what muslims think about Zakir Naik? Fatwa against Zakir..

[shubhamgarg1993]

who is wrong Zakir Naik...... or the reknowned Muslim Federations..

A fatwa (edict) against well-known Islamic scholar Zakir Naik by a respected cleric here has divided the community.

The scholar has been charged with supporting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. The fatwa says his teachings are un-Islamic and contradict the Koran.

Lucknow’s shahar qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali described Naik as a kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.

“Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain,� Irfan told reporters. He said Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists.

Noted Shia cleric Kalbe Jawwad told DNA: “Naik is bringing a bad name to Muslims. Such people should be condemned and socially boycotted.� He said Naik was being financed by the Wahabi sect that allegedly perpetrates violence in the name of religion.

“There should be an inquiry into how he is running a TV channel on his own. Where is he getting the funds from?� Jawwad said.

“Naik has just mugged up some verses from the Koran and pretends to be an Islamic scholar,� Lucknow’s Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali said.

(FATWA: 1541/1322=B/1429)

THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DR ZAKIR NAIK INDICATE THAT HE IS A PREACHER OF GHAIR MUQALLIDIN, HE IS OF FREE MIND AND DOES NOT WEAR ISLAMIC DRESS. ONE SHOULD NOT RELY UPON HIS SPEECHES.
AND ALLAH (SUBHANA WA TA’ALA) KNOWS BEST
DARUL IFTA, DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND[/i]

[Darias]

But Osama did not attack the United States because we are "Western." He did not attack us because of our freedoms, ideals, or religious beliefs.

Osama's chief reason for attacking was because of American intervention in Lebanon and American presence on Saudi soil. America's foreign policy has caused a lot of hatred for Americans and the West in the Muslim world

I agree with you. But Osama should then attack the USA military in Libanon. And the american they made a deal with the Saudi king about the oil, her it is not USA that is the enemy, but the Saudi king for selling Oil to the USA. So Osama should have "attacked" the saudi king with political movements like demonstration etc. and not kill innocent people.

The Saudi government appealed to the United States for protection from Saddam's Iraq when it was attacking Kuwait. The fact that they did not ask religious fanatics from Afghanistan (the mujahadeen) enraged Osama - and was one of the reasons he wanted to attack the United States. The other reason was because Israel was attacking Lebanon in 1982, and normally no distinction is made between Israelis and Americans. And there was an American response to terrorist acts against American diplomats during the Lebanon Civil War in 1983.

It's a confusing mess, but those were his reasons. I am not agreeing with Osama, and I don't think he should have attacked my country's troops. Many troops serving don't support the war they are in, especially if a draft happens again. But terrorists don't care about that.

I don't support American foreign policy because I believe it generates hatred despite good intentions. I want our policy to change, but still, that is no excuse for Osama and his followers to kill innocent people.

The evidence you provide shows that the week after the attacks themselves he denied responsibility -- probably because of fear that the Muslim world would be angry at him for killing innocent people.

But in 2004 (After America Invaded Iraq), the same news organization Al Jazzera provided a transcript of him admitting to the attacks (obviously because that was a perfect time to admit it for popular support).

In 2002 he wrote a letter that framed America and the West as an enemy of Islam, a letter that justified attacks on civilians because we pay taxes -- that somehow makes us responsible for our government's foreign policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver


There is no question that he is responsible. And there is no question that many Americans believed that 9/11 represents Islam.

I am not one of them. My academic minor is in Islam. But there is no evidence that suggests bin Laden was in any way shape or form innocent. He made a bad name for his faith and for Muslims everywhere unfortunately.

I For one do not believe that Western culture is necessarily an enemy of Islam. The idea that "my community will not agree upon an error" and other things suggest that there is a religious argument for democracy.

I did not say that, but Osama and others scholars says it, not me. I personaly mean that in some issues you could join west with islam, in other you can't. So we should look on those things that we have incomen instead of those that we don't have incomen.

You give som examples with Saudi and Egypt. You see their no country today that is following its teaching of Islam, no one. Not Saudi, not Iran, not Palestine, no one. So the issue of women not allowed to drive in Saudi is not an Islamic rule, but a Saudi Arabic rule.

Well, according to Wahhabi Sunni Islam, forbidding women to drive is Islamic law. For Iranians and other Muslims, it's not. Islamic law, like any religious law is highly interpretive. There are many Islamic sects and cultural views. This is one reason why I think the West isn't necessarily incompatible with Islamic culture.

If you ask various Islamic countries if they are following Sharia, they will argue that they are. But Sharia means different things for different Muslims. The same applies to Christians and people of other belief systems.

[PeterTyel]

The Saudi government appealed to the United States for protection from Saddam's Iraq when it was attacking Kuwait. The fact that they did not ask religious fanatics from Afghanistan (the mujahadeen) enraged Osama - and was one of the reasons he wanted to attack the United States. The other reason was because Israel was attacking Lebanon in 1982, and normally no distinction is made between Israelis and Americans. And there was an American response to terrorist acts against American diplomats during the Lebanon Civil War in 1983.

There are many different answers to why Osama attacked USA, If he did. I personally don't believe that he attacked the USA. The same does Dr.Zakir Naik, wich many thought and still think that Dr. Zakir Naik supoorts Osama, but he don't he just don't believe that Osama was behind 9/11. and Zakir says if he was then he condems him, for ther are no justice for such and act.

It's a confusing mess, but those were his reasons. I am not agreeing with Osama, and I don't think he should have attacked my country's troops. Many troops serving don't support the war they are in, especially if a draft happens again. But terrorists don't care about that.

I don't support American foreign policy because I believe it generates hatred despite good intentions. I want our policy to change, but still, that is no excuse for Osama and his followers to kill innocent people

I did not mean that he should have attacked the USA trops. I meant that it would have been "more" justice to attacked them because they are the direct enemy in Osamas point of view, not the civiliens in USA. But instead he attacked innocent people in NY and WDC.

The evidence you provide shows that the week after the attacks themselves he denied responsibility -- probably because of fear that the Muslim world would be angry at him for killing innocent people.

But in 2004 (After America Invaded Iraq), the same news organization Al Jazzera provided a transcript of him admitting to the attacks (obviously because that was a perfect time to admit it for popular support).

In 2002 he wrote a letter that framed America and the West as an enemy of Islam, a letter that justified attacks on civilians because we pay taxes -- that somehow makes us responsible for our government's foreign policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

There is no question that he is responsible. And there is no question that many Americans believed that 9/11 represents Islam

The evidence that may proof that Osama selves admit that he was behind is very very week tapes and video in very bad quality wich many experts says that it could have been a tape from osama, but also a tape every one could have made.
But that is another discussion!

Well, according to Wahhabi Sunni Islam, forbidding women to drive is Islamic law. For Iranians and other Muslims, it's not. Islamic law, like any religious law is highly interpretive. There are many Islamic sects and cultural views. This is one reason why I think the West isn't necessarily incompatible with Islamic culture.

If you ask various Islamic countries if they are following Sharia, they will argue that they are. But Sharia means different things for different Muslims. The same applies to Christians and people of other belief systems.

My friend I know that many muslim scholars have their own interpretation of Islam. But still no country follows Islam complet becaus the Kings of the arabic countries and the President don't ask the big muslim scholars, where the major of them agrees of 95% of the interpretation of the Islam. For example. there was a day when a very well known and respected scholars of Islam who made a dua for pilgrimage in Mecca,(a prayer)where he asked Allah to punish the U.S. for their attacks on Muslim civilians in Arab countries. Right after he had finished, he was arrested by the Saudi Arabian Intelligence Service. This prove that even Saudi Arabien wich "represents" as they have the to most islamic holy cities in the world Mekka and Medina, and the country where the profet Muhammed came from, they arrest a big well known scholars ´´, for what? praying to his God?... if you go ask the major of Muslims about the Suadi Kingdom, they well tell you, F*** them .

[Burninglight]

who is wrong Zakir Naik...... or the reknowned Muslim Federations..

Both are wrong!

[LaaIlahaIllAllah]

who is wrong Zakir Naik...... or the reknowned Muslim Federations..

A fatwa (edict) against well-known Islamic scholar Zakir Naik by a respected cleric here has divided the community.

The scholar has been charged with supporting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. The fatwa says his teachings are un-Islamic and contradict the Koran.

Lucknow’s shahar qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali described Naik as a kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.

“Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain,� Irfan told reporters. He said Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists.

Noted Shia cleric Kalbe Jawwad told DNA: “Naik is bringing a bad name to Muslims. Such people should be condemned and socially boycotted.� He said Naik was being financed by the Wahabi sect that allegedly perpetrates violence in the name of religion.

“There should be an inquiry into how he is running a TV channel on his own. Where is he getting the funds from?� Jawwad said.

“Naik has just mugged up some verses from the Koran and pretends to be an Islamic scholar,� Lucknow’s Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali said.

(FATWA: 1541/1322=B/1429)

THE STATEMENTS MADE BY DR ZAKIR NAIK INDICATE THAT HE IS A PREACHER OF GHAIR MUQALLIDIN, HE IS OF FREE MIND AND DOES NOT WEAR ISLAMIC DRESS. ONE SHOULD NOT RELY UPON HIS SPEECHES.
AND ALLAH (SUBHANA WA TA’ALA) KNOWS BEST
DARUL IFTA, DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND[/i]

This is dumb..

I agree with most of PeterTyel's first post. Most of this is just lies and look at some of these things they accuse him of: DOES NOT WEAR ISLAMIC DRESS.

This guy serious..?

The only thing that Zakir Naik did that was kinda wrong is saying "may Allah be pleased with him" after Yazid's name. The correct stance is that we should neither like him, nor hate him.
This is why Shias don't like Dr. Naik b/c they make up stories and exaggerate with things and say Yazid killed Hussein (ra) when it was a Shia who personally killed him and it was Shias who abandoned him. There is even a report that Yazid cried when he received news that Hussein (ra) was killed.

Though Yazid was indirectly responsible in a way because of appointing some man to govern Kufa, who came into a conflict with Hussein (ra) and probably would have killed him if the Irani Shia didn't get to him first.

Dr. Naik is not a sectarian person and he follows Quran and authentic Sunnah. This is Islam and it refutes all the false, innovated sects who worship graves and things of that nature and that's a big reason why many do not like him.

[Burninglight]

“Zakir Naik is not an Islamic scholar. His teachings are against the Koran. In his speeches, he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain,� Irfan told reporters. He said Naik had supported Laden and called upon all Muslims to become terrorists.

That is the main reason why many muslims don't like him, expecially on how he praised Yazeed, no matter what sect(Sunni or Shia) that isn't considered a wise move, expecially when its done by someone influential as Naik.

Bad aspects aside, he is a very knowledgable Scholar, he memorized the Vedas, Bible & Quran. He is one of the best debaters when it comes to comparitive religion.

He may have memorized the Quran, but he didn't memorize the Bible. He only memorize key verses for argumentive purposes. He's a phony IMO that is a Christians perspective on Naik the Deedat wannabe!