FOLLOW US:

Books and Documents
49 - COMMENTS
  • Dear Brother Aamir Mughal , Assalam-o-Alaikum, I salute your knowledge and skills in which you have debated with SAF RIZVI. The paras of your debate are worth studying. I don't know about the others but it really enlightened my knowledge. Whats more interesting that you proved him wrong through his reference books only and its an eye opener. It is quite evident that the rivalry between Banu Ummaiya and Banu Hasim was not much at that time as it is being showed now otherwise the marriages would not had taken place between the two.
    Whats more surprising for me that these followers of Abdullah Ibn' Sabaa by habbit of their cursing(Nauzubillah) they have reached upto the level where they now have started to curse even Allah Subhanuhu Ta'alaa'.So, its better to avoid them till they repent.
    You have explained each and every thing quite patiently and in an elaborated manner so that when he didn't find any reason to doubt you he started saying you Mr.Cut and paste as though he was saying all the things from his memory then why is he crying here he can go in any of the debates of Dr.Zakir Nayek and can challenge him. It is nothing but their usual tactics of defaming any person they even didn't spare Hazrat Hasan (Rz) when he signed the treaty with Hazrat Ameer Ma'aviya (Rz) the started calling him "AARUL-MOUMINEEN" (shame of Momins) instead of saying him "AMIRUL-MOUMINEEN" which they earlier called him.
    You have demolished their entire castle based upon TAQIYA only one brick is left which is their Imaams. Although they claim to be true Ahle B'ait (due to their relationship with Hazrate Fatmatuzzohra(Rz)but their Imaams find its out dated. Therefore they left no stone un-turned to discard their relationship with Ba'ate Nabee and established their relations with slave girls:
    1. Zainul Aabedin  S/o - Shar Banu (Irani slave)
    2. Musa Kazim S/o - Haeeda Barbariya (Slave)
    3.Ali Bin Musa Raza S/o - Taktum or Arvi(Slave)
    4.Imam Taqui S/o- Sabika or Khaizraan (Slave)
    5.Imam Ali Naqi S/o-Samana Maghrabia(Slave)
    6.Imam Hasan Askari S/o- Hadis or Saleel(Slave)
    7.Imamul Asr S/o- (Slave)
    This contradicts their entire faith because the purity of Ahle bait is lost and they are not pure as they claim. It also shows their Imams preferred even slave mushrik girls over the girls of Ahl' bait. Then how do they claim that on the day of judgement Allah Subhanuhu Ta'ala will prefer them over other umma.
    Any how brother I admire the way you have debated. May Allah enhance your knowledge as well as mine and Give the Hidaya to all...........Aameen By nehal - 9/11/2012 3:58:27 PM
  • Dear Mr. Ashike Rasul (Aashique Rasul), The most humbly i can say that you are nothing but a dumb. Its evident from your post that you don't even know the basics of Islam but have the guts to challenge the history of 1400 years.
    1.Do you know how to pronounce/ write Aashique Rasool?
    2. Do you know where Rahmatullah Alai. is to be used. please don't take the references from those who have been born to curse.
    3. Please give the reference of your statement as where it is mentioned that "without muhammad(SAW) and ale rasul No body can get jannat"
    4. Its surprising that on one hand you claim to be Aashique Rasool(SAW) and  on the other hand you didn't even mention  Sallallaho- Alaihe-Wasallam or SAW in short after the name of our beloved Prophet (SAW) thereby rejecting Prophet's (saw) statement and disrespecting our Prophet(SAW). Therefore you are not an Aashique Rasool rather Gustakhe Rasool or in your words Munafiq. By nehal - 9/11/2012 2:20:44 PM
  • Comments from Dr. Zakir Naik.


    “The Quran says it is important to crosscheck all information,” Dr Naik countered. “I would say the person who destroyed the Twin Towers in New York was a terrorist. But did Osama? I don’t know. I don’t know if he is good or bad.”

    “He has repeatedly said that Muslims should not in their prayers seek favours from the Prophet, but only from Allah himself,”

    “I don’t know why I’m being singled out,” Dr Naik told HT. “Hundreds of scholars across the world have said the same things I have.”

    “The Prophet has said, ‘If you praise someone who does not deserve praise, no matter; but if you curse someone who should not be cursed, the curse comes back to you’,” responded Dr Naik.  “Thus I preferred not to curse anyone, not even Yazid.”

    By Saeed -
  • Assalam o Alaikum to all

     I've read a bit above and was surprised to know that you all are wasting your time and arguing for one individual Dr. Zakir Naik.

    I agree that he's intelligent and a good presenter yet to me he's not the one who has sound knowledge of Sharia. We must appreciate his efforts to bring enlightenment among Hindus and christians about Islam yet his remarks about Yazeed, Osama, Sufism etc are so shameful.

    He is the one who is just propagating Wahabism and nothing else within Muslims. It is not Naik but the Saudi and Yazeedi thinking. He's getting million of dollars from Saudi Arabia to spread this division..... and it is clear that Saudis bear American Islam among Muslim world -- in other words Jewish !!!

    Naik's own sister is Shia and living abroad.

    We must have sound knowledge and educate our coming generations.

     Assalam

    Hyder

    By Hyder -
  • From: Susqueh@aol.com <Susqueh@aol.com

    Subject: The Fight over the Meaning of Islam, NewAgeIslam.Com - 18 Dec, 2008

    To: dnkashyap@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 8:18 PM

    Is this the one you wanted? In a message dated 12/21/2008 4:47:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

    dnkashyap@yahoo.com writes:

    u  and janab dr zakir adaab. This must be my 7th latter to u with no response as yet. For a man with I.Q of 800 who dares the whole man kind to question ur knowledge. It looks u have only nookish knowledge but no wisdom. So let me repeat my qs to u with a copy to my Islamic frnds as well. 1) On terrorism. u said i am a fundamentalist  follower of Islam, and each fundamental follower of Islam should be a  terrorist, elaborating it with 2 examples i.e. he should be a terrorist to all  anti social elements like a police man. my ans was not even the worst killer  rapist etc will feel terror seeing a policeman, he will have a fear y, because  he knows that the policeman can arrest him, at best can kill him in an  encounter, but will not, repeat will not kill his innocent wife, amd children.  The terror comes when u feel that he will kill innocent people. No ans.1. a) ur 2nd argument was Gandhi was a freedom fighter to us but was a terrorist to British govt. u fallowed it with another example of Mandela who won noble prize for peace was considered a terrorist by the apartheid govt of S.A. told u here also u are wrong neither British govt nor apartheid govt of S.A considered them as terrorist because they knew when in power none of them will kill brutally the innocent people (like their family) there is a world of deference between terror and fear. Look into oxford dictionary. now that I can neither visit ur site not ur channel is aired so I do not know whether u have submitted a public apology or not, some one tells me that u have revised on Gandhi and have the offender to revise it by saying that radical members of freedom fighter were considered as terrorist by British govt. if so let me remind u that even the most passionate freedom fight will attach innocent people like women, and children, he may kill a tyrant ruler. Whom u is trying to deceive with such statements u urself?2) U said where few ulammas agreed with u that qoran-a-pak prohibited a Muslim to bow before any one other then Allah, hence Muslims can not sing bande matram. It is such a preposterous statement that I should believe that that a man of ur 600 I.Q will say so. Because even I a moron can say that this statement is absurd. I am quoting 5 different thing where u/any member of Islamic faith now.1A) go to hazt ali and see for urself'2a) during urs not only they bow mazar but bow even to theholy chadder that will be put to mazar.3a)  when u entered a court of a nawab/king u bow to him.4a) when a player wins or when he is playing tycavendo he has to bow to receive his medal of honour.5a) I don’t know if u are western enough to greet ur parents, of that matter any elder with hai, hai, or with a salaam. if  u do hai hai can not argue but if say slam as any normal Muslim will do this  when u take ur hand up to touch the head, ur head will come dawn even if a  minuscule. i can quote 1 more but that will hurt ur  sentiment, and my religion prohibits me. i can not stoop to ur heights to hurt  others faith as u do by taking Jesus/Christianity apart brick by brick. I believe the faith comes from heart not from head, and if u hurt some ones faith u kill him thousand times in one life. If u recall when u said u are a fundamental fallowed of Islamic faith. I replied i am also a fundamentalist of humanity as religion. Mark the difference between faith, and religion. There can be no other religion other then humanity, rest are all faiths, the moment u convert the faith into religion then u will impose ur faith on others, that is where the fight begins. The faiths were created by man, and the basic reason to create the faith was only 1 i.e. to stand together to face the tyranny of greedy, and lustful people. Jesus didit, so did Prophet Mohammad, only their approach was different. U is scholar so u must have read allama iqbal, and he said MAZHAB NAHIN SIKHATA APUS MAY BAIR RAKHNA HINDI HAI HUM VATAN HAI HIBUSTAN HAMARA. WHILE U ARE PRECHING HATERED AT THE TOP OF UR VOICE OVER PEACE T.V i am not a lawyer and do not know if u can be prosecuted for fanning hatred to propagate ur faith. But this is a food for thought for all. i know Dr Naik will not accept my challenge, as he has  not done till now, but request the members of new Islamic age to send me their  reaction. I may be absurdly wrong but will correct my perception if u tells me where I am wrong.

    By Susqueh -
  • A systematic disinformation campaign is going on here on the web site by certain elements, who are averse to the speeches of Dr. Zakir Naik. To clear the clouds surrounding him, let me introduce that I am  notin awe of Dr. Zakir Naik nor do I approve of what all he said or doing. Yet as is required of a true Muslim, I respect this genius in Dr. Zakir Naik, who is no doubt a scholar among the scholars, a rare breed among the Muslims. The rest are just hypocrites. Ignorance about the Islamic history led many like Rizvi and others to lambast Dr. Zakir Naik for his comments on Yazid RA. No doubt majority of the critics were either shias or worshippers of graves. I for one who stand for liberal views on Islam. I feel still as a Political Scientist and Columnist myself, I see no reason to get agitated over his remarks on Yazid RA. What he said was reiteration of history and what is due to Yazid, who was sinned more than sinning.

    Perhaps, Dr. Zakir Naik has not properly explained his points of view on Yazid RA or the people have not properly read his full text of speech, he purported to have delivered in Italy and elsewhere in India. To me Dr. Zakir was the second person after me to hold the same opinion of Caliph Yazid RA, as the most successful commander of the first Islamic Naval force that attacked Constantinopole (now Istanbul) which according to various Hadees, was foreseen by Prophet Mohammed PBUH and gave the tidings that whoever participate in that naval battle, he will be rewarded with a place in Jannat. Incidentally, even Imam Hussein was part of that Naval force with so many great sahabis of the time, best known being Abu Ayub Ansari RA, the host of Prophet PBUH, for he participated for he heard the same tidings from the mouth of Prophet PBUH. Such a great commander who later partook in many a battle against Kafirs in many countries, was unnecessarily maligned by the Shias to divide Islam. The type of Islam practiced by shias and their sub-sects like Khomeni of Iran, Khojas, Bohras, Memons, etc., has no sanction in Quran or Hadees. The Shia according to their moulvis, is a religion when they call "Shia mazhab jabaja". It is not tatal Islam as was preached by Prophet Mohammed PBUH. It cannot be Islam also because their prayers are diferent, they have no Imam to lead the prayers, and every thing they do has not relevance to what Sunnis, the real Muslims, practice. Naturally, the shias find Yazid RA a convenient tool to strike at Sunnis claling him drunkard, womaniser, nawozubillah and what not. It was not an attack on Yazid alone but intended on Sunnis as a whole, for they think Sunnis were responsible for the killing of Imam Hussein, in Karbala. But as a matter of fact, Imam Hussein was not killed by Sunnis as alleged but by the rebel who accompanied him to Karbala, and killed him in the skirmishes that erupted on 10th day of Moharram at Karbala. These shias under the influence of their leader Abdullah ibne Saba, created a deep fissure in the Islamic rank and file. The Ibne Saba was the same person who engineered revolt against Hazrat Usman RA and eventually killed him and installed Ali RA as the fourth Caliph. His party was responsible later for the killing of Hazrat Ali RA also and then moved to Iraq and Iran where they consolidated as Shias. This is pure history and what is wrong when Dr. Zakir Naik said the truth and called rightly Yazid RA.

    What is further wrong if Dr. Zakir Naik had said that we must seek guidance and help from Allah only. It is ordained in Quran and Hadees. One day a group of Sahabis went to Prophet Mohammed PBUH and asked him as to how to ask help from God; whether by shouting aloud or by murmur? Then a message (Wahi) came from Allah and the Arch-Angel Gabriel recited this: "Wa Iza Salaka Ibadi anni, faanni khareeb, mujibu dawatadai falyestajibu li" meaning, Tell my believer who ask about me that I am (Allah) very near to them and I hear whatever they say how ever they". This puts an end to it that one must ask for help only from Allah and no one else. But it is a different matter of visiting the graves of sufi saints which is not totally prohibited in Islam but asking help from them is wrong. That is why these friends of Allah can be visited and prayed and there is nothing wrong in it. The Wahhabis do not approve such visits for they fear that innocent people may make it a place of worship and started asking for help from them. This is what exactly the Wahhabis wanted to convey and Dr. Zakir Naik said this exactly. There is nothing wrong in it. I go and visit the Wali Allah and sit at their graves and pray. I respect those saints and sufis of Islam for they were the friends of Allah and they are truly alive in their graves. How they are alive and how they are fed it is not within our knowledge but Allah. Certain things which cannot understand must leave it untouched to Allah. Neither Zakir Naik was wrong nor Iam wrong nor Wahhabis are wrong as long as they do not harm the religion. This is the stern message I wish to convey to one and all.

    By A.M.Jamsheed Basha, Chennai, India. -
  • Assalam Alaikum
    see, we should try to speak jamsheed Basha rahmatullah alaih and also with Zakir

    Rahmatullah Alai.
    Because both are more genius than whole history of Muslims And Islam. After

    1400 yrs, yazid is proved radiallaallahu anhu, and great gentleman of Islamic

    history. maqasid of Zakir is Prooved.
    But I wanted to Say if munafiqin who in islam are alots but no benfit because

    without muhammad and ale rasul No body can get jannat. which knows all

    muslims in whole world, but it is matter of fact somebody always ready for

    tauhine rasul like denmark, Zakir naik, Basha, and alots of people of world

    especily muslims.
    Dua for me

    By Ashike Rasul -
  •  RE:Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    A different face of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    They are basically cheats and fraud - Part 2.

    Pakistani perpetrated Psychological Warfare in Kashmir has badly damaged legitimate political cause of Kashmiris. One wonders as to what the Brother of Hafiz Saeed [Chief of an Anti Indian Jihadi Org worked and kept active under the very nose of Pakistan Army (Coalition of the Willing under USA) from 1999-to date] was doing in the USA? How the hell he reached to the USA?

    Read..
     
    Pakistani imam may be deported

    * US judge says Muhammad Masood lied to obtain Green Card

    By Khalid Hasan

    WASHINGTON: A United States federal judge said on Thursday that the admission by a Pakistani imam that he had lied repeatedly to obtain a green card could lead to his deportation. Under a tentative deal disclosed at a hearing in which Imam Muhammad Masood changed his plea to guilty, the former prayer leader of the Islamic Centre of New England, would be spared imprisonment, but he would have to serve three years on probation and pay a $1,000 fine. US District Judge Douglas P Woodlock said that he would decide at Masood’s sentencing on May 22 whether to accept the agreement or hand down a different punishment for five federal crimes of making false statements and committing fraud in an immigration application.

    “Regardless of the sentence, Masood’s guilty plea could lead to the expulsion of the 49-year-old imam, the judge said. Before Masood was indicted last August, he faced civil immigration charges, including overstaying his visa,” reported the Boston Globe. Masood is the brother of Hafiz Saeed, founder of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. He has said that he has nothing to do with his brother, nor does he share his outlook on religion and politics. Masood came to the United States in 1987 under a special visa for exchange students and enrolled at Vanderbilt University, transferring to Boston University the following year. He became the imam of the Sharon mosque around 1998. In December 2002, Masood admitted, he falsely told authorities in an application for permanent legal residency that he returned to Pakistan from 1991 to 1993 after ending his studies. Immigrants with the kind of visa Masood had are required to return to their country for two years before they can seek a green card. Masood faces a maximum of 10 years in prison on three of the federal charges and a maximum of five years in prison on the other two charges. The plea deal calls for the dismissal of four other federal charges.

    Saturday, March 01, 2008

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C03%5C01%5Cstory_1-3-2008_pg7_17

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • RE:Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    A different face of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    They are basically cheats and fraud.


    http://www.jamatuddawa.org/data1/taqreer/conference/14aug08/dpc14aug0832k.wma.


    [Ex-generals’ wisdom [Daily Dawn Editorial February 07, 2008] Read: http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/07/ed.htm

    Read about the cheat brother of the so-called Jihadi Hafiz Saeed of Jamat Dawaah.

    Pakistani imam may be deported

    * US judge says Muhammad Masood lied to obtain Green Card

    By Khalid Hasan

    WASHINGTON: A United States federal judge said on Thursday that the admission by a Pakistani imam that he had lied repeatedly to obtain a green card could lead to his deportation. Under a tentative deal disclosed at a hearing in which Imam Muhammad Masood changed his plea to guilty, the former prayer leader of the Islamic Centre of New England, would be spared imprisonment, but he would have to serve three years on probation and pay a $1,000 fine. US District Judge Douglas P Woodlock said that he would decide at Masood’s sentencing on May 22 whether to accept the agreement or hand down a different punishment for five federal crimes of making false statements and committing fraud in an immigration application. “Regardless of the sentence, Masood’s guilty plea could lead to the expulsion of the 49-year-old imam, the judge said. Before Masood was indicted last August, he faced civil immigration charges, including overstaying his visa,” reported the Boston Globe. Masood is the brother of Hafiz Saeed, founder of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. He has said that he has nothing to do with his brother, nor does he share his outlook on religion and politics.

    Masood came to the United States in 1987 under a special visa for exchange students and enrolled at Vanderbilt University, transferring to Boston University the following year. He became the imam of the Sharon mosque around 1998. In December 2002, Masood admitted, he falsely told authorities in an application for permanent legal residency that he returned to Pakistan from 1991 to 1993 after ending his studies. Immigrants with the kind of visa Masood had are required to return to their country for two years before they can seek a green card. Masood faces a maximum of 10 years in prison on three of the federal charges and a maximum of five years in prison on the other two charges. The plea deal calls for the dismissal of four other federal charges.

    Saturday, March 01, 2008

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\03\01\story_1-3-2008_pg7_17


    Taking Osama's name in vain By Syed Saleem Shahzad

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA27Df02.html

    KARACHI - Just as the mention of a book by Osama bin Laden can send it hurtling up the best-seller list, so the name of the al-Qaeda leader can be manipulated by jihadis to serve their cause.  Sales of Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by former US State Department employee William Blum rocketed from obscurity to the top 20 on Amazon's top-seller list after bin Laden praised it in a video aired on Al-Jazeera television network this month.  Similarly, the banned Pakistan-based jihadi group Laskar-e-Toiba (LeT), or Jamaatut Dawa as it is now known, unashamedly exploits bin Laden's name to gain popularity among the masses, even though the group has very strained ties with al-Qaeda, while denouncing him to win support from mentors.

    "Osama is a hero" is the motto the LeT spreads in Punjabi to draw in fresh recruits for its jihad in Indian-administered Kashmir, where it concentrates its activities.  "Osama is a deviant" is the Arabic phrase the LeT uses to solicit patronage and funds from Saudi Arabia, where Saudi-born bin Laden rejects the current leadership. The LeT, whose name means Soldiers of the Pure, is uniquely focused. On the one hand it operates against Indian rule in Kashmir, on the other it bans its members from joining the jihad in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area (against the Pakistani army) and from taking part in the Taliban-led Afghan resistance. The LeT has been blamed for a number of attacks beyond Kashmir, the most recent being in the technology hub, Bangalore. In 2000, it carried out audacious armed attacks inside the Red Fort in Delhi.

    The LeT apparently does not want to dilute its goal, described in a pamphlet titled "Why Are We Waging Jihad?" as the restoration of Islamic rule in India, by waging jihad anywhere else.

    Ratting on al-Qaeda

    Soon after September 11, 2001, a top al-Qaeda operator, Abu Zubaida, came to Pakistan and handed over a sum of money to Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, then chief of the LeT and now head of the Jamaatut Dawam, into which the LeT evolved after being banned, along with other Islamic groups, in January 2002 under US pressure.  According to sources in the LeT, the amount of money was US$100,000, which was to be used to take care of Arab jihadis and their families displaced from Afghanistan by the US-led invasion of 2001.  The LeT was the only organization in Pakistan the Arabs from Afghanistan would deal with. There were a number of reasons for this, apart from both having Salafi backgrounds, the most important being ties established during the Afghan resistance against the Soviets in the 1980s.  So the LeT organized temporary housing for many Arab families after the fall of Kabul and Kandahar. The next step was to arrange forged travel documents and air tickets.  But Hafiz, and the money, were not forthcoming. Abu Zubaida, who was living in a safe house of the LeT in Faisalabad, traveled to Lahore to speak to Hafiz, who complained he did not have enough money to help the Arabs.

    Abu Zubaida was incensed, and returned to his safe house. A few days later the house was raided and he was arrested.  These events are part of jihadi folklore. However, what is new is added by a source who left the Pakistani army to join the LeT, with which he soon became disillusioned and left for Africa to become a businessman. "Abu Jabran was the chief bodyguard of Abu Zubaida. He was also arrested along with Abu Zubaida. The logical conclusion is that he should be in Camp X-Ray," the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the source said. "But he is serving as the personal adviser to the No 1 man in the Laskar-e-Toiba, Zakiur Rehman," the commander-in-chief of the LeT in Indian-administered Kashmir.  Asia Times Online inquiries indicate that Abu Jabran was freed by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation eight days after being arrested with Abu Zubaida. As soon as he was released, he was elevated as adviser to Zakiur Rehman. Abu Jabran is known in the internal circles of the LeT as Janab Jabran Chaca.

    Damage to al-Qaeda

    Since al-Qaeda was structured on vertical lines at the time of the arrest of Abu Zubaida (it is now set up horizontally), his apprehension was followed by the capture of a number of al-Qaeda operatives, including Yasir al-Jazeri, who was chief of financial matters.  And they all blamed it on Hafiz for his initial betrayal. According to a Guantanamo returnee, many inmates include loud qanoots (in essence bad prayers) against Hafiz, calling for his death.

    Double-faced


    After September 11, the LeT was in a bind. It wanted to recruit fresh blood, but this was impossible without invoking bin Laden's name. And it wanted to retain its pro-establishment ties without upsetting its mentors in Islamabad and Riyadh.  On the death of King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz last year, the Jamaatut Dawa published an article on its website in praise of the Saudi king. And since Saudi rulers were demanding that their friends denounce bin Laden, Hafiz did so.  Last year, for instance, he wrote an article in an Arabic magazine in which he described bin Laden and al-Qaeda as khwarij (away from mainstream Islam, or those extremists who do not make a distinction between a minor and a major sin and deal with sinners as infidels). Hafiz chose Arabic so as not to upset his members still enamored with al-Qaeda and the concept of worldwide jihad.  At the same time, the LeT - or Jamaatut Dawa to be precise - is teaching a distorted version of Islam. Many Koranic verses concerning jihad have been deleted from the books its members use, with emphasis placed on following the ameer (chief).  The aim is to prevent members joining the fighters in South and North Waziristan and Afghanistan, where the pull grows stronger by the day.  Asia Times Online contacts claim that in the past few months hundreds of people have broken their ties with the LeT and headed for Waziristan, which is once again a powerful hub of the Afghan resistance movement.  The battle for the hearts and minds of potential jihadis is truly on, with twisted ideologies and contradictory, tortuous positions a part of the process, with a little help from the Osama bin Laden brand name. 

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Naik has not only called Yazid Rahmatullah Alaih, in a subsequent address in Italy he has called him a ‘Jannati’ and has challenged anyone to debate with him on the subject.

    His praise of Osama Bin Laden is not out of context as somebody has pointed out. He has glorified Osama on many different occasions while answering questions from his audience.

    Naik also has the following beliefs:

    1.     Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is dead. It is ‘Haraam’ to ask him for anything.

    2.     Recitation of Quran for Eisal Sawaab of Marhumeen (the dead ones) is a Bidat (Innovation).

    3.     The event of Karbala was a ‘political war’

    4.     He has his own translation of Ayah 2/154 in Surah Al-Baqarah saying – “And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, "They are dead." Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not” …. Which according to Naik means that those who have died in the way of Allah are dead and will be resurrected in the hereafter and then rewarded?

    After glorifying Yazid and Osama, belittling the status of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and calling Karbala a political war, Naik has gone on to misinterpret the Quran and Hadees to suit his self-professed fabricated beliefs. His Fitna appears to be a part of a bigger conspiracy against Islam aimed at dividing the Muslims and creating chaos and confusion. It should be checked where he is getting his funds from for running his Peace TV. To me, he appears to be financed by the Wahabi Sect which perpetrates violence in the name of religion and in the form of Osama brand of Islam.

    Fatwa against Naik

    At a press conference held in Lucknow on November 5, 2008 and attended by a number of Muftis and Maulanas from across the state, Lucknow’s Shahar Qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali has described Naik as a Kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.

    By Ibadus Salam Khan -
  •  

    Mr. Fayaz,

     

    Are you simply stupid or demented? Or doing PR work for the terrorists of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba? In fact, if my memory is serving me right you once advised the Editor of this website Mr Sultan Shahin to join Lashkar-e-Tayyaba; so one should assume that you yourself have already done so and maybe even work for them. Why else would you be looking for recruits for them and spreading canards like 2, 50, 000 Kashmiris having been killed by Indian security forces. Maybe as a Kashmiri you know better. But I live in the midst of Kashmiris too and have never come across this figure. No Kashmiri says that, except that maybe the Punjabi Lashkar-e-Tayyaba people say that in their bid to brainwash our young people.

     

    You castigate Mr Sultan Shahin for using an honorific like Hazrat for Sri Ram and Sri Krishna. I must say I was also stunned for a moment when I came across this usage for the first time. It was certainly very bold on the part of Mr. Shahin to do so. But then it became clear to me after a moment of deliberation that he was simply trying to make a point by doing so. If we Muslims do truly believe in respecting all prophets equally, and we have no choice in the matter as the Holy Quran itself asks us to do so, then why should we not use the same honorific for all prophets?

     

    But apparently it is too much for people like you, Fayaz to accept this. No wonder communal relations in India are so bad. Many Muslims consider Hindus beneath contempt, though they don't generally express their contempt as openly and as brazenly as you are doing by denigrating the editor of this website for using a honorific for Sri Ram. But then come to think of it we use Hazrat for the most illiterate and ignorant of mullah and maulvis. Not just Hazrat, indeed we use even Maulana, a term that should really be used only for God, because it means My Lord. It would not be unusual to hear even the most ignorant mullahs being addressed as Hazrat Maulana. I suppose one is not elevating Sri Ram too highly by calling him Hazrat. You may not know this, of course, but Allama Iqbal Rahmatullillah caled Sri Ram “Imam-e-Hind". And Sri Krishna, of course, is, as I understand, even more highly esteemed by our Hindu sisters and brothers than Sri Ram. And how come you also have a problem with the term Mahatma Budha?

     

    As for Kashmiris and Indian security forces, I must add that, while there is no justifying atrocities on innocent populace by any army, we should remember that all security forces in the world behave more or less the same way. Best is to try and not invite them. If there was rigging of elections in Kashmir, Kashmiris could have taken the constitutional route of fighting that with the help of other political groups or human rights groups, etc. in India. There are plenty of them and they do quite creditable work. If you pick up the gun you are inevitably inviting the wrath of armed forces on you.

     

    Your Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Fayaz belongs to Pakistan. Do you remember what Pakistan did to East Pakistanis who had not even picked up any gun; they were simply demanding that the results of a free and fair elections organised by the Pakistan Army be implemented. What did the Pakistan Army do? Killed between one and three million people, its own citizens and co-religionists. All Muslims. Figures of rapes too run into millions. The killing was targeted; mostly educated Bengalis got killed selectively from university and college campuses and hostels, etc.

     

    It's a good thing, Fayaz, your parents did not migrate to Pakistan. You might have then known what the Pakistan security forces did to Muhajirs in Karachi. And, of course, the less we talk about what they did to Baluchis the better. This is not at all to defend what the security forces do. No sane person would do that. Not least a woman. But this is what they do. Better not invite them in the first place. However your figure of 2, 50, 000 Kashmiris killed is simply outrageous. Only Lashkar-e-Tayyaba manuals must be using that to indoctrinate Muslim youth and send them to Hell.

     

    It’s a good thing also – you seem quite lucky in a way – that Indian intelligence people don’t monitor newspapers or websites like this one. If they did, they might have had a question or two for you to answer.

     

    One last point! I have been wondering for some time and discussing among friends why the editor of this website never responds to your calumnies, though you seem to address him and him alone, no matter who writes what on the site, and in the most disgraceful way imaginable. The consensus is that he probably believes in the adage “ Jawabe Jahilan bashad khamoshi.” But a thought crossed my mind today: he probably also thinks “Jawabe Pagalan bashad khamoshi”. Be that as it may we are lucky to have a website on which there is hardly any monitoring and readers are free to read articles on subjects that interest us Muslims, particularly of the South Asian sub-continent, and comment freely. But let us not abuse this process.

     

    A note for the Editor: Maybe I am contradicting myself here, but I suppose a certain amount of abuse is inherent in any freedom. So please don’t take away this freedom on account of Jahilan and Pagalan like Fayyaz. I particularly value the freedom to compose the way one would like and it’s quite funny to see some people express their anger or angst in the way they compose their comments. No other website I know gives this facility.

     

    Nazuk Naqshbandi

    By Nazuk Naqshbandi -
  • Comment publish Indianmuslimblog Syed Hasibur Rahman Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
    —-Syed Md Asadullah —
    You have quoted Dr Zakir Naik out of Context. I think you have not watched  his videos fully. You would have 
    watched some clip or small part of video  on youtube intentionally by his criticizers.
    ——“If Osama is terrorizing America, we are with him; all Muslims should  be terrorists,”—-
    You should also type what he said before and after this line. I can only laugh  at you.
    As far as what he said about Yazid, i am not interested in that … but one  thing i cannot understand …. Dr Zakir naik is 
    doing a great job… but he is
    also a human being … he can do mistakes … a person who has done all  goods just does one mistake … and you all are 
    after him … forgetting the  goods he did and is doing.
    You have horribly quoted him out of context.
    And also to MR ME AGAIN … Dr Zakir is not a propaganda master. If you  wish i can discuss this with you on our 
    personal mails.
    Why are you not publish my comment editor sb
    about Syed Hasibur Rahman
    you are asking email id Mr Me Again
    Syed Hasibur Rahman sb what you understand only you know Islam And  Quran
    who understant so who is great jahil
    wassalam By Syed Md Asadullah -
  • Here are some of the views on Yazeed but there is a near unanaminy that Yazeed was drunkard. loved the world vices of woman and boys. was a pedophile, never prayed and was a symbol of monstoristy.  Still  the ignorant Zalir Naik calls him RA,  All sects of Muslims should excommunocate him and I am surprised that he is called  scholar.  he is the most illiterate man who incidentally wears the garb of klnowledge.

     

     

     

     

    On Cursing Yazid Bin Muwaiya

    Q. What is the Ahlus Sunnah position on Yazeed bin Mu’awiyah and the act of cursing him?

    A. There is a difference between a minority of the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, some said it is

    impermissible to curse him, while others, particularly those connected with taswwuf, were of the

    opinion that he was cursed and a tyrant. People of tasawwuf prefer the later. The following are

    some of the opinions of the scholars who held Yazeed bin Mu’awiya in contempt.

    1. Hafiz Ibn Kathir’s comments on Yazeed:

    Ibn Kathir himself writes in the famous ‘Al Bidayah’:

    ‘Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to kept the company of

    boys with no facial hair [civil _expression for paedophilia boys, a form of homosexuality], played

    drums, kept dogs [civil _expression for bestiality], not a day would go by when he was not in a

    drunken state.’

    2. Ibn Katheer in Al Bidayah Volume 8 page 222 stated:

    ‘Muslim was ordered to ransack Medina for three days. Yazeed committed a major sin. Sahaba

    and their children were slaughtered openly; other heinous acts were also perpetuated. We have

    already mentioned that he had Ibn Ziyad kill the grandson of Rasulullah (s) Husayn and his

    companions. In those three days in Madina, it is difficult to mention the type of acts that were

    carried out. By doing this act Yazeed wanted to secure his governance, in the same way Allah

    (swt) broke the neck of every Pharoah, the true King (swt) also broke the neck of Yazeed.’

    3. One who attacks Medina is cursed

    We read in al Bidaya Volume 8 page 223: ‘Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and

    frightened the residents of Medina, the curse (la’nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is

    on such a person’

    4. Ibn Atheer’s comments on Yazeed

    In Tareekh al Kamil Volume 3 page 450 Ibn Atheer narrates from Munzir bin Zabeer: ‘Verily

    Yazeed rewarded me with 100,000 dirhams but this cannot stop me from highlighting his state,

    By Allah he is a drunkard…’

    5. Ibn Atheer’s comments on Yazeed

    In ‘Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’ Volume 4 pages 37-38, Dhahabi narrates: ‘Ziyad Hurshee narrates

    ‘Yazeed gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like that before and I enquired

    where he had obtained its ingredients’. Yazeed replied ‘it is made of sweet pomegranate, honey

    from Isfahan, sugar from Hawaz and grapes from Burdah…Yazeed indulged in alcohol and

    would participate in actions that opposed the dictates set by Allah (swt).’

    6. Ibn Jauzi’s comments on Yazeed ‘the drunkard’

    Ibn Jauzi in Wafa al-Wafa: ‘Yazeed appointed his cousin Uthman bin Muhammad bin Abu

    Sufyan as Governor of Madina. He sent a delegation to visit Yazeed who bore gifts so that they

    might take the oath of allegiance to him. Upon their return they said ‘We have returned having

    visited a man who has no religion, he drinks, plays instruments, keeps the company of singers

    and dogs [civil word for bestiality], we declare that we have broken our allegiance to him.

    Abdullah bin Abi Umro bin Hafs Mukhzumee commented ‘Yazeed gave me gifts. But the reality

    is this man is an enemy of Allah (SWT) and a drunkard. I shall separate myself from him in the

    same way that I remove my turban [from my head]….’

    7. Ibn Hajr’s comments on Yazeed

    In Sawaiqh al Muhriqa: ‘One group have deemed Yazeed to be a kaafir, another has stated he was

    a Muslim but a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that commits debauchery) and a drunkard. There

    is consensus over his fisq (transgression). One party of Ulema have stated that you can curse him

    by name, this includes individuals such as Ibn Jauzi and Ahmad. One group made up of

    individuals such as Ibn Jauzi deem Yazeed a kaafir, others say he was not a kaafir but rather this

    is a matter that has caused a difference of opinion.

    The majority of Ahl’ul Sunnah all agree that he was a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that

    commits debauchery) and a drunkard. Waqidi had recorded a narration ‘Verily we opposed

    Yazeed fearing Allah (swt) would reign stones down on us, Yazeed considered nikah (marriage)

    with mothers and sisters to be permissible and drank alcohol.’

    ‘Dhahabi narrates that when Abdullah bin Kuzai returned from Damascus he stated that Yazeed

    performs zina with his mother, sister and daughters. We had better start a movement to oppose

    Yazeed otherwise stones may reign down on us’

    This is one reason why Ibn Hajar al Makki calls Yazeed one of the most debased men in history.

    8. Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz’s comments on Yazeed

    In ‘Sirush Shahadhathayn’, Shah Abdul Aziz, the great Muhadith states: ‘Imam Husayn did not

    give baiah to Yazeed because he was a drunkard, a fasiq and Dhaalim.’

    9. Ibn Taymeeya’s condemnation of unjust Yazeed

    Ibn Taymeeya in Minhajj: ‘Yazeed had the sword and hence he had the power to deal with

    anyone that opposed him. He had the power to reward his subjects with the contents of the

    treasury, and could also withhold their rights. He had the power to punish criminals; it is in this

    context that we can understand that he was the khalifah and king. Issues such as Yazeed’s piety or

    lack of it, or his honesty or lack of it, is another matter. In all of his actions Yazeed was not just,

    there is no dispute amongst the people of Islam on this matter.’

    10. The World reknown Muslim Historian Ibn Khaldun states:

    ‘Yazeed’s time of governance can be seen as fisq and debauchery, and the blame is on Mu’awiya

    who should have controlled him.’

    11. We read in Tareekh Kamil:

    ‘The narrator states ‘By Allah, Yazeed drinks alcohol and abandons Salat’

    12. We read in Tareekh Abul Fida:

    ‘Yazeed played the tambourine, drank alcohol and raised bears [civil _expression for bestiality].’

    13. Hayaath al Haywaan states:

    ‘Yazeed would hunt with cheetas, play chess and drink alcohol.’

    14. People opposed Yazeed due to his atrocious deeds

    We read in Tareekh Khamees: ‘The people of Medina broke the baiah to Yazeed on account of

    his bad acts, he used to drink alcohol’

    15. The Famous Hanifa scholar Qadi Thanaullah’s comments on Yazeed’s kufr poetry

    We read in most famous Tafseer Al- Mazhari: ‘Yazeed deemed drinking alcohol to be Halaal, and

    he recited these couplets ‘if the Deen of Ahmad deems alcohol to be haraam…’

    16. Shariat Muhammad Majid ‘Ali Shakir stated in Badh Shariat:

    ‘Some say ‘Why should we discuss such a thing since he [Yazeed] was a King and he [Husayn]

    was also a King’ - one who makes such comments {refusing to hold opinion on Yazeed and

    Husayn (R)] is accursed, a Kharijee, Nasibi and hell bound. The dispute is over whether he

    [Yazeed] was a kaafir. The madhab of Abu Hanifa stipulates that he was a fasiq and fajir, nor was

    he a kaafir nor a Muslim.’

    17. Yazeed’s attack on Harra

    We read in ‘au khanar al masalik’ that Shaykh al Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakaria stated:

    ‘The army that Yazeed had sent to Medina comprised of 60,000 horsemen and 15,000 foot

    soldiers. For three days they shed blood freely, 1000 women were raped and 700 from the

    Quraysh and Ansar were killed. Ten thousand women and children were made slaves. Muslim

    bin Uqba forced people to give bayya to Yazeed in such a manner that people were enslaved and

    Yazeed could sell them as he pleased, no Sahaba who were [with the Prophet (saws)] at

    Hudaibiya were spared.’ All the Badr Sahaba were killed in this battle.

    18. Yazeeds rejection of the Qur’an

    Citing Tadhkira, Maqathil and Shazarath al Dhabah. This is also found in the Arabic (non-

    Leiden) version of the History of Al-Tabari: When the head of Husayn (R), the grandson of the

    Holy Prophet (saws), was presented before Yazeed he recited the couplets of the kaafir Zubayri:

    ‘Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies neither was there

    any revelation’

    19. Imam Alusi In Tafseer Ruh al Maani it is stated clearly:

    ‘Allamah Alusi stated, Yazeed the impure denied the Prophethood of Rasulullah (s). The

    treatment that he meted out to the people of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet

    proves that he was a kaafir.’

    Point references:

    1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 8 page 204 Dhikr Ras al Husayn

    2. Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 249 Dkikr Yazeed

    3. Sharh Foqh Akbar page 73 Dhikr Yazeed

    4. Sharh Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21 Surah Ibrahim

    5. Shazrah al Dhahab page 69 Dhikr Shahadth Husayn

    6. Maqatahil Husayn Volume 2 page 58 Dhikr Shahdath Husayn

    7. Tadhkira Khawwas page 148

    8. Tareekh Tabari Volume 11 pages 21-23 Dhikr 284 Hijri

    9. Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani (commentary of Surah Muhammad)

    10. Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 231 narrates this hadith on the

    authority of

    20. Yazeed’s own admission that he killed the family of the Prophet (saws)

    We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar: ‘Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said ‘I avenged the

    killing of my kaafir relatives in Badr through killing the family of the Prophet.’

    21. The testimony of Shah Abdul Aziz that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain [R]

    We read in Taufa: ‘Upon the orders of Yazeed the disgraceful people from Syria and Iraq killed

    Imam Husayn.’

    22. Yazeed ordered his Governor Waleed kill Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Maqathil Husayn: ‘Yazeed wrote a letter to Waleed the Governor of Medina, in which

    he stated ‘Force Husayn to give bayya. Should he refuse then strike off his head and return it to

    me.’

    23. Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad telling him to kill Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Mutaalib al Saul that: ‘Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husayn ‘I have received information that

    you have arrived in Kerbala, and Yazeed has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his

    authority and mine.’’

    24. Ibn Ziyad’s own admission that he killed Imam Husayn on the orders of Yazeed

    We read in al Bidayah: ‘When Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad ordering him to fight Ibn Zubayr in

    Makka, he said ‘I can’t obey this fasiq. I killed the grandson of Rasulullah (sawas) upon his

    orders, I’m not now going to assault the Kaaba’.

    25. Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Tareekh Kamil: Ibn Abbas replied to a letter of Yazeed stating ‘You killed Husayn

    ibn ‘Ali as well as the youth from Banu Abdul Muttalib, who were beacons of guidance.’

    26. The testimony of Abdullah Ibn Umar that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Maqathil al Husayn: ‘Ibn Umar wrote to Yazeed, ‘Hasn’t your heart gone black yet?

    You murdered the family of the Prophet?’

    27. The testimony of Shah Abdul Haqq that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Ashiath al Lamaath: ‘It is unusual that some say Yazeed did not kill Husayn when he

    instructed Ibn Ziyad to carry out the killing.’

    28. Yazeed’s pride at killing Imam Hussain (as)

    We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 204: ‘Ibn Asakir, writing on Yazeed, states then when

    Husayn’s head was brought before Yazeed, he recited the couplets of Ibn Zubayri the kaafir ‘I

    wish my ancestors of Badr were hear to see the severed head of the rebellious tribe (The Prophet

    (saws’s tribe of Hashim).’

    Imam Jalaladun Suyuti (ra) records this tradition in Khasais al Kubra, on the authority of Sahaba

    Uns bin Harith: ‘I heard Rasulullah (sawas) say ‘Verily my son (Husayn) will be killed in a land

    called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.’

    Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125 (Maktaba Nurree Rizvi Publishers, Pakistan)

    29. Yazeeds own words noted in Sharh Fiqh Akbar:

    ‘Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said: ‘I avenged the killing of my kaafir relatives in

    Badr through killing the family of the Prophet.’

    30. The Fatwa of Allamah Baghdadi - Yazeed denied the Prophethood, to curse him is an act

    of Ibadah

    We read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani page 72 commentary of Surah Muhammad: ‘The wicked

    Yazeed failed to testify to the Prophethood of Hadhrath Muhammad (sawas). He also

    perpetrated acts against the residents of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet (sawas).

    He indulged in these acts against them during their lives and after their deaths. These acts are so

    conclusively proven that had he placed the Qur’an in his hands it would have testified to his

    kuffar. His being a fasiq and fajir did not go unnoticed by the Ulema of Islam, but the Salaf had

    no choice but to remain silent as they were living under threat.’

    31. The Fatwas of Qadhi Abu Ya’ala and Abu Husayn deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed

    Ibn Katheer in al Bidaya stated: ‘Whoever frightens Medina incurs the wrath of Allah, His Angels

    and all the people - and some Ulema have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed. This includes

    individuals such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Allamah Hilalee, Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz, Qadhi Abu

    Ya’ala and his son Qadhi Abu Husayn. Ibn Jauzi wrote a book deeming it permissible to curse

    Yazeed.’

    32. Al Suyuti personally cursed Yazeed

    In Tareekh ul Khulafa page 207, Dhikr Shahadath Husayn we read as follows:

    ‘May Allah’s curse be upon the killers of Husayn and Ibn Ziyad.’

    33. Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee deemed it permissible to curse the kaafir Yazeed

    We read in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21, under the commentary of Surah Ibrahim verse 28

    as follows: ‘The Banu Umayya were initially kaafir, then some of them presented themselves as

    Muslim. Yazeed then became a kaafir. The Banu Umayya maintained their enmity towards the

    family of the Prophet (sawas), and killed Husayn in a cruel manner. The kaafir Yazeed

    committed kufr in relation to the Deen of Muhammad (sawas) proven by the fact that at the time

    of the killing of Husayn he made a pointed reference to avenging the deaths of his kaafir

    ancestors slain in Badr. He acted against the family of Muhammad (sawas), Banu Hashim and in

    his drunken state he praised the Banu Umayya and cursed the Banu Hashim from the pulpit.’

    34. Allamah Alusi set out the viewpoint of the Shaafi Ulema on this topic as follows

    Haseeya Nabraas page 551: ‘Amongst the Shaafi’s we are in agreement that it is permissible to

    curse Yazeed

    By ZIYARIZVI -
  • Comment by Syed Fasiullah   Pak Friends 
    YEH ZAKIR NAIK EK SCHOLAR JO SIRF AUR SIRF QURAN KO PADHNE KE DOOSRE MAZAHEB KO CHALLENGE KARTE HAIN AUR ISLAM KI HAQANIYAT KO TASLEEM KARNE PAR LOGON KO MAJBOOR KARNA CHAHTE.
    YEH EK BAHUT BADA MISSION HAI, LIKIN JAB ADMI ZIADA MASHHOOR HOJATA IN MAMLAAT MEIN TU ISKA GROUP BADHJATA HAI AUR WHO APNE HOSH WA HAWAS KHO BAITHTA HAI.
    ZAKIR NAIK KOI ALIM,FAZIL,KAMIL YAA SUFI AULIA NAHI HAI JISKO MUKAMMAL SHARIAT KA SHAWOOR AUR SOHBATH ASAR RAHEGA YEH TO EK QURAN KO DOOSRE HOLY BOOKS SE COMPARE KARNE WALA SHAKS HAI ISKI HAQEEQATH ITNI HI KE WO JITNA JANTE HAIN UTNA BOLE By Syed Md Asadullah -
  • Message for’

    Janab Mohammad Ahmad and friend Syed Mohammad Asadullah saheb......sallamun alaikum'    

        

    Just writing to thank you both for your kind words...and also request you to join me and beseech ALLAH  swt  to reserve the harshest of punishment,  for all those,  who are dividing the world of ISLAM for their  own vested interests,  Specially the WAHABIS who propagate  their own interpretations of the Holy Quran , Hadith  and AL QAEDA brand of faith in the guise of Islam and leave no opportunity to belittle the greatness of Allah swt’s  most beloved Prophet pbuh  and his progeny. Zakir naik says wasilah is haram….and I ask this front face  of the Wahabis …That ALLAH swt  who is all powerful  and All knowing  approached his own creation,  the mankind Through (Wasilah)  one hundred and  twenty four thousand Messengers to guide the mankind…and this Wahabi Mullah  proclaims that  MAN, who is so small and timid when compared to his creator, does not need a WASILAH….May ALLAH swt’s  curse lay heavily upon all those who nurture hatred in their hearts for the progeny of the Prophet pbuh in this world as well as hereafter…may their faces be devoid of  grace and their utterances be devoid  ILM… ameen’                                 

     

    By safrizvi -
  • I totally agree with Hasan Iqbal view point and one of Mr Saif Rizvi about Zakir Naik and his ideological perversions. Glad that Hasan Iqbal brought this view .This is a known fact that Yazid son refused to become Calip after Yazid death saying the throne is laid on the foundation of Prophet Grandson blood Imam Husain.

    But I pity these adopted sons of Yazid like Zakir Naik who are keeping the flag of oppression and digression alive.  I really pity this man Zakir Naik who claims to have vast knowledge on Quran but whose aim is to defame Islam and create schism in the Muslim ummah  But even demon Ravana of Ramayana not only had tremendous power but was such a learned man in Hindu shastra that none could match him.  He was also doomed in history and so will be Zakir Naik.

    What yardstick has Naik applied to give Yazid a place in Jannat?  Doesn’t he know the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that whoso ever harm Husain harm me and those who harm me harms Allah.  Or Husain is from me and I am from Husain.  Can Zakir Naik quote one hadith where any of the sahaba and that includes the Caliph Rashidun ever claimed they were above the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet household  No and never they were such exalted personalities.

    And what about Yazeed?  Tones and tone of literature has been written about this accursed man  Yazid, a drunkard,. womaniser, debaucher rapist and  this Naik has the audacity to say  Yazid can go to Jannat.  You can be a Muslim only when you follow the tenet of Islam  and Yazid was never never never a Muslim And I say not a human being.  He was a  beast

    Like Hasan Iqbal, I challenge Zakir Naik to ask the Muslim ummah irrespective of their school of thought to choose between Husain and Yazeed. He will get the By Ziya Rizvi -
  • This is what Yazid’s son Mu'awiya had to say about his father when he came to power upon Yazid’s death. (As recorded by Ibn Hajr al-Haythami a prominent scholar of the Ahl us-Sunnah)

    “Khilafat is from Allah. My grand father Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan fought for khilafat against an individual who was more entitled to it, that being Ali. He (Mu'awiya I) performed actions that you are all aware of, and he is suffering in his grave for that. Then my father Yazid became the khalifah even though he was not deserving of khilafat. He fought the grandson of Rasulullah (Husayn) and is suffering in the grave on account of his sins.'

    Mu'awiya bin Yazid (Muawiyah II) then proceeded to cry, 'It is a terrible thing that we are fully aware of Yazid's bad deeds: he slaughtered the family of the Prophet, he deemed alcohol Halal, and set fire to the Ka'ba.”

    …… and it’s a pity that rascals like Zakir Naik and his supporters like Aamir Mughal, Moeenuddeen quoting Imam Ghazali and others are still glorify Yazid.

    Naik has not only called Yazid Rahmatullah Alaih, in a subsequent address in Italy he has called him a ‘Jannati’ and has challenged anyone to debate with him on the subject.

    His praise of Osama Bin Laden is not out of context as somebody has pointed out. He has glorified Osama on many different occasions while answering questions from his audience.

    Naik also has the following beliefs:

    1.     Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is dead. It is ‘Haraam’ to ask him for anything.

    2.     Recitation of Quran for Eisal Sawaab of Marhumeen (the dead ones) is a Bidat (Innovation).

    3.     The event of Karbala was a ‘political war’

    4.     He has his own translation of Ayah 2/154 in Surah Al-Baqarah saying – “And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, "They are dead." Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not” …. Which according to Naik means that those who have died in the way of Allah are dead and will be resurrected in the hereafter and then rewarded?

    After glorifying Yazid and Osama, belittling the status of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and calling Karbala a political war, Naik has gone on to misinterpret the Quran and Hadees to suit his self-professed fabricated beliefs. His Fitna appears to be a part of a bigger conspiracy against Islam aimed at dividing the Muslims and creating chaos and confusion. It should be checked where he is getting his funds from for running his Peace TV. To me, he appears to be financed by the Wahabi Sect which perpetrates violence in the name of religion and in the form of Osama brand of Islam.

    Fatwa against Naik

    At a press conference held in Lucknow on November 5, 2008 and attended by a number of Muftis and Maulanas from across the state, Lucknow’s Shahar Qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali has described Naik as a Kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.

     

    By Hasan Iqbal -
  • Just for correcttion, Muawaiya was Yazeed father and not grandfather as I  mentioned in my earlier mail by earlier mistake By ziyarizvi -
  • I have read with trepidation references made by Amir Mughal, clarification of Zakir Naik and one Moenuddin.  I am really surprised at the logic they are springing and the extent to the level they can stoop for Yazid, may Allah curse be on him 

    Zakir Naik has never amused me.  I think all his shows are stage managed and his discourses are half baked truth.  His ideological compulsion in supporting Osama or terrorism manifests his deep scheme to defame Islam and the Muslim ummah by bringing them in the vortex of terrorism.  I can only pity Zakir Naik who is exploiting religion to further his own end with the Peace TV.

    The allusion to Yazid as RA only confirms my belief of his deep ignorance and jahiliyat.  As I said in my earlier mail, the society had decided as to who will be the icon of the Muslim society after the battle of  Kerbala.  Tell me Zakir Naik, how many Muslims have named their children after Yazid and how many in your family carry this name and why did you not name your children after him.  So much pathological hatred that Muslims had against Yazid they even not named their children after his father Muawiya.

    Zakir Naik, your effort to resurrect Yazid has doomed and you too have become a pariah much the same way as Yazid (LA) had become 1400 years ago.  You see how you are hounded where you go.

    I am also amazed at the support to Yazid by Amir Mughal and others.  Are Zakir Naik and his ilk trying to wipe away the sins of this monster by justifying his killing of thousands of people, rape and such oppressive crime that can sent chill in the spine by the Syrian forces in the battle of Harrah.  Does Zakir Naik support the attack on Mecca and Kaabah by Yazid forces?

    In the pages of history, Yazeed was known to be drunkard, womaniser debacuher and a megalomaniac and needs to be cursed.  Like his grandfather Abu Sufyan who accepted Islam only after he lost Makkah and his grandfather who fought a war against the Hazrat Ali, the last of Khalifa Rashidun  of the Muslims, carried that family trait.  If Ali was the last of the righteous caliph then Muawiya was wrong and needs to be condemned.

    To call Yazeed a Muslim, is itself derogatory. As he was never a Muslim There is historical proof that Yazid came in an inebriated state at Makkah and his crimes are endless.  Karbala massacre stands at the apogee of his endless list He is the biggest curse on humanity and those who support him are bigger

    By Ziya Rizvi -
  • janab moeenuddin saheb... salaamun alaikum'

     

    A befitting reply to zakir naik’s  misdeed is given, by rightfully declaring him through Fatwa issued after deliberations from the Ulemas,  proclaiming  him to be a  Kafir, for his remarks on ALLAH’S most beloved Prophet of Islam Mohammad pbuh and for glorifying the biggest criminal in the history of Islam,  the terrorist of karbala (yazeed-e- maluun’)  who brutally martyred the beloved grandson of the Prophet pbuh’. The events of karbala has cleansed Islam of the evil within some 1400 years ago and once again it has united the brothers in faith the Sunnis and Shias. Now it is time for introspections for those who are nurturing hatred in their hearts for the progeny of  the Prophet pbuh’…Disgrace  is their fate here and a severe punishment awaits them hereafter….You my friend if got swayed away by the shallow oratory of zakir naik and in your awe failed to see the lack of basic faith in his entire approach,  it is time for you too …Unwind, stretch and  practice astaghfar’ ALLAH  swt is merciful and beneficient’……Allah Hafiz

     

    By SAFRIZVI -
  • Assalamualaikum

    For the benefit of all those present here:

     

    Majority of the comments on Dr. Zakir Naik made here are out of context.

     

    Dr. Zakir Naik never said that "If Osama bin Laden is terrorising America, we are with him and every Muslim should be a terrorist.” This statement shows only the half-truth and is completely out of context, and misplaced.

     

    Rather Dr. Zakir Naik said that He never met Osama Bin laden and he has never interrogated him so he cannot comment on him on the basis of proof provided by CNN and BBC (Remember these were the same news channels who said that IRAQ possesses “Weapons of Mass Destruction”  which proved to be a blatant lie afterwards). There is no valid proof that Osama bin Laden is the Mastermind of 9/11 attacks.

    So Dr. Zakir Naik says If he is terrorizing the enemies of Islam he is with him.

    The second part that every Muslim should be a terrorist was actually made long after this comment: Dr. Zakir says that terrorist is a person who causes terror in the hearts of people and it also implies that for a thief the policemen is also a terrorist for he causes terror in his heart. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist i.e. whenever a thief, murderer etc. looks at a Muslim they should be terrorised.

     

    Now you know the tactics of the enemies of Islam They pick and choose statements of Dr. Zakir Naik form their own sentence and posts them on the Internet.

    Beware! The video shown on the youtube site is totally modified, the actual video is totally different.

    Please do not let these enemies of Islam win in their tactics to cause a rift between us Muslims.

    By Moeenuddeen -
  • And you can also see own self it that how many comments came about it topic not only www.newageislam.com

    every where this topic will be posted, may be 50 comments.  In the www.newageislam.com also you can see it

    earliar it no comments like that on www.newageislam.com.

    It is only for popularity.

    And wahabi and ahle hadees is also differ from Islam

    Md Ahmad

    By Md Ahmad -

  • Assalam alaikum Dear Mr saf Rizvi Sahab

    I am agree with you about your comment over moennudin and Mr cut and Paste. You have realy genius knowledge. I am writing only for your real knowledge. I wanted to direct contact so my email Id is ahmadmumbai@gmail.com

    and you my friend id is syedmdasadullah@gmail.com, he is most probably online

    and voh keya kahte hai ki zeada padhne ke baad log pagal hojate hai. isliye agar zakir nayak aisi baat ker rahe hai to kon si nai baat hai popularity ke liye ye sab kerna zaruri hota hai

    apke dua ka talib

    Md Ahamd and My friend Syed Md Asadullah

    videos: 1. Mullah Zakir Naik says "Every Muslim Should be a Terrorist "
    http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI
    http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-zakir-naik-on-911.html
    2. Yazeed - The Criminal of Karbala & the Hero of Zakir Naik
    http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=1mMQbR_48IU&feature=related
    3. Shan-e-Ali: Yazid ko Razi Allah anhu kehny waly Laanati heiN
    http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xysIQpMLM&watch_response
    4. Zakir Naik --- God can become man?
    http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Vxmso5BuY&feature=related
    Aticle: 5. Here’s Zakir Naik, ‘Fundamentalist, not Fanatic’
    http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=104422
    6. Zakir Naik Draws Ire With Karbala Comments by Arsalan Rizvi 
    http://islamicinsights.com/news/international-news/zakir-naik-draws-ire-with-karbala-comments.html

    By Md Ahmad -
  • WalaikumAssalam to Saf Rizvi and all those who read this comment.

     

    I had already given the clarification of Dr. Zakir Naik statement on Yazeed quoting various Hadiths and opinions of several Imams of Islam (May Allah be please with them all) in your blog. If you still disagree then it means you disagree with the Hadiths and The Fatwas of Imams. In this case I cannot help you, no one else can. Only Allah can guide you.

     

    You never replied to any of the comments I made but you made evoked an entirely new topic.

     

    What is the matter with you that you are so desperate to prove yourself right that you even deny the Qur’an and Hadith?

    Now tell me does Sharukh Khan quote the Quran and Hadith ( with reference, mind you) and answers to the questions of Muslims and Non-Muslims on Islam in his gatherings? (Strange logic).

     

    If you carefully listen to the talks of Dr. Zakir Naik you will know that Dr. Zakir never suggests in his talks to follow him rather he repeatedly quotes the Quran “Atiullah wa Atiurrasul” i.e. Obey Allah, Obey the Messenger. I don’t follow Dr. Zakir Naik but I follow Prophet Mohammed [Peace be on him].

     

    Dr. Zakir Naik talks mainly consists of quotations from  Quran and Hadith. If you ever make a statement that Dr. Zakir Naik is wrong, you are indirectly committing a grave sin by saying the quotations of Quran and Hadith are wrong (Beware!)

     

    See brother I don’t have any rift with you the only point I am trying to raise is that The Muslim Ummah have difference of opinion regarding Yazeed. We as brothers in faith should not fight over the things in which even the Sahabas [Companions of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)] differed. I have already send you the clarification of Dr. Zakir Naik comments on Yazid on your blog please read it again.

     

    See brother Dr. Zakir Naik just presented his opinion on Yazeed. If you like it agree with it if you do not like it don’t agree, no one is forcing you to agree to his opinions. But please don’t fill your blogs with your opinions against him with your own limited logic and knowledge.

    If you still disagree with his opinions: My advice to you would be that Dr. Zakir is not the person who had gone underground after making statement on Yazeed, he is yet out there giving talks and answering the questions of people. May be his latest talk is going to be held in Mumbai on November 14. So please spare some time to attend his talk and ask your question, rather speak your heart out at him, it will be an open question answer session (free entry for all). Believe me he will surely answer you he will never runaway.

    Because the Quran says: Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;  and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.’ [Al-Qur’an 16:125]

    Qur’an also says in Surah Hujurat, Ch. 49, Verse 11 to 12, that... ‘Do not defame others, do not be sarcastic, do not call others by nickname, avoid suspicion for suspicion in many cases is a crime. Do not speak ill about others behind their back, are you ready to eat the dead meat of your brother’, means if you backbite, if you speak ill about any body else it is as though your are eating the dead meat of your brother.'

     “Believers, abstain from most suspicion, some suspicion is a sin. Neither spy nor backbite one another.”49:12

     

    Qur’an says in Surah Isra, Ch. No. 17, V. No. 81 ‘When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood is by its nature, bound to perish’

     

    Allah Hafiz

    May Peace be on those who receive guidance.

     

    By Moeenuddeen -
  • WalaikumAssalam Saf Rizvi,

     

    I had already given the clarification of Dr. Zakir Naik statement on Yazeed quoting various Hadiths and opinions of several Imams of Islam (May Allah be please with them all) in your blog. If you still disagree then it means you disagree with the Hadiths and The Fatwas of Imams. In this case I cannot help you, no one else can. Only Allah can guide you.

     

    You never replied to any of the comments I made but you made evoked an entirely new topic.

     

    What is the matter with you that you are so desperate to prove yourself right that you even deny the Qur’an and Hadith?

    Now tell me does Sharukh Khan quote the Quran and Hadith ( with reference, mind you) and answers to the questions of Muslims and Non-Muslims on Islam in his gatherings? (Strange logic).

     

    If you carefully listen to the talks of Dr. Zakir Naik you will know that Dr. Zakir never suggests in his talks to follow him rather he repeatedly quotes the Quran “Atiullah wa Atiurrasul” i.e. Obey Allah, Obey the Messenger. I don’t follow Dr. Zakir Naik but I follow Prophet Mohammed [Peace be on him].

     

    Dr. Zakir Naik talks mainly consists of quotations from  Quran and Hadith. If you ever make a statement that Dr. Zakir Naik is wrong, you are indirectly committing a grave sin by saying the quotations of Quran and Hadith are wrong (Beware!)

     

    See brother I don’t have any rift with you the only point I am trying to raise is that The Muslim Ummah have difference of opinion regarding Yazeed. We as brothers in faith should not fight over the things in which even the Sahabas [Companions of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him)] differed. I have already send you the clarification of Dr. Zakir Naik comments on Yazid on your blog please read it again.

     

    See brother Dr. Zakir Naik just presented his opinion on Yazeed. If you like it agree with it if you do not like it don’t agree, no one is forcing you to agree to his opinions. But please don’t fill your blogs with your opinions against him with your own limited logic and knowledge.

    If you still disagree with his opinions: My advice to you would be that Dr. Zakir is not the person who had gone underground after making statement on Yazeed, he is yet out there giving talks and answering the questions of people. May be his latest talk is going to be held in Mumbai on November 14. So please spare some time to attend his talk and ask your question, rather speak your heart out at him, it will be an open question answer session (free entry for all). Believe me he will surely answer you he will never runaway.

    Because the Quran says: Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;  and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.’ [Al-Qur’an 16:125]

    Qur’an also says in Surah Hujurat, Ch. 49, Verse 11 to 12, that... ‘Do not defame others, do not be sarcastic, do not call others by nickname, avoid suspicion for suspicion in many cases is a crime. Do not speak ill about others behind their back, are you ready to eat the dead meat of your brother’, means if you backbite, if you speak ill about any body else it is as though your are eating the dead meat of your brother.'

     “Believers, abstain from most suspicion, some suspicion is a sin. Neither spy nor backbite one another.”49:12

     

    Qur’an says in Surah Isra, Ch. No. 17, V. No. 81 ‘When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood is by its nature, bound to perish’

     

    Allah Hafiz

    May Peace be on those who receive guidance.

     

    By Moeenuddeen -
  • Message for AAMIR MUGHLAI'

    Earlier I had little doubt that you could  easily be counted among the JAHILAN'  but after your comments which QURAN and which ALLAH...? I am  sure you are from among the yazidee... I have to leave you with Sur -e- kafiroon'.....

    'LAKUM DEENU-KUM VALI-YA DEEN'....

    MAY ALLAH ALMIGHTY REWARD YOU SUITABLY FOR YOUR HATRED FOR THE PROGENY OF THE PROPHET pbuh'.

    This discource i over if you see the hint in my refering to Sur-e-kafiroon'

     

     

    By safrizvi -
  • third if your faith is strong you can smell a hadith and tell ....and if you try to be honest in your heart towards the PROPHET pbuh and his PROGENY ALLAH' swt shall surely guide you to discern right from wrong. [Safrizvi]

     

    My faith on Quran 33:33 and Ahl Al Bayt is as under:

    Veracity of Tabari's Islamic History - 15

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/veracity-of-tabaris-islamic-history-15.html

     

     

     

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • as i said earlier ALLAH swt accepts astaghfar even in the last breath...since no one knows that, the time for astaghfar is NOW just give it a try and ALLAH swt shall INSHALLAH show you the right path.  ALLAH HAFIZ' [Safrizvi]

    Dear Rizvi Sahab,

    Salam,

    Thanks for the prayers for me from Allah but may I ask which Allah?

    Usool al- Kafi that is a collection narrations and traditions attributed to the Shiite Imams, Ahlul Bayt and the Prophet. Al-Kafi is the MOST reliable Shia Book, as the reliable Shia Scholars said and declared . Its author is Thiqat al-Islam Muhamad Ibn Yaqoob AlKulayni (A VERY reliable Shia Scholar, died in 328 H). Some Shi'ites scholars believe usool Al-Kafi was presented to the legendary Imam Qaem who liked it and said: "It suffices our Shi'ites" (al-Tharee'ah ela Tasaneef al-Shi'a: Agha Buzurg al-Tahraani; vol.17, p.245)

    AND KAAFI SAYS ABOUT ALLAH:

    Allah has the Quality of 'Badaa'. (Usul Kafi- Babul bad'aa - Al- Kafi Vol- 1 -P283 India Ed.)

    'Badaa' means Allah forgets. (Ibid)

    Allah makes mistakes. (Ibid)

    Allah plans but this does not take effect. (Ibid)

    He does not know who to appoint as the next message conveyor, the next Imaam. (Ibid)

    "We do not worship such a God who gives authority to rascals like Yazid, Mu'awiyyah and Uthmaan." (Kashful Asraar - 107 - Khomeni..)

    They say "Ali says.....I am the first and I am the last. I am the manifest and I am the hidden and I am the heir of earth." (Rijaal Kashsi . 138. India Print.)----[

    "Allaah often lies and does mistakes. " (USOOL-E-KAAFI, page #328, yaqoob kulaini, vol 1)

    Reference:

    Usul Kafi- Babul bad'aa - Al- Kafi Vol- 1 -P283 India Ed.

     

     

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Dear Amir Moghul ........ or should is say Mr cut copy paste!!

    I find  it my religious duty to extend this peice of advice which shall be handy for you and your salvation and for that of your coming generation...first you should appologise here for your statement that WAHABI is a DEROGATORY TERM....for SALAFI...as AL WAHAB  (the bestower) is one of  the beautiful names and attribute  of ALLAH swt.  second you should for your own good and that of your coming generation immediately stop reading garbage written by ABU HURAIRAS of the past and the present!!!..for all that is written in book form is not necessarily worthy of reading or even copying and pasting without reading...third if your faith is strong you can smell a hadith and tell ....and if you try to be honest in your heart towards the PROPHET pbuh and his PROGENY ALLAH' swt shall surely guide you to discern right from wrong. I may sound harsh but if you see the wisdom and pay heed, you will find, I am your best friend and guide...I understand you do not like poetry.....and after contemplating two days on this couplet...JAWAB-E-JAHILAN' BASHAT KHAMOSHI'...i decided against it and replying to your message for your own betterment...as i said earlier ALLAH swt accepts astaghfar even in the last breath...since no one knows that, the time for astaghfar is NOW just give it a try and ALLAH swt shall INSHALLAH show you the right path.  ALLAH HAFIZ'

    By safrizvi -
  • don't fight By bn -
  • Clarification of Dr. Zakir Naik's statement on Yazeed  27th December, 2007 PRESS RELEASE

    (As Dr. Zakir Naik was on Hajj Pilgrimage and returned on 26th Dec. 2007 he could not respond and clarify to the issue raised earlier).

    This is in reference to a question and answer session in a recent programme on 2nd Dec. 2007 by Dr. Zakir Naik. One of the Non Muslim questioners posed a question with regards to the battle of Karbala and Yazeed, to which Dr. Zakir's response evoked strong criticism from a certain group of the Muslim community because he said "May Allah be pleased with him" after the name of Yazeed and referred to Karbala as a political war.

    1. A minority of the minority community i.e. the KSI (Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat) blew this issue out of proportion thinking that they caught Dr. Zakir on the wrong-foot. They thought that the whole of Muslim Ummah had a unanimous opinion against Yazeed. However, they did not know that there is a difference of opinion in the Ummah regarding Yazeed. Irrespective of the difference of opinion on this issue in Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah yet it is unanimously agreed that one can say RadhiAllahu Anhu (May Allah be please with him) for Yazeed. As you are aware that Dr. Zakir has a large fan following from all the sects of Muslim Ummah including Isna Ashari, Khojas, and Bohris etc. The Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat could not tolerate the Shias getting influenced by Dr. Zakir's talks. Desperate attempts were made to instigate the whole of Muslim Ummah against Dr. Zakir Naik by publicizing the matter in all possible manners. The Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat in Mumbai is misleading the masses by making it appear as though Dr. Zakir Naik has made Yazeed into a Hero. Infact Yazeed is not a Hero for Dr. Zakir Naik.

    2. In order to maintain the unity in the Muslim Ummah, Dr. Zakir Naik expresses his sincere regret and said, "I regret if unintentionally any person or section of the people's feelings have been hurt due to any statement made by me." He also does the same while giving da'wah to Christians and Hindus. He regrets hurting the Muslims unintentionally but that does not mean what he has said is wrong.

    3. Any knowledgeable Muslim whenever he takes the name of any "Sahabah" (companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) or Taba'een (next generation after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) his name is followed by RadiAllahu Anhu (May Allah be pleased with him) or Rahmatullahi Alaih (May Allah's mercy be on him). Thus Dr. Zakir Naik after mentioning the name of Yazeed, who is a Taba'een, he followed his name with (May Allah be pleased with him). To pray for the Muslims is also instructed by Allah (swt) in the Glorious Qur'an – 98:8, 9:100 and 58:22. Neither did Dr. Zakir praise Yazeed nor did he curse him. He did not comment on his actions. He only said "Yazeed (May Allah be pleased with him)" since he does not consider Yazeed to be a Kafir and it is allowed to pray for the believers as Abraham (pbuh) too prayed for all the believers in the Glorious Qur'an - 14:41.

    4. The Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat claims that the whole of Muslim Ummah condemns the statement of Dr. Zakir. Who are the people the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat mentions as 'Muslim Ummah'? Do the views of the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat represent the view of the Muslim Ummah? Do they have the fatawas of all the cross section of Muslims, especially the Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-Jamaat, for their stand? If it is only Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat raking up the controversy, then they are misleading the common masses by saying Muslim Ummah. There is a difference of opinion as far as the Muslim scholars are concerned regarding Yazeed. Some are neutral and some are against him. Some are even in favour of Yazeed like the revered scholar Imam Ghazaali. When Imam Ghazaali was asked if it was all right to curse Yazeed, he replied "No". He was asked was it all right to say "rahimahullah"? He said "Yes it is Mustahab (highly recommended)." [Qaid as Shareed min Akhbar e Yazeed pg 57-59]. Imam Ghazaali further said, "Yazeed was a Muslim and when we pray for the Muslims "Allhummagfirli Muslimineen was Muslimaat (O Allah forgive the Musilms men and women) he is also included in our prayers." [Qaid as Shareed min Akhbar e Yazeed pg 57-59].

    *Yazeed was also the commander of the Muslim army, which went to fight the battle of Constantinople, which was predicted by the Prophet (pbuh) himself along with the glad tidings, "Paradise will be granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval operation." [Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4 Book of Jihad Hadith 2924]. This was a very prominent war as far as the spread of Islam was concerned. There were Sahabah like Hussain Ibn Ali, Abdullah bin Abbas, Ibn Umar and Abu Ayyub Ansari and Abdullah bin Zubair (May Allah be pleased with all of them) who participated and fought under the leadership of Yazeed.

    5. As far as the Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-Jamaat is concerned, inspite of the difference of opinion it is agreed upon that it is permissible to say "May Allah have mercy on him" or "May Allah be pleased with him" for Yazeed. Therefore saying "May Allah be pleased with him" after Yazeed's name is neither Haraam, nor a sin and is not wrong. This has been reconfirmed recently in writing from various Darul Ulooms and Islamic Organizations in India. Fatawas to clarify and support the above stand.

    a) Darul Uloom, Deoband.

    b) Nadwatul Ulema, Lucknow (verbally confirmed on phone, written copy to be received)

    c) Darul Uloom, Barelwi.

    d) Jamaat-e-Islami-i-Hind, New Delhi. (Verbally confirmed on phone, written copy to be received)

    e) Darul Uloom Ahmadia Salfia, Darbhanga, Bihar.

    f) Jamiatul-Ahle-Hadith, New Delhi

    g) Aligarh Muslim University

    h) Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi i) and several others who have confirmed on phone and are expected to be received in the next couple of days.

    Fatwas from scholars outside India: 1) Shaikh Abdullah Ibn Jibreen (on audio, written copy to be received) 2) Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyah Note: Please find attachments of the fatwas mentioned above for your reference.

    6. Some people consider "political war" in a negative sense. By saying Karbala was a political war in no way does it mean that it was not a war for Islam or Justice. Many political wars were fought for the sake of Justice and Islam. Islam is a complete way of life, which also deals with political issues, which should be based on the Qur'an and Hadith. In his response to the questioner, Dr. Zakir also cited the example of the Battle of Jamal that was fought between the Mother of the Believers, Aaishah (RA) and Ali (RA). The battle took place as a result of difference of opinion on a political issue. We respect and revere both the companions of the prophet (pbuh). However, with regards to the battle of Jamal, we neither favour nor are we against any one of them.

    7. We disagree with a certain group of Muslims who hurl abuses on Aaishah (R.A.) and do not consider her from the Ahle Bayt i.e. family of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). However, the Qur'an considers the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) as the members of Ahle Bayt in - 33:32-33. Moreover, even the wife of Abraham (pbuh) is addressed by Allah (swt) as one among the Ahle Bayt of Abraham (pbuh) in the Glorious Qur'an - 11:72-73. Furthermore, this same minority Muslim sect also curses the first three caliphs of Islam, Abu Bakr (R.A.), Umar (R.A.) and Uthman (R.A.) as well as the mother of believers Ayesha (R.A.).

    8. If Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat tomorrow says don't say "May Allah be pleased with him", after the name of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ummul Mumineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with them all) will we stop saying "May Allah be pleased with them", after their names? Of course not! As a whole, the majority of the Muslims condemn the act of anyone cursing any of the companions, including the first three caliphs of Islam as well as Ayesha (R.A.) the wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

    9. Dr. Zakir Naik did not curse or criticize any Muslim. This same small minority sect of Muslim curse these revered Caliphs of Islam Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (May Allah be pleased with them all), and if they do it the whole Muslim Ummah will condemn them. The Prophet (pbuh) himself said, "When a man curses anything, the curse goes up to heaven and the gates of heaven are locked against it. Then it comes down to the earth and its gates are locked against it. Then it goes right and left, and if it finds no place of entrance it returns to the thing it was cursed, and if it deserves what was said (it enters it), otherwise it returns to the one who uttered it." [Sunan Abu Dawud Vol.3 Book of Manners Hadith 4887]. Aaishah (R.A.) reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "When your companion dies, leave him and do not revile him." [Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3 Book of Manners Hadith 4881]. Allah will not question us on the Day of Judgement as to why didn't we hurl abuses on Yazeed even if he deserved it, however Allah will surely hold us accountable if we curse anyone unjustly. Our salvation does not depend on the issue of Yazeed as every person is responsible for his or her actions. Allah says in Surah Baqrah, Chapter No. 2, and Verse No. 134 & 141. "That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do."

    10. Dr. Zakir Naik holds the grandsons of the Prophet in high respect and whenever he mentions the name of Hassan (R.A.) and Hussain (R.A.) he follows it with RadiAllahu Anhuma (May Allah be pleased with them). Dr. Zakir condemns the person who actually killed Hussain (RadiAllahu Anhu) the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) whether he was the person from Yazeed's army or someone else.

    11. Dr. Zakir Naik is held in high regards by millions of Muslims worldwide. There were more than two-hundred thousand people, including Bohras, Shias, Barelwis, Deobandis etc. during his speech and no one amongst them raised the issue, not even a single from more than 20 Islamic scholars from different parts of the world who came to speak at the conference. This issue has been raised by a few Shias from Pakistan, where raising such kinds of discords are common and later on picked up by the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat in Mumbai.

    12. Saying "May Allah be pleased with him" after Yazeed's name is a minor issue, but cursing the first three caliphs and Ayesha (R.A.) is a much bigger issue and a grievous sin. According to Ahl-e-sunnat-wal-Jamaat cursing the first three rightly guided caliphs and the Mother of Believers, Ayesha (R.A.) is a major sin (some scholars go to the extent of saying it is 'Kufr' i.e. disbelief while others say it is 'Fisq' i.e. grave sin). If you make a mountain out of a mole hill because of saying "May Allah be pleased with him" for Yazeed then is not cursing the first three rightly guided caliphs of Islam and the Mother of Believers, Ayesha (R.A.) a much more grievous sin? We want unity among the Muslim Ummah. Is it proper for the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat to continue to create unnecessary discord on a 'difference of opinion' amongst Muslims with them?

    13. If the Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamaat give in writing that they will not curse the first three caliphs Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Uthman and the Ummul Mumineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with them all) Insha'Allah Dr. Zakir Naik will never say RadiAllahu Anhu (May Allah be pleased with him) after the name of Yazeed since it is optional. It is not Dr. Zakir Naik who has a difference of opinion regarding Yazeed, but he is aware that as far as the scholars of the Ahl-e-Sunnat-wa-Jamaat are concerned, there is a difference of opinion regarding Yazeed. That is the reason he neither praised him, nor condemned him. Islam believes in fostering unity amongst its followers. We should try to unite the Muslim Ummah rather than creating more divisions. If only all Muslims read the Qur'an with understanding and adhere to Sahih Hadith, Inshallah most of these differences would be solved and we could be one united Muslim Ummah. The best way to get the Muslims together is given in the following verse: "And hold fast all together by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you) and be not divided among yourselves;" [Surah Ale Imran 3:103].

     

    So my advice to all my Muslim brothers and sisters is not to hastily jump to conclusions without cross checking it (or acquiring proof) from the authentic sources and not to get deviated by the videos posted on the internet. It's just another attempt by the Munafiqeen (Hypocrites) and the Non-Muslims to divide us Muslims and to create differences among the Muslim Ummah.

    So BEWARE! Because the Quran says:

    "As for those who divide Their religion and break up into sects, thou

    hast no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the

    end tell them the truth of all that they did." [Al-Qur'an 6:159]

    November 5, 2008 8:26 AM

    By Sultan Shahin -
  • Dear mr moinuddin salaamun alaikum'..

    Your blind faith and belief in what ever Dr zakir naik says is truth,  is commendable,  but your faith in the teachings of Islam is deplorable for the simple reason that you are more concerned about giving a befitting reply to the rantings of non-muslims about Islam than in keeping Your own faith steadfast, had this  not been the case you would have clearly seen the folly of dr Zakir naik that he committed in giving respect to the deadliest of all criminals in the history of Islam'  the criminal of Karbala the yazid  who martyred the beloved grandson of ALLAH'S MOST BELOVED PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PBUH) you seems to drive false pride in the fact that zakir naik gives knowledgeable replies to the people of other faiths.. and gets huge applause from the massive crowed that gatthers to listen to him...i would say when i was in chicago last year  shahrukh khan the film actor was also there for his show and believe me brother the crowd that gathered just to see him let alone hear him was five times bigger than that of zakir naik manages...and the crowed was shouting and clapping to every  utterance of the actor.. He also quoted from here and there and the crowd went mad clapping ...does all this means shahrukh khan is better muslim than zakir naik?...i will site one heavenly example to put you on the right path....Through out his existence before the khilkat of hazrat Adam'  the Iblees was the arch angel...and by one utterance against the will of Almighty the Iblees was debarred from heaven and hell...So don't just see the crowd and follow somebody without applying GHAUR-O- FIKR...lest you be counted among the evil ..'whoever belittles the Importance of the PROPHET pbuh or his progeny by word or deed is surely inviting the wrath of Allah almighty and shall burn in hell. Allah accept astaghfar  even in the last breath but since no one knows that the time for astaghfar is now ...i will leave you with that.  ALLAH HAFIZ' 

    By saf rizvi -
  • From: Moeenuddeen
    Date: Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:55 AM
    Subject: New comment on If Dr. Zakir Naik , a supporter of Osama bin Laden....

     

    Moeenuddeen has left a new comment on your post "If Dr. Zakir Naik , a supporter of Osama bin Laden...":

    I would agree with you if you can answer these simple self analyzing questions.
    Where were you when the western media labelled us Muslims as Terrorists and passed out a slogan saying "All Muslims are not Terrorists but All Terrorists are Muslims"?
    Where were you when the outcast Salman Rushdie abused our Beloved Prophet {May Allah's Peace Blessing and Mercy be always upon Him} and his wives, the Ummul Mominoon {The Mothers of

    the Muslim Ummah}, may Allah be pleased with them all, in his book Satanic Verses?
    Where were you when Talsima Nasreen accused the Holy Quran of being unscientific and asked our Muslim sisters to burn their veils?
    Where were you when Dr. William Cambell wrote a book against Quran?
    Where were you when the Christian Missionaries accused Prophet Mohammed [May Allah's Peace Blessing and Mercy be always upon him] of plagiarising The Holy Qur'an from the Bible?
    It was Dr. Zakir Naik who gave a public talk called "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monopoly" When the Muslims were being harassed throughout the world bearing the label of Terrorist on their foreheads.

    It was Dr. Zakir Naik who helped us remove it.
    It was Dr. Zakir Naik stood up to answer the taunting questions of the irreligious journalists during the Press Debate. It was he who answered the allegations of Taslima Nasreen and Salman Rushdie

    and proved them wrong.
    It was Dr. Zakir Naik who travelled all the way to Chicago to answer the allegations of Dr. William Cambell which was a profound success by the grace of Allah.
    It is Dr. Zakir Naik who is constantly debating with the Christian Missionaries and proving them wrong from their own religious scriptures.
    Now what were you doing all this time, were you sleeping?
    If a servant of Allah stood up against all odds to protect us Muslims from the taunts of irreligious people that doesn't go down your throat.
    What is the matter with us all that we Fear Not Allah and keep fighting among ourselves? Let us unite for the cause of Allah and support our brothers in faith.
    Posted by Moeenuddeen to Islam And Muslims at November 5, 2008 9:25 PM

    By Moeenuddeen -
  • Dear Moghul  hi..

    I have carefully avoided saying assallomalaikum'  because the kind of hadees  & things that you copy and paste here is deplorable  and confuses me about your actual faith. i  see that you have carefully avoided to explain as to why you find Wahabi a derogatory term for salafi  as pointed out by Muslim brother Mr. safrizvi, does this mean you are a hypocrite in disguise and represent the bunch of psuedo muslims who are spilling all sorts of garbage all over the web to defame Islam...surely you are one among grossly misguided for you have repeated the obsceneties about the khulfa e rashida just to prove your silly point..who ever regards any one as equal to the Prophet Mohammad  (pbuh) or his progeny...is surely  inviting hell fire both here and hereafter. abstain and set your life on the right path while there is still time for TAUBA.

    By asef' -
  • Dear Rizvi Sahab,

    Wherever Cut and Paste was done, the real authors were mentioned to avoid the title of plagiarist. I just wanted to know as to where is the name Aasia is mentioned in Quran?? Which Quran you are talking about? Read about Tampered Quran in the comment below.

    Since we both are agreed that Pharaoh was Disbeliever but his wife was a Muslim but in the context of Ahl Al Bayt Intermarriages within the families of Banu Ummayyad and Aal-e- Marwan, please tell me do you compare Spouses of Ahl Al Bayt with Pharaoh? If yes then how and why [if the History is criteria since Karbala's History has been made criteria here] Male Members of Ahl Al Bayt [Masoomeen - Free from Sin as per Quran 33:33] allowed [in clear violation of Mohammad's Shariah] the marriage of their daughters with Infidels [as you earlier posts suggested and several Shia Historians and Theocrats had suggested in their books that only Companions of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had kept their faith [mean remained Muslims i.e. Ali, Abu Zar Ghaffar, Salman, Ammar, Miqdad] and rest of them had become apostate]

    "QUOTE"

    Usool al- Kafi that is a collection narrations and traditions attributed to the Shiite Imams, Ahlul Bayt and the Prophet. Al-Kafi is the MOST reliable Shia Book, as the reliable Shia Scholars said and declared . Its author is Thiqat al-Islam Muhamad Ibn Yaqoob AlKulayni (A VERY reliable Shia Scholar, died in 328 H). Some Shi'ites scholars believe usool Al-Kafi was presented to the legendary Imam Qaem who liked it and said: "It suffices our Shi'ites" (al-Tharee'ah ela Tasaneef al-Shi'a: Agha Buzurg al-Tahraani; vol.17, p.245)

    [9] Sahabah (R.H) became infidel by denying the divine right (Wilayat) of Hazrat Ali. First three caliph and other Sahabas became infidel by denying the divine right of (Wilayat) of Hazrat Ali. (Al Kafi, Page No. 420)

    Nuri Tibiris, one of the most renowned Shi'ite scholars and mujtahids, wrote a book against the present Quran. The book is entitled: 'Faslul Khitab Fi Tahreefi-Kitabi Rabbil Arbaab' (The Final Verdict on the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords).

     Khomeini mentions this scholar with great respect in his own book 'A1Hukumatul Islamiyah" (The Islamic State). In fact, Khomeini has actually used Nuri Tibiris's work entitled "Mustadrakul Wasail" to complete his theory of Wilayatul Faqih.

    [Wilayatul Faqih is the Islamic jurist's right to overrule a ruling that contradicts Islamic law.]

    Khomeini writes about Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar (R.A.):

    "Those people who, in their envy to rule, attached themselves to the Deen of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and formed their own cliques could not possibly refrain from their actions on the bases of Quranic advice. They had to materialise their aims at any cost." (Kashful Asraar: 114)

    He also writes:

    'Those who had no affiliation with the Quran and Islam except through their desire for the world and power. They had made the Qurun a vehicle to promote their agenda. (Ibid)

    In his book Kashful Asraar, Khomeni has dedicated a whole chapter to Hazrat Abu Bakr's opposition to the Quran and another chapter to the Omar's opposition. (Ibid: 114 & 117)

    He has then continued to write a chapter on how to answer the critiques of the Ahlus Sunnah W'al Jama'ah with the heading: "An eye on the answers of the foolish." (Ibid: 120)

    Khomeni writes about Hazrat Uthman (R.A.):

    "We worship and recognise only that God Whose actions are based on concrete rationalism and Who does not rule against that rationalism. We do not worship a god who creates a building for Divine worship and justice and then strives to destroy that very building himself by giving authority to rascals like Yazid, Mu'awiyah and Uthman". (Ibid: 107)

    Mullah Muhammed bin Yaqoob Kulaini, the most prominent Shi'ite scholar of Hadith, quotes Imam Baqir as saying:

    'People became apostates after the death of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.' He continues:

    'Abu Bakr and Omar did not repent before they parted the world. In fact, they did not even mention what they had done to Ali. So may Allah, His angels and all of mankind curse them. (Furu'ul Kafi: Kitabul Rauda: 115)

    Mullah Baqir writes:

    'Regarding the doctrine of' 'Tabarri' we believe that we should seek disassociation from four idols namely, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Mu'awiyah; from four women namely, Ayesha, Hafsa, Hind and Ummul Hakam, along with all their associates and followers. 'These are the worst creation of Allah. It is not possible to believe in Allah, His Messenger and the Imams without disassociating oneself from their enemies. (Haqqul Yaqeen: 2:519)

    [The doctrine of 'Tabarri' means to have no association with the enemies of Allah.]

    Mullah Baqir writes:

    'One should say after each prayer: O Allah! Curse Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Mu'awiyah, Ayesha, Hafsa, Hind and Ummul Hakam. (Aynul Hayat: 599)

    The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), came to a person from the Ansaar and asked him if he had any food. The Ansaari said he had and slaughtered a goat. The man then grilled some meat and presented it to the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) who wished that Ali, Fathima, Hasan and Hussain were present with him. Then Abu Bakr and Omar arrived. Ali also arrived shortly after. Allah then revealed the verse:

    'We have never sent any messenger prophet or Muhaddath before except that when ever they desired something, the devil interfered in their desire.' (The Prophet then said) This is just as the devil has sent his two agents here right now (Abu Bakr and Omar). (The footnotes of Maqbool's translation: Surah Hajj: 674)

    [Muhaddath is a non-prophet but he is inspired by Allah]

    Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes:

    'Pharaoh and Hamaan refer here to Abu Bakr and Omar. (Haqqul Yaqeen: 342)

    The same author also says:

    'The references in big books about the illegitimate birth of Omar cannot be discussed in this book. (Ibid: 259)

    Allah says in Surah Nahl (90):

    "And He prevents you from immorality, unlawfulness and rebellion.'

    Ali ibn Ibrahim AI-Qummi comments on this verse:

    'These three vices refer to so and so, so and so and so and so.' (Al Qummi's commentary: 218)

    Any ambiguity is cleared by the following comment: 'Immorality refers to the first person (Abu Bakr); unlawfulness refers to the second (Omar) and rebellion refers to the third (Uthman). (Footnotes to Maqbool's translation: 522)

    Mullah Baqir narrates a story from Imam Zainul Abideen that a man came to the Imam and asked him to inform him about Abu Bakr and Omar. The Imam informed him that they were both non-believers. (Haqqul Yaqeen: 551)

    All The Sahaba Kiraam Radiyallahu Anhum Are Kaafirs and Apostates (Na'udhu billah).

    The shi'ite scholor of Hadith, Ni' matullah Jazaa-i-rii writes in the 'Anwaare nomaaniyyah' page 245, vol.2.: "The shia Imaamiyyah are of the opinion that the khilafah of Hazrat Ali (Radiyallahhu Anhu) is by nassi jalli (clear text) and all the sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum), are kafirs, and continue to slander them. They (shias) believe in the imaamah of Jafar Sadiq, (Rehmatullah Alayhi), and his sinless offspring. The author of this book belongs to this group and only this sect is successful and saved (from jahannum). Abii Jafar (Imaam Baqir) says that after Rasulullah, (Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam), all the sahaba became murtid (turn apostate) apart from these: Miqdad Bin Aswad, abu Zar Ghafari and Salaman Farsi (Radiyallahu Anhum). They refused to make Bayah (pay allegiance) to (Sayyidinaa) Abu Bakr, (Radiyallahu Anhu), until they called Amirul Momineen. He made Bayah. Then the three of them also made bayah. Hence all agreed upon the khilaafah of (Sayyidina) Abu Bakr. [Usol-e-kafi, vol.2.; Raudah kaafi, page246; Rijal Kashi, page 504.]

    IN QUOTATIONS :

    1.) They say all Sahabah (R.A) companions except 3 left Islaam after demise of Nabi (S.A.W).

    2.) They say Abu Bakr(R.A) Umar(R.A) and Uthmaan (R.A) robbed Ali(R.A) of his position of being Khalif.

    3.) They say Umar(R.A) was a 'Original Kaafir' and 'Zindiq'-renegrade.

    4.) "Abu Huraira (R.A) was one of the fuquaha, but god knows what judement he falsified for Muaw'iyya and      others like him, and what damage He inflicted upon Islaam."

    5.) They say Abu Huraira (R.A) used to fabricate Ahadith.

    6.) They say Muawiyya (R.A) poisoined Hassan(R.A).

    7.) They say Muawiya (R.A) was a tyrant opressive ruler.

    8.) They say Qazi Shurray (R.A) used to issue judicial pronouncement in favour of the ruling party. He was a      sinful wretch occupying position of Judge.

    9.) One should dissociate with the 4 idols: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Muawiyya and 4 women Ayesha,    Hafsa, Harid, Umm- al- Hakam.

    10.)One should curse the above after each prayer.

    11.) Pharoah and Hamaan refer here to Abu Bakr and Umar.

    References:

    (1.) Anwaar - No'maan Niyyah - P245. Vol 2. Nimatullah Jafaari./ Furu Kafi, Kitaabul Raudah :15 - Mullah Muhammad bin Yaqoob Kulaini Vol 3 P115/ Usul -e-Kafi Vol 2, P 246 Rijaal Kashsi P504.

    (2.) Al- Ihtijaaj - Tibrasi 83, 84./Haqqul Yaqeen, P 157.

    (3.) Haqqul Yaqeen , 551/Kashful Asraar P119.

    (4.) P 143 - Islam goverment.

    (5.) Islaamic Goverment

    (6.) Al-Anwaar un Nomaniyyah - Vol 2. P88-87 Jazaari.

    (7.) Ibid.

    (8.) P81, Isl/ gov.

    (9.) Haqqul Yaqeen- Vol. 2 P519/ Furru Kaafi P342 Vol 3/ Jilaa - ul- Uyoom -P45 - 46/ Hayaatul Quluub P 375.

    (10.) Ainul Hayaa P559.

    (11.) Haqqul Yaqeen P342.

    12.) Faathima should complain about Ali's big stomach, no wealth and bad features.

    13.) Abu Bakr and Umar are Kaafirs

    14.) Abu Bakr is calf on Bani Israel.

    15.) Ali is a mosquito and a fly.

    16.) What did the Zuleikha of Makkah, Bibi Ayesha have, that the 50 year old Nabi (S.A.W) got moved to  her.

    17.) Nabi (S.A.W) accepted (in marriage) an uncouth person such as Hafsa. Not withsatanding the fact that        she was a widow and facially deformed.

    18.) Imaan refers to Ameerul- Mu'mineen (Ali), Kufr refers to Abu Bakr, fisq(weakness) refers To Umar,          isyaan(disobedient) Usman in Surah Hujuraat.

    19.) Umar is an illegeitimate child.

    20.) Abu Bakr and Umar are worse than Shaithaan and they are dwellers of Jahannam.

    21.) "When I entre Makkah and Madinah as the conqueror, my first duty will be to go to the grave of Huzoor        (S.A.W) and exhume the bodies of the two idols."

    22.)"We shia's know the three Sahabah's(Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan) as being void of Imaan"

    References:

    (12.) Mullah Baqir - Jilal Uyoon- 58 Chapter on Faathima.

    (13.) Haqqul Yaqeen - P552.

    (14.) Haqqul Yaqeen - Tafseer Qummi P160.

    (15.) Tafseer Qummi P29.

    (16.) Haqeeat Fiqh Hanafi P64 /Ghulaam Hussain Naqui.

    (17.) Ibid P124.

    (18.) Usul-e- Kafi P229. Vol 2.

    (19.) Tazkiratul Aimma - P103-4.

    (20.) Haqqul Yaqeen - P509 - 510.

    (21.) Kitaab be Noujawanaan - P8.

    ( 22.) Tajalliyaar-e-Sadaqaat - P201- Muhammed Hussain Dhelvi.

    MORE ABOUT SHIA'ISM AND SAHAABAH :

    The most authentic book of theology of Shi'ism is Al-Jamiul Kafi. In this book in the section, Kitabur Raudha', the following narration is attributed to the fifth Shi', Imam:

    "After Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) all people became murtads (reneged from Islam) except three persons - Miqdad Bin Aswad, Abu Tharr Ghifari and Salman Farsi Radiallahu Anhum wabarakatuhum). "

    In the Shi'i book, Kitabur Raudhah, the following narration is attributed to Imam Baqir who allegedly made the statement in reply to his disciple who had sought the Imam's opinion regarding Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhuma)

    "What are you asking me about them (Abu Bakr and Umar)? Whoever among us (i.e. the Ahle Bait or the progeny of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) departed from this world, departed in a state of extreme displeasure with them. The elders among us admonished the younger ones to perpetuate it (i.e. this displeasure with Abu Bakr and Umar), Verily, the two of them have unjustly usurped our right. By Allah! These two were the first to settle on our necks (i.e. the necks of the Ahle Bait). Therefore, may the la'nat (curse) of Allah, the Malaikah and of mankind be on the two of them.

    (Kitabur Raudhah, Page 115)

    In the same book, on the same page appears the following:

    "Verily. these two elders (Abu Bakr and Umar) departed from this world without having made taubah for what they had perpetrated against Ameerul Mumineen Alayhis Salaam. In fact, they did not even think of us (of their wrongs against Hadhrat Ali). Therefore, the la'nat of Allah, the Malaikah and of mankind be on them."

    In the Shiah book, Rijal Kashi, Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhuma) are denigrated in the following narration attributed to Imam Baqir:

    "Whatever murder is committed in Islam, whatever unlawful wealth is earned and whatever adultery is committed until the appearance of our Imam Mahdi - the sin of all this is on the necks of the two (i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar). (Rijal Kashi, page 135)

    In Kitabur Raudhah on pages 159/160, the Shiahs attribute a narration to Hadhrat Salman Farsi (Radiallahu Anhu) in which it is claimed that on the occasion when the oath of allegiance was given to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radiallahu Anhu), the first person to swear allegiance to him was an old man who stepped forward crying:

    "All praise to Allah who has not caused me to die yet, enabling me to see you on this pedestal. Stretch your hand. " Thus he (Abu Bakr) stretched his hand and the old man took the oath of allegiance (at his hand)."

    According to the narration, when Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) heard this from Hadhrat Salman (Radiallahu Anhu), he asked:

    "Do you know who he (the old man who took the oath of allegiance) is?"

    When Salman (Radiallahu Anhu) replied in the negative, Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) allegedly said:

    "That was Iblees, Allah has cursed him."

    Thus, according to Shi'ism, the first being who accepted the Khilafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radiallahu Anhu) was Iblees who placed his hand in the hand of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radiallahu Anhu).

    At the end of this narration in Kitabur Raudhah, the following words are attributed by the Shi'i priests to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

    "Then, they (a group of the Saqeefah Bani Saidah) will come to the Musjid (i.e. Musjid-e-Nabawi) and the first to swear allegiance to him (i.e. Abu Bakr) on my Mimbar will be Iblees, the La'nat of Allah on him. Iblees will appear (on that occasion) in the form of an old man and say so (i.e. what Salman Faarsi has allegedly said)."

    Mullah Baqir Majlisi is a renowned personality in Shiah circles. He is regarded as a top-ranking Muhaddith. He flourished in the 10th century of the Hijri era. The Shi'i clergy has accorded him the title, Khatamul Muhadditheen (the seal of the Muhadditheen). His works are regarded as highly authoritative by the Shiah priests. Khomeini has praised and recommended his writings. This Shi'i priest, in his books, writes the following statements whenever he mentions the name of Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu)   

     
    "Umar Bin Khattab - on him be la'nat (curse) and athab (punishment).

    QURAN AS PER SHIA SCHOLARS.

    Nuri Tibiris, one of the most renowned Shi'ite scholars and mujtahids, wrote a book against the present Quran. The book is entitled: 'Faslul Khitab Fi Tahreefi-Kitabi Rabbil Arbaab' (The Final Verdict on the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords).

    The Shiites assert that the existing Quran must have been altered, since there is no reference to any of their strayed beliefs in it. One of the first to explicitly state this view was Mirza Hussein Muhammad Taqiy al-Noori al-Tabrasi (d. 1320 AH) in his book The Final Verdict on the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords. [Faslul Khitab Fi Tahreefi-Kitabi Rabbil Arbaab].

    Original Quran will not come into view till the manifestation of Imam Mehdi (SHIAs 12th Imam) (Na’uzubillah). [Anwaar-ul-Na' umania, Vol 2, Pg 360 - Published Iran]

    Collectors of Quran eliminated virtues of Prophet’s progeny from Surah Al-Ahzab which was about to the length of Surah Al-Bakrah.[Haq- ul-Yaqeen, Pg 66 - Published Iran]

    The Munafiqeen (i.e. Sahaba) took very much out of Quran (took out the verses). (Ihtijaj-e-tibri, page #382).

    When Imaam Mehdi comes he will bring with him the real and original Quran. (Ahsan-ul-maqaal, page #336, safdar Husain najfi).

    The person who says that the present Quran is complete is a liar because the “complete Quran” was compiled by Hazrat Ali. (Fasl-ul-khitaab fee tahreef kitaab rab-ul- arbab, page #4, Noori Tibri).

    "Abu Baseer reported that he said to Imam Ja'far, "O Abu Abdullah (Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq) What is Mus-haf Fatimah?" He replied "It is a Qur'an containing three times what is found in your copy of the Qur'an; yet by Allah, it does not contain even a single letter from your Qur'an. (Al-Kafi vol.1 p.457)

    No one possess complete knowledge of Holy Qur'an except Imams. (Al Kafi, Vol. No. 1, Page No. 228)

    "UNQUOTE"

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Janab aamir mughal 

    Why do you say Wahabi is a derogatory term for salafi (ahle hadith') you appear to be more comfortable when you are refered to as ahle hadith where as salafi's have absolutely no regard for hadith. also,  are you not betlitling ALLAH almighty nousbillah'  by your referrence to WAHABI as derogatory term nausbillah' when we all know that AL WAHAB ( the bestower)  is one of the beautiful  names  and attribute of ALLAH  swt...also please refer to your question as to where bibi Asia is mentioned in Quran...where hazrat Isah and janabe Mariam is mentioned in the Quran...i am not here to improve  upon your Islamic and Quranic IQ...not that i dont want to but for the simple reason that i am no authority on the subject...and i am strictly against copying and pasting from articles and opinions of others to prove my point . I can only pray to Almighty to show the light to the misguided and enlightened their minds to undestand the PROPHET (PBUH) and his PROGENY better  (without mingling any two bit outsider and equating)  with the Masoomeens..amin'

    By safrizvi -
  • Dear Rizvi Sahab

    I forgot to reply your Salam in my earlier post. Walaikum Assalam,

    The article above claims that Zakir Naik is Ahl-e-Hadith i.e. Salafi [derogatory term used for this group is Wahabi]. The Ahl-e-Hadith often quote Ibn Taymiyah.

    Ibn Taymiyah on Karbala Tragedy:

    Then Ibn Taymiyah discussed the two misguided groups who were in Koofah, Iraq, both of whom took ‘Aashooraa’ as a festival because of their bid’ah - Innovation). The Raafidi group made an outward show of allegiance to the Ahl al-Bayt although inwardly they were either heretics and disbelievers or ignorant and bound by whims and desires. The Naasibi group hated ‘Ali and his companions, because of the troubles and killings that had occurred. It is reported in Saheeh Muslim that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “In (the tribe of) Thaqeef there will be a liar and an oppressor .” The liar was al-Mukhtaar ibn Abi ‘Ubayd al-Thaqafi, who made an outward show of allegiance to and support of the Ahl al-Bayt, and killed ‘Ubayd-Allaah ibn Ziyaad, the governor of Iraq, who had equipped the party that killed al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with them both); then he (al-Mukhtaar) made it clear that he was a liar, by claiming to be a prophet and that Jibreel (peace be upon him) brought revelation to him. People told Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbaas about this, and said to one of them, “al-Mukhtaar ibn Abi ‘Ubayd is claiming to receive revelation [annahu yanzilu ‘alayhi].” He said, “He is telling the truth, for Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Shall I inform you (O people) upon whom the shayaateen (devils) descend [tanazzalu]? They descend upon every lying, sinful person.’ [al-Shu’ara’ 26:221].” [Translator’s note: the words translated as “receive revelation” and “descend” both come from the same root in Arabic]. They said to the other: “Al-Mukhtaar is claiming that he receives inspiration.” He said, “he is telling the truth. ‘… And certainly, the Shayaateen (devils) do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you…’ [al-An’aam 6:121 – interpretation of the meaning].” As for the oppressor , this was al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf al-Thaqafi, who was opposed to ‘Ali and his companions. Al-Hajjaaj was a Naasibi and al-Mukhtaar was a Raafidi, and this Raafidi was a greater liar and more guilty of fabrication and heresy, because he claimed to be a prophet…

    There was much trouble and fighting between these two groups in Kufa. When al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with them both) was killed on the day of ‘Aashooraa’, he was killed by the sinful, wrongdoing group. Allaah honoured al-Husayn with martyrdom, as He honoured other members of his family, and raised his status, as He honoured Hamzah, Ja’far, his father ‘Ali and others. Al-Husayn and his brother al-Hasan are the leaders of the youth of Paradise. High status can only be attained through suffering, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said, when he was asked which people suffer the most. He said, “The Prophets, then righteous people, then the next best and the next best. A man will suffer according to his level of faith. If his faith is solid, he will suffer more, but if his faith is shaky, he will suffer less. The believer will keep on suffering until he walks on the earth with no sin.” (reported by al-Tirmidhi and others). Al-Hasan and al-Husayn achieved what they achieved and reached the high status they reached by the help and decree of Allaah. They did not suffer as much as their forefathers had, for they were born and raised during the glory days of Islam, and the Muslims respected and honoured them. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died when they were still young, and Allaah blessed them by testing them in such a manner that they would be able to catch up with the rest of their family members, as those who were of a higher status than them were also tested. ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib was better than them, and he was killed as a shaheed (martyr). The killing of al-Husayn was one of the things that caused fitnah (tribulation) among the people, as was the killing of ‘Uthmaan, which was one of the greatest causes of fitnah, because of which the ummah is still split today. Thus the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are three things, whoever is saved from them is truly saved: my death, the killing of a patient khaleefah, and the Dajjaal (‘antichrist’).”

    Then Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned a little about the biography of al-Hasan and his just character, then he said:

    “Then he died, and Allaah was pleased with him and honoured him. Some groups wrote to al-Husayn and promised to support and help him if he went ahead and declared himself khaleefah, but they were not sincere. When al-Husayn sent his cousin [son of his paternal uncle] to them, they broke their word and gave help to the one they had promised to defend him against, and fought with him against [al-Husayn’s cousin]. Those who were wise and who loved al-Husayn, such as Ibn ‘Abbaas and Ibn ‘Umar and others, advised him not to go to them, and not to accept any promises from them. They thought that his going to them served no useful interest and that the consequences would not be good. Things turned out just as they said, and this is how Allaah decreed it would happen. When al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with him) went out and saw that things were not as he had expected, he asked them to let him go back, or to let him join the army that was defending the borders of Islam, or join his cousin Yazeed, but they would not let him do any of these things unless he gave himself up to them as a prisoner. So he fought with them, and they killed him and some of those who were with him, and he was wrongfully slain so he died as a shaheed whose martyrdom brought him honour from Allaah, and so he was reunited with the good and pure members of his family. His murder brought shame on those who had wrongfully killed him, and caused much mischief among the people. An ignorant, wrongful group – who were either heretics and hypocrites, or misguided and misled – made a show of allegiance to him and the members of his household, so they took the day of ‘Aashooraa’ as a day of mourning and wailing, in which they openly displayed the rituals of jaahiliyyah such as slapping their cheeks and rending their garments, grieving in the manner of the jaahiliyyah. But what Allaah has commanded us to do when disaster strikes – when the disaster is fresh – is to bear it with patience and fortitude, and to seek reward, and to remember that all things come from Allaah and we must return to Him, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “… but give glad tidings to al-saabiroon (the patient ones), who, when afflicted with calamity, say: ‘Truly, to Allaah we belong and turly, to Him we shall return.’ They are those on whom are al-salawaat (the blessings) (i.e., who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided ones.” [al-Baqarah 2:155-157]

    Summarized Al-Fataawa al-Kubra by Ibn Taymiyah.

     

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Dear Rizvi Sahab,

    In which Quranic Verse Asia is mentioned, just curious!

    Regarding Pious Bibis of Ahl Al Bayt [May Allah be pleased and have mercy on their souls] and their marriages within the tribes of Ummayyad and Marwaniites and that too after the Tragedy of Karbala. The most quoted Shia Book Maqtal Hussain aka Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf [published in Hyderabad Deccan - India] carry narrations that Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Hussein [May Alla be pleased with both of them]   used to receive Gifts annually from Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah [May Allah be pleased with him] and that too up to the tunes of 1 to 10 Lackh Dirhams whenever they [May Allah be pleased with them] visited him [May Allah be pleased with him]

    I will be quoting History. Bukhari's Hadith was sufficient for me that Hazrat Hassan [May Allah be pleased with him] made peace with Hazrat Muawiya [May Allah be pleased with him] and Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] also accepted that Khilafa.


    Shia and Sunni Sources on Hasnain's acceptance of Muawiyah's Khilafa:

    [Akhbar Al Tawal Al Denwary page 234, Tabari Page 62 Volume 6, Al Imama Wal Siyasa page 173, Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf page 4 published in Najaf]

    Hazrat Muawiya [May Allah be pleased with him]'s Excellent Treatment with Hasan and Hussain [May Allah be pleased with both of them]:

    Hussain used to go with Hasan to meet Muawiyah in Damascus and at one stance Muawiyah gifted 2 Million Dirham to both and at anothe ocassion he gifted Hazrat Hasan 4 Million Dirham [Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya by Ibn Kathir Page 150 and Page 127 Volume 8] This narration is confirmed by Ibn Abi Al Hadid (Mutazilli Shia) in his translation of Nehjul Balagha page 823 Volume 2] and this further confirmed by Extremist Shias like Abu Mikhnaf in his book Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf page 7].

    Should I quote as to how bravely Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] fought under the command of Yazid Bin Muawiyah [May Allah have mercy on his soul] in Constantinople. I will quote Shia sources of History you praise.

    Note: Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf is a book by Abu Mikhnaf specially written on Karbala Tragedy and from Tabari to present day Speakers of Shia Majlis, this book is quoted for narrating the Tragedy of Karbala.
    ====================================================

    Another Opinion on Yazeed Bin Muawiyah [May Allah have mercy on his soul]

    Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah

     

    His name was Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan ibn Harb ibn Umayaah al-Umawi al-Dimashqi.

     

    Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years.

     

    Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states (Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his grandfather.

     

    His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr.

     

    (Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, part 4, p. 38)

     

    Shaykh al-Islam described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said:

     

    The people differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate.

     

    One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq, that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who were killed by the companions of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles – and things of that nature. To have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir.

     

    The second extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience.

     

    The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

     

    Then they divided into three groups, one which cursed him, one which loved him and one which neither cursed him nor loved him. This is what was reported from Imaam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others among the Muslims. Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?

     

    Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed: according to what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved. He said, I also heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: we do not deny his good qualities or exaggerate about them. This is the fairest opinion.

     

    Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, part 4, p. 481-484

     

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • dear mr amir mughal  salamunalaikum'

    to your long naration of various pious bibis married to controversial personalities i have to refer to only one example from the holy Quran...Janab-e-ASIA' was the wife of Firoun ...now this does not mean that If janab e Asia was momina,  Firoun will have salvation too....

    By saf rizvi -
  • Whether the article is true or not is not the question but the fact remains that Zakir Naik did call Yazeed RA as his tapes are available freely on the You Tube.  It is Zakir Naik who should have thought before making this profound statement and it is him who is trying to sow the seed of disunity among the Muslim ummah.  And surely there is a hidden agenda.  Memorising Quran and making reference to other vedas  cannot make a man visionary until you understand the basic essence of  the teachings.  Throughout the existence of the human being, they have looked upon an icon to ensure  who governs the society. Hazrat Muhammad (SAW)  Hazrat Isa, Hazrant Musa, or even to that matter Lord Rama, Lord Kirishna were an icon to the society and it was their example that was laid and followed  by the generations.  Imam Husain , the grandson of Prophet Mohammad left a glaring example at the plains of Kerbala in 680 AD when a paltry strength of 72 of his followers fought Yazid, the demon to establish who will emerge as the icon of the society, an example to which the Islamic ummah would look upon.  Zakir Naik should understand that the Ummah chose Husain as it icon as till today after the battle of kerbala none of the Muslim has ever named their son as Yazid as he became a pariah./  Even Zakir Naik parents did not name him after Yazid and I am sure that the learned ( I mean ignorant) scholar would have not named his children after Yazid much the same manner as our Hindu brethren never named their progeny after Ravana or Kans.  No matter what Zakir Naik may say, yazid has been doomed into the dustbin since the last 1400 years and till eternity.  No amount of resurrection by him will yield result and I would like to ask him what would have happened had Yazid became an icon-- the muslim society would have been engaged in alchohol,prostitution rape and all the vices of the world 

    By ZIYA RIZVI -
  •  

    Whether the article is true or not is not the question but the fact remains that Zakir Naik did call Yazeed RA as his tapes are available freely on the You Tube.  It is Zakir Naik who should have thought before making this profound statement and it is him who is trying to sow the seed of disunity among the Muslim ummah.  And surely there is a hidden agenda.  Memorising Quran and making reference to other vedas  cannot make a man visionary until you understand the basic essence of  the teachings.  Throughout the existence of the human being, they have looked upon an icon to ensure  who governs the society. Hazrat Muhammad (SAW)  Hazrat Isa, Hazrant Musa, or even to that matter Lord Rama, Lord Kirishna were an icon to the society and it was their example that was laid and followed  by the generations.  Imam Husain , the grandson of Prophet Mohammad left a glaring example at the plains of Kerbala in 680 AD when a paltry strength of 72 of his followers fought Yazid, the demon to establish who will emerge as the icon of the society, an example to which the Islamic ummah would look upon.  Zakir Naik should understand that the Ummah chose Husain as it icon as till today after the battle of kerbala none of the Muslinm has ever named their son as Yazid as he became a pariah./  Even Zakir Naik parents did not name hiom after Yazid and I am sure that the learned ( I mean ignroant) scholor  would have not named his children after Yazid much the same manner as our Hindu brethern never named their progeny after Ravana or Kans.  No matter what Zakir Naik may say, yazid has been doomed into the dustbin since the last 1400 years and till eternity.  No amount of resurrection by him will yeild result and I would like to ask him what would have happened had Yazid became an icon-- the muslim society would have been engaged in alcholohol,mprostiotution rape and all the vices of the world 

    By ZIYA RIZVI -
  • Same Dr Zakir Naik is also trying to bridge the Gap Between Hinduism and Islam:

    SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ISLAM AND HINDUISM – Part 1 Dr. Zakir Naik

    In the series of articles on this subject, we shall seek to find similarities or common ground between two major religions of the world: Hinduism and Islam. The approach adopted in this work is based on the following verse of the Glorious Qur’an: Surah Ali Imran Chapter 3 Verse 64:

     Say “O People Of the Book! Come to common terms As between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; That we associate no partners with Him; That we erect not, From among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.” If then they turn back, Say ye: “Bear witness That we (at least) Are Muslims (bowing To Allah’s Will).’(Al Qur’an 3:64)

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part1.html

    ARTICLES OF FAITH (IMAAN) IN ISLAM & COMPARISON WITH TENETS PRESCRIBED BY HINDU SCRIPTURES

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part2.html

    CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM The Qur’an too propounds monotheism. So you will find similarities between Hinduism and Islam even in the concept of God.

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part3.html

    Concept of Angels in Hinduism and in Islam

    We shall now examine the belief in angels of God in these two major religions and study if there are similarities.

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part4.html

    CONCEPT OF PROPHETHOOD IN HINDUISM AND IN ISLAM

     

    Messengers in Islam

     

    Messengers or Prophets of Almighty God are persons chosen by Almighty God to communicate His message to the people.

     

    Messengers were sent to every nation

     

    a.   To every people (was sent) A Messenger: when their Messenger Comes (before them), the matter Will be judged between them With justice, and they Will not be wronged. (Al Qur’an 10:47)

     

    b.   For We assuredly sent Amongst every people a messenger (with the command), “Serve

    Allah and eschew Evil”: Of the people were some whom Allah guided, and some On whom Error became Inevitably (established). So travel Through the earth, and see What was the end of those

    Who denied (the Truth). (Al Qur’an 16:36)

     

    b.     And there never was A people, without a warner Having lived among them (In the past).

    (Al Qur’an 35:24)

     

    c.      And to every people a guide. (Al Qur’an 13:7)

     

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part5.html

     

    MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROPHESIED IN HINDU SCRIPTURES:

     

    Muhammad (pbuh) prophesied in Bhavishya Purana:

     

    According to Bhavishya Purana in the Pratisarag Parv III, Khand 3, Adhyay 3 Shalokas 10 to 27 Maharishi Vyas has prophesied:

     

    “The Malechha have spoiled the well-known land of the Arabs. Arya Dharma is not to be found in the country. Before also there appeared a misguided fiend whom I had killed; he has now again appeared being sent by a powerful enemy. To show these enemies the right path and to give them guidance the well-known Mohamad (Mohammad) who has been given by me, the epithet of Brahma, is busy in bringing the ‘Pishachas’ to the right path. O Raja, you need not go to the land of the foolish Pishachas, you will be purified through my kindness even where you are. At night, he of the angelic disposition, the shrewd man, in the guise of a pischacha said to Raja Bhoj, O Raja! Your Arya Dharma has been made to prevail over all religions, but according to the commandments of Ishwar Parmatama, I shall enforce the strong creed of the meat eaters. My followers will be men circumcised, without a tail (on his head), keeping beard, creating a revolution announcing Adhan (call for prayer) and will be eating all lawful things. He will eat all sorts of animals except swine. They will not seek purification from the holy shrubs, but will be purified through warfare. On account of their fighting the irreligious nations, they will be known as Musalmaans. I shall be the originator of this religion of the meat-eating nation.”

     

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part6.html

     

    THE CONCEPT OF LIFE AFTER DEATH IN HINDUISM AND IN ISLAM

     

    LIFE AFTER DEATH IN HINDUISM:

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part7.html

    THE CONCEPT OF WORSHIP IN HINDUISM AND IN ISLAM

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part8.html

    CONCEPT OF JIHAD IN HINDUISM AND IN ISLAM

     

    JIHAD IN ISLAM AND IN HINDUISM

     

    http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/ZakirNaik/part9.html

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Date:        Sun, 2 Nov 2008 08:29:29 -0800 [11/02/2008 09:59PM IST]

    From:      Mubashir Inayet

    To:           Editor, NewAgeIslam.com <editor@newageislam.com>

    Subject:  Dr. Naik and Osama

     

    Just because US is a villian that does not mean unIslamic acts in response should be condoned or "understood". Osama had no issues accepting all kinds of help from US when he was fighting the Soviets but after the Soviets left, he turned against his helpers!! What kind of policy is this? Osama was also involved in settinpg terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and he supported attacks on US Embassies in East Africa which killed civilians. On video he claimed to have prior knowledge of 911 attack. He supports suicide bombings as legitimate act of war and does not care if innocents are killed.

      

    As for US drone attacks in Waziristan. Stop cross-border infiltration attacks by tribals from Pakistan and they will stop. As simple as that.

    Mubashir Inayet

     

    By Mubashir Inayet -
  • Dear Sultan Sahab,

    Another view on Tragedy of Karbala and Islamic History:

    ISLAM: THE TRUE HISTORY AND FALSE BELIEFS

    by Dr Shabbir Ahmed:

    http://www.galaxydastak.com/?page_id=11605

    http://ourbeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/admin2/2007/08/true-history.pdf

    (Including KARBALA: FACT OR FICTION? KARBALA — is also available in Urdu)


    Numerous books have been written in the name of History of Islam during the last one thousand years. But actually, they have been the Histories of Muslims. The Muslim Histories have revolved around the rulers and their ways. The first ever “History” was written by “Imam” Tabari on hearsay alone about 280 years after the exalted Prophet. The later historians have been copying him with impunity. ISLAM: THE TRUE HISTORY AND FALSE BELIEFS, without missing out on personalities, succinctly displays the glorious Islam gradually declining from its astonishing pinnacle to the ritualistic and irrational manmade religion. Extensively researched and generously referenced, the book effectively demolishes the widely accepted “norms” and reveals the truth in a convincing style. Spellbinding! What a relief of enlightenment it will be to the open-minded, and what a shock to the blind follower! Please get ready for a bumpy, roller-coaster intellectual ride.

     

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Dear Sultan Sahab,

    Translation of Arabic Text of Al Awasim Min Al Qawasim is as under:

    Since History is quoted here by Late. Ghazi but the same History also says this:

    "QUOTE"

    Excerpts from DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER by QADI ABU BAKR IBN AL-`ARABI Accurately Determining The Position Of The Companions After The Death Of The Prophet, May Allah Bless Him And Grant Him Peace AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM

    Complete details regarding Battle of Jamal, Siffin, Neherwan and Karabala are covered in these Blog Posts:

    Companions after Mohammad [PBUH]'s Death - 15 [In Total 15 Posts]

    Veracity of Tabari's Islamic History - 54 [In Total 54 Posts]

    Alleged Last will of Ghazi and Karbala - I [In Total 6 Posts



    The first to write to him from the shaykhs of the party, according to what their historian Lut b. Yahya related, were Salman b. Surad, al-Musayyib b. Najba, Rif’a b. Shaddad and Habib b. Muzahir. They sent their letter with `Abdullah b. Sab’ al-Hamdani, and `Abdullah b. Wali. They came to Husayn in Makka on the tenth of Ramadan, 60 A.H. After two days, Qays b. Mushir al-Saydawi, `Abdu’r-Rahman b. `Abdullah b. al-Kadn al-Arhaji and `Umara as-Saluli went to him with fifty-three pages. After another two days, Hani’ b. Hani’ as-Subay’i and Sa`id b. `Abdullah al-Hanafi hurried to him. (at-Tabari, 6:197 has the texts of some of their letters and the names of some of its people). This continued until they would not meet with their Amir, an-Nu`man b. Bashir on Friday. They called al-Husayn to them. Then when he came, they would expel their Amir and hold him in Syria. They said to one of them, "So the fruits will grow. If you so wish, you will find a large army for you." Al-Husayn sent them his nephew Muslim b. `Uqayl to see if they would be loyal and gather so that he could come to them later. Muslim b. `Uqayl got lost on the way and those with him died of thirst. He wrote to al-Husayn asking him to relieve him of this task. He answered him, "I fear that only cowardice has led you to ask to be excused." Muslim continued until he reached Kufa and twelve thousand of them offered homage to him.

    The Amir of Kufa, an-Nu`man b. Bashir, became aware of their movements. He spoke to them and forbade sedition and division. He told them, "I only fight the one who fights me. I will not punish by supposition or suspicion. If you show me your page and you break your pledge of homage, then I will strike you with my sword as long as it is firm in my hand." Yazid knew that an-Nu`man b. Bashir was a forbearing man of piety not suited to opposing a movement like this. He therefore wrote to `Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, his governor over Basra ordering him to take charge of Kufa as well. He commanded him to go to Kufa and to seek out Ibn `Uqayl as the pearl is sought until it is found. Then he should bind him and kill or exile him. `Ubaydullah appointed his brother over Basra and went to Kufa. He met its leaders and took hold of the crisis. It was not long before Muslim b. `Uqayl saw that the opinion of the twelve thousand who had given him allegiance was as thin as air. He found himself alone and cast out. Then he was taken and executed.

    Al-Husayn had received the letters of Muslim b. `Uqayl before that, saying that twelve thousand had offered homage to him until death. At the end of the Hajj `Id, he left for Kufa. Ibn az-Zubayr was the only one to encourage him to go out because he knew that the people of the Hijaz would not give him homage as long as al-Husayn was with them. Al-Husayn was the heaviest of people for Ibn az-Zubayr, (At-Tabari, 6:196-197 and look at 6:216-217) and his nephew `Abdullah b. Ja`far b. Abi Talib (2:219). `Abdullah b. Ja`far asked the governor of Yazid over Makka, `Amr b. Sa`id b. al-`As, to write a letter of safe-conduct for al-Husayn to give him hopes of kindness and connection and to ask him to come back. The Governor of Makka granted all that he sought. He told him, "Write whatever you wish and I will seal the letter." He wrote to him and the governor sealed it. He sent it to al-Husayn with his brother Yahya b. Sa`id b. `Is. `Abdullah b. Ja`far went with Yahya. They tried to dissuade al-Husayn from travelling. He refused. (The Governor’s letter is in ‘The History’ of at-Tabari, 6:219-220). No one was above these counsellors in their intellect, knowledge, position and sincerity. `Abdullah b. Muti`, the agent of Ibn az-Zubayr, was one of his advisers who had intellect and sincerity (at-Tabari, 6:196). `Umar b. `Abdu’r-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hishan al-Makhzumi held this opinion (at-Tabari, 6125-126), and al-Harith b. Khalid b. al-`As b. Hisham did not neglect to give him counsel (6:216). Even al-Farazdaq the poet told him, "The hearts of the people are with you, but their swords are with the Banu Umayya." (at-Tabari, 6:218). None of this effort turned al-Husayn from this journey which was ill-omened for him, for Islam, and for the Islamic community until this very day and will be until the Last Day.

    All of this was due to the crime of his party who encouraged him to rashness, delusion and desire for civil strife, division and evil. Then they disappointed him through their cowardice, baseness, treachery and perfidy. Their heirs were not content with what their ancestors did. They devoted themselves to clouding history and changing the truth and to reversing things. and he sent Muslim b. `Uqayl, his nephew, to them to take allegiance from them and to investigate his followers. Ibn `Abbas forbade him and told him that they had disappointed his father and his brother. Ibn az-Zubayr indicated to him that he should go out, so he went out. When he reached Kufa, Muslim b. `Uqayl had been slain and all of those who had invited him surrendered him. It is enough for you in this to have the warning of the one who is warned.

    He persisted and continued out of anger for the deen and to establish the truth. But he, may Allah be pleased with him, did not accept the good advice of the man with the most knowledge among the people of his time. That was Ibn `Abbas. He turned away from the opinion of the shaykh of the Companions, Ibn `Umar.

    Well-being lay in what he preferred and his encouraging the unity of the muslims and their devotion to the spread of the call and conquest. He sought the beginning in the end and the straight in the crooked and the greenness of youth in the white hair of old age. His power was not like that nor did he have any helpers who guarded his right or who expended themselves for him. We wanted to purify the earth of the wine of Yazid,

    By the claim of those who provoked the sedition who testified to something which they did not know. so we shed the blood of al-Husayn. A calamity came to us which the happiness of time cannot heal. No one came out to him except by using interpretation. They all fought him with what they had heard from his grandfather, the master of the messengers who mentioned the corruption of the situation and warned about getting involved in seditions. He said a lot about that. They included his words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

    From the hadith of `Arfaja in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim: The chapter of ‘The Judgments of the One who Divides the Muslims when they are United’ (book 33, hadith 59, pt. 6, p. 22). "There will be defects and flaws. Whoever wants to divide the business of this community when it is united should be struck with the sword, whoever he is." People only presented this and things like it. Even if their leader and the son of their noble al-Husayn expanded his house, his estate or his camels, and even if people came to him to establish the truth and they included Ibn `Abbas, and Ibn `Umar, one should not turn to them. He should remember what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, warned about and what he said about his brother.

    i.e "this son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims." He saw that it had left his brother while the armies of the land and the great men were seeking him out. How then could it return to him by the dregs of Kufa while the great companions forbade him and held aloof from him? I do not think that this is anything other than submission to the decree of Allah and sorrow for the grandson of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for all time. If it had not been for the fact that the shaykhs and notables of the community recognised that it was a matter which Allah had taken away from the people of the House and a state of civil strife which no one should become involved in, they would never have surrendered it.

    Ahmad b. Hanbal, in spite of his asceticism and his immense position in the deen and his scrupulousness, still included Yazid b. Mu`awiya in ‘The Book of Zuhd’ and mentioned what he used to say in his khutba, "When one of you falls ill, is treated and recovers, he should look to the best action he has and cling to it. He should look to the worst thing he has done and leave it." This indicates his immense position with Ibn Hanbal since he included him among the men of Zuhd of the Companions and the Tabi`un whose words were followed and those who are not warned. Indeed, he included him in the group of companions before he proceeded to mention the Tabi`un. Where is this in relation to what the historians say about him and wine and types of corruption? Are they not ashamed? When Allah strips them of virtue and modesty, why do you not desist and hold back when they follow the rabbis and monks rather than the men of excellence of the community? You should reject the heretics and impudent men who are affiliated with the community. "This is a clarification for people and guidance and warning for the fearfully aware." Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."

    "UNQUOTE" By Aamir Mughal -
  • Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] had indeed named his sons after Sheikhain i.e. Hazrat Abu Bakar, Hazrat Omar and Hazrat Usman [May Allah be pleased with all of them]. As per Authentic Shia Sources Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] did have biological daugthers [May Allah be pleased with them] besides Hazrat Fatimah [May Allah be pleased with her] and these daugthers were married later to Hazrat Usman [May Allah be pleased with him]. Not only that Authentic Shia Sources also accept that Hazrat Ali's Daughter Syeda Kulsoom [May Allah have mercy on his soul] was married to Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him]. Read the details below:

    1 - Hazrat Ali's Family.

    2 - Hazrat Ali Relationship with Hazrat Omar.

    3 - Hazrat Usman's Relation with Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] and Hazrat Ali [Shia Sources]

    4 - Aal-e-Ali's relationship with Bannu Ummayya and Aal Marwan [After the Tragedy of Karbala]

    Now Read........ ........

    Wives and Children of Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him:

    1 - Hazrat Fatimah Bin Mohammad [May Allah be pleased with her]:

    Hassan, Hussain, Zainab ul Kubra and Umme Kulthum [she became wife of Hazrat Omar (May Allah be pleased with him and all those who were mentioned earlier.

    2 - Umm-ul-Bunian Bin Haram Bin Kalabia [she was related with Shimar Bin Zil Joshan (the alleged Criminal of Karabala){Ref: Jumhartul Ansab by Ibn Hazm}] who was the daughter of Hazam b. Khalid. Hadrat Ali had five sons from her, namely: Abdullah, Jafar, Abbas, Othman, and Umar. All of them were martyred in the battle of Karbala along with Hadhrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him].

    3 - Laila Bin Masood Bint Khalid Nehshaliya Tameema who was the daughter of Masud. She was the mother of two sons, namely Ubaidullah and Abu Bakr. Both of them were martyred in Karbala.

    4 - Asma who was the daughter of Umais. She was in the first instance married to Hadrat Jafar, an elder brother of Hadrat Ali. On the death of Hadrat Jafar, Hadrat Abu Bakr married her. After the death of Hadrat Abu Bakr she married Hadrat Ali. She had to sons from Hadrat Ali, namely: Yahya and Muhammad Al Asghar who martyred in Karbala.

    5 - Umama [her mother Zainab was the daughter of Prophet Mohammad - PBUH]d/o of Abi Al Aa's. Her son from Hadrat Ali bore the name of Muhammad Awsat.

    6 - Khaula Bin Jafariya was the daughter of Jafar Hanfiyah. She was the mother of the son known as Muhammad b. Hanfiyah aka Mohammad Al Akbar.

    7 - Sehba Bin Rabia Taghlibiya who was the daughter of Rabiah. She gave birth to a son Umar, in the daughter Ruqiya.

    8 - Umm Saeed Bin Urwa Bin Masood Thaqeefa who was a daughter of Urwa. She bore Hadrat Ali three daughters, namely: Umm-ul-Hasan, Ramlatul Kubra and Rumia.

    9 - Mukhbita Bin Amral Qais Bin Adi Al Kalbiya Muhyat was a daughter of the famous Arab poet Imra-ul-Qais. She gave birth to a daughter who expired in infancy.

    Hadrat Ali married nine wives in all including Hadrat Fatima. The number of wives at a time however did not exceed four. He had a few slave girls of whom Humia and Umm Shuaib bore him 12 daughters, Nafisa, Zainab, Ruqiya, Umm-ul-Karaam, Humaira, Umm Salma, Sughra, Khadija, Umm Hani, Umm Kulthum Jamana and Maimuna. Hadrat Ali was, in all, the father of 15 sons and 18 daughters. [total = 33 children]

    Those who were martyred at Karbala are as under:

    Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] son's:

    Jafar, Abdullah and Usman [sons of Ummul Banin Bin Hazam], Mohammad [son of Ummul Wald], Abu Bakar [son of Laila Bin Masood Armiya], Abbas.

    Sons of Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]:

    Ali [Laila Bin Marra bin Arwa Thaqafi (Saqaf: tribe of Shia Hero Mukhtar and Sunni Nasibi Hajjaj Bin Yousuf), Abdullah (son of Rubab Bin Umral Qais Kalbi)

    Sons of Hazrat Hasan bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]:

    Abu Bakar and Qasim.

    Sons of Abdullah Bin Jafar Bin Abi Talib:

    Aun and Mohammad.

    Aqeel Bin Abi Talib:

    Jafar, Abdul Rahman, and Abdullah

    Sources: [Al Milal Wan Nahal by Ibn Hazm, Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm, History by Ibn-e-Khaldun and Ansab Aal-e-Abi Talib]

    Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]'s real cousin and Brother In Law Hazrat Abdullah bin Jafar Tayyar Bin Abi Talib [May Allah have mercy on his soul]'s second daughter Syeda Umme Mohammad [May Allah have mercy on her soul] was the wife of Hazrat Ameer Yazeed Bin Muawiyah [May Allah have mercy on his soul]

    Source:

    {Kitab Nasbul Quraish and Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    1 - Syeda Umme Kulsoom Ibn Ali Bin Abi Talib [May Allah have mercy on her soul] was the wife of Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him]

    Sources:

    {Khulaini reports through Muawiyah Bin Ammar, Abu Jafer Tusi in Tehzeeb Al Ahkam, Tusi reports through Hazrat Baqar, Al Kafi has whole chapter on this marriage "Bab Fi Tarweej Umme Kulsoom", Faroogh Kafi, Ibnen Shehr Ashob Mazandarani, Zainuddin Amili, Manaqib-e-Aal- e-Abi Talib}

    Relationship of Hazrat Ali Ibn Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] with Banu Ummayya [Ummayyads] and that relationship through marriages after the Incidents of Siffin and Karbala.

    1- Three daughters of Hazrat Ali Ibn Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] were married to Muawiyah bin Marwan, Abdulmalik Bin Marwan, and Amir Kuraiz Ummavi respectively. [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm and Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya by Ibn Kathir]

    2- Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]'s son Hazrat Hasan [May Allah be pleased with him]'s grand-daughters married in Banu Ummayya:

    3 - Syeda Nafeesa Bin Zaid Bin Hassan w/o Alwalid Bin Abdul Malik Bin Marwan [Shia Source Umdatul Talib Fi Ansab Aal Abi Talib published in India]

    4- Zainab Bin Hassan Masanna w/o Alwalid Bin Abdul Malik Bin Marwan [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    5 - Umme Qasim Bin Hassan Masanna w/o Marwan bin Aban [Grandson of Hazrat Usman (May Allah be pleased with him)] and after he died she married to Ali Bin Hussain aka Zainul Abideen [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    6 - Hammada Bin Hassan Massanna w/o Ismail Bin Abdul Malik Bin Abdul Haris Bin Al Hakam [nephew of Marwan Bin Al Hakam (May Allah be pleased with him)] [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    7- Khadija Bin Hussain Bin Hassan Bin Ali w/o Ismail Bin Abdul Malik Bin Abdul Haris Bin Al Hakam (that was before the marriage of Hammada with him) [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    8- Most of the daughters [Non Fatimid] of Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] married in Banu Jafar, Banu Aqeel, Banu Abbas and Banu Marwan [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm]

    9 - Syeda Sakina d/o Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] after the death of Muasab Bin Zubair, married Marwan Bin Al Hakam's grandson Al Asbagh Bin Abdul Aziz Bin Marwan, his econd wife was Umme Yazeed d/o Yazid Bin Muawiyah [Jumharatul Ansab by Ibn Hazm, Al Muarif Ibn Qutaiba, Kitab Nasbul Quraish]

    10 - Rabia bint Syeda Sakin Bint Hazrat Hussain Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] w/o Abbas Bin Al Walid Bin Abdul Malik Bin Marwan [Kitab Nasb Quraish]

    Hazrat Uthman Ibn Affan [May Allah be pleased with him] by being son-in-law of Mohammad [PBUH] was also amongst The Ahl Al-Bayt.

    As per Shia Books:

    A Rafizi Abul Qasim Ali Bin Ahmed Bin Musa [Death: 352 Hijri] in his book Al Istighasa Fi Bidah-es-Salasa had denied that Ruqqaya [May Allah be pleased with her], Umme Kulthum [May Allah be pleased with her], and Zainab [May Allah be pleased with her] were also the daugthers of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] besides Hazrat Fatimah [May Allah be pleased with her] from Hazrat Khadija [May Allah be pleased with her] whereas Ruqqayya, Zainab and Umme Kulthum were the daughters of Mohammad [PBUH] from Khadija and all three were borne before the Prophethood [Bu'saat]. Abul Qasim above meant to say that these three daughters were borne to Khadija from her earlier husband. Abul Qasim's claims are rejected by books like Nasb Al Quraish, Kashf Al Ghamma Fi Maarifatul Aimma, Umdatut Talib Fi Ansab Aal Abi Talib.

    The claim of the above Rafizi was thoroughly rejected by a noted Shia Scholar Abdullah Mamqani in his book Tanqeeh ul Maqal Fi Ahwal Ir Rijal and declared that Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had four daughters [May Allah be pleased with all of them]. Rafizi Abul Qasim was declared apostate by several noted Shia Scholars like Sheikh Abbas Al Qumi in his Tatamma Al Muntaha, and by another Shia Scholar Allama Aaqa Meer in his Naqd ur Rijal and by another Giant Shia Scholar Mohammad Bin Yaquob Al Kulaini in his Usool ul Kafi's Chapter Bab-e-Tareekh also accepted that Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] has four daughters from Khadija [May All be pleased with her].

    Following Shia Books accpeted that Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had four daughters from Khadjia [[May All be pleased with her].

    1- Kitaabul Khisal by Sheikh Sadooq.

    2- Tazkaratul Masoomeen.

    3- Tuhfatul Awam.

    4- Manaqib Ibn-e-Sheher Ashoob.

    5- Hayatul Quloob.

    6- Jilaul Uyoon.

    7- Tehzeeb Al Ahkam.

    8- Al Istabsar Mara'atul Uqool.

    9- Firoo Kafi.

    10- Saafi Sharah Kafi.

    11- Kashful Ghama.

    12- Qarbul Asnad.

    13- Majalisul Momineen.

    14- Ailaam ul Wari.

    15- Anwaar-e-Naimania.

    16- Rijal-e-Kashi.

    17- Amali Sheikh Toosi.

    "UNQUOTE"

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Dear Sultan Sahab,

    Regarding Yazeed Bin Muawiyah Bin Abu Sufiyan Bin Harb:

    Spiritual God Father of Wahaabis i.e. Ahmed Bin Hanbal. Do you know what is the position of Hanbalites on Cursing Yazeed. Replies is in two parts. I hope you know Arabic because some parts of the reply carry Arabic Text. I wonder why the Children of Aal-e-Ali choose to marry within the same Tribes [Bannu Ummayya and Aal-e-Marwan] who has per the article above were butchered by Ummayyada and Marwanites.

    Yazid Bin Muawiyah, Sufi Al Ghazali and Hanbalites.

    Since Alamdar Sahab has quoted History here but the same History also says this:

    The first to write to him from the shaykhs of the party, according to what their historian Lut b. Yahya related, were Salman b. Surad, al-Musayyib b. Najba, Rif’a b. Shaddad and Habib b. Muzahir. They sent their letter with `Abdullah b. Sab’ al-Hamdani, and `Abdullah b. Wali. They came to Husayn in Makka on the tenth of Ramadan, 60 A.H. After two days, Qays b. Mushir al-Saydawi, `Abdu’r-Rahman b. `Abdullah b. al-Kadn al-Arhaji and `Umara as-Saluli went to him with fifty-three pages. After another two days, Hani’ b. Hani’ as-Subay’i and Sa`id b. `Abdullah al-Hanafi hurried to him. (at-Tabari, 6:197 has the texts of some of their letters and the names of some of its people). This continued until they would not meet with their Amir, an-Nu`man b. Bashir on Friday. They called al-Husayn to them. Then when he came, they would expel their Amir and hold him in Syria. They said to one of them, "So the fruits will grow. If you so wish, you will find a large army for you." Al-Husayn sent them his nephew Muslim b. `Uqayl to see if they would be loyal and gather so that he could come to them later. Muslim b. `Uqayl got lost on the way and those with him died of thirst. He wrote to al-Husayn asking him to relieve him of this task. He answered him, "I fear that only cowardice has led you to ask to be excused." Muslim continued until he reached Kufa and twelve thousand of them offered homage to him.

    The Amir of Kufa, an-Nu`man b. Bashir, became aware of their movements. He spoke to them and forbade sedition and division. He told them, "I only fight the one who fights me. I will not punish by supposition or suspicion. If you show me your page and you break your pledge of homage, then I will strike you with my sword as long as it is firm in my hand." Yazid knew that an-Nu`man b. Bashir was a forbearing man of piety not suited to opposing a movement like this. He therefore wrote to `Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, his governor over Basra ordering him to take charge of Kufa as well. He commanded him to go to Kufa and to seek out Ibn `Uqayl as the pearl is sought until it is found. Then he should bind him and kill or exile him. `Ubaydullah appointed his brother over Basra and went to Kufa. He met its leaders and took hold of the crisis. It was not long before Muslim b. `Uqayl saw that the opinion of the twelve thousand who had given him allegiance was as thin as air. He found himself alone and cast out. Then he was taken and executed.

    Al-Husayn had received the letters of Muslim b. `Uqayl before that, saying that twelve thousand had offered homage to him until death. At the end of the Hajj `Id, he left for Kufa. Ibn az-Zubayr was the only one to encourage him to go out because he knew that the people of the Hijaz would not give him homage as long as al-Husayn was with them. Al-Husayn was the heaviest of people for Ibn az-Zubayr, (At-Tabari, 6:196-197 and look at 6:216-217) and his nephew `Abdullah b. Ja`far b. Abi Talib (2:219). `Abdullah b. Ja`far asked the governor of Yazid over Makka, `Amr b. Sa`id b. al-`As, to write a letter of safe-conduct for al-Husayn to give him hopes of kindness and connection and to ask him to come back. The Governor of Makka granted all that he sought. He told him, "Write whatever you wish and I will seal the letter." He wrote to him and the governor sealed it. He sent it to al-Husayn with his brother Yahya b. Sa`id b. `Is. `Abdullah b. Ja`far went with Yahya. They tried to dissuade al-Husayn from travelling. He refused. (The Governor’s letter is in ‘The History’ of at-Tabari, 6:219-220). No one was above these counsellors in their intellect, knowledge, position and sincerity. `Abdullah b. Muti`, the agent of Ibn az-Zubayr, was one of his advisers who had intellect and sincerity (at-Tabari, 6:196). `Umar b. `Abdu’r-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hishan al-Makhzumi held this opinion (at-Tabari, 6125-126), and al-Harith b. Khalid b. al-`As b. Hisham did not neglect to give him counsel (6:216). Even al-Farazdaq the poet told him, "The hearts of the people are with you, but their swords are with the Banu Umayya." (at-Tabari, 6:218). None of this effort turned al-Husayn from this journey which was ill-omened for him, for Islam, and for the Islamic community until this very day and will be until the Last Day.

    All of this was due to the crime of his party who encouraged him to rashness, delusion and desire for civil strife, division and evil. Then they disappointed him through their cowardice, baseness, treachery and perfidy. Their heirs were not content with what their ancestors did. They devoted themselves to clouding history and changing the truth and to reversing things. and he sent Muslim b. `Uqayl, his nephew, to them to take allegiance from them and to investigate his followers. Ibn `Abbas forbade him and told him that they had disappointed his father and his brother. Ibn az-Zubayr indicated to him that he should go out, so he went out. When he reached Kufa, Muslim b. `Uqayl had been slain and all of those who had invited him surrendered him. It is enough for you in this to have the warning of the one who is warned.

    He persisted and continued out of anger for the deen and to establish the truth. But he, may Allah be pleased with him, did not accept the good advice of the man with the most knowledge among the people of his time. That was Ibn `Abbas. He turned away from the opinion of the shaykh of the Companions, Ibn `Umar.

    Concerning the murder of Husayn (radhy Allahu ‘anhu) by Yazeed b. Mu’awiyah and the apparent position of Qadhi Abu Bakr that it was effectively Husayn’s fault, Imam al-Alusi says about him (26/74):

    Maliki scholar Qadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi in AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM [DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER] says

    “He was killed by the sword of his Grandfather”. Yet, ibn al-Arabi did say something very similar. See the text below taken from al-Awasim min al-Qawasim, (pg 231-236, Maktaba al-Asriyyah, Beirut, 2004).

    Hanafi School of thought on Khurooj:

    Hazrat Hussain Ibn-e-Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] going against Ameer Yazid [May Allah have mercy on his soul] and the Sunni view on Yazid:

    O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.[AN-NISA (WOMEN) Chapter 4 Verse 59]

    2) Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And whoever obeys my ruler (amir), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my ruler, disobeys me” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6718 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1835).

    3) Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a raisin” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6723 & Sahih Muslim).

    4) Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Whoever sees his ruler doing something he disapproves of, he should be patient, for no one separates from the (Muslim) group even for a span and then dies, except that he will die a death of (pre-Islamic) ignorance. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6724 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1849).

    5) Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A Muslim must listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).

    The above evidences are clear in establishing the fact that one must obey the ruler even if he is corrupt or a sinner (fasiq). The reason for this, in the words of Allama al-Ghunaymi, is that, there have been many corrupt rulers in Islamic history and never did the predecessors (salaf) rebel against them, rather they used to submit to their rule and establish Jumu’ah and Eid prayers with their permission. Also, piety is not a pre-requisite for leadership. (Sharh al-Ghunaymi, p. 110).

    Other scholars emphasize that uprising against corrupt leadership results in more tribulation and destruction then the initial oppression of the ruler. With forbearance and tolerance, one’s sins will be forgiven. And in reality, the corrupt ruler is imposed by Allah due to our own wrongdoings, thus it becomes necessary that we repent and seek Allah’s forgiveness coupled with good actions, as Allah Most High says: “Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of the things your hands have wrought” (42:30)…….. And He says: “Thus do we make the wrongdoers turn to each other, because of what they earn” (6:129). Therefore, if a nation wants to free themselves from the oppression of their leader, they must refrain themselves from oppressing others.

    Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya:

    “We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned”. (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111).

    363. Well-being lay in what he preferred and his encouraging the unity of the muslims and their devotion to the spread of the call and conquest. He sought the beginning in the end and the straight in the crooked and the greenness of youth in the white hair of old age. His power was not like that nor did he have any helpers who guarded his right or who expended themselves for him. We wanted to purify the earth of the wine of Yazid,

    364. By the claim of those who provoked the sedition who testified to something which they did not know. so we shed the blood of al-Husayn. A calamity came to us which the happiness of time cannot heal. No one came out to him except by using interpretation. They all fought him with what they had heard from his grandfather, the master of the messengers who mentioned the corruption of the situation and warned about getting involved in seditions. He said a lot about that. They included his words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

    365. From the hadith of `Arfaja in ‘The Book of the Amirate’ in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim: The chapter of ‘The Judgments of the One who Divides the Muslims when they are United’ (book 33, hadith 59, pt. 6, p. 22). "There will be defects and flaws. Whoever wants to divide the business of this community when it is united should be struck with the sword, whoever he is." People only presented this and things like it. Even if their leader and the son of their noble al-Husayn expanded his house, his estate or his camels, and even if people came to him to establish the truth and they included Ibn `Abbas, and Ibn `Umar, one should not turn to them. He should remember what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, warned about and what he said about his brother.

    366. i.e "this son of mine is a master. Perhaps Allah will use him to make peace between two large groups of muslims." He saw that it had left his brother while the armies of the land and the great men were seeking him out. How then could it return to him by the dregs of Kufa while the great companions forbade him and held aloof from him? I do not think that this is anything other than submission to the decree of Allah and sorrow for the grandson of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for all time. If it had not been for the fact that the shaykhs and notables of the community recognised that it was a matter which Allah had taken away from the people of the House and a state of civil strife which no one should become involved in, they would never have surrendered it.

    Ahmad b. Hanbal, in spite of his asceticism and his immense position in the deen and his scrupulousness, still included Yazid b. Mu`awiya in ‘The Book of Zuhd’ and mentioned what he used to say in his khutba, "When one of you falls ill, is treated and recovers, he should look to the best action he has and cling to it. He should look to the worst thing he has done and leave it." This indicates his immense position with Ibn Hanbal since he included him among the men of Zuhd of the Companions and the Tabi`un whose words were followed and those who are not warned. Indeed, he included him in the group of companions before he proceeded to mention the Tabi`un. Where is this in relation to what the historians say about him and wine and types of corruption? Are they not ashamed? When Allah strips them of virtue and modesty, why do you not desist and hold back when they follow the rabbis and monks rather than the men of excellence of the community? You should reject the heretics and impudent men who are affiliated with the community. "This is a clarification for people and guidance and warning for the fearfully aware." Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."

    By Aamir Mughal -
  • "If Osama bin Laden is terrorising America, we are with him and every Muslim should be a terrorist.” This is the reported comment made  by Dr. Zakir Naik on Osama. If what was reported is true, the comments made by Zakir Naik is highly reprehensible as it does reflectsthe individual's bent of mind and not the representative views of the Muslims of India. But what is missing here is the excerpts from Dr. Naik's reported speech. If this was quoted, one would see in which context this has been said. The editor should see that the entire speech is reproduced here for the benefit of the readers.

    The commends made by hawkish Hindu leader Advani on Muslims is equally condemnable and out of place. He said that all Muslims are not terrorits but all terrorists are Muslims. So far, no court in India has proouned verdict on all those Muslims arrested on charges of terrorism. Till they are proved guilty by the court, one should not equate them with terrorism. If this is true then, one can easily say after the arrest of Sadhvi, and a few ex-militiary personnel belonging to Sangh parivar in connection with Melagoan and Mosda blasts that all Hindus are not terrorists but all terrorists are Hindus. This blame game could go on for ever. The fact of the matter is terrorists have no religion of their own. They are anti-social and anti-national elements. They do not belong to any sect or caste or creed. A terrorist is a terrorist to whichever religion he belongs. This basic principle was over looked by a seasoned politician like Advani, is quite unfortunate.

    As for the comments made by Dr. Zakir Naik on Yazid calling him Yazid Rahmatullahi Alihi. The objection by the Urdu newspaper to the reported comment on Yazid, hailed in the history as the killer of Imam Hussain and his family is one of cussedness or over sensitivity. The facts were never confirmed in the history but held strongly by the Shia propagandists. Any student of Islamic history would vouch certain facts about Yazid, the Caliph as he was more sinned against than sinning. If one recalls the sayings of our Prophet Mohammed PBUH on the first armada that would invade Spain as according to reliable Hadis, Prophet Mohammed had said that whoever takes part in the first armada that would invade Spain, would be sure of a place in Heaven meaning "Jannati".  If this is true, then  the position of Yazid, who was the commander of the first Islamic Armada that invaded Spain, would be much higher than others who participated in the attack. Now, the question arises, how could such a person would turn against the most loved grand child of the Prophet PBUH and his family in the so called battle of Karbala. The concocted history about the entire episode leading to the accidental killing of Hazrat Imam Hussain, had painted Yazid black so much so that the chapter related to this incident as recorded by the greatest historian of the time Ibn Khuldoom in his epic book "Moqaddima" meaning "Judgement" who is also known as "Imam-ul-Moriqeen" meaning a leader among the historians, was missing from it all added to the confusion. This was done purposely and deliberaly by the then rulers to hide the real facts behind the epic battle at Karbala, which was no battle but a skirmish and Imam Hussain died in the melee, trying to stop the two warring factions. There is no space for a detailed discussion here, hence I leave it to the readers to come to a conclusion after examining the facts from the history books. If  Dr. Zakir Naik had called Yazid as Rahmatullah Alaihi, what was wrong in it and why our people are so over sensitive to such utterances. This is out of sheer ignorance rathen than intellectual analysis.

    On the question of US policies against Muslims all over the world, no Muslim would ever ignore the fact that it was US repressive policies against Muslims all over the world particularly after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that was responsible for the growth and development of people associated with Al-Qaida. Here one should not try to defend Osama, simply because he has been targetting US for all the wrongs done to Islam. By and large, Muslims, sympathise with him for Osama, the billionaire from Saudi Arabia, left all the luxuries of life and chose to fight for the cause of Islam and Muslims in Afghanistan at a time, when Russian forces occupied it forcibly. It was US and Saudi Arabia that were responsible for sending Osama Bin Ladin to Afghanistan to organise and carry out guerilla attack on Russian forces. They armed the Talibans  and Mujahideens to the teeth to counter Russians. They succeeded in sending the Russians packing. Till then every thing was fine with Osama and his Al-Qaida for the US and Saudis. But when he turned against US and Saudis, he became villain overnight to every one in the world. This is in no way condone his act of terrorism in the wrold. But then US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the unrelenting droning attack on the tribals of Waziristan, cannot also be condoned. Here US is playing a dangerous game and it would be very difficult for allied forces to get out of the mess without high casualties.

    Muslims of the world is watching with bated breath, the outcome of elections in US in just a couple of days as the next President would change the course of history. Of the two Presidential hopefuls, McCain appeared to be more sobre, due to his age and experience than the hawkish Obama, young and reckless, who would prove to be Osama of America, as one is to go by his recent utterances. On the question of hot pursuit of the terrorists in Pakistan, McCain believed in tackling differently, while Obama would invade the area to flush out the terrorists and capture Osama hiding somewhere in the hills in Pakistan. Here one wonders, what kind of street talk is going on between the two Presidential hopefuls. While one can condone the rehtorics of McCain, one could not but condemn the language used by Barrack Obama during the debate. He was playing to the gallery when he declared his intention to attack Pakistan and capture Osama alive. Now the question here is, if capturing Osama and his Al-Qaida members is so easy, what were the mighty Americans doing in Afghnistan and Iaq during the last six years, when Osama was very much seen in the hills of Afghanistan. This is the greatest American conspiracy to let Osama escape so that the US could continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for a longer period with an eye on their petro income. This was the hidden agenda behind all the game being played by US and allies in the region. But all the calculations went wrong and US failed in the mission to wipe out Al-Qaida. US is unwilling to own the defeat but the NATO commanders were quick to admit that US or for that matter NATO would never win a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As things stands today, it is for the new President to change the course of history by entering into a dialogue with the Talibans, which is not a cohesive set up but made of many splinter groups. There are good Talibans who do not approve of Osama's policies and would like to end the war.  It is these groups that should be identified and brought to negotiating tables as was rightly did by Saudi King recently. If this is pursued seriously, then there is a ray of hope and US would definitely see the light at the end of the tunnel. I reiterate that if US and allies wanted to avoid further bloodshed in the region, it should not escalate the theatre of war in the region nor the policy of hot pursuit into sovering territories of other nations should be carried out. If McCain wins, he will pursue a more sobre policy in the region. If Barrack Obama wins, then God alone should save the world from the impending catastrophy. It is now for American people to decide. Vote for the President who would bring peace to the world and their choice must be McCain. If they choose, as all indications point out, Obama, they would see him as Osama of America, which is dangerous to the world. The choice is now with the people of America to choose the best President with an eye on future of the globe. 

    By A.M.Jamsheed Basha, Chennai, India. -
  • Dear Shaheen Sahib, The article written in Urdu daily Shafat & given by you in your site , I think you should first consult the IRF for this if the article is true. This way with out consulting them , you are trying to bring in division between muslims. We muslims all believe in one Allah & his Prophet Mohammad ( PBUH ). So printing in such articles with any true knowledge is not right. By Fayaz -