Thread by @uglyluhan

I'm getting a lot of the same responses to the thread on Zakir Naik. Most of them were already pre-empted in the thread itself but as expected, his fans weren't paying attention. I'll just type it out here so I don't have to repeat myself

1. "Why do you hate him"

I don't hate Zakir Naik. Even during his controversial speech recently, he spoke in such a friendly and amiable manner that I find him hard to hate. I'm soft like that. He seems like a nice guy, but I don't find him good as a preacher

2. "Your thread is biased"

On the contrary, I gave him credit where he deserves it. I commended him for his knowledge, his memory, and his charisma, but I criticised his methods, his interpretations, and his mistakes

3. "I don't believe he made mistakes"

Theological questions are subjective, but factual errors are undeniably wrong, no matter who corrects him. If Zakir Naik gives incorrect population statistics, it is simply wrong and has no room for opinions

4. "I don't like the links you sourced from"

I didn't use them as sources; most of it was information I already knew. I gave links and screenshots to elaborate each point or else I'd have to write entire articles instead of single tweets

5. "Those sources are anti-Islam"

No, they're critical of Islam just as Zakir Naik is critical of every other religion. If his arguments are strong, they should be able to hold up against all opposing views, even those that are anti-Islam

6. "I won't listen to what non-Muslim sources say"

If Zakir Naik is speaking about other religions, you should naturally look into the response from that religion's followers and experts. That's called hearing both sides

7. "It's one-sided if you don't say this in front of him"

That makes no sense. Almost everything I wrote has been brought up by others before but Zakir Naik never responded to them, and refused to debate with them

8. "They'll say anything because they hate him"

See number 3. If Zakir Naik misquotes the Bible, he has made a mistake. It doesn't matter if the person correcting him is a Christian apologist or not

9. "He's debated Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and William Campbell"

Those people are not debaters. It takes more than knowledge to win a debate. For the debate to mean anything, he has to go up against an experienced debater who's familiar with debate strategies and methodology

10. "You're not giving things from the other perspective"

Actually that's exactly what I am doing. Zakir Naik's supporters have only ever heard his perspective and accepted it without hearing the other side. That is what I provided in my thread

11. "He'll be killed in India"

Possibly, but I didn't say he should necessarily be sent back to India. Since he reportedly holds Saudi Arabian citizenship, why not send him there? Malaysia has nothing to do with him

12. "We can just give him citizenship"

You'd be willing to grant citizenship to a foreigner who doesn't speak a word of Malay and knows nothing about local history or culture? That sets a dangerous precedent in making our country a refuge for Muslim fugitives

13. "The allegations against him aren't true"

I didn't accuse him of those crimes. I said all are unproven and that I personally don't believe he's a terrorist. But I do believe he should be investigated and allowed to prove his innocence

14. "Then why do you reject him"

Because he doesn't make a good case for Islam except among the gullible. I disagree with his interpretations, he misrepresents other religions, he's dishonest when he wants to win, and recently he made racist remarks. There are better choices

15. "Only liberals won't support him"

Orthodox Sunni authorities in Bangladesh, India, and elsewhere are all liberal? And anyway, I don't have a problem with liberals. That word doesn't mean what you think

16. "I still stand by him as a brother in Islam"

Evidently you didn't read the thread then

Responses like 'thread sampah' and 'sia2 ko tulis panjang2 libtard' won't be entertained