A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

Society Religion & Philosophy
61

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

The massacre in Kerbala is only political for those who dont seem to regard politics as an essential part of shariah. For them, they are two seperate things. Sadly, it was this very view IMO, that brought Yazid and his likes to the platform of leadership in the first place.

62

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

there are dogmas, and there are people who follow them like sheeps. and then there are people who have read the actual history, have made an opinion about it, and then let people know what they think of it. if their views do not agree with those of the dogmatists then they lose respect in their eyes.
I have not watched the videos that have been linked. but since the question is here about Yazid being called raziallah anhu, Iwould like to put in a few words in that regard.
most people regard the battle of Karbala as something that was fought for the sake of Islam. as usual there were two sides, and both of them could have been either right or wrong, Imam Hussain is taken by default as someone who was right. why? because he was the grandson of Muhammad(PBUH). just for that reason alone he is given a "get out of jail free card' and all the blame goes to Yazid.
the fight started way before karbala. it started with the death of Usman, the third of the pious caliphs. soon there were two groups of followers. one followed Ali, and the other Muawiya. historians agree that Muawiya was the better administratos of the two. he obviously deserved the post. and since there was no mulukiat, something that Muawiya is accused of starting, in islam, it would not have been any bad.
the supporter of Ali claim that he was in the family of the Prophet and so it was natural that the power throne should have gone to him. thus they really advocate mulukiat in that area. it does not come to their minds that they do not respect Muawiya for the same reason.
After the Ali-Muawiya tussel even Imam Hassan was given nice treatment. at one point, Ibne Khaldun writes, he was given around 10 million from the public coffers.(it is quoted in "the shade of swords" by MJ Akbar). at other times they have been rewarded handsomely.
I am not sure if Imam Hussain has been given the same amounts of money. however it is certain that Yazid respected him and would not have taken his enmity because that would have been politically unfeasible. he thought it would be dangerous.
but when it came to it he had to fight to save his throne and government. we have seen that several times in the modern eras how states erase their enemies. even then the recorded fact is that Yazid never ordered his assassination.
there are several other things: I am sure there were some people present at that time who had either lived in the time of the Prophet or had been the sons of those who had lived in those times. given that islam was so fresh, and given that the vigour was still persistent at that time, why did not any one come to the rescue of Imam hussain and his family? the only plausible argument would be that they knew that Imam Hussain was doing it for political purposes, not for the sake of Islam. had it been the latter they would have flocked to his support. and yazid would have had no choice but to abdicate the throne.

63

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

Did he punish Ibne Ziyad then? And why did he invade Ibn-e-Zubair?

64

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

I don't want to get involved in this whole debate about shia and sunni, but i would like to share the correct opinion among Sunni scholars about Yazid bin Mu’awiyah. There are 3 views about him, 2 extreme and one moderate. First extreme view is that he was a kafir etc and other extreme view is that he was shaabi and loved by Allah etc. The moderate view, which is the correct view, is that he was neither loved by Allah and nor was he a kafir or a sahabi. He was a Muslim king who did good deeds and bad deeds and he was involved in the martyrdom of Hadhrat Husayan (RA). This is also my personal view about him.

Wallahu 'Alim

65

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

This thread is a great example of why I believe religion should be a spiritual study and not a history lesson.

66

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

I wouldnt say anything, but Quran doesnt let us follow who were kaffir or sinners, that eliminates first there caliph and offcourse maviya and yazid ......
About saying Imam Hussain a.s gets a jail free card, Doesnt matter it was political war or not, Hussain a.s was killed, his family was kept caprtive and it sounds like yazeed won the war.... but still yazeed gaveup the throne himself and then what was abt his son mavia 2 ? he was offered khilafaat but he refused saying this is right of Prophets family
and which historian said, Mavia was better administration of 2 ? Recall the times when umer was in trouble couldnt decide which one is actual mom of child.... reality is all ur caliphtes were like this, lack of knowledge and u r tellin me that they deserved khilafaat more then Ali a.s ?? who's braves and Knowledge cant be compared too anyother caliph ....

67

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

^Please don't turn this thread into a slandering thread. How about you show us some evidence for your claims? It is so stupid of people to compare shabas with one another without any Islamic text, which proves their claims.

the happy people thread
68

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

Salam all,
Since people started praising yazid, its not surpiring that now they r calling Imam Hussain a.s wrong ......
We have different histories, both cant be write so lets ask Quran
إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا {33}
"Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying"
Now i dunt care whom u consider Ahley-bait .... I belive Ahleybait are ...Rasool s.a.w His daughter Fatima s.a Her Husband Ali a.s and her sons Imam Hassan a.s and Imam Hussain a.s ....
U can say Ahley-bait means Rasool s.a.w family or his sahabi or his ummat its ur call but Imam hussain a.s is Prophet s.a.w family, he is his sahabi and his ummat.... so u cant take Imam Hussain a.s out of it ....
Now when Quran says they r paak then just who the he!! are u to say he was wrong ....same goes for Imam Ali a.s vs mavia ... both cant be paaak only one is after so many battels atleast u shld accept, Now that explains reality of ur history and ur religion
May ALLAH Punish those who changed history and those who advertise this wrong history without pondering on it and realizing what there history is saying doesnt make sense ... i wanned to write more but lack of time
Latter Inshallah

69

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

^so basically, you are going to ignore the other ahley bait because you love to slander them. That is clearly hypocrisy on your end.

70

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

Ok i didnt get a chance to write completely before ... now i have few more mins rather than going further am gona try to explain same thing over.

as per defination of Ahleybait .... who ever they r .. according to Quran they r completly Pure
"Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying" 33:33
Now u can tell me who ever u think ahleybait are keeping in mind definations requires em to be pure... as Allah Desires to keep em pure in ayya 33:33 of Quran translated above.
I dont know how did i slander any of the ahleybait in anyway according to ALLAHkabanda.... I just mentioned Imam Hussain a.s and Imam Ali a.s because janaan said **"we give em jail free card coz they r family of Prophet s.a.w" .... We dont give em jail free card, Quran calls em pure" **this doesnt mean rest rnt pure .. rest are but i didnt find a need to mention them here.
Again u can call whom ever u want ahley-bait i dont have problem with that... but there is no way u can take Imam Hussain a.s and Imam Ali a.s out of ahleybait a.s and when u cant eliminate them then u have to agree they r pure ....And when they are pure people who fight against them are not pure ... 2 pure wont fight, now ur religion ur history u can praise whom ever u want
wasalam
Aqeel

71

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

^all i am trying to say is that whoever tries to slander any of the shaba or any of the family members of Prophet (SAW), he is in deep trouble. And let's read what you said earlier

[QUOTE]
Quran doesnt let us follow who were kaffir or sinners, that eliminates first there caliph and offcourse maviya and yazid
[/QUOTE]
Here, you called the family members of Prophet (SAW) kaffir or sinners but the ayat you quoted tells us something else.

Fall from grace...
72

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

"You are in the same position with relation to me as Aaron was with Moses, except that there will be no prophet after me."

Sahih Bukhari, Book on Outstanding Traits, hadith #3430 Battles hadith #4064
Sahih Muslim, Book of the Merits of the Companions, hadith #4418
Al-Tirmidhi, Book on Outstanding Traits, #3664
Ibn Majah, Book on the Introduction, 112 and 118
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:173, 175, 177, 179, 182, 184, 185

Hazrat Haroon a.s were first khalifa of hazrat Mosa a.s ... Hazrat haroon a.s were also son inlaw and cousin of hazrat mosa a.s.

*"Ali is the most beloved to me, and the most beloved to Allah." *
Tareekh Baghdad: v.1, p.160. *
and we have people comraing him with mavia .. keep ion mind the word **most *

'Ali is from me and I am from him; he is the guardian (wali) of every believer after me." **
Musnad Ahmad: v.5, p.356. *
*"There is not a prophet who has not had a peer, and Ali is my peer."
*Ar-Ryadh An-Nadherah: v.2, p.164. *

Shame on people who think mavia deserved the khilfaat more than Ali a.s, is there anyone who dereved khilfaat more than Ali a.s ?

*"Your flesh is my flesh, your blood is my blood, and righteousness is on your side." *
Al-Mahasen Wal-Masawi: v.1, p.31.
Thats how close Ali a.s is to Our Prophet s.a.w

"Ali is the master of all the believers after me".
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 5 p 25
Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 134
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 296

now what else should i provide ??

73

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

Ok who is memeber of Prophet s.a.w ........ If u mean abu bakar, u shld now he was kafir earlier and then accpeted islam.
and i used words "were" soo it means they were kaffir and then accepted islam

74

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

^you're clearly contradicting yourself now. Even, if i assume that, that's what you meant then how first being a kafir and later on becoming a Muslim doesn't make them worthy for being a khalifa? Was Ali (RA) Muslim before he (RA) embraced Islam at the hands of Prophet (SAW)?

75

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

I asked a simple question. Now, Ali [raz] was a great person like other sahabas but I don't get why didn't he prosecute the killers of the 3rd caliph and had people from the same tribe in his army. It paramounts to a cause of a fitna in the first place!!!!

In the end, what it did was set a bad precedent for future when muslims killed other muslims for power, $$$ etc. What did Umer and the 3 caliphs did that you shias slander them that much? you yourself said that ali was content with them being the 3 caliphs so why shias create this fitna of badmouthing the first 3 caliphs. I had a shia manager who once told me that she would name her dogs after the first 3 caliphs so I can understand where you guys come from.....

Guilty pleasures?
Guilty pleasures?
76

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

Quran only wants us to follow Allah his Prophet s.a.w and the one who is ulil Amr of the time .... Now Quran doesnt tell us who ulil amr is but it does tell us who ulil amr is not, the one who comiit a sin is not ulil amr, one who **EVER **was not a muslim is not ulil amr ... now am not here to preach islam but u will find people who wud say Rasool s.a.w wasnt muslim until he was fourty ...
Abt Ali a.s u have belives that he wasnt Muslim before ...
Abt his Father Abu Tablib a.s u have belives he wasnt even a muslim not until his death, How ever he is the one who read nikah of Prophet s.a.w and Kahdija a.s, thats before islam was there and still nikah is from Quran, now spend little time on thinking how come a person who was never a muslim reading a nikah of ur Prophet s.a.w from Quran before Quran is sent to Prophet s.a.w ........
If u think Ali a.s wasnt Muslim when he was born then he is not ulil amr then there is no other ulil amr at that time ....which is contradicts to Quran.
wasalam
Aqeel

77

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

^ As far as I know, Allah tells us in Quran “Atte Ullaha Wa Atte Ur-Rasool”…baat khatam. I don’t see how Yazid being a good or a bad guy is going to get us into Jannah. This is the exact problem with us today (be it sunnis, shias etc). We are too indulged in other matters that we ignore the bigger picture and start concentrating on things which don’t concern us or will not concern us.

Keep this mentality and we will achieve peace, GUARANTEED :lajawab:

78

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

I am not a scholar and i dont have enough knowledge about this topic,
But a little bit of knowledge that i have (which is not enough to answer any question properly), has lemme get to a conclusion Y imam Ali a.s didnt do it,
First thing i have heared it no proof but from shia's that Imam Ali a.s Appointed gurads on usman's palace, coz he knew usman will get killed and he wud be blamed.
2nd i dun even know who killed usman, I have heared it was Mohammed bin abubakar but even i doubt it am totally not sure about this story, and i dunno the reason either... this topic has attarcted me towrds it from last few week but am busy with general stuff Inshallah i will try to figure out shia and sunni prespective on this. So how ever
Less just igonore murderer for a sec and get to conclusion which is totally ignorant i accept that on my side, but the picture i have in my mind is that who ever killed Usman did it because he didnt deserve khilfaat and neither did first two but Ali a.s never used sword for his worldy purposes, which is totally opposite of what you said "he did it for khilfaat" It was better to leave khilfaat for the Good of Islam, in case of mavia, Ali a.s was selected 4th khalifa and mavia raised his sword not Ali a.s it was mavia who started wars.
The reality is even mavia didnt care about usman he cared about khilaafat, however Ali a.s knew that the person who killed usman didnt do a wrong thing ( thats just an opnion ) i am gonna be doing more research on this topic but its gona take a while.
wasalm
Aqeel

79

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

    i agree with the part where u said we have same problem today sunni and shia  ,,,,, but no offense where ever u read atte Ullah wa Atte ur Rasool s.a.w please read the next part of ayya too

thanks
Aqee;

80

Re: A disappointing Dr Zakir Naik

Khalifah means successor or one who follows in authority.

Hazrat Haroon (a.s) died before hazrat Musa ( a.s.), so how could he succeed Hazart Musa (as)????

Hz. Ali’s (ra) view is at complete variance to that of yours

-** Nahjul Balagha Sermon 91** - [When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of `Uthman]

"Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever one may say or abuse. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief (ulil Amr)."

The above statement is very important:

1) Note that Hz. Ali (ra) never deemed it fit to claim that he was the chosen/appointed Khalifah (successor) the Prophet (saw). Keep it in mind that it was his religious obligation to do so if indeed he was the appointed Khalifah.

2) Hz. Ali (ra) did not see fit to remind the people that the Prophet (saw) had chosen him as the Emir/Leader over the Muslims at Khum Ghadeer as it would have been the best to ‘promote’ his claim as the leader of the Muslims.

3) He said that: “It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs” He showed no objection to any other to be elected as an Emir/Leader (Ulil amr) for the Muslims.

4) Importantly he also stated: “. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief” *

now what else should i provide ??
[/QUOTE]

try providing authentic quotation from Nahjul Balagha [purported to most authentic narrations of Hz. Ali (ra)] where he claims to be the chosen Imam/Chief/Khalifah of the Muslims.

Try as much as you want, you won’t be able to get any as there are no such narrations. But no harm in trying.*