Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sirajstc" data-source="post: 11956540" data-attributes="member: 91140">"Zakir Naik Promoting Terrorism"Rebuttal to Ali Sina's article "Zakir Naik Promoting Terrorism" By Bassam Zawadi This article is in response to Ali Sina's article "Zakir Naik Promoting Terrorism" which can be accessed <a href="http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51022.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.    Ali Sina said: I found the  following paragraph in  <a href="http://www.irf.net/irf/whatsnew/middle/whatsnewdetail.php3?code=10" target="_blank">irf.net</a>, the official site of Dr. Zakir Naik. This is what he teaches to his students:  "5.   Every Muslim should be a terrorist  Every  Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes  terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A  policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should  be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves,  dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim,  he should be terrified. It is true that the word 'terrorist' is  generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people.  But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e.  anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a  Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people."  Dr. Naik claims that the  anti-social elements that need to be terrorized by Muslims are the  criminals, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. But isn't it the job of  the police to go after the criminals? The police is trained and is paid  to catch the criminals. He job is not to terrorize the criminal but to  enforce the law. He must respect the human rights of even the suspects.  As long a the suspect is not convicted in a court of law, he remains  innocent. Who  gave the authorization to Muslims to take the place of the police, the  court, the executioner and terrorize people whom they accuse of crime?  Don't we have a penal system to deal with these matters? Should citizens  take the law in their own hands? This is in itself against the law.  What he is ostensibly proposing here is anarchy.  We have a whole  structure set in place to deal with criminals. Under what law average  citizens can assume the role of the entire legal system? This is  insanity!  Furthermore,  in every non-Islamic country the rate of crime among Muslims is much  higher than the average population. France has a high rate of crime  confined mostly to it's Muslim population. I read somewhere that in  Netherlands the rate of the crime has jumped 11% in just one year and it  is exclusively because of Muslims. In an article published in Times,  Lahor, April 2001, Khaled Ahmed reported that the crime rate among  Pakistanis in UK "is higher than in any other community. Fully 2 percent  of the prisoners rotting in British jails are Pakistanis, the highest  for any one community." In Australia raping the white girls by Muslim  youths has become a national problem. What are the excuses of these  Muslim rapists? That "<a href="http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/510121304.htm" target="_blank">in Islamic countries girls don't dress like this!"</a>  It  would be naïf to take Dr. Naik's justification of terrorism by its face  value. What this snake-oil salesman actually means by anti-social  elements are the non-Muslims and those who resist conversion. According  to him I would be an anti-social element that has to be killed. Have I  committed rape, theft or any crime? I and people like me are considered  anti social because we speak our mind and Muslims can't handle that. Are  Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin anti-social elements? What about Theo  Van Gogh? Was he an anti social element?   After  glorifying and justifying terrorism and hyping his students to become  terrorists, making them believe this is a divine mandate and a wonderful  thing to do, Dr. Naik will then quote the above verses and will explain  to his foolhardy alumni that shirk is worse than killing and the  unbelievers are worse than thieves, dacoits, rapists and murderers.  Therefore it is incumbent upon Muslims, to instill terror in the hearts  of non-Muslims and kill them wherever they find them. To determine their  innocence or guilt it is enough to ask them whether they want to  convert to Islam or not.  Ironically,  since according to the Quran, these non-Muslims by rejecting Islam,  have committed the worst crime imaginable, their property can be stolen  and their wives and daughters can be raped. Thus Muslims who joined Dr.  Naiks school to fight the dacoits, BECOME the dacoits, the criminals and  the thugs. My Response: Zakir Naik is not promoting vigilantism. Vigilantism is not allowed in Islam.   <a href="http://www.themodernreligion.com/profile/sh-Hamza-Yusuf-Hanson.html" target="_blank">Shaykh Hamza Yusuf</a> said... Yusuf:  I would say that he has no legitimate authority, that an Islamic Jihad  can only be declared by legitimate state authority. And this is accepted  by consensus. There is no vigilantism in Islam. Muslims believe in  state authority. (<a href="http://www.abc.se/%7Em9783/terr_e.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)  We  must obey those who are in authority unless it is an order that goes  against Islam. This is a command from the Glorious Quran... Surah 4:59 O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you.  If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His  Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and  most suitable for final determination. and authentic hadith...  Saheeh Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 203. Narated  By Ibn 'Umar : The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen  to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one  disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is  imposed, he should not listen to or obey it." Saheeh Muslim Book 020, Hadith Number 4524. Chapter : Obedience to the ruler is forbidden in matters sinful, but is otherwise obligatory. It  has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of  Allah (may peace be upon him) said: It is obligatory for you to listen  to the ruler and obey him in adversity and prosperity, in pleasure and  displeasure, and even when another person is given (rather undue)  preference over you.  Now  of course it is the duty of the police to protect the society from  these people but please tell me what is wrong in being a helpful  citizen. Now if you were walking down the street and you saw a robber  robbing an old lady, are you just going to sit back and watch and say  "well that is the police's job". No! You are going to go and help her if  your capable of doing so. Us Muslims take pride in doing this.  Yes  it is true that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty, but Zakir  Naik did not say to terrorize the suspects. He said terrorize the anti  social elements! Meaning there is already proof and we already know if  that they are bad people.  There  is a difference between vigilantism and helping out the police. The  police would love it if the citizens could cooperate and assist them in  their fight against crime.  Ali  Sina then goes on to talk about Muslims being criminals and says that  they are the worst in the non Muslim countries. Well Ali Sina did not  provide any references or proof to back up his claim, but let me just  agree with him for sake of argument. So what is your point Ali? Not all  Muslims are perfect. There are black sheep in every community. If there  are Muslims committing these acts, then they are sinners and not  following Islam. You cannot judge Islam by these people, just like how  you cannot judge a car by its driver. So even if what Ali Sina says is  true, his argument means nothing.   Then  Ali Sina goes on to say that Shirk is worse than murder, rape etc. and  therefore non Muslims should also be killed. Yes it is true that Shirk  is a greater sin but the punishment for that is not in this world but in  the hereafter... Surah 4:48 Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin. Because shirk is the greatest sin, it is the only sin that Allah won't forgive if one has not repented from it.    No  where does God command us to kill non Muslims simply because they are  non Muslim. As a matter of fact, we Muslims are commanded to realize and  acknowledge the fact that there are non Muslims.   Surah 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.  The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who  rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm  handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. Surah 109 Say:  O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye  that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor  will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. Surah 16:125 Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;  and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy  Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive  guidance.  How can we call non Muslims to Islam with wisdom and beautiful preaching by killing them? Ali  Sina is referring to Surah 9 verse 5, which says that Muslims should  kill the disbelievers wherever we find them. But this is only referring  to time of war. All you have to do is read the verse before it and after  it.   Recommended Readings <a href="http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/insights-into-sura-at-tauba/" target="_blank">www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/insights-into-sura-at-tauba/</a> <a href="http://www.allaahuakbar.net/misconceptions/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.allaahuakbar.net/misconceptions/index.htm</a> (see question no.23 and see the answer to it)</blockquote>

Verification: Hata thunen beduwama keeyada? (60 bedeema thuna)

Top Bottom