Zakir Naik’s reply to the ban imposed..

This is with reference to an exclusion order issued to Dr Zakir Naik by the British Home Office, UK Border Agency, dated 16th June 2010.

Dr Zakir Naik, the illustrious and eminent speaker from Mumbai, India, is respected and revered throughout the world for his enlightening and convincing efforts promoting similarities between major faiths based on converging values for a common platform of Peace, using the binding commonalities that exist between the religious scriptures including the Bible, Vedas, Torah and Glorious Qur’an.

Following on from recent malicious and specious reports in the British media about the work of Dr Zakir Naik, we are disappointed to learn the British Government has decided to exclude him from visiting the United Kingdom to conduct a Peace Conference Tour between 25th-27th June 2010.

It is deeply regrettable the British Government has bowed to pressure from sectarian and Islamophobic pressure groups by preventing the entry of Dr Zakir Naik, who has been visiting and delivering talks in the United Kingdom for the past 15 years.

In the wake of these inaccurate press reports, Dr Zakir Naik issued a press release in the United Kingdom dated 11th June 2010 which is attached herewith.

The exclusion order issued by the Secretary of Home Department UK, appears to rely mainly on the following four extracts from various talks by Dr Zakir Naik which they found objectionable;

Extract of Quote 1

“As far as terrorist is concerned, I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist… What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorises. When a robber sees a policeman he’s terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber… Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element. I’m aware that terrorist more commonly is used for a person who terrorises an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorise a single innocent human being. The Muslims should selectively terrorise the anti-social element, and many times, two different labels are given to the same activity of the same individual …  Before any person gives any label to any individual for any of his actions, we have to first analyse, for what reason is he doing that?” (Source – video google)

Extract of Quote 2

“Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong, I reject them… we don’t know. But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorizing the terrorist, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, he’s following Islam” (Source – You Tube – 2006)

Extract of Quote 3

“How can you ever justify killing innocent people? But in the same breath as condemning those responsible we must also condemn those responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon” (As reported by the Manchester Evening News, 21 August 2006 as part of a speech you gave at the Expo Islamia conference in Manchester.

Extract of Quote 4

“strongest in enmity towards the Muslims are the Jews and the pagans…. It [the Quran] does not say that the Muslims should fight with the Jews… the Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims… there are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole … The Quran tells us, as whole, they will be our staunchest enemy” (Peace TV, recorded on You – Tube)

The clarification of these quotes, provided by the British Home Office, is cited below:

Clarification of Quote 1

The context of the quote given was against an article according to The Times of India newspaper, Mumbai edition, (Times News Network, Wednesday August 20, 2003).

“Mr. Angre is amongst the five officers, who between them, have gunned down more than 300 alleged criminals in the past five years. The very mention of their names evokes terror in the underworld”.

Dr Naik said; “…The moment the underworld hear the name of Inspector Angre, they are terrified, so Inspector Angre of the Mumbai Police Force is a terrorist for the underworld of Mumbai”.

Therefore after reading the extract of the quote in context provided by the British Home Office from one of the Dr Zakir Naik’s talks, any sensible and logical person would not object as the extract quoted is self explanatory.

Clarification of Quote 2

Many journalists ask Dr Zakir Naik regarding his views about Osama Bin Laden. Due to the fact that he [Osama Bin Laden] has not been convicted in respect of 9/11 and as Dr Zakir Naik cannot verify the claims against him, he neither considers him a saint nor a terrorist.

There is not a single statement of Dr Zakir Naik after 9/11 in which he has praised Osama Bin Laden or supported his activities.

With regards to the extract of a quote on Osama Bin Laden taken from a video on YouTube, this clip was taken from a lecture Dr Zakir Naik delivered in Singapore in 1996, almost five years before 9/11 and not in 2006, as has been posted.

It is therefore not possible to link this quote to Osama Bin Laden in the context of the 9/11, when the atrocity had not taken place; and took place after almost 5 years in 2001.

The lecture was recorded by some local people [in Singapore] and was later edited and uploaded on You Tube by a prejudiced group. Unless and until we have the rushes (original unedited tapes) of the program, it is not possible to know which portions of the lecture have been edited.

It is therefore not reasonable, in the light of Dr Zakir Naik’s known views about 9/11 and all other atrocities such as 7/7 (London, UK) and 7/11 (serial train bomb blast in Mumbai, India) to link these manipulated and very old comments to recent world events.

Dr Zakir Naik has emphatically and regularly condemned any and all persons responsible for these appalling atrocities, killing innocent civilians.

Clarification of Quote 3

It appears the British Home Office has quoted Dr Zakir Naik only condemning attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon from the article published in Manchester Evening News on 21st August 2006.

However, the same article also reported Dr Zakir Naik condemning and criticizing the atrocities of New York (9/11), London (7/7) and Mumbai serial train bombers (7/11) before he condemns the attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon “in the same breath”. The context of which is cited below:

“However, Dr Zakir Naik, described by organizers as “the most sought after Muslim public speaker in the world”, criticized the actions of the New York, London and Bombay bombers”. (Manchester Evening News 21.08.06).

Clarification of Quote 4

Dr Zakir Naik was quoting from the Glorious Qur’an which says in Surah Ma’idah; chapter 5: Verse 82;

“Strongest amongst men in enmity to the Believers will thou find the Jews and the Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers will thou find those who say, “We are Christians”.

In this context Dr Zakir Naik said “strongest in enmity towards the Muslims are the Jews and the pagans…. It [Qur’an] does not say the Muslims should fight with the Jews… the Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims…. there are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole …The Qur’an tells us, as a whole, they will be our staunchest enemy.”

Dr Zakir Naik has fervently criticized Adolf Hitler in many of his lectures as the greatest terrorist in the human history for his anti-Jewish policies and his atrocities for incinerating six million Jews.

As a student of comparative religion, Dr Zakir Naik has worked tirelessly for the common good amongst people of all faiths engaging in constructive debate and dialogue. These discussions have been hugely successful and have resulted in much progress towards a better understanding of Islam as well as enhanced harmony between people of different beliefs, dispelling fears, suspicions and misunderstandings.

Dr Zakir Naik is undoubtedly an opponent of terrorism and as such has often spoken out against all acts of violence and violent extremism. He has emphatically and unequivocally condemned the killing of civilians and is one of the world’s regular noted orators on this topic.

In the wake of the exclusion order and based on legal advice, Dr Zakir Naik intends to bring the matter before the High Court of the United Kingdom and request a Judicial Review to have the exclusion order overturned.

We would request the Indian authorities to engage with and make representations to the British Government about the excellent services and work of Dr Zakir Naik in promoting Peace and social harmony worldwide. We would propose the Indian Government to encourage the British Home Office to revoke the exclusion order and permit the Peace Conference Tour to continue as scheduled, whilst upholding the values of freedom and justice.

For Islamic Research Foundation,

Maqbool Barwelkar

Public Relations Manager

18th June 2010, Mumbai, India.


Source:http://irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=241:mockery-freedom&catid=44:yoocarousel-slideshow-newsflash

.

.

.

.

.

..

My take …on another post….

Advertisements
    • Sunder
    • June 22nd, 2010

    Quote No 2 slightly diff for ur source-

    If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

    Clarification N0 2-

    i think to me it does not make a difference if it is before 9/11 or after..since what he is talking is about America..so can i interpretate that going against America is OK? ..ithink on the same lines only the recent bomber of Times Square has confessed?

    For me if this is before 9/11, can one argue whether these kind of speeches against america has motivated people to do the act?

    After coming out of these speeches will our mind have more hatred towards west?

    I see this way, America and Europe welcome us and you can become a citizen and enjoy the fruits…and is it right on our part to sit on their heads from their land ?

    • “After coming out of these speeches will our mind have more hatred towards west?”

      🙂 It depends on how one perceives the following piece of information..

      909,681 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq alone ,since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates, all in the name of democracy and freedom of speech of their nation.About 303 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001.More than 130 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1993-2004, according to data compiled by the US State Department.

      “I see this way, America and Europe welcome us and you can become a citizen and enjoy the fruits…and is it right on our part to sit on their heads from their land ?”

      Why are they sitting on everybody else’s head? Can you,for instance say that America doens’t control India’s overall forigen policy, international business deals and like?

        • sunder
        • June 26th, 2010

        IF USA is sitting on Indias head , it is USA s fault or Indias fault?

        What compulsion we have to allow? if we allow, that we get in the bargain? we common man can know?

        or these will be suppressed in the name of classifed document..

        my view instead of blaming USA, we shud blame ourselves..

      • Nimmy, most of killings innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan are done by Islamist outfits through bomb attacks and not by Western forces. Do you have any statistics of actual deaths caused by Western forces versus those caused by Islamist terrorist attacks?

  1. I am not going to write much on what that Joker Naik and his brain dead cronies say regarding what he preaches for the simple reason that Islamists say one thing to infidels in the media (Kafirs or Non Muslims) and completely a different view to Muslims in mosques and in Islamic centers. This is very much a standard practice by liers and cowards.

    If some one wants to read a idiotic western perspective on this read from the below link:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/islamic-hate-preacher-barred-from-britain-is-mainstream-in-india.html

    I just put one simple question. If people have guts they can answer it. Most of the time I do not find people answering this for variety of reasons like they might have no knowledge in certain field or interest, the fear of being branded extremists by others. Yes, it is true that most people in this country are even scared of expressing their views.

    Actually this question runs like this:

    1. Suppose that I make a claim that what I say is absolute right and your view is absolutely false in every scenario. (or)

    2. Suppose one political party claims that it only represents the best interests of Country and others with different views are traitors (Like German Nazi party). (or)

    3. Suppose one group claims they are superior and what they believe is absolute truth and others are inferior and their beliefs are inferior and false.

    What name one will give to such views and people holding such views?

    What should a ideology be called if it expresses such views?

    My knowledge tells me that the word used to describe such views, my way or high way, is fascism.

    Yes, the words are fascism, fascist and totalitarianism or exclusive.

    This is what Joker (Zakir) Naik says about Islam and Non Muslims, I will give a small quote from his interview, if some one wants to read the full interview read from the link link I put up below.

    He said ” …… as far as matters of religion are concerned we (Muslims) know for sure that only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God ………..”.

    He goes on to say that this is the reason why Muslims do not allow others (Non Muslims) to propagate their religion in Islamic countries. But nevertheless it is an obligation on the part of Kafirs to allow Muslims to spread their faith in the lands of Non Muslims. Muslims believe this. Saudi Arabia spends lot of petro Dollars in this purpose.

    Tell me this isn’t this one way ticket? Could it be that questioning this kind amounts to defaming or defiling Islam?

    I am not going to expand on this, for it takes lot of space and most people do not have time to read long posts because of exams or some thing else.

    But let me remind what IRF says with regard to the work of Joker Naik. (Taken from what Madam put above)

    ” ……. enlightening and convincing efforts promoting similarities between major faiths based on converging values for a common platform of Peace, using the binding commonalities that exist between the religious scriptures including the Bible, Vedas, Torah and Glorious Qur’an. ……..”

    and

    “………… worked tirelessly for the common good amongst people of all faiths engaging in constructive debate and dialogue. These discussions have been hugely successful and have resulted in much progress towards a better understanding of Islam as well as enhanced harmony between people of different beliefs, dispelling fears, suspicions and misunderstandings………….”

    Now, if some one can explain please do, for I can not understand. How could these two views (One of Joker Naik’s in the video and other view is what his cronies said on his work) be reconciled? Are they not contradictory?

    Actually I am not faulting Joker Naik, after all he preaches from Koran. So I am blaming Koran.

    Yes, Koran teaches exactly the same thing on other faiths and Non Muslims.

    That is precisely why most merciful Allah in Koran assigned the fourth rate status to Non Muslims in his law, according to which Non Muslims should be made to pay Jizya as sign of humiliation and subjugation.

    Do not believe me, please. Just read the verse from glorious Koran your self ….the verse 9:29.

    I explained this verse in one of the threads.

    Madam too explained this verse in certain place here, probably an explanation by Joker Naik, for she seems to be great fan of him.

    The only difference is I use authentic Islamic sources while her explanation runs like ‘trust me’. A school yard assumption.

    • Hello Mr.Sri, Saudi is ranked 14th among muslim-majority countires.. So STOP generalizing Islam,Saudi and Muslims..

    • 1. Suppose that I make a claim that what I say is absolute right and your view is absolutely false in every scenario. (or)

      2. Suppose one political party claims that it only represents the best interests of Country and others with different views are traitors (Like German Nazi party). (or)

      3. Suppose one group claims they are superior and what they believe is absolute truth and others are inferior and their beliefs are inferior and false.

      What name one will give to such views and people holding such views?

      What should a ideology be called if it expresses such views?

      My knowledge tells me that the word used to describe such views, my way or high way, is fascism.

      Yes, the words are fascism, fascist and totalitarianism or exclusive.

      Of course it is fascism.. Now please tell me what did America’s topmost official mean, when he/she said that “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.”

      But when Zakir Naik told the same,he is a terrorist.. Sick joke.. I am bored of such hypocritical double standard stuff..

  2. Oh I forgot to put that video link and it is below:

    Please, I suggest that every one should listen to this video, because it is based on this premise that every cruelty and barbaric act on Non Muslims is justified in Koran.

    • sunder
    • June 23rd, 2010

    Sri, I am dumbstruck seeing the video.

  3. Only person we should be listening to is Che Guevara

    “Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary.”

    – Last Letter to his children!

    • Sifar
    • June 24th, 2010

    Dear friend,

    True-Islam and terrorism are antonyms, in fact Islam hates terrorism. Prophet Mohammed was a full fledged brave-warrior who stood against falsehood and he never resorted to any kind of terrorism or terrorist tactics that are similar to sudden bombing or fear-based torture even on his most deadliest enemies. Only the most deluded and the cowards will resort to terrorism as a retaliatory solution to any given problem. When Zakir Naik calls for the terrorizing of the terrorists, it is like calling for the raping of the rapists, it takes us to no solution.

    Zakir Naik justifies his definition of terrorism by saying that a thief is terrified by a policeman, and so a police man is a terrorist to a theif. This is wrong. A policeman is only terrifying the thief not terrorizing. A policeman only tries to imprison the thief, and if evidence is provided before the court, only then is corrective measures taken. A policeman is not a terrorist to a thief. Similarly there is no terrorism in Islam, even when against the real terrorist themselves. Prophet Mohammed was devoid of the least amount of terror. He did not even terrorize the very woman that poisoned him. People used to throw rubbish on his face, yet he was a man of great patience and forbearance and he won many a hearts. This is true Islam. Such a great man he really was!

    Prophet Mohammed will never use terrorism to fight terrorism, he always used the truth along with a brave army of companions to fight the infidels only in a war of reason, code and self-defense in the way of the Truth before Allah.

    Once Ali, companion of Prophet Mohammed was at war, and he got into a fight with a very dangerous criminal, he finally overcame him and sat on his chest to kill him. The opponent spat at his face. Ali at once left him. Seeing this the man was very much surprised and asked the reason. Ali said, “I was killing you for God’s sake but when you spat on my face, my sincerity was endangered because of the personal feelings of anger.” Hearing this the man immediately submitted and asked repentance to Al-God. Such was the honor and code that these men of Mohammed had, even at the crucial moments of war.

    Whereas terrorism is akin to a mad stupid man jumping from behind a bush, stabbing, bombing and shooting an unaware person at random to cause a state of fear all around. Mohammed will never support such cowardice. True-Islam and Terrorism are antonyms any day.

    Please to understand true Islam more… do visit this link
    http://iamstillzero.blogspot.com/2010/06/pseudo-scholars.html

    Cheers,
    Sifar

    • Welcome here Sifar..Thanks for your comment..

      Will reply in detail later..

  4. Zakir Naik’s reply to the ban imposed.. ? Nimmy’s Experiment with Blogging guy@gigemail.net

  5. Spreading the Great Scholar’s preaching and sharing knowledge among people is the objective. Jazakallah

  6. Dr. Zakir Naik’s way of preaching Islam penetrates in minds and is globally effective. I learned a lot here.

    • Rajarshi Banerjee
    • April 20th, 2011

    ALL MUSLIMS BY BIRTH ARE MOTHER AND SISTER FUCKERS. MAA CHODU ISLAM KA MAA CHODU KOUM KA MAA CHODU MUHAMMAD KA. ISLAM KA MAA CHODU

  1. August 30th, 2010
    Trackback from : A M Naik | Celebrity Buzz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: