With his alleged pro-terror speeches, Zakir Naik is fetching great popularity through all his recent gimmicks. Even Google suggests his name first when you just go and type ‘Zak’ on the search engine. The Indian Islamic preacher is now facing the heat as he might be coming back to India soon. But the latest focus is not his visit to Mumbai but instead the financial aids he is getting for his organizations.
Zakir Naik runs two NGOs, one is Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) and the other is IRF Educational Trust. Before undertaking any type of investigations against these NGOs, the Law Enforcement Agencies are sorting out some legal issues under the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act 2010.
The home ministry has apparently spotted some evidences that state, both IRF and IRF Educational Trust which are registered as ‘educational’ NGOs, are violating Foreign Contribution Regulation Act conditions. It is being suggested that both these NGOs are receiving and using foreign funds for their “religious and religion-linked” activities.
The fact that whether ‘Islamic teaching’ can be taken as ‘educational or religious’ activity is one grey area which is to be strictly examined. An officer said that “We have to be sure that ‘teaching comparative religion’ amounts to a religious activity, as only then would it constitute a valid ground for cancellation of FCRA license of IRF and IRF Educational Trust.” IRF Educational Trust is the NGO which manages Islamic International School in Mumbai.
The next alarming concern for Maharashtra Government and Central Agencies is to look at the alleged involvement of IRF and any of its members in “forced” conversions of students through Islamic orientation. As recently news came in that 50 students of Kerela were being converted and IRF had its foot in the matter. The state of Kerela still has to enact a firm law against ‘forced’ conversions and they have been waiting because according to Article 25 of the constitution, all citizens are freely allowed to practice and profess any religion of their choice but it does not clearly express its concern with the issue of “forced” conversions.
Whereas Subhash C Kashyap says that, “Just like Article 25 of the Constitution, “forced” conversion may be deemed a violation as use of force to convert a person would amount to preventing him/her from following his chosen religion.”
