MY article last week on Dr. Zakir Naik's cut-short appearance on Barkha Dutt's ‘Meet the People' show on NDTV elicited a flurry of responses – mostly in agreement, some in rage and some in doubt stemming from published reports of investigations into Dr. Naik's alleged links to an arrested terrorist in the US and acts of terrorism in India. The first two sets of respondents seem to have their minds made up, so I'll address here the concerns of the third group, middle-of-the-roaders I presume, who go by what the media depicts. This group has raked up articles in Time magazine, The New York Times, The Hindu and DNA newspapers of India, and fatwas against Dr. Naik issued by India's Darul Uloom Deoband. The Time and NYT articles were focused on Najibullah Zazi who had plotted to build and detonate bombs in New York last year around the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The reports cited friends of Zazi as saying he had been “enchanted” by Dr. Naik and drawn “inspiration” from him. Time used quotes from Dr. Naik's if-and-but style of speeches to briefly portray him, juxtaposing his incendiary “America – the terrorist, biggest terrorist” against his placating “I have always condemned terrorism, because according to the Glorious Qur'an, if you kill one innocent person, then you have killed the whole of humanity.” The Hindu newspaper article of July 2007 said Lashkar-e-Taiba organizers of the 7/11 2006 terrorist blasts in Mumbai commuter trains had often met at Dr. Naik's Islamic Research Foundation (IRF). However, the report concluded that Dr. Naik had no role in the attacks. A more recent Hindu newspaper article, last November on the efforts of the FBI and Mumbai police to map David Headley's network, raised suspicions that Lashkar recruiter Rahil Abdul Rehman Sheikh had found terrorist foot soldiers from Dr. Naik's IRF. But this article also petered out with “Little hard evidence has emerged… on whether the ILC had any role in helping the Indian Mujahideen leadership (including Sheikh) escape.” To sum up, nothing has been pinned so far on Dr. Naik. But that's not to say he isn't immune to such a possibility, given his long years of tempestuous rhetoric and open-house association with Muslims across the ideological spectrum. Moreover, now that Headley, the Pakistani-American Lashkar operative and US double agent charged with conspiracy in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, has struck a plea-bargain deal for a lighter sentence in the US, there's no telling what more may be hurled at Dr. Naik. Dr. Naik, it's no secret, has always lived dangerously, publicly treading the fault line where religions meet and often clash. Contrary to what many may perceive him to be, he has always maintained he's no maulana but just a student on Islam and Comparative Religion. In other words, his worldview is not binding. So, to the e-mailer who cited the Darul Uloom Deoband fatwa that Dr. Naik “is not reliable and Muslims should avoid listening to him”, all I can say is that India is a free country with a fair degree of tolerance on freedom of expression. If Hindu radicals like the Thackerays (Shiv Sena) and Muthalik (Sri Rama Sene) can get away with it, why not Dr. Naik who, unlike them, has never shied away from public scrutiny of his stated positions? Why should a man who was ranked 82nd in The Indian Express newspaper's list of the “100 Most Powerful Indians in 2009” be curtailed? Interestingly, in the list of the “Top 10 Spiritual Gurus of India” drawn up by the paper that's best known for being brave and unbiased, Dr. Naik was ranked No. 3, the only Muslim in the list. Dr. Naik's value lies not in his isolation in this day and age of raging religious conflicts amid the “Clash of Civilizations” debate. Like it or not, he represents a mindset of millions of Muslims across the globe. His ability to hold sway on so many people is the very asset that must come to play for a pragmatic outcome to ensue from the many initiatives made of late for global interfaith dialogue and harmony. These dialogue frameworks are, in the main, “The Alliance of Civilizations” initiative under United Nations auspices, the Cordoba Initiative on improving Muslim-West relations, the Saudi-Spanish Madrid Dialogue Conference, the Assisi interfaith gatherings of the late Pope John Paul II, and the Common Word initiative of Muslim scholars. Put together, these initiatives commonly aim to promote dialogue among religious, political, media and civil society leaders, particularly between Muslim and Western societies. Their singular contention is that all systems of faith contain similar universal values and principles of human conduct. Starting from these noble commonality is, no doubt, the way to go, but surely, at some point, the fault lines will appear. And that's where people like Dr. Naik could perhaps figure and bring a sizeable section of the world's Muslim population into the discourse. After all, a dialogue is no dialogue if it skirts its essential goal of conflict resolution by involving the affected. Whether one agrees with Dr. Naik's unsettling style of puritanical zeal or not – some of his e-mail supporters claim he tends to play to the fundamentalist gallery just so as to court attention to his long-winded way of making an equitable point – Dr. Naik articulates a recklessly sidelined but globally simmering and deeply entrenched mindset, not all of his making. What's indisputable is that there's enough compelling substance in Dr. Naik's exceptional scholarship to possibly cultivate common ground for the millions who go by or find vindication in his contentions to also, like everyone else, peaceably thrive. – SG Feedback: [email protected] __
