Excusing Muslim terrorists and blaming Hindus – David Frawley-1

Muslim preachers like Zakir Naik are afforded respect even when teaching intolerance and excusing terrorism. Hindu gurus like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, on the contrary, are criticized and even sued for promoting world peace and the unity of humanity. And this is occurring in Bharat, which is not an Islamic country. – Dr David Frawley

Hindu gurus are kept in jail without bail, made the subject of long court cases, dragging out for years. The media presumes them guilty and does not ask for their release. When their names are eventually cleared, as in the case of Pujya Jayendra Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram, no apologies are offered for the derogatory stories published against them.
Hindu Sadhvi Pragya, accused of involvement in a terror attack, can be kept in jail for years without bail, drugged and tortured as a matter of investigation. This would not happen with a mullah or with a priest.
A Hindu politician like Kamlesh Tiwari can be held without bail for allegedly insulting Islam, while those insulting Hindu Dharma are excused or turned into media heroes, like the student protestors from JNU’s communist student union who denigrated Ma Durga—or for preachers like Naik who routinely demean Hindu deities, practices and theology on television shows.
To be contd.....

NAYAK OR KHALNAYAK (Excusing Muslim terrorists and blaming Hindus ) --2
The problem with having hate speech laws is that they aren’t designed to fight hate. They just make voicing a hateful opinion illegal. – T. A. Bharadwaj (T. A. Bharadwaj is a student journalist and philosophy buff.)
As per recent revelations, at least two of the seven terrorists, who hacked 20 people to death in Dhaka, were followers of Dr Zakir Naik.
Naik, a controversial Indian Islamic preacher, is extremely popular among a section of middle class urban Muslims. Indian media and the political establishment at large have been clamouring to have him banned and to prosecute him on grounds of hate speech.This would be a terrible move.
One may be a free speech fundamentalist, but never smitten with romantic notions of free speech.
We should not underestimate the threat of radical Islamism and recognise the capacity of hate preachers to influence impressionable young men to commit heinous acts of violence in the name of religion without evincing any interest in the repercussions of their detrimental acts.
A serious thought is to be given whether banning a venom spitting hardcore conservative like Jakir Naik help in dealing with radicalaization.
If we watch any of his lectures or debates on YouTube, you will see that not only does Naik draw in huge crowds at his events, but he also has a substantial online audience. His large fan base would seem to suggest that many of his abhorrent views are shared by huge crowds of people. Indeed he has good knowledge of Vedas Upanishads and Bhagavadgitha. The fundamental question that should occur to our mind is that in all his lectures he takes quotations only to such extent, which, either, are in tune with Quran or the meaning of which lead the skeptics to a fallacious conclusion. Neither he quotes the full text of the verse nor interprets in its veracious meaning.***
VERY IMP.THE BOOK OF ALLAH GIVEN TO HINDUS IS ONLY BHAGWADGITA.BHAGWADGITA DOES NOT MENTION TO EAT FLESH.THE BOOK OF PARSIS GIVEN BY ALLAH IS VE DEAVO DATA.IT MEANS LAW AGAINST DEVTAS.VE DEAVO DATA MENTIONS TO EAT FLESH ONLY ON THE FOURTH DAY OF DEATH CEREMONY OF RELATIVES. VE DEAVO DATA DOES NOT MENTION TO EAT FLESH EVERY DAY.ONLY QURAN ALLOWS TO EAT FLESH.VERY IMP. QURAN MENTIONS TO EAT FLESH IN SUCH A WAY THAT LATER ON ANY REAL MUSLIM WILL STOP EATING......ADIL DARUWALLA
Dr. Alok K. Bohara, Ph.D. Professor University of New Mexico states as follows:
In July 16, 1945, nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer famously recalled this quote from the Bhagavad Gita after seeing the mushroom cloud from the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico : 
"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to
burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." and
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
famous German author Herman Hesse: “The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion.” The vast span of knowledge and wisdom in Gita, ranging from the nature’s cosmic evolution and creation of the physical world to the subliminal inner self journey, has stood the test of time and space.
On the contrary, the undertone of Dr. Naik’s so-called scholarly rote sermon with rapid citation against the Vedanta and its true teaching seem both childish and full of ignorance. Furthermore, his continuous push for the revival of the throwback era of superstitions and social dogma in the India sub-continent seems to be motivated by his own insecurity in his faith. Why else would you spend so much time fighting such a profoundly secular universal teaching contained in the Gita, especially when it is not even your own religion? Because of his habit of playing fast and loose with the words and facts, many Imams held a press conference to condemn him for his political remark in Italy about the battle in Mecca .
What is stated above reveals the fact that when his charges, allegations, misquotes are refuted in deliberate arguments on a common platform for open discussion with unbiased judges then his voice can be made feeble and thus making him meek. 
If we vban him from ban him from preaching, how would we deal with millions of his fans who hold similar beliefs? Can we ban them? We cannot because ideas cannot be made illegal. The problem with having hate speech laws is that they aren’t designed to fight hate. They just make voicing a hateful opinion illegal.
Just because people don’t say things out loud, doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t exist. Salman Rushdie once remarked: “If we give people the freedom to voice their hateful views, at least we can see where the hate is coming from and take it on directly.”
The best way to counter the influence of people like Naik is to expose their ideas, for the regressive, conservative and pre-medieval notions they are. Inviting him to debates on national television instead of banning him, would be a good place to start. In fact, if you look at his most controversial statements, as problematic as they are, they aren’t calls for violence. Zakir Naik is a hardcore fundamentalist and the only way to defeat religious fundamentalists is by critically scrutinising their ideology by pitting them against ideas based on reason.
We need to win over people’s hearts and minds instead of alienating them for their false sense of right and wrong.
The only reason Naik is even in the limelight right now is because two of the Dhaka terrorists were his fans. Banning him with that as the reason would set a dangerous precedent.
It was revealed soon after Osama Bin Laden’s death that he was a fan of Noam Chomsky, among others.
In fact, Chomsky’s critique of American foreign policy makes him a darling among Islamists. Would that be reason enough to ban Chomsky?
Naik’s views are regressive and extremely conservative.
If we want to mitigate the problem of radicalism, we need to wage a battle of ideas.
Banning one preacher would hardly make a dent in the problem and is bound to create more ill will among the people we should be trying to win over.