So much for Freedom of Speech? The West is very hypocritical about freedom of speech.
Are nt people allowed to have opinions anymore?
I totally agree with his comments on what he said about Western sosciety and women. He is 100% right about that.
The UK has problems with people of certain views visitign their country YET they allow people involved in terrorism and murder to claim asylum here and we need not look further than our own “Pakistani” Altaf Hussain.
Britain on Friday banned from entering the country an Indian preacher who has expressed radical views about Islam, including some that appear to justify acts of **terrorism](http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/terror-attacks.html). **
So much for Freedom of Speech? The West is very hypocritical about freedom of speech.
Are nt people allowed to have opinions anymore?
I totally agree with his comments on what he said about Western sosciety and women. He is 100% right about that.
The UK has problems with people of certain views visitign their country YET they allow people involved in terrorism and murder to claim asylum here and we need not look further than our own “Pakistani” Altaf Hussain.
Britain on Friday banned from entering the country an Indian preacher who has expressed radical views about Islam, including some that appear to justify acts of **terrorism](http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/terror-attacks.html). **
Home Secretary Theresa May said she had barred Zakir Naik, a 44-year-old television preacher based in Mumbai, for inflammatory remarks he was known to have made in the past.
Naik had been due to give a series of lectures in London and the city of Sheffield in northern England.
“Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour,” May said in a statement, without elaborating.
The Daily Telegraph on Friday reported Interior Ministry sources saying that 2006 website footage had shown Naik telling Muslims it was acceptable to embrace terrorism in certain instances.
According to the paper, Naik said Muslims should beware of people saying [
Dr. Naik is a scholar, committed no crime and has been banned from entering the country despite his previous 15 years of touring the UK. Altaf Hussain is a convicted criminal, had a judgement passed against him by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and has several murder cases pending against him was granted asylum and offered citizenship. They even manipulated the system so that he does not have to return to Pakistan before becoming a citizen. Shame...
I don't respect or like Zakir Naik but the UK gave Salman Rushdie a reward but yet banned Dr.Naik. So Rushdie promoted nothing disrespectful propagada and hate that will lead to violence but yet he is given a reward by the queen but dr naik got banned for a misquoted statement?! Where's freedom of speech ?!
These are double standards from West. Neither Rushdie nor Zakir Naik deserve any support from anyone. They are two opposite sides of the same ugly coin.
Misquoted statement? Zakir Naik did say that if Osama is terrorizing America the terrorist then he supports Osama.
While I argue myself about terrorism by Americans, I still wouldn't justify indiscriminate killing of Americans, or any one else for that matter.
thejoke:
[quote]
The West is very hypocritical about freedom of speech. Are nt people allowed to have opinions anymore?
[/quote]
This is not an issue of freedom of speech. Such a person will spread his extremist views if he is allowed to enter their country. I think he deserved it.
Dr. Naik is a scholar, committed no crime and has been banned from entering the country despite his previous 15 years of touring the UK. Altaf Hussain is a convicted criminal, had a judgement passed against him by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and has several murder cases pending against him was granted asylum and offered citizenship. They even manipulated the system so that he does not have to return to Pakistan before becoming a citizen. Shame...
i think its fair to place Naik in the category of Savage.. if you remove the identity the statements uttered by both are quite similar for an external audience. forget the stuff about women, I think more problematic are his statements on killing apostates, jews as a whole being enemies of Muslims, and ofcourse the easily soundbite-d statement of i support osama if hes terrorising America.
Michael Savage and several others were banned not too long ago for similar stuff.
^i'm actually happy that he's banned...i think for once zakir naik should sit down and think and accept the mistakes he has made, he becomes angry so quickly.
While I dont agree to every single view of Zakir Naik, I think he should be allowed to travel to UK (and Canada - Canada has also banned his entry). when these countries can allow Ann Coulter why not Naik?
^ someone on the same political slant as Coulter has been banned (Savage). So all you're doing now is asserting that Naik is more like Coulter than Savage, with no real basis. And a country has every right to decide for itself, by its own standards, rather than anyone else, that Naik is more like Savage than Coulter.
hareem I agree that he is mistaken in much of what he says.
I wouldnt care less for this so called 'islamic' scholar. His lectures are as suffocating as the indian culture & majority of pakistani mullahs who follow his lectures are also the same kind of goats & ninjas I keep refferring to.
whtever the context..why on earth did he choose the word 'terrorist'? given the likely controversy the usage is to generate, why take the damn risk? i mean did he run of words to make his point? after all he has exceptional memory..why not put it to other use? since the west is hyper islamphobic why attack their vulnerability? doesnt make any sense. stupid lecture by Zakir Naik. he is only a human and bound to make mistakes and SHOULD accept his mistakes.
