[Reader-list] Zakir Naik's incendiary words

[Pawan Durani]

"Freedom of speech includes freedom to offend – but when a preacher's
words incite violence, there has to be some sanction"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/22/zakir-naik-preacher-free-speech

What do Dr Zakir Naik, Russian skinhead Pavel Skachevsky, far-right US
talk show host Michael Savage, former Kahane Chai leader Mike Guzovsky
and Kansas Baptist pastor Fred Phelps have in common? They are all on
the list of people who have been banned from entering the UK.

Several commentators, like Inayat Bunglawala last week, have asked
exactly what Naik has done to deserve such company. A quick internet
search of his public statements throws up the following: "You heard
the Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them
... We don't know. But if you ask my view, if this is 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 terrorising the terrorists, if he is
terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with
him ... The thing is, if he's terrorising a terrorist, he's following
Islam." Other incendiary remarks include: "Muslims in India would
prefer the Islamic criminal law to be implemented on all Indians since
it is the most practical", "The Jews, by nature as a whole, will be
against Muslims", (Western Mail, 16 August 2006) plus an assertion
that western women make themselves more susceptible to sexual assault
by wearing revealing clothing.

While it is evident that most of Naik's views are out of step with the
values of any 21st-century liberal democracy, this in itself does not
provide sufficient justification to exclude him from the UK. As Lord
Justice Sedley stated in the notable high court judgment Redmond-Bate
vs Director of Public Prosecutions [1999]: "Free speech includes not
only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the
eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing
it does not intend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak
inoffensively is not worth having." Incitement to violence is a
crucial caveat of this fundamental principle, and forms the basis of
the Home Office's "unacceptable behaviour" policy. Proscribed actions
on the list include the glorification of terrorism, provoking others
to commit terrorist or criminal acts, and fostering hatred which might
lead to inter-community violence within the UK. Therefore, the most
problematic of Naik's statements are the ones that appear to condone
violence: "If a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his/her new
religion then, it is as good as treason. There is a 'death penalty' in
Islam for such a person." Naik's supporters have cited his freedom of
speech as a reason for overturning this exclusion order, but would he
take a similar stance if a famous ex-Muslim chose to convene a
speaking tour in Pakistan, for example? Further, Najibullah Zazi, who
was arrested in September 2009 for planning suicide attacks on the New
York subway, is said to have become "enchanted" with Zakir Naik before
planning his attack.

My organisation, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, supports
rigorous application of the exclusion policy to any international
speaker who incites hatred or violence. However, it is also vital that
the Home Office is consistent in its application of a tool as powerful
– and potentially controversial – as exclusion. To its credit, the
Home Office made a statement on Geert Wilders clarifying its position,
after the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal overturned the ban on his
entry to the UK in October 2009. Contrary to popular opinion, it
wasn't the Home Office but the tribunal that allowed Wilders into the
country.

Supporters of Naik have jumped to his defence by claiming that his
more controversial statements, like "Every Muslim should be a
terrorist", should be viewed in their proper context: "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 antisocial 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 ie antisocial
elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact, a Muslim
should be a source of peace for innocent people."

This semi-clarification of "antisocial elements" is all well and good,
but what Naik fails to elucidate is exactly who the "common innocent
people" are. One would imagine that based on his other pronouncements,
they don't include apostates or gay people. In any case, such defences
of Naik entirely miss the point. As a medical doctor and speaker whose
lectures on Peace TV are broadcast to millions of Muslims across the
world, he is in an incredibly powerful position. Therefore, he must
bear total responsibility for every single word that leaves his lips
(or his keyboard). Not only should Naik and other religious leaders be
extremely careful with the terminology they use (as per the Qur'anic
injunction, "Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and
beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and
most gracious"), they should be prepared for any criticism that comes
their way if certain individuals cite them as "inspirations" and take
their more controversial statements too literally. Many of Naik's
supporters point to his remarks condemning 9/11 and 7/7, but nothing
less than a clear and consistent repudiation of the quotes mentioned
in this article will do