Zakir Naik’s Remarks on Yazid Spark Anger Among Muslims

[Admin]

Zakir Naik’s Remarks on Yazid Spark Anger Among Muslims
Shahid Raza Burney, Arab News MUMBAI


Renowned Islamic preacher Dr. Zakir Naik has landed in trouble with the Muslim community in India and created controversy by addressing a controversial historical Muslim character with a laudatory title reserved for saintly figures.

In a recent 10-day peace conference held at Somaiya Ground in the Sion suburb of Mumbai, Naik is alleged to said “Radiallah tala anho” (May Allah be pleased with him) after mentioning the name of Yazid, and made remarks that Karbala was a political battle. Many Indian Muslims have condemned the remarks, with both Shiite and Sunni scholars threatening an agitation if Naik fails to apologize and retract his comments.

Muslim leaders, calling for harmony, fear that if the issue is not resolved soon, it may spark off sectarian clashes as the month of Muharram, which marks the anniversary of the battle of Karbala and martyrdom of Imam Hussain, grandson of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), is just 10 days away.

Several Muslim leaders criticized the remarks calling them “uncalled” and said it was the same as praising terrorist organizations. Safdar Karmali, leader of the Shiite Khoja Jamaat said that Naik cheapens the martyrdom of Imam Hussain by suggesting he fought for political gain. “Dr. Naik has by his remarks hurt the sentiment of all Muslims and has turned it now into a Shiite-Sunni issue,” he said.

Maulana Mahmood Daryabadi of the Ulama Council said that although the preacher has expressed regret of having hurt a Muslim sect, he has, however, not retracted his remarks and instead tried to quote fatwas to prove he was correct. “It appears that Dr. Naik is intent on his remarks,” Daryabadi said.

However, other Muslim leaders called for calm. Maulana Qasmi from Markaz-ul-Maarif said that some feel too much is being made out of a minor issue. It is better that in the interests of the community, the matter should be closed. Altaf Shaikh, a software engineer, regretted that some vested interests are giving a sectarian color to the issue and creating trouble.
“The need in such a situation is to exercise restraint, as Moharram is a time for remembering the sacrifice of Imam Hussain and not discussing mistakes of Dr. Zakir Naik,” he said.

Azim Alamdar, leader of the National Muslim Front, said that Naik has put his foot in his mouth by making the unpardonable remarks.
“The problem with Dr. Naik is that he has an ego problem and considers himself to be an authority on Islamic issues, Dr. Naik many a times stretches too far, creates controversies and lands into problems,” Alamdar said.



Source

[NoName55]

laudatory title reserved for saintly figures.

that says it all to me about the article writer's knowledge of Islam

made remarks that Karbala was a political battle

do they even know the meaning of the word "political" before declaring an unholy war on poor brother?

who was it who first invited then betrayed Hazrat Hussain Radi ullah? was it brother zakir or the shiite? What is the reality of the tragedy?

brother speaks so fast that sometimes gets mixed up, but lets hang him for a slip of tongue to please the saint worshipers

[Fishman]

that says it all to me about the article writer's knowledge of Islam

:sl:
Sectarian remarks are not good on this forum, be they pro Sunni or pro-salafi or pro shia or whatever. Many people get extremely annoyed and hurt when people say things like that, and so nobody is allowed to start sect wars.
:w:

[NoName55]

Sectarian remarks are not good on this forum, be they pro Sunni or pro-salafi or pro shia or whatever. Many people get extremely annoyed and hurt when people say things like that, and so nobody is allowed to start sect wars.

then keep out the articles that elicit such "sectarian" remarks ( showing their outrage at one of our brothers and making us a spectacle!)

his slip (if there ever was a slip) can not possibly be worse than their own treacherous nature and deeds

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Omari]

i agree with no name.

[chacha_jalebi]

well as all muslims should believe Allah (swt) is the judge of everyone, he will judge everyone

Yazeed (may Allah forgive him) YES may Allah forgive him and be pleased with him :D he was born during the time of taabieen, and it has been narrated in some of imam at tabaranis books that he went on battle expeditions with some sahaba like Abdullah ibn Umar (ra)

and its best not to say anythin bad about anyone, especially a taabieen, because we can never be like any ONE of them,

to Allah (swt) we belong and to him we will return and be judged

and i dont know why some "groups" are gettin so edgy over this, its like woh blud sort out your own issues then look at others

[Fishman]

well as all muslims should believe Allah (swt) is the judge of everyone, he will judge everyone

Yazeed (may Allah forgive him) YES may Allah forgive him and be pleased with him :D he was born during the time of taabieen, and it has been narrated in some of imam at tabaranis books that he went on battle expeditions with some sahaba like Abdullah ibn Umar (ra)

and its best not to say anythin bad about anyone, especially a taabieen, because we can never be like any ONE of them,

to Allah (swt) we belong and to him we will return and be judged

:sl:
Bro, your a mod, shouldn't this be moved to methodology or something instead of being allowed to continue? As No Name (rather impolitely) said, this whole topic is sectarian.
:w:

[chacha_jalebi]

:sl:
Bro, your a mod, shouldn't this be moved to methodology or something instead of being allowed to continue? As No Name (rather impolitely) said, this whole topic is sectarian.
:w:

nope fishy broo.

lol just because Yazid ibn Muawiyah, is mentioned it dont make it sectarian lol

and its a world issue like many people from around the world are getting edgy over i think its best to keep it here

[Fishman]

nope fishy broo.

lol just because Yazid ibn Muawiyah, is mentioned it dont make it sectarian lol

and its a world issue like many people from around the world are getting edgy over i think its best to keep it here

:sl:
Bro, Salafis take offense the 'Saintly Figures' statement in the article, and Sunnis and Shias take great offense to people putting down the Saints. At the moment it is all right, but soon people of different points of view will start trying to argue, and it will turn nasty. If you ask me, the best place to discuss these things is a sect-specific board, not LI.
:w:

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:
Bro, Salafis take offense the 'Saintly Figures' statement in the article, and Sunnis and Shias take great offense to people putting down the Saints. At the moment it is all right, but soon people of different points of view will start trying to argue, and it will turn nasty. If you ask me, the best place to discuss these things is a sect-specific board, not LI.
:w:

:sl:

I think Sunnis/Salafis are synonymous...as a Sunni is one who doesn't curse the Sahaba and the term 'salafi' is simply by default an ascription to the salaf.

Anyway brother Fishman, its not about saints, its about those who decide to direct acts of worship to them..and any Muslim will agree, I'm sure brother, that directing an act of worship such as Dua', sacrifice, etc to other than Allaah is shirk. Anyhow, I agree with you, if this discussion is to turn sectarian, it is better of closed.

At the same time, I don't believe the article used the term 'saint' in the aforementioned context.

addressing a controversial historical Muslim character with a laudatory title reserved for saintly figures.

As the title he used is usually used after the names of the Sahaba, they are indeed the most deserving of the title 'saint'. Therefore, I believe there was a misunderstanding of what the article itself was saying. Anyway:

Regarding Yazid:

Historically, people have been divided into three groups with respect to their opinions about Yazîd b. Mu`âwiyah.

One group said he was unbeliever and that he was behind the killing of al-Husâyn, the grandson of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They alledge that he had him killed as revenge against the Prophet (peace be upon him) on account of his grandfathers who had been killed by the Muslims during the Battle of Badr. This saying is adapted by the Shî`ah as well as their supporters who have no knowledge or understanding of historical events. Many history books are, regretfully, full of their lies.

Others said he was a devoted man, a just ruler, and that he was a Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They claim that when he was born, the Prophet (peace be upon him) carried him and prayed for him. This saying is adapted by the `Adadiyyah, followers of `Adî b. Musâfir, and other people of ignorance.

The third opinion is that he was a Muslim king who had some good deeds to his credit and other bad ones. He was not a Companion because he was born during the reign of the Caliph `Uthmân and not during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is worth noting that some people are confused between this Yazîd and his uncle Yazîd b. Abî Sufyân who was indeed a pious Companion.

This third opinion is the most balanced and moderate one. It is the opinion held by Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamâ`ah, who neither declare Yazîd b. Mu`âwiyah to be an unbeliever nor a devout nor a saintly man (walî). They recognize what happened to al-Husayn and what happened at the Battle of al-Harrâ. However, they also acknowledge that Yazîd b. Mu`âwiyah entered Constantinople with an army during his father’s reign. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The first army to beseige Constantinople will be forgiven their sins.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Read the rest here: http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...&main_cat_id=2

And Allaah knows best.

[ahsan28]

:sl:
However, they also acknowledge that Yazîd b. Mu`âwiyah entered Constantinople with an army during his father’s reign. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The first army to beseige Constantinople will be forgiven their sins.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim][/INDENT]Read the rest here: http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...&main_cat_id=2

And Allaah knows best.

So true. One should be able to recognise those, who remain ever eager to exploit some undue advantage out of history, making it an essential part of religious belief.

[NoName55]

:sl:

I think Sunnis/Salafis are synonymous

yes to some extent (but every tom dick and saint's grave worshiping harry says he is Sunni)

As the title he used is usually used after the names of the Sahaba, they are indeed the most deserving of the title 'saint'.

so basically, there is nothing wrong with the concept of "sainthood" itself (as long as it is applied only to Sahaba)?

as for the thread not being sectarian, you are right (except for the fact that it is an attempt to deceive Muslims in to thinking that there is no difference between a Muslim and Shiite. look at the way statement of so-called Sunnis and "outraged" Shiites are intertwined)

:w:

[krypton6]

I dont see why what he should apologize for what have said. Why is what he have said making people so angry?

Personally I look up to Dr. Zakir Naik who I find being the best schoolar and the most convincing. He always thinks much of what comes out of his mouth, and I doubt that he did not do that this time.
I support him no matter what, his just greate.

[Idris]

I support him no matter what, his just greate.

well I don't think your right there.

[krypton6]

well I don't think your right there.

Then please explain to me what he have said.