Rebuttals to Zakir Naik

From WikiIslam

Zakir Naik is a trained medical doctor living in Mumbai, India. He is the President of the Islamic Research Foundation. He describes himself as a student of comparative religion. Having given up his medical practice, Naik now travels the world performing Dawah (Islamic proselytism). He uses the Quran and authentic (sahih) Hadiths to argue his points.

This article will critically examine some of his views and teachings; and by association, the quotes from Quran and Hadiths.

[edit] Polygamy in Islam

Naik says in his website that the Muslim practice of taking up to four wives is justified ^[1]. 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. He also believes that there are more marriageable women than men in the world and claims:

Naik points to the verse Qur'an 4:3 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 also said the same thing in the following video:

[edit] Rebuttal

1. Naik has claimed that polygamy protects the modesty of women. He falsely believes that the population of women in the world is much greater than the population of men. Hence according to him, polygyny will reduce the number of women who will become "public property." Then he goes on a long rant about how there are many extra women in the world.

The following are real statistics from the CIA (est. 2006)^[2]. The global population, when divided into age groups looks like this:

We can clearly see that the total male population slightly exceeds the female population, thus exposing Naik's falsehood. This trend is almost ubiquitous worldwide^[3]. Furthermore, the only age group in which women exceed men substantially is the 65+ age group. By this time, most women are already happily married, widowed or not looking for a partner.

Analyzing the statistics for the USA ^[4], we have:

We can clearly see that, even though overall there are slightly more females than males in the USA, the difference maker is the 65+ age bracket. This is a far cry from what Dr. Naik has claimed. The age that people usually get married in is the 15-64 age bracket and the population of men and women here is roughly the same. In fact, if we look at the age group 0-64, there are 989,336 more males than females and so according to Naik's strategy, perhaps there should be some females who are married to more than one man (polyandry) so that the men don't become "public property".

Now, let's analyze the statistics of Saudi Arabia ^[5] which is an Islamic country:

We can see that the population of males far exceeds the population of females. The difference maker is the 15-64 age category too. According to Naik's logic, the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia should actually follow polyandry (one woman, many husbands), not polygamy.

2. Naik has also claimed that polygamy keeps men from cheating on their wives. This is as absurd as saying, "making stealing legal will put an end to robbery." Naik reasoning is not valid on this point.

3. Naik has also claimed that man is polygamous by nature. This is a huge generalization as there are polygamous women and monogamous men. In any case this is as absurd as saying, "man is selfish by nature. Hence, he should betray others." There is no evidence to suggest that man is polygamous by nature.

4. Naik has taken account of the "25 million gays" who live in the USA. That number is unverified. In any case, he has not considered the lesbian population.

5. Naik's says that the only option for a non-married woman is to become "public property". This is simply ridiculous, obnoxious and insulting to women and does not warrant a response.

In summary, Naik has failed to justify the Islamic practice of polygamy.

See also:

• Muhammad's Marriages: A violation of the Qur'an
• Polygamy in Islam
• Dealing Justly with Wives and Orphans

[edit] Water Cycle in the Quran

In the following video, Zakir Naik displays his incredible facility for memorizing and quoting the Quran. He wants to "prove" that the Quran contains scientific miracles; one of them being the Water Cycle. His remarkable ability to recite numerous Quranic passages and cite them is impressive; and earns him copious applause from the audience. Here is the video:

On closer inspection of Zakir Naik's evidences, we find that he was just using his theatrics to fool his audience. The only thing Naik did in this speech is cite the verse numbers in Quran where he claims the Water Cycle has been explained in "great detail". He did not even recite the actual verses to explain where exactly this detail exists. Perhaps the reason is that there is no such detail.

[edit] The 'Water-cycle' verses

Below are the Quranic 'water-cycle' verses which Naik cited. We can see there is no detail in these verses about a Water Cycle. They are plain common sense and contain no new or 'hidden' knowledge. All that is contained, was already known by the people living in time the Quran was (allegedly) revealed:

[Shakir 24:43] Do you not see that Allah drives along the clouds, then gathers them together, then piles them up, so that you see the rain coming forth from their midst? And He sends down of the clouds that are (like) mountains wherein is hail, afflicting therewith whom He pleases and turning it away from whom He pleases; the flash of His lightning almost takes away the sight.

[Shakir 30:48] Allah is he Who sends forth the winds so they raise a cloud, then He spreads it forth in the sky as He pleases, and He breaks it up so that you see the rain coming forth from inside it; then when He causes it to fall upon whom He pleases of His servants, lo! they are joyful.

[Shakir 39:21] Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs, then brings forth therewith herbage of various colors, then it withers so that you see it becoming yellow, then He makes it a thing crushed and broken into pieces? Most surely there is a reminder in this for the men of understanding.

[Shakir 23:18] And We send down water from the cloud according to a measure, then We cause it to settle in the earth, and most surely We are able to carry it away.

[Shakir 30:24] And one of His signs is that He shows you the lightning for fear and for hope, and sends down water from the clouds then gives life therewith to the earth after its death; most surely there are signs in this for a people who understand.

[Shakir 15:22] And We send the winds fertilizing, then send down water from the cloud so We give it to you to drink of, nor is it you who store it up.

[Shakir 7:57] And He it is Who sends forth the winds bearing good news before His mercy, until, when they bring up a laden cloud, We drive it to a dead land, then We send down water on it, then bring forth with it of fruits of all kinds; thus shall We bring forth the dead that you may be mindful.

[Shakir 13:17] He sends down water from the cloud, then watercourses flow (with water) according to their measure, and the torrent bears along the swelling foam, and from what they melt in the fire for the sake of making ornaments or apparatus arises a scum like it; thus does Allah compare truth and falsehood; then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which profits the people, it tarries in the earth; thus does Allah set forth parables.

[Shakir 25:48] And He it is Who sends the winds as good news before His mercy; and We send down pure water from the cloud,

[Shakir 25:49] That We may give life thereby to a dead land and give it for drink, out of what We have created, to cattle and many people.

[Shakir 35:9] And Allah is He Who sends the winds so they raise a cloud, then We drive it on to a dead country, and therewith We give life to the earth after its death; even so is the quickening.

[Shakir 36:34] And We make therein gardens of palms and grapevines and We make springs to flow forth in it,

[Shakir 45:5] And (in) the variation of the night and the day, and (in) what Allah sends down of sustenance from the cloud, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death, and (in) the changing of the winds, there are signs for a people who understand.

[Shakir 50:9] And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good, then We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain that is reaped,

[Shakir 56:68] Have you considered the water which you drink?

[Shakir 56:69] Is it you that send it down from the clouds, or are We the senders?

[Shakir 56:70] If We pleased, We would have made it salty; why do you not then give thanks?

[Shakir 67:30] Say: Have you considered if your water should go down, who is it then that will bring you flowing water?

He ends it all by saying, "In several places, the glorious Quran speaks about the Water Cycle in great detail."

[edit] Rebuttal

To call Naik's bluff, we need to consider a few things:

1. He claimed that the Quran's information on the Water Cycle was a scientific miracle.

2. To be a scientific miracle, the phenomenon should not have been known at the time it was "revealed."

3. Each of the verses that Naik quoted were all about known information. People knew that precipitation occurred due to the clouds. They could easily observe the formation of clouds and the darkening of the sky just before rainfall. After rainfall, they could observe it being "carried away" (drying off). They knew that the hot sun would dry the water off. What they did not know is that it is the same water that's being dried off that is brought back to earth as precipitation. The Quran does not mention this anywhere.

4. In the video, Naik also claims that the Quran has referred to the water table. This is another falsehood. It is quite apparent that none of his verses even hint at the water table.

5. As we can see above, many of the verses he quoted had nothing to do with the water cycle at all but about drinking water and water being used for irrigation.

Hence in this speech, Naik used his showmanship skills to astound a Muslim audience by memorizing Quranic verse numbers.

It is also important to note that, in order to sound even more learned, he gives the name of the Surah, and the chapter number straight after, to make the chapters seem like separate entities within a larger 'sub-book' (similar to the bible). However, considering, for example, that chapter 35 is Surah Hijir, his use of pleonasms to make the Quran (and incidentally his knowledge) seem grander is apparent i.e. more showmanship at work.

[edit] Allah has sealed their hearts

In this video, Naik tries to excuse the Quranic misconception of belief literally coming from the heart (qalb).

[edit] Rebuttal

1. The arabic word "qalb" does not mean intelligence in Quranic arabic (Arabi fus7a) (Classical arabic). The word's meaning might perhaps have developed to mean intelligence over time, as have many English words, but it certainly did not mean so when the Quran was written. Zakir's excuse is therefore anachronistic. Qalb does have several meanings, all of which being similar figurative sentiments as those in the English definition.

2. The explanation for "sadr" is equally lame. He displays incredible verbal gymnastics to get out of it. Sadr means chest, and it is very clear that the chest is to what the verse was referring. It cannot mean a psychological centre (i.e. the mind). No-one ever uses the word sadr to mean mind.

3. Increasing one's centre makes no sense. Increase my breast is likely to suggest more room for a heart - a larger heart. He is asking for bravery, not more intelligence. Why would you need a greater "centre" to deliver a message?

[edit] God's Reckoning

In this video, Naik attempts to defend the Quranic contradiction of Allah's reckoning.

[edit] Rebuttal

1. The confusion with arabs (and Muslims like Zakir Naik) that are weak with interlinguistic translation is that Yawm means period in the sense that English does. For example, "some day we'll be rich" - it does not mean at a particular 24 hour slot, it means at a certain period in time or stage in ones life. It does not mean so when a designated number of days is given (such as "we'll go in 5 days"), as in this case. This is why the confusion arises. Dr Naik obviously does not appreciate the semantic value of the word "yawm", and does not appreciate the parallel in meaning with "day".

2. If it did mean period (which it does not), it would still be wrong to suggest that a period could mean something different in one place than in another. An omnipotent God would be more consistent.

3. He gives the explanation that it just gives a reference to the site of Allah being incomparable to our time. However, by giving exact times, the possibility of this explanation is void. He has been very precise giving the figure of 50,000/1,000. He does not give the impression that this is a mere reference Allah makes a comparison!

[edit] God cannot become a human being

In this video, Naik was asked why Islam says that God cannot become a human-being. After all, many other religions claim that God can and has come down to earth as one.

[edit] Rebuttal

1. Naik starts his verbal gymnastics and theatrics right from the beginning. His first claim is that, "other religions believe that almighty God is so holy that he does not know the shortcomings of man and so has to come down to earth to set the rules for the human-beings." He is illogically using a paradox (God is so holy yet does not know the shortcomings) to impress people in a subconscious way. It is illogical because "knowing everything about problems of mankind" does not stop "God from coming down" in any way. God may still come down to show people a practical example or to set things right. He does not have to but he may.

2. Naik then goes into the analogy of a VCR. This is again flawed logic simply because the explanation of the VCR does not have to mimic the explanation of God. It may mimic it but it is not a conclusive argument.

3. Naik then gives his only correct statement, "Similarly Almighty God does not have to become a human being to know what is good or what is bad." He has rightly used the word "does not have to" and not "cannot."

4. Naik's next claim is again flawed. He says, "God chooses a prophet and sends his instruction manual through him." It may be right but then it may not be, for the reasons above.

5. Naik has thus failed to answer the question posed which was, "why cannot God become a human being?" He has only used the Quran to give a possible explanation as to why he does not have to become a human being.

[edit] Grammatical errors in the Quran

In this video, Zakir is questioned about the grammatical mistakes in the Quran. Since the Qur'an is said to be the unchanged word of God, it should contain no errors.

[edit] Rebuttal

1. The origins of Arabic grammar did not derive from the Quran. Arabic existed long before, and there is no reason to assume that anything that comes from the Quran is the correct paradigm. That's a very convenient way to wriggle one's way out of an issue. It is only by his belief that the Quran is divine, and it would only be the correct source of grammar if it was. His point therefore resorts to belief and not credible facts.

2. It is completely illogical to say something is so advanced that it goes against convention - especially when convention is said to have derived therefrom. If grammar is incorrect, it's incorrect. His analogy of a ruler is asinine. If a ruler was compared to conventional measurements and proved to differ, it would be dismissed as faulty. The same should be applied to the Quran under unbiased circumstances.

3. The examples he gave at the end are straw men, and the line of reasoning associated with them do not apply to the examples given by the man. He does not at all address the two examples the man gave. They might be acceptable, but they have nothing to do with other possible solecisms. Besides, the second example he gives is flawed. He does not address the issue of the flawed tense. Allah is referring to the actions of the past, and should hence use the relevant tense. "It" is not referring to the creation, but rather the creation process, the initialization.

4. He talks of different tribes using grammar. However, this is not pertinent to the issue for two reasons.

• Even in the several different dialects of the British language, there is one that is accepted as standard grammar. This is the framework around which the Quran should adhere to maintain the linguistic dignity of which should be expected from Allah. All pieces of Arabic literature are written in fus7a - without exception.

• The dialect of the Quran remains the same throughout, so if in one place a certain grammatical feature is used correctly and in another that same feature is used incorrectly, then it's clear that the latter is an error and not the use of dialect. The mistakes are internal.

[edit] Evolution and Allah's status

[edit] Rebuttal

1. The reason you don't see "fact of evolution" is because a fact is not something one puts forward or discusses. The idea that we evolved from lower species is a fact, but the mechanisms of evolution to put forth viable explanations for the phenomena are known as theories. Herein Zakir shows his usual lack of scientific merit.

2. The letter is most likely a lie, but even if it were to be genuine, that does nothing to disprove evolution itself. That reference is not just a lie, but moreover a straw man fallacy.

3. The presence of missing links does not disprove evolution. Many of those "missing" links have since been found, and are continuing to be discovered - and found links are going no-where!. Not one shred of evidence, however, has been found to disprove the idea that we evolved from lower species. No-where in his lecture does he directly prove evolution wrong, or prove any alternative right, scientifically.

4. The idea that there are four phases is ridiculous. There are far more than that. Furthermore, than are numerous links between all these stages, and all the other stages which he failed to mention. He is either lying here, or is completely ignorant of all the fossil records and numerous other links.

5. Talking of the 100's of (incompetent) scientists who speak out against it is ad verecundiam and ad populum. It does nothing to address the issue of evolution. Going by his logic, there are significantly more who agree with it, therefore attesting to its accuracy. Of course, real scientists work with evidence, and not support. His claim that more speak against than for is a blatant lie.

[edit] Is Halal slaughter painful?

At 5:30 of the following video, Naik claims that Halal slaughter is painless:

Zakir Naik has also defended on his website the Islamic method of slaughter (which involves severing the major arteries in the neck of the animal while its alive, as well as the esophagus and trachea with one swipe of a non-serrated blade.)

[edit] Rebuttal

However, it is not true that Halal/Kosher method of slaughter is painless as seen from the following medical explanation:

[edit] Memorable Quotes

Here are quotes from Naik that do not need a rebuttal.

[edit] Pork and Promiscuity

Naik believes that diet has psychological/ethical consequences and one is what one eats^[8]:

This means that according to Zakir, if one eats pork, he or she is likely to indulge in wife swapping.

[edit] Support for Osama Bin Laden

[edit] References

1. ↑ Zakir Naik on Polygamy
2. ↑ Global Statistics from The World Factbook, CIA
3. ↑ Global sex ratio statistics - CIA, The World Factbook
4. ↑ United States - Statistics from the World FactBook, CIA
5. ↑ Saudi Arabia - Statistics from the World FactBook, CIA
6. ↑ Irf.net: Islamic Method Of Slaughtering Animals Appears Ruthless - Zakir Naik's official website
7. ↑ German website (translated for this article by Google)
8. ↑ Zakir Naik - FAQ on Islam - Pork Forbidden

[edit] External Links

• Wikipedia.org: Zakir Naik
• Zakir Naik saying he supports Osama Bin Laden - Google Video
• Islamic Reasoning for Polygamy Totally Debunked - FFI Forum
• Zakir Naik on Hinduism - Declassified - FFI Forum
• Video made by a Youtube user: "Dawah to an atheist?" Part 1 | Part 2