Zakir Naik has sparked controversy with his recent remarks in Pakistan. He equated single women to prostitutes, which has led to widespread backlash. Social media users condemned his misogynistic and chauvinistic comments, igniting outrage. This isn’t the first time Naik has faced criticism for his inflammatory statements. His recent tour in Pakistan has only added fuel to the fire.
For years, we heard Zakir Naik speak on TV about a very different kind of Islam. These interpretations were new to our grandparents, parents, or the maulvi teaching us Arabic and the Quran. They had no problem reconciling an English-medium education with the recitation of the Quran. Of course, the knowledge of the Quran involved the recitation of verses and memorizing them without knowing the meaning. In adulthood, we discovered Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s commentaries and Sir Marmaduke Pickthall’s translation of the Quran. Parallel to mental maturity, social media made inroads into our lives. We learned what Islamiophilia (fascination with Islam and Muslim culture) was. There was no feminist point of view in the patriarchal interpretations of the hadiths. Adults would always soften the meanings of problematic verses.
Family elders would give their interpretations and teach about honesty, charity, justice, kindness, truth, fairness, being good neighbours, and humanistic values. This was more influenced by local folklore and other cultures, with human reasoning applied. Yet the morality behind the teachings was attributed to the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunna. But children start noticing the differences between what adults speak and their actions. So the general culture of hypocrisy became quite clear early on. Many families suffered domestic violence, and nobody would ring the bell to break it up because it was considered permissible.
ALSO READ: Of seditious election speeches – THE NEW INDIAN
Those who had an English-medium education could differentiate between superstitions and scientific facts. They could not be fooled by old wives’ tales or quackery. Then came Zakir Naik’s Peace TV channel with his medieval interpretations and an uncanny ability to quote chapter and verse. He wore Western attire and spoke fluent English, seemingly winning every debate and discussion. It wasn’t until decades later that the Indian government declared him wanted in the case of money laundering. He fled the country, took asylum in Malaysia, and has been on India’s wanted list since.
It is amusing to watch the latest fiascos happening across the border in Pakistan. Pakistani liberals are discovering his misogyny and chauvinism. A world connected by the Internet, technology, and social media, with viral videos and reels, is getting to know why Naik was thrown out of India. Born on October 18, 1965, in Mumbai, India, Zakir Naik originally trained as a medical doctor, earning his MBBS degree. However, he soon shifted his career focus to Islamic proselytization. His intellectual mentor Ahmed Deedat, a South African Islamic scholar, was known for his polemical debates with Christian missionaries. Inspired by Deedat, Naik began delivering public lectures in the 1990s, emphasizing the use of rational argumentation and scientific evidence to prove the supremacy of Islam over other religions, particularly Christianity and Hinduism.
Naik’s presentation style combines religious rhetoric with scientific references. It has appealed to many Muslims, especially youth. He can memorize large portions of religious texts. His oration and fast-talking further bolstered his credibility among followers. Naik’s lectures often focus on the Quran’s compatibility with modern science. He frequently engages in debates with individuals from other faiths, positioning Islam as the final and most rational of all religions. Despite his popularity among conservative and orthodox Muslims, Naik’s teachings have sparked widespread controversy among non-Muslims and rationalist Muslims. His critics accuse him of promoting a rigid, literalist interpretation of Islam that discourages pluralism and fosters intolerance toward other faiths. Many of his statements on terrorism, women’s rights, and religious coexistence have been condemned, even by Muslim-majority nations.
ALSO READ: Dietary Hindu Muslim fault lines, bridging them by food – THE NEW INDIAN
One of Naik’s most infamous statements is his justification for suicide bombings, which he argued could be permissible in the context of war. In a 2006 speech, he stated, “If he [Osama bin Laden] is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.” Such remarks are seen as an endorsement of terrorism, although Naik later clarified that he does not support indiscriminate violence. Furthermore, Naik has been accused of making inflammatory remarks about Hinduism and Christianity, which has led to tensions in India, known for its religious diversity. His statements that idol worship, a core practice in Hinduism, is irrational and incompatible with scientific understanding were seen as disrespectful and inciting religious hatred under the law of the land.
Zakir Naik’s troubles escalated following the 2016 Dhaka terror attack in Bangladesh, where militants who carried out the attack were reported to have been inspired by Naik’s speeches. This incident led to increased scrutiny of Naik’s activities by the Indian government, which accused him of promoting extremism and radicalizing youth. His Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) was banned by the Indian government under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Facing the threat of arrest in India, Naik fled the country in 2016 and has since lived in self-imposed exile, primarily in Malaysia, which granted him permanent residency. India has issued an extradition request to Malaysia for Naik, but the country has refused to comply, citing concerns over his safety and the potential for human rights violations. Naik’s Peace TV channel, which broadcasts his sermons and debates across several countries, has also been banned in multiple nations, including India and the United Kingdom, due to concerns about the content promoting hate speech.
ALSO READ: Waqf Amendment Bill 2024: Indian Muslims’ resistance to accountability – THE NEW INDIAN
Despite these setbacks, Naik continues to exert significant influence in the Muslim world. His sermons are available online, and he enjoys substantial support from conservative Islamic circles. He criticized the Pakistan airport’s stringent rules as a state guest of the country. In interviews, he made misogynistic remarks about female TV anchors. He also browbeat a Pakistani rationalist for asking a question and deflected by changing goalposts. He gave obfuscated answers to a young Baloch woman inquiring about pedophilic culture among Muslims. All these events exposed him as a charlatan and quickly turned the state visit into a spectacular failure. Pakistani liberals and celebrities took to social media to condemn Naik’s statements. His refusal to be in the presence of orphan girls did not go down well with many.
Across the border, Indian liberals were conspicuously quiet. This gives an inkling of why reform is slow and difficult in India. None of the religious leaders condemned Naik’s statements made recently. Not a single Muslim political leader from India spoke about the outrage that Pakistani social media generated about Naik’s statements. The dominant Muslim elite narrative in India is about Muslim persecution in India because of political Hinduism. The lower-income groups, such as Dalit Muslims, never get a say. Nor do the scores of dissenters of Muslim heritage who do not want to be governed by Sharia laws. People are not aware of the thousands of Pasmandas, agnostics, atheists, or ex-Muslims who comprise a significant number among the 180 million.
Left-Liberals will never speak about regressive practices in Islam or ask for reforms. Media celebrities will choose to interview the fugitive Zakir Naik, dubbing him the “rock star of televangelism.” The agenda activists, whose sole purpose is to keep Indian Muslims in perpetual victimhood, will add fuel to the fire. The permanent faultlines created by the British will further be exploited by one-dimensional fact-checkers. The money they rake in from online sites will ensure that no bridges are made across the political, religious, cultural, and social divide. There will be further shrinking of space for inter-faith dialogue and critical thinking on both sides.