It's ban season in India, again. After beef, books, movies, and alcohol, we're contemplating a ban on Zakir Naik, a Mumbai-based Islamic preacher who is barred from holding public lectures in UK, Canada, and even Malaysia, a predominantly Muslims country.
Naik came into
the spotlight after some of the Dhaka restaurant attackers claimed they were
inspired by his speeches. Naik runs a channel called Peace TV, which is nothing
but a mouthpiece for Salafi/Wahabi ideology. He is deeply linked to the Arabic
community, and has been awarded several prizes by Saudi. He frequently rubs
shoulders with the likes of Shahrukh Khan, and several other bollywood
idiots.
Despite all these issues, I really don't think he should be banned. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll let that do the talking first.
Despite all these issues, I really don't think he should be banned. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll let that do the talking first.
 |
Skull cap with suit. Cho chweet, no? |
And now for the words. Reasons why I think he shouldn't be banned:
1.
He is the
clown we don’t deserve but direly need: Look at him. The dude is so stupid that he’s caricature-proof, and yet
one can’t stop laughing looking at him or listening to his words. We need him
to bring some mirth into our lives. I say we coronate him as the “National
Clown of India”. I have a theory: Jyllands Posten made his cartoon, and not
Prophet’s. Do compare the photos. I dare not put them here.
2. It’s the people, stupid: Let’s not kid ourselves. If some 18+ year old dude believes the trash
Naik dishes out, he is radicalized (and incredibly stupid) anyway, and is only
looking for a final excuse to commit his deed. If his followers were remotely
sane people they’d look for a second opinion. They don’t. It’s plain
confirmation bias. Few would know that Anders Breivik, Norway's mass murderer, was deeply inspired by BJP and RSS. Should we ban both now? Blaming Naik for radicalizing people is akin to blaming
McDonald’s for encouraging gluttony - fatties gonna hog anyway, McDonald’s just
happens to be cheap and accessible.
3. Nab the real culprits: I mean those dadhi-waala mullahs who radicalize young, impressionable
minds. Naik is just the rubber stamp. Sure, if Naik is secretly peddling hate
to kids, there is a case to chastise him as well, but I don’t see any such
thing happening at his public lectures.
4. Sorry, can't nab the real culprits: Because the real culprits are
not dadhi-waala mullahs, but those that shake hands with heads of
state during their diplomatic visits to the Gulf. But who’d dare nab them?
5. Naik's like Jimmy Carr: Biting dark humour with deadpan
delivery - Bamiyan Buddha’s desecration was a lesson in true Buddhism, Osama
wasn’t a terrorist1, 2+2=4 justifies2 not building
churches in Saudi Arabia. This is seriously HQ dark humour. Have we ever called
for a ban on Carr? Nope. What about South Park? Nope. Reddit’s amazing
subreddits on dark humour? Nope. So why ban Naik?
6. He’s a noob: If Naik doesn’t mean all that he says as
dark humour but as hate speech, he REALLY sucks at it. Heck, his own recorded
speeches would fail miserably at radicalizing him. The best he could do was to
scare a child while it was trying to sleep, and he doesn’t really need to open
his mouth for that. In judicial parlance, he doesn't pass the "clear and
present danger" test.
7. There are others far more deserving: Naik, dude, look around you, there are
luminaries you could learn from. Praveen Togadia3 - “Nelli mein
police hati to laashon ka dher lag gaya”, Yogi Adityanath4 -
“Pakistan-samarthak tatva bemaut maare jayenge, unko koi bachane wala nahi
milega”, Terry Jones - the pastor who burnt Quran(s) publicly, and closer home,
Owaisi and Al-Awlaki. I should avoid naming the king of hate speeches, an Austrian man, for
he was so good that Naik can’t even dream of emulating him, even though they share
their greatest enemy. So yeah, if all those dudes got away with spewing so much
venom openly, why not let poor Naik talk?
8. Is he even wrong?: Shariah’s message is plain and simple -
burn the fags, enslave the whores, slaughter the infidels.
Pardon the technicalities, but Shariah is largely derived from Quran (and certain other reliable Islamic texts), and it is the very source that Naik claims to base his words on. Sure, he could be lying to push his agenda. But the fact is that most Islamic nations punish apostasy, adultery, homosexuality with public beheading/stoning etc. - not too different from what ISIS does, the only difference being that the latter is non-governmental - justifying it in the name of those very texts. The still more worrisome bit is that a hell lot of Muslims support it, again resorting to the same justification. Some Islamic nations don’t allow women to vote, even drive, and there is strong basis for it in Shariah. Not that there are no problems in India. For example, denial of marital rape is state-sanctioned misogyny. But thankfully, we don’t take Manu Smriti and other such shit too seriously. Unfortunately, this madness assumes galactic proportions in Islamic countries, and yes, you guessed it right, there is a readymade source to fall back on. Whatever seems unpalatable, such as Prophet’s alleged consummation of his marriage with a child, is dismissed as “weak Hadith”. Very convenient.
Old Testament and Torah are as unequivocal in their message, but the only
Jew nation on the planet has executed just one man, that too a mass murderer,
in its 78-year history. (I know, I know, they have other ways to kill, but
they’re not as brutal and crazy). The Christian nations seem far less barbaric
too. Maybe there’s a thing called moving on that Muslims forgot about? A really
cruel joke comes to my mind right now but I dare not make it public. But oh,
I’d have had no trouble writing it had it been on another religion.
9. If he's a problem, there are easier solutions: Banning him would make too much news, just like Yakub Menon's death did and Wani's is making now. But people go away far more quietly in accidents, you know. Wait for a few months, emphatically declare Naik's right to preach, and then, bam!
References:
5.
Not that I
am comparing AB Vajpayee to Naik or to any other hate preacher, but this speech is
an exemplar of allegory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Nvqqx5_Po
No comments:
Post a Comment