Dr. Zakir Naik
What does it really mean?
While security experts like General V P Malik (retd.) struggles with the question of the identity of terrorists, Jerry Thomas looks into the answer provided by India's most popular Islamic preacher provides an easy answer: “Every Muslim should be a terrorist”.
Following the ghastly massacre of innocent Mumbaites by Islamic Jihadi’s, General V P Malik (retd.) asked “Why has India become the most affected target? Are we in a no-win situation against terrorism? Since the mid-1980s, India's share of terrorists' incidents and civilian casualties has become the highest in the world.” In answering these questions, he pointed out that “Regrettably, despite long and hard experience, India continues to treat terrorism mostly as a law and order problem.” He also cited that “It has become fashionable to call terrorists as the faceless enemy. That does not help. It conveys defencelessness and makes us more vulnerable. Who do we take action unless we can identify the terrorists and their sources?” (The Tribune, Chandigarh, July 21, 2006).
General Malik is on the mark when he observes that we must identify terrorists and their sources to defeat them. But General Malik did not identify those terrorists and their sources for whatever reasons. It would have been easy for General Malik to identify them had he read the ‘reasonable’ face of Islam in India- Dr. Zakir Naik. But before examining his latest sopishtry, let me provide the context (the Koran) that would expose his hypocrisy.
According to the last ‘revelations’ of Mohammed (Sura 8&9), every Muslim must kill non Muslims or unbelievers. For example Mohammed said:
“Then, when the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, take them [captive], besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every point of observation. If they repent afterwards, perform the prayer and pay the alms, then release them. Allah is truly All-Forgiving, Merciful” (Sura 9:5).
“Fight those among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in God and the Last Day, do not forbid what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not profess the true religion [Islam] until they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively (9:29)”.
It is clear from these verses that Koran considers being a non Muslim is a valid reason to be killed. This is the source of terrorism and the manual of every terrorist. In fact, these last revelations nullify the peaceful earlier verses which Mohammed uttered (Sura 2:256) when he was weak initially. Allah changed his mind according to the fortunes of Mohammed!!!
With these Koranic verses in the background, one must read the writings of Islamic apologist Dr. Zakir Naik.
In his article ‘Islam and terrorism’ (http://www.irf.net/irf/drzakirnaik/index.htm) Dr. Naik first declared that he is a fundamentalist. Then he invites every Muslim to be a terrorist but for a 'good reason'. He writes: “Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.”
First, I must show that except in the case of self defense, there is no single valid reason in civilized democratic societies, for any civilian to become a terror to other. This calling is an utter nonsense and dangerous incitement of mindless violence. In contrast, it is the Bible which guides the any society in the right path. Bible forbids any civilian to take arms and hands over that power to the state (Romans 12: 1-10).
Second, if according to Koran being a non Muslim is a valid reason to be killed, then does Dr. Naik, a fundamentalist Muslim accept that?
Third, Dr Naik argues in the same article that there are ambiguities in the word terrorist. He says one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. An argument that would make Kashmir terrorists and Pakistan happy.
Is it not obvious now that Koran is the source of evil terrorism? But we must look more to understand the nature of terrorism from the first terrorist, Mohammed (Dr. Nail should not have an objection here as he believes that every Muslims should be a terrorist.) We will take those in the following articles.