Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dr. Zakir Naik Excluded from the UK

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:38:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
One of the most famous Muslim orators in the world, the Indian Dr. Zakir Naik, has recently been excluded from the UK, meaning that he is not allowed to enter it.

His debates etc. have inspired thousands of people, and thousands have started embracing Islam due to him. He has given lectures on Islam, its stance on terrorism, etc. He has given hour-long speeches condemning violence against innocent human beings, calling for peace between religious people, and much else.

He has successfully defeated all his opponents in debates, in a manner that is civilized. He argues with civilized words, good conduct. Apparently, this is terrorism to the UK government. They see Dr. Zakir Naik as a danger. Islam is growing and spreading rapidly in the West, most of us know that. What Western leaders fear is exactly this. Is this why they do not give permission for a very famous Muslim to enter the UK, so that he can spread a peaceful message to all people?

So much for 'freedom of speech', 'freedom of expression', and 'freedom of religion'. Is this the nonsense that the West advocates? Freedom of speech, yet excluding a person who does makes use of that freedom? Those hypocrites that run the West are to be put to shame, especially these who ban a peaceful person from entering a Western country. Then they have the courage to say that Muslims are the ones who start conflicts, Muslims are the ones who block peaceful processes, Muslims are the ones who prohibit religious freedom, Muslims are the ones who prohibit freedom of speech, Muslims are the ones who are hypocrites, and other such nonsense.

So much for this freedom that they all advocate. They should be put to shame. They are hypocrites, warmongers, thieves, oppressors, depressors, liars, bigots, and that is enough to paint a horrible picture of them. Shame on them.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:40:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:38:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
crap

UK free speech > Muslim free speech (almost non existent)

Let's see Richard Dawkins get into Iran.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:41:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:40:20 AM, Nags wrote:
UK free speech > Muslim free speech (almost non existent)

Let's see Richard Dawkins get into Iran.
Iran already makes it clear that it does not allowed freedom of speech to such a big extent. Does the UK do that? Where? If it does, I have no objection to it. This is nothing but hypocrisy. Freedom of speech is a democratic value that the West loves, so why exclude it from this person? Due to hypocrisy.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:42:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For the record, the UK also banned a conservative talk show host from the US. (Michael Savage)

The UK sucks in general.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:43:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:41:50 AM, Mirza wrote:
Iran already makes it clear that it does not allowed freedom of speech to such a big extent. Does the UK do that? Where? If it does, I have no objection to it. This is nothing but hypocrisy. Freedom of speech is a democratic value that the West loves, so why exclude it from this person? Due to hypocrisy.

Iran tells it's citizens they are anti-free speech? Weird.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:43:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
He was not banned because he was a Muslim, he was banned because he is a hate preacher. The UK bends over backwards to appease such people, Muslims effectively have immunity from prosecution in such matters, obviously this was one step too far.

Syria, Jordan, Egypt etc... would all ban Christian priests preaching that Muslim civilians should be murdered in the name of God.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:44:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:43:01 AM, Nags wrote:
Iran tells it's citizens they are anti-free speech? Weird.
The laws are clear. They are not such hypocrites who cry for 100% freedom of speech, yet limit it when their politics get challenged or anything else that is a danger to their hypocritical interests.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:45:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:41:50 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/22/2010 9:40:20 AM, Nags wrote:
UK free speech > Muslim free speech (almost non existent)

Let's see Richard Dawkins get into Iran.
Iran already makes it clear that it does not allowed freedom of speech to such a big extent. Does the UK do that? Where? If it does, I have no objection to it. This is nothing but hypocrisy. Freedom of speech is a democratic value that the West loves, so why exclude it from this person? Due to hypocrisy.

We have freedom of speech with the caveat that such speech should not be intended to harm others.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:45:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:44:49 AM, Mirza wrote:
The laws are clear. They are not such hypocrites who cry for 100% freedom of speech, yet limit it when their politics get challenged or anything else that is a danger to their hypocritical interests.

The UK has made it pretty clear they aren't all for free speech. See: Michael Savage.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:46:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:43:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
He was not banned because he was a Muslim, he was banned because he is a hate preacher.
Dr. Zakir Naik is a hate preacher? Please show me one video where he preaches hate. He has done more for peace than all of us on DDO combined, and for years to come. He has travelled around the world to promote peace, condemn terrorism, and similar things. How is he even close to being a hate preacher?

The UK bends over backwards to appease such people, Muslims effectively have immunity from prosecution in such matters, obviously this was one step too far.

Syria, Jordan, Egypt etc... would all ban Christian priests preaching that Muslim civilians should be murdered in the name of God.
This argument is not legit because your view of Dr. Zakir Naik is absolutely wrong.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:47:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:45:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
We have freedom of speech with the caveat that such speech should not be intended to harm others.
There is a reason why I posted the video.

What is shocking right now is that random people, e.g. you, simply call Dr. Zakir Naik a 'hate preacher' without knowing anything about him. This is what the Western propaganda has caused. How effective!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:48:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:45:29 AM, Nags wrote:
The UK has made it pretty clear they aren't all for free speech. See: Michael Savage.
He does nothing but promote peace, talk about Islam, which is all religious freedom. What is religious freedom? The right to sit in a cave and pray without anyone knowing? Or is it exactly what Dr. Zakir Naik does? Promotes his religion peacefully, clears misconceptions, etc.?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:50:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And Nags, you posted about one minute after I wrote that argument of mine. You have not watched the video at all. It is quite good for a start to learning a bit about Dr. Zakir Naik.

Also Cerebral.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:50:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:47:33 AM, Mirza wrote:
This is what the Western propaganda has caused.

I love every time you say this. Because although our press sucks, you're so incredibly biased that you can't see how terrible the Arab/Muslim press is. It's disgusting. I sometimes feel bad for the oppressed Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East. Actually, no, I don't feel bad -- but I think about it.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:51:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:45:29 AM, Nags wrote:
At 6/22/2010 9:44:49 AM, Mirza wrote:
The laws are clear. They are not such hypocrites who cry for 100% freedom of speech, yet limit it when their politics get challenged or anything else that is a danger to their hypocritical interests.

The UK has made it pretty clear they aren't all for free speech. See: Michael Savage.

He is anti-immigration, that is a direct threat to Labour fascist ideology, he should reapply following the new Government. The Islamic hate preacher probably would have been admitted under labour.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:52:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:48:46 AM, Mirza wrote:
He does nothing but promote peace, talk about Islam, which is all religious freedom. What is religious freedom? The right to sit in a cave and pray without anyone knowing? Or is it exactly what Dr. Zakir Naik does? Promotes his religion peacefully, clears misconceptions, etc.?

Peace and Islam don't go in the same sentence. (besides this one)

And I don't really give a crap about what the UK does, to be honest. Yeah, it's anti-freedom of speech. But the Muslims take that to a whole new level. This is minor league anti-free speech. The Muslims and the Arabs really know how to shut up political dissenters.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:53:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:51:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
He is anti-immigration, that is a direct threat to Labour fascist ideology, he should reapply following the new Government. The Islamic hate preacher probably would have been admitted under labour.
Where do you get this information from? I have never heard of this nonsense about him. Are you mistaking him with Osama bin Laden?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:54:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Reproduced from today's Guardian newspaper:

What do Dr Zakir Naik, Russian skinhead Pavel Skachevsky, far-right US talk show host Michael Savage, former Kahane Chai leader Mike Guzovsky and Kansas Baptist pastor Fred Phelps have in common? They are all on the list of people who have been banned from entering the UK.

Several commentators, like Inayat Bunglawala last week, have asked exactly what Naik has done to deserve such company. A quick internet search of his public statements throws up the following: "You heard the Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them ... We don't know. But if you ask my view, if this is the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don't know what he's doing. I'm not in touch with him. I don't know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him ... The thing is, if he's terrorising a terrorist, he's following Islam." Other incendiary remarks include: "Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical", "The Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims", (Western Mail, 16 August 2006) plus an assertion that western women make themselves more susceptible to sexual assault by wearing revealing clothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:54:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:53:12 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/22/2010 9:51:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
He is anti-immigration, that is a direct threat to Labour fascist ideology, he should reapply following the new Government. The Islamic hate preacher probably would have been admitted under labour.
Where do you get this information from? I have never heard of this nonsense about him. Are you mistaking him with Osama bin Laden?

He's talking about Michael Savage.

Pay attention...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:55:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.economicvoice.com...

"every Muslim should be a terrorist" the Home Secretary announced that she had
excluded him from the UK. This ban can has no time limits but must be reviewed at least every three years.

Dr Naik has previously said that western women wear clothes that make
them ‘susceptible to rape', has called Americans ‘pigs' and said Muslims that change religion should be executed.

Yea... we don't want him.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:55:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:50:53 AM, Nags wrote:
I love every time you say this. Because although our press sucks, you're so incredibly biased that you can't see how terrible the Arab/Muslim press is. It's disgusting. I sometimes feel bad for the oppressed Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East. Actually, no, I don't feel bad -- but I think about it.
The Arab press does not spread such big lies about different peoples and religious groups around the world. They are not the ones fooling the Arabs. They may not be entirely truthful, but compared to this Western media, all for freedom of speech, the Arab press is nothing. They are not even nearly as powerful enough to actually prevent wars, unlike Western media, but who does not care.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:55:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:54:13 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Reproduced from today's Guardian newspaper:

What do Dr Zakir Naik, Russian skinhead Pavel Skachevsky, far-right US talk show host Michael Savage, former Kahane Chai leader Mike Guzovsky and Kansas Baptist pastor Fred Phelps have in common? They are all on the list of people who have been banned from entering the UK.

Several commentators, like Inayat Bunglawala last week, have asked exactly what Naik has done to deserve such company. A quick internet search of his public statements throws up the following: "You heard the Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them ... We don't know. But if you ask my view, if this is the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don't know what he's doing. I'm not in touch with him. I don't know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him ... The thing is, if he's terrorising a terrorist, he's following Islam." Other incendiary remarks include: "Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical", "The Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims", (Western Mail, 16 August 2006) plus an assertion that western women make themselves more susceptible to sexual assault by wearing revealing clothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Brian wins. Mirza can shut up about the "peaceful Muslim" Doctor now.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:57:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:55:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
The Arab press does not spread such big lies about different peoples and religious groups around the world.

Bahaha. Funny.

They are not the ones fooling the Arabs. They may not be entirely truthful, but compared to this Western media, all for freedom of speech, the Arab press is nothing. They are not even nearly as powerful enough to actually prevent wars, unlike Western media, but who does not care.

Powerful has nothing to do with freedom.

Is English your first language?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 9:57:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:52:42 AM, Nags wrote:
Peace and Islam don't go in the same sentence. (besides this one)
It is far more peaceful than atheists, aand all other religious groups. I know that it is hard for you to understand when you turn on CNN and hear 'suicide bombing', but if that was not your main source, you would never say this. I do not care if it is Fox News and not CNN. You get what I mean.

And I don't really give a crap about what the UK does, to be honest. Yeah, it's anti-freedom of speech. But the Muslims take that to a whole new level. This is minor league anti-free speech. The Muslims and the Arabs really know how to shut up political dissenters.
They advocate freedom of speech, attack Muslims for demoting it, yet they themselves are masters in restricting it, including religious freedom. This is hypocrisy. If they want to ban religious freedom, then they would at least not be hypocrites.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:00:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:57:48 AM, Mirza wrote:
It is far more peaceful than atheists

Not even close.

aand all other religious groups.

Do you pay attention to anything outside of your home in Denmark? Or are you just purposely ignorant to the thousands of Muslim terrorists?

I know that it is hard for you to understand when you turn on CNN and hear 'suicide bombing', but if that was not your main source, you would never say this. I do not care if it is Fox News and not CNN. You get what I mean.

I don't listen to either. Nice straw man though.

They advocate freedom of speech

Incorrect.

attack Muslims for demoting it

Because you take it to an extreme.

yet they themselves are masters in restricting it, including religious freedom. This is hypocrisy. If they want to ban religious freedom, then they would at least not be hypocrites.

Not hypocrites. This little breach of freedom is nothing compared to that by Muslims.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:01:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:54:13 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Reproduced from today's Guardian newspaper:

What do Dr Zakir Naik, Russian skinhead Pavel Skachevsky, far-right US talk show host Michael Savage, former Kahane Chai leader Mike Guzovsky and Kansas Baptist pastor Fred Phelps have in common? They are all on the list of people who have been banned from entering the UK.

Several commentators, like Inayat Bunglawala last week, have asked exactly what Naik has done to deserve such company. A quick internet search of his public statements throws up the following: "You heard the Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them ... We don't know. But if you ask my view, if this is the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don't know what he's doing. I'm not in touch with him. I don't know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him ... The thing is, if he's terrorising a terrorist, he's following Islam." Other incendiary remarks include: "Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical", "The Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims", (Western Mail, 16 August 2006) plus an assertion that western women make themselves more susceptible to sexual assault by wearing revealing clothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
First of all, there is nothing wrong with this. Dr. Zakir Naik is very careful when talking politics. Millions of Muslims/other people around the world follow his messages, do you know this? If he simply says that bin Laden is a terrorist and whatnot, he might spread a very false message. What Dr. Zakir Naik makes clear is that if Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, then he should be condemned.

However, he simply does not know, because he does no believe in biased propaganda, and that is why he does not directly say bin Laden is a terrorist, but whoever did 9/11, whoever kills innocent people, is a terrorist. If bin Laden only fights terrorists, and is not a terrorist himself, but seems to be due to propaganda, then he is terrorizing the terrorist, and not doing a bad thing like killing innocent people. This is what Dr. Zakir Naik says, and I fully agree.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:03:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:57:48 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/22/2010 9:52:42 AM, Nags wrote:
Peace and Islam don't go in the same sentence. (besides this one)
It is far more peaceful than atheists, aand all other religious groups. I know that it is hard for you to understand when you turn on CNN and hear 'suicide bombing', but if that was not your main source, you would never say this. I do not care if it is Fox News and not CNN. You get what I mean.

And I don't really give a crap about what the UK does, to be honest. Yeah, it's anti-freedom of speech. But the Muslims take that to a whole new level. This is minor league anti-free speech. The Muslims and the Arabs really know how to shut up political dissenters.
They advocate freedom of speech, attack Muslims for demoting it, yet they themselves are masters in restricting it, including religious freedom. This is hypocrisy. If they want to ban religious freedom, then they would at least not be hypocrites.

The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion are both based on the understanding you won't try to use it to murder people.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:03:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:55:09 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
http://www.economicvoice.com...

"every Muslim should be a terrorist" the Home Secretary announced that she had
excluded him from the UK. This ban can has no time limits but must be reviewed at least every three years.

Dr Naik has previously said that western women wear clothes that make
them ‘susceptible to rape', has called Americans ‘pigs' and said Muslims that change religion should be executed.

Yea... we don't want him.
You did not watch the video. Dr. Zakir Naik addressed that quote.

Here is the full quote:

"As far as terrorist is concerned, I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist... What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorizes. When a robber sees a policeman he's terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber... Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every antisocial element. I'm aware that terrorist more commonly is used for a person who terrorizes an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorize a single innocent human being. The Muslims should selectively terrorize the antisocial element..."

Now, be honest and stop spreading lies about Dr. Zakir Naik. He is eloquent and knows what he utters.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 10:04:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 9:55:27 AM, Nags wrote:
Brian wins. Mirza can shut up about the "peaceful Muslim" Doctor now.
Never. I refuted his nonsensical claim.