Roland, you have summarised what Dr Zakir Naik stands for pretty well. However, a few errors have crept in. One, it is wrong to call the muslims of India as militant. I think these are too strong words and do not reflect reality. The problems of Dr Zakir Naik came from Bangladesh where one of the terrorists captured disclosed that he was influenced by the teachings of Dr Naik. Two, conversion is not a crime, so he cannot be guilty. Three, you are perhaps confusing the Catholic/ Christian Secular Forum with the Bombay Catholic Sabha.
I agree with you that while one may find Dr Zakir Naik's views offensive, they are far from encouraging or justifying terrorism. In fact he gets the goat of even Shia muslims. His outspoken views against the double standards practiced by the West also got him into trouble with UK and Canada. It is surprising that the Indian security forces and the media have put him under investigation and spotlight while turning a blind eye to the utterances and actions of the VHP, BD, HJS, SS, and the legion of sangh parivar legionnaries who spout hatred and commit crime every second day. The dalits are the latest victims of cow vigilantes. Regards, Marshall *Because the Muslim population in India is militant and vociferous, the authorities will look to vilify him for terrorism charges (of which he he largely innocent) rather than conversion (of which he is entirely guilty).On the other hand with the Christians in India, the govt takes an anti-conversion stand, knowing the community is law abiding. But it's hard to make a case for free speech when Christian groups like the Bombay Catholic Sabha take to demonstrations to stop anything that is critical of their faith. The protest against showing the Da Vinci Code in cinemas some years ago for example shows the basic insecurity of the Christians in India in their faith.* *Roland Francis*
