A closer look at Zakir Naik

Let’s try to examine the case of Zakir Naik objectively.

Naik is a controversial Islamic preacher from India, who was granted permanent residency in Malaysia.

India’s Enforcement Directorate is reportedly looking to extradite Naik to India, as part of an investigation concerning Naik and money laundering.

The preacher has stirred controversy in Malaysia more or less since his arrival, and this latest episode is proving to be something of a test for the new government.

It feels like many people are taking sides on the debate as to whether he should be extradited or not based on sentiment and a certain amount of prejudice.

There are many who support Naik merely because they seem him as a stalwart of Islam, while there are many who have quickly bought into the image of Naik as a hate-spewing Islamic extremist.

A more objective consideration of the facts and the case at hand may yield a more nuanced perspective.

Having attempted such a consideration, I believe the question of whether or not Naik should be extradited pivots more on legal and diplomatic concerns, than it does on what he has or hasn’t said in his speeches.

Said legal concerns include whether or not India is able to furnish conclusive evidence of wrongdoing and whether they decide to submit a formal extradition request.

Whether or not the latter comes to pass or not may be a problem for which diplomatic solutions may exist.

Controversial views

Let us begin by examining what Naik is most famous for: his views on religion. If one were to skim only certain headlines, it would be easy to form the opinion that Naik is a religious bigot at best, and a supporter of violent terrorism at worst.

We often fall victim to confirmation bias, so if we already have a bad opinion of someone, we tend to interpret available data in a way that confirms our views - often without taking the time to read or watch things in full.

Let us turn to our generally reliable friend, Wikipedia, to see exactly what it is Naik has been saying.

We start with some of the rather less agreeable descriptions and quotes from Wikipedia (from which the original sources and citations for all the quotes below can be viewed):

“Naik says that Islam is the ‘best’ religion because ‘the Quran says it. No other religious text or scripture claims this fact’.”

“While he appreciates that people of other religions allow Muslims to freely propagate Islam in their country, Naik preaches that the dissemination of other religions within an Islamic state must be forbidden because he believes that other faiths are incorrect, so their propagation is as wrong as it would be for an arithmetic teacher to teach that 2+2=3 or 6 instead of 2+2=4.”

“Likewise, Naik argues, ‘regarding building of churches or temples, how can we (Muslims) allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worshiping is wrong?’”

“Naik equates music with alcohol and says that both are intoxicating in nature. He has condemned dancing and singing because they are prohibited in Islam.”

“Naik is permissive of beating one's wife ‘gently.’ He argues that "as far as the family is concerned, a man is the leader. So, he has the right", but he should beat his wife ‘lightly’. He also said that Muslims have the right to sex with their female slaves where he referred to slaves as ‘prisoners of war’.”

“Dismissing Darwin's theory of evolution, Naik said that the it is ‘only a hypothesis, and an unproven conjecture at best’.”

“Naik believes that Muslims who convert from Islam should not necessarily receive death sentences, but that under Islamic law those who leave Islam and then ‘propagate the non-Islamic faith and speak against Islam’ should be put to death. Another source states that according to Naik, ‘There is no death penalty for apostates in Islam... until, the apostate starts to preach his new religion: then he can be put to death.”

“In a lecture delivered on 31 July 2008 on Peace TV, Naik commented on the attacks of 11 September: ‘It is a blatant, open secret that this attack on the Twin Towers was done by George W Bush himself.’”

Complicated views

So far, so ‘good’, in that much of these quotes are exactly what you would expect of a delusional bigot, an extremist, and a near sociopath. However, it would probably be inaccurate to paint the entirety of Naik’s ideology with a single brush.

In the same Wikipedia article, we also find the following quotes:

“When asked about his views on killings, Naik said ‘the Quran says so – if anyone kills an innocent human being, Muslim or non-Muslim, it is as though he has killed the whole humanity, So how can any Muslim kill innocent human being?’”

“Naik called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria the ‘anti-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’ and said that the enemies of Islam are promoting IS… 'We should not say Isis, we should say Aisis. Because they are anti-Islamic. I request all the Muslims of the world, as well as the Muslim media, please don't help the enemies of Islam in attacking Islam.’"

“‘If you verify you will know that I am totally against terrorism. I am totally against killing innocent human beings.’... In another lecture in Dubai, he stated, It is, therefore not correct to say IS has killed Syrian or Iraqi innocents. He said, ‘We should say anti-Islamic state kills them as Quran affirms that whoever kills an innocent person is as if he kills all humanity, and he who saves a single person - disregard his religion, is like saving all humanity.’”

“The maximum damage done to the image of Islam today is by the international media which is bombarding misconceptions about it day and night using an array of strategies. International media, be it print, audio, video, or online, use a number of strategies to malign Islam by first picking up the black sheep of the Muslim community, and portraying them as though they are exemplary Muslims.’

"If a Muslim woman wears hijab or veil it is labeled as women subjugation, but if a nun does to the same it turns into a sign of respect and modesty. A 50-year-old Muslim marrying a 16-year-old girl (willingly) is a headline, but a 50-year-old non-Muslim raping a six-year-old girl appears as brief news or filler."

“They say Islam does not give rights to women, and is an illogical religion. They portray Islam as the problem of humanity though it is the solution to all man's problems. The same applies to the misinterpreted words 'fundamentalist' and 'extremist' which are basically western words. A true Muslim must be an extremist in the correct direction, by being extremely kind, loving, tolerant, honest and just. While Indians were fighting for their freedom, the British government was labelling them as terrorists; same activity, same people, but two different labels. The same happened with Muslims who are labelled as terrorists in media, so we should look into backgrounds and reasons for an activity before labelling people."

"As far as terrorist is concerned’, he said, ‘I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist .... What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorises . So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element. I'm aware that terrorist is more commonly used for a person who terrorises innocent human beings. So in this context no Muslim should ever terrorise a single innocent human being."

Perhaps the most apt example for this section of this article can be found in a HuffPost article. Item number 3 in this list has the headline “Where, Naik spoke about how to beat one's wife 'gently', and embeds a video as ‘proof’.

This is incredibly ironic, considering if you actually watch the video, the HuffPost article and its subsection headline arguably proves exactly what Naik is arguing about how his quotes are taken out of context.

Not a one dimensional caricature after all?

We should not read this second group of quotes as ‘cancelling out’ the first group of quotes. After all, nothing excuses Naik’s deplorable views on the intolerance of other religions and the ‘sinfulness’ of music, or his rather ignorant denial of evolution and paranoia regarding 9/11.

The second group of quotes, however, does mean that that Naik is not a one-dimensional caricature of a villain.

This article does not intend to debate Naik’s ideas in full, but it may intend to show that it may be premature to merely dismiss him outright as a rabid hatemonger with whom we can agree about nothing.

So now we return to the question: what should the government do about Naik?

I think if we were to arrest or deport every single individual in the country who has spewed inflammatory, bigoted, divisive or inciteful ideas, our prisons would be bursting at the seams.

As always, we need to uphold freedom of speech in a reasonable way. It would be right for the government, for instance, to sanction speech that specifically incites violence.

While Naik’s ideas are indeed divisive and in many instances repugnant, it would appear that there is no proof of him specifically inciting violence.

Political context

If he has thus not committed a crime in Malaysia (except the ‘crime’ of saying rather unpalatable things perhaps), then the next question to consider is whether he has committed a crime in India.

Obviously, we would need to be privy to more facts and details to see whether there is reason to suspect Naik of criminal behaviour.

It may be worth noting the agency which is reportedly looking to extradite Naik, and the case it is investigating.

The agency in question is the Directorate of Enforcement, which is part of the Department of Revenue under India's Ministry of Finance, and the case allegedly involves money laundering.

There are two things worth noting here. Firstly, from the currently available facts, this suggests that Naik is not being investigated for anything that he said. Secondly, this makes the analogy to 1MDB fugitive Jho Low even closer, as India is apparently seeking him out for financial crimes.

We would be remiss not to consider the political situation in India as well. The current ruling party, the BJP is a right-wing Hindu nationalist party, itself arguably not particularly tolerant.

In this sense, it is I suppose a little understandable if Muslims in Malaysia feel – accurately or inaccurately – that Naik is being persecuted by a Hindu nationalist government with anti-Muslim leanings.

This political situation may also possibly prejudice the views somewhat of those in Malaysia virulently calling for Naik’s extradition, who may see the BJP government in India as some sort of big brother and stalwart of ‘Indian rights’.

Consistently defending free speech

Again, given the various factors at stake, I believe the government’s decision on Naik’s extradition is ultimately a legal and diplomatic question.

At the moment, it would appear that the extradition request itself is in fact not a matter of official record, but instead something reported in the press, quoting unnamed sources.

If Malaysia does not intend to extradite Naik, then perhaps the best solution is to pursue diplomatic channels to ensure that an official extradition request is not actually made.

If however, India is able to provide conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by Naik, financial or otherwise, and thereafter submits a formal extradition request, then it would appear that we are legally duty bound to adhere by our extradition treaty with India.

Failure to do so would render our own requests to extradite individuals like Jho Low morally deficient.

These are not generally the questions that have been in the public sphere regarding Naik. I hope to have shown however, that current public debate surrounding Naik is not necessarily rooted in facts, but influenced by headlines and soundbites that may not give a full picture.

This is not a defence of Naik per se, but rather a call to evaluate each case by going as close to the source as possible, and making objective assessments.

Finally, it must be noted that if the government chooses to defend Naik in the name of free speech, then it should uphold free speech consistently.

We once deported poet Hamza Kashgari in a rather controversial manner. A lawyer who rightfully spoke up for Kashgari then, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, is now in turn being investigated by the police for expressing her constitutional rights to free speech.

Consistency of principle would require the government to immediately drop its harassment of individuals like Fadiah.

We’re all for a free marketplace of ideas, but achieving this requires providing equal and fair access to that marketplace for all.

---

NATHANIEL TAN found watching Zakir Naik’s actual videos to be an odd experience. -Mkini