He says that those performing sex outside marriage should be stoned to death, homosexuals should be killed, and he advocates chopping off hands as a punishment for stealing.
He supports wiping out other Islamic sects other than Sunni, and believes that other religion shouldn't be allowed to build their house of worship in an Islamic country. He never condemns Osama Bin Laden, in fact he says that suicide attacks advised by clerics in not a bad thing.
These controversial comments made him banned from entering UK, Canada and Malaysia. ISIS use his "wisdom" to justify slaughtering minority Islamic sects, while the suicide bomber in Dhaka last year directly quote him as an inspiration.
So why do they embrace Zakir Naik here in Indonesia, and why do the govt let this Salafi ideologue preach to thousands of people?
But yet, when reading about what he said in Bekasi over the weekend, it's actually mild. People who loves him often said that he's smart and can provide a light on comparative work on different religions, that his work tries to straighten up the wrong image of Islam after 9/11.
So which one is it then, is he a radical or a smart tolerant? Both examples are out there in the media in almost equal measure. Am I missing something here?
But yet, when reading about what he said in Bekasi over the weekend, it's actually mild. People who loves him often said that he's smart and can provide a light on comparative work on different religions, that his work tries to straighten up the wrong image of Islam after 9/11.
So which one is it then, is he a radical or a smart tolerant? Both examples are out there in the media in almost equal measure. Am I missing something here?
