Print Page | Close Window

Rushdie

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Politics
Forum Name: Conspiracy Theories
Forum Discription: Theories that may or maynot bear relevance
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7429
Printed Date: 18 December 2014 at 8:39pm


Topic: Rushdie
Posted By: whatchsalman
Subject: Rushdie
Date Posted: 02 November 2006 at 4:33am
As salamu alaikum, I need help with this Rushdie Issue.
I set up a new blog at http://watchsalman.blogspot.com/

watchsalman dot blogspot dot com

Salman Rushdie Muslim Protection Watch

Due to the muslim and the iranian government failure to respond to the Salman Rushdie issue he is attacking Islam.
The purpose of this blog is to keep a watch on him and to inform muslims about where he livesand his movements.
Post information regarding this matter mailto://watchsalman@yahoo.com - here .

Please helpo me and send email to watchsalman@yahoo.com
watchsalman at yahoo dot com

Thank you, wa alaikum salam, Muslim.



Replies:
Posted By: ejdavid
Date Posted: 20 November 2006 at 9:32am
Watch

I don't believe you are even a Muslim. Why? Because this forum does not seem to attract Muslims who advocate murder to advance their religion. Sure, sure, I know for sure such Muslim exist in various forms and guises and in many places, and even in substantial numbers.

They don't seem to come to this place for recruitment or support, however. Find some Suicidal, Homicidal, Death Cult Arab Maniac site for your efforts, if they are real. You will find plenty of company.


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 3:25pm

The Gutter gurgles, again.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 21 April 2007 at 6:53am
The problem is that Salman Rusdie just loves this kind of attention.  He thrives on it. In fact, Iran "created" Salman Rusdie. I don't believe for a second anybody would have heard of him, without Iran and the fatwa against him.

His books ar
e silly. They  have little to no literary value. The only reason people have to read them, is his "poor persecuted writer" status.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 19 June 2007 at 8:58am

His books are silly. They  have little to no literary value. The only reason people have to read them, is his "poor persecuted writer" status.

Really impressed and surprised! You can at times also say something away from your fornication obsession.

Just amazed.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 19 June 2007 at 4:00pm

Originally posted by crasss

The problem is that Salman Rusdie just loves this kind of attention.  He thrives on it. In fact, Iran "created" Salman Rusdie. I don't believe for a second anybody would have heard of him, without Iran and the fatwa against him.

His books ar
e silly. They  have little to no literary value. The only reason people have to read them, is his "poor persecuted writer" status.

100% agree with you

The "Supreme leader of Iran", Ayatullah Khomeini issued a Fatwa to kill the writer for his blasphemies against Islam in his novel. Shortly after, Rushdie was protected by a large number of bodyguards, making it nearly impossible for anyone to harm him in any way. The Fatwa also resulted in Rushdie becoming very famous, constantly being mentioned on the News and being interviewed on Television, and making millions of dollars as so many people now wanted to read his books to see what he had to say. He also kept receiving awards for his "bravery" and "courage" and eventually became known as one of the best writers of all time...
When we consider the fact that the novel, "Satanic Verses" is nothing but a ridiculous and senseless tale, written by a man (Rushdie) who suffered from mental illness, and also considering the fact that thousands of other books existed that were just as anti-islamic as Rushdie's novel (if not more), you may start to ask yourself the question: "What was all the fuss about ?"
If Khomeini really wanted to kill Salman Rushdie, he could have easily had him assassinated using
Iran's powerful Secret Police (the Ittila'at) or his hundreds of other assassins all around the world. When we remind ourselves of the assassination of  Seyyed Moosawi (who was a Shiah scholar who converted to Sunni Islam) by the Shiahs, and the assassination of hundreds of the "enemies of the revolution" at home and abroad, we start to wonder why Khomeini did not do the same with Rushdie. The answer lies in the fact that Rushdie's book was written against Islam, not Shiism, and that his book, although ridiculous, could have some effect on some non-Muslims living in the West who had very little or no knowledge about the Religion of Islam. Surely, Khomeini didn't want Rushdie killed, but this was all part of a sinister plot to further demonize Islam in the West, and to actually protect Rushdie before it was too late (the best way of making Rushdie famous, which would result in his protection by all Western Governments was for an "Islamic fundementalist leader" to issue a Fatwa against the man, before anyone could even think of assassinating him).
Why would an eighty year old man –khomeini- who could barely rule and lead an entire country and had his hands tied up in looking after Governmental affairs spend his time reading a novel, eventually concluding after much analysis that the writer of the novel deserved to be killed? Infact, even if Rushdie's book was not a novel, but a serious book, it would still be suspicious enough that Khomeini would spend his time reading it. In fact, the novel had not even been published in Farsi, and since Khomeini couldn't speak English, he must have also had someone translate the novel for him... !
So let's just think about it. Iran, a country that was under threat from enemies at home and abroad and had more problems and troubles than probably any other country in the world at the time (as it just had a revolution and was then invaded by its neighbor, Iraq) had an eighty year old leader called Ayatullah Khomeini (who was very sick and was constantly taken to hospital). One day, this leader decides to read a novel, written by some apostate writer in the west. He had the book translated (or found a copy he could read). He then decided, after careful analysis, that the writer deserved to be killed... He then issued a Fatwa, calling on Muslims around the world to kill Salman Rushdie, making no attempt to do this himself (using his own assassins). As a direct result from the Fatwa, the writer (Salman Rushdie) becomes very rich, very famous, and very well protected. 
It is intresting to note that David Musa Pidcock, in his book Satanic Voices, Ancient and Modern concludes that Salman Rushdie was a member of a Satanic cult with links to Freemasonry. However, he fails to see the deeper conspiracy that becomes obvious once we take a close look at the above facts, and that is that Khomeini and Rushdie did what their Masters in France/Europe had ordered them. This was all a carefully planned conspiracy...



Posted By: C6H12O6
Date Posted: 02 July 2007 at 9:37am
can't stand this dude.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 03 July 2007 at 7:50am
Originally posted by Whisper

Really impressed and surprised! You can at times also say something away from your fornication obsession.

Just amazed.

Crass has a thesis that he often puts forth, but I have found lots of his posts intelligent and engaging, much like you.  I enjoy the both of you. 



Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 07 June 2008 at 5:24am
Originally posted by crasss

The problem is that Salman Rusdie just loves this kind of attention.  He thrives on it. In fact, Iran "created" Salman Rusdie. I don't believe for a second anybody would have heard of him, without Iran and the fatwa against him.

His books ar
e silly. They  have little to no literary value. The only reason people have to read them, is his "poor persecuted writer" status.

 
Applause !
 
I completley agree with the above post. The BEST way to react crackpots like Rushdie is not to react at all! to I-G-N-O-R-E them. They thrive on attention, even if it be bead-press or infamy.
 
Had it not been for the Fatwa, no one would have heard of him . . and he wouldnt have sold a single book. I know a gentleman, who's father knew Rushdie, back before the fatwa days. NO BODY had heard of him. His book was doing poorly, and he was reduced to giving his books away for free as "Gifts".
 
I think we should be ignoring the Dutch film too . . .and we should have ignored the Danish Cartoons as well . . . it was only due to the uproar that the cartoons starting revolving via emails etc. And then EVERY paper started to publish them. . . hence an entire cycle.
 
Honestly speaking, causing an uproar, burning tyres etc will not "ban" such media. . . they just add fuel to the fire and promote them.


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 9:28am
Oh, whatchsalman, I thought Islam was the religion of peace?  You are aiding and abetting the murder of a man.  Geez, and you wonder why so many in the West are concerned regarding Islam.

Without appreciation!Angry

Originally posted by whatchsalman

As salamu alaikum, I need help with this Rushdie Issue.
I set up a new blog at http://watchsalman.blogspot.com/

watchsalman dot blogspot dot com

Salman Rushdie Muslim Protection Watch

Due to the muslim and the iranian government failure to respond to the Salman Rushdie issue he is attacking Islam.
The purpose of this blog is to keep a watch on him and to inform muslims about where he livesand his movements.
Post information regarding this matter mailto://watchsalman@yahoo.com - here .

Please helpo me and send email to watchsalman@yahoo.com
watchsalman at yahoo dot com

Thank you, wa alaikum salam, Muslim.


-------------
Curious


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 9:31am
Rushdie is hilarious, and jabs at religion in a Monty Python manner.  This is western satire.

Watch some old Monty Python flicks, The Life of Brian for insight.LOL

LOL: you should enjoy this slap against the religious crusades:
http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=montypythonandtheholygrail

Hilarious.Smile

Just remember, we have been satarizing politicians, religions, and celebrities for a very long time.  Catholics use to really catch it during the Potato Famine.


-------------
Curious


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 10:33am
RUSH  DIE

-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 2:29pm
Originally posted by nu001

RUSH  DIE


Now just keep repeating after me: "Islam is a religion of peace.  Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. "

Feel better now???  Has the light turned on yet???Clap


-------------
Curious


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 16 July 2008 at 8:38pm
That's his name, not my opinion. Human being are inteligent creature (repeat 10 times, feel better, get more int)

-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 6:50am
LOL, yes, I understood the double entendre, and your implication, hence my post.  As to you insult, it is "intelligent." When insulting another's intelligence, it helps if you spell it correctly.Wink


-------------
Curious


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 10:26am
Didn't mean to insult though. Sorry if you felt so. I am not so intelligent at all. Just average to earn my bread, by the grace of Allah. Keep smiling.
 
Smile


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 11:41am
Originally posted by aspacia

Rushdie is hilarious, and jabs at religion in a Monty Python manner.  This is western satire.

Watch some old Monty Python flicks, The Life of Brian for insight.LOL

LOL: you should enjoy this slap against the religious crusades:
http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=montypythonandtheholygrail

Hilarious.Smile

.
 
You finding Rushdie and Life of Brian "Hilarious" says a lot about your own sense of 'humour'. Despite all the hullabaloo about Monty Python, I fail to see whats so hilarious about it! There are times when it is downright unfunny and simply disgusting! I fail to understand how 5 minutes of screen time dedicated to vomitting is hilarious (beginning of life) Only the HolyGrail was relatively funny, but that too, in comparison. Give me Blackadder any day. 
 
Though I will agree that there throughout the entire flick, I laughed at perhaps 1 or 2 scenes (and I'm not a christian nor a jew, so my view was neutral). . . Hardly considered that hilarious OR worthy of time. They might have the accidental joke or two, but otherwise naah. 
 
I dont think Rushdie OR Monty Python do justice to British Humour.
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 17 July 2008 at 4:36pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis

Originally posted by aspacia

Rushdie is hilarious, and jabs at religion in a Monty Python manner.  This is western satire.

Watch some old Monty Python flicks, The Life of Brian for insight.LOL

LOL: you should enjoy this slap against the religious crusades:
http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=montypythonandtheholygrail

Hilarious.Smile

.
 
You finding Rushdie and Life of Brian "Hilarious" says a lot about your own sense of 'humour'. Despite all the hullabaloo about Monty Python, I fail to see whats so hilarious about it! There are times when it is downright unfunny and simply disgusting! I fail to understand how 5 minutes of screen time dedicated to vomitting is hilarious (beginning of life) Only the HolyGrail was relatively funny, but that too, in comparison. Give me Blackadder any day. 
 
Though I will agree that there throughout the entire flick, I laughed at perhaps 1 or 2 scenes (and I'm not a christian nor a jew, so my view was neutral). . . Hardly considered that hilarious OR worthy of time. They might have the accidental joke or two, but otherwise naah. 
 
I dont think Rushdie OR Monty Python do justice to British Humour.
 
 


I am a westerner, and hence I generally understand British wit, especially since I have numerous UK relatives.  Monty Python grossed millions in the West, and we own three of these movies.  My point is, I doubt that an individual from your neck of the woods really understands their humor, just as I do not understand what is funny regarding the negative caricatures of Christians and Jews in Arab media.


Also, I am a Deist.


-------------
Curious


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 10:29am
I suppose we should let him be. The poor chap seems to be jumping just on your attention and, of course, for the assumed superiority of his wit and humour.
 
Something on which all pobre football hooligans thrive on.


-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: ejdavid3
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 6:53pm
aspacia - You wrote: "This is western satire." Various others post about "Death To Rushdie" from their family rec-rooms. [Remember Duanes World]

Two billion Muslims and they never did get Rushdie? Me thinks they did not much give a damn.


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 19 July 2008 at 9:13pm
Relax. Pobre part time mothers can create only such specimen.

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 5:58am
 


I am a westerner, and hence I generally understand British wit, especially since I have numerous UK relatives.  Monty Python grossed millions in the West, and we own three of these movies.  My point is, I doubt that an individual from your neck of the woods really understands their humor, just as I do not understand what is funny regarding the negative caricatures of Christians and Jews in Arab media.


Also, I am a Deist.
 
I would have you know that "my" neck of the woods have had British Tyrann... oops, I meant Influence for 200+ yrs. Plus as long as a person has a basic knowledge of the issue being poked at, and has a sense of humour - he/she will find a good joke funny. Which is why even a homophobe can/may laugh at a joke by Ellen Degeneres - despite disagreeing with her.
 
The reasons why Monty Python broke all records was because they used a different approach, and got rave-reviews. And we all know how a hype can be created. They also were gutsy . . . and audiences like that. And the reason I gave u an example of Blackadder was bcz despite being influenced by Monty Python - the same person who finds MP unfunny, finds the other funny.
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 10:12am
Originally posted by Chrysalis

 


I am a westerner, and hence I generally understand British wit, especially since I have numerous UK relatives.  Monty Python grossed millions in the West, and we own three of these movies.  My point is, I doubt that an individual from your neck of the woods really understands their humor, just as I do not understand what is funny regarding the negative caricatures of Christians and Jews in Arab media.


Also, I am a Deist.
 
I would have you know that "my" neck of the woods have had British Tyrann... oops, I meant Influence for 200+ yrs.


Yes, the British controlled "The Jewel in the Crown" (India) for 300 years, and did horribly discriminate against the indigenous people.  Ghandi  was subject to this discrimination. Hey, they did introduce you to the Parliamentary system, and outlawed suttee.

Plus as long as a person has a basic knowledge of the issue being poked at, and has a sense of humour - he/she will find a good joke funny. Which is why even a homophobe can/may laugh at a joke by Ellen Degeneres - despite disagreeing with her.

My point is that many Westerners ridicule religions, and especially politicians,  and have done so for a long time, especially in the U.S.  You may have not been exposed to our humor. 

I am not a homophobe, and am an advocate for gay rights, however, I never found Ellen funny, and neither did my other half.
 
The reasons why Monty Python broke all records was because they used a different approach, and got rave-reviews. And we all know how a hype can be created. They also were gutsy . . . and audiences like that. And the reason I gave u an example of Blackadder was bcz despite being influenced by Monty Python - the same person who finds MP unfunny, finds the other funny.


Never saw Blackadder. 
 


Perhaps it was the new approach, however we often love movies the critics hate, and hate movies the critics love.  Annie Hall comes to mind.Wink


-------------
Curious


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 22 July 2008 at 10:52am


 
 Hey, they did introduce you to the Parliamentary system, and outlawed suttee.
 
 
Parliamentary system doesnt work for me, and Islam outlawed stuff like that centuries ago. . . no biggie.

 

I am not a homophobe, and am an advocate for gay rights, however, I never found Ellen funny, and neither did my other half.
 
Just an example dude/ette.
 

Never saw Blackadder. 
 
 
Too bad!. . . ur missing out. Smile


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 22 July 2008 at 2:16pm
 Hey, they did introduce you to the Parliamentary system
 
As if they never had their far superior PANCHAYAT SYSTEM run since the Sarsawati period - a good 3400 years ago.
 
Are you an absoloute utter idiot or just trying to graduate to that level with such ignorant assertions? We are not all peasants here, if you wish to parley with us you have to be just a wee bit serious about what you blow out of your mouth.


-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 22 July 2008 at 2:29pm
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=52384&FID=82 - aspacia
Groupie
 
I have all my sympathies with your idiotic government's plight in Afghanistan. I am lost for words for offering my very sincere condolence not just for what yu are facing in my country, but far more for what you are going to face on your very own Aunt Ekanami front.
Good luck!


-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 23 July 2008 at 9:30am
Originally posted by Whisper

 Hey, they did introduce you to the Parliamentary system
 
As if they never had their far superior PANCHAYAT SYSTEM run since the Sarsawati period - a good 3400 years ago.


Similar to the monarchial system of many European lands, except England after the Magna Carta:  http://www.country-studies.com/nepal/the-panchayat-system.html

Thanks for reminding me about this, especially since it was barely touched on in my history class.

Why is this system superior to the parlimentary system?
 
Are you an absoloute utter idiot or just trying to graduate to that level with such ignorant assertions? We are not all peasants here, if you wish to parley with us you have to be just a wee bit serious about what you blow out of your mouth.


Again with the personal attacks.  This is typical when another really has no refute to a claim.

I have limited background regarding India and the Middle-East, only about two semester's worth. If you know regarding far more regarding an issue, or historical background information that I missed, I am all ears.

No one person can possible know all history, or all about any other discipline.




-------------
Curious


Posted By: aspacia
Date Posted: 23 July 2008 at 10:13am
Originally posted by Whisper

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=52384&FID=82 - I have all my sympathies with your idiotic government's plight in Afghanistan. I am lost for words for offering my very sincere condolence not just for what yu are facing in my country, but far more for what you are going to face on your very own Aunt Ekanami front.
Good luck!


Yep, our economy sucks at the moment, but heck, it sucked after 9/11 too.  At the moment oil prices are dropping, and the stock market is making a rally, after Wbya call for the overturn of offshore drilling.


-------------
Curious


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 July 2008 at 10:19am
Originally posted by Chrysalis

Parliamentary system doesnt work for me, and Islam outlawed stuff like that centuries ago. . . no biggie
Can you confirm that Islam outlawed the parliamentary system?  If that is so, then are Muslims allowed to vote in parliamentary elections?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 24 July 2008 at 4:46am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Parliamentary system doesnt work for me, and Islam outlawed stuff like that centuries ago. . . no biggie
Can you confirm that Islam outlawed the parliamentary system?  If that is so, then are Muslims allowed to vote in parliamentary elections?
 
Hello Ron.
 
Whoops!. . .I guess my statement was a little confusing. I was adderessing 2 seperate issues ; parliament & suttee.
 
By, 'Islam outlawed stuff like that centuries ago' - I was referring to practises like Suttee. Which aspacia said the British 'Raj' banned. . . I was not referring to Parliamentary elections.
 
And yes, Muslims are allowed to vote in the elections of thier respective States/Countries - whether the candidates are muslim or nonmuslim - doesnt matter. Also, tho my knowlesge of govts/parliaments etc is weak, Islam is not specifically against different types of governments, as long as they are working for the good of the people.
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Shema
Date Posted: 06 March 2010 at 5:54pm
i agree with u your argument is worth looking into


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 04 June 2010 at 3:08pm
Guess what. Never heard of this guy. Will have to Google 'em up. Tongue

Can only recall mom once mentioning this name sometime in a discussion....shoulda paid a little more attention > >


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 14 June 2010 at 11:02am
Read his book in college. Very interesting read.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 June 2010 at 7:27pm
I read it.  So did my Dad -- part of it, anyway.  I don't think he finished it.  It was okay, but, I didn't much care for the "magical realism" aspect of it.  I thought it would have been a better book if he had just stuck with a straightforward reimagining of Muhammad's life, perhaps as a modern allegory.
 
But the key point is that neither my Dad nor I would have bothered to read it, if it weren't for the fuss that Muslims made about it.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 12:49am
I know of the guy, hype or no hype haven't read any of his books.

-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 8:46am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

 
But the key point is that neither my Dad nor I would have bothered to read it, if it weren't for the fuss that Muslims made about it.


This is true for a majority of his readers. Most of his sales can be attributed to the Ayatollah . . . good marketing for Rushdie.


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 9:25am
I remember when the Satanic Verses was first published. It caused a huge outcry here in the UK..

I am amazed that it has upset muslims tbh. It is a book based on magical realism and has little/nothing to do with Muhammed(pbuh) BUt if one person objects then the others jump on the bandwagon. THe disturbances remind me of some British football hooligans.

I did get the book from the library but it didn't make much sense. There is a general reference to UK immigration throughout it.

Some of his other books are really good though. He is mainly a childrens author.

Many non-muslim people smiled when he received his knighthood from the Queen..as if in anticipation for the inevitable uproar again.

Thing is..no-one can complain in this age. Free speech is
for everyone, not just the select few.

As for Rushdie..he is a very intelligent man that denied Islam for a time. No-one is really sure if he went back to Islam or not. I very much doubt it. And tbh I don;t really care if he did or not.



-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:00am
So Martha,

What did he do to deserve knighthood anyways? lol


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 4:51pm
Originally posted by martha

I am amazed that it has upset muslims tbh. It is a book based on magical realism and has little/nothing to do with Muhammed(pbuh)
 
I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing.  Muhammad is a major character in the book, under the pseudonym of "Mahound" (which itself seems to be an insulting choice, given Islam's rather dim view of hounds).  And although in the beginning Mahound is portrayed as sincere and well-intentioned, suspicions are raised later in the novel about the number of "revelations" (and their timing) that always seem to benefit Mahound.  The clear implication is that Mahound is abusing his authority and perhaps even inventing Messages for his own purposes.
 
It's not surprising at all that Muslims would want to suppress this kind of thinking.  Once you start questioning the Prophet's motivations, the whole foundation of Islam crumbles.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 9:35pm
Ron,

I think that the fact that many people in the west really don't care about the sensitivities of other peoples' beliefs it is clearly not odd for you to not understand why people may be insulted.

I do think that making a big deal out of something like this actually only helps fuel it. It would be better to ignore it ... it would have gone away.

And I became a Muslim and questioned alot about a lot of things. And no the foundation did not crumble.  You are wrong. Just cause people felt it was degrading does not mean they were afraid. That causation is not supported.


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 9:55pm
Someone picked this lost thread...I am wondering why?

This is my take on the "knighthood" and the whole drama!

…I saw it was the greatest publicity stunt ever pulled by any writer/publisher in the history of publishing world in a down economy that was in eighties if anyone cares to remember ... as sawtul khilafa (BTW I miss him a lot for some his insights and of course late brother Sasha too) wrote against Khomeini's moronic Fatwa without reading the book himself...

I know just Khomeini uttering the fatwa sent the sale of the book into stratosphere overnight. Even my my boss brought up the subject in a sly way all I had to do was ask him couple or three questions about the background and he was dumbfounded and speechless otherwise extremely smart in his profession but living in total jahillia !

I wish he had kept his mouth shut more than Rushdie himself! He became accessory to the crime by default making a knight out of a pawn of a gutter sniper...that does happen on chess board but this became mountain of a molehill! I had to read the book cuz of my boss...Rushdie is talking about the miseries of the subcontinental immigrants in UK that no one would give a crap in the US in those days...He wrote tons of expletives about the Brits, their Prime Minister and the royals may be Queen too and what have you while living among them!
 The way he composed I bet most of the details would totally be Greek to the westerners but there they were just glued to his ranting out of sheer hate for Khomeini consequently the prophet and the then the religion!
The western orientalists have for centuries been churning that yarn...Rushdie  sent to UK by his Jahil father at low teens was just the seed he sowed for his own ticket to hell...
Khomeini had to do something more radical to prove his credentials to the masses in that part of the world...BTW that turned out to be the dumbest thing except for himself that gave a shot in the arm of his regime shattered in 9 years long years of war with Iraq... and his gamble paid off for a temporary lead in region for Islamic polity...Then it became a fashion for everyone to throw two cents in and the flood gates of demonstrators were opened ... the rest of the Muslims who were not well versed played catch up or got caught off guard and reacted as in any ghetto would act with heard mentality...

Khomeni's regime got big boost out of this for free and he took the helm as unchallenged leader of the Islamic world and the British Jewish publisher made hay and laughed all the way to the bank so did the British exchequer in VATs...

I can say with certainty the devil himself was directing this conspiracy for real!

On one side being a Shiit cult leader and other Rushdie a non Muslim born in British Indian colony where most Muslims were border line anyways…I personally know whole bunch who would sell their souls to the Brits for money and UK domicile as many did! Most people who went for the British tutelage came back as alcoholics and derelicts that further messed up the so called free country Pakistan!

The west in general and the Brits in particular felt elated for what they got away with and proof came when the Queen accepted the knighting committee’ nomination run by the Z’nists …was a final slap in face from the antagonist 

It will take time for the sick Muslim commonwealth to be well and be able to command respect! It is a long slog from the bondage of Jahillia to faith & freedom and the Anglos are doing a good job! It was nothing new but addition of z'nists in the calculus making it bit complicated!

After the Free Gaza flotilla case the leadership may be shaping up back in the same people whose forefathers lost it! It is gonna take time ...

One can’t help but observe the sea change of the respect Chinese have earned in less than half a century!

Does anyone think now any western publisher along with their royalty can get away with by slandering Mao even with things he did and all the bad blood between them of war notwithstanding !


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 11:24pm
Originally posted by Gibbs

Read his book in college. Very interesting read.

It quite is interesting that all the name calling was interesting...really no kidding!
Would you mind elaborating what part sticks in your mind that was interesting?


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 11:45pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I read it.  So did my Dad -- part of it, anyway.  I don't think he finished it.  It was okay, but, I didn't much care for the "magical realism" aspect of it.  I thought it would have been a better book if he had just stuck with a straightforward reimagining of Muhammad's life, perhaps as a modern allegory.
 
But the key point is that neither my Dad nor I would have bothered to read it, if it weren't for the fuss that Muslims made about it.

May be you can try your hand at it with your ideas, you are pretty good yourself...It might make yourself rich and famous particularly when the so called "overseas  contingency operation" aka Bush's war on terror is going on in full force! And the hapless Muslims are in much worse shape now! Only thing common is the economy in doldrums like the eighties!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 12:58am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by martha

I am amazed that it has upset muslims tbh. It is a book based on magical realism and has little/nothing to do with Muhammed(pbuh)
 
I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing.  Muhammad is a major character in the book, under the pseudonym of "Mahound" (which itself seems to be an insulting choice, given Islam's rather dim view of hounds).  And although in the beginning Mahound is portrayed as sincere and well-intentioned, suspicions are raised later in the novel about the number of "revelations" (and their timing) that always seem to benefit Mahound.  The clear implication is that Mahound is abusing his authority and perhaps even inventing Messages for his own purposes.
 
It's not surprising at all that Muslims would want to suppress this kind of thinking.  Once you start questioning the Prophet's motivations, the whole foundation of Islam crumbles.

The use of "Mahound" is nothing new if you care to research this! The work of  Christian missionaries who followed the colonizers used that derisively in Indian colonial times and used to call Muslims either Moslems (which stood for the meaning for mistreated in local language Urdu) or Mohammedans cuz they instigated Muslims are worshipers of Muhammad(s) like Christians doing to Jesus Christ which in itself stands in purview of your thread
in the interfaith forum_posts.asp?TID=15574 - Muhammad as a partner with Allah ...
And as far Muslims after being pushed down to bottom of the totem pole in Indian polity what the Brit masters told them to do- akin to eating swine while in starvation and subjugation-some of the newly educated in English end up accepting that label of Muhammadan cuz of the forced devolution and degeneration Islamic knowledge level of the subjects! The case in point is MAO College in Aligarh India! It is Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College set up by another 'knight' Sir Syed Ahmed Khan cuz he did what the white masters told him to do! It is part of Indian history!
BTW I am not puttin all the monkeys on Brits back... I hold the so called Muslim rulers before Brits more guilty for not educating the masses when they had the biggest economy in the world under them and they just blew it in the  entertaiment and lost it all! If they could built Taj Mahal they sure could do what I say should have!
And suppression thing LOL...if you want join hands with Rushdies and his zionist helpers you are more than welcome to it!

Muhammad and his companion had full control on the information that you/Rushdie think it was somehow questionable which in reality it is not!

 What was so difficult to eliminate such info from the get go!

 If a an oaf living in lap of west says something doesn't mean it is the truth!

 I see search of truth in the halls of Congress going every day and in WH press briefings and no one gets any!
The nation being robbed of trillions and there being no case and trace...
Clinton getting bent out of shape for hours and still claiming he didn't have sex with Monica...That is the situation of the kind of truth you live with...
All I can say to you is that much ado about nothing...
You have some heart burn about  Muhammad, it kind of late for that; too much water has flown under that bridge! Can't change the history and facts !
OK if you van clearly articulate the issue exactly what it is bother the heck out of you and no conspiracies please! and no self generated fables that westerners are good at!
Make a case and call Rushdie if you like! What do you mean by motivations?
Pretty soon you will be questioning all of us's motivations for being here? That will be quite funny!
Lay your cards on the table whatever that you got up your sleeve! So we know your motivations first!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 9:38am

Originally posted by Sign*Reader

What do you mean by motivations?

I was referring to the assumption that Muhammad was sincere and honest in his claim that the Quran came from God, and that it wasn't just a story he made up for his own purposes.  This is the assumption that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_the_Persian - Salman the Persian calls into question in Chapter 6 of the Satanic Verses, "Return to Jahilia".



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

It's not surprising at all that Muslims would want to suppress this kind of thinking.  Once you start questioning the Prophet's motivations, the whole foundation of Islam crumbles.


These are your words ...Rushdie's motivations were crystal clear,
so are the Muslims!
The prophet(s) did face his questioners head on his motivations for 23 years out which 13 were with the power of his delivery facing the hostile audiences and 10 on marshaling the field against the belligerent enemy...
There after what his companions did is enshrined on the gloriously unparalleled history of chivalry!
That doesn't need anyone likes of yous approval!
It was the love of Islam and way of Muhammad that made them the masters of the realm and then they left his way and became despicable as we see them these days!
So I see to you the motivation of Rushdie, his publishers and his queen are non sequitur but Muhammad's motivations alluded in a fictive book are and can be used like a bludgeon against the foundation of Islam...

WOW you are hell of a judge of the kangaroo court! What a logic of Cancerian lunatic? LOL

You have truly shown your colors finally! Does it matter now if you are not a  Christian but as you say humanist, add to it Muhammadphobe also cuz that is what the whole colonial thinking was based on! You can't get away with this!



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 4:56pm
The country that nurtured and knighted the stinker Rush die has this much fear of a gentle soul like Dr Zakir to refuse his entry! That is true definition of a country touting freedom of speech! LOL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10357263.stm - Legal challenge to ban on Muslim preacher Zakir Naik

“This ban shows how this government is leading ‘extremist’ secular anti-Islam policy within Europe. Dr Naik is an Islamic speaker who specialises in mutually respectful, robust, interfaith debate and dialogue and is famed for taking questions from all comers. He is largely seen as apolitical and is famously non-violent. Hence, to ban Dr Naik’s presentation of Islam is a sign of extreme intolerance and hatred.”

“The decision is hypocritical because the UK bans the likes of Dr Naik but allows anti-Islam ‘hate preachers’ like Geert Wilders to speak in Parliament.”

“The government's decision is yet further proof that Western governments are unable to convince people of their values without silencing opposing or competing views. It flies in the face of their proud talk about ‘free speech’, which is frequently used as a fig leaf to justify attacks on Islam.”


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 21 June 2010 at 2:39am
Salams Sign*

I completely disagree with your above post. You really do like to incite your own hatred to all that doesn't agree with your view.

You hate the British, you hate non-muslims...in fact I am not sure who you do like .

The UK government have every right to exclude Zakir IF they feel he is a threat. This 'gentle soul' as you describe him has had 20 fatwa's issued in the US alone!

WHat we should realise is that being a scholar does not mean they hold to sound Islamic doctrine. Muslims should preserve God's word, not make up their own for their own publicity and wealth.

THe UK is a small country in comparison to the US. It is the 'kafir's' right to protect his family, home and country from anyone that causes a threat, including this Zakir if necessary. So let the UK government do as they like thanks, they are NOT affecting your daily life are they?

NB Please don't reply with saying what bad things the Brits did centuries ago...it is rather boring. You need to change the record brother.

Salams.




-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 21 June 2010 at 8:22am
Originally posted by martha

Salams Sign*

The UK government have every right to exclude Zakir IF they feel he is a threat. This 'gentle soul' as you describe him has had 20 fatwa's issued in the US alone!

WHat we should realise is that being a scholar does not mean they hold to sound Islamic doctrine. Muslims should preserve God's word, not make up their own for their own publicity and wealth.

THe UK is a small country in comparison to the US. It is the 'kafir's' right to protect his family, home and country from anyone that causes a threat, including this Zakir if necessary. So let the UK government do as they like thanks, they are NOT affecting your daily life are they?



Actually in this case Sis, I think Sign gave an appropriate example of Zakir Naik and the double-standards regarding "Freedom of Speech". Its okay to malign certain religions while its not okay to express opinions about UBL and Jews ? (I am not condoning Anti-Jewism, just giving an e.g.)

Either it should be a blanket policy allowing F.O.E for ALL people regardless of their background - OR the Govt should curb any/all insults/malign . . . . 

If Salman Rushdie has a right to express himself - the same courtesy should be extended to Dr. Naik. Otherwise the British Govt should simply stop blowing the trumpet of Freedom of Speech . . .




-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 21 June 2010 at 8:54am
Originally posted by martha

Salams Sign*

I completely disagree with your above post. You really do like to incite your own hatred to all that doesn't agree with your view.
I agree with you 100% that you have that right to disagree. You have to prove the part incite though! Some how I am seeing not martha but Theresa May herself!

You hate the British, you hate non-muslims...in fact I am not sure who you do like .
The days of divine rights of Brits are over so get over that! You don't need to get bent out shape unless you clearly define the precedent first about hate, a broad generalized statement will make you look foolish...You to be arbiter who would I love or hate is preposterous!
You don't need to be sure of anything but just yourself if you can!


The UK government have every right to exclude Zakir IF they feel he is a threat.
That is right and that is the point.  What happened to the freedom of speech mantra?
 This 'gentle soul' as you describe him has had 20 fatwa's issued in the US alone!
Fill in the details what 20 Fatwas? BTW he is no Mufti, he lectures and answers people's questions about things other smaty pants don't have the answers! Too bad if people are afraid to match his wits!
I think it will be great to see Mrs. Mays and Dr. Naik debate at some neutral location!

WHat we should realise is that being a scholar does not mean they hold to sound Islamic doctrine. Muslims should preserve God's word, not make up their own for their own publicity and wealth.
THe UK is a small country in comparison to the US. It is the 'kafir's' right to protect his family, home and country from anyone that causes a threat, including this Zakir if necessary.
What UK's doing in Afghanistan and did in Iraq if it is small country and wants to mind her business? "Kafir" point is non sequitur martha
So let the UK government do as they like thanks, they are NOT affecting your daily life are they?
True! I do this for kicks

NB Please don't reply with saying what bad things the Brits did centuries ago...it is rather boring. You need to change the record brother.
It is case by case basis...I hate to tell you don't let your personal problems color this forum discussions!
 I couldn't care less what the Brits or any empire did centuries ago...
When there is political discussion on issues there are no holy cows..It is like going to a doctor's office with a complaint and not strip down give blood or pee sample when ordered cuz that will reveal some secrets or misconduct but still want the Rx for disease to go away...LOL

martha take some thing to relax, it is just internet debate aka running in special Olympics



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 June 2010 at 5:22pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis

Actually in this case Sis, I think Sign gave an appropriate example of Zakir Naik and the double-standards regarding "Freedom of Speech". Its okay to malign certain religions while its not okay to express opinions about UBL and Jews ? (I am not condoning Anti-Jewism, just giving an e.g.)
 
This has nothing to do with maligning religions.  Zakir Naik was banned because he supports and advocates terrorism.  Rushdie does not.  Any comparison is ludicrous.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 21 June 2010 at 8:02pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Actually in this case Sis, I think Sign gave an appropriate example of Zakir Naik and the double-standards regarding "Freedom of Speech". Its okay to malign certain religions while its not okay to express opinions about UBL and Jews ? (I am not condoning Anti-Jewism, just giving an e.g.)
 
This has nothing to do with maligning religions.  Zakir Naik was banned because he supports and advocates terrorism.  Rushdie does not.  Any comparison is ludicrous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack - Terrorism really ! may be look at this first!
 You don't have a religion so you don't get to vote that you don't understand!
BTW Can I use Rushie's TSV language on you to make a point in next round so you may not complain?

It is yes or no prop cuz you seem to be so well versed about Rushdie stuff!
 
And where Dr. Zakir is supporting terrorism, ?
If you saw some rhetorical answers to a question thrown in his face then you are really catching on straws!

He is an Indian Muslim he would be in slammer in a heart beat if there was any proof about his terrorism advocacy...he is not sitting in some safe haven that US Uk doesn't have access to!

Why don't Mrs Mays have him arrested when he lands there with the charge sheet in hand!
What could be better opportunity than that?

Don't you know... Arrogance is one thing, ignorance is another, combining them seldom causes shame as that takes a conscience...And faithless people lack that.Period

I am picking up a sociopath's drivel in dire need of some choice compliments from TSVs language that is so lovely for all the western hypocrites!

Are you sure you are not a closet zionist troll?
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CHP_ADM%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 23 June 2010 at 12:56am
 
This has nothing to do with maligning religions.  Zakir Naik was banned because he supports and advocates terrorism.  Rushdie does not.  Any comparison is ludicrous.


Anyone who has seen that lecture knows it is not true and that he never advocated terrorism in his lecture. This video is years old.

I have been following his videos and lectures since the start. You watch a couple of vids (while you may disagree with his views) you will realize that he most certainly is not one of the terrorism advocating preachers.


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 23 June 2010 at 2:44am
Originally posted by Sign*Reader

Originally posted by martha

Salams Sign*

I completely disagree with your above post. You really do like to incite your own hatred to all that doesn't agree with your view.
I agree with you 100% that you have that right to disagree. You have to prove the part incite though! Some how I am seeing not martha but Theresa May herself!
Salams Sign*I don;'t need to prove anything here. The fact is you  always ..hmm...mainly write in a negative  and argumentative way. You cannot deny that. Whisper (bless him) was your greatest teacher. I just look forward to the day when you mellow and become more forgiving to those that don't fit in with your ideas. TO be so cross all the time is not good . Of course, not having met you, it is difficult to see the REAL you, you could be a cuddly, loveable, cheery blokey. Forums never bring out the REAL persona.
 
 You hate the British, you hate non-muslims...in fact I am not sure who you do like .
The days of divine rights of Brits are over so get over that! You don't need to get bent out shape unless you clearly define the precedent first about hate, a broad generalized statement will make you look foolish...You to be arbiter who would I love or hate is preposterous!
You don't need to be sure of anything but just yourself if you can!

Sign* Your first sentence makes me laugh. I don;t need to get over anything regarding British rule. THat is history. We both agree certain events were wrong and should not be repeated. BUt it is you who keeps bringing up the past, I have,since being in this forum,  always said we must move forward if the world is to become a better place. I am trying to make it so...can you try to do the same please?
The UK government have every right to exclude Zakir IF they feel he is a threat.
That is right and that is the point.  What happened to the freedom of speech mantra?
Freedom of speech will inevitably lead to Freedom on making choices. Therasa May has made her judgement on what she undestands to be true about Zakir. And sure, if I were her I would do the same. Not enough is known here  about him by the general public/government. With that in mind it would be foolish to allow a possible enemy into the camp. Neither would you if for example  Geert Wilders wanted to 'fly in'..would you welcome him with open arms? No of course you wouldn't. So it is the same in this instance.
The best way to handle this Theresa May situation would be for all muslims to be calm, write to her maybe so she understands who this Zakir fellow is. Certainly by complaining about the decision she has made will just add more fuel to the fire. SHe is not likely to change her mind at present, is she?
 This 'gentle soul' as you describe him has had 20 fatwa's issued in the US alone!
Fill in the details what 20 Fatwas? BTW he is no Mufti, he lectures and answers people's questions about things other smaty pants don't have the answers! Too bad if people are afraid to match his wits!
I think it will be great to see Mrs. Mays and Dr. Naik debate at some neutral location!
Right, he is no mufti, he just answers questions. BUt with the mish mash of hadiths..who's to say he answers anything correctly? Does any mufti or scholar? Sure, I know he is well thought of by many of the asian continent. And sure..I think it would be a great idea if he had a tete a tete with Theresa.
I am not an American muslim and rely upon Wiki here for the following.
 
Fatwas

In August 2008, /wiki/Darul_Uloom_Deoband - Darul Uloom Deoband issued a fatwa stating: "The statements made by Dr Zakir Naik indicate that he is a preacher of Ghair Muqallidin. One should not rely upon his speeches." #cite_note-46 - [47]

The Shariah Board of America has also issued more than 20 fatwas against Naik on their website. They believe Naik has gone astray, as he is not a scholar and issues Islamic teachings without authority or any knowledge to do so, which is dangerous to Islam; "Naik is known for discussions on comparative religions. He is not a qualified Aalim of deen. His comments on fiqh have no merit. If it is true that he condemned the fiqh of the Imams, then that in itself is a clear indication of his lack of fiqh and understanding of Shairah. We have come across a fatwa from Darul Ifta Jamia Binnoria, Pakistan regarding Zakir Naik not being a certified Aalim of Deen. He should consult with Ulama in his endeavor of propagating deen." #cite_note-47 - [48] #cite_note-48 - [49]

In November 2008 the Lucknow based cleric Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali issued a fatwa against Naik, describing Naik as a " /wiki/Kafir - Kafir " (non-believer) and stating in the fatwa, that Naik should be ex-communicated from Islam. He argued that "Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain" and that Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists. Naik, however, said that his speeches were misquoted and that he was allegedly targeted by people with vested interests and said of the fatwa "fatwas mean nothing. They should also issue fatwas against Imam Bukhari. Some clerics who have limited understanding of Islam are doing these things. It doesn't affect me". The All-India Sunni Board and Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani Foundation have also defended Naik.

I expect Mrs Mays relied upon similar sources(rightly or wrongly) and has made her judgement accordingly for the welfare and security of the UK. I would imagine the general public are relieved. The previous government were far too soft on visitors..even letting in Geert Wilders as you pointed out. We don;t know if Mrs Mays would let him in,now do we? Possibly not. I am sure you would see her in a more favourable light if this were the case.

WHat we should realise is that being a scholar does not mean they hold to sound Islamic doctrine. Muslims should preserve God's word, not make up their own for their own publicity and wealth.
THe UK is a small country in comparison to the US. It is the 'kafir's' right to protect his family, home and country from anyone that causes a threat, including this Zakir if necessary.
What UK's doing in Afghanistan and did in Iraq if it is small country and wants to mind her business? "Kafir" point is non sequitur martha
Yep! I agree, as do most of the UK citizens. The former government liked to be so far up the American governments arse it was unbelievable! We will see what Cameron/Clegg will do in regards to this. My example ofthe kafirs was a tongue in cheek comment. On a more serious note it is human nature to protect their own kith and kin, religion aside.

So let the UK government do as they like thanks, they are NOT affecting your daily life are they?
True! I do this for kicks

Good I am glad Smile  As for myself I am generally serious when discussing the lives of other people. DOn't get me wrong, religion and politics aside I have a good laugh. 

NB Please don't reply with saying  what bad things the Brits did centuries ago...it is rather boring. You need to change the record brother.
It is case by case basis...I hate to tell you don't let your personal problems color this forum discussions!
 I couldn't care less what the Brits or any empire did centuries ago...
When there is political discussion on issues there are no holy cows..It is like going to a doctor's office with a complaint and not strip down give blood or pee sample when ordered cuz that will reveal some secrets or misconduct but still want the Rx for disease to go away...LOL
It is case by case basis...I hate to tell you don't let your personal problems color this forum discussion! etc etc

martha take some thing to relax, it is just internet debate aka running in special Olympics

 
Igualmente Big%20smile
No discussion here is worth an increase of the blood pressure. BUt one more thing. What we post here has a huge impact on non-muslims. If we go at it like a bull in a china shop and always acuse the neighbour instead then we are less likely to be invited for a cup of tea tomorrow.
We should all be pacifists in this forum. Don't you agree?
 
Smile
 
 


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 23 June 2010 at 4:22am
Originally posted by martha

In August 2008, /wiki/Darul_Uloom_Deoband - issued a fatwa stating: "The statements made by Dr Zakir Naik indicate that he is a preacher of Ghair Muqallidin. One should not rely upon his speeches." #cite_note-46 - In November 2008 the Lucknow based cleric Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali issued a fatwa against Naik, describing Naik as a " /wiki/Kafir - " (non-believer) and stating in the fatwa, that Naik should be ex-communicated from Islam. He argued that "Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain" and that Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists. Naik, however, said that his speeches were misquoted and that he was allegedly targeted by people with vested interests and said of the fatwa "fatwas mean nothing. They should also issue fatwas against Imam Bukhari. Some clerics who have limited understanding of Islam are doing these things. It doesn't affect me". The All-India Sunni Board and Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani Foundation have also defended Naik.

 
Hello Martha. This is all just a load of crock. The fact that the people above are labeling him a "Kaafir" says a lot about their substance !

The only thing that is factual in the above information is that Zakir Naik is not an Aalim in the sense that he did not graduate in religious studies. He has never claimed that - however he is a learned man and bases whatever he says on Islamic sources. So you can choose to accept that reject his personal opinions.

In Islam - a "paper qualification" or degree does not give a person any religious advantage over another. I can assure you that a lot of un-qualified, non-degree holding Muslims are more knowledgeable about Islam and better da'ees (propagators) compared to 'Mullah's & 'Maulvis' who have that piece of paper to back their 'qualification'.




-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 23 June 2010 at 8:16am
Hello Chrysalis,

I appreciate what you are saying. And this is a typical situation for me, as in who do you believe or trust within the religion? For some American muslims they see Zakir Naik as being on the wrong path. In asia (India/Pakistan) he is much admired. Surely then it will be difficult for non-muslims? Why should we blame Theresa Mays for making her decision? I can only assume that some American muslims regard her decision as solid judgement.

What is curious is that several years back Yusef Islam experienced the same when he travelled to the US from the UK. It happens. ANd he was on a family trip, lol.

I have also discussed with others here about scholars etc. Who exactly is kosher these days? Unfortunately the same applies when discussing hadiths. Seems it mainly depends on who you are and where you are born and live as to who or what you follow.

I find that disturbing especially when Islam is meant to be an easy religion to understand.

This is NOT the Islam the prophet(pbuh) gave mankind.




-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 June 2010 at 7:31pm

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Anyone who has seen that lecture knows it is not true and that he never advocated terrorism in his lecture. This video is years old.

I presume you are referring to Naik's well-publicized comment on Osama Bin Laden: "If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

I don't see how you can understand that as anything other than advocating terrorism.  The fact that the statement is conditional does not help him, because in the first place it is clear that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (and probably Naik himself) believe that the condition is true, i.e. that America is a terrorist country; but more importantly, because there are no conditions under which terrorism is acceptable, not even if your enemy is a terrorist.  The deliberate taking of innocent human life is always a moral crime (not to mention un-Islamic).  The fact that Naik apparently doesn't understand that is sufficient reason not to allow him into a civilized country.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 10:28am
Well, given Naik's audience (no need for political correctness) I would assume  his comments were tongue-in-cheek.  After all, most Muslims in the Middle East refuse to believe Bin Laden or any other Muslim was responsible for the 911 attacks.  I think to refuse Naiks' entry into a "civilized country" unnecessarily fuels resentment, and gives credibility to his "narrative" back home.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 12:08pm

I presume you are referring to Naik's well-publicized comment on Osama Bin Laden: "If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

I don't see how you can understand that as anything other than advocating terrorism.  The fact that the statement is conditional does not help him, because in the first place it is clear that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (and probably Naik himself) believe that the condition is true, i.e. that America is a terrorist country; but more importantly, because there are no conditions under which terrorism is acceptable, not even if your enemy is a terrorist.  The deliberate taking of innocent human life is always a moral crime (not to mention un-Islamic).  The fact that Naik apparently doesn't understand that is sufficient reason not to allow him into a civilized country.



Dr. Zakir Naik responds to the allegations:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFfyV47cFdQ&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFfyV47cFdQ&feature=related

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afTPx5sSk6I&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afTPx5sSk6I&feature=related

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtfySoTSdOQ&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtfySoTSdOQ&feature=related




-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 12:49pm
What is the definition of a "Civilized Country" politically these days?

To be on the take of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu-KGGbFwIk&feature=player_embedded#at=20 - "CSI" in Britain and to be on "Amen" list of AIPAC in the land of milk and honey & to be in debt of the banksters in the rest!

You want your independence then you are uncivilized,  LOL

See all six of these clips o CSI!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu-KGGbFwIk&feature=player_embedded#at=20 -



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:01pm
member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=82 - Chrysalis You beat me to the punch! Thanks

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 7:17pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis

Dr. Zakir Naik responds to the allegations:
 
Sorry, but my bandwidth does not permit me to view Youtube videos, and in any case I'm not interested in watching a half-hour program.  Did Naik have anything specific to say about the statement I quoted from him?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

Well, given Naik's audience (no need for political correctness) I would assume  his comments were tongue-in-cheek.  After all, most Muslims in the Middle East refuse to believe Bin Laden or any other Muslim was responsible for the 911 attacks.  I think to refuse Naiks' entry into a "civilized country" unnecessarily fuels resentment, and gives credibility to his "narrative" back home.
 
And you don't think that Naik's "tongue-in-cheek" comment (one of a great many I could have quoted) would unnecessarily fuel resentment outside the Middle East against Muslims?
 
I find it astonishing how Muslims can be outraged when non-Muslims stereotype them based on radical extremists, but rush to defend people like Naik who promote and exacerbate the stereotype.  Naik is a true enemy of Islam, who does far, far more harm to the reputation of Islam than Rushdie ever could. 


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 8:34pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by abuayisha

Well, given Naik's audience (no need for political correctness) I would assume  his comments were tongue-in-cheek.  After all, most Muslims in the Middle East refuse to believe Bin Laden or any other Muslim was responsible for the 911 attacks.  I think to refuse Naiks' entry into a "civilized country" unnecessarily fuels resentment, and gives credibility to his "narrative" back home.
 
And you don't think that Naik's "tongue-in-cheek" comment (one of a great many I could have quoted) would unnecessarily fuel resentment outside the Middle East against Muslims?
 
I find it astonishing how Muslims can be outraged when non-Muslims stereotype them based on radical extremists, but rush to defend people like Naik who promote and exacerbate the stereotype.  Naik is a true enemy of Islam, who does far, far more harm to the reputation of Islam than Rushdie ever could. 


 I'll look up to abuayisha's response!

Dr. Naik can take care of his case, he is not a nobody...He won't let Mrs. Mays kick around and get away with!

He has the lawsuit against the Home Secretary and let's see which way the wind blows... The correspondence she sent him ...she doesn't have a case in the court!
And may be you are mistaken he is not domiciled in Middle East aka western occupied territory on Israeli behalf!

With state of the art she is just spinning her wheels cuz she can't keep people in UK from his lectures...All they need is a jumbo-tron and live feed from Mumbai at the locations... You know what I am talking about you may have problems watching Youtube...
 


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 10:43pm
Well Ron, the comment taken on face value, and especially from a Western perspective, is indeed troublesome, however I was only giving what I believe to be a cultural angle to his comment.  For example; President Hamid Karzai several months back made a comment about joining the Taliban.  Wow, for Western governments it was 'Henny-Penny, the Sky is Falling', but no big deal to an Afghani audience.  Similarly, I guess many in the Middle East and Afghanistan are scratching their heads about the fuss over General McCrystal.


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 25 June 2010 at 2:14am
Isn't this Naik dude the one who said hoors had no gender? I believe he later retracted that statement, but it didnt look too clever.

Hehe, Henny Penny, I like that abuayisha!



-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 25 June 2010 at 7:37pm
Originally posted by martha

Isn't this Naik dude the one who said hoors had no gender? I believe he later retracted that statement, but it didnt look too clever.

Hehe, Henny Penny, I like that abuayisha!

They sure wouldn't have the reproductive sysytem then what do you say?  Henny Penny martha!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 26 June 2010 at 1:43pm
Originally posted by Sign*Reader


Originally posted by martha

Isn't this Naik dude the one who said hoors had no gender? I believe he later retracted that statement, but it didnt look too clever.

Hehe, Henny Penny, I like that abuayisha!

They sure wouldn't have the reproductive sysytem then what do you say?  Henny Penny martha!




-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 29 June 2010 at 8:49pm
When I was in Pakistan I listened to lots of lectures of Dr. Naik. He seemed fine. He was not some guy advocating bombing the Brits.. so Martha... he really has no ill- intentions upon the Brits. In fact you probably would have nodded your head as much as I did for what he said.

And yeah, the Brits ban him, US and Tariq Ramadan and Yusuf Islam... (they must fear the Peace Train..lol) So British govt bans Dr Naik.

And you must admit Martha, based on what I've read, you've got more to worry about from the disillusioned British youth than Dr. Naik.

And I can see where you might struggle with the lack of "religious" structure in Islam, but that is also its beauty. You can be where YOU want to be. Not because of what group you belong to. You are not required to follow the whims of a preacher or such. We are a rainbow of people, some of blues, some reds and some yellows...that does not mean we are all not part of a whole.



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 30 June 2010 at 8:55am
Well, you have listened to Dr Naik..I haven't.
Like, I KNOW about the disillusioned British Youth and you have only read about them.
So it's the same scenario. We are not in agreement.
So it is with Theresa May. I feel she did the right thing. BUt I also said she should meet Dr Naik face to face. I have not said he should be permanently banned.

Lol, Islam is not beautiful because it has changed since Muhammad(pbuh) THere must be structure in religion or of course people will find it false, and it will be. GOd won;t have confusion in His true religion.
ANd I can;t see how muslims can be a rainbow people, as you put it.
Muhammad (pbuh) said there would be 73sects in Islam and only one will be saved. As it is there are more than 150 sects so far.
You say we are not required to follow the whims of a preacher or such..that is right, I don;t. And the same goes for hadiths..I don't follow them either as they contradict and confuse. Again, not what GOd would want for his believers is it?
Lol, we will just have to believe what we choose. BUt I wish you wouldn't say I was struggling Hayfa.. makes me kind of appear less intelligent.


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 June 2010 at 10:06am
Originally posted by Hayfa

When I was in Pakistan I listened to lots of lectures of Dr. Naik. He seemed fine. He was not some guy advocating bombing the Brits..
 
So he didn't happen to mention that "every Muslim should be a terrorist", then? Didn't imply that Rushdie, who has "abused our Prophet" (see http://www.institutealislam.com/focus-on-islam-by-dr-zakir-naik/ - http://www.institutealislam.com/focus-on-islam-by-dr-zakir-naik/ ), should be put to death?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 30 June 2010 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by martha

Well, you have listened to Dr Naik..I haven't.
Like, I KNOW about the disillusioned British Youth and you have only read about them.
So it's the same scenario. We are not in agreement.
So it is with Theresa May. I feel she did the right thing. BUt I also said she should meet Dr Naik face to face. I have not said he should be permanently banned.

Lol, Islam is not beautiful because it has changed since Muhammad(pbuh) THere must be structure in religion or of course people will find it false, and it will be. GOd won;t have confusion in His true religion.
ANd I can;t see how muslims can be a rainbow people, as you put it.
Muhammad (pbuh) said there would be 73sects in Islam and only one will be saved. As it is there are more than 150 sects so far.
You say we are not required to follow the whims of a preacher or such..that is right, I don;t. And the same goes for hadiths..I don't follow them either as they contradict and confuse. Again, not what GOd would want for his believers is it?
Lol, we will just have to believe what we choose. BUt I wish you wouldn't say I was struggling Hayfa.. makes me kind of appear less intelligent.

martha:
Couple of comments!
First:
Dr. Naik and Mrs. Mays are not in the same category!
His prophet is Muhammad(s) while her's is Machiavelli!
Just remember who spoke the truth and not for the worldly gain, everything else is a loss!
Second:
Hadith are not meant to be read out of context... In an Islamic state a Qazi not in the same situation of case law, will not refer to an inapplicable Hadith or will get smacked for bad judgment by the senior Qazi...

Confusion is a state of mind not reality!
 Just cuz the means of broadcasting have become easy doesn't mean the wisdom is that way too
 


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 30 June 2010 at 4:14pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Hayfa

When I was in Pakistan I listened to lots of lectures of Dr. Naik. He seemed fine. He was not some guy advocating bombing the Brits..
 
So he didn't happen to mention that "every Muslim should be a terrorist", then? Didn't imply that Rushdie, who has "abused our Prophet" (see http://www.institutealislam.com/focus-on-islam-by-dr-zakir-naik/ - http://www.institutealislam.com/focus-on-islam-by-dr-zakir-naik/ ), should be put to death?


Did you read it ?


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 01 July 2010 at 5:47am
Originally posted by Hayfa


And I can see where you might struggle with the lack of "religious" structure in Islam, but that is also its beauty. You can be where YOU want to be. Not because of what group you belong to. You are not required to follow the whims of a preacher or such. We are a rainbow of people, some of blues, some reds and some yellows...that does not mean we are all not part of a whole.



That was a nice way to put it sister ! Smile




-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 02 July 2010 at 5:22am
Mrs Mays would ban any human suspected of a threat to the UK. In this instance it is a muslim.

How is the Russian spy revelation being received by the US citizens at the mo? I hope you don't extradite them or imprison them. After all...they aren't any threat to anyone are they?




-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 03 July 2010 at 12:23am
Originally posted by martha

Mrs Mays would ban any human suspected of a threat to the UK. In this instance it is a muslim.

How is the Russian spy revelation being received by the US citizens at the mo? I hope you don't extradite them or imprison them. After all...they aren't any threat to anyone are they?



Define the threat in clear terms and not something projected in Sci fi "Minority Report" !
I think she is doing this cuz the ZOG is doing this!
It is so hypocritical while the foreign secretary colleague of hers William Hague promising to reach out to nations that were overlooked by the previous government ...which included Saudi Arabia and India that had complained British government came calling only in times of global crises...(News Item)

The Russian spy thing is being taken in stride hardly any major attention being paid...I have no seen people paying much attention or care even in post 911 hype:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-russian-agents-lives-20100630-html,0,4072235.htmlstory - Interactive: Alleged Russian spies

No one has commented on this!

Except some stories are circulating about  Anna Chapman woman who had a British hubby ChapmanWink
But what these spy stories have to do with Naik's work? Aren't you comparing apples with oranges?
Elaborate the underlined!
What extradition you are talking about, some are already confessing of spying...
martha you are not making any sense!
As a matter of fact people are just not bothered!
 read down below this news! They are so clueless!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-russian-agents-lives-20100630,0,5099195.story - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-russian-agents-lives-20100630,0,5099195.story



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 03 July 2010 at 8:06am
Well, how is it hypocritical cuz she won;t let in Naik and dear William is reaching out to other nations?

If there is a threat to your homeland.(in this case the UK) then you protect yourself. Would have thought protecting yourself is sensible. Yet giving aid is charitable and generous. You can do both. It isnt being hypocritical.

You say the Americans aren't bothered by the Russian spies? Why is that? I thought Americans saw Russia as a threat? Hmm, guess not then. Perhaps the Americans feel safe. Am sure they will feel different in the future.
BTW none of these so called spies had confessed to anything when I posted last time. Remember, we are sleeping when you get your news:)

Sorry you cannot understand me.
My point is this...Naik and the Russian spies could be seen in a similar way. You allow any Tom,Dick or Harry in then you leave yourself wide open for whatever. What do you do...sit back and wait for that time, or try to stay ahead of these things?

Maybe you don;t see it Sign. Many in the UK can.

Perhaps this Anna Chapman needed her British passport so married this guy? No idea.

Tell me..when you go out to the store, do you lock your door? Don;t you trust people? It's called being safe isn't it. But I bet you give your neighbour a cup of sugar if they needed it?

Anyway, will leave it there for now. Am watching football.



-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 9:17am
Can anyone enlighten me as to what scary threat exactly does Zakir Naik possess to the UK?






-------------


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 11:07am
In answer to the above post I am surprised you ask Ace.
Britain has long been known as being a haven for extremists/terrorists..of different religions. I say that cos the IRA are still active right now and are still a threat. I guess Ms Mays does not want to add to more to the statistics. Perhaps you have not been to the UK? But there are real threats and people/government just want to err on the side of caution.

Even I have been affected by such like people. Tut tut I had my sleep interrupted one night by a raid on a house 20metres from my door. I was even interviewed by the TV! So yeah, people like to be cautious here thats all.





-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 11:21am
Hmmm . . . No I've never been to the UK but have heard a couple of cases where extremists get the better of the UK rights and systems (what better example than a couple of you-know-which-Pakistani-politicians Tongue)

But that doesn't really answer my question, what threat exactly does a man whose job is to deliver religious speeches posses to the UK?




-------------


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 12:41pm

UK TV - Dr Zakir Naik discussed on The Wright Stuff:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Tcgh02X6w&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Tcgh02X6w&feature=related






-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 4:14pm
Originally posted by xx__Ace__xx

Can anyone enlighten me as to what scary threat exactly does Zakir Naik possess to the UK?
 
You mean, compared to Salman Rushdie, for instance?  Well, Naik advocates terrorism, and Rushdie does not.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: truthseeker100
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 4:34pm
http://irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=241:mockery-freedom&catid=44 - http://irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=241:mockery-freedom&catid=44
 
PRESS RELEASE
MOCKERY OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
 

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.



-------------
And, behold, with every hardship comes ease:
Qur'an 94: 5


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 6:45pm

Quote 1:

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.

First, Naik is relying on his readers and listeners to be "sensible and logical".  Unfortunately many are not, at least not to the degree required to follow Naik's counterintuitive sophistry.  As a public figure, Naik should know better than to say that "all Muslims should be terrorists", no matter how he wants to define the term.  A great many of his audience will take the statement at face value, with disastrous consequences.  We don't need people who make such reckless and dangerous statements, however he may try to explain away their obvious literal meaning.

Second, his defense only gets himself deeper into hot water.  His comparison to Inspector Angre of the Mumbai Police Force (among a group of five officers who have "gunned down more than 300 alleged criminals" -- alleged criminals??) implies that all Muslims should be entitled to use deadly force against robbers (and presumably anyone else whom he decides deserves to be "terrorized").  If this is what Naik believes, then apparently he has no understanding and/or no respect for the rule of law in a civil society.  Inspector Angre is authorized to use force on behalf of the citizens who appointed him; an average Muslim is forbidden by law to any more force than necessary for self-defense.  We don't need public figures telling Muslims they can take the law into their own hands, whether for ideological reasons or for protection of property.


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.

It's hard to believe that Naik could be so ignorant, but if he is then he has no business speaking on such matters in the first place.  Whether or not Bin Laden is directly responsible for 9/11 (a question which no sensible person doubts), he has been quoted in many press releases, fatwas, and media interviews as being fully in support of terrorism (by the common definition, never mind Naik's own peculiar twist).  That in itself should be enough for Naik to express an opinion.

". . . the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim to be carried out in whichever country they are until Al Aqsa mosque has been liberated from their grasp and until their armies have left Muslim lands." ( http://www.september11news.com/OsamaEvidence.htm - Bin Laden fatwa, 1998 )

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.

It is also not necessary to link them.  It is enough to read them and understand them.  "If he is terrorizing the terrorist, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, he’s following Islam."  Again, Naik apparently does not understand that terrorism is wrong even to fight terrorism. 

It is easy to make the case that America is indeed engaged in terrorist activities around the globe.  I have no doubt that it's true, although my examples would probably not be the same as Naik's.  Therefore the premise of Naik's statement is true, and the conclusion follows that (according to Naik) it's okay to commit terrorist acts on Americans.  That is not a message we need preached in civilized society.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: truthseeker100
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 7:35pm

Ron,

First of all, you must read in entirety before making such dastardly allegations. In the law, one is innocent until proven guilty.

I merely posted with regards to what Dr. Zakir Naik has described himself in his defense.   Nobody has the right to pass baseless and ignorant conclusion; let the court and judiciary deal with that.

And I am not interested in repetitive argumentation, please.



-------------
And, behold, with every hardship comes ease:
Qur'an 94: 5


Posted By: truthseeker100
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 7:38pm

http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/index.php/news?task=videodirectlink&id=45 - http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/index.php/news?task=videodirectlink&id=45



-------------
And, behold, with every hardship comes ease:
Qur'an 94: 5


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 7:02am
Originally posted by truthseeker100

http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/index.php/news?task=videodirectlink&id=45 - http://zakirnaikexclusion.com/index.php/news?task=videodirectlink&id=45



Wow thanks for the share Sis! Very interesting!

I was surprised to see Mahesh Bhatt of all people speaking out in favor of Zakir Naik. For those who may not know, he is a very famous film director in India - and is known was his 'liberal' & sometimes scandalous movies. On top of that, he was born to a Hindu father & Shia mother, and himself is secular. That makes him an extremely unlikely candidate to voice support for Zakir Naik, since Zakir Naik represents the religious Muslim voice, often considered a threat by people in his line of work & background.

The fact that he is voicing his support for Zakir Naik speaks volumes about how "extremist" Zakir Naik is, or what is his perception as a Muslim scholar in Hindu-dominated India.

Since the average (non-Indian/) non-Muslim knows Zakir Naik through the UK govt's ban and their version of the story - naturally they believe him to be an extremist. When in reality it couldn't be far from the truth.

Zakir Naik may not be the perfect orator, or a perfect person - since nobody is . . . but he is far from a 'terror supporting' extremist. Only someone who has followed all his work would know that. . . .not someone who bases their opinion on an extract by the UK govt. 

Zakir Naik is one of the few public Muslim figures who has made an effort to be 'inclusive' towards  non-Muslims and their scriptures. Something that the extremist muslims have tried to use against him. The average non-muslim may not know, but Zakir Naik has faced a backlash by some extremist muslims who think he is deviant because of his inclusion of nonmuslims & their scriptures. It is for his tolerance for nonmuslims & their scriptures that has gained him a lot of respect in India by Christians, Jews, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists alike.

Again - that is not something likely to make the western news.



-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 8:52am
Originally posted by Chrysalis

Zakir Naik may not be the perfect orator, or a perfect person - since nobody is . . . but he is far from a 'terror supporting' extremist. Only someone who has followed all his work would know that. . . .not someone who bases their opinion on an extract by the UK govt. 
 
If I were to make a public statement that "All Muslims are terrorists", do you think I should be allowed into Pakistan, no matter how I tried to explain it away?  How long do you think I'd even be allowed on this discussion forum if I said things like that?
 
So why should any civilized country tolerate a guy who publicly declares, "All Muslims should be terrorists", no matter how he tries to justify it?  It's an inflammatory, dangerous statement whatever the nuances.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:29am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

 
If I were to make a public statement that "All Muslims are terrorists", do you think I should be allowed into Pakistan, no matter how I tried to explain it away?  How long do you think I'd even be allowed on this discussion forum if I said things like that?


That would depend on 2 things:

  1. If that's what you actually said. Not if its taken out of context. Its very easy to twist somebody's words into meaning something else. Of course you should have your say - and a chance to explain it. The decision should be based on what you have to say & how you explain it - not having your words explained & interpreted by someone else. That would leave it open to prejudice & propaganda.

    2. The rules law of Pakistan. If Pakistan claims to be the champion of     freedom of expression, tolerance etc - so much so that it uses these values to fight wars in other countries - then yes Pakistan should allow you in as long as you are not an actual physical threat to people i.e. a criminal. Especially if Pakistan makes it a habit of actually giving people asylum on to protect their right to free speech. But if Pakistan makes no such claims, and makes no secret of its censorship + religious policies - then they are within their legal & moral rights to say no.

Of course the UK govt has a right to formulate whatever policies they wish, especially if they protect the people. In fact I think if Zakir Naik wins his lawsuit, he should not go their on principle and make it public knowledge that he does not wish to visit a country that operates on hypocrisy. The point here is to highlight UK's blatant hypocrisy.
 
"So why should any civilized country tolerate a guy who publicly declares, "All Muslims should be terrorists", no matter how he tries to justify it?  It's an inflammatory, dangerous statement whatever the nuances."

Depends on your definition of a 'civilized country'.

While that may the opinion of the vast majority of sheltered western nonmuslims (which they are entitled to) that doesn't make it true.
I think the UK govt needs to re-examine its actual threats in order of priority. The fact that they find Zakir Naik a "threat" is laughable.




-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Divya_Mohammed
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:50am
Assalam Alaikum to all
 
Dr Zakir Naik is very famous in India amongst Muslims largely and even in Hindu, Chriatian population, his views are accepted.
 
I listen to many of his lectures in my understanding of Muslim Life, Muslim society and Islam and truly loved them. He is an expert in comparative theology and can quote with ease Great Koranic Verses and those of Hadits as well as from Vedas, Bible, Dhammapada etc.
 
I started to grasp certain difficult words and concepts like Jehad in Islam, Dhimmis, man-woman relationship in society and as husband and wife, Kafirs, terrorism, need for burkha for women, blasphemy and on aspects as to how Islamic theology superior philosophically to all others etc.
 
I agree with most of his views and I am enrichened by his views.
 
 
He has sucessfully defended and answered all criticisms levelled by pseudo-intellectuals from other religions by inviting them for open debates, as well as criticisms from so-called Human Rights Groups and Women Group from Western World.
 
He has motivated many people to accept Islam and has contributed immensely to the glory of the True and Fasted Growing Religion Islam and may Allah Almighty bless him in this world and hereafter.
 
Now I can see that non-muslims are jealous of Muslims and Islam and I also realise the damage to the cause of Islam and Muslims by attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.
 
 
Allah Hafiz
Divya Mohammed Iyer
Mumbai, India
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 11:22am

Originally posted by Chrysalis

If that's what you actually said. Not if its taken out of context. Its very easy to twist somebody's words into meaning something else.

And that is exactly the point.  Naik should know that such inflammatory statements will be twisted, taken out of "context", by many in his audience.  And people may die as a result.  It's irresponsible.

And as I said, even in context, his words are still appalling.  "Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element."  In other words, if you consider homosexuality to be anti-social, you're allowed to "terrorize" gays?  How about abortionists and those who use their services, can you "terrorize" them?  The US military too, I assume that if Nidal Hasan decided they were anti-social then he was justified in "terrorizing" Fort Hood?

While that may the opinion of the vast majority of sheltered western nonmuslims (which they are entitled to) that doesn't make it true.
I think the UK govt needs to re-examine its actual threats in order of priority. The fact that they find Zakir Naik a "threat" is laughable.

Naik is more of a threat to Muslims than anyone else.  Non-Muslims could accept that Islam, like any other group, has its share of crazies who commit atrocities, if only other Muslims would join the rest of us in condemning them unequivocally.  But Naik cannot even speak out against Osama Bin Laden.  He doesn't know.  Maybe by terrorizing America, Bin Laden is following Islam, according to Naik.

If that is his vision of Islam, then then he should not be surprised if he faces discrimination in civilized countries.  And Muslims as a whole, if they cannot distance themselves from the likes of Zakir Naik (who in turn cannot distance himself from Bin Laden), can expect to share in that discrimination.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Chrysalis

If that's what you actually said. Not if its taken out of context. Its very easy to twist somebody's words into meaning something else.

And that is exactly the point.  Naik should know that such inflammatory statements will be twisted, taken out of "context", by many in his audience.  And people may die as a result.  It's irresponsible.

When it comes to taking things out of context - you can be as careful as you want, but if people want to do that, they will. It cannot be prevented. People even take scriptures such as the Bible, Torah & Qur'an out of context. They should be banned  & held responsible too?

And as I said, even in context, his words are still appalling.  "Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element."  In other words, if you consider homosexuality to be anti-social, you're allowed to "terrorize" gays?  How about abortionists and those who use their services, can you "terrorize" them?  The US military too, I assume that if Nidal Hasan decided they were anti-social then he was justified in "terrorizing" Fort Hood?

Again Ron - that is a matter of YOUR interpretation. The Vast majority of Muslims do not interpret it this way. The average audience member is a peaceful citizen and so understands Zakir's statements within context.

For that person, there is nothing wrong with 'terrorizing the anti-social element' because this could very well include fellow Muslims who may be extremists & involved in bloodshed & violence. It could very well apply to those anti-social elements who are discriminating against or suppressing nonmuslim religious minorities. . . .  Also, they may not share your definition of 'terrorizing' - they may take terrorizing as a psychological tool - not a physical one. Meaning a good Muslim should be such a honorable & just character - that anti-social elements should fear him/her. A good Muslim can find legal ways to fight the anti-social elements, such as lawsuits, reporting to police, taking proactive measures. That is a perfectly acceptable form of 'terrorizing'. Which is what most Muslims take it to be.


Ofcourse your interpretation could be shared by the Crazies - but we must remind ourselves that the Crazies don't need excuses, they don't need Zakir Naik's words taken out of context, because they have their means. Al-Qaeda managed to give Fatwas that served their purpose. They didn't need to rely on popular Muslim scholars. Some don't even need Fatwas. They operate on their own impulses & twisted agendas.

So banning Zakir Naik is NOT preventing those Crazies from posing a threat to the UK. What it is doing is giving them good excuses; 'Aha! Look the UK govt is anti-Muslim and bans Muslim scholars'. What the ban is doing is showcasing Britain's hypocrisy and possibly alienating its Muslim citizens, some/or most of which may have a following for Zakir Naik.


Naik is more of a threat to Muslims than anyone else. 

I may not agree with  everything Zakir Naik does - but the good he has done outweighs any small mistakes he may have made. Not only does he promote inter-religious dialogue, tolerance towards non-Islamic scriptures and religions, but also charity work such as free medical clinics for Muslims & non-Muslims alike. His lectures which are very popular - highlight the importance of awareness, education, female rights, caste discrimination in India etc. One of the things that particularly appealed to me was how he was so vocal against Dowry practices in India and the ignorance many people have regarding how in-laws 'blame' the mother for giving birth to a female child, and female infanticide.

But like I said Ron, someone who would have followed Zakir Naik's work would know better. Not someone who bases their opinions on an out-of-context extract by the biased UK govt


  But Naik cannot even speak out against Osama Bin Laden.  He doesn't know.  Maybe by terrorizing America, Bin Laden is following Islam, according to Naik.

Since when did a public renouncement of Bin Laden become a part of the Visa approval process?

Why can't an individual choose to reserve judgment upon a person simply because some institutions think he is to blame...

If I am a peace-loving citizen, but I don't trust my sources enough to publicly call a person 'evil' - I am bad and a terror-supporter?

Reminds me of Bush's "Either you are with us or against us" mantra.

If that is his vision of Islam, then then he should not be surprised if he faces discrimination in civilized countries.  And Muslims as a whole, if they cannot distance themselves from the likes of Zakir Naik (who in turn cannot distance himself from Bin Laden), can expect to share in that discrimination.


I am sure nobody was surprised. . . including Zakir Naik. By now everybody is gradually starting to get used to how 'Civilised' countries operate.
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 9:02pm
Pffftt, funny how people who I bet haven't once heard Dr Zakir Naik tell us close followers of him what he supposedly preaches. Right.

-------------


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 August 2010 at 7:27pm

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Again Ron - that is a matter of YOUR interpretation. The Vast majority of Muslims do not interpret it this way. The average audience member is a peaceful citizen and so understands Zakir's statements within context.

For that person, there is nothing wrong with 'terrorizing the anti-social element' because this could very well include fellow Muslims who may be extremists & involved in bloodshed & violence.

Yeah, like abortionists, or the US military, right?  Read my lips: terrorism is always wrong.  Leave it to the police (who have strict guidelines against excessive force and are not terrorists by any reasonable standard) to enforce the law and deal with so-called "anti-social elements".  We don't need vigilantes in civilized societies, especially not religiously motivated ones.

A good Muslim can find legal ways to fight the anti-social elements, such as lawsuits, reporting to police, taking proactive measures. That is a perfectly acceptable form of 'terrorizing'. Which is what most Muslims take it to be.

I'm sorry, but any English speaker, Muslim or not, knows that "terrorism" does not mean lawsuits etc.  This special pleading is simply not credible.

Since when did a public renouncement of Bin Laden become a part of the Visa approval process?

I wasn't talking about the visa approval process.  I was talking about why Naik is a threat to Muslims; and the reason, in case I didn't make it clear, is that his statements will only inflame hatred against them.  He may be even more of a threat to Islam's reputation than Al Qaeda, etc., because the terrorists are a tiny minority, while Naik seems to represent the views of the broader Muslim community.

Why can't an individual choose to reserve judgment upon a person simply because some institutions think he is to blame...

If he were merely reserving judgement I might think him merely ignorant; but he goes on to say: "if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, ... he’s following Islam."  Once again, apparently terrorism can be a good thing, depending on the victim.  According to Naik, anyway.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 10:49am

Assalmau Alaikum,

I think a personality such as Dr. Zakir Naik, who has written hundreds of articles and immensely contributed to Islamic literature to guide so many people, should be given the benefit of due process.

He has unequivocally spoken at many occasions against all forms of extremism and terrorism, and deserves more thoughtful consideration.

Let the authorities in place deal with that.

Peace



-------------
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13



Print Page | Close Window