comes out very clearly in John chapter 5, where he quoted, and not accurately, if you'll go back and listen to his citation and then look at John chapter 5, you'll see the two don't really mix overly well, but it is close enough that we get his point.

He quoted from John chapter 5, verse 20, where the Son, the Father loves the Son and has delivered all things into his hands, so on and so forth. And he says, ah, see, here we have evidence of Jesus being lesser than the Father.

Well, obviously, one of the problems that Zakir Naik has is that he thinks we're identifying Jesus as the Father, so anything that differentiates between the Father and the Son, he thinks is against the doctrine of the Trinity.

If he understood the doctrine, he would realize that that really doesn't have anything to do with it at all, because we recognize the distinction between the Father and the Son. We do not say that they are one person.

But specifically, looking at John chapter 5, verse 20, I think it's vitally important to get the context. If you go back to John chapter 5, verse 17, you will discover that a dispute has come up because Jesus has healed on the Sabbath.

Now, the Jews understood that God continued to work on the Sabbath. I mean, the sun still goes across the sky, and the stars stay in their orbits, and life continues on, and since God is the sustainer of all these things, they understood this.

So, in verse 17, when Jesus said, he answered them, my Father is working until now, and I am working. The Jews knew exactly what he was saying. The Father had the prerogative to work on the Sabbath day, and the Son has the same prerogative.

It's a claim to deity. No human being could ever say that, and the Jews understand that. Therefore, verse 18, for this reason, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he not only loosed the Sabbath, but he was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

He was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Not just, and this is something, again, Ahmad Didat and Zachary Naik both often say, oh, God has many sons by the tons, right? But, the Jews recognized that the unique relationship that Jesus was claiming was a claim to deity.

He was not claiming the same kind of sonship that the children of Israel could claim for themselves. He was claiming a unique relationship with the Father, making himself God. They understood this. That's what verse 18 is all about.

Now, so when Jesus then responds in verse 19, and I think that he thought verse 19 is verse 20. He just got his divisions mixed up, and when you're talking as fast as I understand why you get the verses wrong.

But notice what Jesus says. Jesus answered and said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, the Son is not able to do anything of himself except that which he sees the Father doing. The Muslim goes, ah, there you go.

Denial of the deity of Christ. Think about John chapter 5 in its context, and what Jesus is doing is he's saying, I'm not some renegade deity. I'm not out here doing my thing and the Father's doing his thing.

There is perfect unity between what the Father and the Son are doing. And so here in verse 19, he says, whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. Think with me for a moment, my friends.

Does any prophet say that? Whatever the Father does, I'm doing it the same way. The Father works on the Sabbath, upholding all creation. So do I.

What?

No prophet makes that statement. The only way to understand this in context and consistently is that the Son is speaking of the absolute harmony that exists in the Godhead. That he's not a renegade deity.

He's not off doing his own thing. That's what this text is about. Just listen to the rest of it. Zechariah doesn't read it, but listen to the rest of it. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself is doing.

And the Father will show him greater works than these that you will marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he wishes. My Muslim friend, does not Allah give life based upon his own will?

The Son gives life to whom he wishes. He reveals the Father perfectly to whom he wishes. Matthew 11, 27. These are not the words and actions and claims of a mere prophet. And Zechariah quoted these words.

He didn't say, oh, we can't know anything in the Gospel of John. It's been corrupted, etc., etc. No, it's amazing. He can quote these texts. And as long as he's using them, they're perfectly accurate.

You go a few verses later and it teaches something else. Well, it's been corrupted. Double standards. The Son gives life to whom he wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.

These are not the words of a mere prophet. That's reference to the deity of Christ. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. My Muslim friends, you do not honor the Son. You deny that he is the Son.

And Jesus said, if you do not honor the Son, you do not honor the Father who sent him. You cannot claim to honor Allah and reject the one that he sent, the Son. It can't be done. That's what the Christian scriptures say.

Truly, truly, Jesus says, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not commit judgment but is passed out of death into life. Oh, my friend, can't you see the promise that Jesus makes here?

A promise that has been quite literally stolen from you by writings that come over 600 years later?

Think about it.

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not commit judgment but is already passed out of death into life. That's why the true believing Christian who embraces Jesus Christ as his only hope knows that he has eternal life, not out of presumption but because of belief in the promises of his own Savior.

When I think of those many Muslims who live in fear knowing that the only promise they have in the Quran of knowing that they will enter into the presence of Allah is that they die in jihad. When I think of the promise that is found in the scriptures, oh, my heart truly breaks because this is what Jesus promised those who believe in him.

Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself.

Again, no prophet says these words. And he gave him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this for an hour is coming which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come forth, those who did good deeds for the resurrection of life, those who were committed to evil deeds for the resurrection of judgment.

Then, finally, we get to verse 30. I can do nothing on my own initiative. Is that a denial that he's God? No, it's a denial that he's some separate renegade deity. Perfect unity between the Father and the Son.

The Father has life, the Son has life, he gives to whom he wills, etc., etc. I can do nothing on my own initiative. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just because I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

Now, notice when Zakir Naik said it, he talked about the will of Almighty God to make someone Muslim. That's not what Jesus said. He says he's doing the will of him who sent him. What does that mean? Who is the one who sent him?

That's the Father. He does the will of the Father perfectly. He does not rebel. He's doing exactly what the Father, Son, and Spirit chose to do in eternity past. That's the point of John chapter 5. It is not what Zakir Naik has turned it into, a denial of the deity of Christ.

It is, in fact, one of the clearest affirmations of the perfect unity between the Father and the Son, giving life, judgment, all these things are divine actions. The Son is intimately involved in doing, and he does so in perfect unity with the Father.

So here you have the teaching of these texts. And I simply ask you, go to the text yourself, and ask yourself a question. Did Zakir Naik...