As-salamu alaykum. Zakir Naik is one of the most popular Islamic apologists in the world. Many Muslims revere him, and he is often cited against Christian apologists. Sadly, while he is well respected among Muslims, he has not earned this, as the overwhelming majority of what he says is provably untrue.
One example is his argument from the sign of Jonah. Citing Matthew 12:38-40, focusing specifically on verse 40, "...as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", Naik explains the story of Jonah in pretty much the same way a Christian might do so off the top of his head. But then, in his own words: "I'm asking a question, when Jonah was thrown overboard, was he dead or was he alive? Alive! The fish comes and swallows him, was he dead or alive? Alive! He says to Almighty God from the belly of the whale, was he dead or alive? Do dead men pray? Was he dead or alive? Alive! The whale takes Jonah 3 days and 3 nights in the ocean, dead or alive? Alive! Fish vomit him out on the seashore, was he dead or alive? Alive! Alive, alive, alive, alive. (...) Jesus said, peace be upon Him, as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights, so shall the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights. As Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the Earth. Jonah was alive. (...) I'm asking a question: Jonah was alive, Jesus, peace be upon Him, was dead. So was Jesus, peace be upon Him, alike or unlike Jonah? Like or unlike? Unlike!"
One thing that's interesting to note here is that not only does Naik misunderstand the sign of Jonah, but he may also misunderstand the story of Jonah. Was Jonah dead or alive? If you'd asked me this question 12 years ago, I may have said alive, but if you ask a Jew, he is likely to say dead. This is not without justification. Read the whole of Jonah 2:
"Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice. For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me. Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple. The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God. When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple. They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the Lord. And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land." (Emphasis added).
Now of course, it doesn't explicitly say Jonah died, but take a look at those phrases I highlighted. Do these sound like Jonah survived? That word "Hell", even in our language, refers to a land of the dead, bubt in the original Hebrew, the word is "Sheol", which refers to the still darkness experienced after death. Conscious enough to pray, yet apparently not present within his own body, Jonah appears to have died, and many Jews especially understand it that way.
This possibility alone topples Naik's entire argument, but even if we don't take the interpretation that Jonah did die within the fish, we can still show the folly of the nitpicking. See, analogies will never be perfect. If they were, they wouldn't be analogies, they'd just be descriptions. Perfection of comparison would be "just as the Son of man will spend 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the Earth, he will spend 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the Earth". But no, that's not what we have here.
See, in Jonah's account, there are actually two living beings involved: Jonah and the fish. Jonah's "tomb" was alive. Was Jesus' "whale"? The answer is no. And so how does Naik's comparison work? It doesn't. He is focusing on the wrong detail.
What makes this worse is that according to Islam, Naik's understanding of the events is also wrong. In Islam, Jesus did not survive the crucifixion, laying in a tomb on the edge of death, but He was never crucified at all, being spared by Allah. "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." (Qur'an 4:157, Sahih International).
It is often said that we should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, but I can't bring myself to imagine Zakir Naik is stupid. The argument we have looked at in this article, however, is. Thus, it would appear the respect many Muslims have for Zakir Naik is neither earned, nor returned. Jesus, however, does more than just respect Muslims. Jesus loves all Muslims, including Zakir Naik. That is why He spent 3 days dead in His tomb. He was not taken to Heaven by some trickster god, nor did He merely swoon on the cross. Rather, He hung there and died so that we, who are sinners, may be saved. Every lie Zakir Naik has ever told, every blasphemy Muslims have ever committed, was nailed to that cross. All we need to do as people is confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead. I pray one day, Zakir Naik will know the love of the Lord he currently denies, but even if he does not, I pray you will.