Zakir Naik can boast a mammoth memory, a way with words and over 14 million followers on Facebook.
He can also claim credit for being a rather unusual preacher of Islam.
However, he is also the man being held responsible for “inspiring” the men who attacked and killed 20 hostages in Dhaka on 1 July.
He is the new target for Indian and Bangladeshi agencies, who have initiated a probe into his public speeches, for many believe that he is “promoting violence” in the name of preaching sermons on religious theology.
He has categorically condemned the ISIS, descrying their ideology as “un-Islamic”, but believes that religious conversion is “wrong.” He speaks of Islam being an egalitarian religion, but asks women to wear a hijab at all times.
Who exactly is Zakir Naik and why is he being deemed a security threat?
The Man Behind the Face
Naik is a trained medical doctor who was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra. He founded the Islamic Research Foundation in 1991 and is the head of a “comparative religion” channel called Peace TV.
He is not a stereotypical preacher of Islam, who quotes from religious scriptures without offering context. He uses quotes from scriptures of several religions, interspersing them with the Quran, to create an aura of liberalism.
Naik speaks in English, with an obvious Mumbai accent, wears a skullcap, and is usually smartly dressed in a suit and tie. He builds for himself a modern persona, distancing himself from the archetype of the old-school Islamic cleric.
His ‘progressive’ views on issues like triple talaq, which he proudly condemns, add to his personna.
And this is where the gaps begin to show.
His speeches maybe replete with references to the Bible, but it doesn’t mean that he shies away from asserting the supremacy of Islam over other religions.
When asked why religious conversion in Saudi Arabia is disallowed, he said that a country must ascertain what religion it wants to follow and any deviation from it must not be tolerated.
He also proudly claims that he would disown his own children if they converted. The subtext of his disdain towards other religions is clear.
Using Words to Sway the Crowd
Naik has a special gift: the gift of eloquence. His rhetoric is a combination of oratory prowess, technology and fluidity of language.
In one of his sermons, he said, “If (Osama) Bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam”, he supports him and “if he is terrorising America – the terrorist, biggest terrorist,” he is with him.
His stance, which is neither novel nor radically different from what some militant Islamists believe, is especially problematic, given his massive fan following and influence.
He understands that words can be interpreted in multiple ways and uses this knowledge to his advantage.
In another instance he interprets his own idea of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘extremism’, neutralising the dangerous connotations they can have.
He says he is proud to be an ‘extremist’, for ‘extremism’ actually implies being “extremely honest and extremely just.”
Naik might argue that his statements are not meant to “promote” terror, but the fact is that they may be used as a justification for global acts of terror. This is not to say that he is directly responsible for terrorism, but his speeches might make young minds susceptible to the idea behind it.
A few years ago he argued that “every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
His definition of ‘terrorism’ rationalises it as a need, disregarding the hundreds and millions of innocent civilians that lose their lives, in the name of freeing a community from “anti-social elements”, as Naik proclaims.
He, of course, immediately defended his statement by saying that a ‘terrorist’ is anybody fighting “anti-social elements.” And yet, he cleverly makes a deliberately vague statement that can be easily misconstrued.
This sermon was also the one that Dhaka attacker Rohan Imtiaz allegedly shared on his Facebook page.
A Manipulative Narrative?
Naik’s speeches can be instigating.
He was quoted as saying that 9/11 was an “inside job” and that “revealing clothes” can cause rape.
He immediately washed his hands off his incendiary statements, saying that he was merely quoting scientists and statistics.
Yes, he might have said he believes in inter-faith dialogue or that he admires Shah Rukh Khan, but can this redeem him?
For somebody who is aware of his massive following, isn’t it his responsibility to be cautious before making statements?
He has reportedly been banned in the UK and the National Investigative Agency (NIA) in India wants to probe his speeches. Militants like Najibullah Zazi and Rahil Sheikh, who have been accused of suicide bombings in the US and Mumbai respectively claim to have been “inspired” by him.
History has belonged to orators; they have influenced masses to rise up in revolution, but have equally easily incited hate and crime. Naik, with his ability to sway the masses, ought to be a concern for intelligence agencies across the world.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)