DR. Ali Al-Ghamdi in the article “The agenda behind the hostile attack on Dr. Zakir Naik” (July 20) has rightly pointed out that some sections of the Indian media are running a vilification campaign against Dr. Naik which is totally unfortunate. Any person having a logical frame of mind would agree that there is a biased and lopsided view on this issue. Regardless of the content of Dr. Naik’s lectures, his means of preaching and his popularity, on which I will not comment, what we are faced with today and what is alarming is the motive and the manner in which the Indian media is operating and evolving.
The media is rightly referred to as the vanguard of democracy and it should stand and defend it at all times and under all circumstances. At the same time, it cannot trample upon the rights and liberties of other individuals in the name of freedom of speech. It cannot and must not be allowed to acquire the status of a holy cow which can never be questioned.
As we have seen in the case of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) episode, thanks to advanced technology, it has become very easy to doctor or twist any video clip to use as a reference point and this has become a very disturbing trend. What is also alarming is the use of incomplete content or references taken out of their original context. Unfortunately, what we are also witnessing is the unrestricted manner in which the media can pronounce statements and judgments against any individual without any fear or accountability.
Moreover, when they pick targets to malign, they even throw to the winds all the niceties and etiquette associated with the journalistic profession. They use inappropriate language in their diatribe and address their targets as if they were convicts or criminals. The anchors and journalists of some TV channels and newspapers have gained an enormous dexterity and expertise in putting their words into the mouths of their guests and interviewees.They have also acquired an uncanny ability to twist the statements of others spontaneously in order to prove their point. When countered, they either lose their temper or end the talk abruptly.
These are the tactics they have devilishly and brazenly employed when they have interviewed Dr. Naik and others on their talk shows. For instance, one TV channels interviewed Dr. Naik over the telephone twice. In the first interview, the journalist was calm and asked questions in the normal poised and professional manner. Subsequently, when the higher up bosses of the TV channel found that Dr. Naik’s answers did not match their viewpoint or were not in tune with their hidden agenda, the journalist returned to Dr. Naik and requested a repeat interview, giving the excuse that the earlier interview had not been recorded properly.
Stunningly, in the repeat interview, she was quite aggressive and did everything possible to put her words into the mouth of Dr. Naik to make him admit that he was happy to have inspired some terrorists. In fact, the second interview turned out to be a sort of interrogation and the journalist acted as a sleuth or a police detective.
Another TV channel interviewed one of the disgruntled ex-employees of Peace TV channel who vented his anger and accused Dr. Zakir Naik of the misappropriation of the funds he receives and claimed that he indulged in self-portrayal or self-projection. However, to the chagrin of the anchor who tried his best to put his words into the mouth of that ex-employee, that person fell short of accusing Dr. Naik of promoting terrorism or of inspiring terrorists, the key allegation that Dr. Naik faces today and that the media seems to be hell-bent to prove.
What is appalling is the loose talk in which the media is shamelessly and insolently indulging to defame people and lay charges against them. It seems that they either want to sensationalize the issue or are acting at the behest of certain people who have ulterior motives. Some are just jumping on the bandwagon to capitalize on the situation and enhance their popularity or viewership.
The core purpose of journalism is not to stir up controversies or hearsay in order to create sensation or malign individuals and communities. It is the sacred duty of the media to study issues deeply and to analyze them in the right perspective without any bias or ulterior motives. It can then present its analysis based on concrete evidence which will withstand any scrutiny as well as convince the public instead of poisoning their minds and stirring hatred against others.
Yes, the media has the right to present information to people, but, such information must be complete and unbiased. As social media, including YouTube and Peace TV, is replete with the lectures and Q & A of Dr. Naik, it provides ready material to watch and analyze. The focus should be on his viewpoint on terrorism and terrorist activities and whether or not he promoted terrorism directly or indirectly.
At the same time, Dr. Naik should adopt a more pragmatic approach in clarifying his stand on terrorism. In one interview to Al-Jazira International, Dr. Naik tried to define terrorism and differentiate the perspectives with which one individual could be seen by two different sets of people.There is absolutely no point in presenting or elaborating the definition of terrorism. At this point of time, there is no need to draw analogies or parallels. The meaning and definition of terrorism is simple and plain. There cannot be a place for terrorism in any society or nation and no religion or ideology allows the indiscriminate killing of innocent people.
In the present atmosphere and context, the whole world is talking about the manner in which terrorists are brutally killing innocent people and creating an atmosphere of fear and terror around the globe. Their means are barbaric, crude and brutal; their approach and thoughts are despicable. There is absolutely no justification for such dastardly attacks or acts and such acts must be condemned without mincing any words at any time.
In another interview, Dr. Naik talked about suicide bombing as a tactic by an army engaged in a war against another country. This also sounds childish and there is no need to draw comparisons. He also talks about other preachers who might have inspired terrorists or cast a spell upon them.
However, I do not think that anyone who condones the use of terror can be referred to as a preacher. No interest can be served by naming others.
At this time, the world needs a soothing balm to overcome its grief and shock. People need words of wisdom and some sort of solace. Those whose voices are heard or followed have a great responsibility to reverberate and resonate the message that Islam prohibits all types of terror and requires its follower to shun violence. There is no place for terrorists or terrorism in Islam.
Safi H. Jannaty,
Dammam
