Let's revisit some sayings of the quotable Zakir Naik:
"People who change their religion should face the death penalty"
"If he [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist ... I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist."
And he has said western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing "revealing" clothing.
Clearly, this man is a moderate, persecuted by a rabid band of Islamophobes! Er, wait... An update on this story.
"Muslim Council of Britain condemns ban on Dr Zakir Naik entering UK," by Tristan Kirk for the Harrow Times, June 19:
The Muslim Council of Britain has denounced the decision to ban Dr Zakir Naik from the UK ahead of a peace conference in Wembley.
Dr Nair [sic] was yesterday banned from entering the country by Home Secretary Theresa May because of what she called "unacceptable behaviour", just over a week before he was due to address the Al-Khair Peace Conference at Wembley Arena.
In a statement, the council, a leading voice in the Islamic community, said it "deplores" Mrs May's decision and described Dr Naik as a "renowned Indian mainstream Islamic scholar".
It said: "The Home Secretary's action serves to demonise the very voices within the world ready for debate and discussion.
"The tour would have been a golden opportunity for young Muslims who are eager to hear the true messages of Islam which promote understanding between communities."
Really?
The council also accused Mrs May of succumbing to what it described as a "recent campaign of vilification against the scholar" in some media outlets.
Dr Naik has been quoted as saying "all Muslims should be terrorists", but he argues these comments from a 1996 lecture have been taken out of context.
But, of course.
He has issued a statement in line of his ban from the UK saying he is "disappointed" and restating that he aims to dispel myths surrounding his religion in his talks.
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This exclusion order demonstrates the double standards practiced by the government concerning freedom of speech.
"While preachers of hate such as Geert Wilders are free to promote their bigotry in this country, respected Muslim scholars such as Dr Naik are refused entry to the UK under false pretenses.
Mind you, what Geert Wilders' Fitna did was quote from the Qur'an.
"It is deeply regrettable this is likely to cause serious damage to community cohesion in our country."
A protest by the English Defence League and a counter demonstration by Unite Against Fascism, planned for the day of the Wembley Arena conference, are now in doubt following Dr Naik's ban.
It is still unclear whether the conference will take place at all, or whether Dr Naik will be able to appear via a videolink.
"Islamophobia" is the act of speaking the truth about the evils of Islam such as its commands to practice deceit, rape and murder.
"Hate Speech" is the act of speaking the truth about the willful promotion and practice of deceit, hate and murder by Muslims: ordinary Muslims, Muslim jihadists, Muslim scholars, Muslim students, Muslim associations and Muslim preachers or imams.
He is - of course - quite mad besides being insolent: "In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives. Many say, 'You sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife'. If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs."
I see again and again that muslims have formed these strange opinions about life in the West and among Westerners. Ignorance? Or is it deliberate? Do they have have contests? Having such a man talk about "interfaith" is a joke. But then the notion of islamic interfaith IS a joke.
Ali Sina of faithfreedom.org has offered to debate Fakir Snaik online, but so far, Snaik has refused, insisting on face-to-face. That, of course, exempts him from being shredded as Sina is anonymous, thanks to Snaik's fellow, peaceful, misunderstood, co-religionists.
Gotta love the single-mindedness of their attitude:
"We follow the "true Religion" (tm) and are not to be held to the standards of HUMAN created false religions."
Not that you can't find that attitude in other religions; most of them however don't take this attitude to the same extreme in the last 300 years or so... but then again, some do! Witness Fred Phelps and the kind of preacher who will stand on the steps of a rival sect's church and preach about how they are wrng and going to Hell (I have actually witnessed this in New Orleans at the St. Louis Catherdral).
It is so much fun trying to have a rational conversation with someone who is convinced that ANY deviation from the "true path" is a crime before God, and that silly things like objective ethics and morality mean nothing as long as deviation continues to "offend" their fine religious sensitivity.
BUT!!!
"Dr Naik has been quoted as saying "all Muslims should be terrorists", but he argues these comments from a 1996 lecture have been taken out of context. But, of course."
One of the biggest pitfalls for one who stands against partisanship is becomming partisan oneself... When defending against those who do not share our ethics it is easy to fall into the trap of demonizing instead of analysing the opposition.
Sometimes we let our fear of failure or desire to win cause us to use tactics that are offensive when used against us by the opposition.
I have always felt that honesty for A is honesty for B; no cause is so noble that it excuses losing moral perspective on tactics while pursuing a "worthwhile" strategy.
Robert, how many times have you been quoted out of context or had your real words distorted to serve the arguments of your opponents? I think the honest answer to someone saying they have been misquoted or quoted out of context is to show that they are wrong by providing that context and making clear with further quotations that your characterization of them is accurate and honest rather than sneering at the accusation.
If we let our opponents lack of ethics cause us to discount our own have they not won in their battle to destroy what is good about the West even if we "win"?
Politics by reaction is never fully honest, we have an obligation to present the ideas and words of our opponents accurately and honestly, or the validity of our own arguments is severaly diminished by the appearence - and fact - of hypocrisy by someone who is supposed to be fightng hypocrisy in others.
Seperating People from Sheeple: http://hereticscrusade.com
"Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari"
lol! A "Dr?" You're insane. Islam has made you insane.
You're as much a "Dr" as Mengele.
2010 GUIDE TO FREE SPEECH
(Brought to us by Leftists for Shari’a, Obama and C.A.I.R.)
White Males Offending non-Whites, Females, non-Christians or Muslims
= HATE SPEECH
Christians Offending non-Whites, non-Christians, LBGTs or Muslims
= HATE SPEECH
Jews Offending non-Whites, Females, LGBTs or Muslims
= HATE SPEECH
Females Offending non-Whites, LBGTs or Muslims
= HATE SPEECH
LGBTs Offending non-Whites or Muslims
= HATE SPEECH
Non-Whites Offending Muslims
= HATE SPEECH
Muslims Offending Your Imam
= HATE SPEECH, it is also known as “Taking Your Life in Your Hands”.
Face it, we live in "interesting Times"... join with the http://HereticsCrusade.com
We have an obligation to present the ideas and words of our opponents accurately and honestly, or the validity of our own arguments is severaly diminished by the appearence - and fact - of hypocrisy by someone who is supposed to be fightng hypocrisy in others.
I agree with that. I live in a constant fear of being too "enthusiastic". Also I find it difficult when your opponent demands concessions he wouldn´t dream of conceding to you.
What is arguably most telling and important to note (admittedly there are here so many things to note) is that this particular detritus of the human race, compared to some Muslims, ACTUALLY is a moderate. Speaks volumes about the religion of peace and tolerance, no? Ah, what a curse to Britain, to all the West and the entire world Islam is (N.B., for the Prince of Wales there exists no possibility of his grasping this truth).
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari:
"It is deeply regrettable this is likely to cause serious damage to community cohesion in our country."
Is this really true, and if true, is it reasonable when, because of this entry-refusal of Naik, many or most "moderate Muslims" withdraw their support for community cohesion?
Islam is not a race but a choice. And it isn't something it's believers do as a side-show, but it is central in their life, their guarantee for a place in heaven they believe. And Islam teaches them to be loyal to their faith and its "Ummah", letting that take precedence over all other loyalties, when these are in opposition of it.
So that causes Islam-cohesion among Muslims, trumping for them community cohesion in every case where the 2 are in direct competition. And by now Islamic laws and values AND interests are ever more shown to be "at variance" with the laws, values, interests of countries like the UK.
And if Zakir Naik had not been refused would there have been more chance on community cohesion over Islam cohesion? Probably even less, considering what he has said already.
The Community cohesion Geert Wilders is after is cohesion through awareness of and loyalty to the laws, values and interests of democratic countries. By as many of their citizens as possible. Whereas Zakir Naik is after Islam-cohesion, by as many Muslims as possible, even when, or especially when, the 2 "cohesions" are in opposition to each other.
Ya, but they're letting him into our Country.
http://mooseandsquirrel.ca/2010/06/19/13:04/banned-from-britain-welcome-in-toronto-muslim-activist-zakir-naik-gets-top-conference-billing/#comments
Hmm..MCOB..as in macabre? Quite fitting..
"Islam is not a race but a choice."
An ideology, yes. But rarely a choice, Demsci!
If you can´t spread hate you can´t spread Islam. No wonder the British Muslims went into a hate and threath frenzy to keep the hate going.
I think I will just forgive them in order to stop the hate from growing further. ;-)
Maybe you are right Sheik Yer'mami, because apostates are considered to be traitors and to deserve the death-penalty. So where does that leave their choice?!
But being Muslim should be regarded as a choice, with all responsibilities attached to it.
And in conversations it is indeed represented as a choice by Muslims themselves. Because it is always denied by them that they are Muslims just because their parents were and they were forced to stay Muslims. No, they invariably claim to be Muslim because they "feel" it is the truth, the best way, and that somewhere in life they chose to be a Muslim.
Maybe we should emphasize the issue by routinely asking Muslims if they are Muslim by choice or by force or out of filial piety, or perhaps, in their view, by their genes.
Being Muslim by force, filial piety or through genes only are very invalid or illogical reasons. Such reasons should be exposed and discouraged vehemently.
And after they say it is their choice, then we may ask them with whom they feel most united, to what they feel most loyal to, even when their Islamic unity and loyalty are in conflict with the laws, values and interests of the countries they live in.
"And after they say it is their choice, then we may ask them with whom they feel most united, to what they feel most loyal to, even when their Islamic unity and loyalty are in conflict with the laws, values and interests of the countries they live in."
What's the point..They can lie,and lie again, as approbated in/by their new found hideology..
From the Muslim Council of Britain, as reported above:
"The tour would have been a golden opportunity for young Muslims who are eager to hear the true messages of Islam which promote understanding between communities."
Actually, this may be interpreted to mean that young Muslims will have had the chance to hear Zakir Naik clarify how Islam will brook no resistance, no mockery, no subordinate role anywhere, in any society, especially those comprising dar al-harb, the lands of unbelief. And this message of Muslim supremacy, menacing and utterly serious, should also be construed, by both Muslim and non-Muslim alike, as an entitlement, entirely merited, since it is commanded and willed by Allah. Tomorrow, Zakir Naik would say, belongs to the Muslims. And this is something that, in full clarity, all communities should understand, and accept without question, without resistance. This, in all likelihood, is the meaning of this assertion by the Muslim Council of Britain. It is to make clear the threat that Islam poses for societies of unbelief, and the inevitability of Islam's hegemony.
In Malay (Malaysia) language Zakar means Penis. Naik means Rising
. So, the Rising Penis not allowed in UK.
Are you snaiks speechwriter? lol..Send him a copy of your post. I'm sure he'll be enthralled.
Muslims seem to have a strange way with logic.A combination
of denial and twisted logic.An good example:As reported in the National Post,Iran summoned the Italian Ambassador to Tehran before last year's summit in L'Aquila,Italy,to complain about police interference with public protests.Tehran condemned the"suppressive actions which are clear breaches of freedoms and fundamentals of democracy." Get this.The Foreign Minister also "condemned the use of violence by Italian police against protesters and opponents
of the summit,and demanded the compliance of the Italian
government with its international obligations."
What a bunch of wackos!Unbelievable!
"Mind you, what Geert Wilders' Fitna did was quote from the Qur'an." -- headline
* Geert Wilders Speaks: Anti-Koran Film "Fitna" (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc
* Geert Wilders Speaks: Muslims & Tolerance (Part 2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W6twYw4E8w&feature=related
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Geert Wilders is a hero, and he is not afraid to speak the truth about islam.
he aims to dispel myths surrounding his religion [sic] in his talks.
Myths such as "mahoundianism is a religion", "mahoundianism is a religion of peace", "mahoundianism protects women's rights"?
I hope India bans this naik snake. This guy is so bad that he even is declared a hypocrite and apostate by Islamic clerics in India. This was after he declared that Muhammad( pig barf upon on him), was dead, among other speeches. The only thing he is good at is memorizing and quoting verse after verses from holy books. All done to impress his weak and gullible audiences.
I was going to make the same point, but you said it better than I would have. Well done.
Support the EDL marching in London this weekend.
With all their hypocritical pronouncements ,their unending diatribes against people who don't share their beliefs , their contempt for the people of every country they decide to move to ........
it's very difficult not to feel real hatred for them .
St. Patrick, I suppose you are right, and it isn't going to be enough. But my primary concern is with the majority of voters being reached and persuaded to be in favor of defending Democracy well enough against Islam and oppressed minorities in Islamic countries better. Then the leaders must follow the majority of voters.
Now, our population and leaders seem to take it for granted that there is no problem with Muslims and Islam is just "another religion".
Ever more forcing Muslims to make public choices will make them vulnerable when they say and do words/ actions that contradict those public choices. That helps.
The 'moderate' Muslim Council of Britain, set up with the help of the Government in 1997, has predictably complained about this banning order. That is, the supposedly moderate MCB has offered support to an extreme Islamist. The MCB has yet again defended extremists and the extreme. It has been doing this consistently since it was set up. This is no surprise because the MCB is a part of the extreme Muslim Brotherhood, which also encompasses Hamas and our very own Muslim Association of Britain.
Yes. You heard right. A peace conference. But peace, in Islam, is not what we take it to be. Peace is only achieved when the whole world 'submits to Allah'. Until that time, there will be war. Thus the peace conference’s primary aim is to make more and more people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, submit to Allah. Then, and only then, will there be peace. That is what is meant by an (Islamic) peace conference. To think this has anything to do with any other kinds of peace is the height of naivety.
In response to the banning of Dr Naik, the MCB has acted predictably. We have heard its warnings – its threats! – many times before:
i) Ban the Satanic Verses otherwise there will be ‘serious damage to community cohesion in our country’.
ii) Ban the Danish cartoons of Mohamed or there will be ‘serious damage to community cohesion in our country’
iii) Bring in more ‘hate laws’ or there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
iv) Let them build the super-mosque in Dudley otherwise there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
v) If you ban the burka there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
vi) If you do not allow halal meat here there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
vii) If you do not allow sharia law here there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'. viii) If you prosecute these Muslims there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
ix) If you decide to use ‘spy cameras’ in Muslim communities there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
x) If you don’t ban Geert Wilders from the UK there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
xi) If you don’t bow down to every Muslim warning and threat, then there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
Let’s not mess around here. What does ‘serious damage’ actually mean? It means riots, violence, demonstrations and even acts of terror. This is what the MCB is threatening. It is not warning us. It is not even prophesising events. It is hoping that these things will happen. It is encouraging these things to happen. That’s how the MCB’s collective mind works:
If you don’t do X, Y and Z, the ‘Muslim community’ will do A, B and C.
And the MCB has many times been true to its word.
Why are Muslims so susceptible to violence and ‘serious damage’? Is it something about their unique ‘oppression’ or something about their religion – Islam? I would say the latter. It is also something about their ultimate exemplar – Mohammed. He was a warrior, a Jew-hater and a mass killer. Fancy having such a person as the greatest exemplar of the whole religion.
The thing about the MCB’s accusation of the ‘double standards’ of not also banning Geert Wilders is that he has never explicitly, or even implicitly, encouraged violence, as Dr Naik most certainly has. Encouraging terrorism is very different from criticising the Koran and Islam generally – even if such words can lead to violence against Muslims. You cannot base legislation on flimsy prophesy. Dr Naik is a defender and rationaliser of jihad. Geert Wilders is a critic of Islam and the Koran. These two things are very different. Dr Naik is a ‘bigot’ about all non-Muslims and every Jew on earth - as he encourages all Muslims to be. Geert Wilders is not even a ‘bigot’, as the MCB suggests, about all Muslims, only about radical Muslims and the Koran itself. Can you really be a ‘bigot’ when the subjects of your bigotry are extremists and a very violent and obsessive religious book? In any case, how on earth will an Islamist ‘bigot’ encourage ‘community cohesion’? The mind boggles at such surreal claims from the MCB.
I’m not entirely sure either how Dr Naik’s visit to the UK will ‘promote understanding between communities’ considering what he has actually said about ‘non-believers’, Jews and just about all non-Muslims. Anyway. This is what the MCB thinks. There is no surprise there. Of course, when Dr Naik was reported to have said that ‘all Muslims should be terrorists’ he came out with a classic piece of taqiyya – it was ‘taken out of context’. Isn’t it strange that the positive things Muslims say, and are reported to have said, are never seen to to have been ‘taken out of context’. If he had said, ‘Love they non-Muslim neighbour’, and was reported to have said that, you can be guaranteed that he would not have claimed to have been ‘taken out of context’. It’s the same with quotes in the Koran. When a non-Muslim quotes the passage, ‘Cut off the finger tips of your enemies’, that will be said to have been taken out of context. However, when non-Muslims quote the oft-used, ‘To kill one man is like killing the whole of mankind’, no Muslim ever says that that is taken out of context. This is especially strange because the middle clause of that sentence from the Koran is always surgically and strategically removed by Muslims because it actually reads like this in full:
‘To kill one man, except for villainy in the land, is like killing the whole of mankind.’
What games Muslims play with us!
As for Dr Naik ‘dispelling the myths surrounding’ Islam. That is simply a euphemism for dispelling all the negative things which are said about Islam and the Koran. By definition - by Islamic definition -
negative views about Islam = based on ‘myths’ about Islam
positive views about Islam = based on true accounts of Islam
The logic of this is painfully simple.
Fine and informative post. Spot on distinction by you between someone like Geert Wilders and this Naik joker. And yes, Muslims will always demand more or we'll have the inevitable "or else," Islam is only about peace when it gets its way, will always be a death cult for a certain percentage of Muslims when they don't get their way (most of the rest will just engage in ad nauseam whining and self-pity), Muslims indeed play lots of word games and Mohammed was a truly malevolent human being. The wonder of it all to me is that more people in Britain, here in America and all the West don't see this. Islam is so obvious in its intentions and is so very warped that a blind and deaf man should be able to detect this.
The Muslim Council of Britain expresses concern about freedom of speech at a time when the Organisation of the Islamic Conference is doing all it can to ban free speech against Islam in the United Nations. Stuart Parsons
Dr Naik is a good talker,
he knows the truth about
the Koran,Hadith and Sira
very well...but dare not
admit it..that is why Dr Naik
dare not like to debate with
Dr Ali Sina over the forum on
net...
Dr Naik is good at trying to
psych the Indian Muslim in India..
Poor chap is between the devil and
the deep blue sea.....
As the "moderate" Muslim Council of Britain voiced no objection to the banning of "shock jock" Michael Savage, Baptist preacher Rev. Fred Phelps, Martha Stewart and Chris Brown, one presumes that it has no de jure opposition to people being refused entry to the UK because of their statements-only those of its own faith!
Terry