Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Recent Posts


Danish mosque declares su...
Today at 09:14 PM

F-Inductive Arguments: A ...
Today at 09:06 PM

Muslim Rape gangs
Today at 08:43 PM

funny Youtube clips
Today at 08:00 PM

The Quran in English
Today at 07:46 PM

New member
Today at 07:26 PM

I like your ______
Today at 07:01 PM

what to do
Today at 06:58 PM

Another ex-Muslim
by lua
Today at 06:53 PM

Hello :)
Today at 06:47 PM

Prophet Muhammad Grave,.....
by moi
Today at 06:36 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
Today at 05:14 PM

Donations

Kitty is lost

Theme Changer

 Topic: Apostasy and the Sinister Zakir Naik

 (Read 6933 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Apostasy and the Sinister Zakir Naik
     OP - March 26, 2013, 10:14 PM



    Apostasy and the Sinister Zakir Naik

    If only George Orwell were alive to chronicle the age in which the owner of a channel called "Peace TV" speaks regularly of how ex-Muslims deserve to die.

    It is normal for Islamic literalists and chauvinists to pervert language to try to present their poison as honey. Zakir Naik exemplifies this perfectly.

    However, sometimes the elephant in the room does get pointed out. Recently, the British broadcasting regulator OFCOM ruled against Peace TV and Zakir Naik after he broadcast the following words:

    "One group of scholars, they say that if a Muslim, if he becomes a non-Muslim [inaudible] he should be put to death. There is another group of scholars who say that if a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his new faith against Islam then he should be put to death. I tend to agree more with the second group of scholars, who say that a Muslim, if he becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his new faith against Islam, that is the time this penalty is applied."

    The elephant in the room was also pointed out earlier, by Home Secretary Theresa May, who banned Zakir Naik from entering Britain on the grounds of his hate preaching. This preaching has included statements of solidarity with Osama bin Laden and disquisitions on the fate of critics and apostates of Islam. Naik stated that under sharia law it is appropriate to crucify, dismember or exile those who "wage war against Allah", and that it is correct to kill former Muslims who "propagate his new faith against Islam".

    Ex-Muslims must be grateful for these small mercies from OFCOM and Theresa May. Apostates from Islam are the only group in British society of whom it can be stated openly that they deserve to be killed, and there is so little reaction or condemnation of such hate speech.

    Even though Naik himself has been banned from Britain, his media machine, which is Saudi funded and peddles a literalist, Wahaabi version of Islam saturated with bigotry, misogyny, intolerance of non-Wahaabi Muslims, and all non Muslims broadcasts unimpeded in the UK. As a result, Naik's teachings, which disseminate a worldview hostile to science and liberal education, continue to gain popularity.

    As recently as 2009, Zakir Naik was employed by the BBC to give a series of "Ramadan Reflections" on the Asian Network. Thankfully, his reflections on the BBC didn't include what elsewhere he has said should be done to apostates, but it is a dispiriting sign of his relative popularity among some Muslims that the BBC chose him to represent Islam.

    Who will point out to Muslims the elephant in the room that is Zakir Naik?

    Sadly, there are as of yet few signs that Zakir Naik and his formidable machine of evangelism faces any significant organised opposition. On the contrary, dissent is relatively muted, and his lectures and ideas are increasingly finding currency amongst Muslims in Britain.

    One of the problems is that as horrific as you may find his attitude towards ex-Muslims, he is expressing mainstream Islam's scripturally-based discourse regarding apostasy.

    For a Muslim to criticise Naik's attitude would open that person to claims that he is criticising the religion itself which, in one of the grimmest Catch 22 aspects of Islam, could make the Muslim vulnerable to accusations of being one of the disbelievers (or "Kuffar"), and thus subject to the very same demonisations and threats that are thrown at apostates.

    There is much we will be saying about the teaching on apostasy in Islam in the future. A recent comment from our forum touches on one of the main apologia that is made for the "death to ex-Muslims" rhetoric that Zakir Naik asserts as a reasonable and righteous teaching of Islam.


    Quote

    The "apostasy = treason" rhetoric begs the question: Is Islam intrinsically a political entity first and foremost? Muslims like to say that Islam is not inherently political but has been "misinterpreted" or used that way. Yet when they support the death penalty for apostasy (which, to be fair, not all Muslims do) it is implicit in that stance that Islam is firstly a political state, not a religion which does not necessarily have to be political or state-based, but a set of personal beliefs.



    Perhaps it is understandable that many Muslims do not want to discuss the issue of apostasy in Islam. Doing so means having to confront the ethical flaws and contradictions within Islamic teachings. For many Muslims, this is too expensive a cost, but for ex-Muslims it is a cost we will see and pay in full. We cannot afford not to. We will continue to point out the elephant in the room until only the most willfully blind and obtuse refuse to acknowledge it.

  • Apostasy and the Sinister Zakir Naik
     Reply #1 - March 27, 2013, 01:48 AM

    Quote
    For a Muslim to criticise Naik's attitude would open that person to claims that he is criticising the religion itself which, in one of the grimmest Catch 22 aspects of Islam, could make the Muslim vulnerable to accusations of being one of the disbelievers (or "Kuffar"), and thus subject to the very same demonisations and threats that are thrown at apostates.


    Zakir Naik is loved by almost every Muslim I know. They would post his videos in response to anything since he has no enemies in Islam, even on the ugly Sunni Shia issue, he comes across as neutral.
    If a Muslim actually knew that he was a liar (like that evaporation video where he compiles irrelevant verses), then they might be compelled to speak. Otherwise I can't think why...he's their trophy boy.
    In this context^ his views on apostates are dangerous.

    Quote from: ZooBear 

    • Surah Al-Fil: In an epic game of Angry Birds, Allah uses birds (that drop pebbles) to destroy an army riding elephants whose intentions were to destroy the Kaaba. No one has beaten the high score.

  • Apostasy and the Sinister Zakir Naik
     Reply #2 - March 29, 2013, 06:03 AM

    I believe we should challenge Muslims by asking them - whatever made us "Muslims" in the first place - just because our parents were? After all, in Islam, there is nothing like a bar mitzvah to declare that you are now a believing Muslim.

    Sure, I did believe in Islam at one point - but I was never 100% sure. In that sense, I've always been a skeptic, even as a kid - when I remember asking my dad questions about who god is.

    I wonder if it's a stretch to say we can take this approach with them? By saying we were never really Muslims in the first place - we're simply born - not born a Muslim. I'm not optimistic they would buy into this, or care, or worse, they might think this proves their point that ex-Muslims were never "real Muslims" to begin with. I don't know.

    Rather be forgotten than remembered for giving in.
  • Apostasy and the Sinister Zakir Naik
     Reply #3 - March 29, 2013, 12:46 PM

    Zakir Naik is loved by almost every Muslim I know. They would post his videos in response to anything since he has no enemies in Islam

    And to the rest of the world he's a buffoon.

    Talk about a thought bubble.
  • Apostasy and the Sinister Zakir Naik
     Reply #4 - March 29, 2013, 02:38 PM

    Doesn't Islam logic state. Everyone in the world is born Muslim, they just don't know it unless they are awakened by being taught it.  Roll Eyes It's even dumber when I've seen some Muslims support this claim because fetuses are in a prostrating position when developing in the womb. Seriously you can't win.

    ***~Church is where bad people go to hide~***
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »