Dr. Zakir Naik is a respected figure, though some people may have a stern disposition. This does not diminish their sincerity. I carefully listened to the dialogue between him and the lady, and it seemed to me that the woman raised a very valid and rightful question. It highlighted the hypocrisy prevalent in our society, something we often shy away from discussing. It is as if we claim to love the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), yet, we cannot even provide pure milk in the same society. It’s shameful to say that even medicines are often counterfeit. No one fulfills their responsibilities as a duty. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said, “He who adulterates is not from us,” yet, tell me, where in this country can you find something free of adulteration?

In our religion, there are strict rulings against hoarders, yet hoarding is common in our country. During Ramadan, when it should be easier for people, items are hoarded and sold at inflated prices. This happens in the same so-called Islamic society. The woman likely wanted to highlight the hypocrisy in her area, which outwardly appears Islamic but tolerates practices that Islam forbids, such as usury, and horrific acts like child abuse. Dr Naik perhaps did not understand the nature of the question within the Pakistani context and became annoyed. Some of this may be due to age or temperament, but there’s also a point he made that is undeniable: an Islamic society cannot exist alongside such immoral acts. There is a contradiction in this.

There was no contradiction in the woman’s question, but Dr. Naik perceived it that way, because, ideally, such things should not happen in an Islamic society. However, the practical reality is different. In psychology, this is referred to as cognitive dissonance. Dr. Naik emphasised that in a true Islamic society, these things cannot coexist, which is an ideal situation. However, in practical terms, this has rarely been the case. Those who are truly close to Allah and follow Islam’s teachings avoid these things, but overall, the hypocrisy in our society is such that we perform religious rituals outwardly while our actions are the opposite.

The misunderstanding that arose can be attributed to what communication sciences call a “difference in frame of reference.” Both sides were right in their way, but given our societal tendency to slander, criticize, and mock one another, we easily gravitate toward extremes. The so-called liberals lashed out at Dr. Zakir Naik, although he was making a valid point. He had difficulty understanding the context, but he made a clear statement that a truly Islamic society can’t have such immoral practices. The woman’s question was also valid in highlighting the hypocrisy of our society. I have illustrated this with various examples because if we truly had an Islamic society, there would be no adulteration, no hoarding, no corruption, no bribery. But all of these things do exist. This, in itself, is a contradiction.

The woman’s question to Dr. Zakir Naik was that in her area, outwardly, there seems to be adherence to religious practices, but usury and child abuse also exist. Why is this the case? Dr. Naik’s initial reaction was completely normal, that such things cannot exist in an Islamic society, as there can be no contradiction in this. However, he failed to understand the context the woman was referring to, which was that our society is deeply hypocritical. We claim one thing but act very differently. This contradiction is evident in our politicians, our bureaucracy, and every other facet of life.

But this does not mean we should criticize a scholar whose sincerity should not be doubted, nor should we criticize the woman who exposed the hollow nature of this so-called Islamic society. We need to find a path between these two extremes. This is a dichotomy. Both sides are correct in their own way, but we must choose the correct approach from these two valid points, and that is the most challenging task.

For three days, the whole of Pakistan has been engaged in this debate—whether Dr. Zakir Naik was too harsh in his words towards the woman or whether the woman should not have asked such a question. Both approaches are wrong. The real point is that both Palwasha, the woman, and Dr. Zakir Naik were correct in their perspectives. We, as listeners, understood according to our understanding, and the result is evident. I often say that communication sciences should be made part of the curriculum. If we want to cultivate a culture of tolerance, we need to learn from the Meccan and Medinan life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), where tolerance was evident.

We must adopt a culture of tolerance. We need to learn to tolerate each other’s opinions. We must understand that the other person might also be right, and often, we realize much later that we were wrong and they were right. By then, we regret it. We wish we could go back to the moment when we hurt a loved one. To avoid this regret, it is necessary to give others space and understand their stance. If we cannot, then at least do not cause them hurt. This is the basic principle of Islam—a religion of peace and security, and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sent as a mercy to all worlds. If only we could understand this, avoid futile debates, and learn to respect one another, then, believe me, you would find paradise around you. You would not seek any other heaven. What you envision for paradise, you would see in your surroundings, your homes, your neighbourhoods, and your cities.

Zabir Saeed Badar
The writer is a senior journalist, analyst, and researcher, known for his expertise in key political and global affairs.