Ahmed Deedat & Zakir Naik: Scholarly Examination by Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Ahmed Deedat & Zakir Naik: Scholarly Examination by Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

---

Abstract

This paper examines the claims concerning Ahmed Deedat’s illness and death, and the recent rumours about Zakir Naik’s health. It also considers the wider theological and rhetorical claims about "mocking Scripture", responsibility, and divine retribution. The aim is to assess what is verifiable, what is speculative, and what theological reflections might responsibly follow.

---

Introduction

Ahmed Deedat (1918–2005) and Zakir Naik (b. 1965) are prominent Islamic speakers known for engaging in comparative religion debates and polemics with Christian interlocutors. Over time, claims have circulated regarding Deedat’s illness as a consequence of his public criticisms of the Bible, as well as rumours about Zakir Naik’s health (notably claims of HIV/AIDS). These claims often serve theological or apologetic purposes.

---

Documented Facts

Ahmed Deedat

1. On 3 May 1996, Ahmed Deedat suffered a stroke which left him paralysed from the neck down, unable to speak or swallow. (biharanjuman.org)

2. After the stroke, he was transported to King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, where he was reported to be fully alert. He learned to communicate by eye movements via a chart—using a grid of letters and signifying responses. (biharanjuman.org)

3. For nearly nine years, he remained incapacitated and bedridden in his home in Verulam, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, cared for by his family. (biharanjuman.org)

4. He died on 8 August 2005 of kidney failure, aged 87. (Al Jazeera)

Zakir Naik

1. In September 2025, rumours circulated on social media that Zakir Naik had been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. (https://www.oneindia.com/)

2. These rumours have been denied by Zakir Naik himself and by his legal representatives (e.g., his lawyer Akberdin Abdul Kadir), who called them false, malicious, and baseless. (Sinar Daily)

3. No credible medical documentation or reputable news source has confirmed the HIV/AIDS claims. Fact‐checkers have noted that the allegations are unverified. (https://www.oneindia.com/)

---

Claims & Rumours: Verification and Critique

Claim	Status
Deedat “never read the Bible” and only relied on atheist websites etc.	Unsubstantiated. There is no credible evidence that Deedat never studied major Christian sources; indeed, his books and debates show familiarity with Biblical texts. However, whether he read all scripture in its original languages or in full context is a matter of debate.
Deedat was “speechless” as divine retribution for mocking Scripture.	This is an interpretive or theological claim, not a documented fact. The medical cause of his paralysis and loss of speech is a stroke. Whether that is “punishment” is a religious interpretation.
Zakir Naik is battling HIV / AIDS.	Not verified. All credible sources (so far) indicate the rumours are false.
That both men “kept yapping” or “mocking Scripture” as an “Olympic sport.”	This is rhetorical, not academic. Whether Deedat/Naik’s approach counts as “mocking Scripture” depends on one’s perspective. Critics see their style as confrontational; supporters see them engaging in apologetics / polemics.

---

Theological Reflection

From a Christian theological perspective, some interpretive frameworks are at play:

• Divine retribution: Many religious traditions believe that mockery, contempt, or slander of holy texts can lead to divine discipline. One might see Deedat’s illness as fitting a pattern of “rebuke” or “consequence.” However, careful theological reflection requires caution: correlation does not prove causation. The Bible (e.g. Job; Ecclesiastes) warns against assuming every suffering is directly divine punishment.

• Free will, moral responsibility, and mercy: Even if someone engages in strong criticism of sacred texts, Christian theology generally allows for repentance, forgiveness, and God’s patience.

• Public claims and rhetoric: Public figures who engage in polemics often invite backlash. Part of responsible scholarship is to distinguish between what is factual (medical, historical) and what is “moral‐theological interpretation.”

---

Evaluation of Your Claim in Scholarly Terms

Your original text contains assertions that are:

• Partially true (e.g. Deedat’s paralysing stroke, inability to speak);

• Partially rumour (Zakir Naik HIV/AIDS claims);

• Partially interpretive (that these are divine punishments for mocking Scripture).

In academic work, you’d want to label claims clearly: “according to Islamic sources,” “according to Christian critics,” “rumours with no verification,” etc. Assertions about God’s will or “poetic justice” are theological opinions, and must be treated as such.

---

Conclusion

• Ahmed Deedat’s health decline and death are well‐documented: a stroke in 1996 left him paralyzed and unable to speak; he communicated via eye signals and eventually died in 2005.

• The claims about Zakir Naik having HIV/AIDS remain unverified and have been denied.

• The idea that these health issues are divine retribution is a theological interpretation, not an empirical conclusion.

• For those considering engaging in similar polemics or criticisms of Scripture, Christian tradition would urge humility, careful study of texts, awareness of the weight of claims, and caution in attributing suffering to divine punishment.

---

Suggested Bibliography

• Deedat, Ahmed. Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction? Durban, South Africa: Islamic Propagation Centre International.

• Deedat, Ahmed. What the Bible Says About Muhammad. Durban, 1985.

• Islamic Propagation Centre International (IPCI) website. “The Life of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat,” Al Jazeera. (Al Jazeera)

• “Remembering the life of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat,” Al Jazeera, 2005. (Al Jazeera)

• “Renowned scholar Ahmed Deedat dies,” Dawn (Pakistan), August 2005. (Dawn)

• Fact‐check articles refuting allegations about Zakir Naik’s health; e.g., Sinardaily, LatestLY, OneIndia. (Sinar Daily)

---