‘The moderate Dr. Zakir Naik’
Image via Wikipedia
Buried in a New York Times story about the alleged Afghan-American terrorist Najibullah Zazi is an intriguing detail about his online viewing habits. Apparently Mr. Zazi is a fan of the well-known Mumbai-based preacher and televangelist Dr. Zakir Naik.
Friends said that Najib later came to love videos on YouTube that featured Zakir Naik, a physician in India and a prominent speaker on Islam. Dr. Naik has been a controversial figure among Muslims and has been criticized for endorsing polygamy and Islamic criminal law, wherein the hands of a thief are chopped off, calling it “the most practical.”
To Mr. Zazi, “he was his inspiration,” his friend Mr. Zaraei said. “He just loved him.”
via Najibullah Zazi, From Smiling Face at the Cart to Terror Suspect – NYTimes.com.
Dr. Naik, a doctor by training, has used a gentle demeanor and a prodigious memory for scripture to earn himself a global following. Muslims around the world watch his sermons on Peace TV. A search for his name on Youtube throws up nearly 24,000 hits; on Google it’s more than half a million. For me, though, he’s most interesting as someone who cuts to the heart of the ongoing debate about moderate versus radical Islam.
On the face of it, the good doctor appears reasonable enough. He wears a suit and tie and preaches in English. His speech can be impassioned at times, but it’s rarely shrill. He quotes from the Bible and Bhagavad Gita as fluently as from the Koran and the hadith. Confronted by this apparent ecumenicism, even a hard boiled journalist like Shekhar Gupta of the Indian Express can sound like a gushy schoolgirl. Mr. Gupta calls Dr. Naik a “rock star of televangelism” who teaches “modern Islam” and “his own interpretation of all the faiths around the world.”
But how modern or ecumenical is Dr. Naik? He supports the death penalty for apostasy from Islam. He defends the Saudi ban on the propagation of other faiths in the kingdom on the grounds that their falseness is self-evident. (He likens it to preventing a math teacher from telling children that 2+2=3, or that 2+2=6.) He recommends a severe form of hijab–in which a woman reveal only her face and hands–as a preventative against molestation and rape. Polygamy will apparently solve the Western “problem” of “the surplus of women.” According to Dr. Naik, Jews “control America” and are the “strongest in enmity to Muslims.”
In short, take away the suit and replace the English with Arabic or Urdu and Dr. Naik would not be out of place in the most benighted part of Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Pakistan. The packaging, and the medium, merely make it easier for him to get his message across to the likes of Mr. Zazi.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Fascinating. You continue to bust myths of moderate Islam. Could the good doctor also have been an intellectual influence on the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks in Mumbai last year? Does he directly promote jihad?
I have read Sadanand’s articles and the gist of each of them is Islam bashing. He seems to get sadistic pleasure out of it. His allegations on Mr. Naik are like breaking half the sentence and projecting only half of it. Like in the Bhagwad Gita (religious book of the Hindus) their own GOD, Krishna, teaches Arjun to kill his own brothers. Isn’t that the base of Hindu terrorism? Zakir Naik’s statement was, If saying no (only saying no) to America’s nuclear killing of millions of innocent people is terrorism, then I am a terrorist. Now it is very imbecile and even a blind man can see how Sadanand uses the last part of the sentence to quench his vengeance for reasons unknown to me, against Islam and Dr. Naik. If you prefer to believe it then soon yours will be the story of the 6 blind men and the elephant!
In response to another comment. See in context »The Mumbai attacks were plotted and managed from Pakistan, which is entirely self-sufficient (a net exporter in fact) in the jihadist preaching department. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Naik does not exhort his followers to commit violence, but he’s curiously equivocal about Islamist terrorism in general and Osama bin Laden in particular.
What’s worrying to me is less the doctor’s message–which, while reliably retrogressive, is well within the bounds of protected free speech–than the ease with which he manages to portray himself as a moderate. Dark ages fundamentalist in a suit would be a more accurate description.
you have laid some allegations against mr naik
but you have’nt backed them up with evidences which exposes your irrational and unreasonable logic.
firstly saudi arabia doesnt prohibit other religions to practice their faith.
what it does prohibit is building up of churches and temples etc and that is because it condemns idol worship.
Also if u condemn saudi arabia because of this,then u must also condemn vatican city and the pope for not allowing temples,mosques etc to be built there.
What the vatican city is to the christians,Saudi Arabia is to the muslims.
Also u have very shrewdly mentioned about chopping of hands for committing theft.
however what you failed to realise or rather intentionally didn’t specify is that chopping of hands is not for a minor theft etc.
it is for a major theft something which is of causes immense loss to the victim and which must be proved with witnesses.Even after the accused is proved guilty,if he pleads for forgiveness then he shall be forgiven and his hands are not chopped of.
i know a lot of journalists who know the truth but they blend the truth according to their own convenience to portray a different image of islam and the middle east and quote things out of context
and regarding this video
future visitors to this page
please observe that the author of this article has cunningly posted just 58 seconds of a 7 minute answer by mr naik and thought he has succeeded in deceiving the readers.
the complete video is here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVtADPzyWTA
observe that mr naik says every muslim should be a terrorist against the aggressors,the evil doers etc
You are a foolish journalist and you could’nt even fool a 9th grader like me
future readers if u have any queries or if u want a healthy discussion email me at irfan1988@gmail.com
If you don’t want to take my word for it, here’s what the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom has to say: “the Saudi government persists in banning all forms of public religious expression other than that of the government’s own interpretation of one school of Sunni Islam and even interferes with private religious practice.”
http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/saudi%20arabia.pdf
Moreover, Dr. Naik supports the ban on the propagation of other faiths not merely in Saudi Arabia but in other Muslim-majority lands as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsGajgXkge4
if it interferes in the private religious practice then i condemn it because its mentioned in th glorious Quran says in chapter 2 verse 256
“Let there be no compulsion in religion”
So if thats the case i do condemn the saudi govt but its their mistake and not islam and its teaching.
And i already told u that they condemn idol worship so no temples.churches,etc.
Ask the same US commission for “religious freedom” as to why their is no religious freedom in Vatican City to build temples,mosques etc.They will be dumbstruck.
Coming to your second point about dr. zakir naik.
He condemns false propagation about other faiths in other muslim majority nations.
For example if u have read the vedas and upanishads its clearly mentioned in the vedas that
“Of that God there is no pratima,no image”
so how come hindus do idol worship when their scripture clearly condemns it!!
I would request my hindu brothers to read their scriptures.
So what Mr. Naik has said is that promoting idol worship will not be allowed and its condemned in hinduism and other major religions.
And you didn’t reply to why you purposely quoted dr. Zakir Naik out of context in the above video.
Obviously you could’nt reply to my answer as i gave the full length video.
Obiously now you will give some lame excuse that you did’nt know this and that.
Readers please note this!!.
Even i can quote out of context and say that Krishna commanded Arjun to kill his own cousins!!! how barbaric is that!!
but i would be a fool to say that because if we go to the context we come to know that Arjun was fighting in self defense and to save his and his brothers honour.And so Krishna ordered him that how can you be so weak not to fight for a right cause!!!
I am eagerly waiting for what you might have to say on this.
And please!!.
Remove that “58″ seconds video.Either upload full answer videos or dont upload at all.
Why misleading people???
you obviously wont put my comment in “called out comment” as for that i need to speak in favour of your article.Also anyone who visits this page gets exposed to “called out comments” and he has to click on “all comments” to actually see the other side of the discussion.
And please stop misleading people.Would be thankful to you!!
This is a fruitless argument, but let me quickly clarify two points. First, I don’t know enough about Islam to criticize it as a faith. The point of my post is simply to question whether Dr. Naik ought to be regarded as a moderate. Many of his views strike me as rather extreme.
Second, I have absolutely no problem with you, or anyone else, criticizing Christianity, Hinduism or any other belief system. Am not sure why you appear to think otherwise.
“moderate” is a relative term.
What might seem moderate to you may not be moderate to others.
and tell me what he has said that doesn’nt make him moderate in your eyes.
And i have absolutely no problem with other religions.
you still didn’t comment on why you did’nt post the whole video and you made Dr Naik appear to say as if he supports terrorism in the usual sense!!.
You have freedom of speech and expression but not freedom to “quote out of context” and mislead people.
Be man enough to accept that you did make a mistake of posting an extremely short video that changed the meaning of what he said and you portrayed him as if he supports terrorism!!
i dont know whether u did that intentionally or not but atleast remove it now or post a full lenght video so that future visitors are not mislead!!
It’s not misleading in the least. That Dr. Naik finds it impossible to condemn Osama bin Laden is telling.
oh yeah!!
the video starts with mullah zakir naik says “every muslim should be a terrorist!!”.Obviously the visitor to this site develops an impression that he does mean that in the usual sense!!.
Regarding osama bin laden he clearly says
“whether he is right or wrong WE DONT KNOW”
and he further says that if he is terrorizing a terrorist he is for it.
If u have happened to see this full lecture zakir naik said that even of the FBI’s official website osama bin laden is designated as “prime suspect” and not proven criminal.
Neither is Mr Naik supporting Osama nor me.
In response to another comment. See in context »What he simply says is “if” he terrorising a terrorist he is for it which implies that if he is killing innocent people he and i are obviously against it.
irfankhan – you claim that, “ts mentioned in th glorious Quran says in chapter 2 verse 256
“Let there be no compulsion in religion””
and then you justify dr.naik’s admonishment of hindus by saying that the vedas condemn idol worship.
now, if there is no “compulsion in religion” per the quran, what business is it of dr.naik’s whether the hindus worship stone idols, cows or a bottle of opus one wine?
yes so they are not supposed to interfere with one’s personal beliefs.
And its none of his business whether they worship stone or anything.
He just pointed to what the vedas say thats it.
You cant force anyone against there belief
i completely agree with that.
If u do u r not a true muslim