Wednesday, August 8, 2012

When Zakir Naik Said Every Muslim Should be a Terrorist

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.

17 comments:

  1. Really? Wow, just wow. I cannot believe he equated justice with terrorism. An enforcer of law or even you or me stopping an oppressor from oppressing others is not terrorism; it is justice. Terrorism is oppression against the innocent, no matter who does it and we must speak out against it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. Thank you for your comment, Demon!
      YES! Exactly! He's equating JUSTICE with terrorism ... and he thinks that makes sense ...

      Delete
  2. I saw one of his sermons where he said that conversion from Islam to another religion is equivalent to treason and traitors must be executed for they maybe divulging sensitive secrets to the enemy.
    That day I knew ZN is a bastard.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh this man...tires me and annoys me like no other! I SO want to be at the forum where you ask and challenge the venerable Zakir Naik! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :D I'll invite you when/if that happens :p But I feel like his mocking tone will make me lose my temper, and I may just lose it ...

      Delete
    2. I mean, imagine him telling me in response to any question I may (I won't, but let's suppose I do) ask about verse 4:34. Imagine him saying:

      "Sister, if you want to jump off the cliff, should your father allow you? No, he should not. If you keep trying to do it, he may hit you. It's only logical. He knows better what's good for you."

      And imagine me:

      ":| But ... But ... the wife is NOT a child, and the husband is NOT like a father! He does *not* necessarily know what's better for her any more than she would know what's better for him. This is such an offensive analogy!..." and I'd go on...

      Sighs. (That's actually his logic for the beating of wives :p I've seen a couple of his lectures where he tells a man that's how it works. It's a pity that the audience applauds him when he's done! :S)

      Delete
  4. I agree with Z.N, it totally makes sense, America is the biggest terrorist and Anti-ISLAM, If someone is against ANTI-Islam and is being called terrorist, all Muslim should take his side, let he be OSAMA or OBAMA.

    ReplyDelete
  5. !!! I gotta share this blog (and the others, Naik related) with my dada. he attended one of Zakir Naik's lectures in UAE with a non Muslim colleague of his, who was offended by Naik's "intolerance" towards other religions. Upon asking about which I was told it was normal/natural for a man of deen to develop such intolerance (even hatred? to such an extent that he cant stand them) towards 'unbelievers'. So Dr Zakir Naik wants to tell us ki Muslims are the only good/best of the human race, and they should walk around terrorizing people into doing the right things? Like some teachers in South Asia that beat up kids and teach them their 'lessons'.
    My father didn't have much to say about the lecture except for the few converts (he was not really fond or in favor of Naik but he'd say it would be wrong to speak against/about/bad of a good man like that, who has helped many people convert to Islam etc). I dont remember finish watching one complete video of his speech/lecture (I'd see them at my father's request) and I never paid close attention to what he was saying (I'd sit confused, so better not listen :| and I was too lazy) because whatever he said seemed to have a strong impact on the crowd, so he gotta be right, right? Till, an atheist (ex-Muslim) friend of mine who was asked to see a lifechanging lecture by Dr Zakir Naik (by his Muslim friend) produced a no.of mistakes/blunders made and quoted by Naik during the lectures, the logic etc and used all this in his defense :). Then I read your blogs. And met other ex-followers/fans of his.

    (I hope this comment get posted :( )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :D It posted, yayy!! (Sorry for the late reply! School is back in session, and I get at least 600 pages a week to read for just one class alone! So I'm really, REALLY stuffed with work ...

      You know, ultimately, the main reason why people love him as that he "converts" people (and some of my friends believe that those conversions are definitely staged, so not sincere and probably don't last for long; but who knows). But to me, the number of these conversions doesn't matter at all; I am more interested in their character! We don't need people who are Muslim (and then esp Zakir Naik type) and harbor so much animosity towards other faiths and religions and all; we'd much rather have just a few Muslims who are sincere, kind, good-hearted people. Certainly not the type who think that in order to bring justice in this world, one has to be a terrorist! Or that to terrorize others is the same as to fight for justice.

      I'm one of his ex-follower/fan, yeah, and I know many others as well. I'm not surprised that you know some as well. This is precisely what I think makes Naik dangerous: he *appears* great, he *appears* to be correct, he *appears* scholarly, he *appears* to be teaching Islam. And then you get more deeper into his teachings and you just wanna cry for the Muslims who revere him ...

      Delete
  6. During April 2004 ZN challenged an American Father William Campbell in Chicago on the topic of "Quran and Bible". After the debate the Father was defeated and he accepted that there are many mistakes in Bible. As a result many of the American accepted the true religion Islam.
    Is there anyone who can do like the ZN did??????
    Mr./Ms. Sabih if you are living in America and you took the oath for citizenship and suppose you betrayed to the country then what the Americans will do with you????

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for your comment, Saif! Very much appreciated.

    Actually, I've seen the debate you're talking about. Campbell never admitted to any mistakes, and Naik never defeated him. That's only what Muslims are saying--but if you watch the debate, you see that the Muslim audience is cheering for Naik any time he says something and completely ignores anything Campbell says. I thought the audience selection was unfair to begin with.

    I don't think we should be competing for who can convert more people. We should be trying to promote PEACE and peaceful mutual understanding of each other as a diverse world, not doing what Naik does--hating and spreading lies about other religions and telling people, "YOU are not allowed to build any places of worship in MY Muslim land, but I'm OBLIGATED to build a mosque AND even preach Islam to you in YOUR non-Muslim land." Another injustice.

    Lastly, leaving Islam isn't the same as treason, so your question has an unfair premise to begin with. You see, most Muslims are actually born to Muslim parents so they never really get to decide for themselves whether they want to be Muslim or not. Some of us do get to choose as we grow and study and do our own research and all. But the majority of us don't. Of that majority, a few may decide to leave Islam after deciding that it's not what they were taught it was after all or that it's just not the kind of religion they should follow. People have different reasons for leaving one religion for another or completely leaving religion.

    My point is: when someone who's been a Muslim pretty much all her/his life decides not to be a Muslim anymore, she/he is not betraying anyone; it's not treason. It's just a personal choice not to follow that religion anymore.

    But let me ask you this: When a Christian leaves Christianity, is that treason? You believe that when a Muslim leaves Islam, it's treason, and that justifies the person's being killed or otherwise punished. Using this same logic, should a Christian (or a Jew or a Hindu or a follower of any other faith) be killed for treason once he/she decides to leave that religion? If yes, oh man - we have a LOT of people to kill, don't we!

    But if no, then why should we be killing Muslims who leave Islam?

    Thank you again for your response :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. thanks for detail reply. Conversion is treason in a case where the converted joins the enemy lines (against Islam) and tries to make loss to the religion. Otherwise you are right. Its the choice of a every human being to live the way he/she likes.
    You can also watch ZN on this link about this subject:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvK7y1msIkQ&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :) Thank you for that link - I'm very familiar with Zakir Naik's views on human rights as well as on virtually all other subjects. Trust me. With a heavy heart, I've watched every lecture of his and read every "book" of his and every article of his. It's heartbreaking, it's so insulting to Islam and to Muslims' intelligence (esp. to women's intelligence), and ... well, it's so Zakir Naik.

      What exactly does it mean "to try to make loss to the religion"? Defaming the religion? Spreading lies against the religion and its followers? If so, many Christians and other non-Muslims who leave their religion do the same to their previous religion--should they be killed as well? In other words, why is this just for Muslim? Yet, if this were for other religions, we'd be talking about how violent and unfair that religion was, how against human rights and such.

      Delete
    2. Will you please explain where and when has he "defamed the religion" ? If you provide any proof that would help me understand him. Actually i am not against Dr. Zakir Naik.

      Delete
    3. Secondly i think he knows better than you and is Islamic Scholar. So you should not be debating with him on these matters. I sense a change in your character as you have settled in the US. The people of Swat are MUSLIMS and they do follow Islamic teachings in a far better way. But you ex-Pakistani and ex-Swati have forgot what you were taught in childhood (i believe you were taught a lot when you were a child).
      I won't blame your parents because they would have settled in US due to any reason. But the fault is only with you. Being an Adult,you should do research on Islam and study *Islamic
      Books* by 'MUSLIM AUTHORS' not by Non-Muslim Authors.
      Now its your choice to Approve this comment or not!! But please reply in my Name and let me know of your new opinion. (as i do research).
      Thanks

      Delete
    4. Thank you very much for your opinion, Shah Zaman! Welcome to my blog.

      Delete
    5. @ Shah Zaman: You wrote: "Will you please explain where and when has he "defamed the religion" ? If you provide any proof that would help me understand him. "

      What? Who told you Zakir Naik has defamed the religion? (And which religion?) If you're referring to the above comment of mine, kindly re-read it, since the discussion there is about treason. Thanks.

      Delete

Dare to opine :)

Related Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...