ISLAMOPHOBIA has been a favourite subject of Mumbai-born preacher Zakir Naik. The term can be confusing. Depending on which angle one views it from, Islamophobia carries three distinctive, but overlapping connotations.

Zakir views it through the lens of bias, devoid of objectivity, and pairs it with rhetorical language, leading to critics labelling him a “hate preacher”. Islamophobia, in analogy with xenophobia, is defined as the fear and hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims in general. From a neutral perspective, this fear, hatred and prejudice stem from terrorism. From another point of view, they are seen as irrational and evil forces of the West out to destroy peace in Islam and among Muslims.

When the term “Islamophobia” was first used in the 1980s/90s, it was more to understand societal conflicts, for literary and academic discourse. It was studied by governmental institutions to understand socio-political problems and explore possible solutions.

After the September 11, 2001 incident, and more so, after the formation of the militant Islamic State and the string of terror attacks that ensued, the term was used more prominently. The aftermath of 9/11 saw the US government and law enforcement officials harbouring a deep prejudice against Muslims, and being overly suspicious of anybody and anything related to Islam. This phobia – whether rational or otherwise, depending on one’s perspective – led to a spike in discrimination and hate crimes against Muslims.

Western societies’ phobia of Islam resulted from terrorist bombings and videos of militants exclaiming “God is great” while slitting the throats of their captives. From this perspective, the term “Islamophobia” is correctly applied. On the other hand, claiming that phobia of Islam is irrational also has merits. Muslims have the right to defend themselves from government officials’ high-handed prejudicial actions and public insults.

For more than a decade, both Muslim lobby groups and jihadists’ political movement have capitalised on the term, using it as a counteroffensive political weapon. The radicals view others as racists, and are out to destroy the peace propagated by Islam.

The term is also offensively used to silence critics. It is in this way that Zakir utilises bias in his exhortations on Islamophobia, starting with the premise that Islam is about peace. There can be no doubt that Islam, as a religion, is peaceful, and the preaching of the religion – as with all other religions – is for love and peace. However, when militants launch attacks and kill the innocent by the hundreds, and record the sadistic slitting of throats to be viewed by the world, a genuine outcry against such inhuman atrocities is lacking, especially by those who loudly declare that the religion is one of peace. In fact, there is even tacit support for these evil acts.

Zakir has never been seen to speak up against acts of terror. On the contrary, he has been accused of inspiring his followers to commit such acts. His assertion that Islam is for peace is unchallenged. But, the self-proclaimed comparative religion scholar making abhorrent remarks about religions other than Islam makes him the opposite of a peace advocate. Indeed, he compares religions. But that does not make him a scholar on the matter.

Comparative religion is a branch of study that compares the doctrines and practices of religions. The field describes, interprets, explains and compares religions from cross-cultural and historical perspectives, using a systematic approach. Being in the social sciences domain, it has to follow the scientific method. Its purpose is to draw lessons and provide answers to close gaps of misunderstanding. Comparing religions to cast aspersions is not within the scope of this branch of study. Rather, it falls within the scope of a hate preacher.

It is doubtful that Zakir has had any formal training in research. If he has, he should have first gone through the process of deconstructing his thoughts and presumptions. He should have learnt the basics of rhetoric and bias, which all researchers and scholars must strive to avoid. His bias on the subject of Islamophobia and his speeches so full of rhetorical language make him far from being a scholar. – August 22, 2019.

* Captain Dr Wong Ang Peng is a researcher with an interest in economics, politics, and health issues. He has a burning desire to do anything within his means to promote national harmony. Captain Wong is also a member of the National Patriots Association.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.