Sunday, June 20, 2010

Britain's May ban radical preacher Zakir Naik

My original comments along with Tarek and Javed’s comments and the original article are included below:

Khalid Faridi, Thanks for sharing your opinion on the subject and I am responding to your comment that follows my comments.

Your statement,“ After all, who is more evildoer than the UK and US governments ever since.”

Perhaps your frustration is legitimate that UK and US have not banned insane men preaching hate in the name of Christianity or Judaism and why pick Islam.

Nations are not the evil doers, nor are religions, it always stems from an individual and it is shame that democracies allow that. There should not be any curb on freedom of speech, however if a speech incites people, disturbs the peace of the nation, it amounts to emotional terrorizing and must be punished or banned.

“Those who abhor him do so out of jealousy.” Khalid, please substantiate that.

“But when self proclaimed moderates jump on he bandwagon it is sad.” Again Khalid, perhaps you did not get a chance to read my comments, Here are a few from my earlier postings;

“If in fact Dr. Naik has said this non-sense” and, “I will apologize profusely, if Dr. Naik has not said that.”

“Why Tarek or Mike don't question these media”

We do that all the times, in another incident, I have said to Pam Geller on ABC radio, “that she has cooked this up” “We need to tell the truth to the American and not your BS versions”… and a whole lot more. There are over 28,000 comments on it, most of them are fine, but there are several hate mongers on it.

There are worse hate mongers that Naik out there (if he has said that).

“Tarek what do we need to do with the # 1 hate mongers in the world, these guys are actually dangerous. John Hagee, Billy Graham Jr, Pat Robertson, Alan Dershowitz and several more, they are in every religion, we can take care of ourselves, but what about these enemies of humanity?”

I have a whole blog
on hate sermons where I have condemned the idiots who represent Judaism and Christianity, here are a few titles:

Hate talks coming out of synagogues
The real Pat Robertson
Free to criticize religions but not with hate
Praying for Obama's death
Neocons of the World
Nonie Darwish; a hate monger
Arlington Library bans hate group
Muslims in America not for domination
Muslim Response to Lies about Qur'aan
Jewish-Muslim dialogue, a necessity
John Hagee's hate pit
Rod Parsley a McCain Ally
Hate Sermons from Pulpit

Let Tarek speak for himself, on my part, any one who does incites hate or speaks from the pulpit, be it in the name of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or other religions, I will speak out against it… and the right wingers among them will continue to target me. Thanks Allah for giving me the freedom to endure the nasty ugly attacks on me. I spare no one.

As far as Zakir Naik goes, it is important that we are critical of our own, that gives us credibility to be critical of others. Aren't the Jewish people accused of not being critical of their own radicals?

If you wish to comment, please do so after reading other comments at:

Mike Ghouse
To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker
one who mitigates conflicts and nurtures goodwill.


It is not him but the fact that truth hurts and it hurts the evildoers more. After all, who is more evildoer than the UK and US governemtns ever since.

Most muslims who adore zakir do so because he stands like a beacon among apologists.

Those who abhor him do so out of jealousy. He is not an internet scholar, nor a paper's. He is alive, kicking and is doing what he can, best.

It is a tragedy that muslims scholars, internet or otherwise, seldom give due recognition to scholars who are doing what they ought to do as long as they are alive. Ironical but true.

People like Tarek quote media as gospel truth. there isn't any point arguing with them. But when self proclaimed moderates jump on he bandwagon it is sad.

Why should a muslim believe what CNN, BBC or Daniel say? Why Tarek or Mike don't question these media and instead point there guns to everyone whop doesn't agree with them?

Khalid Faridi



I am glad you wrote this, it has room for more accomodation, "It will be better
if Muslims stop the practice of condemning Jews as a whole and instead run their
campaign against Zionism. Strategically too it is important, as it will weaken
the support of Zionists among Jews."

Here is my commentary on the topic:

Zionism in its simplest form is the desire of the Jews in diaspora to live in
their home land, indeed, that is the desire of most people; to be at home where
they feel secure. Zionism encapsulates the dream of the Jewish people to have a
homeland; it is an idea of life for the people. The Word Zionism conjures up
different images to different people, we have to accept that bad elements are in
every group, whether Zionism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or others, we cannot
brand the whole group for the acts of few, this amounts to stereotyping and it
is wholesale prejudice.

Islamist is a bad word to lump all Muslims, or Hindutva is a bad word to lump
all Hindus, we cannot lump all Zionists as a bad people for the acts of a few.
As a Muslim and as a Pluralist, I will do my part to keep people from
stereotyping others, however, we all (people of all faiths) need to join and do
a combined education. No Muslim should smile when some one is bashing Judaism,
no Jew should gloat if some one is bashing Muslims, or Hinduism or Christianity,
that is downright stupid and not religious at all.

The word Zionism word will be used to describe the dreams of Jewish people and
to describe the extremists among them, we have the right word; Neocon Jews.

Zionist no more; they will be called Neocon- Jews or Neocon-Zionists

What Mr. Katz said may be irrelevant, as the word Yahud has been in use at least
from the times of Islam and that was 6th century.

Zionism is not going to go away, the Neocon-Jews are screwing up things and that
increases anti-semitism, and the makes them dig in their heels.

We have to find solutions for co-existence. The old methods of you or me, does
not work, it has to be us.

Mike Ghouse




I do not want to comment on what Dr Zakir Naik has in fact said because he is often quoted out of context. I do disagree with him on some issues, but I think he is generally advocating Islam as a religion of Peace (Islamic meaning of peace and not the distorted meaning held by the forces of globalization.) and is in normally giving emphasis on similarity between Islam and other religions. What he said regarding the concept of feminism in West is largely true. However, I will like to make a few comments regarding the position of Jews in Qur’an and in the minds of Muslims. Owing mainly to Israel’s tyrannical attitude towards Palestinians, Muslims have developed hatred for “Jews” and it is this hatred that has led many Muslim writers and thinkers to single out Jews for all that is bad in the current world. I have disagreement on this for various reasons:

First, I believe that it is not “Jews” or “Christians” but the forces of economics of the current world (whose majority happens to belong to the two communities) that are mainly responsible for the evils of the world, but this has nothing to do with their religions. They are in fact economic fundamentalists who have done everything to minimize the influence of religion;

Secondly, if the kings and rulers are determined on the basis of the community they belong to, “Christians” are certainly the bigger culprits than Jews. British, French and other Imperialists were all Christians. But I will stress again that they were Christians by birth only and their actions had little to do with their religious beliefs though Christian missionaries indirectly benefited from them.

Third, the main reason behind the position taken by Islamic experts is that they have failed to understand the difference that Qur’an makes between “Yahud” (Jews) and “Children of Israel”. If we closely scrutinize the two in Qur’an, it is not difficult to understand that Qur’an describes the religious community (as a whole) that we know as “Jews” today as “Children of Israel” and praises as well as criticizes them for what they have done in the past. But Qur’an exhorts Muslims to develop social contacts with them. “Yahud” in Quran refers to a segment of “banu Israel” that has adopted extremist, treacherous and violent ways against Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon both). So, generalized condemnation of “Jews” in Qur’an does not relate to Jew community of today.

It is interesting to quote here from an article by Joseph Katz:

“The term "Israel" or "Children of Israel" refers to the twelve sons of Jacob and their descendants. Jews almost never referred to themselves collectively as "Jews" until after the 13th century. In the Bible, Prayer Book and Talmud they call themselves "Children of Israel", "Children of Jacob", "Israel", etc. but never "Jews". The word "Jews" derives from the Roman term "Judea" which described roughly the area allocated to the tribe of Judah including Jerusalem. More specifically it refers to the militant zealots who fought against Rome. According to Josephus, these zealots belonged to a Temple Cult at odds with the Rabbinical Jewish authorities, and a portion of which were Idumean converts to Judaism. In this sense the "Jews" or more properly "Judeans" meant militants. New Testament references to "Jews" follow this pattern, for example Jesus was labeled as "King of the Jews", i.e. "King of the militants", not "King of Israel". After the Islamic conquest "Children of Israel" came to imply the Jewish people who kept the Divinely given commandments, and the "Jews" as those who abandoned or rejected them. Borrowing from European anti-Semitic literature, modern Islamists have stressed only the latter stereotype of evil "Jews".”

It will be better if Muslims stop the practice of condemning Jews as a whole and instead run their campaign against Zionism. Strategically too it is important, as it will weaken the support of Zionists among Jews.

Dr Javed Jamil


Thanks for sharing this critical information, I have been swamped with things to do, but this one got me going. We have to find the truth, that is our responsibility.

1) If in fact Dr. Naik has said this non-sense, we condemn it without reservation. “There are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole … The Koran tells us, as a whole, they will be our staunchest enemy.”

He has a right to free speech, but not malign Islam with non-sense like that. Where the heck did he get his Islam from? Does the man understand Islam means peace? Does he understand that God is not prejudiced? Who wants a God that hates his own creation, he is making God to be a bad guy and not Rahman and Raheem that is on top of every thing we do, he does not get Islam right. The overwhelming majority of Muslims show respect all religions as the Prophet did, but I know I will be rebuked by a few right winger Muslims, so be it, I will not let any idiot make my faith, and the universal God to be reduced to a God who tells bad things about his own creation? That is not Islam he is preaching.

I will apologize profusely, if Dr. Naik has not said that. I know a few Muslims wrongfully believe in that non-sense; because some of the Muslim scholars in the past have interpreted Quraan in that way, thank God Quraan is beautiful and needs to be understood from the very first line of Quraan.

His statement about terrorist is goofy, but harmless if you understand what he was trying to say.

Tarek what do we need to do with the # 1 hate mongers in the world, these guys are actually dangerous. John Hagee, Billy Graham Jr, Pat Robertson, Alan Dershowitz and several more, they are in every religion, we can take care of ourselves, but what about these enemies of humanity?.

Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress

In a message dated 6/18/2010 8:02:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time, writes:


Zakir Naik is an Indian Islamist firebrand who has preached hatred towards non-Muslims and who is on record of saying, "Every Muslim should be a terrorist." This jihadi televangelist was to speak in Britain to tens of thousands of radical Islamists, but he has now been banned from entering the UK.

With a trip to London now out of question, what does good old Zakir Naik do? He gets invited to a Toronto Islamic Conference where is touted to be the "featured speaker" on July 2, 2010, at Toronto's Metro Convention Centre. Here is the link:

Who says we Canadians are not suckers for punishment. Will we welcome this hate-monger or will our government do the right thing and tell this ugly preacher to take his hate somewhere else? Only time will tell.

In the meantime, read and reflect.


June 18, 2010
Britain's Home secretary Theresa May bans radical preacher Zakir Naik from entering UK

Radical preacher claimed “every Muslim should be a terrorist”

By Christopher Hope
The Telegraph, UK

In her first major test of being tough on extremism, Theresa May, the new Home Secretary, said she was banning Zakir Naik from entering the UK. Dr Naik, a 44-year-old Indian televangelist, had been due to give a series of lectures at arenas in Wembley Arena and Sheffield.

The Home Secretary can exclude or deport an individual if she thinks that their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.

There had been speculation that Dr Naik would be allowed into the UK. However Mrs May said she was excluding him because of the “numerous comments” he made were evidence of his “unacceptable behaviour”.

This behaviour applies to anyone who writes or publishes material which can “foment justify or glorify terrorist violence” or “seek to provoke others to terrorist acts”.

Mrs May told The Daily Telegraph: “I have excluded Dr Naik from the UK. Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour.

“Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and I am not wiling to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK. Exclusion powers are very serious and no decision is taken lightly or as a method of stopping open debate on issues.”

Home Office sources said Dr Naik had been filmed on a website making inflammatory comments such as “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.

He said: “When a robber sees a policeman he’s terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context, every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber.”

He has also been filmed saying: “There are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole … The Koran tells us, as a whole, they will be our staunchest enemy.”

In a web posting from 2006 he said: “Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them … we don’t know.

“But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. I read the newspaper. “If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

He is also reported to have said suggested that western women make themselves “more susceptible to rape” by wearing revealing clothing.

He reportedly said: “Western society has actually degraded [women] to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers”

Last night Patrick Mercer MP, the former chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism committee, said: “This is really good news. It shows that firm Government action can be taken against people. "This is exactly the sort of man who we want to exclude from this country.”

Dr Naik has been named as the third most popular spiritual guru in India and was judged in 2009 to be 82nd in a list of India’s most powerful people.=
Added later:

The Trouble with Dr. Zakir Naik – Britain’s decision to bar an influential Muslim cleric from entering the country underscores the failure of Indian secularism. OPINION INDIAJUNE 20, 2010


If you’re looking for a snapshot of India’s hapless response to radical Islam, then look no further than Bombay-based cleric Dr. Zakir Naik. In India, the 44-year-old Dr. Naik—a medical doctor by training and a televangelist by vocation—is a widely respected figure, feted by newspapers and gushed over by television anchors. The British, however, want no part of him. On Friday, the newly elected Conservative-led government announced that it would not allow Dr. Naik to enter Britain to deliver a series of lectures. According to Home Secretary Theresa May, the televangelist has made “numerous comments” that are evidence of his “unacceptable behavior.”

The good doctor’s views run the gamut from nutty to vile, so it’s hard to pinpoint which of them has landed him in trouble. For instance, though Dr. Naik has condemned terrorism, at times he also appears to condone it. “If he [Osama bin Laden] is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him,” he said in a widely watched 2007 YouTube diatribe. “If he is terrorizing the terrorists, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

Dr. Naik recommends the death penalty for homosexuals and for apostasy from the faith, which he likens to wartime treason. He calls for India to be ruled by the medieval tenets of Shariah law. He supports a ban on the construction of non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim lands and the Taliban’s bombing of the Bamiyan Buddhas. He says revealing clothes make Western women “more susceptible to rape.” Not surprisingly, Dr. Naik believes that Jews “control America” and are the “strongest in enmity to Muslims.”

Of course, every faith has its share of cranks; and, arguably, India has more than its share. But it’s impossible to relegate Dr. Naik to Indian Islam’s fringe. Earlier this year, the Indian Express listed him as the country’s 89th most powerful person, ahead of Nobel Laureate economist Amartya Sen, eminent lawyer and former attorney general Soli Sorabjee, and former Indian Premier League cricket commissioner Lalit Modi. Dr. Naik’s satellite TV channel, Peace TV, claims a global viewership of up to 50 million people in 125 countries. On YouTube, a search for Dr. Naik turns up more than 36,000 hits.

Nobody accuses Dr. Naik of direct involvement in terrorism, but those reportedly drawn to his message include Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan-American arrested last year for planning suicide attacks on the New York subway; Rahil Sheikh, accused of involvement in a series of train bombings in Bombay in 2006; and Kafeel Ahmed, the Bangalore man fatally injured in a failed suicide attack on Glasgow airport in 2007.

Nonetheless, when the doctor appears on a mainstream Indian news channel, his interviewers tend to be deferential. Senior journalist and presenter Shekhar Gupta breathlessly introduced his guest last year as a “rock star of televangelism” who teaches “modern Islam” and “his own interpretation of all the faiths around the world.” A handful of journalists—among them Praveen Swami of the Hindu, and the grand old man of Indian letters, Khushwant Singh—have questioned Dr. Naik’s views, but most take his carefully crafted image of moderation at face value.

At first glance, it’s easy to understand why. Unlike the foaming mullah of caricature, Dr. Naik eschews traditional clothing for a suit and tie. His background as a doctor and his often gentle demeanor set him apart, as does his preaching in English. Unlike traditional clerics, Dr. Naik quotes freely from non-Muslim scripture, including the Bible and the Vedas. (You have to pay attention to realize that invariably this is either to disparage other faiths, or to interpret them in line with his version of Islam.) The depth of Dr. Naik’s learning is easily apparent.

But this doesn’t fully explain Dr. Naik’s escape from criticism. It helps that Indians appear to have trouble distinguishing between free speech and hate speech. In a Western democracy, demanding the murder of homosexuals and the second-class treatment of non-Muslims would likely attract public censure or a law suit. In India, it goes unchallenged as long as it has a religious imprimatur. However, create a book or a painting that ruffles religious sentiment, as the writer Taslima Nasreen and the painter M. F. Husain both discovered, and either the government or a mob of pious vigilantes will strive to muzzle you.

In general, India accords extra deference to allegedly holy men of all stripes unlike, say, France, which strives to keep religion out of the public square. Taxpayers subsidize the Haj pilgrimage for pious Muslims and a similar, albeit much less expensive, journey for Hindus to a sacred lake in Tibet. This reflexive deference effectively grants the likes of Dr. Naik—along with all manner of Hindu and Christian charlatans—protection against the kind of robust scrutiny he would face in most other democracies.

Finally, unlike Hindu bigots, such as the World Hindu Council’s Praveen Togadia, whose fiercest critics tend to be fellow Hindus, radical Muslims go largely unchallenged. The vast majority of Indian Muslims remain moderate, but their leaders are often fundamentalists and the community has done a poor job of policing its own ranks. Moreover, most of India’s purportedly secular intelligentsia remains loath to criticize Islam, even in its most radical form, lest this be interpreted as sympathy for Hindu nationalism.

Unless this changes, unless Indians find the ability to criticize a radical Islamic preacher such as Dr. Naik as robustly as they would his Hindu equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism will remain deeply flawed.

Mr. Dhume, a columnist for, is writing a book on the new Indian middle class.


  1. here is a column from Sadanand Dhume, a journalist I have been following for the last fifteen years at the South Asian Journalists Assocation.

  2. To talk about fairly enforcing our laws that’s rich coming from a man that unjustly used legal duress to silence his own constituent and strangled that constituents’ right to communicate with the Newark MP.

    In hypocrisy I believe Mercer used this quote: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person was of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind" It was said Mercer intimidated and browbeaten other people into keeping their mouth shut.

    I can distinguish between right and wrong, between good and evil and between sincere and utterly disingenuous two-faced politicians.

  3. May be NaiK should go to Pakistan instaed, he'll fit right in.

    What’s on Pakistan TV talk shows? Extremists.
    Pakistan TV talk-show hosts like Zaid Hamid and Amir Liaquat Hussain peddle anti-American conspiracy theories and bash minorities.

  4. Dear Sir,

    True-Islam and terrorism are antonyms, in fact Islam hates terrorism. Prophet Mohammed was a full fledged brave-warrior who stood against falsehood and he never resorted to any kind of terrorism or terrorist tactics that are similar to sudden bombing or fear-based torture even on his most deadliest enemies. Only the most deluded and the cowards will resort to terrorism as a retaliatory solution to any given problem. When Zakir Naik calls for the terrorizing of the terrorists, it is like calling for the raping of the rapists, it takes us to no solution.

    Zakir Naik justifies his definition of terrorism by saying that a thief is terrified by a policeman, and so a police man is a terrorist to a theif. This is wrong. A policeman is only terrifying the thief not terrorizing. A policeman only tries to imprison the thief, and if evidence is provided before the court, only then is corrective measures taken. A policeman is not a terrorist to a thief. Similarly there is no terrorism in Islam, even when against the real terrorist themselves. Prophet Mohammed was devoid of the least amount of terror. He did not even terrorize the very woman that poisoned him. People used to throw rubbish on his face, yet he was a man of great patience and forbearance and he won many a hearts. This is true Islam. Such a great man he really was!

    Prophet Mohammed will never use terrorism to fight terrorism, he always used the truth along with a brave army of companions to fight the infidels only in a war of reason, code and self-defense in the way of the Truth before Allah.

    Once Ali, companion of Prophet Mohammed was at war, and he got into a fight with a very dangerous criminal, he finally overcame him and sat on his chest to kill him. The opponent spat at his face. Ali at once left him. Seeing this the man was very much surprised and asked the reason. Ali said, "I was killing you for God’s sake but when you spat on my face, my sincerity was endangered because of the personal feelings of anger." Hearing this the man immediately submitted and asked repentance to Al-God. Such was the honor and code that these men of Mohammed had, even at the crucial moments of war.

    Whereas terrorism is akin to a mad stupid man jumping from behind a bush, stabbing, bombing and shooting an unaware person at random to cause a state of fear all around. Mohammed will never support such cowardice. True-Islam and Terrorism are antonyms any day.

    Please to understand true Islam more... do visit this link


  5. Tzipi Livni Israeli minister along with her accomplices ordered the aerial bombardment and artillery assault on residential areas in Lebanon. For 34 days she authorized troops to make 12,000 aerial sorties, to fire 100,000 artillery shells, damaging 350 schools and destroying 15,000 houses in Lebanon. 130,000 homes were partially damaged. The attacks destroyed water sources, hospitals, power stations and other infrastructure essential to life. 900,000 people were forced to leave their homes and remain without shelter for many days. Some 1,200 people were killed, and 4,400 were wounded: approximately 30% of the dead, about 360, were children under the age of 13. Yet Prime minister Gordon Brown said ‘ She is always welcome in Britian’. I guess Zakir Naik will have to resort to the same level of madness in order to be welcomed by the prime minister of UK or maybe the PM can impress upon Home Secretary to change her opinion and welcome Zakir Bhai. Either way it is UK’s loss if it denies entry to such a luminary like Zakir Naik into thier country.



Email to:

Voice of Moderate Muslims

Voice of Moderate Muslims
Voice of Moderate Muslims

Moderate Islam Speaker

Moderate Islam Speaker
Moderate Islam Speaker

quraan burning

Planned Muslim Response to Qur'an Burning by Pastor Jones on September 11 in Mulberry, Florida

August 19, 2013| Dallas, Texas

Mike Ghouse
Text/Talk: (214) 325-1916

Mirza A Beg
(205) 454-8797


We as Muslims plan to respond to pastor Terry Jones' planned burning of 3000 copies of Quran on September 11, 2013 in positive terms.

Our response - we will reclaim the standard of behavior practiced by the Prophet concerning “scurrilous and hostile criticism of the Qur’an” (Muhammad Asad Translation Note 31, verse 41:34). It was "To overcome evil with good is good, and to resist evil by evil is evil." It is also strongly enjoined in the Qur’an in the same verse 41:34, “Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what is better; then you will see that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend.”

God willing Muslims will follow the divine guidance and pray for the restoration of Goodwill, and on that day many Muslim organizations will go on a “blood drive” to save lives and serve humanity with kindness.

We invite fellow Americans of all faiths, races, and ethnicities to join us to rededicate the pledge, “One nation under God”, and to build a cohesive America where no American has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of fellow Americans. This event is a substitute for our 10th Annual Unity Day Celebration ( held in Dallas, but now it will be at Mulberry, Florida.

Unwittingly Pastor Jones has done us a favor by invigorating us by his decision to burn nearly 3000 copies Quran on September 11, 2013. Obviously he is not satisfied by the notoriety he garnered by burning one Qur'an last year.

As Muslims and citizens we honor the free speech guaranteed in our constitution. We have no intentions to criticize, condemn or oppose Pastor Terry Jones' freedom of expression. Instead, we will be donating blood and praying for goodness to permeate in our society.

We plan to follow Jesus Christ (pbuh), a revered prophet in Islam as well as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) – that of mitigating the conflicts and nurturing good will for the common good of the society.

We hope, this event and the message will remind Muslims elsewhere in the world as well, that violence is not the way. Muslims, who react violently to senseless provocation, should realize that, violence causes more violence, and besmirches the name of the religion that we hold so dear. We believe that Prophet Muhammad was a mercy to the mankind, and we ought to practice what we believe and preach. We must not insult Islam by the negative reactions of a few.

We can only hope it will bring about a change in the attitude of the followers of Pastor Jones, and in the behavior of those Muslims who reacted violently the last time Pastor sought notoriety – We hope this small step towards a bridge to peaceful coexistence would propel us towards building a cohesive society.

Like most Americans a majority of Muslims quietly go about their own business, but it is time to speak up and take positive action instead of negative reaction. May this message of peace and goodwill reverberate and reach many shores.

Lastly, we appreciate the Citizens of Mulberry, Florida, Honorable Mayor George Hatch, City Commissioners, police and Fire Chiefs for handing this situation very well. This will add a ‘feather of peace’ in the City’s reputation. We hope Mulberry will be a catalyst in showing the way in handling conflict with dignity and peace.

We thank the Media for giving value to the work towards peace rather than conflict.


Thank you.


The people in Dallas are making an effort to understand and clean their own hearts first, when we are free from bias, it would be easy to share that with others. Islam teaches us in so many ways to "respect the otherness of others" and it is time we find simple practical ways of doing it.