Zakir Naik - broadcast into Oxford because Freedom of Speech doesn't Apply for Muslim

[Shehbaz Khan]

^ Even for the sake of argument I agree with this Paki thing of yours .. Is Dr. Naik somehow responsible for it?? What he has to do with it?

Or just in your habit of representing a bad image of Pakistanis you are doing this

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Mara tha ado pa khabara na poyaigai...Neither you know anything about the whole context in which these things occur ... When a Paki representing some company as a sale agent calls me and say me "Asalamulaicum" and then tries to establish link with me by uttering sentences in Urdu, his motives are business ... He damn cares about me....

No other community does this...I have received calls from Arabs, Iranians, Turks, ...but they have some dignity not to exploit religion for commercial interests unlike Pakis/Desis whose greed and selfishness have no bounds...


That is the whole context...

I would have to disagree wrorre, for the following common sensical reasons.

Disclaimer is that I do not know much if anything at all about Mr. Zakir Naik. I have not head him speak nor have I seen his videos.

However, I am addressing the building of churches and other infrastructure in Muslim countries that you raised.

1) Just as a mosque in the Vatican is a no-no, I think that the world does not truly have a hard time understanding why no other religions are permitted to have worship sites in Arabia and especially the Hijaaz as this was an edict from the Prophet himself. Thats a nonstarter discussion.

2) When were syngogues erected in Afghanistan? When were Sikh worship sites? They were built well before this phase in Islamic reactionary history. The same goes for the churches in Syria and Egypt.

3) With 2 in mind, you forget that countries that view themselves as occupied foment a reactionary ideology. A less dramatic example of this is America itself. Recently, near my old stomping grounds, a Tennessee politician condemned the building of a mosque in Murfreesboro TN. This is because the southern baptist convention sees itself under assault from "Islamo-Fascism." This was similar to feeling under assault from "Communism."

4) With 3 in mind, I think its ludicrious to ask a third world underdeveloped country's denizens, under a government that is beholden to foreign interests to suddenly write the equivalent of a 1st amendment and suddenly say "Yep, you backed a brutal military dictatorship and suppressed us for 50 odd years... sure go ahead and come from the outside and build as many churches and places of worship that represent, in our minds, another facet occupation... bring me a lemonade while you are at it.

5) So actually, I think its a fair trade off... the occupied have the right to say: OK, you have installed puppets in our countries, you have backed military dictatorships and built bases on our lands, and now you want churches? No, however, in a trade off we will continue to build mosques on your lands until you leave and quit intervening in our affairs.

6) Caveat: We see eye to eye that the status of the Muslim world is primarily on the shoulders of the Muslims themselves. A bully can only kick you around so long as you do not stand up to him.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Mara tha ado pa khabara na poyaigai...Neither you know anything about the whole context in which these things occur ... When a Paki representing some company as a sale agent calls me and say me "Asalamulaicum" and then tries to establish link with me by uttering sentences in Urdu, his motives are business ... He damn cares about me....

No other community does this...I have received calls from Arabs, Iranians, Turks, ...but they have some dignity not to exploit religion for commercial interests unlike Pakis/Desis whose greed and selfishness have no bounds...


That is the whole context...

What about Chick Fil- A? It is a southern chain restaurant that I used to frequent. Its built by fundementalist Christians. In fact, the US has many well known faith based chains that make no secret of their affiliations. In fact, Chick Fil A recently made the news because they made big contributions to vehemently anti gay groups.

[fzpz]

Chik fil-a has good food, though sonic is better.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Chik fil-a has good food, though sonic is better.

Darn good sweet tea. Those fries are friggin amazing. You dont get that up here in "New England." They are so proud of their crappy food up here. It doesnt at all compare to down home cooking.

[graveyardofempires]

its too obvious what these muslim bashers such as toramana,baygham are about.
you guys shouldnt even go into debates with these mislead people.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

its too obvious what these muslim bashers such as toramana,baygham are about.
you guys shouldnt even go into debates with these mislead people.

They are our brothers and we argue with them because we believe a common ground can be reached. They likely look at us as wayward and we too want them to understand we only have the best of intentions.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Admin Khan, in this very Western country where I live, there are hundreds of mosques been belt....In the university where I study every Friday we (about 300 Muslims) say prayers in large hall specially designated by the university for Muslim students....Yet, this preacher of ignorance when once asked whether it is right for non-Muslims to build worship places on Muslim lands replied No...

And this person has openly preached hatred against non-Muslims with his divisive speeches...The point is which kind of world we Muslims want to live in...? We are damnding ourselves every right but are not willing to concede even the slightest right to non-Muslims....

This hate-preacher is one of those people promoting and justifying this...

I think Zakir Naik is a goof ball, but where has he preached that non-Muslims can't build churches in Muslim countries in total?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Probably, you couldn't grasp what I wanted to say...I cited one instance how do they exploit Islam for their commercial interests ...The person saying me salam knows from my name I am a Muslim and so wants to exploit my religious sentiments to make business....Desis are expert at this...Even Arabs have some dignity...but these Desis/Pakis have got no self-respect...sorry to say that...

but your argument against Zakir Naik is ironically one used quite often by Desis in debate with Zakir Naik, namely Hindus and Ahmedis.

I don't even like his portrayal of things, and I can be intellectually honest enough to point out your inconsistency here.

[ScimitarXEdge]

is chik fil a "halal"? Not that I would eat there anyways, since I'm suspicious of even halal meat and choose not to eat meat anymore.

[graveyardofempires]

I think Zakir Naik is a goof ball, but where has he preached that non-Muslims can't build churches in Muslim countries in total?

he is a goof ball?
please have some respect for somone who has more knowldge than any other muslim scholar.

he is one of the greatest muslims of this time,instead of supporting him you jump and lightly attack his credibility cuz he is isnt from the same as you.

[maneatinglizard]

I think people here don't realize that there is a fundamental difference between the governing systems of the West, and that of Islam.

Western governments work off the basis of secular society, so no religion should be shown any bias, theoretically. In addition, most Western governments also include freedom of religion, assembly, and speech as elements of their constitutions.

Islam is not the same. Islam, and the Islamic legal system, is not centered around the principle of secularism, and it is actually directly opposed to the concept (this should be obvious enough). As such, the freedoms of religion, assembly, speech, etc. are not applicable universally in an Islamic society, because the Islamic society is meant to protect Islam and Muslims, amongst other things.

This is not to say that an Islamic society allows oppression or injustice to be inflicted upon non-Muslims, just that the definition of justice and oppression is different than in Western societies.

For example, it would be seen as unjust (unconstitutional) for a Western secular nation to fund the operations of one religion while neglecting another. In an Islamic society, this is to be expected.

So, when a Western secular nation prevents the operation of one religion from performing a function which it allows other religions, then this is wrong, as it goes against the principles set forth by the constitution of that nation.

However, when an Islamic nation does the same, there is nothing wrong with it, because the Islamic nation never guaranteed this right.

Muslims, and people of other religions, migrate to the West with certain expectations. Freedom of religion is one of them. Anyone who goes to a (theoretical) Muslim country that implements Sharia expecting the same is foolish, because he was never promised to enjoy the same religious freedoms as a Muslim.

[kakargirl]

i like dr zakir, his speach are to the point.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I think people here don't realize that there is a fundamental difference between the governing systems of the West, and that of Islam.

Western governments work off the basis of secular society, so no religion should be shown any bias, theoretically. In addition, most Western governments also include freedom of religion, assembly, and speech as elements of their constitutions.

Islam is not the same. Islam, and the Islamic legal system, is not centered around the principle of secularism, and it is actually directly opposed to the concept (this should be obvious enough). As such, the freedoms of religion, assembly, speech, etc. are not applicable universally in an Islamic society, because the Islamic society is meant to protect Islam and Muslims, amongst other things.

This is not to say that an Islamic society allows oppression or injustice to be inflicted upon non-Muslims, just that the definition of justice and oppression is different than in Western societies.

For example, it would be seen as unjust (unconstitutional) for a Western secular nation to fund the operations of one religion while neglecting another. In an Islamic society, this is to be expected.

So, when a Western secular nation prevents the operation of one religion from performing a function which it allows other religions, then this is wrong, as it goes against the principles set forth by the constitution of that nation.

However, when an Islamic nation does the same, there is nothing wrong with it, because the Islamic nation never guaranteed this right.

Muslims, and people of other religions, migrate to the West with certain expectations. Freedom of religion is one of them. Anyone who goes to a (theoretical) Muslim country that implements Sharia expecting the same is foolish, because he was never promised to enjoy the same religious freedoms as a Muslim.

he says a lot of fallacious things ; but that's besides the point.