 Hello once again welcome to another episode of the open-minded thinkers show. I thought about sharing this video with you. It's been a very long one coming because I got this video before I traveled to Qatar and I want to share these videos with you. It's a video of Dr. Zakir Naik at Oxford. This is really really amazing, very amazing. Well guys subscribe to the channel, like this video, share it to people so that they can be reminded about what Dr. Zakir Naik said on this very auspicious occasion. It's not a long video so be patient, you are welcome. Dr. Naik, thank you for coming here. We really do appreciate it and thank you for your complimentary words of this union being a bastion of free speech. With that same principle of free speech in mind, don't you think that I or anyone should therefore have the right to go to a Muslim country and proclaim the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God? See honestly I have said that repeatedly on this channel why Muslims enjoy free speech and free participation. The reason why Islam is growing in the United Kingdom today is basically because there is a freedom of speech and a freedom of religion. Things are very beautiful but in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in some of these countries there's no freedom of religion. I think let me see how Dr. Zakir Naik answers this very dicey question. The same right of freedom of speech doesn't have the right to proclaim the Christian Bible in any Muslim country. Brother, as we know today, all the Muslim countries per se do not follow Quran and the Hadith in the true sense. There are many Muslim countries, some may be close to Islam, some may not be close to Islam. Depending upon each country, they may have their own law. So what you have to do, you have to ask that particular country which does not permit you to preach your gospel. What is the reason that they don't want to preach your gospel? Well, this answer is very vague. I am surprised. I expected Dr. Zakir Naik to to, you know, condemn some of the lack of preaching because this is true. I posted a video of a Jehovah's Witness and a Muslim, you know, dialogue in the street of Canada led the same thing. Why are these Muslim countries scared? Are they scared that the faith will die? That Islamic faith will die so they have to stifle everything? It doesn't work. There are people who might not believe or, you know, follow your teachings and people who might be willing to join you in your new faith or your old faith, but they can't do it because there's no freedom of speech. There's no freedom of religion in those places and that's why society is backward. I'm not condemning what is happening in the Islamic country, but I think freedom of speech should be allowed. And Dr. Zakir Naik never helped martyrs here. Dr. Zakir Naik, this is poise to bring you forward. Who see your message and still believe that you are wrong? Why you've claimed that the Home Secretary has banned you from this country because of a sort of media conspiracy, but why is there a broader sense of discontent with your message? The brother asked a very good question that why if I'm a man of peace and I speak about peace, some people are against me, some Muslims, some non-Muslim, the Home Secretary, but they have to understand that any person who's popular, they're bound to be people against him irrespective whether the popular person is doing good work or bad work. And the best example I can give you that today, according to Michael H. Hart, he wrote a book saying the hundred most influential people in the world history. Though he's a Christian, he put number one most influential human being as Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Today, do you know, though Muslims consider him to be the most important and the most influential person in history, there are many non-Muslims who think the same, but today if we analyze the maximum books written against any human being on the face of the earth, it is Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The second person he named in his list was Isaac Newton, but because he's not a common man for common human being, he's a scientist. The third person on his list was Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. If we analyze today the second person in human history who has maximum books written against him, it is Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Based on this argument, do we have to agree that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, they were not good? What we have to realize when a person gets popular, there are bound to be people against him. And according to the Home Department of UK, when I had come in the year 2009, I was informed by Reliable Resources that according to the Home Department of UK, the most popular Islamic satellite channel in the world is Peace TV and the most watched Islamic satellite channel in UK is also Peace TV. Not only is it watched by Muslims, but even watched by non-Muslims. The same report said that the most popular Islamic speaker in the world is Dr. Zakir Naik and the most popular Islamic speaker in UK is also Dr. Naik. That the reason the Home Department was requesting me that can I reach out to those Muslims which the UK government cannot. But not because the change of government, what I feel it was more of a political move rather than a legal move. And as maybe they wanted someone popular so that they could pass the message that we are tough against Muslims. And that's the reason what we feel that we have more faith in the judicial system rather than the political system. I think it was mainly because of popularity and it was mainly a political move rather than a legal move. And inshallah, God willing, we feel that this exclusion order would be reversed by the court of appeal, hopefully. Me, yes, my name, I'm a lawyer, a historian and also a theologian. You get a very excellent exposition of the Koran and Islam. But Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic faiths. A Jew could have said the same thing or there's almost the same things they have said by quoting the Torah and the Talmud. A Christian could have said almost everything he said by quoting both the Old Testament and the New Testament. And I do not know whether we should be trying to say one religion is superior or more truthful than another. And if we do go down that line, what does that lead to? That's what led to the crusades, etc. You mentioned about justice and peace. Of course, the Christian Bible mentions more and more verses about justice and peace than they are about the Holy Spirit. And of course, Christians were pacifists until 313. So what is the difference between what you are saying and Judaism and Christianity? And what would that lead to? But that's a good question. And I do agree with him that if you read the Torah, the books of Judaism, the books of Christianity, you will find verses of peace. Never in my lecture ever did I say that any religion is against peace or any religion is in favor of terrorism. I always said all religions are against terrorism. What I made one statement in my speech that the verse of the Quran chapter 5 verse number 32, this verse, which is so emphatic, I do not find a similar verse in any of the scripture because I'm a student of comparative religion saying that if you kill one innocent human being, it is as though you have killed the whole of humanity. And if you save one innocent human being, it is as though you have saved the whole of humanity. It was only one verse. So that generally, I do agree that most of the religion, almost all, they speak about peace. That's the reason Jesus kept peace upon him. If you read the Gospel of Luke chapter number 24 verse number 36, when he goes to the room, he says, when he wishes apostle, shalom alaikum, which means same, peace be upon you in Hebrew. So the greetings of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him too, when he met the people was shalom alaikum, which meant same in Arabic, assalamu alaikum, may peace be on you. Regarding you saying that one religion superior to the other religion, I believe almighty God sent only one religion. He has not sent different religions. What the Quran says he has made human beings into different tribes, different colors, different languages so that they may recognize each other, not they may despise each other. The only religion that God has sent to all these messengers, whether it be Moses, whether it be Jesus, peace be upon him, Moses, peace be upon him, Muhammad, peace be upon him. It was to submit the will to almighty God. I believe all these messengers right from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, peace be upon them all, all of them bought the same message. Alright, I definitely don't know how I feel watching all these, but I think another question is coming. Let's really see how it goes. But the most important thing I can take away from what I said was that submitting to almighty God is I think a principle that everybody need to adhere to, especially when it comes to the Abrahamic faith that all the apostles, all the prophets and the people that came before Jesus and after Jesus were all preaching about submitting one's will to God. Good afternoon. My name is Izzy Westbury. I'm the secretary here at the Oxford Union. I have very short questions to ask. You talk about the hijab being something that serves to protect a woman. Surely it's extremely patronizing and trading to prevent a woman from making that decision for herself. How could you answer that? What's the question, sister? Can you repeat the question? I said in your speech she talked about the hijab being something that serves to protect a woman. But how is it not extremely patronizing and degrading and not allowing a woman to make that decision herself? Sister, I suppose it's a very good question that when I say that hijab is required for a woman, isn't it not degrading for the woman to patronize it? Isn't it degrading? If you read the Quran, the Quran and Islam has prescribed hijab. That means the woman should be covered. The only part that can be seen are the face and the hand up to the wrist. This is for the modesty and it is not only mentioned in the Quran, it is also mentioned in the Bible. If you read the Bible in the 1st Timothy chapter number two, verse number nine, it says that women should be dressed up with shame-facedness. They should be dressed up with sobriety and should not wear braided hair of gold or pearls. It's further mentioned in the 1st Corinthians chapter number five, verse number seven to eleven, the woman that does not cover her head, then she dishonors her head. Her head should be shaved off. Anyway, I don't agree with this. I'm just quoting you from the Bible. Same way, if you go to the Vedas it says that the woman should cover the head. So all the religious scriptures, they talk about the woman covering their head. It is for modesty. It is not to degrade the woman. And if we analyze, there was an allegation made against me saying that Dr. Zakir Naik says that if they don't wear hijab, you know that if you wear western clothes, there are chances the woman will be raped. It is a misquotation again. What I said that if women were revealing clothes, they have more chances of being raped. What I was doing, the same newspaper, Sunday Time, which spoke against me one year before on the March of 9th, 2009, Sunday Times fired an article in Britain, one out of seven feel that the women who were sexy revealing clothes, I'm sorry, I don't agree with it. This is the statistics that was given in the Sunday Times on the 9th of March, 2009 that in Britain, one out of seven Britishers believe that the women who were revealing and sexy clothes, I disagree with this. Furthermore, one more article came in 2005 in the same newspaper Sunday Times. It said that 26% of the Britishers, they feel that wearing revealing clothes is partially or totally responsible for the rape. So what I say that the more modest in your desktop, you are respected more. So Islam has prescribed the modest hijab for the woman not to degrade but to uplift her. I do agree there may be cultural differences. A quick review. The first guy that asked the question seemed very unsatisfied with the answers. He was asked to go to the Islamic countries and asked them why the laws are against someone preaching the Bible by the same time. Dr Zakir Naik would have recognized that they were doing that based on Islamic teaching. They had adopted Islam as a state religion and they asked accordingly according to what is prescribed in the Quran and that of the Hadith. So I expected Dr Zakir Naik to answer that question generally because even the laws made in this Islamic countries put into perspective Quranic injunctions and whatever you so. I definitely wanted to hear something more deeper than that but he was asked. So the guy was unsatisfied. Well thank you so much for being part of the show today. Give it a like, subscribe to the channel, share it with your family and friends. Until next time. As-salamu alaykum.