Salman Rushdie Muslim Protection Watch

The Gutter gurgles, again.

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.

crasss wrote: 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 are 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...

Whisper wrote: 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. 

Sign*Reader wrote: 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".

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

Chrysalis wrote: 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.

martha wrote: 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?

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

This is with reference to an exclusion order issued to Dr Zakir Naik by the British Home Office, UK Border Agency, dated 16^th 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 25^th-27^th 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 11^th 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 21^st 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

18^th June 2010, Mumbai, India.

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. 

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

Ron Webb wrote:   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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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