Zakir Naik unites muslims, liberalists feel threatened

Oleh: Danial Ariff bin Shaari*

Tebar Suara | I refer to an article published on the Malay Mail Online dated 10 April 2016 by Zurairi AR entitled ‘Revering Zakir Naik, Malaysia is endorsing his malice’.

Assassinating Zakir Naik’s Character

The article seems to enjoy assassinating Zakir Naik’s credibility by none other quoting the decision of Canadian and UK government to deny Zakir Naik’s entrance to both countries out of hundreds of countries in this world. As for Malaysians, it is a well-accepted stand by the government that the citizen may not enter Israel. We even denied Israeli participants in sports tournament held in this country, and we know Israel is much hated not just by Muslims but non-Muslims of humane and pure hearts.

I do not see how such denial would deem Zakir Naik as notorious, possesses unacceptable behaviour and promotes inflammatory views. I am glad that the writer mentioned about Zakir Naik who starts preaching in 1991 and now 25 years it has been. Unfortunately, the writer was selective in quoting Zakir Naik’s few statements within these 25 years of making many other inspiring, research-based and facts-oriented statements and took them out of context.

The controversial statement was, ‘If he [Osama] is terrorising the terrorist, if he’s terrorising America, the biggest terrorist, I’m with him.’ But the writer failed to appreciate the statement in full and with details, and purposely mistook the meaning.

With regards to the sentence, firstly, Zakir Naik said ‘if’ which means he never agreed and supported whatever Osama was doing.

Secondly, Zakir Naik suggested that America is the biggest terrorist, a fact that is well-known nowadays, and for Muslims, America is among the biggest enemy.

Thirdly, it is always fit and desirable that if one Muslim group is going against the biggest enemy of Islam, then the rest of the Muslims should join force and follow suit.

The only questionable fact would be that the writer did not say anything with regards to America being the biggest enemy, which leaves us to wonder if he stands by the America.

Notwithstanding the tragic incidences with lives lost, let us not be ignorant of the real cause and origins of these occurrences. It is the American and its Western blocks under few other infamous US leaders who invade Muslim countries, steal their resources and assent to killings of Muslim women and children only to realize their New World Order and to remain in power.

These are the reasons behind the attacks and suicidal bombings. These are the evidences of deep hurt and prolonged suffering. These are the unequivocal expression of dissatisfaction towards what is happening in their countries and hometowns. Indeed the America is the biggest terrorist and because of only a few remarks by Zakir Naik, he is to be blamed and attributed as notorious.

Undermining Agong, Local Muslim Institutions and Scholars

The writer seemed to suggest that despite the denial of entrance to and provocative remarks by Zakir Naik who was decreed as ‘unreliable’, the Malaysian Muslims appear to be very welcoming of this comparative religion preacher.

Zakir Naik’s event in 2012 was attended by Tun Mahathir and Zakir Naik was even awarded the ‘Tokoh Maal Hijrah’ by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. One could not help but to perceive as if the writer suggested that Zakir Naik should not have been welcomed that much and awarded as such.

If that is the case, why then the former Mufti Perlis welcomes Zakir Naik to Perlis for a lecture, why would Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur and few other local Muslim scholars approve of Zakir Naik’s credibility, and why would majority Muslims be outraged when Zakir Naik’s events were to be banned from taking place? Above all, why would all Muslims, regardless of differences in some khilafiyyah issues, appear to be united by Zakir Naik’s presence?

Despite all these corroborative remarks and expressions, the writer and the liberalists are ignorant to see how Muslims are capable of uniting themselves and how strong an influence could come from a non-Malaysian English speaking Indian Muslim preacher. This just proves that Islam crosses all borders, skin colours, racial and cultural differences in which they claim to be champions at.

The writer went on to claim that local Islamic authorities are half-hearted in their attempts to curb extremism which is denied. Extremism is subjective and it may not only mean extremism in terms of violence and acts of terrorism. It could also extend to extremism in the sense of liberal and unprecedented thoughts, inter alia, claiming that child sex is okay but not child marriage, LGBT should be free to decide for themselves and that Malaysia is a secular state when the Constitution clearly provides for the position of Islam.

This is another form of extremism at the other end of a continuum which the writer and the liberalists have complete disregard, and when the religious authorities raided an LGBT event to curb such extremism the liberalists taint them with unlawfulness and immorality.

Liberalists are threatened by Zakir Naik

One cannot deny the fact that the liberalists are frightened by Zakir Naik and his credibility. Not for the provocation or sensitivity issues, but the truth which Zakir Naik consistently holds on his entire preaching experience. We cannot also deny the fact that the truth may be sensitive or provocative but a figure like Zakir Naik is not one to withhold the truths from the public, even if he were to be bombarded with scepticism and hatred.

His knowledge and understanding in comparative religions grant him the opportunity to pull the crowds of different faiths and eventually persuade and show them the true way that is Islam as a way of life. If we see for ourselves, Zakir Naik is trying to lead Muslims and non-Muslims to Islam and be close to Allah but at the same time the liberalists fight for human unwarranted nafs and impaired intellectualism.

Their purported calls for interfaith dialogues remain merely as a resonance which is uttered many times in words but without actions and proofs. They were also scared to be seated with Muslim NGOs and prominent Muslim debaters, for example in the case of a debate between Wanita ISMA, Sisters in Islam and Sister Zara Faris which was cancelled by SIS.

Then we know that the article was written with an intention to paint bad image on Zakir Naik and create misleading perceptions towards him. But the fact is, Muslims are united and the liberalists are threatened.

*Penulis Ismaweb.net