Rushdie

Chrysalis wrote: 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.

Ron Webb wrote: Chrysalis wrote: 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.