Dr. Zakir Naik Exposes a Major Error in the Bible

This Short video was taken from the dabate called christianity in the light of science. the debate is between Dr Zakir Naik Vs Dr William Cambell and it's held in India in the year 2000..

I only took this clip because the Questions asked by Dr Zakir Naik was put together so well that there was no going arond it for Dr William Cambell but to admit that there is a problem in the Bible when it comes to science...

I hope that this vid might open some eyes & lead people to the right path & the last revelation from Allah The Most Hight given to mankind

The Qur'an teaches that Islam is the continued faithful religion in the same line as the Prophets who were before Muhammad: The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah ... and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (42:13 AYA). The result of this view is that the scriptures given by these Prophets are considered to be genuine scriptures from God: But say, "We (Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One" (29:46 AYA).

In the Qur'an there are many references to the Jewish and Christian Holy Books. In fact the Qur'an addresses Christians and Jews in terms of the Book: O People of the Book! (5:68 AYA).

We all belive in one God but the scriptures before Quran have been currupt & we can see that from this lil short clip taken from the debate.

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah (3:78 AYA).

They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished (5:13 MP/14 AYA).

Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith (2:78-79 MP).

Public Debate - Watch Live on Peace Tv

Paris Hilton Converts to Islam

Paris Hilton Converts to Islam

By Johnny Wilko

Paris Hilton wants to spread the word of Islam to the world

JEDDAH - Saudi Arabia - Former American socialite, Paris Hilton has converted to Islam, her spokesman, Ian Brinkham, has revealed to CBS news.

"She has been toying with the idea for quite a while now and when she was imprisoned at Century Regional Detention Facility in 2007, she encountered a few people who had already converted," Mr Brinkham said.

By converting to the Muslim faith, Paris Hilton has decided to shun her old life as a celebrity skank.

Speaking from an Islamic study retreat in Jeddah, she said: "I have now found total peace in my life. Before, I used to be known as an STD-ridden streetwalker , a 'hoe' and a person of loose morals, but now, things have changed. Allah be praised."

Hollywood Jihad

Ms Hilton plans to return to Los Angeles next week to start her own Islamic school in the middle of Beverly Hills.

"Forget Scientology or Kaballah. This is the religion to be in now. I'm not going to be wearing a piece of red string on my wrist or walk around like a robot talking to Xenu. Islam is the new must-have religion. and I'm going to spread the word of the Koran to everyone," an excited Paris Hilton said.

Paris Hilton also plans to change her name to 'Tahirah' which means 'Pure, chaste' in Arabic. Her Islamic school will open in July and is set to become a popular Hollywood spiritual haunt for many celebrities.

Dr Zakir Naik - Historic Debate at Oxford Union

We invite everyone to watch the historic debate to be held at Oxford Union on 11 Feb, 2011. Dr. Naik will address the Oxford Union audience via a satellite video link. Watch the event unfold at 7pm (GMT) on 11 Feb, 2011 - LIVE on Peace TV

Dr. Zakir Naik to Debate on Islam and 21st Century With Oxford Union (UK)

The debate will be telecasted LIVE on PEACE TV on Friday the 11th of
February 2011.



Saudi Arab Time: 10 PM (Friday 11th February)



Bangladesh Time: 01 AM (Saturday 12th February)



India Time: 12:30 AM (Saturday 12th FEBRUARY)



Pakistan Time: 12 AM (Saturday 12th FEBRUARY)



Botswana Time: 09 PM (Friday 11th February)

HEREAFTER - LIFE AFTER DEATH

1. Belief in the hereafter is not based on blind faith?

Many people wonder as to how a person with a scientific and logical temperament, can lend any credence to the belief of life after death. People assume that anyone believing in the hereafter is doing so on the basis of blind belief.

My belief in the hereafter is based on a logical argument.

2. Hereafter a logical belief

There are more than a thousand verses in the Glorious Qur'an, containing scientific facts (refer my book "Qur'an and Modern Science-Compatible or Incompatible?"). Many facts mentioned in the Qur'an have been discovered in the last few centuries. But science has not advanced to a level where it can confirm every statement of the Qur'an.

Suppose 80% of all that is mentioned in the Qur'an has been proved 100% correct. About the remaining 20%, science makes no categorical statement, since it has not advanced to a level, where it can either prove or disprove these statements. With the limited knowledge that we have, we cannot say for sure whether even a single percentage or a single verse of the Qur'an from this 20% portion is wrong. Thus when 80% of the Qur'an is 100% correct and the remaining 20% is not disproved, logic says that even the 20% portion is correct. The existence of the hereafter, which is mentioned in the Qur'an, falls in the 20% ambiguous portion which my logic says is correct.

3. Concept of peace and human values is useless without the concept of hereafter

Is robbing a good or an evil act? A normal balanced person would say it is evil. How would a person who does not believe in the hereafter convince a powerful and influential criminal that robbing is evil?

Suppose I am the most powerful and influential criminal in the world. At the same time I am an Intelligent and a logical person. I say that robbing is good because it helps me lead a luxurious life. Thus robbing is good for me.

If anybody can put forward a single logical argument as to why it is evil for me, I will stop immediately. People usually put forward the following arguments:

a. The person who is robbed will face difficulties

Some may say that the person who is robbed will face difficulties. I certainly agree that it is bad for the person who is robbed. But it is good for me. If I rob a thousand dollars, I can enjoy a good meal at a 5 star restaurant.

b. Someone may rob you

Some people argue that someday I may be robbed. No one can rob me because I am a very powerful criminal and I have hundreds of bodyguards. I can rob anybody but nobody can rob me. Robbing may be a risky profession for a common man but not for an influential person like me.

c. The police may arrest you

Some may say, if you rob, you can be arrested by the police. The police cannot arrest me because I have the police on my payroll. I have the ministers on my payroll. I agree that if a common man robs, he will be arrested and it will be bad for him, but I am an extraordinarily influential and powerful criminal.

Give me one logical reason why it is bad for me and I will stop robbing.

d. Its easy money

Some may say its easy money and not hard-earned money. I agree completely that it is easy money, and that is one of the main reasons why I rob. If a person has the option of earning money the easy as well as the hard way, any logical person would choose the easy way.

e. It is against humanity

Some may say it is against humanity and that a person should care for other human beings. I counter argue by asking as to who wrote this law called 'humanity' and why should I follow it?

This law may be good for the emotional and sentimental people but I am a logical person and I see no benefit in caring for other human beings.

f. It is a selfish act

Some may say that robbing is being selfish. It is true that robbing is a selfish act; but then why should I not be selfish? It helps me enjoy life.

1. No logical reason for robbing being an evil act

Hence all arguments that attempt to prove that robbing is an evil act are futile. These arguments may satisfy a common man but not a powerful and influential criminal like me. None of the arguments can be defended on the strength of reason and logic. It is no surprise that there are so many criminals in this world.

Similarly raping, cheating etc. can be justified as good for a person like me and there is no logical argument that can convince me that these things are bad.