DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**horaAppagob** · 07-05-2011, 11:40 AM

Dear Brother, Assalaamoalaikum

Dr. Zakir Naik is speaking of the attributes of the Almighty as mentioned in the Rig Veda. Brahma (the Creator), and Vishnu (the Sustainer), he says, are the attributes of the Almighty as per their respective meaning. He says that, given these meanings, he finds no objection to anyone (he did not say specifically muslims) calling the Almighty by these names. Anything wrong in this interpretation?

First of all my dear, I must remind you of something very important: "Knowledge precedes speech and action."

If you do not have knowledge, please do not give your 2 cents. You can end up spoiling your Emaan. Guard your tongue (and in this case your fingers also). It is very dangerous for you to be saying that it is okay to call Allaah by the names "Brahma" and "Shiva". These are names of Hindu idols. Allah has no sent down any authority for these names.

Look what Allaah says in the Quraan:

"Have you not seen Laat and Uzza? And Manaat the third one....these are but names you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allaah has sent down no authority."

Now do you know what the name Uzza means? It means "Mighty One", does it mean it is okay to call Allaah by the name of "Uzza"...?? Of course not?

Allaah also mentions another idol:

Will you call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators? [Surah 37:125]

Baal is the name of another idol, and the name Baal literally means "lord". Does it mean it we can call Allaah as "Baal"??

So before you decide to give fatwa, please seek knowledge from the Ulamaa and stop trying to justify the big mistakes of Dr Zakir Naik.

07-05-2011, 11:40 AM	#3
horaAppagob Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 575 Senior Member	Dear Brother, Assalaamoalaikum Dr. Zakir Naik is speaking of the attributes of the Almighty as mentioned in the Rig Veda. Brahma (the Creator), and Vishnu (the Sustainer), he says, are the attributes of the Almighty as per their respective meaning. He says that, given these meanings, he finds no objection to anyone (he did not say specifically muslims) calling the Almighty by these names. Anything wrong in this interpretation? First of all my dear, I must remind you of something very important: "Knowledge precedes speech and action." If you do not have knowledge, please do not give your 2 cents. You can end up spoiling your Emaan. Guard your tongue (and in this case your fingers also). It is very dangerous for you to be saying that it is okay to call Allaah by the names "Brahma" and "Shiva". These are names of Hindu idols. Allah has no sent down any authority for these names. Look what Allaah says in the Quraan: "Have you not seen Laat and Uzza? And Manaat the third one....these are but names you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allaah has sent down no authority." Now do you know what the name Uzza means? It means "Mighty One", does it mean it is okay to call Allaah by the name of "Uzza"...?? Of course not? Allaah also mentions another idol: Will you call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators? [Surah 37:125] Baal is the name of another idol, and the name Baal literally means "lord". Does it mean it we can call Allaah as "Baal"?? So before you decide to give fatwa, please seek knowledge from the Ulamaa and stop trying to justify the big mistakes of Dr Zakir Naik.
	Quote