Conclusion: Dr. Naik takes it out of context, as usual.
"na tasya pratima asti" - "there is no image of Him". This is one of Dr. Naik's most repeated, and also the most misinterpreted, misrepresented, and misplaced vedic statements. This is a superficial translation of a text taken out of context. As an independent statement it may mean that, but it is not so. So my objection is not in how it is translated but how it has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by taking it out of context.
He accuses people of other religions of taking verses from Quran out of context but does the same when it comes to other religious texts. He fails to take the spirit of a verse or a concept and overly deals with the literal interpretations of the texts; but when it comes to Quran he extends ordinary Arabic words beyond what most Islamic scholars do. Anyway.
Here is my attempt at providing the context to it:
So, it is not the image that is being discussed here but the similitude, and there is no similitude with God in this material world.
The first argument goes like: some say that material knowledge [bodily consciousness; or so called 'scientific knowledge'] is superior to 'spiritual knowledge' while others claim that 'spiritual knowledge' is superior to 'material knowledge'. The conclusion is "avidyayA mrutyum teertva vidyayA amrutaM ashnute" [here, "vidya" is classified as "spiritual knowledge" (knowledge of the 'self') and 'avidya' as the 'material knowledge' (or 'nescience')] - that 'material knowledge' helps one to cross the ocean of the 'material world', and 'spiritual knowledge' helps one transcend death (enter immortality). So, both are to be pursued for their own reasons; i.e. neither is to be ignored.
Part 2 is here: http://gita-god-hinduism.blogspot.ca/2013/05/responses-to-dr-zakir-naik-part-2-gita.html