UK, India, Pakistan Muslims welcome ban on hate preacher Zakir Naik

[.lava]

The Pope doesn't misrepresent other religions and insult them, nor does he use faulty science to back up his position, nor does he advocate violence on behalf of Catholicism. Although he is still an idiot (the current one).

he actually did insult Islam

.

 

[.lava]

He does get an audience though. Young Muslims, who have still to properly understand the subtleties of Islam, are easily swayed by his extremist views supported by twisting and misrepresenting the Qur'an. This is a physical danger that must be curbed.

yes and this war in Middle East can make people easily agree with hatred towards Western and no-Muslims

.

 

[Breathe]

he actually did insult Islam

Do you mean when he quoted the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who said "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." and lots of Muslims thought he said that and got upset about it, or some other time I can't recall off hand?

 

[YmirGF]

he actually did insult Islam

.

Hehe. How, exactly, can one insult a religion?

 

[.lava]

Hehe. How, exactly, can one insult a religion?

yes, insult may not be the perfect word but since it is used i say it. by slandering and telling ugly lies about it. that's how you offend believers

.

 

[.lava]

Do you mean when he quoted the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who said "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." and lots of Muslims thought he said that and got upset about it, or some other time I can't recall off hand?

yes, i remember this one. i am not collecting his words but other Muslims may recall some things he said about Islam

.

 

[YmirGF]

yes, insult may not be the perfect word but since it is used i say it. by slandering and telling ugly lies about it. that's how you offend believers

.

Then one is offending or insulting believers (who perhaps are prone to taking themselves too seriously by demanding that non-believers pay "lip service" to their sentiments).

That said, it is quite impossible to insult a religion. There is s subtle, but important, difference.

Dr. Naik, who, for the record is a medical doctor and can hardly be described as a "scholar", thinks nothing of insulting the intelligence of those who make to mistake of listening to his esteemed "thinking".

 

[.lava]

Then one is offending or insulting believers (who perhaps are prone to taking themselves too seriously by demanding that non-believers pay "lip service" to their sentiments).

if that's what you think and get from slandering people and telling lies about their paths, well, it is your problem then

.

 

[YmirGF]

if that's what you think and get from slandering people and telling lies about their paths, well, it is your problem then

.

Muslims are the ones who were offended, not me. I have no problem with what the Pope has said about Islam.
Then again, I took the time to actually read what he said... unlike so many others.

I guess that is "my problem" though, eh?

 

[nameless]

The MMPEM also demands from the Indian Government to arrest Zakir Naik for spreading hate speech against Barelvi and Shia Muslims, Hindus, Christians and for also eulogizing acts of terrorism.

indian government is allowing zakir naik to enjoy too much of Pseudo-secularism, and zakir is a guy who does not believe in secularism. He pledged that only hindu nation india would become islamic nation by 2050 and wants india to practice shariah. Guess what it will be if zakir was born in any other non-islamic nation....

 

[DeitySlayer]

The Pope did insult Islam, but he did also apologize; which Zakir Naik has never done.

 

[Breathe]

yes, i remember this one. i am not collecting his words but other Muslims may recall some things he said about Islam

Unfortunately dear, that's part of the problem: most of the Muslim world are ignorant to what was said, and have no idea what he actually said. Many just took him quoting someone as what he had said and got offended by it, when he was merely using it to explain how the nature of God is incompatible with violence.

If you want to read it, I've posted it below, in a spoiler. I've made some parts bold.

Spoiler: What was said

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on — perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara — by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between — as they were called — three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point — itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole — which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Muslim R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry

However, even if he did say it, then the best thing that could have been done, rather than protesting, would have been to prove him wrong: showing what Muhammad actually brought to the world.

 

[.lava]

Unfortunately dear, that's part of the problem: most of the Muslim world are ignorant to what was said, and have no idea what he actually said. Many just took him quoting someone as what he had said and got offended by it, when he was merely using it to explain how the nature of God is incompatible with violence.

If you want to read it, I've posted it below, in a spoiler. I've made some parts bold.


However, even if he did say it, then the best thing that could have been done, rather than protesting, would have been to prove him wrong: showing what Muhammad actually brought to the world.

i agree, Odion. i personally don't care for what he says or thinks. i don't see him as a religious character

.

 

[ZoyaHayat]

i agree, Odion. i personally don't care for what he says or thinks. i don't see him as a religious character

.

Likewise xxx

 

[K.Venugopal]

Except for their styles, in intention both the Pope and Zakir Naik are alike. Both believe that theirs alone is the true religion. While the Pope talks about harvesting of souls, Dr. Naik talks about getting everyone to revert to Islam. Probably the streak of intolerance is inherited through their common religious ancestor Abraham, who, in my mind, is a notorious character who destroyed the idols his own father worshipped.

 

[YmirGF]

i agree, Odion. i personally don't care for what he says or thinks. i don't see him as a religious character

.

And yet, somehow this is not supposed to be deeply offensive and insulting to hundreds of millions of Catholics. I'm sensing a double-standard here, .Lava.

 

[YmirGF]

Except for their styles, in intention both the Pope and Zakir Naik are alike. Both believe that theirs alone is the true religion. While the Pope talks about harvesting of souls, Dr. Naik talks about getting everyone to revert to Islam. Probably the streak of intolerance is inherited through their common religious ancestor Abraham, who, in my mind, is a notorious character who destroyed the idols his own father worshipped.

Personally I do not understand how anyone can seriously compare these two human beings. One is a charlatan and the other is the spiritual leader of hundreds of millions of people.

 

[xkatz]

I guess we should ban the Pope too seeing that people are comparing him to Zakir Naik

 

[.lava]

And yet, somehow this is not supposed to be deeply offensive and insulting to hundreds of millions of Catholics. I'm sensing a double-standard here, .Lava.

maybe you are sensing more than enough. what double standards? what did i say? explain and show me

.

 

[YmirGF]

maybe you are sensing more than enough. what double standards? what did i say? explain and show me

.

Par for the course, .lava. You stated that he spread lies about Islam and yet you are not even aware of what he actually said. You condemned him anyway. Based on ignorance of the facts you said he slandered your religion and insulted Islam (which isn't possible, but what the heck, eh). We are talking about Muslim sensitivities - so one shouldn't expect much in the way of reason.

Then you turn around and say that "i don't see him as a religious character". To my thinking, that is a direct insult to hundreds of millions of Catholics. The fact is he is a religious leader whether you, or anyone else, think so.