[Reader-list] The Trouble with Dr. Zakir Naik

[shuddha at sarai.net]

Dear Kshmendra and Pawan

I re-read both your mails. And the target of my ire, should, legitimately, be
Sadanand Dhume, not either of you. I apologize for this confusion. Since you
(Kshmendra) have repeated, and Pawan has only reported, what Mr. Dhume has to
say about Zakir Naik. Both of these acts are perfectly legitimate in
themselves, and my irritation was misplaced and uncalled for. 

However, the substance of my criticism, as it pertains to Dhume, remains. I
fail to see why any people should have a special responsibility to be
answerable for others who share their background, views, faith or ethnicities.
Zakir Naik is a fool, a bigot and a charlatan. Exposing him, or anyone like
him, regardless of their provenances, should not be anyone's specific
responsibility. 

To suggest that it is, implies that we have to defend everything that emanates
from people who can be lumped together with us on the grounds of some ersatz
definition of identity. I refuse to have that thrust on me. Or to countenance
that being thrust on others. 

I have consistently spoken against Hindu, Muslim or unbelieving bigotry, no
matter where it emanates from. I hope that everyone else does the same.

best

Shuddha



"Moreover, most of India's purportedly secular intelligentsia remains loath
to criticize Islam, even in its most radical form, lest this be interpreted
as sympathy for Hindu nationalism."

"Unless this changes, unless Indians find the ability to criticize a
radical Islamic preacher such as Dr. Naik as robustly as they would his Hindu
equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism will remain deeply flawed."




On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Kshmendra Kaul
<kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote

> Dear Shuddha
>  
> It is shameful when intellect lacks integrity, honesty and ethics. Whether it
> is Zakir Naik or it is you.
>  
> At one time I would fight tooth and nail if any unwarranted remarks were to
> be made about me. Now, at most times I ignore them. Idiots would not be
> idiots if it were possible to have a rational interaction with them.
>  
> But you Shuddha are not an idiot. I have greatly admired your intellect and
> have had no hesitation in acknowledging it.
>  
> The comments you have made about me in this thread makes it clear that you do
> not have the slightest of idea what you are saying because you do not have
> any basis for saying it.
>  
> On this topic of Zakir Naik I have posted the following:
>  
> 1. Video link to evidence answer to the question """" Did Zakir Naik say
> "Every Muslim should be a terrorist"?"""""
> (No other comment was made by me about Zakir Naik or any post/person on
> this List)
>  
> 2. Link to article from a UAE newspaper that quoted Zakir Naik as saying
> "“it is a blatant, open secret that this attack on the Twin Towers was done
> by George Bush himself”
> (No other comment was made by me about Zakir Naik or any post/person on this
> List)
>  
> 3. Thanked Pawan for sharing Sadanand Dhume's article "The trouble with Zakir
> Naik" and quoted extracts from it. I commented on the article as being "An
> apt reading of the reality of the likes of Zakir Naik and "India's
> purportedly secular intelligentsia".
> (No other comment was made by me about Zakir Naik or any post/person on this
> List)
>  
> Shuddha, would you now care to justify your comment about me:
> "I find the kind of insinuations that have been made by .........Kshmendra
> disturbing."
> (What insinuations? About who?) 
>  
> The way your mail is phrased, it appears that the following comments you have
> made include me also as one being commented on. If not, clarify that. If
> they include me, justify your remarks:
>  
> - "persistence of bigotry on this list"
>   (Clarify what bigotry you are talking about and justify your remarks if I
> am being remarked upon) 
>  
> - "I find it insulting that some people should expect others to have to have
> some kind of special responsibility to atone for the idiocies of others who
> might share an ethnicity or a religious background."
>   (Clarify if in 'some people' you are including me. If yes, then give the
> basis of making that remark against me)
>  
> - "suggestion as offensive as the one being implied by those who are using
> Zakir Naik to cover for their bigotry."
>   ( Clarify if in 'those' you are including me. If yes, then give the basis
> of making that remark against me)
>  
> - "people on this list can hold others guilty by association, because of
> their name, or their beliefs, or assumed beliefs, is very sad indeed."
>   (Clarify if you are including me amongst such "people on this list" If
> yes, then evidence that claim)
>  
> Shuddha, I have seen you quite often speak up for justice, fairplay and
> honesty. I have seen you warn/advise/berate against accusations being made
> without evidence.
>  
> I hope you will not disappoint and will respond with details.
>  
> Kshmendra
>  
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/23/10, shuddha at sarai.net <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: shuddha at sarai.net <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The Trouble with Dr. Zakir Naik
> To: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Pawan Durani"
> <pawan.durani at gmail.com>, "Kshmendra Kaul" <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 11:15 AM
> 
> 
> Dear All, Yusuf, Pawan and Kshmendra,
> 
> I am utterly amazed at the persistence of bigotry on this list. Thanks,
> Yusuf,
> for pointing out that Dr. Zakir Naik is someone who is anathema to very many
> Muslims. I have watched several of his internet broadcasts, and find him
> utterly, utterly laughable and prejudiced, and also either very ignorant, or
> very dissimulating about the history of Islamicate cultures. I have never had
> any hesitation in saying that people like Zakir Naik are charlatans, but I
> see
> no reason, why I (who identifies himself, and is identified, as a secular
> intellectual) or anyone bearing a Muslim name should have a specific
> responsibility to do so. My attitude towards him is not any different from my
> attitude towards Pravin Togadia (the rabid Hindu fanatic) or for that matter
> any fundamentalist or bigot of any persuasion.
> 
> I find the kind of insinuations that have been made by Pawan and Kshmendra
> disturbing. I find it insulting that some people should expect others to have
> to have some kind of special responsibility to atone for the idiocies of
> others
> who might share an ethnicity or a religious background. A sometime
> Shankaracharya of Puri openly declared his support for untouchability and the
> Sati system, does this mean we should ask any and every believing Hindu to be
> accountable for his (the said Shankaracharya's) utterances, or for the
> utterly
> pathetic conduct of an outfit like the Rame Sene? If anyone were to suggest
> that I would find such a suggestion as offensive as the one being implied by
> those who are using Zakir Naik to cover for their bigotry.
> 
> The fact that people on this list can hold others guilty by association,
> because of their name, or their beliefs, or assumed beliefs, is very sad
> indeed. It looks like the long and tragic history of prejudice in the
> twentieth
> century (or earlier) is something that some people still have difficulty
> learning from.
> 
> best,
> 
> Shuddha
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Kshmendra Kaul
> <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote
> 
> > Dear Pawan
> >  
> > Thanks for sharing this. An apt reading of the reality of the likes
> > of Zakir
> > Naik and "India's purportedly secular intelligentsia".
> >  
> > - "Unlike traditional clerics, Dr. Naik quotes freely from non-Muslim
> > scripture, including
> > the Bible and the Vedas. (You have to pay attention to realize that
> > invariably this is either to disparage other faiths, or to interpret them
> > in
> > line with his version of Islam.)"
> >  
> > - "Finally, unlike Hindu bigots, such as the World Hindu Council's Praveen
> > Togadia, whose fiercest critics tend to be fellow Hindus, radical Muslims
> > go
> > largely unchallenged."
> >  
> > - "Moreover, most of India's purportedly secular intelligentsia remains
> > loath
> > to criticize Islam, even in its most radical form, lest this be interpreted
> > as sympathy for Hindu nationalism."
> >
> > - "Unless this changes, unless Indians find the ability to criticize a
> > radical Islamic preacher such as Dr. Naik as robustly as they would his
> > Hindu
> > equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism will remain deeplyflawed."
> >
> > Kshmendra
> >  
> > --- On Tue, 6/22/10, Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Reader-list] The Trouble with Dr. Zakir Naik
> > To: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > Date: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 1:48 PM
> >
> >
> > Source :
> >
> >
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704365204575317833268479268.htm
> > l?mod=WSJINDIA_hps_sections_opinion
> >
> > "Britain's decision to bar an influential Muslim cleric from entering
> > the country underscores the failure of Indian secularism."
> >
> > By SADANAND DHUME
> >
> > If you're looking for a snapshot of India's hapless response to
> > radical Islam, then look no further than Bombay-based cleric Dr. Zakir
> > Naik. In India, the 44-year-old Dr. Naik—a medical doctor by training
> > and a televangelist by vocation—is a widely respected figure, feted by
> > newspapers and gushed over by television anchors. The British,
> > however, want no part of him. On Friday, the newly elected
> > Conservative-led government announced that it would not allow Dr. Naik
> > to enter Britain to deliver a series of lectures. According to Home
> > Secretary Theresa May, the televangelist has made "numerous comments"
> > that are evidence of his "unacceptable behavior."
> >
> > The good doctor's views run the gamut from nutty to vile, so it's hard
> > to pinpoint which of them has landed him in trouble. For instance,
> > though Dr. Naik has condemned terrorism, at times he also appears to
> > condone it. "If he [Osama bin Laden] is fighting the enemies of Islam,
> > I am for him," he said in a widely watched 2007 YouTube diatribe. "If
> > he is terrorizing the terrorists, if he is terrorizing America the
> > terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him. Every Muslim should
> > be a terrorist."
> >
> > Dr. Naik recommends the death penalty for homosexuals and for apostasy
> > from the faith, which he likens to wartime treason. He calls for India
> > to be ruled by the medieval tenets of Shariah law. He supports a ban
> > on the construction of non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim lands
> > and the Taliban's bombing of the Bamiyan Buddhas. He says revealing
> > clothes make Western women "more susceptible to rape." Not
> > surprisingly, Dr. Naik believes that Jews "control America" and are
> > the "strongest in enmity to Muslims."
> >
> > Of course, every faith has its share of cranks; and, arguably, India
> > has more than its share. But it's impossible to relegate Dr. Naik to
> > Indian Islam's fringe. Earlier this year, the Indian Express listed
> > him as the country's 89th most powerful person, ahead of Nobel
> > Laureate economist Amartya Sen, eminent lawyer and former attorney
> > general Soli Sorabjee, and former Indian Premier League cricket
> > commissioner Lalit Modi. Dr. Naik's satellite TV channel, Peace TV,
> > claims a global viewership of up to 50 million people in 125
> > countries. On YouTube, a search for Dr. Naik turns up more than 36,000
> > hits.
> >
> > Nobody accuses Dr. Naik of direct involvement in terrorism, but those
> > reportedly drawn to his message include Najibullah Zazi, the
> > Afghan-American arrested last year for planning suicide attacks on the
> > New York subway; Rahil Sheikh, accused of involvement in a series of
> > train bombings in Bombay in 2006; and Kafeel Ahmed, the Bangalore man
> > fatally injured in a failed suicide attack on Glasgow airport in 2007.
> >
> > Nonetheless, when the doctor appears on a mainstream Indian news
> > channel, his interviewers tend to be deferential. Senior journalist
> > and presenter Shekhar Gupta breathlessly introduced his guest last
> > year as a "rock star of televangelism" who teaches "modern Islam" and
> > "his own interpretation of all the faiths around the world." A handful
> > of journalists—among them Praveen Swami of the Hindu, and the grand
> > old man of Indian letters, Khushwant Singh—have questioned Dr. Naik's
> > views, but most take his carefully crafted image of moderation at face
> > value.
> >
> > At first glance, it's easy to understand why. Unlike the foaming
> > mullah of caricature, Dr. Naik eschews traditional clothing for a suit
> > and tie. His background as a doctor and his often gentle demeanor set
> > him apart, as does his preaching in English. Unlike traditional
> > clerics, Dr. Naik quotes freely from non-Muslim scripture, including
> > the Bible and the Vedas. (You have to pay attention to realize that
> > invariably this is either to disparage other faiths, or to interpret
> > them in line with his version of Islam.) The depth of Dr. Naik's
> > learning is easily apparent.
> >
> > But this doesn't fully explain Dr. Naik's escape from criticism. It
> > helps that Indians appear to have trouble distinguishing between free
> > speech and hate speech. In a Western democracy, demanding the murder
> > of homosexuals and the second-class treatment of non-Muslims would
> > likely attract public censure or a law suit. In India, it goes
> > unchallenged as long as it has a religious imprimatur. However, create
> > a book or a painting that ruffles religious sentiment, as the writer
> > Taslima Nasreen and the painter M. F. Husain both discovered, and
> > either the government or a mob of pious vigilantes will strive to
> > muzzle you.
> >
> > In general, India accords extra deference to allegedly holy men of all
> > stripes unlike, say, France, which strives to keep religion out of the
> > public square. Taxpayers subsidize the Haj pilgrimage for pious
> > Muslims and a similar, albeit much less expensive, journey for Hindus
> > to a sacred lake in Tibet. This reflexive deference effectively grants
> > the likes of Dr. Naik—along with all manner of Hindu and Christian
> > charlatans—protection against the kind of robust scrutiny he would
> > face in most other democracies.
> >
> > Finally, unlike Hindu bigots, such as the World Hindu Council's
> > Praveen Togadia, whose fiercest critics tend to be fellow Hindus,
> > radical Muslims go largely unchallenged. The vast majority of Indian
> > Muslims remain moderate, but their leaders are often fundamentalists
> > and the community has done a poor job of policing its own ranks.
> > Moreover, most of India's purportedly secular intelligentsia remains
> > loath to criticize Islam, even in its most radical form, lest this be
> > interpreted as sympathy for Hindu nationalism.
> >
> > Unless this changes, unless Indians find the ability to criticize a
> > radical Islamic preacher such as Dr. Naik as robustly as they would
> > his Hindu equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism will remain deeply
> > flawed.
> >
> > Mr. Dhume, a columnist for WSJ.com, is writing a book on the new
> > Indian middle class.
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe
> > in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe
> > in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>