Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Mind Your Words Mr Zakir Naik!

I felt very sad after watching the video of Zakir Naik praising Yazid. In a response to the tragedy of Karbala, he concludes Karbala to be a mere political war and addresses Yazid as "Yazid [May Allah be pleased with him]." I got the news earlier but waited to see the video myself before arriving at any conclusion. I was a fan of Mr Naik but after this episode I really wonder whether he has any clue about the history of Islam and why Karbala happened.

I strongly condemn Mr Naik for his words and demand an apology from him!More...

Here's a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXyJvBhqg4o>
Naik on Yazid


When questioned about his stand, he has this to say -

Naik, who returned from Haj on Wednesday, conveyed his reaction through his brother Mohammed Naik: "At the peace conference, while replying to a question, I neither condemned nor lauded Yazid. I did say 'May Allah be pleased with him' while mentioning Yazid. I can show the fatwas from seminaries like Darul Uloom Deoband supporting my stand."

Weblink: Times of India
This 'fatwa' part of the statement really amuses me. I always thought of Mr Naik as a Islamic scholar of repute. What importance do these so called fatwas hold when the Qurán clearly says:

"If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."---Surah Nisa (Chapter 4), Verse 93

And I thought Mr Naik knows the Qurán by heart.

5 comments:

Mohamad said...

Good debate going on. By reading this debate we all can very easily understand why there are so many sects in Islam and why we dispute after having Quranic instruction.

Why we debate..what any sahaba did at karbala, what zakir said, What i say or you said..if Holy quran instructed us to choose the right path only.
One point is comman in these debates that all are agree”Imam husain (a.s) was on right path…..” and as per Quranic instruction we must follow him because he was on right path..

some participant defended yazeed that he was not at karbala…..yeh he is right but why they forget shimer was leader of yazeed’s army. shoe me if yazeed punished killers of imam husain (a.s)?

so islam is deen e ilahi..Islam is not our practices..

other thing i would like to point out that is Zakir Naik’s statement on Yazeed.
he is completely wrong where he said”A minority of the minority community i.e. the KSI (Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat) blew this issue ”
Majority of muslims raise this issue and now demanding zakir nair for clarification.those who read news knows what i said here is a truth.
Listed this debate to understand more “what is right or wrong”

http://www.al-emaan.org/ammar2008/night_10.ram
and these video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPxwsiZzRjA‘
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs8LAwTs9qM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBxc5-gBGFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZD0eukiT8E

It is an established fact based on Qur`an and Hadith that Yazid is an eternal dweller of Hell. Yazid will not be forgiven, because he … all » tortured the family of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw). He reviled Imam Hussain, whom loved both Allah and His Beloved Prophet (saw). So, by reviling Imam Hussain, Yazid reviled Allah and the Holy Prophet (saw).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7401061645451385887&hl=en
Reply from Maulana Zaki Baqri saheb.
http://alqaem.org/zakir.html

Anonymous said...

Complete Details of Zakir nair's statements and replies from mulim umaa.
http://alqaem.org/zakir.html

Sadiq Alam said...

thank you for bringing this topic to light.

coming from a sunni background, and reading some about shia, though i dont call myself neither sunni, nor shia, i am ashamed of some deliberated sunni stupdity. its an example of justthat.

Inam said...

Thanks Mohamad for the information.

Sadiq, what hurts most is when learned people like Mr Naik use the public platform to create such unwanted controversy. Anyways thanks for the acknowledgement.

Mohamad said...

Dr. Zakir Naik's outburst in appreciation of Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah has attracted reactions from many Islamic circles around the world. One of the responses is from a gentleman who has suggested that one should have GUTS to ask Dr. Naik directly by attending IRF centre where he answers questions. It is tantamount to saying that if anyone has objections to the US Administration's policies, he should have guts to attend the press conferences at the White House and ask the White House spokesman directly!

This is the era of electronic media which has dismantled all the barriers in communication lines. Dr. Naik's programmes are dished out to a wider audience around the world through TVs and websites. Is it feasible that his audience, spread locally and overseas, should attend in person at his centre in Mumbai and question him or pass comments against his answers? His organisation must shoulder its responsibilities by taking comments and questions from around the world through electronic media. As his financiers could well afford paying rent regularly for a huge auditorium and sponsoring him, they can surely afford to employ a few secretaries to handle the communication between him and his listeners.

In any case, why is Dr. Naik's brother an indispensable element in his Question and Answer sessions? It seems, the purpose for pre-selecting the questions is to pre-prepare the answers. Of course there is nothing wrong with this. But the problem arises when the questioner is barred from pursuing his enquiry further, which is done under the pretext that the time is over or that there are other questioners in the queue. This means that the enquirer is left with no other option but to nod and join the mob in clapping, whether he is satisfied or not. If what Dr. Naik is doing is "da'awah", then he should respond to the learned personalities, who have challenged him to select the time and place where he can face them in an open debate under the chairmanship of an impartial person.

On the one hand, these people exhort others to follow the Qur'an and authentic Hadith, and on the other hand, they pick and choose the Hadiths that comply with their political affiliations and orientations. Before his outburst in showering the pleasure of Allah for Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, Dr. Naik should have shown a basic intellectual honesty in consulting his own Sihah al-Sitta to find out how many Hadiths are there in favour of the members of the Household of the Prophet - Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussayn; and how many Hadiths are there against the enemies of Ahl-ul-Bayt. But such an effort would not have served his undeclared motives of promoting the thoughts of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab, whose allegiances for Mu'awiyah and Yazid against Imam Ali and Imam Hussayn are well documented in history.

A further sign of Dr. Naik’s hidden motives is his allegation (posted on Youtube) against whom he calls "grave worshippers". This is in line with what we normally hear in Friday sermons and the Khutbah of Arafat (like the one delivered this year), with malicious innuendos against those Muslims who believe in visiting the burial places of the purified members of Ahl-ul-Bayt. It seems, misrepresenting the beliefs of other Schools is the right they have bestowed upon themselves, and in the process, they think that only they are right and the rest of mankind is wrong.

In one of his sessions, Dr. Naik has come up with the defence of the indefensible. He supports the way Taliban terrorised the 2000-years old ancient heritage of Afghanistan by destroying the statues of Budha. He says that Taliban sought to teach a lesson to the Buddhists because Buddha had never told them to worship him. Again, true to his Salafi ideology, he puts words into the mouth of the Buddhists, irrespective of the fact that they have never claimed that they worship the statues of Buddha.

He draws a comparison between the Taliban and the Indian government who destroys narcotic drugs despite the fact that millions of people (the addicts) resent it. What a comparison?! Nevertheless, his audience did not contest his crippled logic. The destruction of the ancient heritage of Afghanistan was against the international law and that is why, there was an international outcry. Even Shaykh Yusuf al-Qardawi tried to persuade the Taliban to abandon their measures. Yet, Dr. Naik's mob digested the unjustified comparison. There is a world of difference between the two. The actions of Taliban were against the international law and the actions of the Indian government were in compliance with the international law.

But let us give the benefit of the doubt to Taliban and their ideologues and assume that there was a genuine fear that people might start worshipping the statues of Buddha. If so, then there must be some empirical or statistical evidence on which they and their supporters had relied to reach a conclusion that the statues of Buddha were a real threat to the concept of Tawhid (Oneness of God). Since the advent of Islam into Afghanistan fourteen centuries ago, how many Afghanis reverted to worship the statues of Buddha? If the answer is none, then the Taliban and their apologetic supporters are dwelling on a mere mental obsession.

In another Question and Answer session (posted on Youtube), Dr. Zakir Naik defends bin Laden! Even then, he was applauded by his mob. Since September 11, bin Laden has appeared in picture and sound in more than a dozen video/audio tapes on al-Jazeera TV and the website of the extremists, and has proudly glorified the suicide bombers of September 11, July 7, and the terror gangsters who kill innocent men, women and children in Iraq for the sake of power. On the destruction of Zarqawi, bin Laden did not have any sense of shame when he delivered a message of condolence to the Muslim ummah for his hero's death! He constantly appeals to the youths to join his terrorists in what he calls "jihad". Dr. Naik said that before accepting anything against bin Laden, we have to be certain. He said that if by fighting the terrorism of America, bin Laden is a terrorist, then all Muslims are terrorist! Bin Laden himself has not tried to conceal his crimes against innocent souls, and yet his apologetic supporters want to whitewash his black history, and call it "jihad".

Dr. Naik's sympathies with bin Laden compel him to admonish others to be certain before accusing him of any crimes. Therefore, his invoking Allah's pleasure for Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah should come as no surprise because his role models are of the same gene. When al-Qaeda was facing an immense pressure in Iraq, bin Laden's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri appeared in one of his tapes and declared that we love al-Hussayn bin Ali and had we been with him, we would have laid down our life by fighting alongside him! This was at the time when they were targeting the shrine of Imam Hussayn through several terrorist attacks and suicide bombings.

The entire world has observed that when a politician is murdered in cold-blood, the international community condemns the crime. Nobody sympathises with these criminals except the odd-men-out. At a time when a politician is killed unjustly, even his or her staunch enemies and opponents condemn the cowardly act of the terrorists. In this situation, if one dares invoking the pleasure of Allah on his or her murderers, this would be considered as violation of basic human etiquette. What if anybody invokes the pleasure of Allah for the most brutal murderer in history, who killed the progeny of their own Prophet? After fourteen hundred years, the Nasibis and Kharijis in the Muslim community are still engaged in mixing up truth with falsehood and they call it "da'awah". When the barrel of oil was $9, they could afford financing some extremist groups in Pakistan. Their victims were thousands of followers of Ahl-ul-Bayt who were killed in suicide bombings inside the mosques. Now the barrel of oil is $100. So there is an enormous potential to revive the malice against the followers of Ahl-ul-Bayt, initiated by Banu Umayyah.

In the era when Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were the role models, history of Arabia called the entire period, the age of Ignorance. When Mu'allafatil Quloob (those whose hearts were yet to be won for Islam) like, Abu Sufyan and Mu'awiyah were considered the role models, the roots of the Nasibis and the Kharijis threatened the very fabric of the Islamic society. But what lesson have they learnt from history? The history of oppression is being glorified. They have damaged their soul by considering the criminals, transgressors, oppressors and the enemies of Islam like, Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah and Saddam as their role models. However, Imam Hussayn himself has portrayed this situation beautifully in one of his traditions that, if one has lost all sense of shame and does not feel the presence of Allah, then let him say and do whatever he likes.