THIS is with reference to the editorial `Controversial guest` (Oct 25) criticising those who extended an invitation to Dr Zakir Naik to visit Pakistan. While I appreciate the need for a robust dialogue about public figures and their views, I believe the portrayal of Dr Naik in the editorial lacked a balanced perspective.
For instance, labelling him `Indian preacher` was not justified as he is now a Malaysian citizen, and has been forced to migrate from India by the government of Narendra Modi which is notorious for atrocities not only against Muslims, but also other minorities in India.
Extremism and money laundering had nothing to do with this issue, and any references to such malicious charges could have been avoided.
Dr Naik`s contributions to interfaith dialogue and his advocacy for understanding among diverse cultures are seriously noteworthy.
While he has surely faced criticism as well, it is crucial to consider the context of his work and the impact he has had on many individuals seeking to explore Islamic teachings.
L abelling him `controversial` actually does a disservice to the discourse we need to foster in our society. It is essential to differentiate between criticism of ideas and the outright dismissal of a lifetime of contribution. An open dialogue should encourage multiple viewpoints rather than restrict them.
In an age where dialogue is critically vital, it is important to engage with diverse perspectives rather than stigmatising them.
