Dialogues, discussion and debates between other faiths and sects.
Ask Member
Ask Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 07 Feb 2005, 00:09
Location: dar es salaam,Tanzania.


Postby murtaza » 01 Jan 2008, 01:11

(This is an expository article. Therefore, you may like to read it in stages and not all in one go).

When Dr. Zakir Naik said publicly on Peace TV, "Yazid, may Allah be pleased with him", he meant exactly what he said. What was in his subconscious emerged on his tongue. In his speeches and Q&As posted on Youtube, he indulges into the Wahhabi indoctrinated rant against whom they brand as "grave worshippers" who seek the "intercession of the dead". They know very well that there are no Muslims who worship graves. What type of Da'awah (calling people towards the path of God) is this, where the Da'ee (the caller) resorts to misrepresenting the faith and beliefs of others because of political motives and rivalries?

The graduates from the School of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab have caused mayhem on international arena, with suicide bombings and indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women and children, including disabled and infants, all in the name of Jihad and Islam. One hardly hears a word of condemnation from the so-called Da'ees against the cowardly acts of the terrorists who committed the atrocities of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid bombing and the daily suicide bombings in Iraq, just because those who are massacred are not from their ilk. What one hears at the most on the pulpits, is half-hearted, illegible, face-saving, vague condemnation or sheer double talk. Is this behaviour of the scholars according to Islamic teachings?

In a question posed from the audience, shown on Peace TV, Dr. Naik claimed under flimsy excuses, that he is a "pakka Hanafi" and a "pakka Shafa'ee". In reply to another question he said, to divide oneself into Sunni or Shia is against the Quran. His Q&As (permanently chaired by none other than his own brother) did not get an opportunity to point out to him that if being divided into Sunni or Shia is against Islam, then there is no question of being Hanafi or Shafa'ee because both of them took pride in calling themselves Sunnis. These contradictory rhetoric can only work in an audience which is unaware, uninformed and cannot contest on the basis of knowledge.

Among the Sunnis, there are two major Schools in the IndoPak subcontinent. The Deobandis categorically undermine and neglect the role played by the noble progeny of the Prophet in reviving and protecting Islam and the Qur'anic knowledge. They are the IndoPak version of the Wahhabis who would rather blot all the Hadiths that have appeared in their own Sihah in favour of Ahl ul Bayt. But they refer to the Sihah (their six books of collection of Hadiths) by picking and choosing whatever suits their interest. Then there are the Brailvies, who are in vast majority, and they proclaim their love for Ahl ul Bayt (the family of the Prophet). They also curse publicly Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, the confirmed Nasibi (the enemy and dispiser of the Prophet's family). The best example can be seen and heard in the speeches of the celebrated Hanafi Sufi scholar, Professor Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri, who attracts four times as much crowd as Dr. Naik does.

When Dr. Naik said that the "war of Karbala" (it was a battle, not a war) was a political war and not for Islam, and that the best thing is to follow Islam and the example of Prophet Muhammad, he absolved his Caliph, Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, from every inhuman and barbaric atrocities he had committed against the innocent, pious, noblest, righteous men and the nearest and dearest members of the Prophet's family. If it has escaped the attention of any Da'ee that the Qur'an speaks in more than 500 verses against all types of oppression and oppressors, then this so-called Da'ee is spreading crippled and half-baked information about the Qur'an and Islam.

Islam has adopted an uncompromising attitude against the oppressors in favour of the oppressed. And what Dr. Naik did was to turn the tables in favour of Mu'awiyah and Yazid, according to the Sunnah of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Yazid, who was illegally imposed by his father as a hereditary ruler of the Muslims, against the teachings of the Qur'an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (saww), was a declared debaucherer, tyrant, atrocious man who had no religious scruples and had breached the religious morals publicly. Hence, by invoking the pleasure of God for Yazid, Dr. Naik in fact blasphemed the teachings of Islam. But the political motivation converts even the learned people into obstinacy.

Even the six books of Hadiths speak about the oppression and injustices of Banu Umayyah. The history, except the distorted version of the opportunists, who lived on the stipends of Banu Umayyah, are full of events portraying the evil of Banu Umayyah. Hence, when Dr. Naik calls for following the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (saww), has he himself understood what the teachings of the Prophet were? The Prophet had strictly prohibited mutilation of the dead bodies, even if they be the bodies of mad dogs. But his Caliph's forces trampled under the hooves of the horses, the corpses of the most pious and learned members of the Prophet's family. It cannot have escaped his attention that in the six collection of the Hadiths, many sayings of the Prophet have been narrated in favour of Imam Hassan and Imam Hussayn and Amirul Mo'mineen Ali ( a.s.). In contrast, how many Hadiths can the advocates of Wahhabism produce in favour of Yazid or his father? The answer is double zero.

When Dr. Naik talks about following the example of Prophet Muhammad, and then goes on to support what Yazid did, declaring Karbala to be a political "war" and not for religion, then he has blasphemed the Prophet. Yazid assembled the entire force of his evil empire to besiege the small entourage of 72, headed by the grandson of the Prophet, whom the Prophet himself loved very dearly. Yazid's forces on the orders from Yazid and Ibn Ziyad, kept them hungry and thirsty, and then massacred them in the most savage way imaginable. What type of Muslim can defend the killer of the family members of his own Prophet? What type of Muslim can find excuses for a Caliph who revived all the practices of Jahiliyyah (the Era of Ignorance) by captivating the ladies of the Prophet's family, severing the heads of the most righteous men and displaying them from one city to another? What type of Muslim can excuse the Caliph whose forces ripped apart the throat of an infant with an arrow over a demand to quench his thirst? No wonder they cannot see any evil and bestiality in the suicide bombings and massacre of innocent people.

Much more learned than Dr. Naik can ever be was Allamah Jalaluddin al-Sayyuti, a Sunni scholar, who was an exegete of the Qur'an, a historian and a jurist. in his Tarikh al-Khulafa (History of the Caliphs) he writes that two Companions of the Prophet created mischief in the affairs of the people: (i) Amr ibn al-Aas for raising the Qur'an on the lances and (ii) Mughira bin Shu'aba for advising Mu'awiyah to nominate his son Yazid to the Islamic Caliphate (p. 229). Al-Sayyuti also writes, "May Allah curse Ibn Ziyad and the murderers of Hussayn and Yazid also" (p. 231). He narrates that Nofal bin Abi Furat referred to Yazid in the presence of Umar bin Abdul Aziz as "Amirul Mo'mineen Yazid". Umar bin Abdul Aziz reacted by punishing him with 20 lashes (p. 232) for dignifying Yazid.

Al-Suyuti writes that in the year 63 H. Yazid was involved in sacking Madinat al-Rasool, in killing a generation of the Companions, and in desecrating and robbing Madinah. His troopers rapped 1000 virgin daughters of the Companions of the Prophet. Al-Suyuti continues that the Prophet had said, whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, upon him is the curse of Allah, that of His angels and that of all the people of the world, quoting Sahih Muslim. After creating carnage in Madinah in the incident of Harrah, the army of Yazid proceeded to Makkah to confront Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, a self-declared Caliph in Hijaz. In the process, they set fire to the holy Ka'aba (p. 232).

It follows that those who hold any grudge for the progeny of the Prophet, do not care at all about the sanctity of Makkah and Madinah either. Dr. Naik will be well advised to free his soul from prejudice and to read how some of the most learned personalities in history have assessed the battle of Karbala, between Hussayn - the product of the noblest blood in human existence - and Yazid, the product of Shajaratal Mal'oonah (the cursed tree, mentioned in the Qur'an). Dr. Naik could have referred to the unbiased views of his own national hero, Mahatma Ghandi, whose verdict on the battle Karbala is expressed eloquently. He wrote in 1924 in Young India: "I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind…I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of Hussayn, the regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission to save Islam." It seems, Mahatma Ghandi understood Islam better than these so-called Da'ees these days.

One of the most prominent Muslim saints in India, Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti says: Imam Hussayn gave his head, but did not put his hand into the hands of Yazid. Verily, Hussayn is the foundation of la ilaha illa Allah. Hussayn is the leader and the leader of the leader. Hussayn himself is Islam and the shield of Islam. He gave his head (for Islam) but never pledged to Yazid. Truly Hussayn is the founder of "La ilaha illa Allah" ("There is no God but Allah"). Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti further says: Hussayn is the Prince, Hussayn is the King; He is faith and faith's defender most daring; He preferred death to Yazid's allegiance; With his blood, Islam has verily been living.

Allama Muhammad Iqbal says: Hussayn uprooted despotism forever till the Day of Resurrection. He watered the dry garden of freedom with the surging wave of his blood, and indeed he awakened the sleeping Muslim nation. He depicts beautifully the status of Imam Hussayn in the sight of the true believers (not Munafiqeen): "Hussayn's unique position in the Muslim community is like the honoured place occupied by the verse Qul ho wa'Allah in the Qur'an; Moses and Pharoah, Hussayn and Yazid, they are but the conflicting forces of life". He continues in his poetry The secret of Karbala Event, "Truth survives and triumphs because of Hussayn. Falsehood is destined to meet with failure and grief."

Charles Dickens says: If Hussayn fought to quench his worldly desires, then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore, that he sacrificed purely for Islam. Thomas Carlyle writes: The best lesson which we get from the tragedy of Karbala is that Hussayn and his Companions were the rigid believers of God. They illustrated that numerical superiority does not count when it comes to truth and falsehood. The victory of Hussayn despite his minority marvels me.

Brown writes in A Literary History of Persia: As a reminder, the blood-stained field of Karbala where the grandson of the Apostle of God fell at length, tortured by thirst and surrounded by the bodies of his murdered kinsmen, has been at any time since then sufficient to evoke even in the most lukewarm and heedless, the deepest emotion, the most frantic grief and the exaltation of spirit before which pain, danger and death shrink to unconsidered trifles.

Dr. K. Sheldrake best summarises the after-effects of the supreme sacrifice. He writes: Hussayn marched with his little company not to glory, not to power or wealth, but to a supreme sacrifice and every member of that gallant band, male and female, knew that the foes were implacable, were not only ready to fight but to kill. Denied even water for the children, they remained parched under a burning sun, amid scorching sands yet no one faltered for a moment and bravely faced the greatest odds without flinching.

All the opportunism and distortion of truth will also melt away, and people will realise that siding with the tyrannical, oppressive rulers for whatever reasons, is nothing but a blasphemy against Islam and against the Prophet's teachings.

May the Prophet Muhammad (saww) accept this little contribution for unfolding the truth about the Nasibis.

User avatar
Ask Admin
Posts: 3664
Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 19:33
Location: Dar es Salaam


Postby abuali » 12 Jan 2008, 01:29

I have received several emails about the above issue.

Yesterday I managed to get a copy of a press release and a newspaper publication by the Khoja Shia Ithnasheri Jamaat of Mumbai condeming Dr. Naik for such utterances and demanding an apology to the Muslim ummah and the world.

Its really sad that a 'scholar' of Muslim (not a normal everyday average muslim) makes such utterances. Perhaps to keep things in perspective, it is maybe 100 times worse than calling Hitler a saint!
Ask Member
Ask Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 26 Aug 2007, 16:12


Postby smma59 » 16 Feb 2008, 22:06

Reply to Mr.Zakir nair posted From Hujatul islam Maulana Zaki Baqri
Know Zakir Nair by his Own lectures
Those who follow or praise Yazid are known as Kharijis and Shaykh-ul-Islam explains a tradition of Sahih Bukhari in detail that refers to Kharijis and how the Prophet SAW described them to be empty of Iman.

and many more on this Issue

Return to “Inter-religious Dialogue”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest