Is Zakir Naik engaging in comparative religion or insulting other faiths?

Experts in comparative religion usually do not belong to any faith because if they do, they will be charged with academic bias.

COMMENT

By Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi

The issue of Zakir Naik, the Muslim preacher from India, is a huge thorn in the side of nation building in Malaysia. We Malaysians are still dealing with our own historical baggage and mistrusts at the cultural, religious and political levels, and now we have added Naik to the mix.

Instead of progressing forward we seem to be sliding back into national disharmony. It will take years and decades to resolve all of our mistrusts at the various levels, if, that is, we have any desire to resolve them at all.

Will the new Malaysian government take up the challenge? I think it will… but the signs are not so encouraging, especially with the Naik issue.

In this piece, I would like to narrow down the controversy of Naik to a problem of definitions and the implications of those definitions. What definition is that? It is the idea of “comparative religion” as a valid academic field.

Influential clerics such as Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin keep saying that Naik is innocent of the accusations by Hindus that he is insulting their religion. To Asri, Naik is just practicing “comparative religion” and simply speaking in an academic manner.

I wish to respectfully disagree with Asri, and all those who support this kind of idea of “comparative religion”.

Muslims must judge clearly, academically and fairly if Naik is indeed a “comparative religion” expert or if he is using a dakwah method of belittling another religion by pointing faults to suit his own personal religious framework.

First of all let us define the field of “comparative religion”. From my limited understanding, the study of comparative religion perhaps began with missionary groups or priests trying to convert people to their own faiths. They used their understanding of other faiths to belittle those faiths and to insert their own faiths within the cultural and religious framework of the other faiths.

In modern times, experts in comparative religion usually do not belong to any faith because if they do, then they will be charged with academic bias.

What is the objective of the study of comparative religion to such academics? They seek to find commonalities and explain conflicts by uprooting the origin of the elements of the religion vis-a-vis an issue in society. These scholars are the important global arbiters because they stay aloof from the mindsets of institutionalised or uninstitutionalised religion.

These scholars hope that people would be more enlightened and tolerant once they understand the concepts of faith and rituals and their accompanying history, plus wisdom, so that we can all live in a peaceful world.

Now that we have a definition, we can ask: Is Naik an expert in “comparative religion”?

In the first place, he is a committed Muslim. In the second place, he is a missionary out to convert other faithful to his brand of Islam. In the third place, he has done no graduate work at the PhD level or written substantive papers evaluated by acknowledged scholars in the field. In what universe, then, is he a “comparative religion” expert?

When I typed in the phrase “professor of comparative religion in Malaysia” in Google search, no names came up. When I typed in “professor of Christianity in Malaysia”, no names came up. When I typed in “professor of Hinduism in Malaysia”, no names came up. When I typed in “professor of Buddhism in Malaysia”, nothing surfaced.

However, when I typed in “professor of Islam in Malaysia”, a lorry full of names of academics appeared on the screen. The question I am pondering is why do we, in Malaysia, not have professors of comparative religion or Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism?

One answer could be that we do not want to provoke conflicts over inter-religious debates about who is right and who is wrong and who is being sillier than the other. The fundamental tenet of our nation is that we respect each other’s faiths. That is why in all the Friday sermons I have read and heard in my life, there has been none that insulted or belittled other religions in this country.

Now, if we were to accept Naik as an expert in comparative religion, why don’t we appoint him the first ever Malaysian professor of comparative religion at the International Islamic University of Malaysia? Why stop there? Why not invite him to deliver Friday sermons at mosques where he can explain his understanding of other religions within the perspective of Islam and our societal issues? Why don’t we also encourage his writings and words to be used and quoted in Friday sermons delivered all over Malaysia? How would that fare in our national harmony policy?

Finally, I wish to say that I have no problem with Naik as a person and as a Muslim. I only have a problem with his methodology of dakwah. To me, dakwah is simply you as a Muslim being the best human being possible without having to try to convert anyone. The concept of “converting” is, from my understanding, Allah showing the way, not us humans.

Our country is Malaysia. We decided a long time ago to respect one another’s faiths. We may all not be as learned or as pious as you, Mr Zakir Naik, but we do ask that you respect our Rukunegara – the national principles of Malaysia – if you want to become part of us.

Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is a professor of Islamic architecture at UCSI University. -FMT