What's new

Indian Muslims fight the radicalism of Zakir Naik with their liberal ethos

MimophantSlayer

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
1,281
Reaction score
-4
Country
India
Location
India
Indian Muslims fight the radicalism of Zakir Naik with their liberal ethos
Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi Jul 10, 2016 08:36 IST

Radical religious preacher and president of the Islamic Research Foundation, Zakir Naik, is a controversial clerical figure since the time he left his medical profession for a priestly career.

A medical doctor-turned- televangelist, Naik is a Salafism-inspired debater on Islam loudly speaking of himself as a ‘student of Comparative Religion'. Based in Mumbai, he is a frequent state guest of Saudi Arabia who has been honoured by the kingdom, on several occasion, for propagating its state religion “Salafism”, or what is popularly known as Wahhabism. Unlike the radical Islamist preachers from South Punjab in Pakistan or from Afghanistan who grew up under the Taliban influence, Naik was born and brought up in a liberal Muslim society with secular Indian ethos. Therefore, it is utterly surprising to see how an Indian Muslim qualified doctor of a modern educational background turned into the biggest Salafist preacher of the world.

Though, in the beginning, he was praised by most common Muslims in India and abroad, they have been awakened by their local clergy and imams against Naik’s un-Islamic utterances. On account of his coining an exclusivist and supremacist theology, Naik has been opposed by almost all mainstream Islamic scholars, except those who subscribe to the Wahhabi-Salafi clergymen of Saudi Arabia, popularly known in India as Ulema of Ahle Hadith.


File image of controversial preacher Zakir Naik. Reuters

Interestingly, Naik embarked on his Salafist mission in a disguise. He emerged as an Islamic televangelist speaking about Islam as a faith of peace and pluralism, finding similarities in it with different religions. But he showed his true colours later when he pronounced supremacist, anti-Semitic and incendiary judgments against other faith traditions.

More deplorable to Muslims was his misguided and narrowed stand on various theological issues in Islam as well as other religions. As a result, mainstream Muslims have been advised by the classical Islamic scholars and Muftis (theologians) to shun his speeches and prevent his programmes in their localities. Consequently, he was barred, in the last few years, from addressing Islamic conferences and public gatherings in Allahabad, Kanpur and Lucknow and New Delhi at the urging of local influential imams as well as the moderate Islamic thinkers.

An overwhelming number of Sufi and Shia Muslims in all these cities have peacefully protested against the proposed programmes of Naik. They maintained that Naik has not only offended the religious sentiments of both Shia and Sunni-Sufi Muslims, but also tried to sabotage the universal values of national interest; interfaith harmony, communal affinity, national integration and respect for all faiths. Therefore, they held, they did not want Naik to preach to the Indian Muslims who are imbued in Sufi teachings of communal harmony, spiritual symbiosis and sharing cultural amity among the different religious communities of India.

Challenging Sufi Islam, which calls for inclusiveness and syncretic values among Muslims and non-Muslims, Naik run down the age-old Rishi-Sufi tradition of peace and pluralism in the country. Through his enchanting memorization of holy verses of different religious scriptures to lay the claim of religious supremacy, he created a huge fan club among the Muslims, particularly those inclined to the Salafism.

Cherry-picking the religious texts out of sync with their deeper connotations, he evolved an utterly exclusivist, intolerant, xenophobic and anti-pluralism theological underpinnings breeding the ground for the Salafist combat against kufr (infidelity) and shirk (polytheism). No wonder then, the recent brutal killing of an innocent Sufi singer Amjad Sabri in Pakistan is viewed as the assassination of a grave worshipper, a mushrik (polytheist) by the hardcore followers of Naik.

It is a common knowledge that Naik often demonized the Sufi Muslims calling them Qabr parast (shrine worshippers) likening their shirk to that of the Hindu community. He is on record clearly stating that, "aaj ke daur men Muhammad (pbuh) se bhi mangna shirk hai, in fakiron aur babaon ki to baat hi mat karo" (It's an act of polytheism to seek blessings even from Muhammad pbuh in this age, not to speak of the Sufi saints and holy men). Like the most Salafist clergy, Naik has also declared the Sufi and Shia communities beyond the pale of Islam on these theological grounds.

Therefore, both Sufi-Sunni and Shia Muslims in India countered Naik along with other radical Salafist preachers and televangelists like Shaikh Yusuf al-Qardawi, the spiritual leader of Ikhwan al-Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt. For instance, an apex body of Sufi Sunni Muslims in India, All India Ulama & Mashaikh Board (AIUMB) organized a massive protest against his public lecture on 17 January, 2015 at Delhi’s India Islamic Cultural Centre (IICC). A large number of common Muslims, from both Sunnis and Shias, gathered outside the premises of the IICC protesting against his address at the venue. I myself heard them shout slogans against Naik’s radical Salafism taking roots in India. One slogan was going like this: Na Atanki Na ikhwan…Sunni Sufi Hindustan (India is an abode for Sufi Sunnis, not for terrorists or extremist political outfits like Muslim Brotherhood).

After a week or so, the AIUMB also took out a strong procession against the leading extremist Wahhabi preachers in the Middle East, particularly Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a world-renowned Egyptian Salafist Islamist jurist (Mufti) who had sought to justify suicide-bombing of the jihadists in his Fatwas. Sufi Muslims in India lament that al-Qaradawi, despite his explicit radical pronouncements, continues to enjoy exposure via global Islamic TV channels. His weekly program “al-Shari’a wal-Hayat” (Sharia and Life) aired on an Egyptian TV channel is one of the most viewed TV programmes in the Middle East.

Naik has often averred that he has never offended the religious sentiments of any Islamic sect nor did he outrage other faith traditions. But his incendiary speeches against different faiths and various established beliefs and practices of Islam are viral.

He declared the battle of Karbala between the Prophet’s grandson Imam Husain and the tyrant ruler, Yazid as a political phenomenon in the Islamic history, which is viewed as a ‘fight between good and evil'. Imam Hussain strongly refused to surrender to the unjust and tyrannical ruler Yazid, who walked away from the Prophet’s concept of leadership through consensual democracy and created a completely dictatorial dynasty. Yazid was responsible for the brutal killings of Imam Hussain and his entire noble family along with his companions. He led the war of destruction at Medina. Therefore, the sacrifice of Imam Hussain is looked up as a lofty Islamic principle of democracy, freedom and justice. But in his speeches, Naik held Yazid in high esteem glorifying him with a great Islamic prayer “May Allah bless him”. Because of this sectarian slug fest, Naik had to face the ire of the mainstream Sufi and Shia Muslims.

More to the point, Naik cannot wash off his hands from his inflammatory speeches that might cause violent extremism in a section of the gullible Muslim youth. In one of his lectures when he was asked whether how he viewed Osama bin Laden. He replied: “If he (Osama bin Laden) is terrorizing the biggest terrorist (America) then, I endorse him.”

Indeed, it’s a matter of grave concern. It’s unthinkable to lionize a global terrorist responsible for the murder of thousands of people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But one is amazed at the sheer naivety of this global Salafist televangelist who washes off his hands stating that he did not meet Osama bin Laden.

Javed Anand, general secretary, Muslims for Secular Democracy, has succinctly put it: “Naik could say nothing for sure about bin Laden because “I have never met him”. Naik never met George Bush either but he had no doubt that the former American President was the “biggest terrorist”.

This is precisely why Naik’s Peace TV has been banned in India. It had potential to inspire violent extremism. Since its inception, it has been airing views antithetical to interfaith harmony, pluralism and democracy in India, much in the same way as the Salafist televangelists did in Egyptian Islamic televisions. Peace TV had a viewer base of up to 100 million people across the region. But due to the extremist, exclusivist and misogynistic utterances that Naik made in several episodes, the Indian government has banned Peace TV broadcasts in India since 2012. Answering a question in the Lok Sabha in 2012, the Minister of State of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had stated that “The content of this channel (Peace TV) is not conducive to the security environment in the country and poses a potential security hazard.”

More worryingly, Naik’s outfit, Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) was extensively featured on the official website of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which has been declared a terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

It cannot be denied outright that radical religious preachers like Naik misguided a section of the gullible and naïve Muslim youth indoctrinating them into an ideology of religious bigotry, exclusivism and supremacism. But at the same time, it is gratifying to note that the mainstream Indian Muslims are increasing awareness about the imminent threat that the radical preachers pose to the secular fabric of the country. Muslims who are anchored in the Rishi-Sufi tradition of India have always combated and defeated the menace of radicalism. They are gearing up to do it again.

The author is a scholar of Comparative Religion & Classical Islamic sciences, cultural analyst and Doctoral Research Scholar at Centre for Culture, Media & Governance (JMI Central University).

http://www.firstpost.com/india/indi...ir-naik-with-their-liberal-ethos-2884240.html
 
I often wonder.

What makes Muslim Indians different to Pakistanis or even Bangladeshis?

Why don't ours run around blowing themselves up or hacking people with machetes?

We're we lucky by some quirk if chance in '47.

Or was there something else which I am missing?

@Joe Shearer
 
Oh no, India is no paradise with or without secularism, but we are far better off than Pakistanis ever were and probably ever will be, muslims or no.
Far better than any country with muslim majority and more powerful militarily than all those guys combined.
 
I often wonder.

What makes Muslim Indians different to Pakistanis or even Bangladeshis?

Why don't ours run around blowing themselves up or hacking people with machetes?

We're we lucky by some quirk if chance in '47.

Or was there something else which I am missing?

@Joe Shearer
The difference is that Muslins in India live in a democracy. And they live alongside and forced to interact with people of other religions on a daily basis. In any population there will be differing opinions, in a democracy those who disagree with conservatives can freely express their point of view. This makes for a very different ecosystem to that of most Muslim majority countries as most of these are dictatorships, monarchies or theocratic states....and quite brutal ones.

In Saudi a blogger was sentenced to 1000 lashes for questioning some tenets, in India Imran Khan questioned fasting during Ramadan and while some of his fellow Muslims agreed with him and others did not ,nobody tried to kill him or have him flogged.

Long live Democracy!
 
Last edited:
Muslim is Muslim i didn't feel any difference in Indian Muslim and rest of the world "Muslim" ,all are same
 
The difference is that Muslins in India live in a democracy. And they live alongside and forced to interact with people of other religions on a daily basis. In any population there will be differing opinions, in a democracy those who disagree with conservatives can freely express their point of view. This makes for a very different ecosystem to that of most Muslim majority countries as most of these are dictatorships, monarchies or theocratic states....and quite brutal ones.

In Saudi a blogger was sentenced to 1000 lashes for questioning some tenets, in India Imran Khan questioned fasting during Ramadan and while some of his fellow Muslims agreed with him and others did not , everyone agreed that he had the right to express his opinion and nobody tried to kill him or have him flogged.

Long live Democracy!

Muslims in India don't truly live in a democracy till there is a Uniform Civil Code.

But yes what we have now is a lot better than most Muslim countries.
 
Muslims in India don't truly live in a democracy till there is a Uniform Civil Code.

But yes what we have now is a lot better than most Muslim countries.
Have you seen that video of Shabana Azmi giving the shahi imam of Jama masjid a piece of her mind when he called on Muslims to send their sons to Afghanistan?

She told him" you go there if you want but leave our children alone" she literally b!tched slapped the guy for a good 10 minutes. Tell me which country other than India can a Muslim woman stand up to a senior imam in this aggressive fashion and be totally safe afterwards?

Therein lies the difference. Democracy gives voice to those who may not be heard in other societies.
 
Dont understand this all of a sudden propaganda against Dr Naik? Could there be an intel link to Dhaka bombing to discredit him? No conspiracy but such games are played by intel agencies all the time.

I m still not clear what will interest ISIS in Bangladesh? Its a remote country and has no history of visible radical Islam.
 
Have you seen that video of Shabana Azmi giving the shahi imam of Jama masjid a piece of her mind when he called on Muslims to send their sons to Afghanistan?

She told him" you go there if you want but leave our children alone" she literally b!tched slapped the guy for a good 10 minutes. Tell me which country other than India can a Muslim woman stand up to a senior imam in this aggressive fashion and be totally safe afterwards?

Therein lies the difference. Democracy gives voice to those who may not be heard in other societies.

Problem with this example is that Shabana Azmi is no ordinary Muslim woman.

I also agree with what Nilgiri is saying. As long as they follow their own kawas, they are actually a state within a state.
 
Problem with this example is that Shabana Azmi is no ordinary Muslim woman.

I also agree with what Nilgiri is saying. As long as they follow their own kawas, they are actually a state within a state.
Yes,we do need UCC and we are nearly there, I think there probably is enough support on the ground for it to be pushed through in the near future. "State within a state" is a little over dramatizing....:-)
 
Have you seen that video of Shabana Azmi giving the shahi imam of Jama masjid a piece of her mind when he called on Muslims to send their sons to Afghanistan?

She told him" you go there if you want but leave our children alone" she literally b!tched slapped the guy for a good 10 minutes. Tell me which country other than India can a Muslim woman stand up to a senior imam in this aggressive fashion and be totally safe afterwards?

Therein lies the difference. Democracy gives voice to those who may not be heard in other societies.

i have seen video of Pakistani women marvi sirmed ,quite bold lady
 
I often wonder.

What makes Muslim Indians different to Pakistanis or even Bangladeshis?

Why don't ours run around blowing themselves up or hacking people with machetes?

We're we lucky by some quirk if chance in '47.

Or was there something else which I am missing?

@Joe Shearer

At 3:10 in the morning, these fundamental questions come to you? No wonder, if you're snoring your fool head off at 3 in the afternoon.

It gets down to deep roots. It stems from the determination of Muslims after the failure of the Indian Mutiny not to live under any leadership but other Muslims. This directly fed the two-nation theory, till then a Hindu right-wing concept seeking to cleanse the ancestral land of migrants and converts to other faiths, the Abrahamic faiths. When Jinnah tried to get a homeland for the Muslims within India, he failed due to Nehru's suspicion of the future tactics of the Muslim League, and Parel's outright irritation with the non-cooperation of the central ministries led by Muslim League ministers. The result was Pakistan.

However, right through, India had denied the possibility of a communal view of the state. Having agreed to partition, India firmly resolved - this is not written down in any one place - that no more would the religious beliefs of a segment of Indian citizen determine that Indian's loyalty. Sovereignty, vested in the Indian citizen through the Constitution, would not be handed over to a transcendental entity.

Here you have to distinguish between those who accepted the creation of the two Dominions, representing two sharply different ideas about the state, and those who didn't.

Tell me if you get it.
 
At 3:10 in the morning, these fundamental questions come to you? No wonder, if you're snoring your fool head off at 3 in the afternoon.

It gets down to deep roots. It stems from the determination of Muslims after the failure of the Indian Mutiny not to live under any leadership but other Muslims. This directly fed the two-nation theory, till then a Hindu right-wing concept seeking to cleanse the ancestral land of migrants and converts to other faiths, the Abrahamic faiths. When Jinnah tried to get a homeland for the Muslims within India, he failed due to Nehru's suspicion of the future tactics of the Muslim League, and Parel's outright irritation with the non-cooperation of the central ministries led by Muslim League ministers. The result was Pakistan.

However, right through, India had denied the possibility of a communal view of the state. Having agreed to partition, India firmly resolved - this is not written down in any one place - that no more would the religious beliefs of a segment of Indian citizen determine that Indian's loyalty. Sovereignty, vested in the Indian citizen through the Constitution, would not be handed over to a transcendental entity.

Here you have to distinguish between those who accepted the creation of the two Dominions, representing two sharply different ideas about the state, and those who didn't.

Tell me if you get it.

So you are essentially saying Islamism vs Secular Nationalism is a genetic thing.

Or is there some nurture along with the nature?

P.S. why anyone would be awake at 3 in the afternoon on a rain drenched Sunday with the sonorous pit-a-pat of rain drops on the khidki ke chajje outside, is truly beyond my comprehension.
 
So you are essentially saying Islamism vs Secular Nationalism is a genetic thing.

Or is there some nurture along with the nature?

P.S. why anyone would be awake at 3 in the afternoon on a rain drenched Sunday with the sonorous pit-a-pat of rain drops on the khidki ke chajje outside, is truly beyond my comprehension.

No, not genetic, not at all; it's the same genes on both sides of the Radcliffe Line, after all. But not entirely religious either, unless the outpouring of support for Zakir Naik has just made a monkey out of me.

My take on things is that some Muslims have accepted that Pakistan was all that they aspired to, and it is all that they can aspire to, and it is fit and appropriate to go there to lead the lives of fully fulfilled Muslims. What has happened to the land in reality is quite another, terribly mundane question, which has nothing to do with the higher purposes of life.

Other Muslims have not, and they are the ones vulnerable to ISIS allure, as well as to a theocratic view of statehood.

That is why some of the people of the Valley have this theocratic view point. They have had a 'romance' created for them, by their well-wishers across the border, and, over time, actually come to think of all this as reality. I will send you the six points of the 'romance' some other way.
 
Back
Top Bottom