Zakir Naik once said in one of his lectures to a thousands-of-people audience, "If he [Osama bin Laden] is terrorizing the terrorist, if he's terrorizing America, the biggest terrorist, I'm with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist! The thing is that if he's terrorizing the terrorist, then he's following Islam." The video I'm citing here is not complete, but it still gives you an idea of what he's talking about and what he's trying to answer: a question on whether Osama bin Laden's terroristic activities are Islamic and acceptable or not, and whether Naik agrees with them (I presume? I forget what the original question was; heard it years ago and totally not willing to go through it again). I'm not going to go into the politics of terrorism, Bin Laden, and U.S. former (good) relations with Bin Laden, but I want to talk about something else here: Naik's ludicrousness in saying that "every Muslim should be a terrorist."
Then on this page, "Islam and Terrorism by Dr. Zakir Naik," he says: "Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes
terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A
policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should
be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves,
dacoits and rapists..."
Because of his this statement that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," Zakir Naik has been banned into the U.S., Canada, and the UK. Naturally and understandably, the West understands that he's nurturing he existing seeds of hatred in many, many Muslims' minds against the West. Naik justifies his statement saying, "But my statement was taken out of context! I said that in a particular context and then said what the role of the terrorist is" or something silly like this.
Seriously, what was he thinking? Is he trying to re-define what it means to be a terrorist? Dude, the last thing we want in this world is another terrorist, another person to make us all fear for our lives and safety! And you want us all Muslims, the over a billion of us that are alive and all, to be terrorists? Even if Naik's statement was taken out of context, what--no, seriously, WHAT--was he thinking what he said that, what he used those words? Could he not have come up with a more peaceful, nicer, better way for him to make his point? Besides, nothing--and I mean nothing--in Islam asks or even encourages Muslims or others to create fear in their minds. We're instead encouraged to talk and debate in a healthy manner so as not to offend anyone. You want theft to end? Good, so do I and so does the whole wide world--but we ain't gonna go around acting like terrorists to make that happen. You think police and other law enforcement folks actually "terrorize" people? (Okay, okay, I know of police brutality and all--but Naik Jee wasn't talk about that. He was talking about the role of law enforcement in general in a society.) Imprisonment isn't terrorism. Being forced to do community service work because you were speeding isn't terrorism. Terrorism is when there's a lotta of shooting and killing around you, and you fear for your life and the lives of others around you because you just saw or heard of someone being killed or shot. Or something like this.
So, yeah, Naik Jee should have taken into consideration the current concept of "terrorism" and "terrorist"--he should've known that this word is so politically charged that by its current definition and understanding, it's a completely un-Islamic thing to do (to "terrorize").
What he wanted to say was that Muslims should be the kind of people who ensure that only good is always taking place. But what he ended up saying is: the whole world needs to be terrorized by Muslims; Muslims are supposed to be like monsters who correct people everywhere every time they do something "bad," and everyone in the whole world should be scared of Muslims. The Muslim, then, is someone who instills deep fear--terror, in fact--in the minds and hearts of everyone around him. Everyone around Muslims should be good not because it's good to be good, not because of ethical or moral purposes, but because the Muslims are forcing them to be good.
Has anyone ever been to any of his lectures? I wanna know what they're like. I wanna go and then ask him a million questions and challenge his answers. I find it so disturbing that this guy is considered a "scholar".... I find it tragic, in fact. Especially when a woman praises him and appreciates him. Like, oh my God - have you ever analyzed his anti-woman, misogynistic statements about what "Islam" says the roles/rights of women are? But I've talked about that in other posts, so let's not get the qrratu started, please. If you're dying to read how his opinions and views on women are sooo offensive (and he pretends they're Islam's and God's views :S oh pity!), you can start here.