what muslims think about Zakir Naik? Fatwa against Zakir..

[shubhamgarg1993]

who is wrong Zakir Naik...... or the reknowned Muslim Federations..

A fatwa (edict) against well-known Islamic scholar Zakir Naik by a respected cleric here has divided the community.

The scholar has been charged with supporting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. The fatwa says his teachings are un-Islamic and contradict the Koran.

Lucknow’s shahar qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali described Naik as a kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.

“Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain,� Irfan told reporters. He said Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists.

Noted Shia cleric Kalbe Jawwad told DNA: “Naik is bringing a bad name to Muslims. Such people should be condemned and socially boycotted.� He said Naik was being financed by the Wahabi sect that allegedly perpetrates violence in the name of religion.

“There should be an inquiry into how he is running a TV channel on his own. Where is he getting the funds from?� Jawwad said.

“Naik has just mugged up some verses from the Koran and pretends to be an Islamic scholar,� Lucknow’s Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali said.

(FATWA: 1541/1322=B/1429)

THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DR ZAKIR NAIK INDICATE THAT HE IS A PREACHER OF GHAIR MUQALLIDIN, HE IS OF FREE MIND AND DOES NOT WEAR ISLAMIC DRESS. ONE SHOULD NOT RELY UPON HIS SPEECHES.
AND ALLAH (SUBHANA WA TA’ALA) KNOWS BEST
DARUL IFTA, DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND[/i]

[Murad]

“Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain,� Irfan told reporters. He said Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists.

That is the main reason why many muslims don't like him, expecially on how he praised Yazeed, no matter what sect(Sunni or Shia) that isn't considered a wise move, expecially when its done by someone influential as Naik.

Bad aspects aside, he is a very knowledgable Scholar, he memorized the Vedas, Bible & Quran. He is one of the best debaters when it comes to comparitive religion.

[PeterTyel]

who is wrong Zakir Naik...... or the reknowned Muslim Federations..

A fatwa (edict) against well-known Islamic scholar Zakir Naik by a respected cleric here has divided the community.

The scholar has been charged with supporting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. The fatwa says his teachings are un-Islamic and contradict the Koran.

Lucknow’s shahar qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali described Naik as a kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.

“Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain,� Irfan told reporters. He said Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists.

Noted Shia cleric Kalbe Jawwad told DNA: “Naik is bringing a bad name to Muslims. Such people should be condemned and socially boycotted.� He said Naik was being financed by the Wahabi sect that allegedly perpetrates violence in the name of religion.

“There should be an inquiry into how he is running a TV channel on his own. Where is he getting the funds from?� Jawwad said.

“Naik has just mugged up some verses from the Koran and pretends to be an Islamic scholar,� Lucknow’s Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali said.

(FATWA: 1541/1322=B/1429)

THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DR ZAKIR NAIK INDICATE THAT HE IS A PREACHER OF GHAIR MUQALLIDIN, HE IS OF FREE MIND AND DOES NOT WEAR ISLAMIC DRESS. ONE SHOULD NOT RELY UPON HIS SPEECHES.
AND ALLAH (SUBHANA WA TA’ALA) KNOWS BEST
DARUL IFTA, DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND[/i]

All these claims that about Dr. Zakir Naik is wrong, very very wrong. First he does not preach and support violence, and does not support Osama bin laden.. In fact he condems them all, he condems all types of terrorism.

See these video, where Dr. Zakir Naik in India preach to student from Oxford University in Britain. In this video he directly condems all types of terrorist and he explains why people are acusing him for being a supporter of terrorist.



Dr. Zakir Naik have NEVER ever preached agaisnt the Quran and Islam. He always gives refers to the Quran, The Bible, The Torah and all the other religoes scripture as the budhist and hindu scripter. He have momorized them all so have never made an argument without giving a reference... You or other calims that he has insulted Allah and Hussain by saying that Yazeed has killed Hussain, I challenge you to give me one evidence of you claim. Actually he says that the killing of Hussain can not be justifeid because nobody can prove that it was Yazeed that or any other human who have killed Hussain. He gives example with 9/11 where bush claims that Osama is behind 9/11 put has no prove. So it only aclaim, the same goes for Hussain and Yazeed, people claimed that Yazeed killed him but nobody can say it was him, because they dont have proof of it.

That he does not wear a islamic cloth does not make him less muslim? Dr. Zakir Naik have always a white clod/hat on his head like the prophet,. The people want him to wear the long white dress like other scholars, but this is nok obligatory for a muslim man. He kan wear jeans, white, black or another colurand t-shirt, but the hat is important because it is indifacition that he is muslim. People will notice him he is a mulsim.. but again every one can dress like the prophet and go around, but that does not make him more muslim than a guy who are wearing jeans and a shirt?... it is what the man are saying you should koncentrate about and not what he is wearing.. this is only a prove of a new propaganda against Dr. Zakir Naik.

Dr. Zakir Naik says also that muslims should not go around calling them selves Sunni, Shia, Habshi, Hanafi, Malaki etc. but only to call them selves Muslims and nothing else. So please try to study Dr. Zakir Naiks work instead of listening to punch of lies/propaganda.

[PeterTyel]

who is wrong Zakir Naik...... or the reknowned Muslim Federations..

A fatwa (edict) against well-known Islamic scholar Zakir Naik by a respected cleric here has divided the community.

The scholar has been charged with supporting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. The fatwa says his teachings are un-Islamic and contradict the Koran.

Lucknow’s shahar qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali described Naik as a kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.

“Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain,� Irfan told reporters. He said Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists.

Noted Shia cleric Kalbe Jawwad told DNA: “Naik is bringing a bad name to Muslims. Such people should be condemned and socially boycotted.� He said Naik was being financed by the Wahabi sect that allegedly perpetrates violence in the name of religion.

“There should be an inquiry into how he is running a TV channel on his own. Where is he getting the funds from?� Jawwad said.

“Naik has just mugged up some verses from the Koran and pretends to be an Islamic scholar,� Lucknow’s Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali said.

(FATWA: 1541/1322=B/1429)

THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DR ZAKIR NAIK INDICATE THAT HE IS A PREACHER OF GHAIR MUQALLIDIN, HE IS OF FREE MIND AND DOES NOT WEAR ISLAMIC DRESS. ONE SHOULD NOT RELY UPON HIS SPEECHES.
AND ALLAH (SUBHANA WA TA’ALA) KNOWS BEST
DARUL IFTA, DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND[/i]

All these claims that about Dr. Zakir Naik is wrong, very very wrong. First he does not preach and support violence, and does not support Osama bin laden.. In fact he condems them all, he condems all types of terrorism.

See these video, where Dr. Zakir Naik in India preach to student from Oxford University in Britain. In this video he directly condems all types of terrorist and he explains why people are acusing him for being a supporter of terrorist.



Dr. Zakir Naik have NEVER ever preached agaisnt the Quran and Islam. He always gives refers to the Quran, The Bible, The Torah and all the other religoes scripture as the budhist and hindu scripter. He have momorized them all so have never made an argument without giving a reference... You or other calims that he has insulted Allah and Hussain by saying that Yazeed has killed Hussain, I challenge you to give me one evidence of you claim. Actually he says that the killing of Hussain can not be justifeid because nobody can prove that it was Yazeed that or any other human who have killed Hussain. He gives example with 9/11 where bush claims that Osama is behind 9/11 put has no prove. So it only aclaim, the same goes for Hussain and Yazeed, people claimed that Yazeed killed him but nobody can say it was him, because they dont have proof of it.

That he does not wear a islamic cloth does not make him less muslim? Dr. Zakir Naik have always a white clod/hat on his head like the prophet,. The people want him to wear the long white dress like other scholars, but this is nok obligatory for a muslim man. He kan wear jeans, white, black or another colurand t-shirt, but the hat is important because it is indifacition that he is muslim. People will notice him he is a mulsim.. but again every one can dress like the prophet and go around, but that does not make him more muslim than a guy who are wearing jeans and a shirt?... it is what the man are saying you should koncentrate about and not what he is wearing.. this is only a prove of a new propaganda against Dr. Zakir Naik.

Dr. Zakir Naik says also that muslims should not go around calling them selves Sunni, Shia, Habshi, Hanafi, Malaki etc. but only to call them selves Muslims and nothing else. So please try to study Dr. Zakir Naiks work instead of listening to punch of lies/propaganda.

[Darias]

Well I'm not surprised, being that suicide is believed to endanger the eternal soul, and being that private citizens cannot declare lesser jihad (just war), only states can do this, and being that just war forbids the killing of non-combatants -- of course terrorism is un-Islamic in every possible sense.

I personally don't know the man, but if he does preach and support things which are contrary to Islam, then the fatwa is fair.

However, if he is being falsely accused because he happens to be unorthodox in his teachings, as PeterTyel pointed out (Not using labels of Sunni and Shi'i) it might not be fair and the fatwa might just be political for some reason.


However, as an American I take offense that Dr. Zakir Naik would deny the reality of 9/11 and who perpetrated it.

If a Christian in my country is a terrorist, he's a terrorist; I see no point in apologizing for it. So Dr. Naik should realize that Osama committed harb agaisnt innocents and his followers have killed more Muslims than non-believers like myself.

[PeterTyel]

However, as an American I take offense that Dr. Zakir Naik would deny the reality of 9/11 and who perpetrated it.

If a Christian in my country is a terrorist, he's a terrorist; I see no point in apologizing for it. So Dr. Naik should realize that Osama committed harb agaisnt innocents and his followers have killed more Muslims than non-believers like myself.

He does not say that Osama was behind all those terrorist attacks, neither that Osama was behind all those terrorist attacks incl. 9/11. because no one can prove that he did it. Osama has never said it himself. But he condems them. He says if Osama bin Laden was behind all those then he condems him

It is the exact same thing with Hussain and Yazeed. People accused that Yazeed killed Hussain, but no one could or have not proved that it was Yazeed. So he says that you cannot accuse him if you can't prove it. The same thing with Osama and 9/11.

[PeterTyel]

By the way the term Jihad is a misunderstood term.

First it does not mean Holy war. You can't translate Jihad to Holy war. Jihad means a person who struggle/fight against the bad things that in our hearts, like Jalousi,envy, arrogance etc. ... if you take Holy War and translated it to arabic you would not get the word Jihad, but Harab Muqadasa.. Harab = War, Muqadasa = Holy.

What Osama bin Laden has done is not considered Jihad, by an islamic point of view.. but by the medias point of view.

What Osama bin laden did is considered killing/murdering innocent people, by Islams point of view.

Osama attacked USA/The West because he accused them for trying to make the arabic world/middle east like the west, so he attacked. What he should have done was trying to fight the evil inside him, and help others to. The West cannot make the arab world like the west if the muslims does not want to. So the problem that muslims are being like the western is not the western fault, it is them selves, therefore they should try to make real jihad, and fight against the western ideology by practise islam more.. example pray more, listen more to quran, hadith etc. etc.etc.

[Darias]

By the way the term Jihad is a misunderstood term.

First it does not mean Holy war. You can't translate Jihad to Holy war. Jihad means a person who struggle/fight against the bad things that in our hearts, like Jalousi,envy, arrogance etc. ... if you take Holy War and translated it to arabic you would not get the word Jihad, but Harab Muqadasa.. Harab = War, Muqadasa = Holy.

What Osama bin Laden has done is not considered Jihad, by an islamic point of view.. but by the medias point of view.

What Osama bin laden did is considered killing/murdering innocent people, by Islams point of view.

Osama attacked USA/The West because he accused them for trying to make the arabic world/middle east like the west, so he attacked. What he should have done was trying to fight the evil inside him, and help others to. The West cannot make the arab world like the west if the muslims does not want to. So the problem that muslims are being like the western is not the western fault, it is them selves, therefore they should try to make real jihad, and fight against the western ideology by practise islam more.. example pray more, listen more to quran, hadith etc. etc.etc.

Muhammad said he had returned from the lesser jihad (the physical struggle on the battlefield) to face the greater jihad(a spiritual struggle of the heart and soul). Jihad means struggle, and normally refers to spiritual struggle. But when it comes to lesser jihad, I've heard this term being equated to Just War Theory. Christianity also has this just war theory as well.

Terrorists use the term to justify violence against civilians but they misuse the term entirely. Osama and his followers considered their actions as being "jihad" but technically it wasn't that at all.

Osama admitted to attacking the towers: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/bin ... 29-04.html There is no "if." To put this in a perspective that you would understand, claiming that "it is unprovable" is as offensive to the world as someone claiming that Muhammad invented the Qur'an because there's no proof God revealed anything to him.

Yet that's not really a fair comparison because one is a religious belief, the other is based upon evidence. Osama attacked the United States; he admitted attacking. He did it. That's it.

But Osama did not attack the United States because we are "Western." He did not attack us because of our freedoms, ideals, or religious beliefs.

Osama's chief reason for attacking was because of American intervention in Lebanon and American presence on Saudi soil. America's foreign policy has caused a lot of hatred for Americans and the West in the Muslim world.

I for one do not believe that Western culture is necessarily an enemy of Islam. The idea that "my community will not agree upon an error" and other things suggest that there is a religious argument for democracy.

The way one dresses is not as important as the way one acts. Hijabs in Egypt for example are now much popular than they historically were among Muslim women. In Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, those things are not negotiable. But it all depends upon interpretation.

Women can't vote or drive in Saudi Arabia -- how would being allowed to do those things be against Islam? Where is the evidence that they would all become whores, as Saudi politicians claim?

You may equate the West with evil, but that is as simplistic as what Americans do when they think of all Muslims as terrorists.

[PeterTyel]

Muhammad said he had returned from the lesser jihad (the physical struggle on the battlefield) to face the greater jihad(a spiritual struggle of the heart and soul). Jihad means struggle, and normally refers to spiritual struggle. But when it comes to lesser jihad, I've heard this term being equated to Just War Theory.

Yes, that is correct, but that does not mean that Jihad means "holy war".

Osama admitted to attacking the towers: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/bin ... 29-04.html There is no "if." To put this in a perspective that you would understand, claiming that "it is unprovable" is as offensive to the world as someone claiming that Muhammad invented the Qur'an because there's no proof God revealed anything to him

Yes but this article from CNN, which has its info from AL JAZERA .. it says;

"In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

...........

But Osama did not attack the United States because we are "Western." He did not attack us because of our freedoms, ideals, or religious beliefs.

Osama's chief reason for attacking was because of American intervention in Lebanon and American presence on Saudi soil. America's foreign policy has caused a lot of hatred for Americans and the West in the Muslim world

I agree with you. But Osama should then attack the USA military in Libanon. And the american they made a deal with the Saudi king about the oil, her it is not USA that is the enemy, but the Saudi king for selling Oil to the USA. So Osama should have "attacked" the saudi king with political movements like demonstration etc. and not kill innocent people.

.....

For one do not believe that Western culture is necessarily an enemy of Islam. The idea that "my community will not agree upon an error" and other things suggest that there is a religious argument for democracy.

I did not say that, but Osama and others scholars says it, not me. I personaly mean that in some issues you could join west with islam, in other you can't. So we should look on those things that we have incomen instead of those that we don't have incomen.

You give som examples with Saudi and Egypt. You see their no country today that is following its teaching of Islam, no one. Not Saudi, not Iran, not Palestine, no one. So the issue of women not allowed to drive in Saudi is not an Islamic rule, but a Saudi Arabic rule.

[PeterTyel]

Reference to the quote from the article from CNN;/
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/i ... den.denial