Tweet
Let me introduce you , gentle reader , to Dr. Zakir Naik , the favourite icon of "mainstream" Muslims in India . These are the people who are supposed to constitute the "moderate majority" , the "silent victims of a fringe" , the "victims of their misguided brothers' terrorism" .
There are two "Muslim" channels which I have seen in India . The first is Q TV , which is , I presume , common to Muslims who speak Urdu . The other is an "Indian Muslim" channel . Whenever I turn the second one on , I find that 90 % of the time , a certain eminent among Muslim scholars , Dr. Zakir Naik , is hogging ( pun intended
) their airtime .
Now it is obvious that his programs sell and generate subscribers , for otherwise he would not be put on air so much .
So we can assume that , even if he does not represent the whole of the Indian ummah , his views are representative of a very large chunk of them , most probably of the more moderate members .
Let us examine his views a bit more , shall we ?
From the Wiki , and after I've personally cross-checked this material against what is found on his own site :
His views
Naik claims to offer a rational understanding of Islam. Various aspects of Islamic law, Shari'a, he says, may seem illogical to non-Muslims, or non-practicing Muslims; Naik claims these rules are sensible. Islam, in his view, is the best way of life because its teachings constitute practical solutions for the problems of mankind.
[edit]
Adoption in Islam
Naik believes that muslims are allowed to adopt children but that such adoption cannot have a legal status under Islamic law. Giving the adopted child a legal name (of the parent) is something he considers forbidden. Also, once the child grows up, the female members of the family must treat him as a non-mahram (stranger) and observe hijaab (be veiled) in his presence.[2] (15:40 in the video link)
[edit]
Punishment for Apostasy
Naik believes that the Islamic injunction prescribing death for apostasy - those who leave the faith - is justified. He compares it to death penalties meted out to national traitors (army generals who defect being the example cited) and proclaims that apostates fall in the same category. [3] (30:15 in the video)
[edit]
Music
Naik asserts that all instrumental music is haraam (forbidden), except a one-membraned drum. [4].
[edit]
Riba or Interest
Naik believes that Muslims should not receive, give or witness interest-related financial transactions. He declares that it is haraam (forbidden) for Muslims to own and use credit cards. He also says that taking loans or getting insurance is prohibited. He takes this further and says that it is also forbidden for Muslims to work in banks.[5] (11:12 and 13:18 in the video link) His supporters claim that his comments are relevant only in the context of banks dealing with interest.
[edit]
Islamic dietary laws
Observant Muslims do not eat pork.
Naik argues that pork is forbidden because the swine is a dirty animal by nature, and that its flesh is the source of many diseases:
"The pig is one of the filthiest animals on earth. It lives and thrives on muck, faeces and dirt. It is the best scavenger that I know that God has produced." [6].
Naik also believes that diet has psychological/ethical consequences and one is what one eats :
"The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; many say 'you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife.' If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs" [7].
He also says, "Eating of pork can cause no less than seventy thousand different types of diseases. A person can have various helminthes like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc." [8].
[edit]
Hijab
Naik supports the practice of hijab, or Islamic modesty for both men and women. He writes that in Islam, a woman is required to cover herself entirely except for her face and hands up to her wrists. He claims that Islam thus protects women from the lust of men. For men, he prescribes looking away from women if immodest thoughts enter their minds.[9]
Naik goes on to say:
"Suppose there are twin sisters. While walking down the street, one of them is wearing a mini-skirt, while the other is wearing the hijab with everything covered with loose clothes except the hands up to the wrist. If there is a hooligan who is waiting to tease a girl, which girl will he tease? He will tease the girl wearing the mini-skirt." [10]
[edit]
Polygamy
Naik argues that polygyny, or the Muslim practice of taking up to four wives is justified as it is in the best interest of both women and men. He claims it protects the modesty of women, while keeping men from going astray. He writes in his website that human males are polygamous by nature and that a man is less likely to cheat if he has more than one wife.[11]He also believes that there are more marriageable women than men in the world and claims:
"If every woman got married to only one man, there would be over thirty million females in U.S.A, four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia who would not find a husband. Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property." [12].
Naik points to the verse 4:3 from the Qur'an[13] to explain the Muslim position on polygyny. This verse explains that a man can take more than one wife only if he is able to treat them equally. If he cannot do this, he should have a relationship with only one wife and/or "what your right hands possess" (i.e. female slaves and concubines). He says this brings out Islam's intrinsic fairness towards women.
[edit]
A woman's value as a witness
There is a verse in the Qur'an (2:282) which says that two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. According to Naik's interpretation, this verse deals only with financial transactions and murder cases. Naik says:
"In financial transactions, two men are preferred. Islam expects men to be the breadwinners of their families. Since financial responsibility is shouldered by men, they are expected to be well versed in financial transactions as compared to women. As a second option, the witness can be one man and two women, so that if one of the women errs the other can remind her." [14]
Naik extends this thought to murder cases and says:
"... the feminine attitude can also have an effect on the witness in a murder case. In such circumstances a woman is more terrified as compared to a man. Due to her emotional condition she can get confused. Therefore, two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness."
[edit]
Charity
Islam prescribes Zakaat, or obligatory charity. Ideally, every Muslim who has assets in gold, silver, livestock, savings and currencies that exceed the nisaab level should give 2.5% of those assets every lunar year to charity.
Naik believes that if Muslims followed Islamic law in this regard, poverty among Muslims could be eliminated. [15]
[edit]
Prosecution of criminals
Shariah (Islamic law) prescribes capital punishment for crimes such as murder and rape -- unless the victim's family either forgives the culprit or receives blood money, or both.
Naik believes that these penalties are necessary to prevent rape and murder, and that these penalties would ultimately make for a safer society.
[edit]
Permissible food in Islam
In a 2006 TV appearance, Naik declared that it was haraam, forbidden, for Muslims to eat prasad. Prasad is food offered to Hindu deities and then shared with friends and family; it is believed to convey blessings and good fortune. Naik said that too many Muslims say Bismillah over the food, and eat it to please their friends. Naik claims that this verse from the Quran:
6:121 Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans. (Yusuf Ali Translation)
forbids the eating of prasad.
[edit]
Wishing Christians a Merry Christmas
In a 2003 speech in Toronto [16], Naik asserts that it is haraam, forbidden, for Muslims to wish their Christian friends a merry Christmas. Naik believes that this common greeting acknowledges Jesus as a son of God and is thus blasphemy for Muslims.
[edit]
Implementing Shariah in India
Naik writes that while he appreciates that India presently allows Muslims to have their own personal law, "Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law (Shariah) to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical." [17]
As for his views on other religions :
Debates and dialogues
Naik sometimes participates in debates as part of his public activities. His supporters find two events notable:
[edit]
Debate in Chicago
One of the featured activities at the 2000 Chicago ICNA Conference (a gathering of American Muslims) was a debate titled "The Quran & the Bible in the Light of Modern Science", between Naik and a Christian medical doctor named William F. Campbell. Campbell took three years out of his practice to write a book called The Qur'an and the Bible in the light of history and science (first edition 1992, second edition 2000) [18], which he conceived as a rebuttal to Maurice Bucaille's 1976 The Bible, The Qur'an, and Science [19]. Each of the debaters tried to discredit the other's scripture by parsing out verses from their counterpart's Holy Scripture and pointing out perceived errors. The debate can be downloaded from Naik's website. Links to a streaming video can be found in the External links.[20].
[edit]
Inter-religious dialogue in Bangalore
An "Inter-Religious dialogue for Spiritual Enlightenment" was held on the 21st of January 2006 at Bangalore. Naik and the founder of the Art of Living, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, spoke on the topic The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam , in the light of sacred scriptures. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
This was by far the biggest dialogue in which Naik participated and can be viewed here.
During the event, Naik said, "religious tolerance is important in Islam but tolerance does not mean acceptance." He claimed that people of other religions were misguided and said, "Muslims would have a problem with the Hindu imagery of the god Vishnu."
[edit]
Ali Sina's challenge
Naik does not appear to accept all offers to debate, despite claims by his organization as that being his primary activity. Internet debater Ali Sina's offer to Naik for a written debate has remained unanswered for over 3 years.[26].
After numerous attempts to reach out to Naik, Sina has been instructed by Naik's assistants that Naik does not participate in written debate. Sina has instead been posed a counter challenge by Naik's supporters to arrange for a live audience of at least 10,000 people. Sina, in counter claim, claims this demand unjustified and cites the threat to his life from Islamic terrorists as well as the lack of time in a televised debate. He has instead offered to publish the written debate on his website.[27]
The full debate with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar can be viewed here . It's rather big - three hours - so I'd recommend those without broadband stream it , and those with broadband download it - it's nearly 1 GB when you download it . In that debate , the Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said that it was not his to judge other religions , while Dr. Zakir Naik said that other religions were misguided .
A nice chap who we can all get on with , eh ?
I don't think much more comment is needed - the debates , and his views , speak for themselves .
There are two "Muslim" channels which I have seen in India . The first is Q TV , which is , I presume , common to Muslims who speak Urdu . The other is an "Indian Muslim" channel . Whenever I turn the second one on , I find that 90 % of the time , a certain eminent among Muslim scholars , Dr. Zakir Naik , is hogging ( pun intended
) their airtime .Now it is obvious that his programs sell and generate subscribers , for otherwise he would not be put on air so much .
So we can assume that , even if he does not represent the whole of the Indian ummah , his views are representative of a very large chunk of them , most probably of the more moderate members .
Let us examine his views a bit more , shall we ?
From the Wiki , and after I've personally cross-checked this material against what is found on his own site :
His views
Naik claims to offer a rational understanding of Islam. Various aspects of Islamic law, Shari'a, he says, may seem illogical to non-Muslims, or non-practicing Muslims; Naik claims these rules are sensible. Islam, in his view, is the best way of life because its teachings constitute practical solutions for the problems of mankind.
[edit]
Adoption in Islam
Naik believes that muslims are allowed to adopt children but that such adoption cannot have a legal status under Islamic law. Giving the adopted child a legal name (of the parent) is something he considers forbidden. Also, once the child grows up, the female members of the family must treat him as a non-mahram (stranger) and observe hijaab (be veiled) in his presence.[2] (15:40 in the video link)
[edit]
Punishment for Apostasy
Naik believes that the Islamic injunction prescribing death for apostasy - those who leave the faith - is justified. He compares it to death penalties meted out to national traitors (army generals who defect being the example cited) and proclaims that apostates fall in the same category. [3] (30:15 in the video)
[edit]
Music
Naik asserts that all instrumental music is haraam (forbidden), except a one-membraned drum. [4].
[edit]
Riba or Interest
Naik believes that Muslims should not receive, give or witness interest-related financial transactions. He declares that it is haraam (forbidden) for Muslims to own and use credit cards. He also says that taking loans or getting insurance is prohibited. He takes this further and says that it is also forbidden for Muslims to work in banks.[5] (11:12 and 13:18 in the video link) His supporters claim that his comments are relevant only in the context of banks dealing with interest.
[edit]
Islamic dietary laws
Observant Muslims do not eat pork.
Naik argues that pork is forbidden because the swine is a dirty animal by nature, and that its flesh is the source of many diseases:
"The pig is one of the filthiest animals on earth. It lives and thrives on muck, faeces and dirt. It is the best scavenger that I know that God has produced." [6].
Naik also believes that diet has psychological/ethical consequences and one is what one eats :
"The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; many say 'you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife.' If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs" [7].
He also says, "Eating of pork can cause no less than seventy thousand different types of diseases. A person can have various helminthes like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc." [8].
[edit]
Hijab
Naik supports the practice of hijab, or Islamic modesty for both men and women. He writes that in Islam, a woman is required to cover herself entirely except for her face and hands up to her wrists. He claims that Islam thus protects women from the lust of men. For men, he prescribes looking away from women if immodest thoughts enter their minds.[9]
Naik goes on to say:
"Suppose there are twin sisters. While walking down the street, one of them is wearing a mini-skirt, while the other is wearing the hijab with everything covered with loose clothes except the hands up to the wrist. If there is a hooligan who is waiting to tease a girl, which girl will he tease? He will tease the girl wearing the mini-skirt." [10]
[edit]
Polygamy
Naik argues that polygyny, or the Muslim practice of taking up to four wives is justified as it is in the best interest of both women and men. He claims it protects the modesty of women, while keeping men from going astray. He writes in his website that human males are polygamous by nature and that a man is less likely to cheat if he has more than one wife.[11]He also believes that there are more marriageable women than men in the world and claims:
"If every woman got married to only one man, there would be over thirty million females in U.S.A, four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia who would not find a husband. Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property." [12].
Naik points to the verse 4:3 from the Qur'an[13] to explain the Muslim position on polygyny. This verse explains that a man can take more than one wife only if he is able to treat them equally. If he cannot do this, he should have a relationship with only one wife and/or "what your right hands possess" (i.e. female slaves and concubines). He says this brings out Islam's intrinsic fairness towards women.
[edit]
A woman's value as a witness
There is a verse in the Qur'an (2:282) which says that two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. According to Naik's interpretation, this verse deals only with financial transactions and murder cases. Naik says:
"In financial transactions, two men are preferred. Islam expects men to be the breadwinners of their families. Since financial responsibility is shouldered by men, they are expected to be well versed in financial transactions as compared to women. As a second option, the witness can be one man and two women, so that if one of the women errs the other can remind her." [14]
Naik extends this thought to murder cases and says:
"... the feminine attitude can also have an effect on the witness in a murder case. In such circumstances a woman is more terrified as compared to a man. Due to her emotional condition she can get confused. Therefore, two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness."
[edit]
Charity
Islam prescribes Zakaat, or obligatory charity. Ideally, every Muslim who has assets in gold, silver, livestock, savings and currencies that exceed the nisaab level should give 2.5% of those assets every lunar year to charity.
Naik believes that if Muslims followed Islamic law in this regard, poverty among Muslims could be eliminated. [15]
[edit]
Prosecution of criminals
Shariah (Islamic law) prescribes capital punishment for crimes such as murder and rape -- unless the victim's family either forgives the culprit or receives blood money, or both.
Naik believes that these penalties are necessary to prevent rape and murder, and that these penalties would ultimately make for a safer society.
[edit]
Permissible food in Islam
In a 2006 TV appearance, Naik declared that it was haraam, forbidden, for Muslims to eat prasad. Prasad is food offered to Hindu deities and then shared with friends and family; it is believed to convey blessings and good fortune. Naik said that too many Muslims say Bismillah over the food, and eat it to please their friends. Naik claims that this verse from the Quran:
6:121 Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans. (Yusuf Ali Translation)
forbids the eating of prasad.
[edit]
Wishing Christians a Merry Christmas
In a 2003 speech in Toronto [16], Naik asserts that it is haraam, forbidden, for Muslims to wish their Christian friends a merry Christmas. Naik believes that this common greeting acknowledges Jesus as a son of God and is thus blasphemy for Muslims.
[edit]
Implementing Shariah in India
Naik writes that while he appreciates that India presently allows Muslims to have their own personal law, "Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law (Shariah) to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical." [17]
Debates and dialogues
Naik sometimes participates in debates as part of his public activities. His supporters find two events notable:
[edit]
Debate in Chicago
One of the featured activities at the 2000 Chicago ICNA Conference (a gathering of American Muslims) was a debate titled "The Quran & the Bible in the Light of Modern Science", between Naik and a Christian medical doctor named William F. Campbell. Campbell took three years out of his practice to write a book called The Qur'an and the Bible in the light of history and science (first edition 1992, second edition 2000) [18], which he conceived as a rebuttal to Maurice Bucaille's 1976 The Bible, The Qur'an, and Science [19]. Each of the debaters tried to discredit the other's scripture by parsing out verses from their counterpart's Holy Scripture and pointing out perceived errors. The debate can be downloaded from Naik's website. Links to a streaming video can be found in the External links.[20].
[edit]
Inter-religious dialogue in Bangalore
An "Inter-Religious dialogue for Spiritual Enlightenment" was held on the 21st of January 2006 at Bangalore. Naik and the founder of the Art of Living, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, spoke on the topic The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam , in the light of sacred scriptures. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
This was by far the biggest dialogue in which Naik participated and can be viewed here.
During the event, Naik said, "religious tolerance is important in Islam but tolerance does not mean acceptance." He claimed that people of other religions were misguided and said, "Muslims would have a problem with the Hindu imagery of the god Vishnu."
[edit]
Ali Sina's challenge
Naik does not appear to accept all offers to debate, despite claims by his organization as that being his primary activity. Internet debater Ali Sina's offer to Naik for a written debate has remained unanswered for over 3 years.[26].
After numerous attempts to reach out to Naik, Sina has been instructed by Naik's assistants that Naik does not participate in written debate. Sina has instead been posed a counter challenge by Naik's supporters to arrange for a live audience of at least 10,000 people. Sina, in counter claim, claims this demand unjustified and cites the threat to his life from Islamic terrorists as well as the lack of time in a televised debate. He has instead offered to publish the written debate on his website.[27]
A nice chap who we can all get on with , eh ?
I don't think much more comment is needed - the debates , and his views , speak for themselves .
.
Comment