Home secretary Theresa May bans radical preacher Zakir Naik from entering UK
A radical preacher who claimed that “every Muslim should be a terrorist” has been banned from coming to Britain, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
In her first major test of being tough on extremism, Theresa May, the new Home Secretary, said she was banning Zakir Naik from entering the UK.
Dr Naik, a 44-year-old Indian televangelist, had been due to give a series of lectures at arenas in Wembley Arena and Sheffield.
The Home Secretary can exclude or deport an individual if she thinks that their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.
There had been speculation that Dr Naik would be allowed into the UK. However Mrs May said she was excluding him because of the “numerous comments” he made were evidence of his “unacceptable behaviour”.
This behaviour applies to anyone who writes or publishes material which can “foment justify or glorify terrorist violence” or “seek to provoke others to terrorist acts”.
Mrs May told The Daily Telegraph: “I have excluded Dr Naik from the UK. Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour.
“Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and I am not wiling to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK.
“Exclusion powers are very serious and no decision is taken lightly or as a method of stopping open debate on issues.”
Home Office sources said Dr Naik had been filmed on a website making inflammatory comments such as “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.
He said: “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.”
He has also been filmed saying: “There are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole … The Koran tells us, as a whole, they will be our staunchest enemy.”
In a web posting from 2006 he said: “Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them … we don’t know.
“But if you ask my view, if given 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, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
He is also reported to have said suggested that western women make themselves “more susceptible to rape” by wearing revealing clothing.
He reportedly said: “Western society has actually degraded [women] to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers”
Last night Patrick Mercer MP, the former chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism committee, said: “This is really good news. It shows that firm Government action can be taken against people.
"This is exactly the sort of man who we want to exclude from this country.”
Dr Naik has been named as the third most popular spiritual guru in India and was judged in 2009 to be 82nd in a list of India’s most powerful people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7836557/Home-secreta...
I think the context of his statements should matter.
While he did say those words and did not condemn terrorism when asked that question, he later qualified that what he was talking about is different from what we call terrorism and said that 9/11 and 7/7 etc were totally unjustifiable.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
So he's not coming to sheffield in july anymore?
Well, you never know... the order may be rescinded.
I think there was also a control order placed against Bilal Philips, so he is also not allowed into the UK.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
well if hes banned, no. unless it gets over turned
ive seen that clip and its taken out of context
in many talks he does condemn violence of any sort
all i can say is that for a clever man like him he shouldnt have made a statement that could be misinterpreted.
Now its up to the Ummah to clear his name. this is where political lobbying is required
//all i can say is that for a clever man like him he shouldnt have made a statement that could be misinterpreted. //
As ever let's blame the Muslims - the British govt can do not wrong.
Even when they let Rushdie insult him, they give him knighthoods - maybe Muhammed(saw) being a clever man shouldn't have done some of the things he did so they could be misinterpreted....
Have you watched the clip that is being referred to?
(If 'Ed thought that the government could do no wrong, he would not mention lobying to get the decision overturned. Please stop debating with imaginary enemies.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
u just need to grow up!
govt can be wrong and in this case is wrong... have i said they're not!!!!!
we muslims have to be clever and not get set up.
but some muslims have blinkers on, cant balme ourselves now can we, muslims cant do wrong, cos they're muslims innit. must be the dirty kuffar!!!!!
some people are so narrow minded....
u need to chill out dear.... and not jump on everyone u disagree with
hahaha
On the one hand, the government is wrong to ban him.
On the other hand, in that one famous clip, Dr Naik did mince his words and make a meal out of it. But I hear he later clarified what he had meant. So he did his clarifiying thing, but the government I assume supposedly ignored that as it would not have been convenient for it.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
of course they are wrong!!!
thats why we shud lobby them so they over turn the ban
but for some ppl that is haram, lobbying the kufr
so we shud just come on forums and vent our anger but dont do anything practical!
Maybe you can cite which people argue lobbying is haram?
YES- his comments were taken out of context, on numerous occassions he has condemed terrorism.
Please note his events will still take place via video link. Also please read message below circulated by event organisers to get support to overturn the decision, you can help by sending yours
salaam
You will be aware of malicious reports in some parts of the press regarding Dr Zakir Naik and his proposed participation at the Peace Conference 2010 events Wembley, Sheffield Arena and NEC Arena.
These were initiated by an article in the Sunday Times on 30th May 2010 in which Dr Zakir Naik was selectively quoted from his speeches at previous conferences. The quotes were given without the relevant context or were completely untrue.
As a result the Home Secretary, Theresa May has decided to issue an exclusion order against Dr Zakir Naik and revoke his VISA. The matters are being considered for a legal challenge in the High Court.
However to strengthen the case the legal team needs your support.
Please personalise the letter below and send it to the Home Office via post via email to the given details..
Please pass the message to all brothers and sisters.
With your support and Allah (swt)'s help we can get this decision overturned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Secretary
Right Honourable Theresa May MP
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Tel: 020 7219 5206
Tel: 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7219 1145
mayt@parliament.uk
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
18th June 2010
Dear Home Secretary
Re: Dr Zakir Naik - Exclusion Order
I am writing to inform you that I believe your decision to exclude Dr Zakir Naik, the eminent Islamic Scholar from India, from entering the United Kingdom to conduct a series of lectures as part of a Peace Conference, is extremely disappointing.
Your decision goes against the values we hold dearly in our country of freedom and social justice and does nothing to promote integration and harmony between the diverse peoples of this land.
On the contrary this decision is likely to alienate the very people we seek to promote our values to.
Home Secretary, I would urge you to re-consider your decision in the name of freedom and social justice and withdraw this exclusion order immediately.
Thank you in anticipation of re-considering your decision.
Yours sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address
so correct me if i'm wrong
lobbying ur mp/councillor/politicians is ok in ur eyes?
writing, phoning, arranging meetings with MPs is fine yeh?
so if a group of muslims went to meet david cameron to overturn the ban of z Naik coming to the UK you and ur Hizb are ok with that are you? no fatwa of governkment stooges?
if i'm wrong then i'll take my comments back....
Umm that doesn't actually say WHY they were wrong
That's effectively agreeing and then saying "but i don't like it so change it"
And using the freedom of speech thing especially, because it sounds like whats being said is "yeah he says terrorism's cool but he should be allowed to" as opposed to "he doesn't actually say that"
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
I'm not with any group - I simply asked, you assert some Muslims are saying it is haram - which ones is my question? Or do you regularly say things about Muslims (looks like you were talking about HT) which are untrue?
Zina with women may be haram, but it would be a little unusual for someone to conclude that as this was forbidden, all relations/contact with women are haram too - something you appear to be doing...
cant you have a normal discussion?!
always jumping on the defensive or turning aggressive... whats wrong with you?
the world is not against you
are you normally like this or just on this forum?
smile may be every now and then....
in my eyes YOU ARE HT- whether member or not but definitely supporter/sumpathiser as you defend their policies many a time here.
My understanding was that HT do beleive it is not allowed to lobby the kufar, but instead we should put pressure on Muslim governments. I remember having such discussions with HT supporters in my uni days....
if i'm wrong then i'll put my hand up.... no shame in that. may be you can clarify that for me as you are a hardcore HT sympathiser.
I *think* her position is:
1. You can lobby,
2. You cannot vote,
3. You cannot trust non Muslims
So lobbying is not a trustworthy tactic, but is allowed or maybe even encouraged.
Also, you may be basing your views on the HT when they and Al Muhajiroon were one organisation... the HT may have evolved since. and anon1 can still be taken for an individual I think.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
correction:
Don't just do something! Stand there.
why are we doing this????????
An excellent fellow Muslim teacher has been banned with no justification and still we muslims find a way of arguing with each other instead of supporting Zakir Naik and working in constructive and effective ways to reverse the Islamaphobia being spread in this country. Why do we do this????????
one ummah right?
Two out of three - not bad You. One can trust some non-Muslims - check out the Quranic verses that comment on giving a treasure to some people and them being trustworthy...
It depends what you understand by lobbying and what you seek to use it for - in its traditional political usage it is fine, however the hukm would be determined based on aims - asking the govt to stop banning Muslim speakers is permitted. Asking them to legislate for instance is not ok. Asking them to sort out Muslim problems in the Muslim world is politically naive etc
As I said, I am not with HT and if I was with them or any group, I'd proudly say so - I would not join a group whom I could not publicly defend.
As it stands, their points on the Caliphate are jurisitically correct as are the views of the jihadists who wish to repel enemies invading our lands as are Hamas's who implement Sharia as are Syed Qutb and Jamati Islami's critique of democracy, secularism and capitalism. Does that make me HT/Jihadist/Hamas/JamatiIslami/Qutbi?
see, it would be much easier if instead of being all sarcy you actually answered the question to say what your opinion on the matter is?
Where do your views lie?
So far you have attacked others for their percieved views, but not mentoined your own or said what should happen.
Be a little positive and just say what your opinions are. Makes things easier than trying to second guess your stance based on your objections to other posts.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I answer questions raised and I object to points made if I disagree with them - you don't have to second guess - you can always ask. It is not being sarcy or evasive - it is how everyone discusses on forums, yourself included.
My episteme is rationalism (in the Kantian/Ghazalian sense), theology is asharite, jurisprudence is shafiite, identity and ideology is Islam and political system is caliphate.
Evidence please.
You have used the present simple tense, which refers to things which happen 'in general', so there needs to be more than one or two answers to honest questions that people have asked you.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
this is what actually Dr Zakir naik said watch this video and decide whats the truth
http://searchoftruth.com/videos/442/zaki-naik-ban-in-uk-watch-and-find-t...!
please dont follow the media do your own research brothers and sisters
A disgraceful decision by the British Government to ban Dr. Zakir Naik. But it is not unusual or shocking. This could always be expected by the Western countries. And they talk about freedom of speech… wow! Do they think that this way they would be able to stop the truth (Islam) from growing and spreading across the world? They draw cartoons in the name of freedom of speech and thought, ban Hijab in the name of liberating women, let Geert Wilders propagate his hatred towards Islam openly to the extent of dishonouring the holy book of Allah (Quran), …….. and then they misquote Dr. Naik who stands for peace and ban him. They don’t want non muslims to come to the truth. I believe this would definitely make people from different religions to look into Dr Naik’s views to see why they are “extreme and unacceptable” as claimed. Injustice and oppression is becoming the trend of the world. During the rule (oppression) of the British Government in India, Bhagat Singh was a patriotic hero to the Indians, but for the British he was a terrorist and they sent him to the Gallows. After the British oppression ended in India, India got its freedom and had to get a new vision for its future. Mahatma Gandhi quoted that “If India has to improve it should be ruled by a dictator as honest and upright as Hazrat Umar (radhiAllahu anhu)”. Who was this person? He was the best of leaders of the muslim nation. He was an emblem of justice. He ruled as a true slave of Allah, treated muslims and non-muslims alike when it came to justice. We need the leaders of today to follow Umar’s footsteps.
http://navedz.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/quote-or-misquote-dr-zakir-naik-b...
when you say "listen to what Zakir naik REALLY said", maybe you should actually listen to the correct incident?
Here is the referred to video
He talks about bombings and then goes onto talking about "terrorising the terrorist, I am with him"
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
so what did Dr Zakir Naik say:
"...is bin ladin right or wrong?
answer: i dont know
if he is on the truth and following the quran, then i am with him
if he is terrorising the terrorists-america- then i am with him
every muslim should be a terrorist
the thing is...if he is terrorising a terrorist , he is following islam..."
we all know from his other speeches he is totally against violence, extremism, terrorism
But just listening to this... i have to admit his statements are clumsy and ambigious
hes giving his support to bin ladin which the west/uk/usa see as the no 1 terrorist in the world responsible for 9/11 and who has given fatwa against 'america' and who has spoken in favour of the martyrs of 9/11.
And then to say all muslims should be terrorists.... it was a bad way to get his point across
so when the MI5 listen to this...they will crap it
so if u just listen to that clip and dont know zakir naik and dont listen to his many other speeches against terrorism then u will come up with a dodgy conclusion that this guy is an alqaeeda supporter or summmat lol
I've listened to a lot of Doctor Naik's talks and he is a great speaker. I think he actually DARED to talk about issues that most do not (or maybe I havent listen to other speakers...) like the stuff about men being allowed to marry 4 wives (talk in which he says that-->
or talking about terrorism in a friendly manner and openly. Okay..so yeah..there was the risk of being misquoted, but I'm sure dr Naik has experienced that before and he'll know how to deal with it. like ive read before somewhere on this website "dont argue with an idiot as you're going down to their level and they'll beat you with experience".
a minute detail: how can you accuse someone of being a terrorist if he's own TV channel is called "Peace TV"...
the stuff about him supporting Osama ben Laden, i think it was someone who was asking him is Ben Laden was right in what he was doing. He was just saying in an off-hand manner that what the media reports is often bias. Most people get it, but if you wanna play with words...
its when you say things like that that people start taking everything you say seriously and so…when you try to joke it doenst work. Editor only said that dr Naik shouldn’t have said that, okay it’s the past and we cant do much about it, but he didn’t BLAME Dr Naik… and then you’re assuming that he thinks the “govt can do no wrong”. When it is him who posted this article up and it is him who proposed the “lobbying” idea. Even though I haven’t got the slightest idea what lobbying is.I think we should just stop trying to find argument in each other’s words. It can’t be healthy.
And euh….Spiritual Guru?
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
You forgot - he's very proud to be British! What more does one have to say!
@Anon1, is he really? what does it matter? Do you condemn someone just because of one thing you disagree with?
And this fact has no relevance to what we are talking about
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Pages