Organized Religion

Dr. Zakir Naik: A Modern Charlatan

Britain for far too long has been a breeding ground for would-be terrorists due to its lax laws. Therefore the tough stance taken last year by British home secretary Ms. Thersea May to ban the entry of self proclaimed Muslim preacher Dr. Zakir Naik into United Kingdom comes as a breath of fresh air. The British authorities were quick to refuse admission to Mr. Geert Wilders, a respected member of the Dutch parliament, on account of stoking inter-community tensions. However this is the first time that Dr. Naik, a hate monger and a radical terrorist supporter, has been denied a British visa.  Although Dr. Naik makes it clear that he does not advocate specific acts of terrorism, his inflammatory speeches makes it abundantly clear where his sympathies lie. He seems to have a personal grudge against the west in general and a specific revulsion towards United States. This is what he had to say when questioned about Bin Laden:

“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 is doing. I am not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. If he is terrorizing the terrorists, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist …. I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

This particular statement is an instigator for Muslim youth to commit different acts of terrorism. The American terror suspect Mr. Najibullah Zazi, arrested in 2009 for planning suicide attacks on the New York subways, was reportedly inspired by the provocative and hate filled speeches of Dr. Naik on YouTube.

Zakir Naik has been swift in passing judgments on the morality of Western women. His exact words were:

“Western society has actually degraded [women] to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketers.”

On the contrary he fails to take into account the fact that slavery was never abolished by Islam. In fact it permits polygamy, and the practice of keeping concubines was prevalent even during the reign of Muhammad. Koran sanctions the use of concubines in the following verse:

And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course. (Koran 004:003)

The right hand possessions in the above verse have been interpreted by various Islamic scholars to be concubines. Muhammad himself had a number ofzakir_naikconcubines, apart from several wives. Among them was Maria the Coptic who was a Christian slave gifted to Muhammad by an Egyptian ruler. Maria’s name has not been found to be listed anywhere as the wife of Prophet in the earliest sources of Islamic history such as the notes of Ibn Hashim on Ibn Ishaq’s sira. Muslim theologians however try their level best to prove that the Prophet actually married Maria, in order to scale down the criticism of his disgraceful deeds. Obviously Dr. Naik conveniently overlooks this aspect of Islamic history. Even today Muslims spring up immediately to defend this despicable example of misogyny. To be fair it was actually the American Civil war that led to the near-eradication of slavery on a global scale.

Dr. Zakir Naik has also been quoted as saying that Western women make themselves more susceptible to rape by wearing revealing clothes. Such a sweeping statement explicitly clarifies his stance. The underlying message is that women should be controlled and put behind several layers of veils. They are inferior beings and their purpose in life should be to act on the whims of their husbands and to raise kids. Dr. Naik expediently puts the entire onus on the shoulders of women. Men in his contrived view can carry on with their lustful activities.   This also runs contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 article 1, which states.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in the spirit of brotherhood.

The assertion by Dr. Naik  is also inconsistent with the facts. Developing countries have a higher rate of rape incidents. This is because of poverty, lawlessness and anarchy. In many Islamic countries rape victims refuse to report the crime because of the shame associated with it. There were actually laws in Pakistan known as the Hudood laws based on Islamic injunctions which advocated the incarceration of the rape sufferer in case she fails to provide the law enforcers with four witnesses. Several women were put behind bars under the pretext of these laws. These have now been amended. However the main gist remains intact. Ironically it was the Islamist parties who were its biggest proponents and tried their level best to delay legislation for their revocation.

Another heart wrenching story is of Dr. Shazia Khalid. She was posted as a medical doctor at a hospital in a small town of Sui in Pakistan. She was an employee of Pakistan Petroleum Limited, a state owned oil exploration company. She was allegedly raped by an officer of the Pakistan army who was actually a part of a military contingent guarding the state owned facility. Later she was prohibited from reporting the case. When the news finally went out, the authorities hounded her immensely thus forcing her to flee from the country. She was eventually granted political asylum in the United Kingdom. Not a word in her support was uttered by any cleric or Islamic scholar. This is what one gets for being a modest and chaste woman.  Her dignity was after all restored in an “infidel” Western country.

Dr. Zakir Naik has also claimed to have found scientific miracles in the Koran. All the holy scriptures were written between 2000 years before Christ and 200 years after Muhammad. Modern science includes the period from Galileo, Newton up to Einstein and the current century. The two are at odds. None of the scriptures teach science. His half truths and myths have been debunked by Ali Sina who is a leading critic of Islam. Naik is a showman who is able to impress his audience by memorizing and quoting directly from various scriptures. He has also been accused of inflaming communal feelings with this strident debating style. He is also a proponent of the death penalty for apostates. He should be completely barred from the Western capitals until he changes his uncivilized behavior.

About the author

Aftab Zaidi


  • In India too there are spiritual fronts to communal[Saffron] Parties ,who are crooks of the first water.Their main aim is make crores of money and fuel communal agenda.Jakir Nayak and these Babas with ‘Yoga’brands are a great threat to the youth and future civilisational progress.

  • Brothers, may allah’s peace be upon you
    Please listen the full part of his videos ,, all these statments are cut from the context…

    • Dear Muneer, Zakir Naik is biggest nut job and supporter of curbing other’s freedom. Arvind Iyer’s video link exposed him. I have Arab friends and I don’t think plenty of them are happy with Saudi’s and other Arabian leaders’ religious point of views. I read Koran and it is disgusting logic less book. Koran is nothing but sugar coated poison. Dr. Naik promotes sugar coated poison. As long as his freedom of speech concern, I support him. But I do not support almost any of his point of views.

  • The writer is a long lasting hatred filled writer who not only write agianst Dr Naik also against Islam; With all respect I would reject your conservative ideology which is only to maligned Islam, Go and leanr how behave urself being uncaught from hatred. This is disgusting to journalism which upfront the partiality as the whole journal doing agianst islam. So here you the writet didn’t check how was ur feedback by the reader coz it means to me nonsense writer.

    • Without much ado, most readers here would reject the obscurantist and supremacist ideology of the televangelist whom you are defending, who casually maligns all liberal institutions and is a cheerleader of acts of terror. Dr. Naik could do with a dose of this preaching of yours to be free from hatred and pay attention to critical feedback. Here is some relevant reading for subscribers of oppressive ideologies who feel compelled to preach the virtues of liberalism in rationalist fora.

    • I heard Dr. Zakir Naik. He is a nut job. For sure he always try to justify act of terrorism. No doubt in it. However, he just talk. Freedom of speech gave him right to say whatever he want. We have no right to shut him up. People who want to commit violence, will commit it, weather or not Zakir speak. Freedom of speech mean to me is, speak whatever you want to speak and tolerate other’s speech, even if you strongly disagree. We need more tolerance in society. We show tolerance and at the same time, we have right to expect tolerance.

      • By the same token, critics of the said speaker are also free to voice their misgivings about his worldview! One wonders why the preachy tolerance concern-trolling is directed more often towards critics, rather than at the original provocateurs, for whom bizarrely, only the rights of freedom of speech are sought, conveniently omitting all concomitant accountability. Perhaps these case studies will help better understanding of the standards by which such criticism is leveled.

        • I am not saying one should not criticizing Zakir. Criticize if one like to. All I am saying is, we must protect his freedom of expression as long as it remain non-violent. I am opposing UK’s decision of not granting him visa. Also, the person who is behind ban, Ms. Theresa May is equally nut job as Zakir.

          • There are conditional limitations on speech, for example when it clearly impinges on the rights of others to peaceful existence. In the case in point, threat of bodily harm is legitimate cause to legally restrict speech. See here for why Naik’s words are in violation of democratic restrictions on speech.

          • Person who commits violence do not need to hear these speeches. He/She will commit any way. No compromise on freedom of speech. Let person speak. Let it be his/her words are in favor of violence. Let it be his/her words are most disgusting. Otherwise there will be no difference between a religious group and us. We are better, because we learn to tolerate.

          • I don’t think you read the link properly. The argument is not that “his/her words are in favor of violence” , but that he is supporting specific acts of violence against two specific groups of people. There is a huge difference here. Zakir Naik is not just supporting violence as an ideology in theory, but is actually making death threats.

            There can be no absolute freedom of speech; much of the growth and progress of civilization involves debating about where to draw the line. Things are not in not black and white when we’re talking about such normative concepts. There are many cases where certain forms of expression are curbed, having nothing whatsoever with religion. For example, a doctor cannot mislead a patient. It’s a legal and democratic restriction on speech. I cannot bottle a new brand of soda and call it coke. The government restricts companies and individuals from making certain types of statements, under various different laws. This is unavoidable if you want to have a civilized society. Simply dismissing the idea of democratic restrictions on speech as akin to religious behavior is unreasonable. The most liberal countries on the planet have severe laws against death threats, for good reason.

            Let’s again keep in mind the fact that the legal system deals with nuance, not with simplistic absolutes.

          • Freedom of speech, in context of freedom of expression is very important. Freedom of speech, not in context of cheating some one. Zakir is just expressing his views. Even though its wrong, he has right to say it. Reason he was banned by another nut job, Ms. Theresa May, is just a religious reason. FYI Christianity is worst than Islam.

  • Dr zaker naik is right
    he says nothing but he compare it with the holy qor-an so it is not his own idea but words of Allah
    So we must first find out what qoran is. if we belive that the problem is solved

    • Those who think that the ‘problem is solved’ when everybody begins to believe what they believe, is most probably subscribing to a primitive notion that the best means to Peace is enforced submission of all dissenters. There is an obstinate insistence on part of some of the faithful to wantonly ignore the perennial human aspiration for autonomy and self-determination humanity’s incompatibility with hegemony and enslavement. Such an insistence to ignore, in the name of religion, is not the way to world peace but an impediment to human emancipation and a heightening of the risk of conflict.

      • So you mean to say the “problem” won’t be solved if everyone converted to the religion of freethinking, since there is an obstinate insistence on the part of the freethinking faithful to wantonly ignore the perennial human aspiration for autonomy and the rest of it…

        • A humanistic freethinker affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives as stated in the IHEU minimum statement. Recognizing human beings as possessing autonomy and reason is central to this worldview. It also involves recognizing that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion as well.

          • Thanks for those definitions.How about giving me the freethinkers definition of “emancipation” as used by you in the context below

            “””Such an insistence to ignore, in the name of religion, is not the way to world peace but an impediment to human emancipation and a heightening of the risk of conflict.”””

            But you still didn’t answer my query. Will preaching “freethinking” to convert other “non freethinkers” to join your freethinking group solve all problems related to human “emancipation” and lessen the risk of conflict ??

          • Freethinkers will gladly stick to the Oxford dictionary’s definition of emancipation.

            For those who seem to think that freethought advocates are ‘preachers’ and sermonizers uncommitted to dialogue, here is an exercise: Replace ‘freethinking’ with the religion of your choice in the previously asked question

            Will preaching “freethinking” to convert other “non freethinkers” to join your freethinking group solve all problems related to human “emancipation” and lessen the risk of conflict ??

            …and post on an apologist website of that religion. If you are able to find one that has authors posting under their real-life names and has active comment-trails where responses are received in a civil fashion, please post that comment and link to it here.

  • A very well written article By Aftab.
    These kind of people are not limited to Islam alone almost all religions have modern chalatans like Zakir, who are not to be taken too seriously by people who use their minds and think for them selves.
    I once heard him saying that men who cover their ankles will have that much portion burn in hell, just a small example of the thought process.

  • Dear ‘Freethinkers’,

    In your zeal for ‘freethinking’ you have provided a link to the infamous ‘Ali Sina’ who is has been noted by the esteemed Anti-Defamation League as a sower of the seeds of hatred against Muslims. He/she hides behind a pseudonym and vents hatred and encourages violence against Muslims. You have just lost all credibility by linking to this vile bigot and modern day Nazi.

    A true freethinker

    • It will be great if your zeal to expose the ‘bigotry’ of Ali Sina is also accompanied by a more urgent zeal to call out the bigotry of religious supremacists in the Middle East and elsewhere whose bigotry more egregiously resembles that of the Third Reich (Watch this and this) and is actually backed up by lethal force. Also, take a long hard look at this picture before you ever again speak of the secular critique of religious fundamentalism as a greater threat than murderous fundamentalism itself.

      • Lethal force as in ?? Napalm, submarines armed with nuclear weapons ?? Apache helicopter gunships ?? And plenty of civilians to do target practice on.

          • I’m not convinced.

            Why not go through Meera Nanda’s essay on the “mystifications of sam Harris”. Let me quote:

            “””Disturbed by the rise of religious violence around the world, especially the 9-11 attacks on America, Harris has taken on the traditional theological beliefs about God and afterlife that motivate some to kill innocents. Brushing aside all political and historical factors that have contributed to religious extremism in the contemporary world, Harris singles out theological beliefs as the primary and pretty much the sole cause of religious violence. He indulgently turns a blind eye on the “spiritual” teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which have a proven track-record of justifying nationalistic wars and ethnic cleansings. Instead, he saves all his venom against the Koran, condemning it as if it were a manual of war. His analysis of religious extremism goes on these lines:

            Question: Why do Islamic terrorists do what they do? Why has Osama bin Laden chosen the path of violence against the West, especially against America?

            Answer: Because men like bin Laden actually believe in the literal truth of the Koran. And because the literal truth of Koran is “intrinsically” violent and intolerant, they have no choice but to commit acts of violence.

            In short, it is the theology stupid!”””

            “””I reject the very premise that any religion is inherently violent or inherently peaceful. One simply cannot brush away the social and political context in which religious ideas express themselves for the good and for the bad.)”””

            Read the rest here if you wish.

            I’m not trying to make out you are a spiritualist or something else.Fact of the matter is the Al Qaeda and US of A are old bedfellows from the days of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

          • You completely missed the point of Meera Nanda’s article. She is taking Harris to task for using double standards for judging the dharmic religions (which he has a soft spot for) and the abrahamic religions (which he doesn’t like at all). In no way does what she says contradicts what Arvind has said. In fact what you are trying to say is a complete non-sequiter.

  • @ satish chandra,

    Thanks for pointing out what you thought I missed. Meera nanda’s views on Harris’s double standards will apply equally well to Ali Sina as well who concurs with Harris on the dangers posed by Islam and also concurs on what must be done to the Muslims to ward of this threat.
    Thus they would also apply to Arvind Iyer as well who thrusts into my face a picture of the twin towers with the caption “imagine no religion” emblazoned around it, ignoring the larger political and social context in which the events of 9-11 actually occured.

    • For some reason I am not ale to reply on your latest post in the thread above, so I am replying here instead.

      You are conflating your views on the discontent in the middle east with your views on philosophy. Which is why I called you out on your amorphous stance. And your response was again found wanting. But I have gathered with a great deal of difficulty what the issue nagging you is. Let me summarise in a way which makes your views more pliable or in any case more palatable-

      1) 911 was wrong. Suicide bombing is wrong.
      2) Western imperialism, especially the kind Chomsky riles about, in the middle east is wrong.
      3) Just as Islam as an ideology encourages jihadism, western imperialism is responsible for the discontent in the middle east.

      I would mostly agree with you. But the whole point of my earlier post is that there are a large number of discontent people in the world for whom the core of their suffering is linked to their ethnicity or their religion. BUT Muslims are the only ones that go and blow themselves up and take innocent lives in acts which are gruesome but at some levels cathartic for them. Hence while the “situation in the middle east” can be blamed to some extent, the fundamental motivation for the acts of violence come from Islam’s incendiary reactions towards the infidels, apostates & heretic of the world. Islam is violence at its very heart, to the extent that the most dangerous place for a Muslim to be is outside a mosque in Iraq or Pakistan.

      Since you have droned on about Humanism not being suffeciently codified (you clearly didnt read any of the links posted above), let me do that exercise for you –
      Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.
      Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
      Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
      Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
      This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
      Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
      Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

  • @Arvind Iyer,

    You get your definition of “freethinking” from some IHEU minimum, then you get your definition of emancipation from the oxford dictionary. Haven’t you freethinnkers codified your philosophy yet ??
    Atleast the Koran, a scripture in black in white, lends itself to the most intense scrutiny from a believer like naik to an unbeliever like Arvind Iyer.
    But you still didn’t answer my query i.e if all “non freethinkers” like say Naik and me, convert to “freethinking” an as yet uncodified philosophy, will it result in “emancipation” of the human race as per the oxford dictionary ??

    • By the way its your choice to adopt free-thought or not. No one is asking you to convert. And your usage of the word “emancipation” is loaded with enough possibilities to render your intention vague. There is no chance you can consider yourself emancipated when your religion infects your life so deeply as to demand the recitation of Quranic verses when you are copulating with your partner.

      Why does the path to freedom that you demand need to get codified? National Socialism was pretty meticulously codified as an ideology. Why aren’t you a Nazi instead of a freethinker?

      The whole point of free-thought is that it is ever-evolving. All the ills of religion come about precisely because it is codified dogma which can never evolve with the passing of time and the refinement of sensitivities and sensibilities.

      We’d much rather adopt an uncodified life stance such as humanism/freethinking than a fatalistic, fantastical, scatalogical, eschatological, morally-bankrupt, intolerant ideology such as Islam.

      In any case if you want to understand what freethinking is. Here goes –

      And don’t cheer yourself up thinking that the variety of flavours of freethinking (Atheism, humanism, rationalism, etc.) would mean they are at odds with each other. Believe me, unlike the Shias blowing themselves in front of Sunni mosques, the freethinkers are not mutilating the humanists.

      • And it’s precisely because the Koran and other religious scriptures are codified, that you can subject them to the scalpel of your logic, science and freethinking and then celebrate your own freethinking status. But you don’t want to apply the same standard to yourself.Thats your choice.

        BTW does codification take away the choice to be ever evolving ?? The Indian constitution or the Indian Penal code are uncodified documents, is it ?? And do you consider yourself as “emancipated” when your “religion” infects you so deeply as to not recite the verses of the koran when you copulate with your partner ??

        Regarding the use of the word “emancipation”, your fellow free thinker, Arvind Iyer lamented that the obstinacy of some of the faithful would retard human “emancipation”. When I asked him about the freethinker definition of emancipation, he said that freethinkers would gladly accept the oxford dictionary’s definition of “emancipation”. And now you say that “my” use of the word emancipation is loaded which “renders my intention vague”. So why don’t you redirect your query to Iyer because I used the word with the same intention as he did i.e I was merely following his, a freethinker’s, definition of the word.

        Seems to me that freethinking thanks to its uncodified nature allows each freethinker his/her own personalised truths and definitions and thus I may expect individual freethinkers to lay it on differently from the way you or Iyer are laying it on.I used the word “emancipation” in the same context that Iyer did, and you have an objection to that.

        And let me repeat to you what a freethinker like Meera nanda spelt out for Sam harris, and would have propbably for Ali sina too had she known his views on Islamic theology, regarding his views on Islamic theology being inherently violent:
        “”I reject the very premise that any religion is inherently violent or inherently peaceful. One simply cannot brush away the social and political context in which religious ideas express themselves for the good and for the bad.)”

        Yes congratulations, neither are the advaitas mutilating the dvaitas or the protestants the catholics or the other thousands of religious denominatinos around the world who coexist with each other peacefully without explicitly calling themselves as “freethinkers”.

        And then again I’m curious why you felt the need to assert the dualism and oneness of freethinking, in the same sentence, almost as if to preempt any comparison to established religion, even when I hadn’t declared any intention of doing so. LOL

        • The Quran and other religious scriptures’ codified nature are *not* the reason for them being subjected to scrutiny and critical analysis by freethinkers . For criticizing any ideology or view or set of views , one requires a open mind and critical thinking faculties in their armory. Even the ideas that are not codified are still subjected to scrutiny by freethinkers . A freethinker can subject even his own view to scrutiny . Much like how science works .
          Here is a quote from Carl Sagan on how science works :

          “At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.”

          The above quote is very much applicable to freethinking .

          You conveniently ignored ‘codified dogma’ in Faheem’s response and picked only codified part. Yes , *codified dogma* is resistant to evolve , and this is how religions through out the history and even today , have maintained their authority over the masses. The Indian Constitution and IPC are *not* dogmas. Both can be amended , and in fact have been amended. When was the last time a religious scripture amended ? Do democratic principles play a part in religion ?

          Some resources for you on freethinking.

          Your choice of word ‘conversion’ to freethinking is what casts doubt on your intention behind usage of ’emancipation’ in its proper context as pointed out. No one gets *converted* to freethinking . It is not a religion that one converts by chanting some mantras and practicing some rituals or even adopting a ‘holy book’ . One becomes a freethinker with an open mind and a self critical attitude.

          Here is what freethought means :

          “The word ‘Freethought’ refers to a set of philosophies that adopt science, reason and logic as tools for understanding the natural world, rejecting sources of authority and tradition, such as religion, that claim infallible truth and require blind allegiance”

        • I haven’t seen so many words being expended without a single point being made and a stance being defined. I am not clear as to what exactly you stand for or stand against. And it looks like you aren’t as well.

          From your gibberish the only conclusions I can gather are –
          1)The Quran is codified therefore it is much better a philosophical stance than freethinking.
          2)Atheism is undefined hence it defaults into uselessness.

          My stance on fairy godmothers are equally undefined. Does that mean that my disbelief in the fairy godmother is a weaker choice than a person who wholeheartedly believes in her citing Cinderella as their codified source?

          The whole point of free-thinking is the lack of obstinancy. We on our part can think of many things that would constitute evidence for the existence of God. Tell me just ONE thing that could be considered as evidence to the contrary for the believers. How dare you accuse us of being obstinate??

          I see how you are all over the place with your thoughts with your comments regarding 9/11 below. To that I only ask you where are the disenfranchised dalits blowing themselves in front of temples? Where are the tibetan monks blowing themselves outside of chinese embassies world-wide?

          To summarise I will end with Steven Weinberg’s words – In the absence of religion good people do good things and evil people do evil things. For a good person to commit an evil act religion is absolutely necessary.

          I had made a reference to the word eschatology in my earlier post to which you have in your attempt to respond had to redefine the word tangent. Look up what that word means and then reply.

          • @Faheem,

            The process of codification grounds the experience of the believer in one particular direction excluding all other. Therefore the disbeliever has a solid grounding to critique the experience of the believer.

            The disbeliever on the other hand with no code of his own is free to deploy any argument that he wishes to ridicule the believer. Which is why Ali Sina a known Muslim baiter can turn into a freethinker when its a question of overturning Zakir Naiks “half truths” about islam. Which is why when a poster points to the lack of objectiveness In Ali Sina’s critique of Islam another freethinker shows him a picture of a couple of suicide bombers to prove his point that Ali Sina is actually correct in his assessment. Which is why when questioned about the “lethal force” that is deployed by “middle eastern bigots” I am shown a picture of the twin towers with the caption “imagine no religion” as if the association of America with Islam began on 9/11. Which is why two freethinkers have two different opinions of what constitutes free thinking.Which is why you should thank your stars that the founding fathers of the country codified secularism and democracy which is why today you take a call on Hindutva’s stunt of calling itself secular.

            So go get yourself a code and then we’ll see if Ali Sina deserves the tag of freethinker and whether its only Islam that motivates the suicide bomber.

  • @ Arvind Iyer,

    Here’s a link to some of Sina’s thoughts on atheists whom he dismisses as fanatical, Hindus and Buddhists whom he thinks are paragons of virtue, and then upholds the divinity of Jesus the christ and ofcourse concurs with your own view of islam since he finds place in the essay above as a counterpoint to the non freethinker,naik.

    In short Sina comes across as a facsimile of some sort of Sam Harris and his “End of faith” philosophy.
    In which case he and his fellow freethinker Arvind Iyer,would need to be told what Meera nanda spelt out for harris in no uncertain terms,
    i.e ” “””I reject the very premise that any religion is inherently violent or inherently peaceful. One simply cannot brush away the social and political context in which religious ideas express themselves for the good and for the bad.)”””

  • Actually, William Wilberforce started the ball rolling for the abolition of slavery, and he predates the American civil war by almost 100 years.

  • Before you write anything against Islam and Quran I would encourage all the people to read the Quran once with an open mind. Of course having an open mind is indeed difficult as even many freethinkers struggle to be non-biased.

    I know that Quran has saved countless lives and it saved me for I having tried Brahmanism(was born into it), Buddhism and parts of christianity I finally found the truth in Islam. I stopped me from taking the gun and shooting me head off. I thank Allah for giving me the truth and life.

    May Allah grant you unbelievers wisdom one day.

    • Interesting to read about your interfaith exploration…and somewhat dismaying to read about its eventual conclusion which doesn’t seem to leave one much better off compared to the start. Some problems which arise whenever exceptionalism is claimed for one religion while rejecting others, are the following questions: If there are arguments that convince you to reject the claims of Dinesh D’Souza and Tarun Vijay quoted here, don’t those arguments also apply to Ahmed Deedat? (Switch around the names and the question is the same) Why should our options of a worldview and lifestyle be limited to choices between the tyranny of ‘non-proselytizing faiths’ and the manifest destruction wrought by ‘religions of Peace’? Why not give real peace a chance by shunning these sectarian labels?

    • I was on the fence with respect to faith until I read the Quran. Only after reading the Quran did I chose to get off the fence. Islam propelled me towards atheism. By the way I must ask – Have you read the Quran yourself?

      Check this out.

      Tell me what is beautiful in the Quran.I promise you in return to show at least 2 things that are vile for every one thing that you find beautiful.

    • BTW. The Quran and the Hadith are very clear about what your duties are with regards to the people of the faiths you have left. Do you slay the unbeliever where you see them, my friend?

      The fact is while your life was saved by the Quran, no book currently takes as many lives as it does. And funnily enough most of the lives lost are Muslim ones. The most dangerous place for a Muslim to be today is not outside a church in american or a courthouse in europe, BUT inside a mosque in Iraq or Pakistan.

    • When i understood vedic perspective at looking world, i understood the real essence of life and i started feeling oneness in each and every individual, living and non living things. I started feeling blissfullness in everything, being only Human spiritual being after knowing Vedanta, it has changed my life completely and i understood that weather u follow Islam, Christinity or any other religion when u know the inner divinity within every thing and its interconnectedness with every thing which we perceive then there are no barriers or boundries between every individual and we become one unified field of consiousness.. i truely feel blessed after knowing this secret after reading and understanding vedantic studies… Highly recomended for everyone to understand vedanta with open mind in this life time!!

  • What I find dissappointing, is when Muslims condemn American imperialism- yet remain oblivious to Islamic imperialism which is just as big a threat as American imperialism :\ Anyone who has seen/heard what Naik preaches, would point out that he too is a imperialist and a hypocrite, of course they would see this in him if they weren’t full of pro-Islamic bias.

  • Let me tell you how we learn what islam means:
    When we hear bombs, we hear islam.
    When we see women dressed in black sacks, we see islam.
    When we learn of amputations and stonings, we learn about islam.
    When we read about sexism and homophobia, we read about islam.
    When we face animality, anger and greed for power, we face islam.
    When we smell death, we smell Islam.
    When we hear muslims say peace, we know they mean war.
    Islam is just one big F-ALLAH-CY!

    • Dear Horin, that is Islamophobia. It is irrational and dangerous. And it probably has nothing to do with atheism. Bombs, death penalties, sexism, homophobia, anger, greed, power, death are not exclusive to Islam. And when Muslims say peace, some of them may mean it to be war, just as some Christians or Hindus or what have you, may mean it as thus. Fallacies are committed by all in various degrees, but when you spell it out as Fallahcy, it also speaks of prejudices you harbor against a section of people who are internationally, and especially in India, hatefully targeted simply because of their specific religious associations.

  • Aftab has hit the nail on the head. This type of hate preaching and defaming other religions in order to promote ones own is a very dangerous practice. It will create hatred and fights between different religions.
    In short Zakir Naik is doing with words what the Mughal tyrant Aurangzed did with the sword.
    If it was any other country he will be behind bars.

  • He was the last Mughal emperor who was a bigot and forced Hindus to get converted. He killed thousands of them and kidnapped their wives and young girls. The ‘labbai’ sect of Muslims are the descendants of these raped women. He also forced Hindus to pay a tax known as Jazya. Those who cant afford should get converted to Islam. Check on the net.. All his achievements are there. After him the Mughal empire fell down rapidly in India.

    • Rajkumar,

      Much of what you write is Hindu propaganda. Aurangzeb did nothing that was different from what a emperor typically did (taxation and putting down rebellions) to keep his far flung empire together. Your analogy between Zakir Naik and Aurangazeb does not hold.

      A better analogue for Zakir Naik would be Hindu con artists like Sri Sri Ravishankar who recently endorsed Narendra Modi for PM and called him a nice man.

      • Aurangzeb destroyed hundreds of temples physically. Zakir Naik aims to destroy them by saying people should not go there as they contain idols and the Bhagavad Gita chapter 7 verse 20 says don’t worship idols (this is the greatest lie but people don’t even bother to verify his statement. By saying Kalki Avatar is Mohammed the Prophet, Zakir tells people, that even Kalki (God Vishnu’s avatar) has asked you to worship Allah, so get converted to Islam. Hence he has raped the soul of the ignorant Hindus who get converted believing the Lier.

  • @ Captain Mandrake, pl read: “ISLAMIC JIHAD – A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery by M. A. Khan This book is available for free download from the Web.

  • Oh Naik, Oh Naik,
    With looks of a stoic!
    I bow to you, Doctor,
    As never do you err,
    In reciting verses from scriptures any,
    Be it Quran or Gita or Bible so many:-

    You know the chapter and verse number,
    And can recall them even in slumber!
    But a closer scrutiny by the indefatigable
    Will always reveal a meaning unfathomable,
    Though concealed with a skill unimaginable,
    Stultified to look Islam amicable!

    Well had the ‘set up’ audience learn to trace
    The mischievous smile in the bearded face!
    Full well they laughed with counterfeited glee,
    At all his jokes, for many a joke had he!
    Full well the questioner knows that it is futile:
    To convince the great doctor of guile!

    Yet he looks kind or if severe in aught,
    The love he bore to Islam was in fault.
    Great extents can he go, to defend the faith
    As he is lured by the million dinar bait!
    Greater extent likewise to defame the other theology
    Which to him is a mere crapy mythology!

    While words of learned length and thundering sound
    Amazed the ignoramus audience ranged around:
    And still they gazed and still the wonder grew
    That one small head could carry all he knew!
    Shouldn’t they think or look around,
    As empty vessels make the most sound?

  • Very interesting article, just loving it. Do you know about kalki avatar.
    KALKI MAHA AVATAR arrived on Indian Soil after passing the 4,32,000 Years of KALIYUGA.
    for more information please visit kalki maha avatar.
    you can get all the answers regarding kalki avatar and kaliyuga.

  • Yes it is true in Islam u can’t worship ideals but it is also true that u r not allowed to raise question on anyone’s religion to u belongs ur belief and to my belongs my belief so islam has got nothing to do wid de hatred filled in people’s heart about other people’s belonging to other religion. In a family of saint if u find a thief de entire family can’t b blamed for it similar if a person is bad or cruel or violent entire community can’t b blamed for it. So don’t say wrong about islam bcoz it’s not violent, cruel yes few muslim might be but not quran but denwe have such people in all religion not all crimes and terrorist.

  • Not all criminals and terrorist are muslim. Theif, terrorist, rapists even if dey r muslim de are still criminals in islam. Even n islam der are punishment for such people.

Leave a Comment