By Ubaid ur Rahman for TwoCircles.net
A fortnight ago, The Wire published an article titled Zakir Naik Is Anathema to Secular Democracy, His Communal Agenda Must Be Halted in which a Supreme Court lawyer Sunil Fernandes tried to build a case against Muslim preacher Dr. Zakir Naik as a promoter of communal division and radicalism.
A lot issues in this article that I would like to respond to. The response is in the form of questions and/or comments after the Sunil Fernandes’s comments in bold. So, let’s cut straight to the chase.
“Zakir Naik polarises opinions like none other.”
This statement should be enough to give any editor a signal to cut the story out. It is way too hyperbolic. Not Trump, not Netanyahu, but Zakir Naik. Why globalize, let’s consider just India. Not Adityanath, not his (rape-muslim-dead-body fame) party man, not the many of the prime time anchors polarising day and night, not even Narendra Modi, who was called out by the Wire’s founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan himself, but Zakir -Naik.
“On one hand, we have legions of his fans, unsurprisingly almost exclusively Muslim, from all walks of life. On the other, the government of India considers Naik to be guilty of indulging in unlawful activities, imparting hate speeches and indulging in money laundering. He is accused of being the ideological mentor to a motley group of Islamic radicals and fundamentalists spanning from the Middle East to Bangladesh and beyond.”
So what?
Sunil, what exactly are you trying to establish here? Are you trying to equate his powerless fans to the powerful government? Ever heard of the term “false equivalency”?
“The truth can be ascertained by an analysis of Naik’s lectures and speeches, which I attempt in this piece.”
Hopefully, some substance will follow.
Naik’s origins
…
…
…
OK, you are trying to build your narrative
“Naik, a la Deedat, claims to have read and memorised major texts of all religions. Going by his ability to rattle off names of books, chapters and verses of major religious texts of the world, it is difficult to doubt his claim.”
Looks like you accept his claim, albeit grudgingly. You could have been direct.
Anyway, hopefully, some substance will follow.
Public speeches
…
…
…
OK, you are building your piece
“A typical Naik show has him standing centre-stage, in an ill-fitting suit and a skull-cap, answering various questions on religion and theology.”
Oh What? “an ill-fitting suit”? tsk tsktsk, a below-the-belt attack. Not Zakir Naik’s but below-your-own-belt. You hurt whatever argument you were trying to build.
Hopefully, some substance will follow.
…
…
…
“Naik expertly exploits this emotion and creates a fear psychosis amongst his viewers.”
You express your opinion, which you are entitled to. Fine.
“For example, in response to a question on whether is it impermissible (‘haraam’) to wish a Hindu on her festivals or eat prasad, Naik will pull out a verse and interpret it to mean that it is impermissible.”
An example, i.e. some substance. Good. Now, looks like we will get somewhere.
“Under the garb of these so-called religious lectures, all that Zakir Naik has done is to promote an extremist and supremacist version of radical Islam.”
Hold on, Sherlock. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You barely gave an example, describing the format of his question-answer session. Was that the example of his “extremist version”? If it was then I am lost, ask any other scholar of any other persuasion, i.e. Barelwi or Deobandi and let us know if they differ from what he said. If they do not, will you call them extremist and supremacist too?
“His reliance on Quranic verses, the Hadith and the Sunnah to explain his point of view…”
Man, you are totally ignorant which is in naked display with this statement of yours. Why a scholar, ask any layman what is the source of their rulings they follow and this is exactly what they would reply: “Quran and Sunnah”.
“creates mental panic in the minds of the listener. The listener feels that they have not been true to the faith, shuddering at the consequences that will inevitably follow for not following the righteous path as laid down in Islamic theology. Naik’s lectures effectively brainwash the audience and act as a diaphanous fig-leaf, veiling his agenda.”
OK, Fine. Your opinion is your Right. Hopefully, you will establish it as fact.
“This is religious scare-mongering at its worst.”
You are a lawyer, aren’t you? Where is your evidence, leave alone proof? Where is the link from your opinion to this conclusion? This is still an opinion.
“A religious preacher will always extoll the virtues of his own religion and what is the harm in Naik doing that, one may ask. There are three crucial differences between Naik and your standard religious preacher.”
Looks like, at least now, we will get somewhere. By the way who/what qualifies as “standard religious preacher”? [I will let slide the fact that a non-Muslim will now dictate to Muslims who their “standard religious preacher” is/should be.]
“Ultra orthodox interpretation of Islam
Firstly, the sole aim of his lectures is to prove, by convoluted interpretations of Quranic verses and texts, that Islam is superior to all religions.”
“Convoluted”? OK. Don’t you think that without an example this claim is hollow?
“He says only Muslims will go to heaven and everyone else to hell, therefore one must “revert” (according to him, every person is born a Muslim) to Islam to save oneself.”
Man, you haven’t done your homework at all. None. That indeed is a basic belief of Muslims, not at all an “Ultra orthodox interpretation of Islam”. Ask any layman or a scholar regardless of persuasion.
“For good measure, there will invariably be a non-Muslim in the audience who will “revert” to Islam instantaneously under the spellbinding effect of Naik’s oratory.”
What are you trying to insinuate? That “non-Muslim” is planted?
“So when a Muslim hears his lectures, there is a good chance of them becoming radicalised and intolerant.”
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Hold on! How did you jump to “…good chance of them becoming radicalized”? Where is the logical flow? You do know logic, right? Or because Zakir Naik uses that word a lot, you stopped applying any logic altogether?
“Invariably, all questions are answered by an interpretation that is ultra-orthodox, conservative, supremacist and incompatible with a modern world or a society.”
No coherence, just opinion(s) and some extreme conclusion devoid of any supporting logic or facts. Still accuse someone else of extremism. Pathetic.
Criticism of other faiths is a recipe for conflict
“One would expect a person who spent so many years memorising various religious texts to have realised that all religions are essentially the same. God is one. No religion is better or worse than the other.”
Talk about missing the point. Who set that expectation? You? Can there be a difference of opinion? Regardless, why then are you an atheist after accepting that God exists?
Man, you are all over the place, making stuff up, trying to thrust your understanding on others while accusing Zakir Naik of the same.
“Justification of Islamic terrorism
“He considers the US to be the world’s biggest terrorist threat”
Now what, Sunil? What do you brand “the rest of the world”?
The rest of this section (and your article for that matter) can be summarized as: “Innocent until proven guilty” but since the target is powerless, one can be lax and even opposite.
Misogyny and views on LGBTQ community
Ask any other scholar of any persuasion and let us know how they differ on these questions/issues? And then feel free to brand them with whatever label you want.
‘Muslim victim’ card
I would be repeating myself since what’s under this paragraph is more of the same: opinions, irrelevant information and disconnected, radical, extreme, bizarre conclusions. However, the following stand out:
“… false sense of “siege mentality” by spreading canards and stereotypes”
Sunil, I can’t even ask you smell some coffee, because what is happening in the country, especially to Muslims, couldn’t have escaped you. Then what explains your claim that Naik is seeing to “create” a false sense? Selective amnesia, just to prove a point? sick.
“One small fact would suffice to prick the bubble of Muslim discrimination that Naik has sought to raise: three Muslims have served as presidents of India since its independence.”
This is straight from the RW talking points. Hope you realise it.
Still, for your convenience: Party feels Muslims cannot win in ‘present environment’
“His trial will be conducted under full media glare – national and international – by a fiercely independent judiciary.”
You are “an advocate on record in the Supreme Court”; I shouldn’t even have to break it to you. Anyway, here you go, for your claim of “media glare” Former Judges, Journalists Condemn Media Gag in Sohrabuddin Trial.
You couldn’t be such a naïve lawyer; still Former CJI Lodha Says Independence of Judiciary is Under Challenge. Needless to say that CJI Lodha was being diplomatic. Do I need to cite more?
Having said that, I do want him to come back and face the court but for entirely different reason: He thrust himself into a leadership position, now face the adversity bravely.
Conclusion
Wow. After “playing” prosecutor passing on hearsay/beliefs as evidence, you will be passing the judgement. Just wow. Anyway let’s see what you have to say.
“People like Naik are anathema to any modern secular democratic society.”
Tackled above.
“However, it is unfortunate that criticism of Naik has mainly emanated from the right-wing Hindutva brigade.”
Congratulations, your piece reeks of the same.
“Sadly, the secular, progressive liberal class of India – who I believe constitute the majority – is deafeningly silent on Naik.”
Given how you haven’t done your homework and the exaggerations you have made, I will bet on this not being true.
“The Muslim intelligentsia must take the lead in being vocal critics of Naik and presenting a counter-narrative to Naik from within their own community.”
Do your homework, Sunil, there is no way around it. The DarulUloom first issued fatwas against Naik in 2007.
“We must speak up, equally, on all forms and colour of communalism and religious radicalism in India. That, in my view, is the true version of secularism that India needs so desperately.”
You should have just posted this statement on your social media and call it done and spared us your “writing”. Of course, there will be readers who say they liked it. How do you think fake news websites survive?
To conclude, the question arises is “How come a shoddy piece like this gets published in the first place”? That too in a reputed news website like www.thewire.in? Perhaps, the reply of Siddhrath on Twitter explains it:
Oh, i have seen a lot. His videos are always short Qs and As so seeing them “full length” is never an issue. The man emerges as totally distasteful.
Now let’s see how this is played out. See how the people disagreeing (So, far I have seen only disagreements) are branded as “Islamists”.
Read the comments.
Facing backlash from islamist Zakir Naik followers ( 90% of wire audience) for writing against Zakir Naik Two more articles against Zakir Naik, The wire will end up losing majority of its followers and Zakir has terror links.
Finally, just to make clear, please do not conflate the criticism of this article with the defense of Zakir Naik, for it is not meant to be.