Should Zakir Naik Be Branded A Terrorist???

Question

He has publicly said that he supports Bin Laden and he has also publicly said that jihad against the USA and Israel is justified.

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Rebuttals_to_Zakir_Naik

Answer 1

W00t...........

What an analytical thinking.


When you don't have any answer to his questions, you find it convenient to brand him as terrorist.


If you have any wisdom to reply his questions, you wouldn't have said that.

You need some analysis man.


................

Answer 2

Because their religion is false.

Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years. Three of the four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.

Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam grew.

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against the Christians, Persians and Jews. For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.
Source(s):
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Answer 3

There are a lot of people who publicly defend the rights of people we consider terrorists. You need to put it in context.

Our democracy defends the right of people to have their own opnions, it also grants people the right to due process (bush kinda forgot these with gitmo)

Now you can't grant people rights without providing them the necessary support, so they can obtain those rights.

So if you support democracy, you have to support everyone with basic human rights even if you feel they don't deserve it.

So when Bin Laden is killing innocents you are against him, when the USA / Israel is killing innocents (who happen to get in the way of killing Bin Laden - I think we call it collateral damge when USA/Israel do it and Terrorism when Bin Laden does it, to the innocents the label makes no difference), you are against them.

As far as I am aware Zakir Naik did not give Bin Laden a blank cheque, (neither did the USA public give Bush, a blank cheque) to kill anyone he wants to.

So there is nothing to be gained in branding Zakir Naik a terrorist.

Answer 4

No question about it. Not only terrorist, but idiot. Its funny how all these ignorant Islamists think hes something. Muslims rave about him all the time, so I checked out one of his lectures on youtube and just couldnt believe how ignorant this goofy looking guy was.

For example, he tried to play "translator" by claiming that one of the Quran's errors (claiming the earth was flat) was actually a miracle because the true translation of "dahaha" was "ostrich egg". Problem is, all the major scholars say the opposite (Yusef Ali, Shakir, Irving).

Translation is not something we do by taking one word and looking up its meaning...its contextually based. In other words, Naik was playing the ultimate two-bit amateurs game. Its the type of mistake you get from a high school drop-out who joins a backwood church and pulls out a tattered greek-english dictionary for bible translation.

Answer 5

Zakir Naik is biggest terrorist

Answer 6

He is trying to bring believers of all religions closer by asking them to peruse their original books. He has never favourd killing of the innocent. He never avowed support to Bin Laden, but he has declared Geoge Bush a terrorist.
Was this a crime?

Javed Kaleem

Answer 7

Weird question dude why do u ask it
do u really need to clarify by asking others that he is a terrorist
huh......
cyaz

Answer 8

No, according to the dictionary, a terrorist is the one who carries out acts of violence for political agenda. So since Zakir Naik has not carried out any violence, he is not a terrorist. However, he might be a terrorist supporter, but you need to provide evidence for this.

Answer 9

No need. He is a terrorist.