PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS

PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS


The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here


This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Sunday, 20 June 2010

MCB condems ban on Dr Zakir Naik entering UK [Harrow Times]

- 19th June 2010, by Tristan Kirk

THE Muslim Council of Britain has denounced the decision to ban Dr Zakir Naik from the UK ahead of a peace conference in Wembley.

Dr Nair was yesterday banned from entering the country by Home Secretary Theresa May because of what she called “unacceptable behaviour”, just over a week before he was due to address the Al-Khair Peace Conference at Wembley Arena.

In a statement, the council, a leading voice in the Islamic community, said it “deplores” Mrs May's decision and described Dr Naik as a “renowned Indian mainstream Islamic scholar”.

It said: “The Home Secretary’s action serves to demonise the very voices within the world ready for debate and discussion.

“The tour would have been a golden opportunity for young Muslims who are eager to hear the true messages of Islam which promote understanding between communities.”

The council also accused Mrs May of succumbing to what it described as a “recent campaign of vilification against the scholar” in some media outlets.

Dr Naik has been quoted as saying “all Muslims should be terrorists”, but he argues these comments from a 1996 lecture have been taken out of context.

He has issued a statement in line of his ban from the UK saying he is “disappointed” and restating that he aims to dispel myths surrounding his religion in his talks.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “This exclusion order demonstrates the double standards practiced by the government concerning freedom of speech.

“While preachers of hate such as Geert Wilders are free to promote their bigotry in this country, respected Muslim scholars such as Dr Naik are refused entry to the UK under false pretenses.

“It is deeply regrettable this is likely to cause serious damage to community cohesion in our country."

A protest by the English Defence League and a counter demonstration by Unite Against Fascism, planned for the day of the Wembley Arena conference, are now in doubt following Dr Naik's ban.

It is still unclear whether the conference will take place at all, or whether Dr Naik will be able to appear via a videolink.

1 comment:

  1. Dear friend,

    True-Islam and terrorism are antonyms, in fact Islam hates terrorism. Prophet Mohammed was a full fledged brave-warrior who stood against falsehood and he never resorted to any kind of terrorism or terrorist tactics that are similar to sudden bombing or fear-based torture even on his most deadliest enemies. Only the most deluded and the cowards will resort to terrorism as a retaliatory solution to any given problem. When Zakir Naik calls for the terrorizing of the terrorists, it is like calling for the raping of the rapists, it takes us to no solution.

    Zakir Naik justifies his definition of terrorism by saying that a thief is terrified by a policeman, and so a police man is a terrorist to a theif. This is wrong. A policeman is only terrifying the thief not terrorizing. A policeman only tries to imprison the thief, and if evidence is provided before the court, only then is corrective measures taken. A policeman is not a terrorist to a thief. Similarly there is no terrorism in Islam, even when against the real terrorist themselves. Prophet Mohammed was devoid of the least amount of terror. He did not even terrorize the very woman that poisoned him. People used to throw rubbish on his face, yet he was a man of great patience and forbearance and he won many a hearts. This is true Islam. Such a great man he really was!

    Prophet Mohammed will never use terrorism to fight terrorism, he always used the truth along with a brave army of companions to fight the infidels only in a war of reason, code and self-defense in the way of the Truth before Allah.

    Once Ali, companion of Prophet Mohammed was at war, and he got into a fight with a very dangerous criminal, he finally overcame him and sat on his chest to kill him. The opponent spat at his face. Ali at once left him. Seeing this the man was very much surprised and asked the reason. Ali said, "I was killing you for God’s sake but when you spat on my face, my sincerity was endangered because of the personal feelings of anger." Hearing this the man immediately submitted and asked repentance to Al-God. Such was the honor and code that these men of Mohammed had, even at the crucial moments of war.

    Whereas terrorism is akin to a mad stupid man jumping from behind a bush, stabbing, bombing and shooting an unaware person at random to cause a state of fear all around. Mohammed will never support such cowardice. True-Islam and Terrorism are antonyms any day.

    Please to understand true Islam more... do visit this link
    http://iamstillzero.blogspot.com/2010/06/pseudo-scholars.html

    Cheers,
    Sifar

    ReplyDelete