The ban on Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), run by preacher Zakir Naik, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is unjustified. We are studying how we can get the ban revoked. I believe that it should be revoked, for it is unjustified. In order to invoke a ban of this nature, the organisation must have, as part of its objective, promoted an offense punishable under 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which is promoting enmity on the grounds of religion. By no stretch of imagination did he do this. It seems like certain fabricated versions of his lectures, which he had delivered in 2005, were doctored and illegally uploaded on the internet. From these videos, some quotes were picked and given out of context interpretation. IRF is registered as a charitable organisation (in 1991), and its objective is to promote peace and communal harmony. Someone of Naik’s stature would have friends and enemies. Enemies sometimes have ulterior motives.
Mubin Solkar, Advocate
Javed Anand, General Secretary, Muslims for Secular Democracy.
Zakir Naik has been preaching prejudice and contempt, if not outright hatred, against followers of other religions.
He is peddling a brand of Islam that is supremacist and extremely intolerant not only of other religions but even other sects within Islam. All this through a channel ironically named ‘Peace TV’.
While it is for the prosecuting agency to establish before a court of law that there was enough evidence to justify a ban under the UAPA, I welcome the fact that a break has been applied on this man’s hate-mongering.
At the same time, I deplore the hypocrisy and double standard evident in the fact that while Naik has been booked, the political executive continues to turn a deaf ear to numerous hate preachers from the sangh parivar, including law-makers and even ministers in the present BJP-led governments at the Centre and in several states.
Yasa Iqbal, Journalist
When someone makes up his mind to frame someone, he takes all possible steps to bring him down and defame him. Zakir Naik is a perfect example of this — the whole system went after him. This can be considered as nothing but plain prejudice against him. There can be nothing more to it as he was scanned and all his videos were monitored over and over again. When they couldn’t find anything, the Supreme Court said his speeches are provocative (mentioning them out of context). Well, why did all this come after years of his preaching? The only way Mr. Naik can clear up his framed image is by getting the best of the best lawyer for his case. Nothing else. The court has clearly mentioned that his organisation can not be considered as a terrorist organisation, but also say that his statements are provocative? This simple makes no sense. He should fight back. This is the drawback of democracy. The decision of the majority is accepted, whether it’s right or not is never questioned.
