Zakir Naik claims he never promoted terrorist strikes

Islamic preacher Zakir Naik interacts with mediapersons in Mumbai via Skype from Saudi Arabia on Friday. Photo: Vivek Bendre  

Controversial preacher Zakir Naik on Friday refuted allegations against him stating that he had never promoted terrorist attacks and would willingly cooperate with investigation agencies should they want to question him.

In a day of high drama at a small banquet hall in Mazgaon, Dr. Naik addressed media persons via Skype: “My statements were taken out of context; they were half sentences, and were doctored. I am a messenger of peace. It is condemnable for any human, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, to attack another human being, and I for one have never advocated it.”

‘Prosecute the guilty’

Dr. Naik claimed he had “never” been approached by the police nor anyone from the Indian government in his entire lifetime. He also said that it was not him but “certain speakers” who were trying to misguide people about Islam and corrupting their minds. He appealed for their prosecution and asked the media to find out their hidden agenda instead of maligning him.

Accused of giving hate speeches, inciting acts of terror and disrespecting other religions, Dr. Naiksaid he had a right to express his view, given to him by the Constitution.

Dr. Naik said he believed his religion was the best because “the Quran says it. No other religious text or scripture claims this fact.”

About inciting acts of terror, he challenged the media “to find out any instance where I have promoted terrorism or praised an act of terrorism.”

In one of the clips floated on social media, Dr. Naik is seen supporting Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. He claimed that this clip was doctored and being used out of context. He said that he hadn’t researched about the terrorist and therefore he was “neither a saint, nor a terrorist for me.” He also denied having met any terrorist in person, or spoken to them. To a question from the media delegates about his view on suicide bombing as a means of spreading terror, he replied: “If it’s used as a tactic of war, for saving a country, then its use is justified. But not if it’s used to kill innocent humans.”

Our code of editorial values

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Jan 20, 2022 8:43:27 PM |

Next Story