Over the past several weeks I have watched the Zakir Naik issue unfold in Malaysia, and there is one fundamental misunderstanding that has irked me from the beginning. Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. Somebody had to say it. Zakir Naik is a medical doctor and a Muslim preacher who practices a particular combative style of disputation. Unlike his role model, the late, and beloved South African Ahmed Deedat, Naik rarely engages in debates; instead lecturing for hours and jousting with laypeople from the audience. This approach, and this format, accentuates the aggressive tone of his talks. Without sharing the stage with someone who can rebut his criticisms, his exercises in “comparative religion” come across as arrogant, relentless attacks. He also almost completely lacks Deedat’s warmth and charm.
Now, you are free to like or dislike this approach, you can regard Naik as an effective or inflammatory speaker; but what you cannot do is classify him as a scholar of Islam. That is a title which requires considerable qualifications, and Naik has none of them. I have seen here and there some critiques of Naik which mention certain errors in his understanding of the religion; particularly with regards to the Ash’ari theological school of thought. But these critiques fail to recognise that there is no particular reason why Zakir Naik would have a comprehensive understanding of Islam; he is not a scholar. He has not studied Fiqh, he has not studied Shari’ah; he has no background in hadith, tafsir or seerah. He specializes in contrasting religions. That’s it.
This is important to clarify, because banning a legitimate scholar from speaking is something very different from preventing a preacher with a controversial style from holding public lectures.
Obviously, he should not be deported to India; Interpol doesn’t even think so. But I see nothing wrong with the Malaysian government telling Zakir Naik to keep his mouth shut. That is in his own best interests. When someone is given to lecturing for hours on end, it is inevitable in this day and age for any disgruntled listener to take offense at something he says, take it out of context, and stir up resentment.
Before you say “what about his right to free speech?” let me remind you that, theoretically at least, he should only be interested in public speaking for the purpose of effectively inviting people to Islam – not just for the sake of broadcasting his opinions. The climate is not right in Malaysia for him to pursue his particular form of da’awah, and he should recognise that.