Should he stay or should he go now...

[Gob]

THE home secretary, Theresa May, is facing a stiff test of the Conservative party’s claims to oppose radical Islam after her officials chose to allow a misogynist Muslim preacher into Britain.

Zakir Naik, an Indian televangelist described as a “hate-monger” by moderate Muslims and one Tory MP, says western women make themselves “more susceptible to rape” by wearing revealing clothing.

Naik, who proselytises on Peace TV, a satellite television channel, is reported to have called for the execution of Muslims who change their faith, described Americans as “pigs” and said that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.

In a recent lecture, he said he was “with” Osama Bin Laden over the attacks on “terrorist America”, adding that the 9/11 hijackings were an inside job by President George W Bush.

In opposition, David Cameron and other senior Tories led criticism of the Labour government for allowing radical preachers into Britain to stir up hatred on lecture tours. While in opposition, Cameron also campaigned to get Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian radical, banned from Britain.

Cameron and May now face a political test over Naik, whose inflammatory comments have led some moderate Muslims to call him a “truth-twister”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 140235.ece

Why the fuck should this arsehole be given a UK visa?

[Sue U]

Why the fuck should this arsehole be given a UK visa?

Why the fuck shouldn't he be? Has he violated some law? Is he an imminent national security threat of some kind? Is he coming to rape women in "revealing" clothing? Do Brits ban people from their country simply because they may have hateful ideas? Does the UK not protect an individual's freedom of speech and thought, regardless of how repulsive that speech/thought might be to others?

So he's an asshole, so what? Hell, you let fucking David fucking Irving fucking live there.

Have I said "fuck" enough yet?

[loCAtek]

You can never fuck enough!

[Gob]

Why the fuck should this arsehole be given a UK visa?

Why the fuck shouldn't he be?

Because he's a hatred promoting arsehole, why grant him a visa to promote hatred in the UK..

Has he violated some law? Is he an imminent national security threat of some kind? Is he coming to rape women in "revealing" clothing?

He is coming to promote those ideas, and even his fellow Muslims do not want him there.

Do Brits ban people from their country simply because they may have hateful ideas?

I should hope we do.

Does the UK not protect an individual's freedom of speech and thought, regardless of how repulsive that speech/thought might be to others?

Nope, not to the (I think lunatic) extent that the USA does.

So he's an asshole, so what? Hell, you let fucking David fucking Irving fucking live there.

Like him or loathe him, he's a Brit national.

Have I said "fuck" enough yet?

I love it when a woman says "fuck?"

[tyro]

Do Brits ban people from their country simply because they may have hateful ideas?

Canada bans entry to anyone deemed to be promoting hatred. At its inception, the law targeted Holocaust deniers. I think this piece of legislation was inspired by a similar law in England.

The US might not have a similar law, but I bet if this same nut wanted to visit there, he wouldn’t get far.

[Sue U]

Canada bans entry to anyone deemed to be promoting hatred. At its inception, the law targeted Holocaust deniers. I think this piece of legislation was inspired by a similar law in England.

The US might not have a similar law, but I bet if this same nut wanted to visit there, he wouldn’t get far.

We have no such laws, nor could we, as long as the First Amendment controls our government's actions. The zealous protection of freedom of speech and antipathy toward prior restraint is the crowning jewel in the American experiment. The antidote to "hate speech" is not to ban it, but to show it as an undesirable course through counter-speech. We don't need a nanny state to protect us from bad thoughts. What is it you are so afraid of?

[loCAtek]

I think they're afraid he'll encourage extremism and violence;

Wiki:

Khushwant Singh, a prominent Indian journalist, politician and author argues that Naik's pronouncements are "juvenile" and said that "they seldom rise above the level of undergraduate college debates, where contestants vie with each other to score brownie points".
Singh replied to Zakir Naik's statement that "Western society claims to have uplifted women. On the contrary, it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses, and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketers…."[38] by saying "Dr. Naik, you know next to nothing about the Western society and are talking through your skull cap. People like you are making the Muslims lag behind other communities." Singh also noted that Naik's audiences "... listen to him with rapt attention and often explode in enthusiastic applause when he rubbishes other religious texts ..."[39][40]

Lucknow based cleric Kalbe Jawad argued that "Naik is bringing a bad name to Muslims. Such people should be condemned and socially boycotted" and claimed that Naik was being financed by the Wahabi sect that supposedly perpetrates violence in the name of Islam and expressed the need for an inquiry into, how Naik was running a TV channel on his own and where he received the funds from. Another Lucknow cleric Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali claimed that Naik has "mugged up some verses from the Koran and pretends to be an Islamic scholar".[41]
Fatwas

In August 2008, Darul Uloom Deoband issued a fatwa stating: "The statements made by Dr Zakir Naik indicate that he is a preacher of Ghair Muqallidin. One should not rely upon his speeches." [42]

The Shariah Board of America has also issued more than 20 fatwas against Naik on their website. They believe Naik has gone astray, as he is not a scholar and issues Islamic teachings without authority or any knowledge to do so, which is dangerous to Islam; "Naik is known for discussions on comparative religions. He is not a qualified Aalim of deen. His comments on fiqh have no merit. If it is true that he condemned the fiqh of the Imams, then that in itself is a clear indication of his lack of fiqh and understanding of Shairah. We have come across a fatwa from Darul Ifta Jamia Binnoria, Pakistan regarding Zakir Naik not being a certified Aalim of Deen. He should consult with Ulama in his endeavor of propagating deen."[43][44]

In November 2008 the Lucknow based cleric Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali issued a fatwa against Naik, describing Naik as a "Kafir" (non-believer) and stating in the fatwa, that Naik should be ex-communicated from Islam. He argued that "Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain" and that Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists. Naik, however, said that his speeches were misquoted and that he was allegedly targeted by people with vested interests and said of the fatwa "fatwas mean nothing. They should also issue fatwas against Imam Bukhari. Some clerics who have limited understanding of Islam are doing these things. It doesn't affect me". The All-India Sunni Board and Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani Foundation have also defended Naik.[41][45]

Ali Sina, who is a big critic of Naik, has claimed that Naik is a showman who twists the truth and fools his audience. He has reviewed the debate between Campbell and Naik and claims that Naik misrepresented Islam with his lies.[22]

In response to questions about Naik, Darul Ifta, an Islamic organization in India which issues advice and fatwas has said that “one should not rely upon his speeches”[23], “his knowledge is not deep”[24] and that”he is deviated from the path of well-versed Ulama”[25]. They also say that Naik is “spreading mischievous things and misguiding simple Muslims to wrong path”[26] and that “he is religiously deviated, some of his talks are unauthentic.” [27] They advise other Muslims that “one is most probably feared to fall in fitnah by listening his speeches.”[28]

Fitna (pl. fitan) (فتنة) is an Arabic word with connotations of secession, upheaval and chaos. It is often used to refer to civil war, disagreement and division within Islam and specifically alludes to a time involving trials of faith, similar to the Tribulation in Christian eschatology.

[Gob]

We have no such laws, nor could we, as long as the First Amendment controls our government's actions. The zealous protection of freedom of speech and antipathy toward prior restraint is the crowning jewel in the American experiment.

Which gives you Fred Phelps disgracing soldiers funerals

The antidote to "hate speech" is not to ban it, but to show it as an undesirable course through counter-speech. We don't need a nanny state to protect us from bad thoughts. What is it you are so afraid of?

The same sorts of things as you;

Immigration Mistake #3: Express Hostile Anti-American Sentiments

If you express hostile anti-American sentiments;
if you are vocally sympathetic towards terrorist groups; or,
if you are suspected of being violent or smuggling drugs, you could be:

a) Denied entry to a U.S.-bound flight, or to the U.S. upon arrival;

b) Banned from future entries to the U.S.;

c) Detained in a U.S. jail indefinitely if you are suspected of having terrorist ties;

d) Deported if the U.S. government determines that you are a danger to its citizens.

Just be aware that post 9/11/01, even seemingly harmless jokes about terrorism could lead to a lot of unnecessary questioning and stress. Use common sense. No bomb jokes. Unless of course you really are a criminal, in which case, please flaunt it.

http://santosgere.wordpress.com/2007/11 ... om-the-us/

[tyro]

The zealous protection of freedom of speech and antipathy toward prior restraint is the crowning jewel in the American experiment.`

Yeah, but I bet he is on the “no fly list”