Canada to bar controversial Islamic preacher

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Star Spangled C...
Canada to bar controversial Islamic preacher

"An Indian Muslim televangelist who was banned from Britain last week for “unacceptable behaviour” will not be allowed into Canada to speak at an upcoming conference in Toronto, sources familiar with the situation have told the National Post.

Dr. Zakir Naik, who has said “every Muslim should be a terrorist” and that Jews are “our staunchest enemy,” was to headline next month’s Journey of Faith Conference — which is billed as one of North America’s largest Islamic conferences and is expected to attract upward of 10,000 people.

The 44-year-old medical doctor recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith.

Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/controversial-muslim-televangelist-zakir-naik-banned-from-toronto-conference/#ixzz0rab4m0zZ

Unionist

This sounds like the same bullshit character assassination campaign that was waged against another Muslim invitee, Shaykh Ul Haq, a few years ago. The original threads are in the archives, but [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/israeli-fas... was how I recalled the issue in 2008:

Quote:

This reminds me of a discussion we had when British imam Shaykh ul Haq was invited to speak in Canada.

At that time, one of our resident posters opened a thread as follows:

quote:I applaud the Muslim Canadian Congress, Canadian Jewish Congress, Hindu Dharma society and Egale Canada for coming together to ask that hate propogandist ul Huq be kept out of Canada.

Ultimately, Ul-Haq chose not to attend, because Canadian authorities would not guarantee that they wouldn't deport him on landing.

Yet, as you can see by reading those threads, there was no evidence whatsoever of anything resembling hate speech in Ul-Haq's past - except for some out-of-context mistranslations by the Islamophobic ultra-right "Canadian Coalition for Democracies".

It was to the lasting shame of these organizations that they got sucked in by the propaganda and combined forces to demand that this speaker be banned from Canada.

Today, we have an example of an outright hatemonger and fascist - Feiglin - coming here at the invitation of a group whose U.S. branch is listed as terrorist.

I have some questions:

Where is the Canadian Jewish Congress on this issue?

Where is the Muslim Canadian Congress?

Where is the Hindu Dharma society?

Where is Egale Canada?

Unless they are craven hypocrites pandering to Israel, Bush and Harper - which they couldn't possibly be - their voices had better be heard, demanding that this piece of scum be kept far from our shores. I encourage anyone who has any contact with these organizations to challenge them accordingly.

How much do you want to bet that the same types of characters (CCD, B'nai Brith, that whole gang) are behind this campaign as well?

 

Papal Bull

He doesn't really seem to be doing 'hate speech', per se. He just sort of seems like he is into Da'wah. The same way that lots of Christian evangelists say all sorts of awful, homophobic, etc, etc, etc. stuff. I doubt he is any better than a variety of Pentecostals that are regularly invited to Canada to spew what would be considered hate speech, so I don't see why this is stopping him. A quick google of the guy shows that he has his fair shair of critics at home and abroad, including the Deobandi school claiming that he is a 'kafir'.

I don't think that with my less than limited, totally non-existent understanding of a lot of languages that he uses I am in the position to make a judgement call on whether he is just another hate-mongerin' evangelist or has fallen prey to the powers that be. I am always reserved on these matters and don't really hop out to support any preacher.

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

This sounds like the same bullshit character assassination campaign that was waged against another Muslim invitee, Shaykh Ul Haq, a few years ago. The original threads are in the archives, but [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/israeli-fas... was how I recalled the issue in 2008:

How much do you want to bet that the same types of characters (CCD, B'nai Brith, that whole gang) are behind this campaign as well?

 

It was actually Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress behind it but it's interesting that your instinct is to assume the Jews. As for "character assassination"...really? Have you read some of his comments? Calling for the execution of gays? Saying it's okay to beat your wife as long as you do it "lightly" and don't leave a mark? Saying that women who dress "provocatively" (however he defines that) are inviting rape? You're assuming that's all taken out of context? I can imagine the only appropriate context being if he were to preface each statement with "I'd have to be an idiot to say the following..."

writer writer's picture

"I'm for terrorizing the terrorist." A bit different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

Unionist

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

It was actually Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress behind it but it's interesting that your instinct is to assume the Jews.

I'll ignore your baiting provocative remark which insinuates that there's anything "Jewish" about the B'nai Brith.

HAHAHA! I guessed right! Tarek Fatah was behind the Ul Haq banning as well. What a pathetic Islamophobe he is.

As for the rest of your post and its non "quotes", that's the same blood libel that was issued against Ul Haq. Turned out there wasn't a shred of such evidence.

Here's a more nuanced report of his banning from the U.K. by the new right-wing coalition government than you or Tarek could manage:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/10357263.stm]Legal challenge to ban on Muslim preacher[/url]

Quote:

The Islamic Research Foundation said in a statement: "It is deeply regrettable the British Government has bowed to pressure from sectarian and Islamophobic pressure groups by preventing the entry of Dr Zakir Naik, who has been visiting and delivering talks in the United Kingdom for the past 15 years.

"Dr Zakir Naik is undoubtedly an opponent of terrorism and as such has often spoken out against all acts of violence and violent extremism.

"He has emphatically and unequivocally condemned the killing of civilians and is one of the world's regular noted orators on this topic."

writer writer's picture

Quote:
With regards to the extract of a quote on Osama Bin Laden taken from a video on YouTube, this clip was taken from a lecture Dr Zakir Naik delivered in Singapore in 1996, almost five years before 9/11 and not in 2006, as has been posted.

It is therefore not possible to link this quote to Osama Bin Laden in the context of the 9/11, when the atrocity had not taken place; and took place after almost 5 years in 2001.

The lecture was recorded by some local people [in Singapore] and was later edited and uploaded on You Tube by a prejudiced group. Unless and until we have the rushes (original unedited tapes) of the program, it is not possible to know which portions of the lecture have been edited.

">http://nimis540.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/zakir-naik-and-freedom-of-expre...

Cueball Cueball's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

"An Indian Muslim televangelist who was banned from Britain last week for “unacceptable behaviour” will not be allowed into Canada to speak at an upcoming conference in Toronto, sources familiar with the situation have told the National Post.

Dr. Zakir Naik, who has said “every Muslim should be a terrorist” and that Jews are “our staunchest enemy,” was to headline next month’s Journey of Faith Conference — which is billed as one of North America’s largest Islamic conferences and is expected to attract upward of 10,000 people.

The 44-year-old medical doctor recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith.

Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/controversial-muslim-televangelist-zakir-naik-banned-from-toronto-conference/#ixzz0rab4m0zZ

Don't you have something better to do with your time? Like pick the toe jam out from between your toes? Make paper airplanes out of you Hypocratic oath? Bill some patients?

writer writer's picture

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atL7Gkc0goA]Beat her hard or lightly - Zakir Naik [Part 1][/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGAZ9SicI50&feature=related]Beat her hard or lightly - Zakir Naik [Part 2][/url]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Tough call.. Police State v Nutcase... To me, I think that I am leaning toward opposing the police state, more than the nutcase.

Unionist

Heh, I notice SSC didn't mention "abuse of women" as one of his charges. Can you imagine what would happen if Canada barred misogynists and champions of abuse of women? Starting with the Pope?

This is sanctimonious Islamophobia masquerading under "national security" and "hate speech". If Zakir is guilty of hate speech, he should be barred from Canada - pure and simple. But we had better be consistent on that score.

 

Michelle

It's interesting.  I just watched the first video.  He seems to be interpreting "beat her lightly" as admonishing her, not hitting her.  He's saying that the prophit's statement about "beating her with (a toothbrush)" is symbolic, like hitting her with a handkerchief.  In other words, you don't hit her with anything.

I've never heard that interpretation before, which is fine, I'm not a Muslim so I've had no real exposure to religious teachings or interpretations.

As someone who spent a lot of time churchgoing in Christian churches, however, I certainly heard a whole lot of similar ways of mitigating through liberal interpretation the more brutal and sexist and violent passages in the Bible.

Of course, the issue for me is, who is any man to judge what his wife says or does, or to dole out punishments, admonishments, or anything else.  But certainly that kind of patriarchal teaching isn't exclusive to Islam, or conservative Islamic preachers.  You only have to go as far as Focus on the Family right here in North America to find support for "father knows best" religious conservatism.

When they bar Dr. Dobson from entering the country for his advocacy of smacking children around to teach them a lesson, advocate of the husband ruling over the wife, believer that only Christians go to heaven and people of every other religion (and yes, sorry, that includes Jews) are going to hell, then I'll believe that they're consistent about barring religious extremists.

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

Heh, I notice SSC didn't mention "abuse of women" as one of his charges. Can you imagine what would happen if Canada barred misogynists and champions of abuse of women? Starting with the Pope?

Does the pope call for gays to be executed or say that women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped? Does he call on all Catholics to be terrorists?

writer writer's picture

Exactly how I felt, Michelle. He does go on to talk about how women can admonish, that Islam represents equality, the physical differences between men and women, and how anyone of any gender might need to hit a loved one to save that loved one in very specific circumstances. I only wish some Christian patriarchs were so balanced.

writer writer's picture

Is it funny or sad that someone actually believes there aren't a whole host of Christian leaders who believe gays should be dead and that what women wear can explain why they're raped?

Who is claiming that this guy is a Muslim pope? What does that even mean?

SparkyOne

Wow death for homosexuals? Where do I sign up!

Like really folks? Do we need more religious hatred here?

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Dr. Zakir Naik, who has said “every Muslim should be a terrorist” and that Jews are “our staunchest enemy,” was to headline next month’s Journey of Faith Conference — which is billed as one of North America’s largest Islamic conferences and is expected to attract upward of 10,000 people.

The 44-year-old medical doctor recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith.

writer writer's picture

Do we need very selective banning? Do we need to set up one religion as somehow being *the* religion of hate?

I'm an atheist, raised in a religious family with several generations of ministers behind me. I was born to missionaries. Really, I could go on forever about religion. But seeing one man portrayed as extreme, and finding the contexts of what he has said, and seeing nothing exceptional when I look at the source.

This makes me very suspicious of the agenda.

Please, I've found two of the claimed wrongs, and find the context changed a lot about the claims. If you want to spend some time to find what this guy has actually said about homosexuality, that would be great.

Unionist

SparkyOne wrote:

Wow death for homosexuals? Where do I sign up!

Like really folks? Do we need more religious hatred here?

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Dr. Zakir Naik, who has said “every Muslim should be a terrorist” and that Jews are “our staunchest enemy,” was to headline next month’s Journey of Faith Conference — which is billed as one of North America’s largest Islamic conferences and is expected to attract upward of 10,000 people.

The 44-year-old medical doctor recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith.

Excuse me. But there is no evidence that Naik ever said those things that were bolded by you. Of course, blood libel works that way. Just keep repeating. If it's not true, it will be.

Now, remind me if you folks were demanding that Ann Coulter and Binyamin Netanyahu be barred from Canada? Of course, Netanyahu doesn't advocate killing people. He just does it.

SparkyOne

Apparently his solution to homosexuals is Polygamy LOL

 

If his coments were taken out of context why don't you post a reference where?

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

Now, remind me if you folks were demanding that Ann Coulter and Binyamin Netanyahu be barred from Canada? Of course, Netanyahu doesn't advocate killing people. He just does it.

I certainly wasn't. I do seem to recall you cheering the cancellation of Coulter's speech though, after she made some stupid comment telling a Muslim student to "take a camel"...which, of course, is FAR more offensive than saying that gays should be killed or that rape victims had it coming or that it's okay to lightly smack your wife around every now and then, right?

Maysie Maysie's picture

For the love of cats, people.

Mod hat on.

To everyone who has done so: Do NOT put words in other people's mouths.

And to SSC, I take this thread to be a deliberate baiting and testing of the flexibility of babble to encompass your views which have so far pushed the limit on what I understand to be allowable progressive discourse. Don't press your luck.

Give me one good reason to keep this thread open.

Caissa

This is the latest story on BBC:

Lawyers representing an Indian Muslim preacher banned from entering the UK say the move was rushed and he was not given a proper chance to respond to it.

Majeed Memon, representing Mumbai-based television preacher Zakir Naik, described the move by the UK government as "barbaric and inhuman".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/10381210.stm

Unionist

Maysie, I think the thread should stay open, not to listen to the unsourced crackpot pseudo-quotes, but so that we can discuss the government's action in barring him, as they threatened to do with Ul Haq and as they actually did with Galloway - and as they should have done but didn't do with certain others. There is a serious political question to be dealt with here, as long as we can navigate around the Islamophobic frenzy. But then, we have to do that in real life too.

SparkyOne

Unionist wrote:

Excuse me. But there is no evidence that Naik ever said those things that were bolded by you. Of course, blood libel works that way. Just keep repeating. If it's not true, it will be.
Now, remind me if you folks were demanding that Ann Coulter and Binyamin Netanyahu be barred from Canada? Of course, Netanyahu doesn't advocate killing people. He just does it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMAZR8YIhxI&feature=player_embedded#!
Here he is talking about the death penalty for Muslims who adopt another faith.
Click on the youtube video and you can actually listen to him say it. I'm still looking for a soundbite of him making his comment about homosexuals. Taking into consideration his comments about the dealth penalty I'm probably not going out on thin ice believing he made the homosexual comment too.

Sven Sven's picture

The solution isn't to muzzle extremist speech (whether it's this guy, Ann Coulter, George Galloway, or George Bush).  The solution is to counteract their speech with opposing speech.

Michelle wrote:

But certainly that kind of patriarchal teaching isn't exclusive to Islam, or conservative Islamic preachers.  You only have to go as far as Focus on the Family right here in North America to find support for "father knows best" religious conservatism.

I'm half-way through reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel" (describing her life - and the lives of girls and women in general - in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Muslim enclaves in Kenya).  "Focus on the Family" it ain't.

Lord Palmerston

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:
It was actually Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress behind it but it's interesting that your instinct is to assume the Jews.

CCD is not a Jewish organization.

Sven Sven's picture

Unionist wrote:

...so that we can discuss the government's action in barring him, as they threatened to do with Ul Haq and as they actually did with Galloway - and as they should have done but didn't do with certain others.

On what basis would you ban "certain others"?  In other words, what litmus test of speech would you use to distinguish political speech that should be permitted from political speech that should be muzzled?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Sven wrote:

On what basis would you ban "certain others"?  In other words, what litmus test of speech would you use to distinguish political speech that should be permitted from political speech that should be muzzled?

Who needs to "muzzle" a suspected criminal?

"I'm sorry, Mr. Bush, but if you set foot on Canadian soil I'm afraid we'll be obliged to arrest you for war crimes."

So you arrest them, or perhaps if you lack the nerve you simply don't allow them into your country because prosecuting them might cause an international incident. 

Unionist

SparkyOne wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMAZR8YIhxI&feature=player_embedded#!

Here he is talking about the death penalty for Muslims who adopt another faith.

Click on the youtube video and you can actually listen to him say it. I'm still looking for a soundbite of him making his comment about homosexuals. Taking into consideration his comments about the dealth penalty I'm probably not going out on thin ice believing he made the homosexual comment too.

Yeah - who cares? That's apparently religious law in many Muslim realms. Example: Afghanistan, of Karzai. Do you seriously not remember the man who converted to Christianity and was sentenced to death?

When we ban the man who has real blood on his hands - Karzai - from Canada, then we can think about barring this character who takes his faith seriously like all the other religious fanatics I can name. But he must be on the hit list of the U.S., U.K., the Israel lobby, etc. - so ban the bastard, right?

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:
It was actually Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress behind it but it's interesting that your instinct is to assume the Jews.

CCD is not a Jewish organization.

!!!

Nice. Nor does Tarek Fatah identify as Jewish. Though he once did send a circular to me, where he proclaimed rhetorically that "I am Jew" after some nice piece about how we (Meaning Canada) fought the Nazis for 4 years (sic) during WWII for the liberty and freedom.

SparkyOne

Unionist wrote:

 

Yeah - who cares?

You replied me and said there was no proof that he made any of the comments that I bolded. I was just pointing out proof of him making at least one. I agree with the points you're making.

Unionist

Yeah ok, Sparky, I didn't mean to rant at you there. I'm still mouthing off at our government's hypocrisy and xenophobia.

By the way, when you watch some of these videos, and even though I don't personally agree with anything this dude says - he's certainly got the gift.