Dr Zakir Naik is an MBBS doctor (Zakir Abdul Karim Naik was born on 18 October 1965 in Mumbai, India. He attended St. Peter's High School in Mumbai. Later he enrolled at Kishinchand Chellaram College before studying medicine at Topiwala National Medical College and Nair Hospital and later the University of Mumbai, where he obtained a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS).
I have heard very good about him. Everone has said that he is very good and is very knowledgeable (he must be as i heard he has hifzed quran in different languages-mashallah). I have heard him but not properly. I just wish he changes his tone of speaking as in speaking calmly.
I also like this guy as long as he is spreading Islam he is good but you should be aware of his views regarding Yazeed which are quite disturbing and controversial.
He got his ‘ijjazat’ from Salafi/Wahabi/Ahl e hadith uleema and is inspired by them but he always calls him self a muslim and dosent relate himself to any sect.
i disagree with his way of "reasoning".
also he has become an angry person.
he doesn't follow the traditional 4 madahib.
he's not an alim, he claims to be a daee but then why does he talk about fiqh issues?
NomiCA the essence of the term Jama' - scholarly collective and the concept of going to the people of knowledge, the need to have authenticity and hence ijaza is all based around the "patent for the interpretation of Islam" ... It sounds silly when you say it like that ... but yes the opinion of the jama' is binding, the defracted understandings are not. This is why we can say with considerable comfort that there is no legibility to interpretations of the radical groups, however by not having a process where "interpretation is patented" then it all of sudden would validate all the groups and factions including Ahmediyyat, Ismailiat and Ikhwaniyat and so on.
He got his 'ijjazat' from Salafi/Wahabi/Ahl e hadith uleema and is inspired by them but he always calls him self a muslim and dosent relate himself to any sect.
I used to like him because he could win arguments and debates ... I later learnt that "debating" is not part of the characteristics of being a good Muslim daiee. It is necessary to some extent to ward off the "in your face missionaries" which is how Ahmed Deedat started his method, but Dr Zakir Naik didn't have the same motivations. His idea was to use the "defensive" technique developed by Deedat to outreach. Being a scholar of comparative religion is what Deedat was, Dr Zakir Naik has the added intent to "give dawah" and for that certain methods need to be avoided - such as argumentation. We don't give dawah by hampering on people and calling the biggest opponents rather dawah should be given to the highest official people who are known for their great character and to call them in the best way - just like an invitation to a meal or a banquet.
The reason why Dr. Naik is often seen as entertainment is because people want to see how witty he can be to answer the trickiest of questions. I'm not taking anything away from him in his personal views and beliefs and sincerity at all.
However I can't help getting the feeling that if this method was indulged in for the learning Muslim it would render him hollow and his view of Islam would be that is intellectually dominates and hence is superior making him feel superior. No doubt Islam is like this but it is also the subtlties in Islam that we should promote and it is also the compassion that we should seek in order to be more complete humans and these aspects as a whole are taught to us and transmitted by scholars in their company.
NomiCA the essence of the term Jama' - scholarly collective and the concept of going to the people of knowledge, the need to have authenticity and hence ijaza is all based around the "patent for the interpretation of Islam"
the jama' is only the 4 madhabs?
As far as i know..i could be wrong...nothing in Quran or Hadith mentions about any specific schools of thought to be followed......opinion of Jama' might be binding...but who constitutes a Jama' can't be fixed...
BTW...i may sound "silly"....i am not an expert....but just asking questions........
the jama' is only the 4 madhabs?
As far as i know..i could be wrong...nothing in Quran or Hadith mentions about any specific schools of thought to be followed......opinion of Jama' might be binding...but who constitutes a Jama' can't be fixed...
BTW...i may sound "silly"....i am not an expert....but just asking questions........
Yes technically you are right ... the reason why the 4 madhabs are quoted is because of their overall agreement on the 'aqeedah whereas they differ in fiqh matters. Ash'ari and Maturidi 'aqeedahs have been agreed as what are within Ahl-us-Sunnah-wal-Jama' ... Each of the 4 madhabs recognise the other 3 madhabs as being part of the fold. In other words they support each other. If a fifth or a sixth comes in then not only do each of the existing 4 need to recognise the fifth but the fifth needs to recognise the other 4.
Also these 4 madhabs have an unbroken chain of ijaza and tutelage back to the salaf ... if a fifth or sixth claimant for recognition comes in then they would have to demonstrate a similar unbroken chain. So technically there can be any number of madhabs, but the reason why there are 4 is because they fulfil those requirements and the further away in time we move from the source or early generation the less likely there is of another madhab to emerge from outside these existing four, of course it is possible a madhab can occur from within them - and if that happens then w can be sure they will not be too far from their parent madhabs. I hope that makes sense.
authenticity and established-ness (i just created the word) is always subjective...and means different things to different people.............at the end of the day...it comes down to individual preferences...........
Well I see more and more people saying that Nomi. "Follow your heart." But again, my hear is very vulnerable, and I tend to believe anything that sounds good. So when I am searching for correct information as opposed to an opinion, I must make the right choices. I like what brother Psyah said, that if you cannot trace the lineage of his tutelage, I'd question his understanding...but that's just me. Again, I hold him in high regard as he is no doubt making a powerful impact.
He is kind of continuity of Ahmad Dedat, a very remarkable scholar him self too.
He dose some extremely important information processing on behalf of Muslims. And he available to all muslims
even out side of mosque and stuff.
One of the true scholars and Geniuses of our time. We're extremely lucky to have someone like him to give a non-biased view of Islam. Separated from influences of the sects he gives true and logical explanation regarding the Universe, science, and Quran. You wont find anything remotely logical or truthful in the mosques of sunni/shias. If you go there they'd only try to exaggerate something to such an extent that it starts to sound like a myth. Niak clears those misconceptions of the molvies and puts the truth (no matter how much it may hurt your "ego") out there.
The difference between a lecturer to a mentor is the difference between Dr. Naik to a Shaykh ...
I personally think he is good ... however if I am forced to compare him with others then it will be an eye-opening experience. First off, he has memorised certain debating loops and patterns of discourse, due to frequency of questions or misconceptions typical to the audience he faces.
Other than this he may know large amounts of verses with their translations, but he will not be able to provide insight in the Arabic language itself - he has merely memorised a verse in Arabic and is translation with it. It's surface deep if you know what I am saying. He even admits that he is not a scholar in Arabic. He can recite hadith, but will not be able to tell you the sanad of them. The real scholars can ... they just don't broadcast this fact. They have deep information regarding scriptures and know dialogues of scholars about them because those dialogues have been passed down. They memorise poetry which was developed by scholars of old as a technique to code the understandings in to the teachings. There is a full wealth of sciences and techniques that the scholars know and about which narration to use where.
authenticity and established-ness (i just created the word) is always subjective...and means different things to different people.............at the end of the day...it comes down to individual preferences...........
This may work very well when it comes to things other than religion, but not so much when we start talk about religion. There is no such thing as pick and choose. What has been stated, tough cookies, you have to work with that. If you want to pick and choose why have religion in the first place? Might as well get rid of it, or heck pick and choose from other religions too.
Schools of thought does not mean that you're not a Sunni now. It just means the interpretation is a bit different when it concerns one thing or the other. All of us essentially follow one or another school of thought, even if we aren't aware of it. A person who says well I don't believe in schools of thought, I don't follow any is just rejecting the history of Islam itself, and isn't really creating a new idealogy. If there is an issue that I want to solve, I will first and foremost go to the authentic sources of my school of thought. The answer is always there. If the answer is not there, then I will look towards another school of thought. It's easier that way, for me. It's not exactly like going to a grocery store and picking between red bell peppers and green ones.
Oh well haters gonna hate.
This isn't about hating. If a person is telling you why they would not feel comfortable about blindly following and praising one person, then you've got to have an open mind to actually listen and understand what that person is saying. Zakir Naik is just someone who spouts off facts but doesn't understand it. That is a scary thought when it comes to religion.