Lately, I have been watching his lectures on YouTube. I dont know what got to me on his page, but one after one I started liking his lectures, the way he conducts it, the way he replies to the public, with facts and figures and the way he delivers the Islamic Message to the world MashAllah due to which a lot of Non-Muslims are inspired by our religion & converting to Islam.
I didn’t know about “something” until I discussed the lectures with my Hubby and he told me that he has heard something about a lecture which he gave about Yazeed. Though he wasn’t sure what the lecture was all about. So I had to check it up on YouTube. There is just one video I could find with really less quality and couldn’t understand his lecture properly.
What do YOU people think about him? What do YOU people know what he said about Yazeed, what he thinks about him and as some title mentions Dr. Naik praises Yazeed, is there any video in the answer of that? in his defense about it??
I have been really confused since I came to know about it. Whats true?
P.S., If any of you can find a good quality video, please post it here.
I think he's a bit of a clown. A lot of his arguments are nonsense. He attempts to be a philosopher of sorts but is woefully ill equipped for such a task. His logic for why "Christian" countries give equal status to Islam vs Islamic countries not doing the same is comical.
I didn't find his arguments as nonsense. I found him a scholar with really vast knowledge. At least more than you and me and thousands more.
Its just that I am confused about what statement he passed about Yazeed which I couldn't clearly understand. I want to know what he stated and **WHY **he stated!!
yeah, but I couldn't understand his point and thats why posted it here to seek help :(
peace queen
If you liked Zakir Naik's lectures on other topics and could relate to his philosophy, then why bother whats his views of Yazid. You know the famous history book Tibri also contains various account of Karbala incidents presenting Yazeed both good as bad person. Simply, there are certain people who don't agree to one aspect of history portraying Yazeed as evil and therefore refraining from calling him as La'een, etc.
We are followers of the prophet who forgave and prayed for those people of Ta'if who bathed him in blood and issues like calling yazid bad or good are not definitely going to lead us to any salvation. So I personally would try to be neutral on issues which got more than two versions and will try to adapt good things from people like Zakir Naik.
If you liked Zakir Naik's lectures on other topics and could relate to his philosophy, then why bother whats his views of Yazid. You know the famous history book Tibri also contains various account of Karbala incidents presenting Yazeed both good as bad person. Simply, there are certain people who don't agree to one aspect of history portraying Yazeed as evil and therefore refraining from calling him as La'een, etc.
We are followers of the prophet who forgave and prayed for those people of Ta'if who bathed him in blood and issues like calling yazid bad or good are not definitely going to lead us to any salvation. So I personally would try to be neutral on issues which got more than two versions and will try to adapt good things from people like Zakir Naik.
And you just said, what I was feeling somewhere in my heart :)
I think he's a bit of a clown. A lot of his arguments are nonsense. He attempts to be a philosopher of sorts but is woefully ill equipped for such a task. His logic for why "Christian" countries give equal status to Islam vs Islamic countries not doing the same is comical.
Dr Zakir Naik, who has reverted millions to Islam, May Allah bless him always (Ameen)! But again the fools and clowns of subcontinent including deobandis, tablighis, brailvis, and not to mention the shias will criticise him on his dress, on what he said about yazeed... these punks dont have the guts to have debates with non muslims... as far is issue of yazeed well what Dr Zakir said is the view of imam ghazali and it's always been controversial... even a single statement of Hazrat Hussain makes the character of yazeed controversial as why did he say that take me to yazeed i'll handle my issue with him face to face... this clearly shows he was unaware of the situation and it were the kufis the traitors... And Allah knows best... so let's leave these matters of which we wont be asked...
... as far is issue of yazeed well what Dr Zakir said is the view of imam ghazali and it's always been controversial... even a single statement of Hazrat Hussain makes the character of yazeed controversial as why did he say that take me to yazeed i'll handle my issue with him face to face... this clearly shows he was unaware of the situation and it were the kufis the traitors... And Allah knows best... so let's leave these matters of which we wont be asked...
LOL Kufis as traitors ! Do you know who wrote letters to Hussain from Kufa ? their leader a respected Sahabi who narrates in Bukhari and Muslim.
And bear in mind Yazid is also responsible for even of Harrah which is far my horrific than Karabala.How many sahaba and Tabeen were killed in Harrah ? Kufis and the syrian mercenaries atleast hesitated for the whole day before they killed hussain.And Ubayuallah b Ziyad and his father Ziyad were Sufyanis hired muscle in Iraq responsible for keeping them loyal to syrian hegemony.
If you want to see the character of yazid read the testimony of Sahabi Abdullah b hanzala who was an ansari , forget hussain b ali
Zaik was I think giving the middle finger to the 12er shia community when he praised yazid otherwise its really quite incredible that someone like him who is so well versed in Islamic hisroy /hadith would be ignorant of what he did.Obviously 12ers took full advantage of this to present him in the darkest colors.
Ofcourse whether yazid was good or bad is not a issue that will lead to salvation but what is important that muslims understand the concept of proper leadership in Islam, which rules according to Quran and Sunnah rulers like Sayyidna Abubakr/umar.And they catagorically reject the leadership of tyrants who violated sunnah and oppressed the religious muslims like most of ummayyad rulers.
Forgiveness is given when someone first REPENTS of his wrongdoings. Did he forgive Abu Lahab as well? Did Allah forgive Iblees? Did Musa forgive firaun?
Your trying to be neutral in condemning Yazid’s crimes against Prophet’s family makes you nothing but a supporter of Yazid and an enemy of Prophet’s family. It’s as simple as that.
And about salvation, well, anyone not even calling the killer of Prophet’s whole family should forget about any salvation.
**JO ZULM PE LAANAT NA KARAY, AAP LAEEN HE
JO JABR KA MUNKIR NAHIN, WO MUNKIR E DEEN HE.
**
There is nothing “neutral” in taking sides on events of Karbala.
Let me see if you stay neutral when Imam Hussain was delivering his message to Sipahe Yazid in Karabala:
farmaya k kyoon darpa e aazaar ho logo
haq waalon se kyoon barsar e pekaar ho logo
wallah k mujrim ho, gunehgaar ho logo maaloom he kuch kis ke tarafdaar ho logo
kyoon aap ke aaqaaon mein aur hum mein Thani he
maaloom he kis waastay is jaan pe bani he
taalib hain agar hum to faqat haq ke talabgaar
baatil ke muqaabil mein sadaaqat ke parastaar
insaaf ke, naiki ke, murawwat ke tarafdaar
zaalim ke mukhalif hein to baykas ke madadgaar
**jo zulm pe laanat na kare, aap laaen he
****jo jabr ka munkir nahin, wo munkir e deen he
**- Faiz Ahmed Faiz, 1964
From: Shaam-e-Shahr-e-YaraaN in the collection Nuskhae Haai Wafa.
...deobandis, tablighis, brailvis, and not to mention the shias will criticise him on his dress, on what he said about yazeed... these **punks **dont have the guts to have debates with non muslims...
Well, calling whole communities of Muslims **PUNKS **just shows who actually is the obnoxious little PUNK here.
Zaik was I think giving the middle finger to the 12er shia community when he praised yazid otherwise its really quite incredible that someone like him who is so well versed in Islamic hisroy /hadith would be ignorant of what he did.Obviously 12ers took full advantage of this to present him in the darkest colors.
The middle finger which you just mentioned eventually eventually to his own a** because of his praise to the one responsible for the massacre of the Prophet.
But I agree that his praise of Yazid was due to his hatred of Shiyan e Ali. And it is not just him. There are many people who will go to hell only because they do things which are against Islam only in their hatred and opposition of Shias. It is not just about praising Yazid.
It has been long time since I played this worthless copy/paste game. But I think today it is appropriate to play it once more.
Muhammad Zakaria, an Indian scholar:“ “The army that Yazid had sent to Madinah comprised of 60,000 horsemen and 15,000 foot soldiers. For three days they shed blood freely, 1000 women were raped **and 700 named Quraysh and Ansar were killed. Ten thousand women and children were made slaves. Muslim bin Uqba forced people to give allegiance to Yazid in such a manner that people were enslaved and Yazid could sell them as he pleased, **no Sahaba who were [with the Prophet] at Hudaibiya were spared.” ”
- (ref book: 'Au Khanar al Masalik vol.3 pg.450)
Ibn Kathir, a renowned scholar:
“ “Traditions inform us that Yazid loved worldly vices; would drink; listen to music; kept the company of boys with no facial hair; played drums; kept dogs; made frogs, bears and monkeys fight. Every morning he used be intoxicated, and he used to bind monkeys with the saddle of a horse and make the horse run.” ”
- (ref book: al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah vol.8 pg.1169)
Ibn Sa'd, writes in his book, “Tabaqat Al-Kubra” regarding the nature of Yazid:
“ “Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba stated, 'By Allah we opposed Yazid at the point when we feared that stones would reign down on us from the skies. He was a Fasiq who copulated with his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol and did not offer Salaat.” ”
- (ref book: Tabaqat Al-Kubra vol.5 pg.66)
After Yazid's death, when Muawiyah II (Yazid's son) was made to be the caliph, he stated this as per ibn Hijr Haythami:
'It is a terrible thing that we are fully aware of Yazid's bad deeds: he slaughtered the family of the Prophet, he deemed alcohol Halal, and set fire to the Ka'ba.”
YEAH, TRY STAYING NEUTRAL AND HOPE FOR SALVATION, WHEN YOU HAVE PROPHET'S GRANDSON HUSSAIN ON ONE SIDE AND HIS KILLER YAZID ON THE OTHER.
Listened to this person a while back. My impression of him was that of a clown.
PS. I have a soft corner for speakers "who delivers the Hindu Message to the world, Guruvayurappa, due to which a lot of Muslms are inspired by our religion & converting to Hinduism."
He is a clown indeed. With all the negative propaganda Muslims are getting today due to some lunatics amongst us, Zakir Naik is the one who stoked the fire even more when he said that EVERY MUSLIM SHOULD BE A TERRORIST.
He may try to justify this statement some weird way but just using the word terrorist for all Muslims just shows how stupid he could be.
He actually was praising OBL. Here it is:
If he [Osama bin Laden] is terrorizing the terrorist, if he's terrorizing America, the biggest terrorist, I'm with him. Every Muslim *should be a terrorist! The thing is that if he's terrorizing the terrorist, then he's following Islam."
Like I said, punks and fools of subcontinent! Who go on Tablighis honeymoons (chillas) and madni kaflas… both misguided and again not to even mention the shias… those who can make muta and halala as halal… astaghfirula… and never talk of Jihad, these cowards have twisted Islam as per their own likings… I am also not in favor of what Dr Zakir said about yazeed… but it’s not that big of an issue when I see how much he has done for Islam since issue of yazeed is controversial and shias & brailvis have corrupted the history so much that even common muslims start abusing yazeed… Tabligh is calling non muslims to Islam and that’s what Ahmed Deedat Rahimahula did and Dr Zakir and many others like Yousuf estes are doing now… (Page not found – Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem) Im sure the sheikh has herd that some scholars said may allah be pleased with him after mentioning Yazeed…did they do wrong? | Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem What is our attitude towards Yazeed ibn Mu
Forgiveness is given when someone first REPENTS of his wrongdoings. Did he forgive Abu Lahab as well? Did Allah forgive Iblees? Did Musa forgive firaun?
Your trying to be neutral in condemning Yazid's crimes against Prophet's family makes you nothing but a supporter of Yazid and an enemy of Prophet's family. It's as simple as that.
I don't need anyones certificate for my love of prophet and his family, at first. history is not Quran that can't be fabricated. I referred Tibri containing different accounts of issue of Karbala and above all this all historically ambiguous accounts of events is not the total Islam for me. I would rather be an atheist instead of following 1400 year old enmities on the name of religion.