Rebuttals to Zakir Naik

From WikiIslam

Jump to: navigation, search

Zakir Naik is the president of the Islamic Research Foundation. Having given up his medical practice, Naik now travels the world performing Dawah (Islamic proselytism). According to Islamic scholars at Darul Ifta, India, "He seems Ghair Muqallid and his knowledge is not deep. Therefore, he is not reliable and Muslims should avoid listening to him."[1]. He has been criticized by other people as well. Ali Sina who has debated with Grand Ayatollah Hosein-Ali Montazeri has offered to debate with Naik but Naik has not responded.

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

Contents

[edit] Polygamy in Islam

Naik says in his website that the Muslim practice of taking up to four wives is justified [2]. 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:

"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."
Zakir Naik on Polygamy

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)."

[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)[3]. The global population, when divided into age groups looks like this:

Global Gender population according to age group
Age group (years) Percentage Number of Males Number of Females
0-14 27.4% 919,219,446 870,242,271
15-64 65.2% 2,152,066,888 2,100,334,722
65 and over 7.4% 213,160,216 270,146,721


Proportion of males to females in the World
Age Group Population Ratio
At birth 1.06 male(s)/female
Under 15 years 1.06 male(s)/female
15-64 years 1.03 male(s)/female
65 years and over 0.79 male(s)/female
Total population 1.01 male(s)/female

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[4]. 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 [5], we have:

Gender population in USA according to age group
Age group (years) Percentage Number of Males Number of Females
0-14 20.4% 31,095,847 29,715,872
15-64 67.2% 100,022,845 100,413,484
65 and over 12.5% 15,542,288 21,653,879


Proportion of males to females in the USA
Age Group Population Ratio
At birth 1.05 male(s)/female
Under 15 years 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over 0.72 male(s)/female
Total population 0.97 male(s)/female

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 [6] which is an Islamic country:

Gender population in Saudi Arabia according to age group
Age group (years) Percentage Number of Males Number of Females
0-14 38.2% 5,261,530 5,059,041
15-64 59.4% 9,159,519 6,895,616
65 and over 2.4% 342,020 302,005


Proportion of males to females in Saudi Arabia
Age Group Population Ratio
At birth 1.05 male(s)/female
Under 15 years 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years 1.33 male(s)/female
65 years and over 1.13 male(s)/female
Total population 1.2 male(s)/female

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.

Other points:

  1. The ratio of women to men is not 4:1. The above statistics show that the ratio of females to males is around 1.01 : 1 , which is almost negligible and takes care of itself. There is no reason for a man to marry 4 wives. In fact marrying 4 wives will create a much bigger problem. The explanation is as follows: There are 101 females for every 100 males. Thus 1 female more. If just 2 men out of those 100 men marry 4 wives, there will be 98 unmarried males remaining and 93 unmarried females remaining. Now the number of unmarried males is higher than that of unmarried females. So does Islam allow polyandry? No. So it just creates more imbalance. And we are talking about only 2 out of every 100 men marrying 4 wives. If the number of men practising polygamy increases, then so does the shortage of unmarried female. Zakir Naik fails to address this issue.
  2. If we believe that there are more women than men, it may be ok for a man to marry more than one woman. But if in a scenario, there are more men than women, Islam does not allow women to marry more than one man.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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:


Top of page ↑

[edit] Polyandry in Islam

Zakir Naik has a FAQ section on his website where he answers 'commonly asked questions' on Islam. He uses flawed logic and false facts which we seek to expose in this series. We deal with Zakir Naik's Question # 2 here.

The question that Naik was asked was:

  • If a man is allowed to have more than one wife, then why does Islam prohibit a woman from having more than one husband?

His answer in June 2007 was:

A lot of people, including some Muslims, question the logic of allowing Muslim men to have more than one spouse while denying the same ‘right’ to women.

Let me first state emphatically, that the foundation of an Islamic society is justice and equity. Allah has created men and women as equal, but with different capabilities and different responsibilities. Men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically. Their roles and responsibilities are different. Men and women are equal in Islam, but not identical.

Surah Nisa’ Chapter 4 verses 22 to 24 gives the list of women with who you can not marry and it is further mentions in Surah Nisa’ Chapter 4 verse 24 "Also (prohibited are) women already married"

The following points enumerate the reasons why polyandry is prohibited in Islam:

  1. If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father. Islam gives tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names! I am aware that recent advances in science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing. Thus this point which was applicable for the past may not be applicable for the present.
  2. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.
  3. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle.
  4. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.
The above reasons are those that one can easily identify. There are probably many more reasons why Allah, in His Infinite Wisdom, has prohibited polyandry.


[edit] Rebuttal

Firstly, we believe that both polygamy (one man having more than one wife) and polyandry (one woman having more than one husband) are undesirable. A man and a woman should have equal rights and as a couple be able to cherish each other's love and attention. We are not defending polyandry here. Rather we are attacking the false reasoning used by Dr. Zakir Naik in trying to justify that polygamy is okay but polyandry is bad.

1.

a. Zakir Naik says that in polyandry, it will be difficult to identify both parents.

First, if only one man and one woman can marry, identification is easiest. In this case, when a father introduces his child, there will be no confusion about the identity of the mother as is an identification problem in polygamy.


b. He also states that psychologists say that children who do not know their parents are mentally disturbed.

Before we delve further, we would like to remind Dr. Zakir Naik that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) fits this category. He is therefore, by Naik's own admission, likely to have been psychologically disturbed.

In this argument, Zakir Naik is confusing identifying one's parents with having someone as parents. To a child, it is most important to have a mother as well as a father. This is why even if a child is adopted (does not know identity of real parents), with love from the foster parents, the child can lead a fruitful life.

Psychologists also say that it is very unhealthy for children to grow up in polygamous families. This also leads to disunity in the family as there is rivalry between different wives and their children and all children may not be treated fairly by the husband or the wives.

A family of one husband and 3 wives is like that of 1 wife and 3 husbands. Neither is generally ideal. Children of prostitutes suffer a host of issues and problems. Prostitution is not polyandry because a prostitute has NO husband, not more than one husband. Equating polyandry with prostitution is fallacious.

Further, a woman can know the identity of the father if she tries. For example, if a woman has 2 husbands, she can be sexually active with them in ways that will tell her based on the calendar of the pregnancy, who the father is. Besides, a child usually shows features of both parents. Both these factors in conjuction would allow identification. Again, we do not support polyandry, but we feel that Zakir Naik's arguments are invalid because there are ways to make it work if equality between men and women is truly desired, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia that allow polygamy, but in whose populations men outnumber women by millions.

Obviously, today we also have techniques such as DNA testing (paternity testing). Therefore the real Almighty cannot be the source of this belief as He is all knowing about the past, present and future. Thus, at the least, it is clear that the holy Quran is not valid for all times to come.


2. Zakir Naik claims men are more polygamous than women

This claim is incorrect. Some men are more polygamous than their wives and some women are more polyandrous than their husbands. If the holy Quran said the opposite, Zakir Naik would be justifying how women are more lustful and need more than one male partner. Either ways, it is not moral for either a man or a woman to be lustful and be allowed multiple wives or husbands.


3. Zakir Naik claims that biologically polygamy is easier than polyandry.

This statement is also false.

a. Many women believe it is easier for them to have multiple male partners than vice versa. In many animal patterns also, a female mates with multiple males.

b. It can also be argued that women are naturally more polyandrous. Women have more complex emotional and sexual needs than men. Women often find one type of man attractive for marriage (parenting) and another type of man attractive for procreation. Polyandry will allow women to balance their often contradictory needs. The children will be rewarded by increased male attention from the co-fathers. One father may be work and income focused, another can spend more fatherly time with the children, take them outdoors, etc.

c. Finally, although we have proven that polygamy is not easier for men relative to women, divine law is not based on what is easier. This is equivalent to saying that because it is easier for a husband to severely beat or even kill his wife, that it should be tolerated but not vice versa.

4. Zakir Naik claims that "a woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex."

Please give this statement a thought, as its flaws will be self-evident.

a. First, it is easy to see that a man with many wives will have many sexual partners, just like a woman with many husbands. There is no difference.

b. Dr. Naik is implying that if a woman marries multiple men she will automatically contract STDs from them and pass them around (and back to the first husband), purely for the fact that she's having sex with more than one man. He clarifies that this is what he means because he says 'even if none of them have extra marital sex'. This is completely untrue. Not only can an STD not appear by itself in polyandry, but there is nothing different in the case of polygamy either. In order for someone to contract an STD in this type of scenario, they MUST have sexual contact with someone who already has the STD. It does not magically appear.

c. Also, sexually transmitted diseases (STD) can be contacted from a man to a woman and vice versa. If this were not true, only men or only women would have STDs. It is obvious that if a man marries four wives and one of them has AIDS, he will eventually contact it from her and pass it on to the other three wives to result in all five of them suffering from AIDS. The case of a woman with multiple husbands is the same.

In conclusion it is clear that Zakir Naik is using false reasoning and incorrect facts to mislead people. We have already refuted his arguments on Polygamy (see article on Wikiislam). We think God does have infinite wisdom. We therefore cannot disgrace the Almighty with Zakir Naik's fallacious reasoning and misleading explanations.

Top of page ↑

[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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And He it is Who sends the winds as good news before His mercy; and We send down pure water from the cloud,
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.
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.
And We make therein gardens of palms and grapevines and We make springs to flow forth in it,
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.
And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good, then We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain that is reaped,
Have you considered the water which you drink?
Is it you that send it down from the clouds, or are We the senders?
If We pleased, We would have made it salty; why do you not then give thanks?
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.


Top of page ↑

[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?


Top of page ↑

[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!


Top of page ↑

[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. Also, if he is unaware of man's shortcomings, then he should be happy with humankind as they are. It would be unnecessary to set a list of rules regulating the way one should behave, at the penalty of eternal torment in the flames of hellfire, if disobeyed.

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. Naik surmises that since God is all powerful, he cannot come to Earth in the form of a simple human being. He rationalizes that by doing so, God would be limiting his powers and would not be able to revert to his original form. However, this explanation is flawed and contradicts the Quranic claim of God being all-powerful, itself. For instance, if God is all-powerful, then he should be able to take the form of a human being, retain his powers and revert back to his original self. His inability to do so, as Naik claims, would suggest that God has limitations and therefore, is not all-powerful.

Top of page ↑

[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.


Top of page ↑

[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.


Top of page ↑

[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.)

4. Animal does not feel pain The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerve of the brain responsible for pain. Thus the animal does not feel pain. While dying, the animal struggles, writhes, shakes and kicks, not due to pain, but due to the contraction and relaxation of the muscles deficient in blood and due to the flow of blood out of the body.[7]
Zakir Naik, Irf.net

[edit] Rebuttal

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

"During halal/kosher slaughter first the skin and the superficial neck musculature are cut through, then the more deeply lying bronchial tube and the esophagus. Thereby those next to it lying Nervi phrenici become simultaneous cut, which supply the diaphragma motor. Each medical student learned and each physician with surgical or anaesthical experience knows that the bronchial tube, the larynx and the esophagus are particularly pain-sensitive organs, whose injury still into deep anestisia cause substantial pain reactions with respiratory embarrassments, pulse frequency and blood pressure increase as well as electrocardiogram changes and that when hurting the carotid artery the well-known carotid-sine-effect shows the special sensitivity of this neck region. During the slow deblooding the split ends ofthen clog/thrombosidize and it must be re-cut. Because of the hurt diaphragma nerves it comes to a paralysis of the diaphragme musculature and to a immobilen Zwerchfellhochstand, i.e. to a stuck slackening of the diaphragma, which is pushed by abdominal organs towards the head when hanging up. This results in a further substantial impairment of the respiration, which is based predominantly on the movement of this muscle chord plate. To the intolerable cut pain the animal gets thus still fear of death by difficulty in breathing. Due to this, fear and pain-caused intensified breathing procedure and difficulty in breathing the blood and the contents from the stomach from the split esophagus are inspired (sucked) into the lungs, which leads additionally to heavy asphyxiation accumulations. And all this - contrary to the statements of the halal/kosher proponents - with full consciousness of the animal! Because the blood supply of the brain is still given. Photographs show the full reactivity and conscious orientation of the animal, which rises after being cut with the terrible neck wound and orients himself towards the exit of the area. The upper veterinarian advice and director of slaughterhouse Dr. Klein recorded this proof over the still existing consciousness of the animal in strip mosaics. Equivalent statements are in the book “animal protection and culture” from M. Kyber with preface of the president of the German animal defense association Dr. A. Grasmüller. The blood supply of the animal brain takes place via three main artery pairs. Two carotid arteries, two arteries within the neck bones and two further in the neck musculature. These six main arteries anastomosieren (are connected) within the upper neck range, since further arteries connections are present to the head basis in the front head area over the Arteria maxillaris. In addition vascular anastomoses (vasular connections) exist over the solid neck musculature to the head inside. This cross-linking of the vessels ensure also on disconnection of the carotid arteries a still sufficient blood supply of the brain. According to the well-known physiological procedure the body reduces its peripheral blood circulation in favor of of brain, heart and kidneys up to zero with the deblooding. Since the animal is hung up in addition at the hind legs, the orthostatische liquid pressure in the vascular system supplies additionally the brain with blood and holds the animal with consciousness, until practically with striking heart all blood contents of the vascular system ran out in this way. This procedure takes several minutes after general experience, whereby data exist up to 14 minutes. The different numerical data are to be due to the different criteria, whether one takes the reactions of the body as yardstick, the Cornealreflex, the circulation system or stopping bleeding from the container ends or the heart impact." [8]
German article, translated by Google
Top of page ↑

[edit] Other Religions Under Islam

Naik was once asked by a non-Muslim on his TV show, "Why are non-Muslims not allowed to propagate their religion or construct their places of worship in Islamic nations, while Muslims expect the same right to be given to them in non-Muslim majority countries?" This video can be viewed here:

Naik agrees that Islam does not allow a Non-Muslim to propagate or construct his places of worship in an Islamic country. The furthest that a non-Muslim can go is to practice his religion in the secrecy and privacy of his home. Naik fails to understand what "equal rights" are. He supports Muslims being given the same rights by the Kaffirs that the Muslims should not give to the Kaffirs.

[edit] Rebuttal

  1. Naik has illogically brought in the analogy of a school principal hiring a mathematics teacher and says, "Would a principal hire a teacher who says that 2+2 = 3?" He goes on to say, "Of course the principal would not hire that teacher because that teacher does not have the right math knowledge. Similarly, Muslims will not allow other religions because they are not right." The problem here is that "2+2=4" is a universal math law by definition. On the other hand, Islam is not a universal law. Muslims believe in Islam just like other people believe in their own respective religions.
  2. He continues on, "In the Quran 3:85, it says that Islam is the only true religion." Again, he makes the mistake that all people of the world take the Quran as the truth.
  3. Naik has not given any proof for why Islam is the universal truth nor for why other religions are false.
  4. Naik says, "In matters of religion, we Muslims are confirmed true, while the non-Muslims are not. If they were confirmed, why would they follow the wrong religion?" This is nothing but illogical drivel. Islam becomes true for Muslims only because they choose to believe in it. It is not in any way "more confirmed" than other religions.
  5. According to Naik, Muslims are 100% sure that Islam is the right religion. However, he believes that other people are not sure of their religion. The proof offered by him for this is that "these non-Muslims follow their respective false religions." Any person with some intellect can see through the drivel Naik speaks.
  6. Has not Naik indirectly mocked and laughed at the non-Muslims? On the one hand, he "appreciates" that non-Muslims give Muslims the right to propagate Islam and build mosques in their country. On the other, he says that Muslims should never give these same rights to the non-Muslims.
  7. Dr. Naik is “begging the question” of “truth”. It is not decided universally according to the scientific method that Islam is “God’s religion”. That is a claim that Dr. Naik has merely claimed, but not proved. He "begs" us to accept this as proven so he may win the argument. While 2 + 2 = 4 IS established by the science of mathematics, the supremacy of Islam is a religious opinion and cannot thus be supported by science. All school principals are accredited by a board of education elected by the parents and voters of the school district. No school principal in the world is appointed directly by God. All are answerable, not to God, but to those to whom they owe their job. That is an additional fallacy on the part of Dr. Naik. Scientific truth is different from religious truth. The scientific method is a very rigorous set of standards used to eliminate false conclusions. Dr. Naik is a heedless simplifier arguing (without proof) that the present-day Muslim dictatorships (such as Saudi Arabia and Taliban areas...run by despotic tyrants) are obviously the chosen representatives of Allah and run their countries according to Allah’s rules in a supremacist manner. This is his subjective opinion, but it cannot be supported by science or mathematics any more than I can prove strawberry to be superior to chocolate. Dr. Naik is intolerant of all other opinions and refuses to recognize that more than 80% of humans believe Islam to be a false, obscurantist, supremacist cult which has no right whatsoever to overrule the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...which proclaims freedom of thought and of religion. It is not proved either that Dr. Naik or his favourite dictators are God’s appointed “school masters” over the world. That would merely be his own opinion of himself. He is begging the question of Islam’s supremacism in order to justify the denial of equality, freedom of religion and other human rights to anyone who disagrees with him.

[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[9]:

"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."
Zakir Naik

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


Top of page ↑

[edit] Support for Osama Bin Laden

"If Osama Bin Laden is terrorizing the enemies of Islam, I am with him. If he is terrorizing America, the biggest terrorist, then I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist."
Zakir Naik


Top of page ↑

[edit] References

  1. ↑ Question #171, Darul Ifta, India
  2. ↑ Zakir Naik on Polygamy
  3. ↑ Global Statistics from The World Factbook, CIA
  4. ↑ Global sex ratio statistics - CIA, The World Factbook
  5. ↑ United States - Statistics from the World FactBook, CIA
  6. ↑ Saudi Arabia - Statistics from the World FactBook, CIA
  7. ↑ Irf.net: Islamic Method Of Slaughtering Animals Appears Ruthless - Zakir Naik's official website
  8. ↑ German website (translated for this article by Google)
  9. ↑ Zakir Naik - FAQ on Islam - Pork Forbidden

[edit] See Also

[edit] External Links

Retrieved from "http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Rebuttals_to_Zakir_Naik"
Personal tools