In Islamic Nations such as Saudi Arabia where strict Islamic law or Shari'a is practiced, often times religious freedom is reduced to "nil". Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. The public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice and does not define this right in law.[1]

This means Non-Muslims can't practice their religion in public; they can't have their own places of worship let alone propagate their religion. Though in policy practice of religion in private is permitted it is often times not respected. For instance, on April 5th 2006, A Catholic Indian priest had just celebrated mass in a private house, when seven religious policemen (muttawa) broke into the house together with two ordinary policemen. The police arrested the priest and another person. He remained in police custody for four days and on Saturday 8th April he left for India.[2]

Recently I stumbled across a video of the genius Dr. Zakir Naik, in the video he has tried explained the logic behind such a law. One can watch the video here. For those who can't watch the video here is what it is all about. It seems to be a Q & A program in Q tv, a questioner (Non Muslim) from India asks him the following question:

Are Non-Muslims allowed to preach their religion and build places of worship in an Islamic state? If yes, then why building churches are not allowed in Saudi Arabia whereas Muslims are building Mosques in London and Paris?  

At first, I thought the doctor genius Zakir would use the famous Islamic taqqiya and say yes it is allowed and countries like Saudi Arabia aren't implementing true Islamic law as many Muslims with whom I had interacted want me to believe. But for once the doctor genius spoke some truth; He agreed that in Islamic nations building of churches, temples...etc are not allowed. Then how come Muslims are allowed to build their places of worship in Non Muslim nations? It seems he has a simple question to Non Muslims who ask such questions, so what's that?

He asks : (not in exact wordings of Dr. Zakir)

"If Non Muslim is principals of a school and if he wants to select a math teacher will he select a teacher who says 2 + 2 = 3 or the one who says 2 + 2 = 4 or the one who says 2 + 2 = 6? He would select the candidate who said 2 + 2 = 4, because the others don't have a correct knowledge of Mathematics similarly the other religions are wrong, and only Muslims have a right knowledge regarding religion. And when their religion and worship is wrong how can Islamic nations allow them to preach their (wrong) religion & build their places of worship?" and he substantiated this reasoning by quoting Q 3:85            

When I heard this, I was saying to myself "Wow, what a reasoning?!", if one has to learn how to make inane reasoning the ultimate candidate is the doctor genius! Irrespective of the religion you follow Mathematics is common, laws like "2 + 2 = 4", are universally accepted laws and any one who wants to deny this has some problem in his mind. The comparison of a universal law with a mere baseless faith which is accepted only by 21% of the world population[3] is the most puerile of arguments that can be put forward. What’s his point any how? Just because “2 plus 2 is equal to 4” Islam is true? Every person knows that man believes the religion he follows is true. So what is Zakir trying to say?

The program host was at least more sensible than the doctor genius, on hearing this great logic he asked back "But is it not so that the Non Muslims think their religion is true and Muslims think our religion is true?" to this the doctor genius retorts "one thing must be understood that Non Muslims will never let their children learn 2 + 2 = 3, because they are sure its wrong similarly we are only sure Islam is true and they not sure about their religion if they were sure they would they allow wrong things to be preached?"

I must say he really had me laughing at this point, he again brings up mathematics as if it somehow proves Islam is true, "2 + 2 = 4 so Islam is true", what can one say about such logic? Here again adds this with a rhetoric that only Muslims sure about their religion while Non Muslims are not, it goes without saying this is wishful thinking. And what makes this even more interesting is his comment "if they were sure they would they allow wrong things to be preached?" here he means that Non Muslims would not allow other religions (including Islam) except their religion to be preached if they thought their religion to be true. So going by his logic this would allow Non Muslims who think their religion is true prohibit preaching of Islam and justify the demolition Islamic places of worship, I think Zakir shouldn't have any problems with this after all it is own logic. But we know if any of this happens in a Non Muslim nation then Muslims will be up in arms, rioting in the streets after all they belong to the religion of peace.

What makes it more pathetic is the host asked whether it is not against human rights? Zakir said "no it will not all". Has the doctor genius glossed over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the 58 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948? Article 2 of which permits fundamental freedom of religion, and it is again mentioned in Article 3, and Article 18 stands for protection of such rights.[4] Of course it all depends on what is the the Islamic definition  of  "freedom of religion" and "Human rights" is? One has to say it is completely different to what we know, so is Islamic logic.

---

References:

[1]  International Religious Freedom Report 2005, Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and  Labor.

[2]  Catholic priest arrested and expelled from Riyadh, AsiaNews.

[3]   Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents.

[4]  Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights.

Update:

An Addendum To Islamic Logic In Action.

In this very short article, I would like to add on to my previous article “Islamic Logic in Action” and pin down on exactly what logical fallacies was committed by the Islamist Dr. Zakir Naik. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank Islam watch forum member, Caroline1, who was the stimuli behind this article. Now, before pointing out the fallacies committed by him, I must make it clear what a fallacy is. It is defined as follows.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.[1]

Now coming to the point, the doctor genius was asked why other people aren’t allowed to preach their religion in an Islamic nation. He contends that only truth must be allowed to be spread and preached. The logic follows as given below:

If P: Islam is true

Then

Q: Other religions shouldn’t be preached

I.e. P → Q

But the premise he has is Q, i.e., he has the information other religions are not allowed to be preached. With that he says:

Since, Q → P

Which is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. This fallacy is of the form:

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

This logical error is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent because it is mistakenly concluded from the second premise that the affirmation of the consequent entails the truthfulness of the antecedent.[2] Similarly, just because other religions are not allowed to be preached it tells nothing about the nature of Islam, i.e. whether it is true or false.

At another place Dr. Zakir Naik, says, “And when their religion and worship is wrong how can Islamic nations allow them to preach their (wrong) religion & build their places of worship?"

Here Dr. Zakir Naik commits the fallacy of loaded question. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.[3]

Here Dr. Naik presupposes that all religions except Islam are false which has not yet been proven. In this short addendum to my previous article I have shown only the most obvious logical fallacies of the doctor genius, one can find many more on a closer observation.
 

---

References:

[1] Description of Fallacies, The Nizkor Project.

[2] Affirming the consequent, Wikipedia.

[3] Loaded Question, Wikipedia.

Any comment? Contact me