certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad

96 - COMMENTS

  • @rational mohammed

    Good for once you have asked a sensible question which is not expected of a muslim.

    As per hindu belief, the god is one which is making you think in your three states of life being the following :

    i am waking
    i am sleeping
    i am dreaming

    The common factor of i which supports your existence is god. it is not the stone in mecca.

    I have given the definition and proof of the hindu god which is the gist of your existence. Pls give the proof of your abrahamic god, if you can provide something.

    otherwise it is tribe of blind follower belong to the prophet wife and son in law fighting for centuries as uncivilized mobs 
    By satwa gunam - 8/11/2013 8:32:29 AM



  • You are right rational: everyone of mystic and yogic feats can be expolained by science. Read autobiography of a yogi by paramahansa yogananda for such explicit discussion of yogic principles. The question is has the current human scientific development evolved to handle such scientific knowledge? The moment they knew how to split an atom led to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine what will happen if they get hold of energies and scientific knowledge that are even more advanced? If you look at the lives of mystics and yogis throughout history, they all had knowedlge of subtle energies, techniques and powers which can be considered gifts, but believed in God which is often referred to as the primordial energy in light form that existed before the universe came into existence. You can call that energy as God or light or waves or some particle name or big bang waves etc. But, the underlying theme always is there have always been things that go beyond the understanding of human knowledge at every stage of human evolution even to the advanced mystical beings. This reinforced the existence of God. Except that the advanced being realized God as that unknown explanation for the scientific theings the experience while the average man believes God resides in a stone or idol. The average man is correct in principle as that primordial energy with unexplained source is manifested in the rock or idol.   I can go on. But the point of my rambling being that we as humans cannot venture far into the unknown realm of knowledge without invoking God or we will get confused in technicalities before long.  By JB - 8/11/2013 7:40:08 AM



  • Dear Satwa.
    First prove there is a God. Later we can discuss the nature of Abrahmic and  non-Abrahmic God.

    Abrahmic God is powerful He just says Kun (Be) and fayakoon (it happens). How is your god?

    I read somewhere that the matter(universe), energy and God are both eternal. God created things from already available raw material. Does it belong to Hinduism? Have ever you yourself experienced the God you are talking about.
    So called Godly experiences are work of right brain. Logical experiences  are work of left brain. It explains that all believers can experience the God. It is not the monopoly of one faith.
    It seems nobody is sure what is God though everybody claims he only knows the true God.

    Experiments in neurology, psychology will reveal the nature of mystic experiences.
    You can visit www.agniveer.com. Have you ever read Satayrth Prakash by Swami Dayanand? What do you belong to Sanatan Dharm or Arya Samaj?
      


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/10/2013 11:13:03 PM



  • @rational mohammed

    There is no other god other than hindu god as it includes innate and living.  

    where are the abrahamic gods do not live in idols and temples, hence by acceptance neither omnipotent nor omnipresent.

    Poor gods they have to look out for the protection under one hindu divinity.

    The stupid abrhamic god has not given the knowledge which it did not have to its moronic followers on it religion during the sleep so where is the question of these moron getting knowledge of death and afterwards.

    By satwa gunam - 8/10/2013 8:16:38 AM



  • dear satwa
    samajh men nahi aaya kiya kahna chah rahe ho. phir se kaho. yeh kahne ki cheez hai baar kaho.
    na to main muslim bhaiyon ke kaatne kosne se ghabraya na tumhare kaatne kosne se ghabrata.
    agar hindi theek se nahi aati to ham se seekh lo.
    main achhi tarah jaanta hoon ki dharmik log kab kiya rang pakad lete hain. isiliye main kisi bhi dharam se itna prabhaawit nahi hota. 

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/8/2013 7:44:30 AM



  • dear satwa
    you are barking on wrong tree. muslim's god is terrific. christian's god is jealous. yours become an animal. 
    thank a lot for describing your god. you can send any movie to me. any abuse you can hurl on me. at least you can't disturb me.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/8/2013 7:20:46 AM



  • @rational mohamaed

    please give bullshit about the tolerance of muslim.  Ass*** starting from kasi to afghanistan tell the true animal which call themselves as muslims.

    I read somewhere janwar ko marnekale bhagawan ko be janwar bana paduthata.

    To make ass**** like you to understand i have no choice but to rude.

    If nothing offends why the hell  muslims were on the roads for the short movie made in egypt by some idiot
    By satwa gunam - 8/7/2013 9:16:07 PM



  • @Rational Sb,
    I bet you, no Islamic scholars match for Mr.Ali sina including here Mohammed Yunus of New age Islam etc. He can easily defeat any one .


    By Dharama_raj - 8/7/2013 4:21:21 AM



  • Dear Satwa
    You can go to any extent. Let us see what is in your beg.
    It seems you failed to comprehend the whole comment. How can I contempt the c*** where I come from!!
    100% agree it can be mother, Sister or daughter. Should we be ashamed for it?
    The comment is about the Muslim beliefs and their condemnation of Shirk in various form.
    This comment was not for you. And there is no hint in it to deride the Hinduism.
    I only wonder why are you so upset? I expected it from the Muslims.
    May I request you to be specific what actually offended you. Is it I mentioned Hindu Tantrik?

    whether my p**** works or not should not be your concern.
    P and C are complementary. So no need to go out of mind. I worship neither P nor C. both one day shrink.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2013 10:09:00 PM



  • Dear Satwa
    What happened? You have inserted so many stars in your comments. It made the comment incomprehensible so it leaves no impression. Learn something from Sadaf  or from me.
    There is something common between all believing persons.
    First they try to be polite and when it doesn't work jerk in the knees and come to star style comments.



    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/6/2013 9:35:06 PM



  • Islam is about believing an abstract idea of the existence of God who alone is supreme and no one else is. 

    Therefore a person who believes in Islam does not have any expectation from anyone, dead or alive. 

    To him, no one has any magical solution to any problem he may be facing and only and only his own efforts and/or collective efforts with others can make few things work. Else nothing will. 

    Few other things that cannot be worked out even that way will never work out unless it were to happen someway. For such a situation one has to have patience. 

    While if it is unclear whether anything is to happen or not and one needs that to happen, then one should strive for it. 

    If things gets done, one should be humble and not be arrogant and start claiming to have done impossible. 

    If it is done, it was not impossible and whosoever must have made it possible to happen although with that much of effort by the one who ultimately proved it to be possible should be given the credit for it. Obviously no man, but one supreme power alone is left for credit. 

    If something is not done despite all efforts, one should not hurt oneself by accusing self of having not done sufficiently nor should one accuse the one who would have otherwise been given credit of having things got done. It must be taken with a thought that one is not God to be able to do all things or even know whether it was in his best interest to have that thing happened or not. God alone must be having the wisdom to know what was in the best interest. Best interest, but not necessarily of the person asking for himself.

    Because the person is not that important at all. His ego has to be zero that way.

    All this frees one from anexity, arrogance and from being cheated for beliefs. 


    By sadaf - 8/6/2013 12:08:17 PM



  • @rational mohammed 

    If i want to be more abusive, you will have taken assistance outside if your p***** does not work.

    You get it a*********
    By satwa gunam - 8/6/2013 7:20:14 AM



  • @rational mohammad yunus

    If your p****** does not work you will neither have the pleasure of 77 virgins in the heavan nor have children of your own and you will be called 1/2.

    Every atom of the world has been created by the divinity with the reason and you can see the god where you want to see if you have attitude.

    It is like a girl who can be your mother, sister, daughter and also a prostitute.

    Finally you came from the c*** your are looking with contempt.

    It show you that you have not idea of what you are talking.



    By satwa gunam - 8/6/2013 5:24:56 AM



  • Dear Sadaf: I failed to understand your latest comment. Do you mean all those who kiss Hajr-e-Aswad are Wahabees? It is not meant for the so-called Wahabees only but it is for the followers of the Islam all over the world. Abusing reciprocally is quite common among the sects of Islam, I have observed all around it is happening that the Intellectual Mullahs have practically no belief and faith in Islamic tenets that's why they abuse each and every one and hurt others' sentiments frequently. By Abdullah - 8/6/2013 1:44:16 AM



  • Dair o haram ki bas asliyat itni hai
    wahan ling yahan kaaba pujta hai.

    Hindoo tantric yoni ki pooja karte hain lekin yeh aam logon ki nazaron se door hoti hai muslamano men lakhon logon ke beech hoti hai bas farq itna hai kiss karte hain.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/5/2013 7:05:24 PM



  • Islam's Sacred Stone of Mecca...

    http://www.islam-watch.org/Lennard/Islam-Sacred-Stone-of-Mecca.htm


    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/5/2013 7:01:01 PM



  • Ek hi saf men khade ho gaye mahmood o ayaz
    na koi banda raha na koi banda nawaz.

    yaahn par is but ko choomne ke liye kiya gora kiya kala kiya arabi kiya ajmi.
    phir kahte hain ki yeh but parasti nahi sunaat e rasool hai
    Allah ke darbaar men yeh butparasti hi qubool hai.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/5/2013 6:59:13 PM



  • Wahabiyon ki guddi par lagao chaar
    barailviyon ki guddi par lagao aath

    kyonki yeh wahabiyon se butparasti men aage hain.
    Is butparasti kaa naam sufiyon ne sulah-kul rakha hai.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/5/2013 6:54:37 PM



  • All visitors including Qabraparast (grave worshipers) to black stone idol poke their heads and lick the vagina shaped idol. Some sexual perversion? Nahi kiya?
    jab loz zabardasti musalmaan banaye gaye to unhone but parasti ke naye tareeqe aur dhoond liye. arbi naam rakh liye.


    jaan bachaane ko kalima bhi padhte rahe aur tarah ki butparasti bhi karte rahe.
    isi butparasti aur tauheed ke naam par logon kaa khoon bahaate rahe aur unka maal o asbaab loot te rahe unki aurton ko apni daasiyan banate rahe.

    Wahabi to ek aadh but ko hi naman karte hain aur Barailviyon/Sufiyon ke but to anginat hain.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/5/2013 6:44:51 PM



  • just as wahabis poke their fingers in the hole made for the black  stone that has become an idol meant to be revered. By sadaf - 8/5/2013 8:10:19 AM



  • Illusions/delusions experienced by the Sufis are results of prolong seclusion, questionable practices and consumption of intoxicating drugs.
    and these Sifi lovers think everything is in the fists of these peers.
    A peer in grave is helpless as anybody can be. but over sufi lovers strikes their heads in darbaar e Sufias with different wishes.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/4/2013 10:59:37 PM



  • Mr Ali Sina is frequently provoked to appear in the public oral debate. but the smart guy understand the danger of the debate with Muslims in public. He insist online written debates with Muslims. Muslims then comes to personal abuses when fail before him.

    I have raed many debates of Mr ali Sina with Muslims from moderate to ultra conservatives. They stand nowhere. They can make only false claims and Halla Gulla.
    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/4/2013 10:52:11 PM



  • Sufis are only deviant people. Grave worshipers ask everything from these Sufis who could not save their skin from the rulers.
    Mansoor Hallaj though considered himself the God but was helpless before the Khalifa Mansoor.
    Shaikh Ibn -e Arbi and shaikh sarhindi pole apart in their beliefs.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 8/4/2013 10:43:20 PM




  •  Truth says, "the debate on quran and bible in the light of science  was also initiated by the missionaries. for about 8 years christians used william campbells's book to deride isalm so zakir naik went there". 
    In fact Dr. William Campbell  wrote his book , "The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science" as a christian response to  Dr Maurice Bucaille's  book,  "The Bible, the Qur'an and Science". I have gone through both the books  and found that Campbell never intended to deride Islam. He only highlighted many inaccuracies, both in regard to the scientific "facts" it presents and in regard to the history of the Christian Scriptures and the Quran.  William Campbell maintains that Maurice Bucaille does not evaluate the Qur’an with the same standards he uses to judge the Bible. Nothing wrong in this.
    In fact what goes to the great advantage of Zakir Naik is the scriptural illiteracy of  his muslim and non-muslim audience.  The vast majority of his viewers have never read through the entire Qur'an in their mother-tongue, and few have read through the Bible. The minority who have actually read the entire scriptures, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, disdain his contorting of scripture with out-of-context quotes. 
    It takes about five seconds to spurt out a half-truth slandering another's scripture, but about ten minutes to expose that same half truth using facts and reason. Naik used this to maximum advantage in his debate with the Christian missionary William Campbell on the Bible, Qur'an and Science, whom Zakir Naik invited to debate. Here is  what happened:
    Campbell begins with a careful, thorough rebuttal of two or three specific alleged miracles in the Qur'an, giving about ten minutes to each point. This consumed the majority of his time. 
    Naik responds briefly to these points, and quickly launches into listing of half-truths belittling the Bible, gleefully presenting about a hundred verses in rapid succession wrenched totally out of context and deliberately misconstrued.
     Campbell, having utterly inadequate time to counter all these points, lost the debate (all 20 of Naik's points are refuted by Ali Sina on his site, "Faithfreedom International"). One perceptive Muslim girl asked Naik during the question time, "But, you did not answer Dr. Campbell's criticisms of the Quran"—which he never  answered.
    This is the paradox with debate before a largely uninformed audience—the debater more willing to use deliberate half-truths generally wins, while the one who refuses to take verses and statistics out of context appears to lose. Honestly speaking, I found  William Campbell more honest.
    Here is another example of how Zakir Naik presents half truths and indulges in false propaganda.
    Naik portrays US society as very stingy with their wealth, claiming that if Americans would give the 2.5% zakat of income, poverty and crime would simply disappear. What a wonderful solution to stingy America! Yet actually, Americans give far more to private charity per capeta than any other nation, with the percentage hovering around 2% for the past forty years. On average, US evangelical Christians give 4% of their income to charity, almost double the zakat's 2.5%. If Naik was a journalist writing such nonsense for any reputed newspaper, he would have been fired for misrepresenting the facts.
    Naik loves to quote snippets from Western scholars who have made positive statements about Islam. Ironically, the vast majority of these same scholars would disagree strongly with Naik's views on the Quran  and science,  Islamic theology, the Bible and Science. The vast majority of global scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, are staunchly opposed to Naik's brand of Wahhabi  supremacist Islam.
    Naik praises Western Christians for allowing their members freely to convert to Islam with no persecution, but he coolly insists that murdering any Muslim who dares to choose another faith is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
    Whereas books and essays encourage critical thought and rational reflection, television is notorious for obscuring weak logic and building illusory auras of grandeur. No-one hits the pause button and checks a statistic or verse. Television is entertainment, and Zakir Naik follows Hollywood methods in building a rock-star personality cult around himself.

    By Khalid Suhail - 8/4/2013 9:41:20 AM



  • Many people will have heard something about Sufism (or Tasawwuf as it is also known) either presented as a spiritual path leading to piety or in a bad way that involves innovations in Islaam. So what is the truth? What is Sufism?.

    The Origin of the Word and its Definition
    Sufism comes from the word soof meaning wool, many sufis like to affiliate themselves with wool since they see it as a sign of simpleness, but the wearing of wool has no special merit in Islaam, In fact it was disliked by the Prophet as Aa’ishah (radi-Allaahu ‘anhaa) narrates in a hadeeth collected by Abu Dawood and Ahmad.

    “I made a black cloth for the Prophet (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) and he put it on, but when he sweated in it he noticed the odour of the wool and threw it away.” The Narrator of this hadeeth said, “I think he (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) said, ‘He liked good smell.’”

    So when the very origin of the word Sufism has no foundation in Islaam, how about the rest of it?

    Some Sufis of the past stated that the Sufism had around 2000 different definitions. These definitions describe Sufism as being linked to concepts and practices that range from poverty, seclusion, deception, depriving the soul, singing, dancing, ecstasy, all the way to the major concept of Sufism - Wahdatul Wujood i.e. that everything that exists is Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala)

    When Did it All Start?
    Some scholars trace Sufism to the early stages of the 2nd century after Hijrah (migration of the Prophet sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam from Makkah to Madinah). Early deviation occurred in exaggerations in worship and extremism in avoidance of the worldly life. 

    Beliefs and Practices of the Sufis?
    All the beliefs and practices of the Sufis are really too numerous to outline in this article but what follows is a brief outlay of some of their fundamental beliefs.

    1. Wahdatul Wujood - This is the evil belief that all that exists is Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala), it makes no distinction between the creator and the creation. For this reason one of the first Sufi ‘shaykhs’ (Masters/teachers) by the name of Mansoor al-Hallaj said about Allaah: 

    “I am He Whom I love,” he exclaimed, “He Whom I love is I; we are two souls co-inhabiting one body. If you see me you see Him and if you see Him you see me.”

    Praise be to Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) who is high above what these Sufis attribute to him. Another Sufi pioneer who is greatly revered by many Sufis today and called Ash-Shaykul Akbar (the greatest Scholar) was a Sufi by the name of Muhiyddin Ibn Arabi (born 560 after Hijrah). He also promoted the belief that all existence was Allaah. This led him to utter words of shirk such as “Subhaanee (glory be to me).” A particularly evil statement that he made was in connection with his master Abu Said al-Kharraz:

    “In relation to existence, He (Allaah) is the very essence of existing things. Thus in a certain sense, relative beings are elevated in themselves, since in truth they are none other than He who bears the name Abu Said al-Kharraz.”

    So here he depicted his own master, as a divine reality. Today many Sufis defend Ibn Arabi in their books, web sites and with their tongues. It is very hard to believe they do not know his statements since his works are well known. The only other possible conclusion for them defending him is that they agree with the shirk he uttered!

    In relation to existence, we know that Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) is free from what these Sufis attribute to him and that he (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) is above the creation as Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) says:

    “And He is al Qaahir, above His worshippers.” [6:18]

    2. Kashf - Literally means ‘unveiling.’ It is the ultimate end which the Sufi looks forward to. The Sufi tolerates seclusion and succumbs to the will of his shaykh precisely to become one of the people of kashf, who are privileged with Divine manifestation. The Sufi masters claim that through this state of kashf they perceive and witness all of the realities of existence as well of those of the al-Ghayb (the Unseen).

    In Sufi terminology kashf means to expose the heart to metaphysical illumination or ‘revelation’ unattainable by reason. There is supposed to be yet a higher stage beyond kashf which is called al-tajalli, or Divine manifestation: the appearance of Allaah to man.

    It is obvious however that any claim that Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’alaa) appears to man, is a flagrant lie. The Prophet and Messenger of Allaah, Moossa (alayhis-salaam) whom Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) had favoured with the privilege of speaking to him directly, was denied his request to see Him (subhaanahu wa ta’aala).

    3. Khalwah - The literal meaning of khalwah is seclusion or retreat, but it has a different connotation in Sufi terminology: It is the act of total self-abondonment in desire for the Divine Presence. In complete seclusion, the Sufi continuously repeats the name of God as a highest form of dhikr (remembrance). The Sufis will seclude themselves for nights on end or even just switch off the lights and make dhikr often moving their heads and bodies.

    The Prophet (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) did not neglect to mention and make clear to his followers any ways or means that lead to success in the Hereafter, nor did he neglect to warn them against any ways or means that lead to misery in the Hereafter. And since the practice of khalwah is not included in the ways and means of success, it must be included in the ways and means of misery. The Prophet (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) said in a hadeeth collected by Saheeh Muslim:

    “Whoever does a deed that is not from me will have it rejected.”

    4. Dreams - The Sufis emphasise dreams, fabricated stories and fabricated hadeeth as well as something known as shataahaat - intense and wild emotion in the state of excitement and agitation arising from what they call sudden divine touches - as sources of guidance. During shataahaat, the Sufi utters unlawful, innovated and mystic words, hallucinates and in many cases utters plain kufr (disbelief).

    5. Al Fanaa (annihilation) is a key element in the Sufi thought. Once the Sufi becomes constant in dhikr - remembrance of Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala), they claim that he acquires sufficient tranquility of heart to experience a delusion that helps him pass through the various stages described below.

    First he is bewildered, then intoxicated with love of the Remembered One, and finally he passes through the stage of fanaa', or annihilation, in which he becomes fully absorbed to the point of becoming unaware of himself or the objects around him. Every existing thing seems to vanish, and he feels free of every barrier that could stand in the way of his viewing the Remembered One and nothing else. 

    To give a better idea of the Sufi concept of Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala), Qunawi, one of Ibn Arabi's disciples, writes:

    “It is inconceivable that one thing should love another thing in the respect that thing differs from it. It can only love that thing as a result of the property of some meaning shared between the two of them, in respect of which an affinity is established between them which will lead to the domination of the property of that which brings about unification over the properties which brings about differentiation...But the end of love is unity. In the last analysis, Allaah and the perfect man are one, for Being is one.”

    This is clear disbelief since Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) says:

    "There is none like unto Him; He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower." [42:11]

    Like most Sufi tenets, fanaa is mentioned neither in the Qur'aan nor in the Sunnah. It is rather a Sufi gimmick and a satanic deception.

    6. The Student and his ‘Shaykh’ - There exists a strange and twisted relationship between the ‘shaykh’ (murshid) and his student (mureed). The student has to obey the ‘shaykh’ at all times and can’t have any objection to the ‘shaykhs’ statements, he must not speak in front of the ‘shaykh’ nor pray in front of him without the ‘shaykhs’ permission.

    The student is not allowed to attain his 'spiritual development' from any other source, and he must keep in constant contact with the 'shaykh' who will inform him of his 'spiritual progress'.

    Another thing which the student must do is give a bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to his Shaykh so that he will then become a person of the tareeqah (path). There are several Sufi tareeqahs that the Sufi can give bay’ah to such as Naqshbandi, Chistee, Qaadiri and Shaadili named after the founder (often so-called) of the Tareeqah. Once the Sufi student makes his pledge to his 'shaykh', by placing his hand in the hand of his 'shaykh', he joins the tareeqah of the 'shaykh'. He then becomes part of a Sufi chain which many claim goes all the way back to the Prophet (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam)

    Bay’ah linguistically means making an agreement. Islaamically it signifies making pledge to the Khalifah, or the Muslim ruler to promise or swear allegiance to him, not to revolt against him, but to obey him in whatever is not disobedience to Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala). In doing so, it was usual for the person making this covenant to place his hand in the hand of the Khalifah, or the ruler of the Muslims, in confirmation of the covenant. But the Sufis took this correct bay’ah a step further and started giving bay’ah to their shaykh’s, who were not caliphs or rulers. All of the examples of Muslims giving rulers’ bay’ah pertain only to that bay’ah, which is an exclusive belonging to the Khalifah or the ruler of the Muslims. Not one of the Ulema of the past made any reference to another form of bay’ah, like that of the Sufis.

    The Statements of the Scholars on Sufism
    Imaam Ash-Shaaf’iee said concerning Sufism:

    “If a person exercised Sufism at the beginning of the day, he does not come to Dhuhr except an idiot.” [Tablees Iblees] 

    “Nobody accompanied the Sufis forty days and had his brain return (ever).” [Tablees Iblees] 

    Shaykh Abu Bakr Al Jazaa'iree stated:

    “Sufism is a shameful deception which begins with Dhikr and ends with Kufr. Its outward manifestation appears to be piety, but its inward reality forsakes the Commandments of Allaah.” [Illat-Tasawwuf Yaa Ibadallah]

    A Misconception Cleared
    Some people might argue that what has been mentioned is only the beliefs and practices of the extreme Sufis and not what is held by the majority of the Sufis. The Sufis of today have certain books and scholars of the past that they love and refer to. The books of the Sufis constantly refer Sufi Masters like Ibn Arabi who they call the ‘greatest Shaykh.’

    They also have in their books and on their web-sites, articles which have words of disbelief in them. So if someone says "I am a Sufi", practices Sufism and refers to the books of the Sufis and the scholars of Sufism, then unless they dissociate themselves from the evil beliefs of Sufism then we take it that they too accept and hold those beliefs.

    Conclusion
    What we have presented here is not to 'have a go' or to try and cause division as some people put it, but for the sole purpose of warning the Muslims against this evil. Today many Muslims who claim to have the correct aqeedah are found co-operating with the sufis for the sake of 'unity' not speaking against them, despite knowing their evil beliefs.

    These Muslims who claim to be following the way of the salaf us Saalih (righteous predecessors) are found to be 'best friends' with people who hold beliefs that Allaah is everywhere, perform weird Sufi chants and do much more innovations. Yet when it comes to co-operating with the people of sunnah who try to expose all falsehood they turn way from them and accuse them of splitting the Ummah.

    The strange thing with such people is that they will hate Muslims who follow the way of the Companions in not revolting against the Muslim ruler yet when it comes to the grave worshippers and the followers of Ibn Arabi you will find them arm in arm with them attacking the people of truth. What a sorry state they are in!

    We ask Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) to guide us all to the truth and to expose the people of falsehood wherever they are.



    By Shiraaz - 8/4/2013 1:59:09 AM



  • I strongly support Ms Sadia Dehlavi on her views about Mr. Naik. A good memory does not a good scholar make nor a perceptive one. Mr Naik's reminds me of a precocious parrot that merely mouths platitudes and pulp. It is strange and a shame that he should have the support of so many Muslims in this country. Let us read our books and learn the ways of Islam from them who truly live it and not from a publicity seeking man who does not even have the simple attribute of tolerance or compassion. By Faiyaz Ahmed - 7/20/2013 6:09:56 AM



  • Thank you Mr. Nene. In fact, all religious discourses are nothing but fairy-tales like Spiderman or, Superman. They are fine till they do not harm anybody. But fanatics use them to force others to believe and behave like them. By Ashok Sharma - 1/30/2013 9:09:23 PM



  • Mr. Zakir Naik is ridiculous. He discusses Religion like 8-year olds discuss Spiderman v/s Superman. Immature arguments like Who is stronger? Who can shatter buildings with a single punch, etc. etc. He is such a disgrace.  By Nene - 1/30/2013 6:48:57 AM



  • wrong wrong wrong. i need proof. u say that zakir naik loves to debate, yes it is true but do u know that the vegetarian debate was initiated by the Indianvegetariancongress and not islamic research foundation? the debate on quran and bible in sciine light was also initiated by the missionaries. for about 8 years christians used william campbells's book to deride isalm so zakir naik went there to By Truth - 11/22/2012 11:11:37 PM



  • Dear Mr.Sadaf,  Assalam-o-Alaikum, First of all thanks for appreciating my post although it was not as great as your appreciation rather I am grateful to you that you spared some time. Its my pleasure if any how my post refreshed your knowledge in any way. I am eagerly awaiting for the reply of Mr.SAF RIZVI and Mr.ASLAM BERELVI. 
    Regards,
    By nehal - 9/10/2012 10:48:31 AM



  • Dear Mr. Nehal Sir, thanks. Hope to see more of your writings. Your Urdu is impressive... While reading, I exclaimed 'O my God, he writes so well, we need you here'... Of course you won't be paid, at the moment, I mean, outright, but we can pay you in form of promise that we believe in that you will be paid in full measure in the Hereafter for every single letter you ink for good. I, personally speaking, learnt many things in a single post of yours, and I hope you will continue to teach us few things. On issues we may agree and disagree, but we agree to the need of putting in hard work to learn from one another and parallel to it, teach each other of what we know and understand. We need to communicate our concerns and then only can we hope that those concerns would be paid attention to by all those whom it should actually concern. We need just more tenacity, and a little more discipline. By sadaf - 9/7/2012 4:13:25 PM



  • Dear Mr. ASLAM BERELVI,

    Apka likha ya likhwaya hua post maine padha, jo aapne Janab Nadeem Salfi aur Janab Hussain Mohammadi ke post ke liye izhare khayaal farmaya hai. Aap jehalat aur us jehalat pe takabbur ke us maqaam pe pahunch chuke hain jahan se aap kisi bhi shakhs ko jannat ya dozakh ka certificate ataa kar sakte hain. Aap apne takabbur men is qadar chhoor hain ke qayamat ka bhi intezar nahi kar sakte jis din Khudae Rabbul Izzat haq aur baatil ka faisla karega. Aur aapne khuda ke is kaam ko khud apne hathon men leliya. Musalmaan wohi hai jo khud apne aamaal ka jayeza leta rahe aur Sahitaan malaoon ke fitne se Khuda ki panaah talab karta rahe na ke apne rozon, namaazon, umron aur haj ki tadaad pe takabbur kare. Har Insaan ko apna ahaata khud karna chahiye lekin shayed aapka takabbur aapki baseerat pe haawi ho chuka hai lehaza aapko aeena dekhana zaroori hai. Aappke kheyalaat aapko kahaan pahuncha chuke hain iska andaza isi baat se lagaya ja sakta hai ke aap khud ko sunnate Rasool(SWA) ka alambardaar aur khud sarayee men khud ko Ghulame Mustafa(S.A.W)/ Mohibbe Rasool(S.A.W)/ Ashiqe Rasool/ Khadime Rasool aur na jane keya keya alqaab se nawazte hain Lekin apne naam ke peeche MAKKI, MADNI, HIJAZI ke bajaye BAREILVI likhna baaise fakhr o iftekhar samajhte hain.

    Sirf itna hi nahi Janab Hussain Mohammad ke liye apne alfaaz ko molahiza karen "mashallah aapka naam bahot shandar hai per aapki seerat aur baten to ekdam baraks hai goya yezeed lanati bhi nam-e husain ke peeche chupne ki koshish kar raha hai" Yaqeen naho to khud ka post dekhen, Ab zara ghaur karen us shakhs ke naam per "Hussain Mohammad" ye hai unka naam ab batayen ke Hussain ke naam ke peeche kiska naam hai. (Naoozobillah, Astaghferullah,Tauba Astaghfaar Aapke alfaaz pe) Ye hai aapka takabbur jisne aapki basaarat aur baseerat dono cheen li. Ab aap khud ghaur farmaen aapko kis pe laanat bhejni chahiye (ye faisla aapko khud karna hai, main kuch bhi nahi keh sakta kyon ke ye moaamla aur haq Khauda ka hai ke wo keya faisla kare) Ab ye bataen ke agar aapka takabbur kuch kam ho aur agar aap Khudae Rabbul Izzat se ro-ro ke maafi mange to aapka yaqeen keya kehta hai wo aapko maaf karega ya nahi chahe saari duniya wale aap pe lanat hi kyon na bhejen?

    Aapne apne usi blog men lika hai ke "Mullah zakir naik ki shakal pe is qadr ki phittkaar kyon hai agar wo itna hee padha like addeeb aur kamil hai aur tamaam MAZAHIB ka sab se badaa jaankaar hai to uske chehre pe Allah ka ata kiya huwa noor hona chahiye na ki shaitaan ki de huwi phitkaar" Janaab Aslam sb ab aap zara ye batane ki koshish karena noor kise kehte hain, Aur ye ke Shaitaan Maloon ko Khudaye Rabul Izzat ne phitkaar baantne ke kaam pe kab se lagaya hai? Yeh aapki lailmi hai ya aapke ilm ka takabbur? Ke khuda ke kaam men aapne Shaitaan ko shareek kar diya. (Astaghferullah) kam az kam Eemane-Mufassal mani ke sath padh liya hota. Aur chliye bafazle muhaal agar thodi der ke liye ye maan liya jaaye ke Insaan ka sanwla hona khuda khi phitkaar hai to Hazrate Bilal Habshi (Rz) ke motalliq aap zara izhare khayal farmaenge. (Nauzobillah, Astaghferullah, Tauba Astaghfaar ) Aaiye zara aage chalte hain kyon ki Sahaba aur Sarkare-Do-Aalam (saw) se aapki mohabbat to pehle hi pata chal chuki hai. Ab aapki Barailwiat ka sahi imtehaan hai Hazrate Owais Qarni (Rah) to aapko yaad honge Huzure Aqdas (saw) ne Hazrate Umar(Rz) se Hazrate Owais Qarni(Rah) ki koi pechaan batayee thi to yaad karen wo keya thi. Aur keya aaj ka koi jahil maloon apni jahiliyat ke takabbur men wise hi kisi neshaan ko/ waisee hi kisi pechaan ko aise nazeba lafz(phitkaar) se khitab kar sakta hai jaisa aapne kiya hai (Nuzobillah, Ashtagh ferullah, Tauba Astaghfaar)

    Aapne Janaab Nadeem Salfi sb ke post ke jawaab men Dr.Zakir Nayek ke liye likha hai ke "isne unke (Nabi.saw.) liye ye alfaz istemal kiye hain nauzbillah' " jo shaks marr chuka hai" janab salfi sahab agar aap musalman hain, to ghaur farmaiye, ke koye musalman Allah swt ke khaas Nabi saww ke liye, aise alfaaz istemal kar sakta hai?" Yehi hai na aap ka qaul koi inkaar to nahin. Aap ko Wisal-e-nabwi (Intaqal-e-nabi) ka wo waqeya yaad hai (ummeed hai aapne itna to mutaalaa kiya hi hoga) jab Hazrate Umar (Rz) ki halat shiddate hubbe-Rasool ki wajah se ghair thi talwaar neyam se bahar thi tab Hazrte Abu Bakar (Rz) ke alfaaz yaad karen chahliye main yaad dila deta hoon Sahih Bukhari to Aapne padhi hi hogi phir padhen Sahih Bukhari Jild 6; Kitabul Maghazi Hadith No.4454; Hazrate Abdullah ibne Abbas(Rz) se rewayat hai ke Hazrate Abu Bakr(Rz) ne farmaya "Tum men se jo koi bhi Mohammad (swa) ki Ibadat kartha tha to use maloom hona chahiye ke Aapki wafaat ho chuki hai Aur jo Allah Taalaa ki ibaadat karta tha to Allah hamesha zinda rahnewala hai Aur usko kabhi maut nahi aayegi" phir Surah Ale-Imraan ki ayah 144 ki tilawat farmayee.Ab aap zara apne likhe hooye jumle pe ghaur karen aapne farmaya "ke koye musalman Allah swt ke khaas Nabi saww ke liye, aise alfaaz istemal kar sakta hai?" Ab aapka keya khayaal hai yehan wafat (maut) ka lafz aaya hai Aur ye alfaz kiske hain Yaar-e-Ghaar ke, Siddiqu-e-Akbar ke, Khalifaye Awwal ke jiska naam Islaam ki sab se pehe shahadat (gawahi) denewalon ki fehrist men sare fehrist aata hai. Ye to hain Sahabiye Rasool (saw) ki baat. Ab zara Allah ka kalaam bhi molaheza karen Surah Ale-Imraan ki ayah 144 men wahi lafz maut/ wafaat hai. Ab zara takabbur ka chashma utaren Apne kahe gaye alfaaz ka jayeza len Aap jis lafz ke istemaal ko Musalmaan aur Imaan ki daleel bata rahe hain wo lafz Sahabiye Rasool(saw) aur Khudae Rabbul Izzat khud istemaal kar raha hai. Ab zara bataen kiske Imaan ke lale padte hain.

    Aapke post ko padh ke lagta hai ke aap ko sher-o-shaeri se bhi raghbat hai. Aur aapke Asha'ar Mughalezaat men Chirkeen(Chirkeen ko to jaante hain na aap use ab tak ka sabse ghaleez shayer hone ka Aizaz hasil hai) ko bhi maat de sakte hain Aapka sher jo Aapne Dr.Zakir Nayek ke liye likha

    "Zakir naik hai Nutfa yazeed ka

    dekha hai jisne chaand moharram me eid ka jahennum' me aalaa mukaam payega harr ek parokaar yazeed ka'' Maaf kijiye ga aap shayer bhi nahi hain aur bahut betuke misre hain aapke. Aap ne "Yazeed ka" aur "Eid ka" lafzon se misron ko ham qafiya aur ham radeef banane ki koshish to ki hai magar afsos sad afsos behr or wazan dono se khalee haini pehle dono misre men behr or wazan to hai magar juda juda, aur teesre ke behr-o-wazan ki misaal mere paas nahin kyonki kisi se bhi puchen to aapko bata dega. Ab dekhte hain aap ke ye teen misre shyeri ki kis sinf men fit baith te hain Jahaan tak urdu adab ki shayeri ka taalluq hai aisee teen misron ki na to ghazal, na nazm, na qaseede, na madah, na hujoo, na marsiye aur na hi rubaiyon ki misal hai, Haan nazm ki ek sinf nayee nayee iijaad huyee hai jise Salasi/ Sulasi kehte hain iske mujid Janab Hemayat Ali Shayer Hain, Lekin Afsos ke Aapke ye teeno misre Sulasi ke paeraye men bhi fit nahi baith te kyon ki is sinf men sirf 2 misre (pehla misra aur teesra misra) hum-qafia aur hum-radeef hote hain aur dusra misra ham qafiya ya ham radeef nahin hota magar nehayat aham hota hai jo pehle aur teesre misre men rishta paida karta hai aur unke maani ko mukammal karta ha. Ye to rahi aapke shayeri ki baat ab zara is baat pe ghaur karen ke Aap khud ko shaidaye-e-Rahmatulil Alameen kehte hain aur kisi musalmaan pe bohtaan bandhte hain ye aisa hi hai jaise koi maseeha khud zehr khaye. Shayeri ka shauq hai to Allama Iqbaal ko padhen shyeri ke saath Deen bhi waazaa hoga.:

    "Andaaz-e-Bayaan GarChe Bahut Shokh Nahin Hai;

    Shayed Ke Utar Jaye Tere Dil Men Meri Baat:"

    Allah Hamen Nek Rah Dekhaye Aur Serate Mustaqeem pe Chalaye"------------ ------------AAMEEN ( ise bil jehr padhne se na daren)

    By nehal - 9/7/2012 9:30:41 AM



  • Dear Mr.SAF RIZVI,
    Since I came to know about this site only a few days before (while debating a Hindu brother on a Hindu website where he had given the link of this site and asked to see what is Islam and which Islam is true) and therefore it has taken some time to go through all the posts of this blog of this site. I found many people are having their own views on the issue. Some think what Dr.zakir Nayek said is right, some think its permissible, some think its wrong. As far my opinion is concern Dr.Zakir Nayek is much more superior than those Lnati(in your wrds) Zakirs which used to organise Majlis and curse the companions of our beloved Prophet including His wife (mother of believers). Rather Dr.Zakir Nayek clarifies the misconception in Islam not by self created stories in the name of TAQIYA but from Quraan and Sahih Ahadiths. He also debates with the people of other faiths (Non-muslims) in quite impressive way and then he uses references not only from Quraan and Sahih Ahadiths but from their respective religious books and asks them to feel the truth. Therefore he is thousand times more better than those who keep the truth within them and conceal their faith in the name of TAQIYA. Any religion which is true is meant for the whole of humanity that its message to be given to all and hence defeating Shaitaan who propagates wrong believes among humans therefore saving all the people(or maximum people) from the hell fire.
    Among all the bloggers I find you to be full of hatred not because some knowledge but because of your ignorance. As its evident from your name also which is SAF and not SAIF (which means sword) and SAF ( means erassed, removed, cleaned) its very much suitable to knowledge. Although you claim to be very knowledgeable and poke your nose in each and almost every conversation even a letter posted by someone to the editor you could not resist yourself from poking your nose. Now if you are so knowledgeable then please reply the following:

    1. I could not understand the relevance of your sur name RIZVI? If you are a Shia (who claim to be the true descendant of Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.) it should have been something other than RIZVI.

    2. More over please do explain from when Shiaism (the year) started and who is the founder of the religion.

    3. Define a true Shia. How many sects it has? which among these will get salvation?

    4. Who siege the house of  Zunnorain Hadrat Usman Ghani (RZ) and how long the siege continued? For how many days even water was not given to him and his family? Did he fought with anyone to save his life? When and how his last rituals performed? To who do you call Lanati to those who tried to protect Zunnorain or to those who sieged and martyred him(rz).

    5. Who were Mallik Ushtar, Abdullah Ibn Sabaa, Ghafqi bin harab, Yazid bin Qais, Hrqaus bin Tashreeh Qaisee (may I write Lanati to all)?

    These are few questions if you'll try to solve these Insha Allah you'll feel the Truth.
    Regards,
    By nehal - 9/7/2012 3:47:34 AM



  • Dear Sadaf, Thanks for taking the post in the right prospective also congratulations for such a broad heart you have. I am sorry for being harsh on my last post. I really accept your invitation to join you and together (we along with our other committed brothers and sisters) we'll respond to those who are maligning the face of Islam.
    Regards
    By nehal - 9/6/2012 10:33:02 PM



  • Now, that's quite an an effort. Good work. Keep writing Dear Mr. Nehal. If in anyway, I inspired you write this much, I feel quite satisfied and am happy for that. I wish to produce a hundred commentators, who indulge more and more in writing, because I think we - you and me together, need more of committed soldiers. By sadaf - 9/5/2012 11:40:06 AM



  • Sadaf?, I could have started with Islamic greetings Assalam-oalaikum or at least as Mr. or Miss/Mrs. but I don't have any respect for those who make fun of Sunna (you know my point)  but going through your posting to some Mr.Iftakhar, (although his posting is not there on this web may be as policy of the web operators to malign Islam and those who support islaam and clear the misconceptions about Islam to all and keep the postings of those who are hand in gloves with them to malign Islam) you taught me the language and way which you are familiar with. Sorry I didn't recall you who are Sadaf, Surf(which is also pronounced as Saraf) or Sad-if. If you are Sadaf then there is no any famous personality in India named Sadaf. By going through your post especially the examples you given eg. 
    1.Doctors roaming around with a jhola from one neighbourhood to another shouting in the silence of post peak-hour when the sun peaked a couple of hours ago and disturbing illiterate ladies from their tiring summer days afternoon slumber and then fooling them to buy some yellowish ointment or some reddish oil to get treated of their headaches that they get after waking,
    2.Mauvi and Mullas begging-in those days too, too many Maulvis and Mullas existed, and roamed around from Masjid to Masjid and from door to door and from city to city doing a vastly hounarable job of collecting some very small money to survive.
    3.and the other examples of Musharraf and all.

    Because in India we don't have any person like hawker who sells medicine. 
    Also here in India those who earn their lively hood by begging we call them beggars not Maulvi (irrespective of their beard)but you consider them a Maulvi (who gives u the knowledge of Islam) also don't differentiate the beggars from other people because afterall begging is your national profession( in which your presidents are/were and will be busy)
    Therefore you are some Sadaf from Paki SORRY Pakistan. I don't know any Sadaf from Pakistan.......Sadaf...............Sadaf........... OK. I got it while watching the CD of Umar Shareef (do you know or don't- ok for your convenience I can tell you the only successful actor/ comedian of your country who made your country who made your country proud unlike the usual reason for which your country is famous for ie.TERRORISTS.) So coming to the point while the CD of Umar Shareef I have seen advertisment of some erotic and vulgar dances and the adv. says that its available only on Sadaf CDs.   So, you are the Sadaf of the Sadaf Cds. ok now I understood, because while going through your post I could not understand the reason of your hatred with Sunna or with Zakir Nayek. Now Zakir Nayek, is insisting every one (wether Muslims or Non-Muslims) to go back to their own Religious books and read it with understanding. And when they are doing so they are becoming pious and therefore they are not purchasing your vulgar Cds.  Hence, you have cramps in your stomach and since no medicine is working therefore, you thought oral-diarrhoea may solve your problem but unfortunately that too is not working. 
    I am sorry if you are not the Sadaf of the CDs.
    You might be the daughter of one of those beggar Mullas (may be of TAHIRUL QADRI) who were earning by selling there so called TAQREER (MEELAD) self created stories  and unauthentic Ahadiths. (as in case of Tahirul Qadri) and since now people are seeing the Hadith from right sources and thereby rejecting the false Ahadith and self created stories. Hence, the business of your family is wrapped and you people no option but to propagate hatred not only for Zakir Nayek but also for Sunna. I am sure you never dared to speak against Qadianis, and the separatist who brainwash the innocent illiterate and spread the hatred by spreading TERRORISM not in their own country but also to the neighbouring countries thereby making entire Muslim Umma ashamed, and it is perceived by the other communities as though the terrorism is something which is necessary to be a Muslim.

    If you are not Sadaf the daughter of the beggars to whom you called Mullas then I am sorry. 

    You may be the Sad-if. you may be some one else who has chosen this name conviniently to deceive the Muslim as it appears but the reality is that who so ever you are your father might have been SAD (and thought that) IF you not have born it would have been better as you are deceiving others and pretending to be a Muslim.
    You might be Surf (a brand of detergent powder) but unfortunately its an used one which has nothing but dirt and therefore useless.
    First I thought to respond to Sadia Dehlvi the Polytheist, the liar, but when I searched her on Google I felt ashamed to even respond to her (just Google her you'll find) Also didn't want to wash the dirty linen infront of bublic. then I thought to respond to you.
    Please don't bother who I am. I can be any person to whom you come across day in and day out, I am a simplest Indian Muslim who hates the Pakistani Terrorists and its Preachers/ Sympathisers.  
    By nehal - 9/4/2012 12:32:57 PM



  • It is unfortunate that Muslims still consider Dr. Zakir Naik as a great Islamic scholar. A majority of Muslims have already understood Dr. Naik's true intentions. It is only a minority group which still holds him in high esteem. They too will soon understand how much damage Dr. Naik has done to the Islamic society and will move away from him. The Wahhabis and Deobandis have always been speaking ill of the Sufi saints, thanks to the petro dollars. They should first understand that Islam spread fast in India, mainly because of these sufis. This has been time and acknowledged by all sections of the society, historians, scholars of other religions and neutral observers. Sufis played a stellar role not only in spreading Islam, but in forging unity among the various religious groups. Hazrath Table Alam Badsha, whose tomb is in Tiruchi, about 200 kms south of Chennai, is said to be the first Sufi Saint of this country and hundreds and thousands of people belonging to all the religious visit his Dargah from all parts of the country round the year. This is an ample example how the yeoman services rendered by Sufis are recalled not by Muslims alone, but by every section of the society, even after thousand years. The more the Wahhabis and the Muslims interested in petro dollars denigrade Sufis, the more their popularity will spread. Sufis all along have been building bridges between the communities and their popularity could not be shielded these unscrupulous elements. By Syed Muthahar Saqaf - 5/24/2012 1:20:23 PM



  • And what are you Mr. Iftekhar? A big time popular actor? But then how come I do not recollect anything great about you? All that I can recall of you is in your small roles of policeman. But then I thought you were already dead. Anyway. Since you are alive, let me tell you that we very well understand that acting in movies or a drama in a role of good policeman has got nothing to do with what you are in real life. I am sorry to say you this, Mr. Iftekhar, but your comment here is very disappointing. On one hand you are deriding Sadia Dehlvi for being a small time actress, on the other; you are not appreciating enough Dr. Zakir Nayak for being such a fine actor who has made a name for himself. But then what will you understand; you yourself being such a dull actor who could do no other role than those of a policeman? In one or two movies you tried to act villain, but that didn’t actually work. Obviously, I cannot expect you to appreciate the versatility of Dr. Zakir Nayak. He wears so many caps in a day and yet he appears to be donning the same cap since years and years that whatever you know of him is just one aspect of him equivalent to just one cap even though there is much more to this Mahanayak than that meets the eye.

    As a responsible father, he is establishing his son into a business-that business which changed his fortune but in a most transparent and concealed manner; transparent for his drama critics and concealed for his die-hard fans. But all that did not came just by itself. He worked hard for this. He had to cover his emotions and act brilliantly to blind his audience with his gleam. All his mockery for others he would hide in his smile on others. That itself is not an easy task and requires a real talent of acting.

    When he had started, in those days too, too many Maulvis and Mullas existed, and roamed around from Masjid to Masjid and from door to door and from city to city doing a vastly hounarable job of collecting some very small money to survive. To survive is after all a farz-e-akbar as ordained by Allah-the akbar. It was Dr. Zakir Nayak who realized that some serious rocket science was needed to be applied to this mundane chore. He became the pioneer who changed the modus operandi. The same job could now be done in much better way. After all as a professional physician, he knew that people would very willingly shell out money without bargaining if you establish a swanky clinic or hospital, instead of roaming around with a jhola from one neighbourhood to another shouting in the silence of post peak-hour when the sun peaked a couple of hours ago and disturbing illiterate ladies from their tiring summer days afternoon slumber and then fooling them to buy some yellowish ointment or some reddish oil to get treated of their headaches that they get after waking

    He worked on creating a brand. And what brand would work the most? Religion. Almost everyone is afflicted with that disease. Even Godless atheists too who is not taken care of by anyone and shouldn’t bother for that someone dribbles with religion. He specialized in treating Islamiatorrehea. He reversed the practice of giving out false promises of curing headaches of women and started the practices of giving headaches to men as a cure for the real disease- a common kind of diarrhea which they all suffer but give out fake signals that a plain vanilla doctor could not understand. The men now had a reason for everything which their common-sense could not sense. They now knew that their irregular, untimely, unsightly, but highly soundly and feel-ly bowel movement can now be cured by launching a movement of Islam because Islam has the entire cure for all the diseases of not just this world but even for the underworld and the afterworld. It was very difficult initially to convince intelligent men that Maulvis and Mullah who shied away from getting photograph till now to climb on stage to be telecast as they give live performances. And seeing this it was obvious that pious too got headache like their women but that was the therapeutic ways of Islam. It was something like Cheer girls of T20 Cricket. Cricket stayed but glamour just got added. In economics it is called Value addition. Today so many cured intelligent men without headache but with goatees are a mobile testimony of the therapy that old fashioned Maulvis and Mullas tried to provide but were very ineffective.

    So basically a physician who couldn’t sell Islamic ointments and oils was no more good enough or a Maulvi who could not cure his own illness and not to question about curing the ills of the world was no more good enough. Every young aspiring physician needed to specialize in Islamiatorrehea now; a right blend of the knowledge of physiology and Islamiat, and do some multi-tasking. Whoever wanted to know what relation has Surah Baqra got with the goatee that young men sport these days and here you have Dr. Zakir Nayak to give you the most scientifically proven, accurate and deadly logic or else you have no one else to pull you out of dark alleys leading to the most sought after place when you start to feel it again. It is only when every room will have a attached Dr. Zakir Nayak then only we can hope no more symptoms of headaches will be needed to be diagnosed to cure this kind of diarrhea by one and only Dr. Zakir Nayak. All the treatment would be then done in-house, in fact, in room.

    The contribution of Dr. Zakir Nayak in the field of acting is immense; perfection in his style, perfection in his looks, perfection in his oratory, perfection in his analysis, perfection in his leadership. He is perfection personified. Nauzobillah. Nauzobillah because we know none can be perfect. He surely must be having defects yet you cannot find any and that is his real strength; that is his acting. You cannot tell if he is acting as a Maulvi and is a physician in real or if he is acting as a physician and is a Maulvi in real

    Mr Iftekhar, you need to learn from him if at all you are still willing to act. And if you say, I am mistaken and you are not that Iftekhar who acts in movies then I apologize for not identifying you as the guy who overthrew Musharraf. But whoever you are, we do not need a mediocre Iftikhar who has no identity of his own except that obscure small time someone who lashes out at a personality as renowned as Sadia Dehlvi. If you are anything more then also you aren’t as renowned as Dr. Zakir Nayak- the Mahanayak of Islam of this era- the stylist, the dramatist, the orator, the analyst, the leader. But he has lived his time, contributed whatever he could and at the closure of his role the drama of Islam will continue by other geniuses and not mediocre nayaks.  

    By sadaf - 4/2/2012 1:18:46 PM



  • My simple understanding of islam is that if one could ask any thing (or pray)directly from Allah,why do or think in other ways By anjum ahmed - 4/2/2012 1:07:38 PM



  • Sadia is a welcome antidote to the intolerant and ignorant rants of Zakir Naik. We should welcome all voices, not just Sufis, who preach moderation, respect for the faiths of others and commitment to gender equality. We should not let Wahabi/Salafi extremism destroy Islam.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/2/2012 12:13:51 PM



  • Aswk...will Muslims hv to pay attention to sayings of actresses like Saadia....? By nafees - 4/2/2012 4:27:24 AM



  • Sadia a small time obscure actress is trying desperately to obtain publicity by deriding the towering personality of one of the greatest scholars of our time Dr. Zakir Naik. She doesnot possess .01% of the Islamic knowledge Dr. Naik has but has the nerve to comment on Islamic Beliefs. Majority of Sufi literature and Sufism beliefs are anti_Islamic ,having evolved subsequent to the spread of Islam after the Tabians and having a mixture of other religions. Let Sadia first understand the basis of Islamic belief which is belief and worship of the One and True God Allah , and then venture to comment on Muslim Preachers. By iftekhar - 4/2/2012 1:29:37 AM



  • Sadia Dehlvi says, "In the subcontinent, Islam is the legacy of the Sufis who gave us traditions of syncretism and communal harmony. By condemning Sufi followers as “grave worshippers”, Salafi and Wahabi ideology-inspired speakers such as Naik reject an entire historical body of Islamic scholarship, jurisprudence and almost 80 per cent of Islamic literature."

    I fully agree with her.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/15/2012 2:17:51 PM



  • I feel sad that sister sadia simply condemns a scholar who has a different view on saint worship. No doubt Muslim saints were great people, waliyullahs, friends of God but once they are dead and gone, there is no way we can worship them. Respecting them, no problem, visiting their graves no problem, but asking for help, means we take partners with one true Almighty God. God says He is closer to man than his jugular vein. This is a complicated topic for laymen. Philosophers differ. Either the concept of Unity of Being or the Idea of Apparenticism. Which is right? Are both reconcilable? You may say the difference is only in form but not in substance. You may mix up the substance and accident. But many Muslim philosophers do not agree with that contention. Existence is common both in God and in the universe and this has led non-Muslim mystics to conclude that God means the Universe. But the Ultimate Reality is still far away. As every human has a soul, the Universe has a soul, it is like the relation that the embryo has with its mother when both are mixed up with each other. God knew best, I am incapable of arguing on that. Some religious philosophers think there is unity between God and His creations, but in Islam most philosophers assert that, that Unity is not real. They say that human intellect can reach what they call the universal soul( may be it is termed Nirvana, not very sure) but it can not move a step further and so we say God is incomparable and unfathomable. God is not the Universe, the Ultimate reality is still very, very far away. However the Quran says, God is closer to you than your jugular vein. Jesus is the Incarnation of God Himself which was a great ignorance and folly according to islam. People took the shadow of reality as Reality itself. By pa.mohamedameen - 3/15/2012 9:53:16 AM



  • Mrs Sadia Dehlvi, to comment from a part of the video is not right and just bcos you are a follower of sufism dont impose it as a view of all muslims.. By being an actress, working with men (for ur make up and other things during shooting) you talk about right and wrong is something to laugh at.. atleast zakir naik is following what he preaches... First be a muslima, then might be u will see things black and white.. ALLAH subhana says, "for some i guide, and for some i mislead with the same example" hope we all lead in the right path, listen to the ful lecture of zakir naik and then comment on it, the damage is done that you have published ur view in Source: Hindustan Times URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=977 and i am even not sure if u will read it, but if you do.. make the corrections.. as we all are answerable to ALLAh subhana for what we say.. like the Nabi said, " who ever can guarentee the chasity of their tongue then i guarantee the paradise for him By Abdul Rehman - 3/15/2012 7:35:20 AM



  • HINDUSTAN ME FIQH KI AAMAD(ENTRY) AUR USKI ISHAA'AT: Bismillahirrahmanirraheem HINDUSTAN ME FIQH KI AAMAD(ENTRY) AUR USKI ISHAA'AT: Shuru islam me soorat e haal ye thi ke sahaba kiram sab ke sab fuqaha na they, aur na un sabse deen ki maalumaat haasil ki ja sakti thi, balke deen ke khusoosi haamileen quraan they, in haamileen ko " qurra" kaha jaata hai, yani wah log jo kitabullah ki qiraat ba'khoobi karte they, aur ye isliye ke arab aam taur par ummi(uneducated) they, aur unme se jo kitabullah ka qaari hota wah ubhar kar saamne aa jaata aur aise afraad ki kaamyabi ki bina par uski ye imtiyaazi khususiyat deen se ba'khoobi waaqif hone ko sajhaane ke taur par istemaal hoti thi... Phir islami mulk ki wasat( increment) hoti gayi, aur arab se jihaalat ka khaatma hota gaya, log kitab ilaahi me mahaarat haasil karte gaye, aur islam ki taleem har jagah aam hone lagi yah tak ke fuqaha ne takmeel paakar ek mustaqal ilm wa fan ki shaqal wa soorat Akhtiyaai karli, toh phir " qurra" ka lafz " fuqaha" se badal gaya, aur fiqah ki do shaakhen(branches) footi, ek ko " ahle qiyas wa raaye" kahte they aur ye ahle iraaq they, aur dusre ko " tareeqe e ahle hadith" se yaad karte they aur ye ahle hejaz they" (tareekh afkaar wa uloom islami 20/40) sabse pahle ahlul raaye ke peshwa imam abu hanifa rh they, hanafi mazhab ko aalam e islam me riwaaj dene waalon ki tadaad bahut zyada hai, jin me abu bakr ahmad bin umar al khsaaf, (matoofi 261 hijri), aur abu zafar ahmad bin tahawi (321 hijri), ziyaadah aham hain, tahawi misr(egypt) me hanafiyyah ke peshwa they, inki kitaab " ma'aani aasaar" aur "masqal ul aasaar" hindustan me shaaya(publish) ho chuki hai.... Uske baad ke sar baraah imam malik rh they, imam malik ke mazhab ko egypt, maghrib, aur andulus(spain) me bahut se ulema ne phailaaya, us daur me abul salaam bin saeed maroof (240 hijri) zyada Mashoor hue... Unki kitab aaj bhi un mumalik me maaliki mazhab ka buniyadi maakhaz bani hui hai.. Imam malik rh ke baad imam shafai rh ki shakhsiyat saamne aati hai, imam shafai rh ke mazhab ko nashr karne waale ulama hain, abu ibraaheem ismael bin yahya mazni (264 hijri) zyada aham hain, inki kitab " al mukhtasar" ko shafai ke yahan ziyadah qubuliyat haasil hai, unke baad imam ahmad bin hambal rh aate hain, inke aham shargird me abu qasim kharqi(334) they, jinki kitab " mukhtasar fi fiqh) kaahira(cairo) me taba ho chuki hai (tafseel ke liye mulaheza ho, mukhtasar tareek adab arbi jild 4) FIQHI MAZHAB yun to is duniya me bahut saare fuqaha paida hue aur inke fiqhi mazahab bhi wajood me aaye.. Magar ummat e muslima ne jin mazhab e fiqah ko qubool kiya aur jab ab tak aalam e islam me islam me maujood hai wah 4 hain, har ek ki nisbat alag alag imam ki taraf hai, fiqah hanafi imam abu hanifa rh, Fiqah maliki ki nisbat imam malik bin anas rh ki taraf, fiqah shafai ki nisbat imam shafai rh ki tarah aur fiqah hambali ki nisbat imam ahmad bin hambal ki taraf hai.. Inke elaawa ulema ka ek aisa giroh aisa paida howa jis ne sire se qiyaas ka inkaar kiya aur par amal ko baatil thahraaya, ye log "firqa zahiriyah" ke naam se yaad kiye jaate hain, is mazhab ke imam dawood bin ali (270 hijri) aur unke ladke abu bakr (297 hijri) aur unke ladke ashaab they, lekin zaahirah ka fiqhi mazhab bahut jald duniya se mit gaya, na uske aimma baqi rahe aur na wah jamhoor ki nigah me pasandeedah thahra, aasaar qadmiyah ki haisiyat se mahaz kitabon ki jildon me mahdood hokar rah gaya uske elawa ahle sunnat ke tamaam fiqhi mazhab khatm ho gaye, maslan sufiyan soori rh ki jo fiqah ko koofa ki sarzameen me raij thi, aur imam hasan basri rh ki jo fiqah basrah me me thi, isi tarah imam ozzai rh ki jo fiqah mulk shaam (syria) wa andalus(spain) wagerah me aur imam ibn zarir tabri rh aur abu soor ki jo baghdad me thi, arz ke ye aur inke siwa jin fuqaha ke fiqhi mazhab jin shahron me raij they wah sab khatm ho gaye aur mazkoor 4 fiqhi mazhab hi baaqi rahe aalam e islam ki mukhtalif jagahon me in 4 fiqhi mazhab mese kisi ek ki qubooliyat haasil hui hai, maslan iraaq, azar baijaan, afghanistan, persia aur hindustan ke aksar musalman log fiqah hanafi par amal karte hain, fiqah maliki, andalus, sudaan, africa etc me raij hai, raha imam shafai ka fiqhi mazhab to sabse pahle uski nashr egypt me hui, phir iraq me uska asar pahuncha, aur baghdaad, khurasan, turaan, shaam aur yemen ke elaaqon me use ghalba haasil huwa, phir persia, hejaz aur hindustan ke baaz elaaqon me bhi uske qadam pahunche, fiqah hambali ne baghdad me nashr o ishaat paayi, phir dusre ilaaqon me pahuncha, lekin baaqi teeno fiqhi mazhab se kam shaaye (popular) huwa, sarre zameen najd me fiqah hambali par amal hota hai.. HINDUSTAN ME FIQAH KI AAMAD AUR USKI ISHAAT: Tareekh ke mutaale se ye baat saaf hoti hai ke hindustan ki zameen par islam do raaston se aaya, sindh ke raaste they, aur iraan ke raaste se, pahla lashkar muhammad bin qasim rh ki qiyadat me pahli sadi hijri ke aakhir me pahuncha, us waqt aimma arba me se imam abu hanifa rh ke siwa baqi aimma paida bhi nahi hue they, imam abu hanifa rh ka ye daur taalib e ilmi ka tha, imamat ka to sawaal hi paida nahi hota ! Ye lashkar "al hadith" tha, dusra hamla 4th sadi hijri me sultan mahmood ghaznawi ki qiyadat me iraan ke raaste se huwa, ye fateh amuman hanafi they, unhi ki wajah se hindustan me hanfiyat poore zor shor ke saath pahunchi ( tahreek ahle hadith page 43) ghaznawion ke baad 595 hijri mutabik san 1198 me delhi ki zameen par sahabuddeen ghauri ka qabza huwa, uski takht Nasheeni se hindustan me " daur e sultanate" ki shuruaat hoti hai, zaahir si baat hai ke begair kisi qanoon ke koi bhi sultanate bahut dinon tak nahi chal sakti, san 1198 se lekar 1857 tak, jab angrezo ne aakhiri musalman baadshah bahadur shah zafar ko takht se be'dakhal kiya, hindustani hukumat , khwaah wa sultan ki rahi ho ya mughals ki rahi ho, islami shariat ko sarkaari qanoon ke taur par nafez kiye rahi, iska nateeja ye nikla ke fiqah islami ka daur daurah agar ek taraf qaaziyon aur sheikh ul islam ki adaalaton me raha to dusri taraf usi ki goonj madaaris wa makatib aur jaami'aat me bhi sunaayi deti rahi hai... Shumail magrib (north-west) ke raaste se aane waale musalman (west asia) ki taraf se aaye they jahan hanafi fiqah ki ziyaadati haasil thi, is tarah hindustan ki taqriban har muslim riyaasat hanafi mazhab ki pairokaar thi, qaziyon ke faisle amooman hanafi fiqah ke mutabik kiye jaate They, aur fiqah hanafi ki mustanad awwal kitabein qaaziyon ke saamne rahti thi, aur madarse me student bhi unhi ko padhte they... Samundari ilaaqe ke qareeb maslan madras(chennai) maalebaar, aur konkan me chunke ahle yemen aur ahle hejaz ki aamad zyada thi, isliye in ilaaqon ke log aam taur par fiqah shafai par aamil they, aur aaj bhi wah isi par qayem hain fiqah maliki aur fiqah hambali ka koi asar hindustan me nahi hain... Haan kuch log tijaarat ke maqsad se hindustan aaye. Hindustan me jitne fuqaha guzre hain aur fiqah wa usool fiqah par unhone jo kuch kaam kiya hai , sirf uski sar sari fehrist(list) bhi taiyyar ki jaaye to hazaaron page bhi naakaafi honge, baher haal is mauzu(topic) par jo tahqeeqaat saamne aayi hai unse maaloom hota hai ke shuru ki do, teen sadiyon me jab ke musalmanon ke qadam yahan poori tarah se raij bhi na they, hindustan me taqriban 300 fuqaha us haisiyat se paida ho Chuke they, jinke naam tazkiron me mahfooz rah gaya hain, uske baad ki to koi ginti hi nahi hai, jahan tak tasneefaat ka talluq hai to ye kaha ja sakta hai ke is maidaan me " fatawa taataar khataniyah" ko awwaliyat ka darja haasil hai. Ye kitab bahut dino tak hukumat ke kiye ek rahnuma kitab ka kaam deti rahi, infraadi tafneefaat se qata nazariyaat ke ahtamaam me fiqah ke jo majmue murattab hue un me aham tareen kitab jise " fatawa alamgiri" hai jise " fatawa hindiya" bhi kaha jaata hai, hindustan ke fiqhi adab ke zakheere me " fatawa alamgiri" ko hamesha numaaya haisiyat haasil rahi hai, lekin jahan tak infraadi tasneefaat ka talluq hai to unke baare me yaqeen ke saath kaha ja sakta hai ke islami hind ki tareekh me koi sadi aisi nahi guzri hai jab fiqah ki kisi na kisi kitab par kaam na kiya gaya ho... Muslim daur e hukumat me bahut saare aise musalman baadshah guzre hain jo khud to shahab qalam they , lekin wa ulema wa fuqaha ki is darja khidmat aur izzat karte they ke baaz log aqeedatan wa muhabbatan apni kitaabon ko unke naam se mansoob karne me khushi mahsoos karte they, is silsile me feroz shah tughlak ke naam se mansoob kitab " fawaid e feroz shahi" ka naam pesh kiya ja sakta hai, jo dar'haqiqat uske darbaar ke ek aalim ki kitab hai, jisme unhone zabaan farsi me fiqah hanafi ke fatawe ko jama kiya hai jab adaalaton ke elawa madaaris me bhi fiqah ka bol bala huwa to madarson me bhi fiqah par kitabein likhi gayi, wah aam taur se students ki zaruraton ko poora karti thi, yah kitabein amuman pahli kitabon ki sharah hoti thi, misaal ke taur par ham sirf do mashoor hanafi fiqah ki kitabon ka zikr karte hain, ek hidaya hai jis par taqriban 15 hindustani ulema ne apne haashiye chadhaaye hain, aur dusri kitab "sharah wiqaya" hai jis ko 18 ulema ne apne keemti haashiya chadhaaye hain. Fiqah ke elawa Usool fiqah par mukhtalif kitaben likhi gayi, jin me se qaazi shahabuddeen jaunpuri ki kitab "sharah bazdawi" aur allama muhibullah bihaari ki "musallam al saboot" khususiyat ke saath qaabil e zikr hain (tafseel ke liye padhen ; hindustan me uloom islamiyah page 60,61,62) is sar sari jayeza se kam se kam itna zaroor malum hota hai ke hindustan me fiqah ki aamad aur phir uski ishaa'at kaise hui ...... Posted by MD.UMAIR SALAFI at Wednesday, February 08, 2012 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook By abdullah - 3/10/2012 8:01:26 PM



  • Excellent response from Yunus saheb to Mr. Ram, "any who believe in God and the Last Day, and do good deeds - there will be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve”. Since the concept of "the Last Day" may be unknown to Hindus, it may loosely be translated as "any who believe in Karma".
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 3/7/2012 1:12:37 PM



  • Dear Brother Ram. The Wikipedia defines shiva as follows:
    Shiva ( literally, "auspicious one") is a major Hindu deity, and is the destroyer god or transformer among the Trimurti, the Hindu Trinity of the primary aspects of the divine.In the Shaiva tradition of Hinduism, Shiva is seen as the Supreme God and has five important works: creator, preserver, destroyer, concealer, and revealer (to bless).
    Advaita means nondual or "not two." This oneness is a fundamental quality of everything. Everything is a part of and made of one nondual conciousness

    For your information the during the Moghuls rule in India – for many centuries, the Hindus were regarded as the People of the book – people whose ancestors had received the divine revelation from One God. An article referenced below, quotes Svetesvatra Upanishad 6.11; Bhagavad Gita 10.8 and 7.26 to demonstrate that Hinduism has monotheistic roots and that the mushrikin referred to in the Qur’an were the pagans of Mecca who had conspired with the hypocrites among the Prophet’s followers to finish him off.
    Following Aurangzeb’s exclusivist interpretation of the Qur’anic message the Hindus were relegated to the status of unbelievers and the perception has persisted.
    A Muslim can always say that they worship idol so how can they be believers in God. But there is no point to go into a long debate. From the Qur’an’s perspective, God alone will judge who all have true faith in him and are pro-active in serving humanity and preserve from vices and reward and punish them as per their record:
    “Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians and Sabians - and (in fact) any who believe in God and the Last Day, and do good deeds - shall have their reward with their Lord. There will be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve” (2:62).
    “Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabians and Christians - (in fact) any who believe in God and the Last Day, and do good deeds - there will be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve” (5:69).
    “Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabians and Christians and Magians, and those who associate (others with God) - God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment. Indeed, God is Witness to all things” (22:17).
    [See also verses: 4:124/Ch. 2.4, 64:9, 65:11.
    God bless you for taking interest in a matter that has turned even the intellectuals into mean bigots – but it is reassuring to see people who can stand above the divide and think and speak like good human beings.
    By muhammad yunus - 3/7/2012 9:59:06 AM



  • May I ask, humbly, those who believe Hindu Dharma as religion of many GODs (Hindus and Muslims alike ) to find out the meaning of "ADVAITA" , SHIVA , to name two ? I would appreciate views By Ram - 3/6/2012 6:42:01 AM



  • Dear Muslim Brothers, could any one of you explain to me the symbols of "half moon and star" in the Islamic holy flag? Also, significance of Green color ... By Ram - 3/6/2012 6:39:28 AM



  • I wonder why a scholar, A Muslim, who preaches that the biggest struggle is against self (Panchendriya), is suddenly anti-Islamic. It's the Truth and I am astonished to find many Muslims against it. By Ram - 3/6/2012 6:37:44 AM



  • I fail to understand why many Muslim scholars blast those Muslims entertaining a differing doctrine with such remarks as Yusuf Hijazi makes early on in his extensively researched article: "The enemies of Islam had already burrowed deep into the ranks of Muslims and rapidly caused Fitnah through their spreading of forged Hadith and subsequently created new sects such as the Kharaji and Mu'tazilah." Does, with his scholarship not see that the development of Kharaji (which happened during the Caliphate of Ali) and the Mutaziliz - that happened around the second century of Islam were historically informed and their proponents were driven by the best of their intentions? Does he not understand that someone can slap the same label on him that he is slapping on Kharaji activists and Mutazili jurists and scholars? He perhaps does not know that it was under the Mutazili Caliphs that Islam made its phenomenal scientific advancement and that the Mutazili thought dominated Islam’s intellectual scholarship for at least two centuries before it was abolished by the orthodox Islam. It is sad that many Muslim scholars write with a grudge and authority as if they were learned teachers dealing with juvenile delinquents creating mischief in the classroom.

    By muhammad yunus - 11/25/2011 2:07:26 AM



  • Although I am not a Sufi, I consider  Yusuf Hijazi's article criticizing Sufism to be a very poorly written harangue showing the intolerance and narrow-mindedness typical of Wahabis and ahle-Hadith folks. Quoting 50 different writers who find fault with Sufism does not make it bad. One can find 50 other authors who would speak highly of Sufism.  If one accepts the basic tennets of Islam, one's additional modes of relating to the Deity should not be a problem for others who want to be purists. Emotional and sentimental approaches to God may be very satisfying to some, although I myself do not need them. But for me to force my ways on the Sufis or for Sufis to try to force their views on me would be wrong.

    Incidently Ibn Taymiyyah is quoted as saying: "There are a people who have chosen and preferred the wearing of woolen clothes (as Sufis did), claiming that they want to resemble al-Maseeh ibn Maryam (Jesus). But the way of our Prophet is more beloved to us, and the Prophet (s.a.w) used to wear cotton and other garments." Why can't we say, "The ways of both Jesus and our Prophet are beloved to us"?

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 4/30/2011 1:57:25 PM



  • The article “Keeping The Inclusive Faith” ( The Times Of India ,March 24) by Sadia Dehlvi is just a blind eye to the reality. She is a staunch supporter of the Sufism. She has also written a book on Sufism by the name Sufism The Heart of Islam.

    Here I am quoting an article By Br. Yusuf Hijazi published in the 22nd issue of Nida'ul Islam magazine (http://www.islam.org.au), February - March 1998] so to why Sufism has no scope in Islam (don’t read in Wahabi Movement).

    Sufism: The Deviated (Muslim) Path

    By Br. Yusuf Hijazi

    Although many sects have appeared throughout the ages, none have outlasted as long and spread their effects into the homes of so many as Sufism has. The emotional attachment that a countless number of Muslims have towards this sect is so powerful that any analysis should be purely from an objective perspective; thus this article takes an objective approach, and tries to be conservative rather than extreme in its analysis of Sufism. Its conclusions however leave no doubt as to the alien nature of Sufi teachings that have infiltrated into the religion that our beloved Prophet (s.a.w) left us upon. Sufism: Its Origins

    The word Sufi is most likely to be derived from the Arabic word "soof", meaning wool. This is because of the Sufi habit of wearing woolen coats, a designation of their initiation into the Sufi order. The early Sufi orders considered the wearing of this coat as an imitation of Isa bin Maryam (Jesus). In reply to this, Ibn Taymiyyah said: "There are a people who have chosen and preferred the wearing of woolen clothes, claiming that they want to resemble al-Maseeh ibn Maryam. But the way of our Prophet is more beloved to us, and the Prophet (s.a.w) used to wear cotton and other garments."1

    Sufism is known as "Islamic Mysticism," in which Muslims seek to find divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God2. Mysticism is defined as the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality, and the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)3

    Both the terms Sufi and Sufism and Sufi beliefs have no basis from the traditional Islamic sources of the Qur'an and Sunnah, a fact even admitted by themselves. Rather, Sufism is in essence a conglomerate consisting of extracts from a multitude of other religions with which Sufi's interacted.

    During the primary stages of Sufism, Sufis were characterised by their particular attachment to zikr (remembrance of Allah) and asceticism (seclusion), as well as the beginning of innovated practices to 'aid' in the religious practices. Yet even at the early stage of Sufism, before their involvement in innovated rituals and structured orders, the scholars warned the masses of the extremity of Sufi practices. Imam Al-Shafi' had the opinion that "If a person exercised Sufism (Tasawafa) at the beginning of the day, he doesn't come at Zuhur except an idiot". Imam Malik and Ahmad bin Hanbal also shared similar ideas on this new movement which emanated from Basrah, Iraq.

    Although it began as a move towards excessive Ibaadah, such practices were doomed to lead to corruption, since their basis did not come from authentic religious doctrines, but rather from exaggerated human emotions.

    Sufism as an organised movement arose among pious Muslims as a reaction against the worldliness of the early Umayyad period (AD 661-750)4. The Sufis exploited the chaotic state of affairs that existed during the fifth and sixth centuries A.H. and invited people to follow their way, alleging that the remedy to this chaos was conformity to the guidance of their order's Sheikhs. Dar al-Majnoon was established during the reign of Khalifah Ma'moon, where he invited the scholars of the Romans and Greeks to meet with the Muslims and 'discuss' their respective positions. This provided the perfect breeding ground for the synthesis between Islam and Pagan theology, to produce the Sufism of the likeof Ibn Arabi.

    The Mixing Pot

    With the demise of the Companions and their successors, the door became open for the distortion of Islamic Principles. The enemies of Islam had already burrowed deep into the ranks of Muslims and rapidly caused Fitnah through their spreading of forged hadith and subsequently created new sects such as the Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah.

    Sufism gained its breeding ground during this period, whereby it gained its support from the Dynastic Rulers, who had deviated from Islam to the extent whereby magic was used as entertainment in their courts, even though magic is considered as Kufr in Islam.5 During this period, Sufism developed its Shi'a flavour, indeed the roots of contemporary Sufism have been traced back to Shi'a origins (see later).

    Sufi ideology and thinking flourished during the times of the likes of Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, Jalal Ad Din Rumi, and Imam Ghazali. Their translation of Greek philosophical works into Arabic during the third Islamic century left an indelible mark on many aspects of Sufism, resulting in Greek pantheism becoming an integral part of Sufi doctrine. Pagan practices such as Saint worshipping, the use of magic and holding venerance towards their Sheikh overtook the Orthodox practices of Islam and had little resemblance to the Islam left by our Prophet (s.a.w).

    By examining the mystic doctrines of Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism and other religions, it becomes clear how closer Sufism is to these religions than to Islam. In fact, Sufism is never characterised under "Islam" in any system of catalogue, but rather under 'Mysticism'.

    Sharda highlights these unsurprising similarities by stating that: "After the fall of Muslim orthodoxy from power at the centre of India for about a century, due to the invasion of Timur, the Sufi became free from the control of the Muslim orthodoxy and consorted with Hindu saints, who influenced them to an amazing extent. The Sufi adopted Monism and wifely devotion from the Vaishnava Vedantic school and Bhakti and Yogic practices from the Vaishnava Vedantic school. By that time, the popularity of the Vedantic pantheism among the Sufis had reached its zenith."6

    The following comparison demonstrates the non-coincidental similarity that Sufism shares with other religions:

    Concept of validity of all religions

    The Sufi doctrine of all religions being acceptable before Allah is derived from the Mystical beliefs of other religions, and not Islam, for Allah says: "Truly, the religion in the Sight of Allah is Islam..." [2: 19].

    Take for example the Buddhists:

    "No Buddhist who understands the Buddha's teaching thinks that other religions are wrong... All religions acknowledge that man's present state is unsatisfactory. All teach an ethics that includes love, kindness, patience, generosity and social responsibility and all accept the existence of some form of Absolute."

    The Sufis also believe the same: "Allah does not distinguish between the non-believer and the Faasiq (wrong doer) or between a believer and a Muslim. In fact they are all equal to Him... Allah does not distinguish between a Kaffir or a hypocrite or between a saint and a Prophet."7

    In al-Fusoos, Ibn Arabi leaves no doubt as to his conviction in the unity of all religions: "Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else, so that great good would be missed by you, indeed you would miss attainment of knowledge of the affair in the form he is following. Rather be ready to accept all forms of belief. This is because Allah is higher and greater than to be comprehended by one belief to the exclusion of others. Rather all are correct, and everyone who is correct receives award, and everyone who is rewarded is fortunate, and everyone who is fortunate is one with Whom He is pleased."8

    Union with the Creator

    Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'aala is completely distinct from His Creation. He neither resembles His Creation, nor is He enclosed by it. Sufis however, with their deviant doctrine of Wahdat ul Wujood, believe contrary to this. Ibn Arabi, the Sufi scholar with whom which the concept of Wahdat ul Wujood is rightly attributed, asserted that since Allah's Attributes were manifested in His creation, to worship His creation is similar to worshipping Him: "So the person with complete understanding is he who sees every object of worship to be a manifestation of the truth contained therein, for which it is worshipped. Therefore they call it a god, along with its particular name, whether it is a rock, or a tree, or an animal, or a person, or a star, or an angel."9

    This is how far the Sufis deviated because of their reliance on Greek and Eastern philosophy, rather than the Qur'an and Sunnah. To them God is not Allah Alone with whom no one else shares in His Dominion, but rather everything we see around us, and ultimately our own selves! Glory to Allah, who Stated "There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer"[42: 11]. Looking at where Sufism derived its understanding from, we find the same ingrained beliefs:

    "When you live in the wisdom home, you'll no longer find a barrier between "I" and "you," "this" and "that," "inside" and "outside;" you'll have come, finally, to your true home, the state of non-duality."10

    "Finally, the experience of realisation matures sufficiently that the [spiritual aspirant] may rightly utter the startling assertion, 'I am Shiva' (a Hindu deity)".11

    "When I am in that darkness I do not remember anything about anything human, or the God-man.. I see all and I see nothing. As what I have spoken of withdraws and stays with me, I see the God-man.. and he sometimes says to me: 'You are I and I am you'".12

    Corruption of Tawheed in Allah's Attributes

    Sufis totally deny all of Allah's Attributes, such as His Face, His Hands, His Istawaa etc, using metaphorical meanings to explain His Attributes. Although the Companions and Tabi'een believed in them without any resemblance to His creation, the Sufi's deem His Attributes to be a part of His creation.

    Ibn Arabi went as far as to say that he saw Allah during one of his ecstatic trances, in the shape of a young blond boy sitting on a Throne! (see Bezels of Wisdom, London 1980). Other Sufi Gnostics followed suit in Ibn Arabi's trail: "In the writings of Ibn al-Arabi and Ibn al-Farid, eternal beauty is symbolised through female beauty; in Indo-Muslim popular mystical songs the soul is the loving wife, God the longed-for husband." 13

    Incorporation of Music in Rituals

    Music of all forms is forbidden by the majority of scholars, and remains attached to forbidden practices such as drinking, fornication and parties. However, after the Muslim conquest of the Deccan under Malik Kafur (c. 1310), a large number of Hindu musicians were taken with the royal armies and settled in the North. The acceptance of the Sufi doctrines, in which music was an accepted means to the realisation of God, enabled Muslim rulers and noblemen to extend their patronage to this art.14 At the courts of the Mughal emperors Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan, music flourished on a grand scale, and Sufi Dervishes used music as a means to enter ecstatic trances.

    Allah's Messenger (s.a.w) said in a lengthy hadith concerning the appearance of vile acts, "...when singing-girls and stringed instruments make their appearance, wines are drunk, and the last members of this people curse the first ones, look at that time for a violent wind, an earthquake, being swallowed up by the earth, metamorphosis, pelting rain, and signs following one another like bits of a necklace falling one after the other when its string is cut." [Tirmidhi ].

    The deception of Sufism is brought to full light by looking at the lives of their esteemed leaders, the Sheikhs of whom which they place full trust in heir knowledge and obey their every command, and by contrasting the Orthodox Islamic teachings against the Sufi alternative.

    Sufi Sheikhs: Role Models or Deviants?

    Bayazid Tayfur al-Bistami

    Bayazid is considered to be "of the six bright stars in the firmament of the Prophet (s.a.w)"15, and a link in the Golden Chain of the Naqshibandi Tariqah. Yet his life reeks of Shirin all aspects.

    Bayazid al-Bistami was the first one to spread the reality of Annihilation (Fana'), whereby the Mystic becomes fully absorbed to the point of becoming unaware of himself or the objects around him. Every existing thing seems to vanish, and he feels free of every barrier that could stand in the way of his viewing the Remembered One. In one of these states, Bayazid cried out: "Praise to Me, for My greatest Glory!"

    Yet this concept is to be found nowhere in the Qur'an, nor Sunnah, nor in the behaviour in the Salaf us Saalih.

    Bistami's belief in the Unity of all religions became apparent when asked the question: "How does Islam view other religions?" His reply was "All are vehicles and a path to God's Divine Presence." Was this the Message of Tawheed which the Prophet (s.a.w) practised and was followed by the Sahaabah? He attributed the believers to be the same as the disbelievers themselves, who Allah describes as being worse than cattle (Surah 7, verse 179) and dogs; the same disbelievers who the Prophet (s.a.w) stated he had been commanded to fight till they testified that there was no deity but Allah.

    The whole life of Bayazid is rife with such contradiction to Eeman. From a young age, he left his mother stating to her that he could not serve Allah and his mother at the same time.16 When walking through the streets, he once called out "I am God; why do you not worship me?" He spent his time sitting with his head resting between his knees, one of his companions stating he did so for thirty years. But strangest of all was his obedience to a dog he once came across. The dog had apparently become upset at Bayazid's attempt to avoid him, to which the dog spoke to him and scolded him. So Bayazid pleaded "O dog, you are so enlightened, live with me for some time."17

    Ibn Arabi

    During the late 12th and early 13th centuries, under the influence of speculative mysticism, Ibn al-Arabi produced a system that created a complete chasm between the law and Sufism. In societies, such as Islamic India, that had a strong pre-Islamic heritage of mysticism, this chasm became much wider.18

    Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi holds perhaps the highest position amongst all Sufi Schools, and was pivotal in the permanent split between Islam and Sufism. He claimed to have received direct orders from the Prophet (s.a.w) himself, including a book of completely new hadith never seen or heard of before.

    Prior to his receiving 'revelation', Ibn Arabi was well known to attend nightly parties in Seville. During one of these nights, he heard a voice (his drunk inner self?) calling to him, "O Muhammad, it was not for this that you were created". He fled in fear to a cemetery, where he claims to have met, and received instruction from, Jesus, Moses and Muhammad, peace be upon them all. From his books, innumerable forged sayings attributed to the Prophet (s.a.w) have been used, to the extent that countless of Muslims consider these to be real.

    The following are quotes from Ibn Arabi:

    "The man of wisdom will never allow himself to be caught up in any one form or belief, because he is wise unto himself".19

    "All that is left to us by tradition (Hadith) is mere words. It is up to us to find out what they mean"20. (This reflects his alliance with Baatini (inner) meanings and interpretations)

    "He (Ibn Rushd) thanked God that in his own time he had seen someone (Ibn Arabi) who had entered into the retreat ignorant and had come out like this (knowledge of inner meanings)- without study, discussion, investigation or reading"21

    Junaid

    Junaid was the fourth head of the Safavid order who sought to transform the spiritual strength of the order into political power. What may be unknown to his followers however was his policies of military adventurism combined with Shi'a and Sufi piety.22 His son, Haydar, himself established the Safavid dynasty and the Twelver Shi'a Islam in Iran came under his grandson, Isma'il I.

    He was said to have blown a fatal breath at his slave-girl, to which he argued that she was ruining his forty years of spiritual practices.23

    This so-called 'Saint', a supposed friend of Allah, made the following remarks:

    "I saw a thief who was being gibbeted. I bowed to him... for being true to the profession he followed."

    " He who fears Allah never smiles".

    "One moments forgetfulness of the Lord ruins a thousands years worship".

    Mansur al-Hallaj

    Mansur is renowned for his claim "Ana-l-Haq" (I am the Truth), for which he was executed for apostasy. Yet he is still revered by Sufis even though he abandoned all the laws governing Tawheed.

    He was said to have lived in one cloak for a full twenty years, along with a scorpion inside. He stood bare-footed and bare-headed for one year at the same spot in Makkah. During his prayers, he would say "O Lord! You are the guide of those who are passing through the Valley of Bewilderment. If I am a heretic, enlarge my heresy." He also said "I denied your religion (Islam) and denial is obligatory on me, although that is hideous to Muslims."24

    Abu Yazid

    Abu Yazid once prayed one Juma'a prayer in 24,000 different places. He told the religious authorities in one place: "I was praying in 12,000 different houses of worship today." They asked: "How?" He said, "By the power of the Lord Almighty. If you don't believe me, send people around to ask." They sat and waited until messengers returned saying that he was seen in so many places. Abu Yazid said later: "I was afraid to say 24,000, so I only said 12,000." So Abu Yazid clearly lied, when he could have simply not mentioned anything in the first place.

    Are these truly the ones who we are told to receive the knowledge of our religion from? Do these men reflect the teachings of Islam? A man who left obedience to his mother, to the obedience of a dog? Are we supposed to follow men who receive revelation in a cemetery after spending the night at a party? Or a man who kills his slave girl for 'disturbing' his worship? To us, Islam calls smiling a charity, not a deviation from Allah's Pleasure. Islam forbids prostration to anyone but Allah. The Prophet (s.a.w) used to make du'a seeking Allah's guidance, not begging for heresy. And Islam teaches us truthfulness, not lies.

    Evidence Against their teachings: their beliefs and practices

    Position of the Sheikh and Wali

    The Sheikh or Wali is given a similar standing as that of a Catholic Saint, or the Dalai Lama himself. Complete obedience is enforced on his followers, and any questions are deemed as a betrayal of trust: "The seeker must submit to the will of the Sheikh and to obey him in all his orders and advice, because the Sheikh has more experience and more knowledge in Haqiqat, in Tariqat and in Shari'ah," and "he must agree with the opinion of his Sheikh completely, as the patient agrees with the physician".25

    Yet Muslims believe that any single act of worship must be substantiated by the Qur'an and Sunnah only. Allah the Exalted says:"Say (to them), 'Produce your proof if you are truthful'." [2: 111], and the Prophet (s.a.w) said "The created is not to be obeyed over the Creator."

    The Sheikh is given the standing of a deity in Sufism. Attributes which belong to Allah, are also assigned to their Sheikhs. They seek help from them, whether they are dead or 10,000km away. They believe that their sheikhs know everything their students are thinking, and that they converse with the Prophet (s.a.w) on a regular basis (in reality).

    Distortion of the concepts of zikr, hadith, Qur'an

    Since the Qur'an and Saheeh Hadith cannot be changed, the Sufi's have reverted to Ta'weel, a method of changing the apparent meaning of the verse or hadith to have a hidden one. This provided them with sufficient lee-way to support any concept they desired, by simply stating that the verse/hadith had an inner meaning which only the Sheikh himself could know.

    In the Bezels of Wisdom, Ibn Arabi presents certain aspects of what he terms "Divine Wisdom," as he conceives it. But Ibn al-Arabi interprets the relevant verses of Surat Noah in the most outrageous fashion, since he suggests meanings diametrically opposed to those accepted by all Muslim scholars. He interprets the "wrongdoe," "infidels," and "sinners" in Surat Noah as 'saints and Gnostics' drowning and burning not in the torment of Hell, but rather in the flames and water of knowledge of God. Ibn Arabi regarded the idols worshipped by Noah's people as divine deities. Allah condemned their deed saying: "And they (Noah's people) said, 'Do not abandon your gods, neither Wad, Suwa', Yaghooth, Ya'ooq nor Nasr'. " [71: 23]

    On which Ibn Arabi commented:

    "If they (Noah's people) had abandoned them, they would have become ignorant of the Reality ... for in every object of worship there is a reflection of Reality, whether it be recognised or not."

    The act of making Zikr in circles and jumping/moving frantically is also totally unfounded. Zikr in the true Arabic sense means "Remembrance of Allah." The Prophet's (s.a.w) method, which Muslims agree to be the best and only acceptable one, of zikr consisted in reciting Qur'an, discussing religion with his companions, and making Tasbeeh on his hands. Yet the act of sitting in circles and loudly or silently chanting "Allah, Allah" was never practised by the Prophet (s.a.w) nor the Salaf, and all hadith which state that the Prophet (s.a.w) did so (such as when he supposedly went into a room, told the companions to lift up their hands and chant "La Ilaha Illa Allah" ) are unanimously agreed upon to be forged. Ibn Taymiyyah stated that this practice opened the door to Shaytaan, whereby the Shaytaan would enter the gathering (since they were involved in innovation) and take the form of a pious person. He also stated that the recital of "Allah, Allah" was forbidden, as it was never declared to be a form of zikr, and has no attached word to complete it (such as Allahu Akbar, Subhaan Allah).26

    The stories also of Khidr and his meeting with the 'Awliyaa', the 40 Abdaal's who are always on the Earth and can be at any place in the wink of an eye, are derived from Jewish and Christian legends, not Islamic traditions.

    Innovation

    Imam Malik remarked: "That which was not religion at the time of the Messenger and his companions, may Allah be pleased with them all, is never to be religion today. He who introduces a Bid'ah (innovation) in the religion of Islam and deems it a good thing, claims by so doing that Muhammad (s.a.w) betrayed the Message."

    The Sufis are to be found indulging in and spending an enormous amount of resources defending innovated practices, declaring them to be "good innovations." These include celebrating the death of the Prophet (s.a.w) (a practice adopted from the reign of Fatamids, who began this innovation in order to seek the pleasure of the masses), reading Qur'an over the dead and seeking blessings form them, and the building of extravagant mosques (even though our Prophet (s.a.w) forbade this. Anas reports that the Messenger of Allah said: "The Hour will not come to pass until the people vie with each other in (building) the mosques." [Ahmad, Abu Dawud, anNasa'i, Ibn Majah] ).

    Emotional attachment

    The Sufi's have become such an integral part of the lives of so many Muslims that Muslims are finding it difficult to accept that the Sufi path is wrong, and accuse anyone who pinpoints the errors of Sufism as an extremist or a follower of some 'deviant' sect.

    Sufism calls to human emotions rather than intellect and Islamic evidence. For example, poetry and music were the most popular form during the past hundreds of years, whereby "Sufi ideas permeated the hearts of all those who hearkened to poetry."27 Today, Sufism is followed by masses of people who desire to leave behind the complexities of this world, instead of building the ability to challenge it. Sufism provides the perfect escape, where its followers can meditate instead of thinking about the other Muslims who are suffering, let alone help them.

    Similarity with pagan beliefs

    Sufism is so similar to other religions, and as we noted earlier very tolerant of them, that a change to Sufism does not involve a complete change of life, as Islam requires. So Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists and mystic Jews and Christians looking for an easy alternative find solace in Sufism which perhaps only adds another dimension to their previous way of life, rather than uprooting it and starting afresh.

    Simplicity

    Ibnul-Jawzee says in Talbees Iblees: "Sufism is a way whose beginning was complete avoidance of the affairs of worldly life, then those who attached themselves to it became lax in allowing singing and dancing. Therefore the seekers of the hereafter from the common people became attracted to them due to the avoidance of the worldly life which they manifested, and the seekers after this world were also attracted to them due to the life of ease and frivolity which they were seen to live."

    Sufism offers its followers a life carefree from fighting (Jihad), politics, the initiative to seek knowledge and teach it, the work of Da'wah, and allows a person to indulge in worldly activities such as music, magic, and other prohibited acts.

    The leader of the Naqshibandi Tareeqa in America, was quoted in the media as saying the following: "You have to be both material and spiritual. Sufis can give people joy in their spiritual life. Well, Madonna is giving people a kind of joy in their material life... You cannot say she is wrong. Sufis don't object and criticise - they are accepting everything. That's why, when my children are looking at Madonna on MTV, I say, 'Let me come and look also!'"

    Support from the governments

    Any group which manages to gain the support of an anti-Islamic Government must be suspicious. During the reign of the tyrant Mustafa Kemal, under whose leadership thousands of scholars were executed and Islamic practices banned, special permission was granted by the Turkish government in 1954 allowing the Mawlawi dervishes of Konya to perform their ritual dances. In fact, they have become a regular attraction nowadays, performing around the world along with their Turkish Mystical Music State Ensemble. 28

    The Sheikh of the Naqshibandi's of America has greeted and received praises from the President of America Bill Clinton himself. And why shouldn't he, since the 'Islam' he portrays is one of pacifism and unity with the Kuffar. Twisting of evidence

    Since the Qur'an and Hadith are readily available, and cannot be changed, the Sufis have resorted to another trick used by other Mystics: Ta'weel, or changing the apparent meaning of a verse or hadith to a secret inner one which only a certified Sheikh could explain!

    They also rely on providing the mass with forged hadith, such as the one stating the beseeching of Adam (a.s) in the name of Muhammad when he sinned; the stories of Khidr; the rising of the Prophet (s.a.w) from his grave so a person could kiss his hand and so on.

    Because of the lack of knowledge the general mass possess on the knowledge of Hadith and Aqeedah, they believe what they are told, and pass on the stories to other generations, becoming distorted even more along the way.

    Another smart tactic is to attribute forged sayings in support of the Sufi's from the righteous scholars. For example, Ibn Taymiyyah is attributed to have been a member of the Qadiri order and had been initiated, and spoken great words on Bistami and his likes. Yet Ibn Taymiyyah spent the majority of his life fighting against the teachings of Sufism, was imprisoned because of them, and bluntly stated "...Ibn Arabi who wrote "Al-Fousous," and other slandering atheists such as Ibn Sab'een and his like. They even witness that they are simultaneously the worshipers and the ones being worshiped."

    The Damage to the Ummah

    Sufis distracted the Muslims from the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah towards the servitude of the Sheikh. Muslims thus became alienated from the teachings of Islam, and possessed no protection from the innovations and trappings of the deviant sects. Teachings such as "He (the follower) must not look to any other than his Sheikh" did nothing to cement the community. Rather, it sent the ball rolling for the wars between the various Mathabs, which culminated in fighting, rejection of each other faiths, and praying at different stations in Makkah itself.

    The Sufi's have left a lasting impression on the image of Islam, portraying it as one of peace and apolitical, and anyone who contravenes this is an impostor and considered an extremist. By relying on forged hadith such as the 'bigger Jihad is Jihad'ul Nafs (i.e. struggle against the self)' and its like, Muslims have been made to believe that work and family is the greatest Jihad, rather than establishing Allah's religion on Earth though the use of the sword.

    The Sufi influence undoubtedly contributed greatly to the decline of the Ottoman Empire. The pacifist views they spread, the lack of Shari'ah knowledge, and their befriending of the disbelievers, made sure that no one would oppose the vast changes being made to the Ottoman Laws. By 1880, the Tanzimat period was in full force, where Shari'ah was replaced by European Laws (except in limited circumstances such as in Hadd punishments), yet little opposition was heard29. Whilst the masses were busy in the construction of extravagant mosques and spinning around in circles, the Ottoman Empire was overtaken by Masons and eventually torn to parts.

    Conclusion

    Sufism was doomed to destruction from when it first emerged, because of its deviation from the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah. The small excess, the little innovation, led to the snowball effect, such that it emerged as a movement for well-meant increased Ibaadah and Zuhd, to Kufr and Innovation.

    In truth, Islam is sufficient for us, and it is only Shaytaan who wishes to turn us away from our religion, to make us exceed the limits, and fall into his trap. The only sure way to avoid this is to grasp tightly onto what was left to us by our beloved Prophet (s.a.w), the Qur'an and Sunnah, as understood and believed and acted upon by the best people to have lived: the Salaf us Saalih, the Companions and those who followed their footsteps.

    1 Al Fataawa 11/7 
    2 Encyclopaedia Britannica 
    3 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 
    4 Encyclopaedia Britannica 
    5 The Fundamentals of Tawheed, Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips 
    6 S. R. Sharda, Sufi Thought 
    7 The Naqshbandi Way, pp 12,16 
    8 Ibn Arabi, al-Fusoos, p.191 
    9 Hadhihi Hiyas-Soofiyah, p.38 
    10 The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, p.77 
    11 The Triadic Heart of Shiva, pp 183-4 
    12 Angela of Foligno: Complete Works, pp 181-2 
    13 Encyclopaedia Britannica 
    14 ibid. 
    15 Naqshibandi Way 
    16 Memoirs of the Saints, translated by Dr. Bankley Behari 
    17 ibid. 
    18 Encyclopaedia Britannica 
    19 An unpublished poem from Ibn Arabi's 'Diwan', translated by Dr Austin 
    20 Stephen Hirtenstein's paper Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi: The Treasure of Compassion 
    21 Sufis of Andalusia, transl. by R. W. J. Austin, p.23 
    22 Encyclopaedia Britannica 
    23 Memoirs of the Saints, p.108 
    24 ibid. 
    25 Naqshibandi Way 
    26 Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al Fatawaah 
    27 Encyclopaedia Britannica 
    28 They recently came to perform in Australia, charging $30 per head. Only the elite went to watch this 90 minute theatrical display.
    29 The Islamic World, New Jersey 1991

    By shahid iqbal - 4/30/2011 1:52:08 AM



  • Sadia Dehlvi should thank her stars for being a citizen of a kaffir country. In Pakistan she would have been pushig up daisies for long by now.

    By car313 - 4/10/2011 11:27:39 AM



  • You know whatever he commented on yazeed, right or wrong, doesn’t allow you have to show his alleged speeches to degrade him. You my brother have no power to tackle the enemies of Islam, the great powers, communists all joining hands against Islam, instead its easier to give a blow to your brother. Look zakir naik, even if he has done wrong, is sharing some knowledge of Islam among people. What right did you get to start backbiting him. He is a debater, if you had the strength you would have said these things on his face, rather than on his back and you would at least get answer right from him for what he meant to say. He is still a Muslim, and of what degree you have no idea. So thing again before blaming a Muslim.

    By salman -



  • I WISH TO WRITE FEW LINE ABT THE SUFISM IS NOT IN ISLAM COZ WE HAVE TO FOLLOW UP THE RIGHT PATH TO JANNA IS READ NAMAZ 5 TIMES FOLLOW THE QURAN & SUNNA OF NABI KAREEM HAZRAT MUHAMMED S.W SALAM P.B.UPN HIM ISLAM HAS WARN THE NOT TO FOLLOW UP DARGAH AUALIA  ALLAH MOST GIVE HIDATH  AMEEN

    SHAIKIKRAMULLAH shaikikram1@gmail.com

    By shaikikramullah -



  • Asslam o laikum

    sadia is a goog known woman about islamic thout and she know about sofisme, a her statment is very good abaout sofisme, who speaks aginst this statment. he should study islamic thout deeply befor comenting in sufiisme. i think Zakir Naike is a missguid leader and he dose no know about islamic corecctly thout but he know only Enlish lenguage and he want to make every muslims to wahabi and gairmuqallid. Zakir naik and his folower should be coreect their thout and do not talk about sufiism becaouse their way is difrent from sufiisme, and every wahabi is missguided.

    ok

    Allah Hafiz

    By md imamuddin -



  • Sufism is not part of Islam clear and final! you are making thousands of people follow u into worshipping the graves and frankly speaking when u worship the dead and go to dargahs and give haziri there is no difference left between u and a Hindu/non- believer.!Please try worshipping ALLah more rather than worry about the dead who by all means I do respect but till one extent! Stop mixing the religon. u are creating another firqa not uniting it.

    May ALLAH show u the right part and please do ur research properly.

    By zainab allawala -



  • assalamo alekum..........

    I think people like sadia dehlvi should read and understand quran and sahih hadith(in light of holy quran) , then they will understand ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM 

    mam u must have faith in "LA ILAHA ILLALLAH" MEANS NON HAVE RIGHT TO BE WORSHIPED EXCEPT MIGHTY ALLAH.............

    THERE IS NO AYAT IN QURAN AND NO AUTHENTIC HADITH WHICH ALLOW YOU TO GO TO GRAVES AND ASK HELP FROM THEM.........

    Dr. Zakir Naik doing a good job of dawah........

    you should also start believing in true Islam..........

    MAY ALLAH (S.W.T.) BLESS U WITH HIDAYET 

    ALLAH HAFIZ

    By mohd rizwan -



  • Madam Sadia its nice piece of lit from you. Are you trying to give a mixed notion here?

    Besides Shia and Sunni there are so many sects and groups within this ummah now. All the sects/groups are claiming they are the best and will only go to heaven. How do you differentiate between what is good and what is bad / evil and who will attain salvation.

    Follow Al- Furqaan and Authentic Hadith, hadith within the light of Quraan.

    And Islam is a complete religion, only deen valid from for Almighty Allah.

    Ummah is fed up with the stories and fake claims by present day muallana's/  mulla's /shaikhs/ saints/peers,  some of them were righteous and good teachers. 

    By saify -



  • salamua alaikum,

    jb,aslam khan baraelvi lanatullahi alaih. alhamdulillah peacevtv is the only islamic channel tv channel around the clock. IF THE DOG SEES THE SUN & BARK, SURELY THE BRIGHTNESS OF SUN WILL NEVER GET REDUCED. IF YOU READ QURAN & SAHIH HADEES OPENING YOUR EYES & HEART THEN SURELY YOU WILL FEEL THAT YAZEED(RAHMATHULLAHI ALAIH) SHOULD BE SAID RAHMATHULLAHI ALAIH.

     

    MAY ALLAH(S.W.T) GUIDE YOU TO ISLAM & BECOMING MUSLIM....

     

    AAMEEN YA RABBAL AALAMEEN...

    By mustafa hussain. -



  •  

    dear sir,                                                                                                   

    i want to know the concept of mayrtre being not died,please explain.

    By A.sattar -



  •  

    Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhurym Ms sadia and others appear to be too much hurt by the existence of naik.

    WE all know that islam is the best religion and torah, injeel etc are also the aasmaani kitaab, but do not carry the same purity now as it was then. Gautam Budhha was enlightened and gave up the idol worship and went on to search God, but what is happening now, his followers are worshipping his idol, likewise, christians are worshipping christ instead of God.

    The best part of Naik is that whatever he speaks, he speaks with conviction, and substantiating his words from the text of quran and hadith. It will not be proper to criticise anybody without giving him opportunity to defend himself, therefore dont use this or any forum to vent out your anger, instead go and sit in his assembly and question him there. Of course, then you need to be thorough with islam for convincing him. And we all knoww that to be thorough in any field, we need to do labour which is not easy......mind it not easy.

    regards

    khan

    By mansoor -



  • ASSALAM everyone!!

     

    Go read quran and hadiees (Bukhari and muslim) all your doubts will be clarified. Dr Zakir Nayak is right

    By NAIM -



  • Ignorance galore in all the posts right from Sadia down to the last man. There is nothing new in what Sadia, the actor has said in her article. She has toed the traditional line of thinking of Shias when she condemned Dr.Zakir Naik for his reported remarks about Yazid RA. Comments such as this in the article,  speaks volume about the ignaorance of facts of history. Too many people have joined in echoing her views except a lone voice in Abdul Aziz Khattak, who had the courage to denounce it as a shia propaganda. He rightly said that Islam is much above an individual. If there was any martyrdom of Imam Hussein RA at Karbala, so it is. Then where is the need to highlight it as if Islam was saved on that day from the clutches of Yazid RA. It is a fact of history that Yazid RA never join the so called fight at Karbala and whatever happened in the middle at Karbala was a skirmish in which Hussain RA was accidentally killed by one of his own men. Why such distortion of history, when Islam was well protected thereafter and even grown much faster. Neither Imam Hussein RA nor anyone before him or his own brother Hasan RA ever tried to claim to head the Imamite. It was the new invention by those forces inimical to the growth of Islam and wanted to demolish it from within. The Ibne Saba was at the head of such a split. All fell prey to the machinations of these munafiqueene Islam including Ali RA accepted the Caliphate supported by the killers of Zinnorein Hazrat Usman RA. How Ali RA failed to break the siege of the Caliph Usman RA and why he did not do anything to save his life from the killers who were his supporters, is all part of history. Then finally, he accepted the Khilafat under dubious circumstances from the very people who killed the Great Caliph of Islam Zinnoorein Usman Ra. Then what followed later is  a part of history. Even during his lifetime, Ali Ra never ever declared himself as the first Imam. There was no question at all then as he was following the religion of Prophet Mohammed PBUH who was the last of the Prophets. The shias, thought it otherwise and believed it should have been passed on to Ali RA, the Caliphate which was temporal and spiritual as well. Though not openly say, but to shias, Imamite was a true succession of prophethood. It ran contrary to the basic belief of Islam. Hence they are 'khariji'. Let's not go into the detail and if any one is interested is knowing more and more about it, kindly go through my earlier articles on Karbala, which are very much available on the web site. Sadia was totally wrong in her utterances about the history of Islam. She has no business to comment on such an event about which she has little knowledge.

    As for the comments made by Dr. Zakir Naik was concerned, I have already passed on my comments in several of my articles which are still available on this web site. Please go through them to know the truth. Do not be carried away by such half-baked informations. Before denouncing him or Yazid RA, kindly go through the pages of history and know thoroughly the real truth behind all such events. Till then, reserve one's judgement on it. I still hold Dr. Zakir Naik, in high esteem for he possess enormous knowledge of Islam and other religions. One need not agree with his views, but then where is the justification to denounce his knowledge and wisdom. This is totally bad and unacceptable to a man of honour. Even Imam Ghazzali Rahmatullah Alaihi, did not favour condemning Yazid RA and why not because Yazid was the first commander of the naval task force of Islam that attacked Constentenopole (now Istanbu) under whose leadership, even like of Hussain Ibne Ali RA, Ibne Abbas, Ayub Ansari RAA and scores of othe sahabas participated. How could such a historic commander be wrong in his later part of life, as if the faith of Islam has been taken away from him. These and more are uncharitable and unfair comments on such a historic figure. More so to create such a hype on the political uprising that led to the accidental killing of Imam Hussain RA was unwarranted as Islam has witnessed much greater tragedies but never mourned such events. It is only shias and their propaganda that was responsible for making such an event as if Islam was in danger and that Imam Hussein RA saved it through martyrdom. How the historical events are presented in a distorted form to mislead the general Muslim Ummah and create a rift among themselves is all pervasive. The munafiqueen succeeded and Shia became a separate religion. But then, no regret as they form hardly 10 to 15% of the over billion Muslim population. They are concentrated in eastern part of Saudi Arabia, a part of Iraq, Syria and Iran where they are ruling over sunnies. The true religion called Islam exist and preserved in its original form by Sunni Muslims and all others are just fake. Do not believe them.

    Every body here on the website came out with a strong plea to love Ahle Bayt. They mean only five of them. But then can any Muslim agree to separate the name of Ummul Momineen Hazrat Bibi Ayesha RA from the Ahle Bayt. But it is being done by Shias deliberately to deny her a place in Ahle Bayt. It is ordained in Holy Quran, that all the wives of Prophet Mohammed PBUH are Ummul Momineen (mothers of Muslims) and they should be respected at all times. Here one such sect, which claim to be Muslims yet indulges in cursing of Hazrat Ayesha RA, along with other three great Caliphs of Islam, Abu Bakr, Usman and Umar RAA. Are these denounciation of the Great Mother and Caliphs of Islam acceptable to any Muslim? Certainly not and shia sect is the cursed sect itself. Hence fall outside the purview of Islam. Its a separate religion for many changes it brought about in the religion and faith of Islam. It is therefore necessary for all Muslims to guard against such propaganda that distort history of Islam.  Remain united to prevent such abuses of the religion.

    By A.M. Jamsheed Basha, Chennai, India -



  • An Open Chalenge

    Assalam u Aalaikum warhmatullah

    Bismillah hir rahman nir rahim

    An Open Chalenge to All genius like jamsheed Basha, and his guide Mr Saf Rizvi, Amanullah and others.

    I have question to all of you.

    If A Non Muslim Ask to you. Why Muslim and Islam Are true religion and How God (Allah) is one?  And how to prove it adoration of Idols are wrong?

     (Without cut and paste) and provide a better solution for this question, because if this question are not denied by all of you, when the non Muslims will visit this site and see this question.

     

    Prove it

    Please

     

    And Saf Rizvi sb you cant send lanat this time a muslim and non muslim whenever ask this question to you and other, if you are not able to solve this question with satified reply send own self lanat, because guider should have all solutions.

     

    And Mr Basha what You think ownself You are political colimnnist, that is good but you are not a Islamic (history) political columnist. I think you are more than 60s.

    Who all men donot understand Ahle bait and his sacrifices for Islam, who are totally misguided and corrupt in Islamic qreed, you are misguided by some unislamic historians.

    So dont say You are sunni, because you, Zakir naik, Ibn timmiya (lanati) and his follower are wahabi,

     

    “Ibn timiya is a first man who had said that "who man thinks to go to Mazar only he is mushrik specialy Mazare muqaddaus of Prophet Muhammad sallalllahu wasssaalam."

     

    After this fatwa, all ullema of that time use takfir for timiya lanati. And after that abdul wahab najdi had say like that. Waht you think only you know history. You are corrupt for your comment own yazid sorry to all for my critics.

    And Miss sufiya suhail thanks for your positive reply for my comment

    walaikum assalam janab Aslam sb

    I know, I m also Sunni, we Sunni can’t think against ahle bait but this time is against Sunni Muslims. So try to undersrand and use hikmat,

    Innallaha mayassaberin,

    ya aayiyohel lazina aminoostaino bissabre wassala.

    Syeda Farheen Fatima

    Bihar

    By Syeda Farheen Fatima -



  •  

    Sabko salaam'

    Khususan janab nadeem salfi sb, iss zakir naik ke chalawe pe na jayen, isko abb apne peace channel ke ban hone ki fikr ho rahi hai, lihaza ye maafi tilafi ki baaten kar raha hai ye pahle bhi yazid lanati ko izzat bakshne ke baarey me maafi maang ke, dobara se Italy my ja ke isne wahi apna kufr dohraya hai, ye wahabi bahrupiya hai iske dorangi baaton pe na jayen issey kahen ki ro ro ke Nabi-e-kareem saww se maafi mange shayed wo maaf karr den ...isne unke liye ye alfaz istemal kiye hain nauzbillah'  " jo shaks marr chuka hai"  janab salfi sahab agar aap musalman hain, to ghaur farmaiye, ke   koye musalman Allah swt ke khaas Nabi saww ke liye, aise alfaaz istemal kar sakta hai? lanat hai zakir naik pe aur uski himayet kar ne walon dozak me zakir naik yazeed aur iblees ek saath honge inshallah'

    janab husain mohamadi sb mashallah aapka naam bahot shandar hai per aapki seerat aur baten to ekdam baraks hai goya yezeed lanati  bhi nam-e husain ke peeche chupne ki koshish kar raha hai aap sirf itna batayen ki Osama bin Laden afghanistan me kya kar raha tha? uska wahan kya kaam tha? lanat hai aap jaise Wahabiat ke parokaron pe Jahennum hee asli manzil aur mukaam hai Nabi-e-kareem saw ke dushmano ka aur yazeed lanati ki himayet kar ne walon ka aur Islam me rah ke Islam ke deemakon ka Wahabi dahshat gardon ka.

    koyee shareef zyaada Musalman bhai mujh  unpadh ko ye bataye ki Mullah zakir naik ki shakal pe is qadr ki phittkaar kyon hai agaro wo itna hee padha like addeeb aur kamil hai aur tamaam MAZAHIB ka sab se badaa jaankaar hai to uske chehrepe Allah ka ata kiya  huwa noor hona chahiye na ki shaitaan ki de huwi phitkaar jab se is zakir naik ne Nabi-e-kareem saw ke khilaaf aul faul bakaa hai aur jab mai iski surat dekhta hun to ek sher baar baar zahen me aata hai "  Zakir naik hai Nutfa yazeed ka dekha hai jisne chaand moharram me eid ka..jahennum' me aalaa mukaam payega harr ek parokaar yazeed ka'

    ameen sum ameen

    By ASLAM KHAN BAREILVI -



  • Scholars come together with message of peace
    15 Nov 2008, Mohammed Wajihuddin
    MUMBAI: For many Muslims, praying behind the imam of the holy mosque in Mecca is a privilege. No wonder, a huge crowd assembled at the Somaiya ground in Sion where Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani, the imam at Mecca's grand mosque, led the Friday prayers, which marked the beginning of the 10-day (November 14-November 23) peace conference organised by Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik.
    In his khutba (sermon), Kalbani said if Muslims followed Quran and the Sunna (traditions of Prophet Mohammed) in their right perspective, a lot of their problems would be solved. "Muslims must keep patience and perseverance in their conduct in a secular country where there's no Islamic rule. There's no conflict between Islam and other religions because Islam's message is universal,'' the imam later told TOI.
    Dr Naik who was caught in a recent controversy over his remark about whether help should be sought from Allah alone or through the Prophet, clarified that he was misquoted. "It was a mere slip of tongue when I spoke to a news channel. I never said Muslims should not follow Prophet Mohammed. The word mangna (asking) was reported as manna (following) and it created confusion. I apologise if I hurt anyone's sentiments,'' said Naik, director of Islamic Research Foundation (IRF).
    He also said just as he did not call Osama bin Laden a terrorist or a saint as he did not know him, he would not comment on sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, an accused in the Malegaon blast case. "I am against identifying a terrorist with his/her religion. There is no Hindu terrorist just as there is no Muslim terrorist. A terrorist has no religion and he should be known by his name, not by his religion,'' he said.
    Senior cleric Mufti Faizul Rahman Qasmi from Punjab, who was at the event, called upon Indians to fight terrorism. He condemned those who spread terror in the name of Islam.
    Noted Islamic scholar Maulana Abu Zaffar Hassan Nadvi Azhari said the ulema (religious scholars) must do their duty to explain the correct Islamic message. He also warned against raising controversial issues from public platforms. "Controversies can be resolved among qualified scholars, not through the masses who can be easily misguided,'' he said. mohammed.wajihuddin@timesgroup.com Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Scholars_come_together_with_message_of_peace/articleshow/3714851.cms

    By nadeem salfi -



  • Yes Zakir Nayek is the middle name of Controversy ( Reference- TIMES OF INDIA-16th. Nov. 2008- The Sunday)

    Now he feels Prophet is not fit to be considered for SHAFAAT ( Intercession)

    What an irony of Islam indeed at times it becomes difficult for oserver to decide with whome one is dealing with?

    FRIENDS or ENEMIES of our religion?

    By Dr.Sarkar -



  • Date:   Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:17:03 +0300 [11/14/2008 07:47:03 PM IST]
    From:  To:  Editor@NewAgeIslam.com
    Subject:   Re: On Televangelist Zakir Naik: Don’t give in to

    Dear sir Assalamalaikum
     I think Sadia Dehlawi has no right to criticise Dr Zakir Naik. In Islaam it not the righr of any cleric to be be the sole preacher. Every Muslim who knows any thing about Islam can and should tell others. A hadees from prophet Mohammad (SAW),says that tell others about what I say even if it is an ayat.So if she cannot and does not want to gain atleast she should not criticise him. I pray to Allah to guide us all to the right path, ameen

    Dr Kamal Akhtar

    By Dr Kamal Akhtar -



  • Sabko salaam'

    janab husain mohamadi sb mashallah aapka naam bahot shandar hai per aapki seerat aur baten to ekdam baraks hai goya yezeed lanati  bhi nam-e husain ke peeche chupne ki koshish kar raha hai aap sirf itna batayen ki Osama bin Laden afghanistan me kya kar raha tha? uska wahan kya kaam tha? lanat hai aap jaise Wahabiat ke parokaron pe Jahennum hee asli manzil aur mukaam hai Nabi-e-kareem saw ke dushmano ka aur yazeed lanati ki himayet kar ne walon ka aur Islam me rah ke Islam ke deemakon ka Wahabi dahshat gardon ka.

    koyee shareef zyaada Musalman bhai mujh  unpadh ko ye bataye ki Mullah zakir naik ki shakal pe is qadr ki phittkaar kyon hai agaro wo itna hee padha like addeeb aur kamil hai aur tamaam MAZAHIB ka sab se badaa jaankaar hai to uske chehrepe Allah ka ata kiya  huwa noor hona chahiye na ki shaitaan ki de huwi phitkaar jab se is zakir naik ne Nabi-e-kareem saw ke khilaaf aul faul bakaa hai aur jab mai iski surat dekhta hun to ek sher baar baar zahen me aata hai "  Zakir naik hai Nutfa yazeed ka dekha hai jisne chaand moharram me eid ka..jahennum' me aalaa mukaam payega harr ek parokaar yazeed ka'

    ameen sum ameen

     

     

     

    By ASLAM KHAN BARAILVI -



  • Salaams

    The ability to understand Islam with depth and understanding is based on spiritual insight , like with Al Gazzali . I think we need to discuss topics before coming to false conclusions as Islam is a guide for humanity. By attacking Islam we maybe creating circumstances where non muslims are not drawn to islam but go further and thus lose our on life direction . Also our views need to reflect the prophetic spirit and Jihaad is part of that spirit .Unlike Gandhi , Islam does not accept humiliation and indignity . Rather it encourages fighting against oppression and occupation by illegal forces eg.Afghanistan and Iraq. The US have no proof against Bin Laden and I would like to see CRYSTAL CLEAR PROOF that holds Bin Laden liable for the 911 disaster . 911 alternative WEBSITES relfect some highly chalenging viewpoints that differ with the OFFICIAL version . Bin Laden himself said that he did not commit the crime and I think we need to hold him innocent until proven guilty .Mr Bush however is guilty of war crimes and destruction of his economy . As muslims we need to question ALL viewpoints as the media is not on our side . This website is also under scrutiny as muslims are fed up with being on the recieving end of a raw deal .

    I question how JIhaad is NOT APPLICABLE when oppression is meted out to muslims globally . I NEED AN ANSWER TO THIS and not the NON VIOLENT ANSWER as the oppressors are utilising FORCE and are EXTREMELY VIOLENT Y USING B52 BOMBERS and excessive AIR POWER to kill Civilians . I say Jihaad IS A NATURAL ALTERNATIVE under the circumstances .

    by twisting viewpoints it will not help the reality of murder in muslim countries . we need to use peaceful means and non peaceful means if EXCESSIVE FORCE AND KILLING IS LEGALISED BY AN ABNORMAL FOREIGN POLICY AS PRACTISED IN THE US . SELF DEFENCE IS A NATURAL RIGHT AND OUR LIVES ARE HIGHLY PRECIOUS .

    hUSSEIN

    By Hussein Mahomedy -



  • Let us discuss this point by point:

    ABOUT YAZID:

    Dr. Zakir Naik and some of his followers here have described Karbala war as a "Political War." Lets for a moment leave Karbala aside. I would like to know what explanation Dr. Naik and Wahhabis in general have for what happened in  Battle of Harrah. For three days Yazid's army raped, murdered and looted the city, most of those who sufffered were common people who had nothing to do with the war. The holy kaba was damaged during the siege of Mecca. Can we ask for God's grace for such a person?

    As far as Karbala, it was an imposed war, if you read history you will see that till the end Imam Hussain MPBUH tried to avoid the conflict by asking for permission to return to go to India.

    As for Mr. Khattar has said about few Wahhabi Muftis view about Yazid, then please know that eventually a person's action speaks for him. A few Christian leaders can not sit and decide that Hitler was a good man. If you have sense you know the truth. Hardly any  German mothers name their sons Adolf, and same applies for Yazid, (and I am surprised to see that even most extreme of Wahhabis cant even name their sons Yazid!) The fact remains that Yazid was a very big tragedy for Islam.

    ABOUT OSAMA BIN LADEN:

    For those who are crying foul about America invading Afghanistan & Iraq, please refresh your mind and try to remember the day when Coalition forces entered Kabul and Baghdad. Do you remember the joy in people's face, do you remember them running to streets, dancing and jumping in happiness? They were celebrating as if they were liberated from claws of death.

    Have you asked yourself why? Because the life under zealot leaders like Taliban (read Wahhabis) had made their conditions worst than animals. You cry foul when a misguided US missile kills a few innocent people. Where were you when Taliban massacred innocent people in Mazare -e-Sharif and when they committed genocide on Hazaras? Where were you when Saddam did the same to Kurds?  Taliban made Muslims look like barabarians and yet you appreciated them. It is true that Americans have done many horrible things in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the fact is that life under them is much better than life under Saddam and Taliban.

    DR. Naik has taken a very dangerous route by what he has said about Osama, no matter whatever the context may be. We dont know if Osama actually was responsible for 9/11, but we know that he was a Taliban sympethiser and supported. This is enough to distance oneself from him.

    Today we Indian Muslims are being labled as ani-national and terrorists. And we can not deny the fact that some of us have taken the wrong path. Instead of using his influence to guide Indian Muslims (specially youngsters) to the correct way, what message is he giving by saying that he supports whoever is the enemy of Islam? In his definition who is the enemy of Islam?

     

    THE BIGGEST ENEMY OF ISLAM IS WAHHABI EXTREMISM. WHILE I AM NOT SAYING THAT EVERY WAHHABI IS A TERRORIST, ONE CAN NOT DENY THE FACT THAT ALMOST EVERY RECENT MUSLIM TERRORISTS IN INDIA IS A WAHHABI OR IS ISPIRED BY A WAHHABI TEACHINGS. ITS REAL TIME THAT WAHHABIS GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER AND FALL IN MAIN STREAM BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

    MUSLIM UNITY:

    A lot of people have also said that Dr. Naik's lectures in Lucknow and Allahabad were cancelled because of Shia protests. This is not true as there were much more protests from  Sunnis than Shias. The fatwa issued against Dr. Naik has been issues by a Sunni Mufti.

    In the end I want to point out that Karbala hold significance for all Muslims, irrespective of the fact whether they are Shias or Sunnis. Come to Allahabad in Moharram and you will see that all major processions are carried out by Sunnis. The legendary peom "Shah ast Husain - Badshah ast Husain" was written by a Sunni.

    Unity is the biggest asset Muslims need in these times, let us not let people like Zakir Naik who have their own vested interests divide us.

    By Ali Abbas -



  • one can not de By Syed Abbas -



  • one can not de By Syed Abbas -



  •  

     

     

     

    Reply by Zahra (toronto Canada) posted husaini youth

    salam...
    i will not judge all.
    but most of the strict wahabis hate shias like hell. we all know tht and most of them have already hurted and killed a loot of our brothers and ssiters.
    they would even kill our sunni brothers and sisters and then say tht they were shias that we killed.
    thts not right at all!
    becasue htey believe tht killing shias will lead them to jannah.
    Asthagfarulah!
    do u really think tht is how a muslim should be? is Islam about violence?
    Ofcourse not.
    then why consider such ppl muslims.
    I also want to point out another thing.
    Alla religeonss teach one thing, which is do good and restrain from evil right???/
    As far as i know yes.
    but wahabism they doesn't really teach tht, infact they believe it's allowed to hit ur wife. is tht right.
    ofcourse not.
    so i dont htink they sohuld be considered muslims.
    but i will not consider all of them kaafir and bad, becasue i have no rights to judge.
    wassalam, zahra

     

    By Syed Md Asadullah -



  • Janab  S A Hannan   sb.

    Salamun alaikum’

     

    You have accused Newageislam.com of collecting All Islam bashing articles from different quarters which is grossly untrue, you appear to be  pained by the fact, that Newageislam.com has been posting all the Wahabi bashing articles, thereby  exposing  ugly faces of  self styled western cut mullahs’ like Zakir naik  and his herd. If this is not the case why have you posted your same message twice …your letter to the editor is out of context on this page. You have not read the entire well researched article By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis…  he also talked about the much hyped moderate king Abdullah’ in the real sense.  I suggest you go back and read the article again before giving your biased opinion.

     

     

    By SAF RIZVI' -



  • from        S A Hannan

    to            Editor@newageislam.com

    date        16 November 2008 18:53

    subject   Re: Saudi Arabia – Focal Point of Tyranny, Terrorism and Fallacious Interpretation of Islam, NewAgeIslam.Com - 15 Nov, 2008

                   

    Dear members,

     

    Assalamu Alaikum.

    This group has specialised in collecting all Islam-bashing news, articles from different quarters, most of these are mix of half-truth and falsehood.

    The name new age Islam, one should think, should cover firstly positive news and of course real failures of Islam.

    The news letter's items on Bangladesh are highly one-sided; this indicates the same about other places.

    The propaganda against Saudi Arabia is highly suspicious at a point of time when King Abdullah, after a long break since the period of Faisal, is trying to make many internal reforms and externally working to combat the terrorists of all hues and also promoting peace through dialogue.

    S A Hannan

    By S A Hannan -



  • MUSALMANO KA AKBAR,  VMKHALILUR???   YE KAUN BEWAKUF HAI ? AGAR ITNE HE SAMAJHDAR HO TO KHUD HE KUCH LIKH DETE MUSALMANO KI BEHTARI KE LIYE YA FIR SAF RIZVI SAHAB KI DALEELON KA KOYE JAWAB HE DETE BAKWAAS LIKH KE CHALE GAYE BE SIR PAIR KEE KAB AKAL AAYEGI TUMHARE JAISE NEEM PADHE LIKHON KO AREY JAHAN MAZHAB KI BATEN HO RAHI HAIN WAHAN MULK KE HALAAT KA ZIKR KARNE KI KYA BAAT HUWI?  HOSH ME AAO TUMHARE JAISE MUSALMANO KI WAJAH SE AAJ YE NAUBAT AAYEE HAI KI DEEN BHI KAMZOR AUR DUNIYA BHI KAMZOR HOTI JA RAHI HAI.

    By ASLAM KHAN BARAILVI -



  •  

    It will be better if New Age Islam works for the betterment of the Muslim community by giving them proper guidance for their economic and educational development instead of giving space for religious gossip which is of no use at all.

    I am sorry to say that we are yet to learn a lot from experience. It is also unfortunate that there is no organisation worth the name for the highly qualified elites capable of guiding the community and the government on important community and national issues.

    The present situation and the comments found here only shows our ill thinking. The community is still living in a stereotype mindset without purity of thoughts and actions.

    "Khuda hafiz Musalmanon ka Akbar...................."

     

    By V.M. Khaleelur Rahman -



  • Janab IIT Engineer khalid rizvi sb.   Salaamun alaikum’

     

    You mentioned your qualification (which is certainly not required here ) reminds me that Zakir Naik ..in all his lectures never fails to mention that he is a  medical doctor…(which is again not required at all, considering the platform he stands on.) but he carefully avoids to mention as to why he left such a noble profession? Money?  may be,  besides,  greed of other things …the same is evident in his acting like a  Model  in his channel’s  promo add…and incidentally you too have talked of his channel’s increasing  TRP…the similarities between you and him is striking and reminds me of  ‘birds of a feather flock together’  no wonder you are advocating his stand without putting in much thought…as regard to your mention with contempt about the Shaher Qazis…I am sure yourself being a Muslim must be performing your Salat behind such a shaher Qazi where ever you may be, unless, of course your particular Shaher Qazi  is different from the rest..  if your Shaher Qazi is not different then you must not perform your Namaz in Jamaat…...who  is an intelligent Giant  for you,  may be just an Orator with remarkable ability to mug up.. for others….But Islam is not about mugging up and impressing people of other faiths…the real ILM lies in the clarity of  ones’ own  faith,  which is no where near Zakir Naik and this was exposed when he talked ILL about Mohammad (saw) the Prophet of Islam and Allah  swt’s  most beloved  of all messengers….My request to you is, that don’t get carried away in your awe and take sides with the one who is an offender In the Eyes All those Muslims who revere and Love unconditionally the Prophet pbuh  of Islam….If you spend time to find the truth I am sure Allah swt will guide you… Allah Hafiz'

     

    By SAF RIZVI -



  • Beyond doubt Dr Naik is an intellectual giant. Other persons (like Actor Sadia) may also be respected figures but may have honest difference of opinion, but that does not give any licence to either Dr Naik nor Sadia to abuse the other. As for the so called Sheher Qazis of various  cities, what is the fountain of their authority? None, except politicians' blessings.They are wholly spurious and hirelings of politicians who ,in turn, shut their eyes to usurpation and misuse of Waqf property. Another reason for this outburst could be the starting of a puritanical TV channel which is taking away viewership from other, more commercial TV channels of the same nature. A pity that many politician have still not realised the political irrelevance of Muslim clerics, despite the fate of the Bukharis of Delhi.

    By Khalid Rizvi, B.Tech (IIT) -



  • Janab Nadeem Salfi  and Janab Irfan Mansuri sb.  

    sallamunalaikum’

    Your blind faith and  pet like faithfulness towards, your Wahabi sect’s front face Zakir Naik 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 ranting of non-Muslims about Islam than in keeping Your own faith steadfast, had this  not been the case you would have clearly seen the unpardonable sacrilege  of  Zakir naik when he talked ill (nausbillah’) about  Allah swt’s most beloved Prophet pbuh’ which ultimately became the basis of Zakir naik being declared a kafir’ by  Sunni (main stream Muslims)  Shaher Qazi of the capitol city of Lucknow,  India’s largest State,  Uttar Pradesh.

    You and your bunch 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 herd  that gathers to listen to his rigmarole ..If only you remember, that,   throughout  his existence before the khilkat of hazrat Adam' pbuh  the IBLEES  (lanat on him)  was the arch angel...and by one utterance against the will of Almighty the Iblees (lanat on him) 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 and the ignorant..   ..please note and pass it on to your next generation as well....'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 accepts astaghfar  even in the last breath but since no one knows that,  the time for astaghfar is now, for you, for Zakir naik and all those who support him under the influence (waswasah) of  Iblees (lanat on him) …So it is high time to wash your faces, clean the fog in your heads and practice TAUBA…Allah swt is most merciful, most beneficent.. most forgiving.  

    ALLAH HAFIZ’

     

     

    By SAF RIZVI' -



  • ASSALAM ALAIKUM

    I am not a alim of Islam but i have only some knowledge about Islam . Before some days the lacknaus so called muslim alim gave fatawa against Dr. jakir naike that he is a kafir because he gave some good remarks about yajid ,but i hade read one hadis in a book, hadis is i think (because i dont remember word to word) if you call anyone kafir and he is not a kafir so you will be a kafir .So be careful while using this word . If we talk about jakir naiks statement about osama bin laden and america so i think he is right .Because when america had attacked on afghanistan george bush had  justified that this is a Crused (religious war between christions  and muslims). I dont say jakir naik is 100% right but if we say he is a kafir so it is a totally wrong , i am not a supporter of jakir naik because jakir naik doesnt belive on Muslek and i say all Musleks are right. 

    By IRFAN MANSURI -



  •  Does Dr. Zakir Naik invoking God’s blessing on Yazeed make him a Kafir? 

    8 Nov 2008, 0452 hrs IST, Mohammed Wajihuddin, TNN

    Mumbai: Nearly a year after he stirred up a tempest with his statement that Allah's blessings are upon Yazid, the killer of Prophet Mohammed's grandson Imam Hussein, Dr Zakir Naik is back in the eye of another storm. A section of Sunni and Shia Muslims is up in arms against the Islamic preacher for saying that help should be sought from Allah alone, not even from the Prophet himself.

    The 37-year-old suited, bearded Dr Naik who also owns the religious channel Peace TV, is a familiar figure known for his preachings. He founded the Islamic Research Foundation and travels all over the world giving speeches, especially in the Middle East. On Friday, the former medical professional told a news channel that Allah alone should be approached for help. Immediately, a group of Sunni Muslims rushed to home minister R R Patil demanding a ban on his Islamic conference to be held in the city between November 14 and 24.

    Dr Naik said he was being targeted for a statement which most Muslims believe in and share. "I stand by what I said," he told TOI. "And I didn't commit any sacrilege. The majority of Muslims across the world believe that Allah is the almighty and help should be sought only from him. Parts of my earlier speeches are being taken out of context and presented with malicious intent."

    Last month, a group of Shias in UP put pressure on the administration to stop the series of lectures Dr Zakir Naik was supposed to deliver in Allahabad and Lucknow because of the Yazid controversy.

    On Friday, a Lucknow-based mufti issued a fatwa against him for allegedly supporting Osama bin Laden.

    "I never supported Osama. I have always been saying that all those who kill innocents are terrorists. So if the USA kills innocents, it doesn't have the right to call Osama a terrorist unless it owns up its own crime. Here again my statement has been twisted," he said.

    When asked if he felt threatened, Dr Naik replied, "Only cowards get scared. They have no guts to face the truth and level baseless, false charges. My programme in Mumbai is on and even R R Patil has accepted my invitation." mohammed.wajihuddin@timesgroup.com

    Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Zakir_Naiks_statement_raises_storm/articleshow/3687790.cms

    By md Ahmad -



  • Dr. Zakir Naik and the controversy

    Submitted by admin on 12 November 2008 - 3:09pm.

    By Md. Ali, TwoCircles.net

    Renowned Islamic scholar and preacher Dr. Zakir Naik angered a section of Sunnis and Shias by his statement to a private TV channel that a Muslim should seek help only from Allah and no one else, not even the Prophet.Angered by his statement a section of the community reportedly approached the home minister of Maharashtra RR Patil and demanded a ban on the Islamic conference which he is organizing between November 14 and 24 in Mumbai. The 43 year old medical practitioner told reporters that by saying this he has not done any thing against the principles of Islam. Whatever he has said is essential of "Tauhid" which is the soul of "Imaan".

    A big section of Muslims across the world believe that Only Allah is the All Mighty and worthy of worship and help should be sought only from him and no one else he added.Dr. Naik enjoys a fan following across the world because of his critical analysis of Islam and his knowledge on comparative religion. He is the founder-president of Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) and also runs Peace TV, an Islamic television. He travels across the world giving speeches and lectures on Islam and comparative religion. A big section of Muslim across the world appreciates his efforts to clear misconceptions about Islam through his lectures and talks. There was another Fatwa against him by some Shia clergy of UP. Last Friday Lucknow based Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali issued a fatwa against Dr. Naik describing him as a kafir (agnostic).

    The fatwa recommends that Dr. Naik be ex-communicated from Islam. The Mufti pointed out that Dr. Naik supports Osama Bin Laden and calls upon the Muslim youths to become terrorists. He also criticized Dr. Naik for his alleged glorification of Yazeed who killed Imam Hussein the maternal grand son of the Prophet and a person considered holy and respectable by the Shias across the world. Dr. Naik on the other hand defended himself and clarified that he has never supported either terrorism or Osama. He added that he has always been saying that all those who kill innocents are terrorists. He pointed out that people usually misquote his statements from the speeches he delivered in past.For instance, he pointed out that the actual statement goes like this that "all those who kill innocents are terrorists. So if the USA kills innocents, it doesn't have the right to call Osama a terrorist unless it owns up its own crime."

    On the accusation of instigating Muslims to become terrorists he clarified that he had said Muslims should become terrorists in the sense that they should strike terror in the hearts of criminals and anti-socials but again the statement has been misquoted he added. Last year he was center of an international controversy by saying radi Allaho anho (may Allah be pleased with him) after taking Yazid's name, a traditional prayer reserved for the companions of the Prophet Mohammad.Last month Dr. Naik was supposed to deliver a series of public lectures in Allahabad and Lucknow. But Shia groups started protesting against Dr. Naik. Soon the administration had to stop the lectures citing law and order problem. It is not the case that Dr. Naik hasn't got any support on this issue.

    Many Muslim organizations have come in his support. All-India Sunni Board and Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani Foundation came to defend him saying that Dr. Naik is one of the most respected scholars and doing an excellent work through his efforts to clear the misconceptions about Islam. Dr. Naik who was born in Mumbai on October 18, 1965 is a medical doctor by profession. The website of Islamic Research Foundation describes him as "international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion. Dr. Zakir Naik clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptions about Islam, using the Qur'an, authentic Hadith and other religious Scriptures as a basis, in conjunction with reason, logic and scientific facts."He has also been appreciated by his efforts to engage in inter religious dialogue. He has given hundreds of public lectures on Islam and comparative religion. He has also authored many books including Replies To The Most Common Questions asked By Non-Muslims, Qur'an and Modern Sciences- Compatible Or incompatible, Concepts of God in Major Religions, Islam and Terrorism, Women's Right in Islam- Protected Or subjugated, among others. Link: http://www.irf.net/irf/main.htm

    By Nadeem salfi -



  • For Information of Mr Abdul Khattak

     

    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

     

    MAY ALLAH SHOW YOU THE LIGHT OF GUIDANCE AND FILL YOUR HEAT WITH COMPASSION SO THAT YOU MAY NOT THREAT PEOPLE AND BE AMONG THE OPPRESSOR

    By ZIYA RIZVI -



  • I have read Abdul Khattak rejoinder with amusement.  Why he is letting loose a hell on the sectarian conflict without realizing that it was a  Sunni aalim from Lucknow that declared Zakir Naik a kafir.  Sadia Dehlvi is as I heard is not a shia nor do many revered ulemas who have condemned Zakir Naik are all Sunnis. If Mr Khattak think that Imam Husain was a shia alone then too he is wrong.  Husain is loved and respected by all sectios of Muslims and not Shia alone and even Moharram in all parts of India are observed by Sunnis as well.  By that matter all Rizvis are not Shias and there are many Naqvis who are also Sunnis.

    It is the ideology that Mr Khattak, a follower of Zakir Naik speaks that justifies terrorism and denigration of all religion except the one they follow.  You threat the Shias, you threat everyone who don’t adhere to your ideology by calling them Kafir and intimidating them by doling out wrong hadith or by spreading message of hatred.

    You are free to follow Yazid, name your children as Yazid and name everything you have after him.  But please don’t distort history this is where the conflict lies.  By justifying Yazid and calling him as RA, you are condoning the bloody massacre of Medina at the battle of Harra  by the Yazidi forces and the defiling the sanctity of the Holy Kaabah to which all Muslim bow their head in prayers.  I am not saying of Karbala as your heart cannot accept the fact that Husain saved Islam on that day from the clutches of oppression and digression.

    Husain lost his life and those his family, friends and supporter at the battle of  Kerbala but ultimately he was the winner and I say the saviour of humanity.  Where in the world you will find large mausoleum of the head of a vanquished army.  Where in the world you will find gold domes of all those who were killed along with Husian in a battle in which they were annihilated.  Husain tomb has always a point of veneration for the Muslims.

    Tell me Khattak where does Yazid tomb stand?  How many Muslim world ever go to his grave or that of his close associate, Where is Ubaidulla Ibn Ziyad, Omar ibn Saad or Shim. No one knows the trace where they died after all they were the members of the victorious army.

    Not but the least, ask Zakir Naik honestly how many of his family members carry the name of Yazid?  Mr Khattak please dont give rectarian colour to the debate or never thtreat those are on the right path

     

    By ZIYARIZVI -



  • Janab Abdul Aziz  KHATAK’…..(Apko to salaam karte bhi darr mahsus ho raha hai) ALLAH swt apko lambi umr  aur ghaur-o-fikr ka shaoor ata kare'

     

    In your earlier messages you have been threatening everyone by Quoting the Holy Quran’ (reminds me of talibans)  with your own concocted interpretations..  Janab unless you learn to appreciate the truth you would never even come near to the shadow of real Islam’ .. the article by Sadia Dehlvi further endorses the fact that such a message can only flow from a beautiful mind, which is also enlightened by faith...and look at yourself, where you stand… one moment  you Quote the Quran  and the next, you are threatening, that Shias will bear the brunt. It is this destructive mentality of your creed that has today exposed your front face, the self styled Mullah called Zakir naik, who never forgets to mention in every lecture of his,  that he is,  also a medical Doctor though  carefully avoiding the fact that he is a failed one. The  two piece suite clad  Mullah also repeats time and again, that Wasilah’ is Haram’ and every time I hear him say this I am reminded of a  colloquial saying ‘MARR GAYE MARDUUD NA FATEHA NA DARUUD’  due to the harshness in this saying I always used to wonder what could have prompted the  author  to come up with such rude reference and to what Type and Creed of people the writer  is referring to… But after seeing the propaganda by the WAHABI SECT that Wasilah is haraam’  I fully understand the harshness (well deserving ) and the People it is aimed at…The Wahabis  pay no respect to their dead and expect that, the main stream Muslims should follow suit….They pride in their being a  thankless lot, so the rest of the saner Islamic world, should also, become an ungrateful herd,  like themselves…Allah almighty  chose more than One hundred and twenty four thousand Messengers (Wasilah) to guide the mankind ..and a few among this mankind are smarter (Nauzbillah’) and say they need no Wasilah’….some under educated and self proclaimed  Mullahs understand that if a Muslim visits a grave he is committing shirk or worshiping the dead….where as the visit is only to pay respect to the dead relative…which also endorses ones belief in  life after death…. In the heart of their heart the Wahabis nurse a hatred towards every person who sits besides the grave of a dead relative to spend some quite moments or even says ‘Assalomun alaikum ya Ahlal kabuur’….now if this is shirk, what is UNGRATEFULNESS towards Allah swt’s most beloved Prophet pbuh and his progeny ?  I wonder how would Allah swt  reward those who insist that Wasilah is haram’. and thereby,  try to belittle the Greatness of Mohammad (saw) and his progeny. Any one who mingles any two bit outsider or equals with The Prophet pbuh or his progeny will surely invite the wrath of Allah Almighty and disgrace will be their fate here and hell fire  hereafter,  their faces  will be devoid of grace (as is evident in case of Zakir Naik ) and their utterances will be devoid of Ilm. Inshallah’ ameen’

     

    By SAF RIZVI -



  • Salam,

    If Dr Naik is kafir according to some of the ignorant writers here then so are the shias kaffirs, because they openly curse the companions of the Prophet (SAW) like Umar, Abu Bakr and Usman (may Allah be pleased with them all). Please don't let this turn into a sectarian issue or it will be the shias who will bear the brunt of it most. 

    By abdul aziz khattak -



  •  PM  Sultan Shahin 
    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]

    By abdul aziz khattak -



  • This is an earlier written letter on the same topic:

    Moeenuddeen 
    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 abdul aziz khattak -



  • salam,

    this is with reference to "Zakir Naik's comments on Yazid"

    The majority of those shouting about Dr Zakir Naik's statements are the cursed Shiites themselves. They will go the extra mile to vilify the respectable companions of the Prophet (SAW), but when it comes to their imams (which we revere too), they think all hell has been broken loose. I now think that this website too is a tool by the cursed shiites.

    so what if academically we say that Karbala was a political war?? wasnt it so?? and the shiites will dig false and contaminated narrations from their books to justify that perhaps Islam depends on Karbala. Islam is much above all personalities, who come and go. Islam is a truth that is manifested in every being, dead or alive.

    So grown up you shiites. you are the reason for divisions in the muslim world. peace is simply not in you nature.

    while your books are full of blasphemy even against the prophet (SAW), but if someone even hints at something about your imams that might be against your beliefs, you think they have committed a crime.

    By the way, the shiite historian allama tabri only dedicated a few lines to the karbala war.

    By abdul aziz khattak -



  • Slick and beautifully written article which expresses the heart and mind of millions of Muslims across the globe. Thank you Ms. Dehlvi and thanks Shaheen Sb. We need more commentators like Ms.Dehlvi, Mr.M J Akbar, Mr.Ziya Rizvi and Mr.Sultan Shaheen to voice their views through the internet, print and electronic media inorder to unite the muslims against this Saudi funded menace of radical (un)islamic ideology.

    Peace TV, with people like Zakir Naik and Asrar Ahmad with their divisive lectures, is fuelling hatred and differences amongst the Muslims and should be banned for preaching the radical ideology which breeds terrorism, before the situation gets out of hand. History will never forgive Zakir Naik for the damage he has already done to the cause of Muslim unity. This Ibne Wahab of the 21st century should be ex-communicated from Islam.

    By Hasan Iqbal -



  • A very well written article.  I thank New Age Islam for putting this on internet and deserve kudos for enlightening the Muslim masses.  Sadia has beautifully placed the issue in perspective and how the ilk like Zakir Naik are damaging Islam and providing fodder to the forces which are bent upon destroying the image of Islam.  Thanks Sadia for the wonderful article.

    Editor Sultan Shaheen effort to bring this core issue in light also deserves praise.  The fight against these elements has to be fought jointly.  And as Sadia says things are changing.  The Muslims arte coming out in large numbers to counter the malicious campaign of a particular brand of Muslim which flush with oil money is forcing its concocted ideology.   Millions of Muslim world over have not only condemned Zakir Naik and his follower, his programmes are being denied permission for fanning hatred.  I had said it earlier; Zakir Naik is doomed much the same way as Yazid was.

    Congratulations Sadia for the wonderful article

    By ZIYARIZVI -