This article is in response to Ali Sina's article "Zakir Naik Promoting Terrorism" which can be accessed here http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51022.htm
This is yet another horribly pathetic article written by Ali Sina. I think he is just desperate and bored. He just browses through the web and desperately tries to find anything to write about against Islam. I just found this article so desperate and pathetic that I simply could not resist but to respond back to it.
Ali Sina said:
I found the following paragraph in irf.net, the official site of Dr. Zakir Naik. This is what he teaches to his students:
“5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist
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.”
Dr. Naik claims that the anti-social elements that need to be terrorized by Muslims are the criminals, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. But isn't it the job of the police to go after the criminals? The police is trained and is paid to catch the criminals. He job is not to terrorize the criminal but to enforce the law. He must respect the human rights of even the suspects. As long a the suspect is not convicted in a court of law, he remains innocent.
Who gave the authorization to Muslims to take the place of the police, the court, the executioner and terrorize people whom they accuse of crime? Don't we have a penal system to deal with these matters? Should citizens take the law in their own hands? This is in itself against the law. What he is ostensibly proposing here is anarchy. We have a whole structure set in place to deal with criminals. Under what law average citizens can assume the role of the entire legal system? This is insanity!
Furthermore, in every non-Islamic country the rate of crime among Muslims is much higher than the average population. France has a high rate of crime confined mostly to it’s Muslim population. I read somewhere that in Netherlands the rate of the crime has jumped 11% in just one year and it is exclusively because of Muslims. In an article published in Times, Lahor, April 2001, Khaled Ahmed reported that the crime rate among Pakistanis in UK "is higher than in any other community. Fully 2 percent of the prisoners rotting in British jails are Pakistanis, the highest for any one community." In Australia raping the white girls by Muslim youths has become a national problem. What are the excuses of these Muslim rapists? That "in Islamic countries girls don't dress like this!"
It would be naïf to take Dr. Naik's justification of terrorism by its face value. What this snake-oil salesman actually means by anti-social elements are the non-Muslims and those who resist conversion. According to him I would be an anti-social element that has to be killed. Have I committed rape, theft or any crime? I and people like me are considered anti social because we speak our mind and Muslims can't handle that. Are Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin anti-social elements? What about Theo Van Gogh? Was he an anti social element?
After glorifying and justifying terrorism and hyping his students to become terrorists, making them believe this is a divine mandate and a wonderful thing to do, Dr. Naik will then quote the above verses and will explain to his foolhardy alumni that shirk is worse than killing and the unbelievers are worse than thieves, dacoits, rapists and murderers. Therefore it is incumbent upon Muslims, to instill terror in the hearts of non-Muslims and kill them wherever they find them. To determine their innocence or guilt it is enough to ask them whether they want to convert to Islam or not.
Ironically, since according to the Quran, these non-Muslims by rejecting Islam, have committed the worst crime imaginable, their property can be stolen and their wives and daughters can be raped. Thus Muslims who joined Dr. Naiks school to fight the dacoits, BECOME the dacoits, the criminals and the thugs.
Zakir Naik is not promoting vigilantism. Vigilantism is not allowed in Islam.
Taken from http://www.abc.se/~m9783/terr_e.html
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf said
Yusuf: I would say that he has no legitimate authority, that an Islamic Jihad can only be declared by legitimate state authority. And this is accepted by consensus. There is no vigilantism in Islam. Muslims believe in state authority.
We must obey those who are in authority. This is a command from the Glorious Quran
O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.
http://www.unification.net/ws/theme153.htm#5 (reading points 4 and 5)
Now of course it is the duty of the police to protect the society from these people but please tell me what is wrong in being a helpful citizen. Now if you were walking down the street and you saw a robber robbing an old lady, are you just going to sit back and watch and say "well that is the police's job". No! You are going to go and help her. Us Muslims take pride in doing this.
Yes it is true that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty, but Zakir Naik did not say to terrorize the suspects. He said terrorize the anti social elements! Meaning there is already proof and we already know if that they are bad people.
There is a difference between vigilantism and helping out the police. The police would love it if the citizens could cooperate and assist them in their fight against crime.
Ali Sina then goes on to talk about Muslims being criminals and says that they are the worst in the non Muslim countries. Well Ali Sina did not provide any references or proof to back up his claim, but let me just agree with him for sake of argument. So what is your point Ali? Not all Muslims are perfect. There are black sheep in every community. If there are Muslims committing these acts, then they are sinners and not following Islam. You cannot judge Islam by these people, just like how you cannot judge a car by its driver. So even if what Ali Sina says is true, his argument means nothing.
Then Ali Sina goes on to say that Shirk is worse than murder, rape etc. and therefore non Muslims should also be killed. Yes it is true that Shirk is a greater sin but the punishment for that is not in this world but in the hereafter. No where does God command us to kill non Muslims simply because they are non Muslim. As a matter of fact, we Muslims are commanded to realize and acknowledge the fact that there are non Muslims.
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
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: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
How can we call non Muslims to Islam with wisdom and beautiful preaching by killing them?
Ali Sina is referring to Surah 9 verse 5 which says that Muslims should kill the disbelievers wherever we find them. But this is only referring to time of war.
Read about it here http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/23.php
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.
By : answering-christianty