Thread by @uglyluhan

Long thread on Dr Zakir Naik, explaining the real reasons he's controversial and why I believe both Muslims and non-Muslims should reject him

I first heard of Zakir Naik years ago when he was endorsed by Ahmed Deedat, whose books I used to read. Yes I've been watching DZN's talks before he became a household name here, which is more than can be said for most of his local fans, so I do know what I'm talking about

Ahmed Deedat was a South African Muslim apologist whose books and pamphlets are still in circulation for free reading in public places like hospitals. In his writings and debates with Christians, he addressed what he considered errors in the Bible and Christianity

There is nothing wrong with such religious debate, and it would be a mistake to assume this to be the sole reason for controversy. Debaters do seek to prove one religion over the other, in a civil manner. Just watch this for an example of a good debate

Ahmed Deedat was controversial not because he argued against Christianity. Many Muslims disagreed with his intolerant views, while non-Muslims saw his fiery style as attacking their faith rather than debating. Watch the clip at the beginning of this vid

Not all of Ahmed Deedat's arguments are as unconvincing as that. In fact he does make some good points. You might be surprised that he supported non-Muslim use of the word Allah (before it became a controversy here), and described Islam as Judaism made universal

But even when I agree with him, he can still say things that come across as comical. In his book Arabs and Israel, he wrote that peace in the Middle East can best be achieved by Islamising America through converting African-Americans

After his passing, Zakir Naik filled the void left by Ahmad Deedat. Though he claims himself an expert on comparative religion, DZN doesn't have a background in religious education. As he often reminds us, he is a medical doctor

He apparently took to a career of preaching after undergoing a training program by Ahmed Deedat. But I wouldn't belittle him for his lack of credentials. The way I see it, not everyone with great knowledge of religion has to have a degree in religious studies

And knowledge is something Zakir Naik does appear to have. One of the first things about him that caught my attention is his remarkable ability to rattle off facts from books and religious scriptures. He does this word for word, complete with the verse number, purely from memory

A product of the Indian rote learning system, he has apparently memorised the Quran, the Bible, and certain Hindu scriptures by heart, and he is able to quote from them not just in talks but even in unprepared interviews. Love him or hate him, few would deny it's impressive

So then, what's wrong with Zakir Naik? If you ask his supporters, you'll generally get one of two responses. One is the siege mentality that "the world hates any and all Muslims". This is easily countered. As noted here, Muslim apologists can be well-received by non-Muslims

The other response is more common worldwide: that non-Muslims can't debate with Zakir Naik. That they fear him converting non-Muslims. This is the view of people like Hadi and the Penang mufti

nst.com.my/node/514405/amp

But just how true is this? In this article, Hadi is quoted as saying we shouldn't question DZN's credentials. But why not? Don't Malaysian Muslims normally say only experts have the right to speak on Islam?

freemalaysiatoday.com/category/natio…

Hadi justifies it by saying Zakir Naik has memorised religious scriptures in their original language. This is standard practice for a Muslim hafiz. I don't know how good is Dr Zakir's Arabic, but he certainly does not speak Vedic Sanskrit or Biblical Hebrew and Greek

Zakir Naik, like many other Muslims in the last few decades, claims that the Prophet Muhammad is mentioned both directly and indirectly in the Bible. But if he knew Hebrew, he'd know a proper name wouldn't fit in this context

If Zakir Naik is correct that this Hebrew word "MHMD" represents Muhammad, he's ignoring the other instances of this word in the Bible

Zakir Naik goes on making similar claims about other religions, like this one. All of this has been disputed by adherents of other faiths. As I said, there's nothing wrong with this type of inter-religious debate, and it can be fascinating to explore

speakingtree.in/allslides/kalk…

But in Malaysia where the position of Islam is protected, proper inter-religious discussion is nearly impossible. Any interpretation that differs from the norm is labelled deviant. Anyone who questions Islam's sanctity and divinity is called disrespectful, to say the least

So DZN is free to spread half-truths without challenge. At this point the response from his supporters is that the Q&A sessions at his talks give priority to non-Muslims who wish to ask questions. But that's not quite the same thing. Watch this

In the video, Dr Zakir quotes the Old Testament saying that pork is prohibited to Christians. Traditionally this is abrogated through the following passages in the New Testament

christianpost.com/trends/why-do-…

In addition, he completely ignores the rest of the chapter which also prohibits consumption of such animals as the camel and rabbit, both of which are permissable in Islam

Instead, he adopts a condescending tone, belittles the questioner for "putting words into the Bible" (to much applause), praises his own memory, and then proceeds to offer a very unconvincing argument using his favourite line from Matthew

If you watch enough of his talks, you'll notice that this is Zakir Naik's standard approach. He raises his voice as a show of authority, and makes a spectacle of questioners' inability to answer on the spot, making himself look more intelligent by comparison

This is why his fans will claim "Zakar Naik knows Hinduism better than Hindus, and Christianity better than Christians". But that's because they are lay followers and not debaters or scholars, nor have they prepared by memorising scriptures as he's done

In this video, he justifies Muslim men marrying 4 women because the god Krishna had 16000 wives, which seems to have excited all the men in the audience

If he said this to a Hindu scholar, they might have replied that Krishna is a god and doesn't have the same human limitations. They might say that Hinduism still considers one man and one woman the ideal marriage

yourarticlelibrary.com/marriage/hindu…

DZN continues his response with a preposterous claim that polygamy is necessary because women greatly outnumber men. He recites population statistics that greatly impress his audience. A quick google search proves that his ratio was completely fabricated

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex…

His habit of putting his non-Muslim questioners on the spot extends beyond just asking them difficult questions. He also uses this as a conversion strategy, which makes his many converts seem a lot less impressive

In this video, he never actually converts the Christian woman, but presses her to answer whether she believes Jesus is God or a messenger. Unable to accept her reply of "saviour", he still pesters her to accept Muhammad as God's final prophet

Watching videos of Zakir Naik's Q&A sessions, I wonder if the audience is being prompted to applaud or if they're really so gullible that they feel DZN has "won" even when he's said nothing substantial. Take this next video for instance

Here, a young Iranian from a Muslim family doesn't accept Islam, mainly because of the manner in which the religion was brought to Persia, that is, by conquest. Zakir Naik denies this, saying Islam was brought by traders

He then quotes a line from the book Islam at the Crossroads by De Lacy O'Leary. It's a good book, worth reading if those who are interested

When we look at what O'Leary actually wrote, we see he was speaking of Islam's early spread within Arabia. On the same page he acknowledges that historical conflict and fanaticism did exist later in Indonesia and Africa. He never denies it, unlike the good doctor

Dr Zakir is correct that in many cases, Islam was brought peacefully by traders. But that doesn't change the fact that it was often spread through violence. This happened in both Persia and India

https://twitter.com/nirallah/status/1074904214885855233?s=19

This is something people from Christian backgrounds struggle with as well. Bad things have happened in the name of religion. They still do until today. The religions aren't necessarily to blame, but we can't deny what took place historically

If I were Zakir Naik, my response would be that those conquests were not actually religious in nature. For those Muslim conquerors, spreading Islam was of secondary concern, or even just a by-product of their political ambitions

But instead of confronting that reality, Zakir Naik chooses denial. He says Islam had never been spread by the sword, and that history is all a lie propagated by the media to stereotype Muslims as terrorists. And the audience claps

Dr Zakir says the line not once but twice to the Iranian student. After being told that it's not a satisfactory answer, Zakir Naik asks the young man to repeat "at least 50%" of the quote. And when he fails to do so, the good doctor says he wasn't paying attention

Zakir Naik is not a historian so maybe he's satisfied pretending that all the records and evidence of Muslim conquests don't exist. But this dismissal of history as nonsense just because it doesn't fit his narrative is dangerous, and sadly common in Malaysia

For example, he says the many Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Hindu majority of India are proof that Islam was never forced onto local populations. This ignores the problems faced by Egypt's Coptic Christian population to this day

bbc.com/news/world-mid…

Unlike Malaysia, countries like Iran and Egypt have a passionate community of highly knowledgeable historians and archaeologists. You're telling me they're all lying about the Arab-Muslim conquests and only a medical doctor like Zakir Naik is privy to the truth?

Before Zakir Naik became controversial, the first thing that set off alarms for me was his denial of evolution. I've always felt that there are better ways of reconciling evolution with religion

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1138845971180163072?s=19

But Zakir Naik prefers simple denial again. You've all probably seen this video which gives a 5-minute clip of his creationist view while correcting his many errors

I won't count mispronunciations as mistakes. I could even overlook what are probably honest errors. What bothers me is how DZN portrays evolution as disputed science

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1138843379125506048?s=19

He even selectively cites Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA who fully believed in evolution but is often inaccurately referenced by creationists

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1138842867613327360?s=19

Even more embarrassing is this video in which Zakir Naik presents the same bad argument against evolution and then gets angry after being told what the word theory means. Not exactly the conduct of a great debater

Zakir Naik's misunderstanding of scientific theories and laws is easy to correct. But it's disturbing that his fans are encouraged to reject history and science for supposedly religious reasons

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1067674777538580480?s=19

"If someone thinks he's wrong, let them debate him"

This myth of Zakir Naik as a great undefeated debater is one of the main reasons for his popularity. In every proper debate he's had, he comes across as the more convincing, like this one

But never has DZN debated with an actual debater. His opponents are always people nobody's ever heard of, with little or no experience

m.youtube.com/watch?vl=en&v=

Experienced debaters have challenged him, but he's always turned them down with the unrealistic condition that they need to bring in an audience of 10000. Why that number when he's previously debated in front of an audience numbering only a few hundred?

reasonsforjesus.com/world-leading-…

If you want to see a real Muslim debater, I recommend Shabir Ally who has debated Christian apologists multiple times. He makes a far more compelling case for Islam than Zakir Naik or Ahmed Deedat ever did

If Zakir Naik ever faced a serious debater, he couldn't shout down his opponent by raising his voice, rousing the audience to clap, or impress with his amazing memory. Circular logic like "the Quran is divine because the Quran says so" does not work

Many Muslims, whether they support him or not, believe that Zakir Naik is only unacceptable for non-Muslims. That Muslims do not and should not have a problem with anything he says. They'd like you to believe it's a case of Muslim vs evil kafir. But it isn't

I disagree for two reasons. First, the Quran says to stand for what's right even if it's against yourself (Surah An-Nisa 4:135). More so in Malaysia where Muslims are the majority and Islam is already given official recognition that isn't accorded to other religions

Most Malaysians of all races and religions aren't used to this. We tend to only look out for our own identity. We divide every issue according to the labels we use. If there's discrimination against another group, we leave that group to defend themselves

The Quran speaks about justice far more than aurat or hudud. It is a central tenet of the faith. So now ask yourself are you only concerned when injustice is committed towards Islam and Muslims? How well are you following the religion?

quranexplorer.com/blog/Understan…

And second, it's not only non-Muslims who disagree with Zakir Naik. On the contrary, even non-Muslim "liberals" in India have been hesitant to criticise him too robustly

wsj.com/articles/SB100…

It was India's foremost centre of Islamic theology that issued a fatwa against him. Many Muslims inside and outside India have called him a radical. Muslim-majority Bangladesh has banned him from preaching. Activists in Lebanon tried to do the same

firstpost.com/world/banned-i…

And despite claiming to be non-denominational, his views are widely acknowledged as Wahhabi-Salafi. I'm not dismissing him just for being Wahhabi, but most local Muslims claim to reject Wahhabism, yet are easily fooled when it's repackaged

freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opini…

Call it whatever you want but Zakir Naik's preaching is characteristically Wahhabi, that is, literalist and exclusionist. If it all seems standard to you, that's only because Wahhabi teachings have become mainstream Islam in the last few decades without anyone realising

A good example is his claim that kafir is simply the Arabic word for non-Muslim (not true) and that all non-Muslims are kafir but Muslims are not. Quranic usage of kafir is more nuanced and varied, but the simplified Wahhabi definition has won out today

abdullahalandalusi.com/2016/05/05/the…

If you ever spent time speaking to Wahhabis, you'd know they don't normally call themselves Wahhabi. Like many other Muslim and Christian denominations, they don't consider themselves a sect, but simply follow "Islam" in the truest way

Zakir Naik's emphasis on there only being one Islam isn't all bad though, since it might alleviate the sectarianism that exists among Muslims worldwide. But I don't see that happening. His Sunni supporters still hate Shia

nst.com.my/news/nation/20…

There have been many accusations against Zakir Naik of money laundering, terrorist connections, paid conversions, and funding by gangsters. All are currently unproven so we can't assume his guilt just yet. Is he a terrorist? I don't think so

indiatoday.in/news-analysis/…

But terrorists have been inspired by Zakir Naik, in India, in Bangladesh, in Sri Lanka. We might try to excuse him by saying he was not directly involved but we need to ask the question, what is it about his teachings that terrorists can relate to?

indiatoday.in/fyi/story/dr-z…

Sure he did quote Surah Al-Ma'idah which forbids killing, but then he also says he's on the side of anyone who "terrorises" America and that every Muslim should be a terrorist

He tried to spin this by redefining terrorist as anyone who causes terror, and that even a policeman is a terrorist in the eyes of a criminal. This makes it easy to justify killing because "the bad guys are actually the good guys", so to speak

m.youtube.com/watch?v=

If he says he meant terrorism against the anti-social element, why say it in the context of supporting Osama "terrorising" America? Osama bin Laden was not fighting American rapists and dacoits

Zakir Naik's reluctance to condemn Osama bin Laden (also a Wahhabi literalist, by the way) because he "hasn't met him" and "hasn't researched him" is in line with his attempt to whitewash history. Would he have given the same benefit of the doubt if Osama was not Muslim?

But even if we believe DZN's definition of terrorism was completely misunderstood, he is far too easily interpreted as condoning violence against what he considers "enemies of Islam". Like how Ramasamy's office was fire-bombed for calling DZN "Satan"

malaymail.com/news/opinion/2…

We could say the proof of Zakir Naik's divisive ideology comes from his students. The controversial converts Firdaus Wong and Zamri Vinod regularly post racist and bigoted FB statuses. The comments from their supporters are even worse

Zakir Naik's current controversy comes from his recent speech in which he called the Chinese "guests" and questioned the loyalty of Indian Malaysians. Hate-mongerers have gone to town defending him by blaming Malaysiakini & "media kafir" for reporting it

nst.com.my/news/nation/20…

I've watched the full 3 hour video and I can understand perfectly without subtitles, unlike many of his monolingual fans. It was never taken out of context. What he said was reported accurately

m.malaysiakini.com/news/488135

ISMA has attempted to spin it positively but failed. First, DZN gets his history incorrect. When he says Malays became Muslim before Chinese and Indians arrived, who does he think brought Islam here in the first place? That's right, it was those very Indians & Chinese

Second, Chinese and Indians are not "guests" but full citizens who were already here since before the nation was formed. This can't be compared to DZN himself who has only been here a few years. This has been said enough so I won't elaborate

Third, he seems to think Chinese immigration is so recent that only the young generation is born here. Chinese Malaysians were born here, as were their parents. Even the most extreme Malay-Muslim chauvinists don't deny this

Fourth, he did say "first ask the old guest to go back". Telling a third-generation citizen to go back to an ancestral homeland they've never known is completely different from telling a fugitive resident to go back to the place he was born and raised

Fifth, he used the word our as in "They were our new guests". In this case he was identifying himself as Muslim and thus part of the group. I've always opposed this form of pan-Islamic identity. DZN is not Malay and the immigrants here were never his guests

Sixth, his line about "guests which bring peace are a benefit to the family" is problematic no matter how you interpret it. I believe he was referring to himself as a beneficial guest. If he meant the Chinese, theyre citizens & don't have to justify their place here with benefits

Although Dr Zakir has since apologised, he never corrected himself and instead blamed the media for misquoting him. He claims to be against racism

businessinsider.my/i-owe-an-apolo…

Yet he lodged a report and demanded an apology specifically from non-Muslim ethnic Indians, ignoring the Malay-Muslim politicians who criticised him. He's playing a race game, and he knows how he wants this situation to look

thestar.com.my/news/nation/20…

As a preacher and a foreigner from a country where he's in the minority, you'd think Zakir Naik should be the last person to ever condone racism or bigotry. Yet he's only made Malay chauvinism more acceptable, even though it's completely against Islam

This is actually the main reason his supporters even bother. They've painted the issue as Muslim vs non-Muslim. I'm aware most of them wouldn't look into any of the points I've raised. To them, DZN must blindly be defended simply because of his religion

It's both sad and ironic that so many modern Muslims find the exclusionist Zakir Naik so appealing but reject Mustafa Akyol, Reza Aslan or Ulil Abshar. I never see those names coming up among militants and terrorists

Don't tell me he contributed so much to the Muslim community. Do we want an ummah that's anti-history and anti-science? That can only defend the faith by lying and misrepresenting other religions? That accepts racism? Is that contributing? That's the society you hope for?

You learned so much from him? There are far better Muslim writers and scholars to learn from. He wins debates? There are better Muslim debaters you can watch. Zakir Naik is harmful and a bad influence. This is not something to forgive and move on from

https://twitter.com/SyedSaddiq/status/1165229945259380736?s=19