ZAKIR NAIK

abou houdhayfah:Dr Fayyâd Farooq wrote:

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the One Who protects the Religion by scholars who implement their knowledge, who are humble and who are knowledgeable about Allah. May Allah raise the rank of Prophet Muhammad, his kind Aal, Companions and those who genuinely follow them. May Allah protect the nation of Prophet Muhammad from what Prophet Muhammad fears for it. Thereafter:

Allah ta^ala revealed in Al-Qur`an:ه�م� �ك� ئ ـ� ول

� و�أ �ر� م�نك ال ع�ن� ه�ون� �ن و�ي وف� م�عر� �ال ب ون� م�ر� �أ و�ي ر� ي خ� ال �ل�ى إ �دع�ون� ي م%ة#

� أ �م م&نك �ن �ك ت و�لم�فل�ح�ون� ال

Surat Aal-^Imrân (S3) ayah 104.The meaning of the above ayah is: “Let there arise from among you a group of people who invite to righteousness, who enjoin the obligatory and who forbid the unlawful. Those are the ones who shall be successful”.The Messenger of Allâh, çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, warned us against those who deviate from his way as was mentioned in the hadeeth related by Al-Bukhariyy, Muslim and others: م�ن %م ه�ن ج� �ب� و�ا ب

� أ ع�لى د�ع�اة# ك�ر، �ن و�ت ه�م م�ن �عر�ف� ت �ا، �ن �ت ن لس�� �أ ب %م�ون� �ل �ك �ت ي �ا، �ن د�ت ل ج� م�ن �اس# ن

� أ�ه�ا ف�ي ق�ذ�ف�و�ه� ط�اع�ه�م

� أ

This means: “There are people from our nation who speak the same language as we speak, but who mix the truth that you know with the deviation that you reject. They beckon to Hellfire and invite others to their deviation. Those who obey them will be thrown into Hellfire.”It is of utmost importance for the Muslim to investigate thoroughly about the person from whom he acquires the religious knowledge. In the introduction to his book, As-Saheeh, Imam Muslim narrated the saying of the highly respected follower of the companions, Muhammad ibn Sireen, who said:

�م �ك د�ين خ�ذ�ون� �أ ت ع�م%ن وا ظ�ر� ف�ان ن# د�ي م� ع�ل ال ه�ذ�ا �ن% إ

This means: ‘This knowledge is religion, so look thoroughly into the one from whom you take your religion’.

Zakir Abdul-Karim Naik is a medical doctor from India and current President of

organization known as “the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF)”. Born on October 18, 1965 in Mumbai, India.Zakir Naik is a 42 year old accomplished debater, well versed in Christian scripture, but is ignorant about some of the basic teachings of Islam. Zakir is a person who is inclined towards much of the Wahhaabi ideology, but in certain matters he has strayed even further than them. Akin to the Wahhaabies, it has been said that he does not accept that it is permissible to ask Allâh for things via the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. Likewise, more than one person has said to me that he prohibits celebrating the birth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, although I am yet to be able to confirm these two points for myself, nevertheless I know that such stances would be in line with other things that I have observed in his videos and writings. 

It was said by people who call themselves Salafi that Zakir Naik used to attend many conferences organised by the so-called Ahle Hadees (one of the names for the Wahhaabies in the Indian sub-continent) and that they used to promote him. However, it seems that he subsequently fell out of favour with them and it was mentioned that one of the heads of the so-called Ahle Hadees, Abdul Hameed attempted to refute him on the same stage. It seems that the so-called Salafee branch of the Wahhaabiy movement has been opposed to him for much longer.However, as can be seen from the information documented below, Zakir is clearly an individual who has several Wahhaabiy leanings, although he prefers not to associate himself directly with them. My research about him indicates that rather than uniting the people, as he claims to be trying to do, he has founded his own group, another division in the name of unity. Thus it is as the scholars of the Salaf said, “an ignorant person, many a time he wants to do good, but all that he ends up doing is something bad”.

Zakir Claims that God is up in the sky.On Saturday the 21st of January 2006 between 6.30 pm to 10.00 pm at the Palace Ground, Mekhri Circle, in a video entitled “concept of God in Hinduism and Islam in the light of sacred scriptures” as part of a discussion between Dr Zakir Naik and a Hindu by the name of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar at 2 hours and 40 minutes, somebody by the name of Arshia Raza said: Dr Zakir Naik Sahib, my question to you is in my understanding of Islam one of the most important aspects about the concept of God is that He is omnipresent, does that not mean that God is present in every atom, every molecule of this universe? I would like a clarification.Zakir Naik said, the sister has posed a question that according to her understanding God is omnipresent, that means He is present in every atom, every molecule; what are my comments? I am a student of the Qur`an, I don’t know of any verse in the Qur`an which says that God is omnipresent, neither do I know of any saheeh hadeeth which

says that God is omnipresent. But I know there are difference thinking of the presence of Almighty Allâh. Our beloved Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said as far as this question is concerned, don’t argue too much on it, but there was a lady who approached the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam and the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam wanted to test her belief, her eemaan and he asked her, where is God? The lady pointed out that He is on top. The Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said, she is pass. I know that there is a difference of understanding in different people, but I do not know of any verse in the Qur`an or the hadeeth which says that God is omnipresent, there is no name of Allâh that says omnipresent that I know of, I hope that answers your question sister.

A^oodhu billaah.It is not permissible to say that Allâh is physically everywhere nor that Allâh is up in the sky, both are kufr statements. Once some people from Yemen came to the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam and told him, we want to be more knowledgeable about the religion and our beloved Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said to them:"kâna_llâhu walam yakun shay'un ghayruhu"Which means: Allâh existed and there was nothing other than Him.Allâh existed and there was nothing other than Him, i.e. there was no place, no time, no direction, no era, and if somebody asks about the authenticity of this hadeeth, then the answer is this is narrated by Al-Bukhariyy, Al-Bayhaqiyy and Ibn Al-Jarood and it is saheeh.The interpretation given by Zakir in fact against the ijma^ of entire ahlus-sunnah because Shaykh Fakhr-ud-deen Ar-Raaziy who lived over 800 years ago and who wrote a tafseer for the Qur`an in 30 volumes, said in volume 29:

&ز� ي ح� و�ال ج�ه�ة� و�ال �ان� م�ك �ال ب �ا م�ع�ن س� �ي ل �ه� ان ح� ب س� %ه� ن� أ ع�ل�ى �جم�اع� اإل ع�ق�د� �ن ا

Which means: and the ijma^ has been established (on the saying) that Allâh ta^ala is not with us in terms of place, direction or occupancy. More than 15 scholars conveyed the ijma^ that Allâh exists without a place.Also Imam Abu Ja^far At-Tahaawiyy said in his famous ^aqeedah which is the ^aqeedah of Imam Abu Haneefah:  Which means: Allâh is not (contained) in any direction.And Imam Abu Haneefah himself said in his book Fiqhul Absat:

�ف�ر� ك ف�ق�د �رض� اال ف�ى و� أ م�اء� الس% ف�ى &ي ب ر� عر�ف�

� أ � ال ق�ال� م�نwhich means: whoever says, I don’t know if Allâh is in the heavens or on earth, he is a kafir. [Because Allâh is neither in the heavens nor on earth, He exists without a place]. As Imam Abu Haneefah clarified in another statement in the same book by saying: 

which means: Allâh existed and there was no place prior to creating the creation, and Allâh existed and there was no such thing as ‘where’ (place etc), no creation or anything else, and Allâh is the creator of everything. The above answers the one who asks, ‘where is Allâh’, i.e. it is not that we don’t know where Allâh is, but rather that ‘where’ does not apply to Allâh. Also Imam An-Nawawiyy & others stated: we raise our hands to the skies, because the sky is the qiblah of the du^a` just as the Ka^bah is the qiblah of the prayer (salah).

Imam Abu Mansoor At-Tameemiyy narrated in his book Al-Farqu Bayn al-Firaq, that Imam ^Aliyy radiyallaahu ^anhu said:Kaanallaahu wa laa makaan wa huwal aana ^alaa maa ^alayhi kaan.which means: “Allâh existed eternally & there was no place, and He now is as He was, (without a place).”Some people question about the authenticity of this narration. It is mentioned by a Hafidh of hadeeth in a book that he authored about the issues of ^aqeedah to clarify the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah and a Hafidh would not mention a weak or fabricated narration as a proof in this regard.Furthermore, the same meaning is taken from the saheeh hadeeth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam: “Allâh existed and there was nothing else”. This excludes the place, time and all other created entities. Two logical principals further demonstrate this fact:1) Who created the place? Allâh. Just as Allâh revealed in the Qur`an that He created everything.2) When there was no place, Allâh existed.It is therefore confirmed with certainty that Allâh created the place AND Allâh existed when there was no place without a place. Hence, also after creating the time and place, Allâh exists without being confined to a time and place. Allâh existed when there was no such thing as where, place, above, below etc and after creating these He still exists without any of them applying to Him. If a person asked about a computer, is it Muslim or a kafir. We would respond neither, as this question does not apply to computers. Likewise we can respond to the one who says, where is Allâh? This question does not apply to Allâh, it applies to bodies. It has been said that the question “where” is a second principal question, i.e. it presumes that God is in a place and now it wants to know in which place. However, as we have said, Allâh existed and there was no place and after creating the place, He still exists without a place.

As to the hadeeth referred to by Zakir Naik there are 4 potentially conflicting narrations for this hadeeth . Some amongst the muhadditheen did not even accept this

hadeeth as saheeh at all, they said it is mudtarib. Thus if it is not even saheeh then there isn’t even a need to discuss what that girl meant when she supposedly said, fis-samaa`. 

However, if we analyse the hadeeth further, we can see that this hadeeth is ahad, i.e. there is only one chain for this particular narration and this hadeeth is about one person having come to the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam on one occasion and it is about one thing that was said. The Hanafiyy scholars said that the ahad hadeeth is not even used in the issues of ^aqeedah, thus it needs to be mash-hoor or mutawatir to be even considered, as was mentioned by Imam Abu Mansoor Al-Baghdadiyy in his book tafseer al-asmaa` was-sifaat. Furthermore, as I stated previously, there are 4 different narrations for this hadeeth that Zakir Naik was referring to: Imam Malik narrated in his muwattaa (hadeeth no 1551) this hadeeth in a different way, he said, qala rasoolallaah: a tash-ha deena an laa illaha illallaah wa anni rasoolallaah and she said, na^am, yes, and amongst the various other narrations this is the one with the strongest chain according to its chain of narrators. Ibn Hibban in ihsaan, vol 1 pg 206 narrated that when the slave girl was brought to the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, he said, man rabbu ki, who is your Lord and she said Allâh. In another narration the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam asked her ayn Allâh and she could not speak and she made a sign with her finger, [narrated by Al-Bayhaqiyy in sunan al-kubraa, vol 7 pg 637]. In other words if all of these narrations are taken on their apparent meaning as Zakir Naik takes them, then one ends up putting one narration against the other and such a non-concordance or inconsistency is referred to as idtiraab and the hadeeth would thus be judged, mudtarib. Al-Hafidh Al-Bayhaqiyy was one of those who said that the narration in Muslim is mudtarib. It is also worth noting that this hadeeth in saheeh Muslim that Zakir and the wahhabies mention is in the book of As-Salah, in the section about the prohibition of speaking during the prayer, hence this hadeeth does not even come under the category of evidences for ^aqeedah in the book of Muslim.

Also no scholars said that we take it that the jaariyyah in this hadeeth understood the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam’s question literally and she gave a literal answer according to her (layperson) understanding, as Zakir appears to claim.

Al-Bayhaqiyy mentioned the 4 narrations about hadeeth jaariyyah, one of them uses the word, ‘ayna’ (where) and he said that this is mudtarib [inconsistent], hence it cannot be used with reference to the creed. Imam Al-Bayhaqiyy said even if we assumed that this particular narration is saheeh, then it would mean ayniyah about the status of Allâh (not the place), because Allâh exists as He existed before the place, i.e. Allâh exists without the place. The word ayna in the Arabic language is known to

have this meaning of status or rank as was mentioned by the Arabic linguists. Furthermore if one of the Resemblers (who liken Allâh to His creation) mentions the hadeeth of the female slave as a proof, it should be said to him: “The literal meaning of this hadeeth opposes the Mutawatir hadeeth  that has been narrated by fifteen different companions.” As the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam:الله " س�ول� ر� &ي ن

� وأ الله % �ال إ �لـه إ � ال ن� أ ه�د�وا �ش ي %ى ت ح� %اس� الن �ل� ق�ات

� أ �ن أ ت� م�ر� ." أ

Which means: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allâh and that I am the Messenger of Allâh.” The meaning of this hadeeth is that one cannot be judged as Muslim except by the Shahadatayn, i.e. by ‘The Two Testifications of Islamic Faith.’ Hence, there is a contradiction between the literal meaning of this hadeeth that Zakir quotes and the Mutawatir hadeeth which has been related by fifteen Companions. This is because it may be imagined from the literal meaning of the narration of Muslim of the hadeeth of the female slave that for one to be considered Muslim, it is sufficient to say, ‘Allâh is in the sky’, and  this is clearly contrary to the acceptable and true Islamic belief. This is because the saying that, ‘Allâh is in the sky’, is the creed of the Jews, the Christians and others among blasphemers. Hence, how can anyone even dare to say that for a person to become a Muslim we ask them ‘where is Allâh’ and if they answer, ‘in the sky’, then we judge them as Muslims? Or pass as Zakir says!!

Zakir’s Claim that God is a light like a halogen lamp![At 39 mins, Zakir during his presentation stated:] (it is mentioned in) the Qur’ân, Surah Al-Nur Chapter No.24, Verse No.35 and 36 that… ‘Allâh Subhanawataala is ‘Nuras samavaati wal ard’. ‘Is the light of the heavens and the earth.’ Read the complete verse, and analyze what does it say. It says… ‘Allâh is the light’… ‘Nur.’ It says… ‘Allâh is the light of the Heavens and the Earth.’ It is a similitude - like a niche, and within the niche there is lamp. The ‘lamp… word is there. So Allâh Subhanawataala has got light of its own, and even reflected light. Like you see a halogen lamp - you know which are here. The lamp inside is like a ‘siraaj’ but the reflector is like moon - it is reflecting light. The lamp, the tube… the tube is having a light of its own, but the reflector of the halogen lamp is reflecting light - So both two in one. So Allâh Subhanawataala, Alhamdulillah…besides having light of its own - as the Qur’ânic verse says… In the niche there is a lamp, and that lamp light of Allâh Subhanahuwataala, is its own light, and Allâh reflects His own light.

[Then during the question and answer session, at about 6 mins 15, (part 4 of 4), a boy who appears to be about 12 years old asked](Qn) Okay you said that Allâh reflects light and…. He is made of Nur - I did not really understand that.(Dr. Zakir said:) The brother posed a question - he did not understand my explanation

to the counter argument of Dr. William Campbell, regarding ‘Nur’ and ‘Allâh.’ The Qur’ân says in Surah Nur, Chapter 24, Verse No. 35 that Allâh is ‘Nurus samaavaati wal ard’ ‘is the light’ of the heavens and the earth – He is a light. The meaning of ‘light’ in the Qur’ân - it is ‘reflected light’ or borrowed light. So he is asking… ‘Does it mean that even Allâh has got borrowed light?’ So the answer is given further, if you read in the Verse - it says that it is like a parable of a niche - In the niche there is a lamp. Lamp has a light of its own. That means, Allâh has light of its own, as well as that light of its own, is also being reflected. The light of Allâh Subhnawataala is again being reflected by Allâh Subhanawataala Himself, like a halogen lamp that you see here - It has a tube in between. The lamp you can refer to that as a ‘Siraaj’ or a ‘Wahaaj’ or a ‘Dia.’ And the reflector as ‘Munir’ or ‘Nur’, borrowed light or ‘reflection of light.’ And furthermore, but naturally this light - actually does not refer to the physical light you are talking about - It is a spiritual light of Allâh Subhnawataala - But as an answer I have given to Dr. William Campbell.

A^oodhu billaah, anyone listening to the statements of Zakir can see that he is playing with our religion. His utterances constitute very ugly blasphemy, for Zakir claims: ‘Allâh is the light of the Heavens and the Earth.’… So Allâh Subhanawataala has got light of His own, and even reflected light. Like you see a halogen lamp … So Allâh Subhanawataala, Alhamdulillah…besides having light of His own - as the Qur’ânic verse says… In the niche there is a lamp, and that lamp light of Allâh Subhanahuwataala, is its own light, and Allâh reflects His own light…That means, Allâh has light of His own, as well as that light of its own, is also being reflected. The light of Allâh Subhnawataala is again being reflected by Allâh Subhanawataala Himself, like a halogen lamp that you see here.I am not surprised that that child did not understand what this man was talking about. It is clear that anyone even listening to his further attempt at clarifying his initial explanation would at best be still confused and worse misguided. Zakir Naik is someone who is well versed about Christian scripture, but in what pertains to the religion of Islam, he cannot even satisfactorily answer a young child’s objection. In reference to his above statements, other than the fact that he didn’t recite the ayah correctly in Arabic, let us briefly review the correct meaning of the ayah that he attempted to recite.

The complete ayah is:ة� ج�اج� Oلز Pج�اج�ة ز� ف�ي �اح� م�صب ل �اح# م�صب ف�يه�ا Pاة� ك �م�ش ك �ور�ه� ن �ل� م�ث رض�

� أل و� م�Vو�Vت� لس% �ور� ن %ه� ٱلل ٱ ٱ ٱ ٱ �و و�ل �ض�يء� اي �ه� ت ي ز� �اد� �ك ي Pة% �ي ب غ�ر � و�ال Pة% ق�ي ر %ش� ال Pة� �ون ت ي ز� Pة� ك �ار� مOب Pة ج�ر� ش� م�ن �وق�د� ي Zي د�ر& �ب# �وك ك %ه�ا ن

� �أ ي�ك%ه� لل و� %اس� �لن ل �ال� مث

� أل %ه� لل �ضر�ب� و�ي آء� �ش� ي م�ن �ور�ه� �ن ل %ه� لل �هد�ي ي Pور� ن Vع�ل�ى Oور# ن �ار# ن ه� �مس�س ت �م ٱل ٱ ٱ ٱ�م# �ي ع�ل Pءي ش� �ل& �ك  ب

Many people, such as Yusuf ^Aliyy erroneously translate this âyah as:

Allâh is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive neither of the East nor of the West whose Oil is well-nigh luminous though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allâh doth guide whom He will to His Light. Allâh doth set forth Parables for men: and Allâh doth know all things.It is from amongst the fundamentals of the creed that Allâh is not like His creation. All Muslims know that Allâh is not a physical light, but rather Allâh is the One Who created the light, just as Allâh revealed in Surah Al-An^aam (S6) âyah 1:

Oور� و�الن �م�ات� الظOل  و�ج�ع�ل�

Which means: Allâh created the darkness and the light. This is a muhkam âyah whose meaning is easily understood. Hence, how would anyone dare to say that Allâh is a light like something from His creation?! Of course it is not permissible and Allâh is definitely clear from what the ignorant people attribute to Him.

Allâh revealed in Surat Al-An^aam (S6) âyah 1:Oور� و�الن �م�ات� الظOل و�ج�ع�ل� رض�

� و�األ م�او�ات� الس% ل�ق� خ� %ذ�ي ال _ه� �ل ل ح�مد�  ال

which means: Allâh is the One who created the heavens and the earth and He created the darkness and the light. This verse is clear proof of the fact that Allâh is not a dense solid body like the heavens and the earth nor is Allâh an intangible body like darkness and light. Whosoever believes that Allâh is a dense solid body, one that we can grasp in our hands or an intangible body that we cannot grasp in our hands has most certainly likened and deemed Allâh to be like His creation.

The explanation of âyah 35 of Surat An-Noor (S24) which starts with the words:

رض� � و�األ م�او�ات� الس% �ور� ن %ه�  الل

is that it is one of the mutashaabihaat âyahs. If it was taken literally or as some would say, according to its most commonly used meanings, then one would end up saying, “Allâh is a light which exists in the skies and on earth”. Clearly, this is an interpretation that does not befit Allâh, because it likens Allâh to one of His creations. Allâh revealed to us in the Qur`an that He is the One Who created the light, as has been mentioned above. Thus it is not permissible to interpret this verse according to its literal meaning. Hence, we must necessarily make a generalised ta`weel or a detailed ta`weel for this verse as per the methodology of the Salaf  and the Khalaf . The great companion and cousin of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, ^Abdullah ibn ^Abbas interpreted this verse in a way that befits Allâh and he did not

take it according to its literal meaning. In other words he made a detailed ta`weel for the word noor, he said it means Allâh is the One Who guides the inhabitants of the skies, i.e. the angels and the inhabitants of the earth, i.e. the believers among them to the light of belief. Hence, ibn ^Abbas explicitly interpreted An-Noor in this âyah as Al-Haadiy (the One Who guides). Al-Bayhaqiyy in his book Al-Asmaa`u was-sifaat and At-Tabariyy in his Tafseer narrated this interpretation from ^Abdullah ibn ^Abbas.  In summary, Allâh revealed the word noor in the Qur’ân in this âyah to refer to hidaâyah, guidance.The ignorant people mistranslate the âyah:

رض� � و�األ م�او�ات� الس% �ور� ن %ه�  الل

in the beginning of âyah 35 of Surat An-Noor (S24) and wrongly say that it means: Allâh is the Light (which lives) in the heavens and on the earth. This is wrong, as it contradicts another verse from the Qur`ân:

  The Salaf here refers to the scholars who lived during the first three centuries after the Hijrah of the Prophet, in the beginning of âyah 35 of Surat An-Noor (S24) and wrongly say that it means: Allâh is the Light (which lives) in the heavens and on the earth. This is wrong, as it contradicts another verse from the Qur`ân:sallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.  The Khalaf here refers to the scholars who lived after the first three centuries.  Muneer said, ibn ^Abbas said: 

م�ان� �ي اإل �ور� �ن ل رض�� و�األ م�و�ات� الس% هل

� أ ه�اد�ي �ع�ال�ى ت _ه� الل ن%� أ �اه� .م�عن

رض� � و�األ م�او�ات� الس% �ور� ن %ه�  الل

Oور� و�الن �م�ات� الظOل  و�ج�ع�ل�âyah 1 of Surat Al-An^aam (S6), which means: and Allâh created the darkness and the light. Hence, if Allâh created the light, the noor, thus He Himself cannot be a physical light. Allâh is an-noor with the meaning of Al-Haadiy, the One Who guides, which is one of Allâh’s attributes.Also the word noor occurs again in that very same âyah of Surat An-Noor, as Allâh says

ش�اء ش� شن ه� ه ن�و ه� ن� �� ش ا� ه�� ه� ش�  Towards the end of âyah 35 in Surat An-Noor (S24), which literally means: Allâh guides whom He wills to this light, i.e. to the light of belief. Thus noor does not always mean an illuminated body.Once the above is understood, one can clearly see that the rest of the verse clarifies

the true meaning of this first part of the verse. Hence, the complete meaning of this âyah is as follows: Allâh is the One Who guides the inhabitants of the skies and the earth; the example of this light is like the light coming from a lantern placed in a niche (mishkaat - a cavity in a wall, which makes the light appear stronger) and this lantern is giving strong light like a strong shining star. The oil used for this lantern is taken from an olive tree that is neither an eastern one nor a western one, (i.e. it is from the land of Palestine, where the best olives are). Its oil is so good, such that it is shining even before it is illuminated. This is like the light of belief created by Allâh. The last part of the verse sheds further light on the true meaning of the first part of the verse – it states what means Allâh guides whom He wills to this light (of belief). Thus the word noor at the beginning of the verse has the same meaning as noor which is used towards the end of the verse, i.e. of guidance. [? Wa yadribu...As to those who refer to a hadeeth narrated by Muslim from Abu Dharr that he asked the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, “Did you see your Lord?” and the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam answered by saying:

اه� ر�� أ %ى �ن أ �ور# ن

The meaning of this statement of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam in reference to the night of Mi^raaj (ascension) is that I saw a strong light, which occupied me and I did not see Allâh with my eyes. This interpretation is given further weight by another narration of the same hadeeth [?in saheeh Muslim] in which it is mentioned that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said:

�ورا ن ت� ي� أ ر�

which means: I saw a light.Moreover, even though Imam Muslim narrated the first hadeeth, some of the other great scholars of hadeeth critically analysed it and did not accept it as saheeh. Scholars such as Imam Ahmad, who [?also narrated this hadeeth from Abu Dharr in his Musnad, but he] said that it is not a saheeh narration. Hafidh Al-^Iraaqiyy [?in takhreej ahadeeth al-ihyaa`] and others copied this from Imam Ahmad. Hence, according to these scholars, we don’t even need to busy ourself with making an acceptable ta`weel for this hadeeth, because in the first instance it is weak and thus is not relied upon in the area of the creed.A further proof against attributing Allâh with being a body of light is the fact that the devil can take the shape of a luminous body, thus how would it be possible to attribute this to Allâh?! Clearly, it is not permissible. It was in fact narrated with a saheeh chain of narrators that the devil once took on the appearance of an illuminated body to try and misguide Ash-Shaykh ^Abdul Qadir Al-Jeelaaniyy, but he failed. Every Muslim knows that it is not permissible to attribute to Allâh one of the attributes of the creation and light is one of the creations of Allâh. The judgement of the person that believes Allâh is a light or an illuminating body is that he is a blasphemer without any doubt, since this person is necessarily likening Allâh to His

creation. Any creed which likens Allâh to His creation is a blasphemous creed.

A linguistic consideration:I know that the term “light” is said to carry numerous meanings in the English language. For example, a commonly used phrase in which light is used as a noun is “to see the light” which the Oxford English Dictionary states means: “to come into the world; to be brought forth or published. Now also, to reach a full understanding or realization”.  Other idiomatic usages include: “bring to light” or “come to light” which means to be discovered or revealed; “in a good (or bad) light”, meaning under favourable (or unfavourable) circumstances; “in (the) light of” which means taking into account or because of etc. Furthermore, some people borrow phrases from Christian literature and say that to see the Light of God, can mean “to accept or understand a point of view one formerly opposed”, i.e. to be guided. In a similar manner, it is said that some use it with a spiritual reference as is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “the illumination of the soul by divine truth or love”. The fact that there are idioms in English one should appreciate the danger in translating literally phrases into another language. For example, if one was to translate literally the statement: “he is pulling your leg” into Punjabi or Urdu, one would convey an erroneous meaning. Evidently, if such a mistake was done in relation to verses of the Qur`an, then the consequences would be much more serious.

This issue can be understood further by knowing and understanding the fact that the Qur`an has two types of verses in it, the muhkam and mutashaabih, i.e. verses which are deemed explicit and others which can bear more than one meaning – some valid and others invalid. An example of a muhkam verse is âyah 11 of Surat Ash-Shooraa (S42)

�ص�ير� الب م�يع� الس% و�ه�و� يء# ش� �ه� ل �م�ث ك س� �ي لwhich means: absolutely nothing resembles Allâh by any means.An example of a mutashaabih verse is âyah 5 of Surat At-Tahaa (S20):

�و�ى ت اس ع�رش� ال ع�ل�ى حم�ن�  الر%This is deemed to be a mutashaabih verse because istawaa in the Arabic language can bear 15 different meanings: istawaa can mean to subjugate, istawaa can mean to mature or to ripen; istawaa can mean to equal, to be even or regular; istawaa can mean to be above in terms of place; istawaa can mean above by status; istawaa can mean above in terms of place and status; istawaa can mean to be equivalent; istawaa can mean to be on the same level; istawaa can mean to be or become straight; istawaa can mean to stand upright; istawaa can mean to straighten up; istawaa can mean to sit

down on or mount on; istawaa can mean to sit firmly on; istawaa can mean to be properly cooked or well done; and it can have other meanings. Abu Bakr Muhee-ud-deen ibnul ^Arabiyy who was a famous Malikiyy scholar, and a very knowledgeable person about the language said, istawaa can have 15 different meanings. Likewise Al-Fayrozabaadiyy in Al-Qaamoos mentioned numerous meanings for istawaa, including istawlaa, which means, to subjugate. Hence, for sure   is not linguistically an explicit verse, this is not a muhkam verse, it is a mutashaabih verse. If someone refers to it and takes it as a reference and does not differentiate; if he does not know that this is a mutashaabih verse, and he only knows one or 2 of its meanings, then he may misinterpret this verse with disastrous consequences. For example, if he thinks that the meaning of istawaa is to sit and he does not know about the other meanings of this word, then he might think that this verse means that Allâh sits on the ^arsh. If he thinks that this is the meaning of the verse then he blasphemes, this is why it is very important to understand this subject. As for the person who understands this subject well, he would reason in a different way, this person if he reads this verse even if he does not know the different meanings of istawaa, he is going to say Allâh revealed in al-Qur`ân:

ء# ي ش� �ه� ل �م�ث ك س� �ي  ل

And this is an explicit verse, it is muhkam, thus it is amongst the verses that are the asl in al-Qur`an, the base, the reference point and this verse means that absolutely nothing resembles Allâh, thus he further reasons for sure the meaning of the other verse:

�و�ى ت اس ع�رش� ال ع�ل�ى حم�ن�  الر%

has to comply with the meaning of:

ء# ي ش� �ه� ل �م�ث ك س� �ي  ل

because the verses of al-Qur`ân do not contradict one another. In other words istawaa necessarily has a meaning which complies with laysa ka mithlihee shay`, thus for sure it does not mean sitting. Since interpreting it by sitting, will necessarily contradict the meaning of laysa ka mithlihee shay`. Likewise interpreting it with the meaning of getting mature contradicts laysa ka mithlihee shay`; interpreting it by being established in a place contradicts laysa ka mithlihee shay`; interpreting it by being above with a distance contradicts laysa ka mithlihee shay`; interpreting it by meaning well cooked, contradicts laysa ka mithlihee shay`. Hence, even if a person does not know the exact meaning of istawaa in the other verse, still he can say that it is has a meaning that befits Allâh ta^ala and it must comply with the verse, laysa ka mithlihee

shay`. Therefore even if one does not know the other meanings, even if one does not know the exact meaning of this verse, he would be safe. As per the religious rules, an acceptable interpretation of the above mentioned verse is that the ^arsh is subjugated by Allâh. Since, one of the meanings of “istawaa” is ق�ه�ر� “qahara” (to subdue or al-isteelaa` which means to subjugate as was mentioned by Hafidh ibn Rajab Al-Hambaliyy). If an anthropomorphist says that this interpretation does not befit Allâh, because it implies that Allâh did not have control over the ^arsh, and then He conquered or subdued it. One can respond by saying, “this would be an argument against you, since you claim that Allâh created the ^arsh and rose above it, thus you should not say it means He rose above the ^arsh, because it implies that He was not above it and then He became above it.” As for ourselves we can reference our interpretations to other verses in the Qur`an. In other words we can support our interpretation by the fact that the word “qahara” is attributable to Allâh by His two names, ق�اه�ر� �ل ق�ه%ار� Al-Qaahir” and“ ا �ل Al-Qahhaar’, both of which are mentioned in‘ اthe Qur`an  and ahadeeth. Therefore a valid interpretation is that when the ^arsh was created, it was subjugated by the power of Allâh. There is no implication of struggle. Everything that is created is eternally subdued. In this verse, Allâh informed us that the ^arsh, the largest of creations is also subdued and by consequence, Allâh is informing us that subsequently everything else in the creation is also subdued. Hence in summary, one can interpret the mutashaabihaat verses in compliance to other aâyahs or ahadeeth or one can state them as they were revealed in Arabic and just simply say, we accept them without a manner of being (bi laa kayf) and Allâh knows best what they mean.

A further beneficial note:Many people do not understand the meaning of the term translation as it is used in the field of linguistics. A useful definition that has been given is: an activity comprising the interpretation of the meaning of a text in one language — the source text — and the production, in another language, of a new, equivalent text — the target text, or translation. It is clear that in the context of the Qur`an it is not possible to produce an absolute translation of the Qur`an, since it is of “Divine origin” and whatever the target text might be, it cannot make such a claim, i.e. an English “translation” can never claim to be Divine. Hence, when “translating” the Qur`an, one needs to pay due attention to conveying the correct meaning, as opposed to trying to produce the Qur`an in English.  I have discussed this issue in much more detail in another article on the issue of “translation”. Thus I will just briefly mention a couple of other points to clarify this issue.One can know that the Qur`an cannot be translated in a mathematical sense by looking at the following âyah of the Qur`an from Surat Al-Baqarah âyah 228. It defines the ^iddah of a woman as:

ءء ش� ن� �ن �ش �ش ش� ش�ل

The word quroo` in the Arabic language can refer to the menses and it can refer to the intermenstrual periods. Thus one might interpret this part of the verse as three menses or as three intermenstrual periods. Since there isn’t an English equivalent which covers both meanings, whichever meaning a person selects, one would necessarily be interpreting. In other words if one reads the Qur`ân in Arabic and then seeks to express this in speech or writing, he would necessarily be presenting an interpretation, which maybe a valid interpretation or an invalid interpretation. For the purpose of interpreting the Qur`ân one needs to be well knowledgeable about the Arabic language, to understand the Arabic language as it was spoken during the time of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. Furthermore, he needs to know about issues like al-mutlaq, al-muqayad, al-^aam, al-khaas, naasikh and mansookh. He also needs to know what did the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam say in interpreting those verses and what did the companions say in interpreting those verses. He needs to know on what interpretations the scholars had a consensus, and about which verses did they have differences in opinion. Thus interpreting the Qur`ân is not something which every Muslim is qualified to do.

Zakir cannot even recite the Qur’ân.During a dialogue with a Christian by the name of Dr Campbell, a person by the name of Sabeel Ahmed representing the organization called ISNA  who himself cannot even recite al-fatihah properly said, “It is my pleasure to introduce one of the best scholars of our time, Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik”. Zakir Naik, a man who knows a lot about Christianity, but very little about Islam, an individual who cannot even say the basmalah properly and who recites the isti-^aadhah as: aa`oozubillaa... Those who are not learned can easily be deceived by individuals like Zakir, but ones who possess basic Islamic teachings can clearly see that he has some knowledge about Christianity, but is ignorant about the religion of Islam.

Zakir and his followers honour and give credence to those who commit blasphemy:I have given below some illustrative examples from two of his most famous dialogues, one with a Christian and the other with a Hindu. Zakir partook in a dialogue with a man by the name of Dr William Campbell in which this Christian uttered numerous blasphemous statements including saying explicitly that the Qur’ân has errors in it. In the video recording distributed by Zakir’s organisation one can see numerous people, in what appears to be a majority Muslim audience, clapping their hands, applauding Dr Campbell for his presentation against Islam! Then Dr Mohammed Naik, Zakir Naik’s brother said, “Thank you Dr Campbell for your presentation”!Zakir Naik himself then stood up and said: “Respected Dr. William Campbell, Dr. Maracuss, Dr. Jamal Badavi, Br. Samuel Nauman, Dr. Mohammed Naik, my

respected elders and my dear brothers and sisters, I welcome all of you with the Islamic greetings… ‘As Salaamo Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barkatahu. May peace mercy and blessings of Allâh Subhanawataala be on all of you.” Many people just for the sake of trying to be superficially nice they say and do things to appease the non-Muslims. The reality is that such a methodology makes one appear fickle and insincere, rather than attracting those people to Islam, it portrays Muslims as two faced bigots. Moreover, it gives the message to many Muslims that we should refer to the kafirs as our brothers and sisters and that we should respect them – all of which is actually against the rulings of Islam.One can observe the result of Zakir’s teachings by viewing the subsequent parts of the above-mentioned dialogue with Dr Campbell in which the latter said: “Another Verse from Paul the apostle says…‘If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, straight out’”. At this point one can observe people who appear to be dressed like Muslims clapping – applauding kufr.A^oodhu billaah.

Zakir Naik’s “love” for idol worshippers:Many times one would hear Zakir making statements like, my dear respected honourable Hindu and Christian brothers. However, it is known that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam never used phrases like my dear respected mushrikeen brothers etc! Moreover, I do not know of any of the great scholars of the past who actively used to say As-Salaamu ^alaykum O respected kafir brothers. Thus one can clearly see that Zakir is not following the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam nor the scholars who came after him.At the beginning of his dialogue with a Hindu, Zakir says, “My respected Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, my respected elder and my dear brothers and sisters, I welcome you all with the Islamic greetings Aslaam ualaikum”. It is strange that despite the fact that this Hindu utters numerous ugly blasphemous statements against the religion of Islam, one would hear many times Zakir subsequently saying phrases like: “respected Sri Sri Ravi Shankar”.Imam Ahmad and Al-Bukhariyy narrated in his saheeh that Abu Hurayrah radiyallaahu ^anhu said that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said that Allâh ta^ala said:م�ه� ت ش� م%ا

� أ �ي �ن �ذ&ب �ك ي ن� أ �ه� ل �غ�ي ب �ن ي و�م�ا �ي �ن �ذ&ب �ك و�ي �ي �م�ن ت �ش ي ن

� أ �ه� ل �غ�ي ب �ن ي و�م�ا آد�م� ن� اب �ي �م�ن ت �ش ي �ي ن

� �د�أ ب �م�ا ك �ي د�ن �ع�ي ي �ن ل �ه� ق�ول %اي� �ي إ �ه� ب ذ�ي �ك ت م%ا� و�أ �دا و�ل ل�ي �ن% إ �ه� ق�ول %اي� �ي إ

This means, “Some people insult Me, and they should not insult Me, and they belie Me, and they should not do so. As for their insulting Me, it is when they say that I have a son, and their belying Me is when they say that I shall not recreate him as I have created (him) before.”This attribution of a son, which is permissible in relation to the creation, is an

abhorrent lie when attributed to Allâh. Allâh said in al-Qur’ân in Surat Maryam (S19):

�دا ( و�ل حم�ن� الر% %خ�ذ� ات �وا �دhا) (19:88و�ق�ال إ ئا ي ش� �م ت ئ ج� �ق�د ه�) 19:89ل م�ن ن� �ف�ط%ر �ت ي م�او�ات� الس% �اد� �ك ته�دhا ( �ال� ب ج� ال Oخ�ر� و�ت رض�

� األ Oق �نش� )19:90و�ت  �دا ( و�ل حم�ن� �لر% ل د�ع�وا ن

� �دا) (19:91أ و�ل %خ�ذ� �ت ي ن� أ حم�ن� �لر% ل �غ�ي �نب ي ف�ي) 19:92و�م�ا م�ن Oل� ك �ن إ

دا ( ع�ب حم�ن� الر% �ي آت �ال% إ رض�� و�األ م�او�ات� ع�دhا) 19:93الس% و�ع�د%ه�م حص�اه�م

� أ �ق�د ل

which literally means: (88) Those who attribute a son to Allâh (89) certainly preach such a monstrous falsehood, (90) that the very Heavens almost crack, the earth almost cleaves asunder and the mountains almost crumble to pieces (91) at their ascribing a son to Allâh. (92) It is not befitting that Allâh be attributed with having a son. (93) There is none in the heavens and in the earth except that they must come to Allâh in full submission.Zakir makes many statements just for the sake of appeasing many non-Muslims. However, being honest and decent in one’s manner makes the non-Muslims appreciate one in a better way. During his dialogue with Ravishankar he said: “We have to love all the human beings”. I don’t know from where he got this rule, I don’t know of any âyah or a hadeeth which states that we have to love all the human beings. Rather Muslims love those who believe and do good deeds. [? S19 V96:

` و�د_ا حم�ن� الر% �ه�م� ل �جع�ل� ي س� �ح�ات� الص%ال �وا و�ع�م�ل �وا آم�ن ن� %ذ�ي ال �ن% إ[The one who does not believe in Allâh and His Messenger Muhammad çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, then he is a blasphemer and Allâh does not love him for his blasphemy. The one who says that Allâh loves believers and non-believers because He created all of them, he is belying al-Qur’ân, he is told that Allâh created everyone, but Allâh does not love everyone. There is no doubt amongst the creation of Allâh, there are things that Allâh does not love, such as the devil or the pig.Allâh created the Muslims and the blasphemers, but He only loves the Muslims. This is evidenced by âyah 32 of Surat Aal-^Imrân (S3):

�اف�ر�ين� ( ك ال Oح�ب� ي � ال _ه� الل �ن% ف�إ %وا �و�ل ت �ن فإ س�ول� و�الر% _ه� الل ط�يع�وا� أ )3:32ق�ل  

The explanation of the first part of the aforementioned verse:

ول� س� و�الر% _ه� الل ط�يع�وا� أ  ق�ل

means to believe in Allâh, literally it says to obey Allâh and His prophet, which means by believing in them.Allâh ta^ala said:

%وا �و�ل ت �ن  فإ

means: if they reject that then:

�اف�ر�ين� ( ك ال Oح�ب� ي � ال _ه� الل �ن% )3:32ف�إ  

which means: then they are blasphemers and Allâh does not love them.

One must submit to the methodology of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. Since it is known that the way of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam is always correct and is the best path to follow. However, Zakir is an arrogant person who thinks that he knows and understands Islam better than the many billions of Muslims who have passed before him over the last 1400 years.Note: for one to live in countries like the U.S.A and the U.K. it is not a condition that we compromise in our religion. To answer this point I’ll utilise a principal that Zakir Naik holds very dearly or as he puts it: coming to common terms between us and them. Let it be known, what is permissible according to the Christians is not necessarily permissible in Islam and vice-versa. Thus words that they deem permissible to use are not necessarily permissible according to the rules of Islam. For example, they deem it permissible to figuratively use phrases like, “we are the children of God”. However, Islam judges such usage as blasphemy. Sadly, there has been a trend amongst some people, who for the sake of appeasing others have perverted the rules of the religion. Examples of this are the encouragement of the shaking of hands between “marriageable” members of the opposite sex, the usage of statements like respect and honour in relation to those who insult Islam; the celebration of Christmas by so-called Muslim scholars amongst others matters. The Christians never demanded this of us and moreover the people of this country are generally very accommodating of the rights of others to practice their religion. However, having left these issues in the hands of the ignorant masses, we are now find ourselves in a situation warned against by the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. The Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam in a hadeeth narrated by Al-Bukhariyy gave an example for ordering al-ma^roof and forbidding al-munkar. He said that this is like people who are in a ship. Some are on the lower deck and some are on the upper deck. Those who are on the lower deck, every time they wanted to get water, they needed to go up and pass by the people who are on the upper deck to reach the water. Hence, they talked amongst themselves and they said, why should we disturb our brothers and sisters, let’s make a hole in the ship on this lower deck so that we can reach the water easily. If the others leave them to do that and they do not forbid them from doing that, then those who are on the lower deck are going to drown and the others also; all of them are going to drown, but if they prevent them, then all of them are going to be safe.And this is the situation with ourselves, if we order al-ma^roof [the lawful], teach the

matters of the religion, forbid al-munkar [the unlawfull] we and others will be safe. If we do not do that, we and others are not going to be safe, and for sure the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam is truthful in what he stated.In summary we do not respect those who insult Allâh and liken Allâh to the creation. However, we acknowledge that other people have beliefs which they believe to be correct. They believe that their religion is correct and our religion is incorrect and we believe the same about them, i.e. we believe that our religion is correct and that their religion is incorrect. This acknowledgement does not mean that we cannot live in a peaceful and somewhat amicable way with those who hold beliefs different to ourselves.  Hence, as Muslims living in the West we can still contribute to the well-being of humanity without compromising the values and principles of Islam. In other words one can follow the rules of Islam whilst living in the West, acknowledging others without perverting the rules of the religion of Islam and at the same time strive to teach others about Islam and the importance of functioning within society.

Zakir Naik gives weight to blasphemous books:Zakir often quotes âyah 64 of Surat Aal ^Imrân (S3) claiming it means: “O people of the book, come to common terms between us and you, that you worship none but Allâh and that we associate no partners with Him”. He then relies upon this verse to claim that guidance can be found in the scriptures of the kaafirs. I have never heard of any hadeeth that suggests that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam used to point out similarities between the Qur’ân and the texts that the blasphemers possessed. If this was the meaning of the âyah, the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam would have encouraged the Muslims to look at their books and then say to them let us come to common terms between us and you. The Qur’ân was revealed over 1400 years ago and it is not acceptable to suggest that the Muslims had to wait all this time for Zakir Naik to come along and tell them what this âyah means and how to apply it.The âyah in full is:

� و�ال ` ئا ي ش� �ه� ب ر�ك� �ش ن � و�ال _ه� الل % �ال إ �د� �عب ن % ال� أ �م �ك ن �ي و�ب �ا �ن ن �ي ب و�اء س� Pم�ة� �ل ك �ل�ى إ �وا �ع�ال ت �اب� �ت ك ال هل�

� أ �ا ي ق�ل%ا �ن �أ ب ه�د�وا �ش ا �وا ف�ق�ول %وا �و�ل ت �ن ف�إ _ه� الل د�ون� م&ن ` �ابا ب ر

� أ �عضا ب �ا �عض�ن ب %خ�ذ� �ت ي�م�ون� ل م�س

Which literally means: Say: "O people of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allâh; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not from among ourselves Lords other than Allâh." If then they turn back say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims.

[?this âyah does not mention anything about looking at the texts of the Christians searching for conformity between them and us or searching for proofs that we think

would somehow strengthen the religion of Islam. Rather the âyah explicitly states for the people of the book to follow the religion of Islam, i.e. by confirming that Allâh is the only God without any partners.Moreover, a person may even read an âyah of the Qur’ân, misunderstand it and thus become misguided. The Qur’ân was not meant as a source of guidance for all. Allâh guides whom He wills. In fact Allâh has informed us that by the same thing, He guides some and He misguides others. Allâh ta^ala said in âyah 26 of Surat Al-Baqarah:

` �يرا �ث ك �ه� ب �هد�ي و�ي ` �يرا �ث ك �ه� ب Oض�ل�  ي

This means: and by it [referring to what is mentioned in the Qur’ân] Allâh guides some and He misguides others.It is not Allâh, but the creation who are questioned. Allâh said in the Qur’ân, in Surat Al-Ambiyaa` (S21) âyah 23:

�ون� ل� أ �س ي و�ه�م �فع�ل� ي ع�م%ا ل�

� أ �س ي  ال�

which means: ‘Allâh is not asked about what He does, but they will be asked’.Allâh does not need our worship and is not benefited by our disobedience. Hence, it is not for us to claim that we guide, we need to stick to the rules of the religion, Allâh is the One who guides.

Giving platforms to people to come and express their blasphemy:In this dialogue with a Hindu, Zakir gave him a platform to spread his misguidance, and then he even gave credence to things within the Hindu scriptures. The Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam never used to tell the Kafirs, the idol worshippers or other than them, come and tell me about your religion, utter your blasphemy for me and everyone to hear!A man by the name of Sri Sri Ravishankar can be seen in a video distributed by IRF saying about God, “You are all over, but I would like to play with You for a little while. God, you are everywhere. Now I want to play with You. How do I play? Whatever You did to me, I am going to do to You”. Ravishankar then said: “do not criticize the idol worshippers, because in this country [of India] for thousands of years people have been doing worship... we have to respect what they are doing”.A^oodhu billaah.Ravishankar then said: “there is Jainism, there is Sikhism. If you talk to sikh, the Sikhs will say their Grantha is the last one. You talk to a Bahai they think they come directly from the god and that is the final word of God. Where diversity is there, we need to honour them. We need to love them from all our heart not just by words”.In response Zakir said: “we have to understand that the intention of Sri Sri Ravi

Shankar was good”. This type of quote from Zakir leads people in the audience to make comments giving credence to Non-Islamic religions. For example, one person in the audience subsequently said,“My question is to Mr Zakir Naik, but first I would like to thank Sri Sri Ravi Shankar for giving us such a valuable knowledge and with sharing his Art of Living, thank you Sri Sri Ravi Shankar”.Another one said, “my question is to Dr Zakir Naik, but before I ask my question, I would just like to say that I have experienced the breathing techniques of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar jee and the experience it has given me in terms of the connection I have experienced with God and the communion which I would have never understood in concept. So I am very grateful for that”.

Zakir Naik quoted from Hindu scriptures to say that they support what is in Islam. Ravishankar in response said: “That is good. So you all have to respect the Vedas now. The Doctor himself has said. Everyone has to respect the Vedas, do not think of it as the book of the Kafirs or Non Believers... I am very thankful to Dr Zakir for bringing up this point and telling even that the Vedas are teaching the same knowledge”.It is strange that people like Zakir Naik put a lot of effort into looking for things within the scriptures of other religions, like Hinduism that agree with what Islam states. Does he and others think that the Hindus will suddenly say that because our scriptures say some things that agree with you that therefore we will leave our scriptures and follow you??! A non-Muslim by the name of S. Prasadh wrote a refutation against Zakir. We do not agree with kufr that Prasadh express, but for the purposes of this refutation actually illustrates some of the dangers of the approach of people like Zakir. Prasadh wrote: “Recently, it has become a fad for all Islamic websites to publish Dr Zakir Naik’s article on Muhammad foretold in Hinduism. It is a well known fact that the same websites insult HINDU scriptures, their idols, their ideology and criticize them vulgarly. But their desperation leads them to cherry pick some verses from Hindu scriptures and decipher them in their own terminology and claim that many mantras point to Muhammad.” It is very clear that trying to pick some random verses from Hindu scriptures which are full of blasphemy to try to prove that the Prophet Muhammad çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam actually is the Prophet of God, çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam does not lead to the most fruitful of results. The scholars in the past relied on proofs from the sound mind to prove the truthfulness of the religion of Islam, a method which is much more stronger than that utilised by many of those who nowadays claim to be propagating Islam amongst the non-Muslims. Many times an ignorant person wants to fix something, and regardless of the level of his sincerity, rather than fixing it, he ends up

making it worse.Prasadh further states: “While this (claim that Prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the Hindu scriptures) comforts the faithful...It is sadly true that many of the Muslims who listen to such speeches find it very comforting that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam is mentioned in the Hindu scriptures, but one has to remember that they are not a base for us. Since much of what they contain contradicts the religious teachings. The Hindu could simply say, well if you accept these verses then you need to accept the rest of it. I know Zakir would respond by his famous lines: “let us come to common terms between us and you”, but a misapplication of the âyah that he so heavily relies on can have serious consequences as can be seen my Prasadh’s subsequent comments.

S. Prasadh goes on to make the following points refuting some of what has been said by certain individuals in the name of Islam. Rather than clearly refuting the Hindu ideology, they have backed themselves into a corner where they are now having to defend opinionated claims that they made. Prasadh writes: “Brahma, the Creator in the Hindu Trinity, is declared to be actually Abraham. The initial letter A in Abraham has apparently been moved to the end making it Brahma, but the Hindus can with equal justice claim that Ramadan/Ramazan is actually a corruption of 'Ramanavami'. (Also) “Noah or Nuh is mentioned as Manuh or Manu.” The only similarity between the two characters lies in their stories. Like Noah, Manu too was saved by God during the Flood. But this proves nothing except that there was perhaps a worldwide flood. Moreover, the rest of the story simply do not match: Manu had no ark, only a boat towed by God in the form of a fish [a^oodhu billaah] and definitely no kind of animals with him to repopulate the world... Just to muddy the waters further, a Hindu has argued that the word Mecca comes from the Sanskrit root Makh or Yajna; the name Mohammad is a derivative of Krishna's another name, Madan Mohan and the word Aab (water) comes from the pure Sanskrit word Aap meaning water. We have exactly the same type of argument here that (they) give, except that it is turned upside down: but the latter is equally valid in its methodology as the former. In fact since no analysis is given that can expose its weaknesses, -- only an assertion is made --- the Hindu claim appears more valid!” ... [Zakir’s claim that] “Indra awoke the singer of his praises and asked him to go to the people in every direction. He was asked to glorify Indra, the mighty and all pious men would appreciate his effort and God would bestow on him His rewards. The Prophet sent letters to several kings and rulers in every direction inviting them to Islam”. What does Mr.Naik want to tell? They tell Indra = Allâh!!!In Hinduism Indra is god of weather and war, and Lord of Heaven or Swargaloka He was also an important figure in non-Hindu traditions. Mythology is that, Indra is also cursed by the supreme power. The supreme power is the only GOD, and INDRA is supposedly a Demi-God... Well, there is mythology that Indra rode on

chariots. Does Allâh drive a chariot or BMW?? How ridiculous! Only someone very determined to prove his thesis can find that these verses refer to Islamic history”. Prasadh continues: “As can be seen the writer very carefully leaves out certain words and gives others another meaning than commonly associated with them. However, even that is not enough to turn the verses into predictions about Muhammad.”“The last premise would be logic. Dr.Naik and Dr.Haq seem to commit several logical fallacies. They tend to contradict each other. They say they don't believe in HINDU scriptures once. You can find how Zakir Naik criticizes Hindu way of worship in a section called "Conveying Islam To A Hindu". But still he uses Hindu scriptures' authority to prove Muhammad's prophethood and Islam's validity! Either this proves *Hindu religion is truly divine. * Allâh did not give enough proofs in Qur’ân to sustain his claims. * All muslims must convert to Hinduism. * Muslim scholars are bluffing to convert Hindus just like they do to Christian. ”

“Conclusion: The amount of manipulation and misdirection we see with these men is astonishing. One understands their eagerness to prove that Islam is the culmination of every religion. However one has to wonder, if the faith of the writers like these is so insecure that they have to search in other religions for legitimacy. Also one has to wonder what this says of other Muslim scholars who have read the Vedas before. None of them had ever read any of the meanings that Dr Naik finds; obviously they were either more foolish or less learned than our Dr.Naik. In fact when a Hindu reads this article, he/she will have increased faith in HINDUISM than converting to Islam. Thanks to bad marketing techniques of Dr.Zakir Naik blemished with lies.” “Muslims tend to replace every 'praiseworthy' with 'Muhammad'. Ambrose Bierce said "There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy." Now muslims, why don't you try replacing praiseworthy with Muhammad here?”

It is very clear that S. Prasadh has written some ugly blasphemy against Islam, but this has been secondary to the methods of the likes of Zakir Naik opening themselves and the name of the religion of Islam to criticism. I’m sure that Zakir may be able to offer refutations of some of the above-mentioned points, but why did he find the need to depart from the methodology of the scholars of the past and back himself into this situation, such that he is now having to defend his methodology? There are numerous sound intelligent ways to disprove the Hindu creed of idol worship that would stand the test of questioning by blasphemers like Prasadh and remain in compliance with the rules of the religion of Islam.As I have already mentioned, one needs to remember that Allâh does not need our worship and is not harmed by our disobedience. Furthermore we are not the ones who guide, but Allâh is the One Who guides and misguides. We need to stick to following

the rules of the religion and pray to Allâh to guide ourselves and others.

Zakir Naik opposes the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah and declares their followers to be callers to Hellfire:Over the years many people have asked Zakir Naik about which school of thought a Muslim should follow. His answers have been quite standard and in essence he suggests that one does not need to follow a Mujtahid like the four Imams. His answer can be found on his peace TV website in the form of a written article and in several video recordings. I have quoted some of his statements with brief responses that should further make it clear that this is a man who has some beneficial things to offer, but whose harm is great.

Zakir Naik wrote: “Muslims should be united. Muslims today, are divided amongst themselves. Such divisions are not endorsed by Islam. Islam believes in fostering unity amongst its followers… The Qur’ân further says, “Obey Allâh, and obey the Messenger” [Al-Qur’ân 4:59].All the Muslims should follow the Qur’ân and authentic Ahadith and ensure that they are not divided among themselves…”The complete wording of âyah 59 of Surat An-Nisaa` (S4) is:ءء ه! ش" ه#! ه$ ن% ه& ش' ش�ا ش) ه*ان ش# ه$ ن+ �ه ه� ه ش-, ال ه�! ه� ن-ا ش� ش/ ن0و ش�� ا� ها ن1و ه3ي ش-ا ش� ش� �� ا� ها ن1و ه3ي ش-ا ها ن�و ش آا شن ه�5 �� ش ا ش�ا ن�� ش-ا ش�ا

{ ` و�يال �أ ت ن� حس�

� و�أ ر# ي خ� ذ�ل�ك� اآلخ�ر� � �وم ي و�ال _ه� �الل ب �ون� �ؤم�ن ت �م �نت ك �ن إ ول� س� و�الر% _ه� الل �ل�ى إ دOوه� {59ف�ر�

Zakir only quoted the first part of this verse and in fact someone may argue that he did not even quote the first part fully. The first part of the verse [in bold] means: O you who believe, obey Allâh, obey the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam and the people of authority amongst you. The people of authority here can be interpreted to mean the Caliph.[?Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) says that in this verse, ‘Amr’ refers to the jurists. This explanation is narrated from Mu^aawiyah ibn Salah from ^Aliyy ibn Talhah which is a sound chain. Al-Itqaan).The verse continues, “And if you dispute something, then refer back to Allâh and the Messenger if you really do believe in Allâh and in the last day. (Surah al-Nisaa Verse 59). The statement in the second part: “if you dispute…” proves that those of Amr are indeed jurists, because Allâh has ordered everyone else to follow them and then proceeded to inform us that “if you dispute...” Hence, Allâh has ordered those of Amr to refer the disputed issue to the Book of Allâh and the traditions of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. It is very clearly known that the lay person would be unaware of how to refer the disputed issue back to the Book of Allâh and to the Sunnah and how their proofs would apply to the issue in question. Thus, it is clear that the second command, is for the scholars. (Ahkaamul Qur’ân, vol 2, pg 257).

The proof that we have to follow the Mujtahids such as the four Imams can be found in the Qur’ân. Allâh revealed in Surat An-Nahl (S16) part of âyah 43:

�م�ون� �عل ت � ال �م �نت ك �ن إ ر� الذ&ك هل�� أ �وا �ل أ ف�اس

which means: if you do not have knowledge, then ask the people of knowledge.Adh-dhikr can mean knowledge and it can mean something else, but in this particular âyah it means those of the knowledge. Hence, those who did not reach the level of ijtihaad, they are obligated to follow the Mujtahids. In other words it is prohibited for the non-Mujtahids to make their own ijtihaad pertaining to the matters of the religion, because the non-Mujtahids are not qualified for that. Even the companions relied upon other companions for judgement, because they were not all qualified to give judgements on all matters.Moreover, if a person is not qualified to produce a judgement, you don’t take into consideration the judgement that he produces. If for example I don’t know anything about medicine and someone talks about the consensus in a medical issue, my saying is not considered there, this is regardless of my level of sincerity, because I don’t know about the medical issues. Likewise, if someone does not know anything about planting trees etc, when one talks about the consensus pertaining to these issues in a particular matter, an ignorant person’s saying does not have any weight, because he does not know about this issue. If he does not know about that, how can we give weight to what he says?! The same issue applies here. The one who is not a Mujtahid, his saying does not have any weight. This is why the scholars said, the only thing that counts for ijma^ is what the Mujtahids state.Hence, Allâh ordered us to refer to them, to the people of knowledge. Now, most of the Muslims, they do not have the capacity, they do not have the ability to directly deduce the religious judgements from the Qur’ân and Sunnah of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. For example, if I ask most of the Muslims, how do you make wudu`? He might tell me about how he makes wudu`. Then if I ask him what is obligatory among those acts and what is Sunnah, i.e. which parts are not an obligation. Most people would stop there, because they don’t know any further. Or even if they know that, if I ask them, why is this a Sunnah and not an obligation? Why is this an obligation and not Sunnah? They wouldn’t know. What is the proof, what is reliable and what is not? Hence, how do the laity know about those issues? They go back to the Mujtahids. That is those people who reached a certain level of knowledge, a very high level of knowledge with specific criteria, thus Allâh, according to the rules of the religion gave them permission to deduce judgements from al-Qur’ân and as-Sunnah and we follow them. If we do not want to follow them, then the other choice is to either follow an ignorant person or to deduce the judgements ourselves, but we are not capable of doing that. In other words it is not permissible for us to give the

judgements ourself and nor is it permissible for us to ask the ignorant people about a religious judgement. The only valid option that is left is for us to follow one of those Imams whom all the Muslims for centuries agreed about their status, just as Allâh said in al Qur’ân in Surat An-Nahl (S16) part of âyah 43:

�م�ون� �عل ت � ال �م �نت ك �ن إ ر� الذ&ك هل�� أ �وا �ل أ ف�اس

which means: go back to the people of knowledge if you do not know. It should be clear to every non-arrogant person that it is not permissible to say we do not need to follow one of the four Imams, or one of the Mujtahids, we ourselves can deduce the judgements ourself from al-Qur’ân and As-Sunnah! For one to be able to deduce judgements from al-Qur’ân and as-Sunnah, this person needs to memorise from the Qur’ân all the verses that have judgements in them. He needs to know their meanings, thus he needs to know how the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam interpret them or how the companions interpret them. He needs to know, i.e. memorise all the hadeeth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam pertaining to judgements and he needs to know the chain of narrators of those hadeeth. Additionally, he needs to know each and every narrator in the chains so that he would be able to judge the authenticity of the chain. He needs to know details like: “did this person in the chain meet that person from whom he is narrating or not”, “when was he born”, “when did he die”, “where did he live”, “where did he travel”, “was he a reliable person”, “was he trustworthy or not”, “did he sometimes lie or not”, “did he have a good memory or a weak memory” etc. He needs to know all of that about the narrators and more, so as to be able to judge the hadeeth as being a saheeh hadeeth or not. He needs to know and differentiate between the abrogated âyahs and the abrogating ones. He needs to differentiate between the abrogating hadeeth and the abrogated ones. He needs to differentiate between al-^Aam and al-Khaas, al-Mutlaq and al-Muqayyad, in the âyahs and the hadeeth. He needs to differentiate and he needs to know what are the matters about which the scholars had a consensus, so he doesn’t come up with a different judgement, as it is not permissible to breach the consensus. Also he needs to know about the matters in which they had different opinions. He needs to be very well grounded and very strong in the Arabic language and to understand the Arabic language properly as it was spoken at the time of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam when the Qur’ân was revealed. On top of all of that he needs to be a trustworthy, upright Muslim and a very sharp clever person. A person might have all that knowledge, but if he is not sharp enough to deduce the judgement, then this is not enough. In other words he needs to be clever enough to use all that knowledge to deduce the correct judgements. Where do you find such people? Very Rarely! Most certainly someone possessing a medical degree who is well versed about Christian scriptures, but who cannot even recite the basmalah or the isti-^aadhah is not qualified himself for such a task, let alone authorise other people with it.

It is clear from the above why we don’t have a lot of true Mujtahids among the Muslims, even though there are many people who claim to be Mujtahids. However, just as the Qur’ân informs us, many people make claims, but what matters is who can bring proof to support their claim. Many Muslims are ignorant and they are easily mesmerised by people who are more learned than themselves, but who themselves actually lack basic knowledge. I recall many occasions on which I have had discussions with one of the brothers in my very limited Arabic and another person who does not understand any Arabic thought that I was a fluent Arabic speaker. In other words even if hundreds of unlearned people judged another ignorant person to be learned, then this does not have any weight, what matters is what the people of knowledge say about such a person. Since, we are not at the level of the Imams, we need to follow those Imams otherwise we would be falling into chaos. I know, some people want us to fall into chaos, but this is not the proper way, SubhanAllâh, Maa` shaa`Allâh.As to the argument that we cannot find qualified teachers, then this does not mean that we follow unqualified people. Since the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam informed us in a hadeeth narrated by At-Tirmidhiyy and others that some people take for themselves ignorant leaders whom they ask for religious answers. These leaders answer them with ignorance, thus leading astray themselves and others. If a person does not find any scholars where they are, then they should travel. However, it is still possible to find trustworthy knowledgeable people who adhere to the madhahib of the Imams, but nowadays it is just that you don’t find a lot of teachers like that. About eight hundred years ago, a scholar wrote a thousand verses of poetry, in which he talked about the rules of the religion. He put religious knowledge into poetry so as to make it easier for the students to memorise. In one verse he said: 

ح�ل� �ر ف�لي م�ع�لما �ج�د ي �م ل م�ن �ل� ئ �س ي ف�ل ذ�ا �م� �عل ي �ن �ك ي �م ل م�نWhich literally means: the one who does not know this, let him ask about it, if he doesn’t find a teacher, let him travel seeking the teacher. 

If one reflects on the fact that most of the Muslims who came to this country did so seeking money, seeking better jobs etc, they travelled all the way for that, so one needs to direct even more attention with respect to acquiring the knowledge of the religion. If a person cannot find a job where he lives, what does he do? He goes elsewhere! This issue of acquiring the religious knowledge is more important, it is sometimes a little bit hard, but this is how it is, because if you ask someone who is not trustworthy or who doesn’t have enough knowledge, then you are risking your religion and this is too much to risk.In the past, one of the companions he knew about a hadeeth that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said. This companion is famous, his name was Jabir al-Ansariy. He heard this hadeeth from someone who heard it from the companion who

heard it from the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. So he learnt the hadeeth, but he wanted to be more sure about it, thus he wanted to hear it from the companion who heard it directly from the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. He asked about that other companion and they told him he now lives in Egypt. He rode his animal, a camel, and went to Egypt, from al-Madeenah to Egypt. At that time one of us can only imagine how long it would have taken him. Once he got there, he asked for the place where that companion lived. He went to him and said as-salaamu ^alaykum, and the other companion replied wa ^alaykumus-salaam. He said I came to ask you about a hadeeth you heard from the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. He then informed him about that hadeeth saying, I heard the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam saying and he mentioned the hadeeth. When he learned i.e. when he memorised the hadeeth he said as-salaamu ^alaykum and he went back to al-Madeenah. He did all of that just for one hadeeth! Mashaa` Allaahu Kaan. 

Zakir Naik wrote: “It is prohibited to make divisions in Islam… But when one asks a Muslim, “who are you?” the common answer is either ‘I am a Hanafi or Shafi or Maliki or Hanbali. Some call themselves ‘Ahle-Hadith’.”

First of all Zakir is making a claim here that the common answer is “I am a Hanafi…” and anyone can make a claim what matters in a discourse similar to this is if one can back up their claim with evidence, with sound proofs. In fact sadly in the times that we are living in, contrary to what Zakir claims, many people don’t even know what a Hanafiyy or a Shafi^iyy is! Moreover, there are many misconceptions about the issue of following one of the Mujtahid Imams, as is evident by looking at Zakir’s commentary. Furthermore, when a someone usually asks, “who are you?” the common answer is, “such and such” and depending on the context, a person may respond by saying, “son of so and so” or “I am a Pakistani”. It is nothing but sheer stupidity to suggest that if one responds by saying their name or giving their country of origin, e.g. Pakistani or Hindee (from Hind, i.e. India) that this somehow goes against the religion, let alone be a denial of being Muslim. The Qur’ân refers to us as being from the descendants of Prophet Adam ^alayhis salam, and this in no way negates us being Muslim. This is a very poorly thought out stance by Zakir and reflects his blatant ignorance of the religious sciences. I did a brief search of some of the published hadeeth texts to see if I could find anything that would support Zakir’s claim, such that I would ask a knowledgeable person about it. However, I could not find any narration in which somebody was asked, “who are you” and they responded “I am a Muslim”. On the contrary I found numerous examples of hadeeth in which Prophets and companions responded by giving their name or the tribe to which they belonged. [?need to check the below narrations- it was said:]For example Prophet Musa ^alayhis salam when he was asked, man `anta, who are

you? He replied:�يل� ائ ر� �س ا �ي �ن ب م�وس�ى

Which means: Musa of Banu Israa`eel. Narrated by Muslim. There are also numerous narrations narrated by Muslim and others in which the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam was asked the same question, “who are you?” and he responded, Muhammad or Rasoolullaah etc – çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.Similarly, Al-Hakim narrates in his Mustadrak that when Anas ibn Malik was asked man `anta, he said:

وسلم - عليه الله صلى الله رسول خادم مالك، أنسبنWhich means: Anas ibn Malik, the khaadim [?servant] of the Messenger of Allâh. And when Abu Dharr was asked the same question, he replied:

وسلم - عليه الله صلى الله رسول صاحب ذر أبو أناWhich means: I am Abu Dharr, the companion of the Messenger of Allâh, çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.Finally, there is an interesting hadeeth narrated by Al-Bukhariyy in his saheeh:%م� �ل �ك ت � ال �ه�ا ل م�ا ف�ق�ال� ، %م� �ل �ك ت � ال آه�ا ف�ر� ، �ب� ن ي ز� �ه�ا ل �ق�ال� ي حم�س�

� أ م�ن Pة� أ امر� ع�ل�ى Pر �ك ب �و ب

� أ د�خ�ل� . . ، ه7 ش8 �� ش ش+ ش% ش# �ه �ي ش ه� ه9 ا ش: ه� ا ه; ش8 ش& هن ه ا ش5 ش9 ، ن�; ه> ش� ش, ل ا ش5 ش9 ش�ن ه*ا ش# ، ! ه8 �� ش ش+ ش) ا ش� ش� ش/ ا �ش �ة ش% ه8 ه< ن ه7 ش�: ش? ا و ن� ا �ش

. . م�ن ق�ال�ت Pش ي ق�ر� م�ن ق�ال� ن� م�ه�اج�ر�ي ال Oى� أ ق�ال�ت م�ه�اج�ر�ين� ال م�ن� ؤ# امر� ق�ال� ت� ن

� أ م�ن ف�ق�ال�ت . %ذ�ي ال �ح� الص%ال مر�

� األ ه�ذ�ا ع�ل�ى �ا �ق�اؤ�ن ب م�ا ق�ال�ت Pر �ك ب �و ب� أ �ا �ن أ �ول# ئ ل�س� %ك� �ن إ ق�ال� ت� ن

� أ Pش ي ق�ر� ى&� أ

. ق�ال� �م%ة� �ئ �أل ا و�م�ا ق�ال�ت �م �ك �م%ت ئ� أ �م �ك ب �ق�ام�ت ت اس م�ا ه� �ي ع�ل �م �ق�اؤ�ك ب ق�ال� %ة� �ي اه�ل ج� ال �عد� ب �ه� ب %ه� الل اء� ج�

. ع�ل�ى �ك� �ئ �ول أ ف�ه�م ق�ال� �ل�ى ب ق�ال�ت �ه�م ع�ون �ط�ي ف�ي �ه�م ون م�ر� �أ ي اف# ر� ش

� و�أ ء�وس# ر� �ق�وم�ك� ل �ان� ك م�ا� أ

%اس� .الن

Which literally means: Abu Bakr went to a lady from the [tribe of] Ahmas called Zaynab and he found that she refused to speak. He asked, "Why does she not speak?" The people said, "She has intended to perform Hajj without speaking." He said to her, "Speak, for it is not lawful [to make a vow] not to speak, as it is an action of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance. So she spoke and said, "Who are you?" He said, "A man from the emigrants." She asked, "Which emigrants?" He replied, "From the Quraysh." She asked, "From what branch of the Quraysh are you?" He said, "You ask too many questions; I am Abu Bakr." She said, "How long shall we enjoy this good order [?religion] which Allâh has granted us after the period of ignorance?" He said, "You will enjoy it as long as your Imams keep on abiding by its rules and regulations." She asked, "Who are the Imams?" He said, "Were there not heads and chiefs of your nation who used to order the people and they used to obey them?" She said, "Yes." He said, "So they (i.e. the Imams) are those whom I meant."

Would Zakir Naik also dare to claim that Abu Bakr was misguided and causing divisions by answering that he was from the Quraysh?! In fact in one of his video recordings he implies this. Zakir said: “if you call yourself other than Muslim,

mu`min and ^Abdullah, if you call yourself anything other than these three things, you are calling yourself to Hellfire”.

Zakir Naik also wrote: Four Schools of Thoughts: “The Islamic world has produced several learned Islamic scholars (Imams), but out of these, four became more famous and their teachings spread in different parts of the world”. “It is a misconception that a Muslim should follow any one of these four schools of thoughts i.e. Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali or Maliki. There is no proof whatsoever in the Qur’ân or any authentic Hadith that a Muslim should only follow one of these four Imams.”I would add to what Zakir said and say, that the Islamic world has not just produced several Islamic scholars, but many great scholars. However, his above analysis is flawed in many respects. The basics proofs for following a madh-hab have already been stated and are an answer to much of what he states. Also Ahlus-Sunnah do not say that “a Muslim should only follow one of these four Imams”. Rather we say that one is obligated to follow one of the Mujtahids and the reality of the situation is that in the times that we are living in, the only teachings of the Mujtahids that are readily available to the people are of these four Imams. This does not negate the fact that we accept that Abu Bakr, ^Umar, ^Uthman, ^Aliyy and ^A`ishah radiyallaahu ^anhum were all Mujtahids. It is also beneficial to note that Imam Al-Awzaa^ee was also a Mujtahid of the past and his madh-hab was the dominant madh-hab in the Shaam region for two hundred years. Nevertheless, nowadays you would not be able to find someone who is able to convey all the rulings according to the madh-hab of Imam Al-Awzaa^ee. One can see Zakir in some of his videos alleging that the followers of the four Imams are callers to Hellfire. For example Zakir in some of his video recording can be seen saying: “that means that dividing the religion of Islam into sects is haram in Islam, but when you ask a person, what are you? Some say, I am a Hanafi, some say I am a Shaafi, some say I am a Malaki... you should say, I am a Muslim. If you don’t follow that, then you are going against the Qur’ân. Don’t call yourself a Hanafi, a Shaafi or a Malakiy, call yourself a Muslim”. He also said, “there are several other verses which say don’t make sects in the religion of Islam, it is haram, it is prohibited, that Allâh prohibited us from dividing into sects, yet when you ask a Muslim what is he? Some say I am a hanafi, a shaafi”.I never heard anyone before this man who said that the four madh-habs were amongst the 72 sects which belong in Hellfire. It appears that Zakir doesn’t even know that for over 1000 years people have been following those four great Imams. Moreover, Zakir is claiming that all the great Muslim scholars who attributed themselves to following one of those four Imams are doing something which has no proof whatsoever in the Qur’ân or any authentic hadeeth!! A^oodhu billaah. Did the Muslims have to wait all this time for Zakir Naik to come along and tell them what nobody figured out for over

1000 years?! If one just looks at a brief list of those who followed the Shafi^iyy school, one would see the likes of Imam Abul Hasan Al-Ash^ariyy, Imam Muslim, ?ibn Majah, ?Abu Dawud At-Tayaalisyy, ?At-Tirmidhiyy, ?An-Nasaa`iyy, al-Bayhaqiyy, ?Al-Hakim, ?Ad-Daaraqutniyy, ?At-Tabaraaniyy, Khateeb Al-Baghdaadiyy, An-Nawawiyy, ibn Hajar, Ar-Raaziyy, As-Suyootiyy, Al-Ghazzaaliyy [? The ones with a question mark, I need to confirm if they were Shafi^iyys]. Everyone of the above scholars was greater in knowledge, piety and memory than Zakir Naik and this is just a brief list of just some from the Shafi^iyy school.

:Zakir Naik wrote: “All the four great Imams said that if any of their Fatwas or teachings contradict Allâh’s word, i.e. the Qur’ân, or the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) i.e. authentic Hadith, then that particulars Fatwa of theirs should be rejected, and the Sunnah of the Prophet should be followed.To give you an example in this context – Imam shafi said that when a women touches a man who is in a state of wudhu, the wudhu of the man breaks. However, this ruling of Imam Shafi contradicts the authentic saying of the Prophet.Narrated Aisha: The Prophet (may peace be upon him) kissed one of his wives and went out for saying prayer. He did not perform ablution. (Sunan Abu Dawood Vol. 1 Chapter No. 70 Hadith No. 179).Thus this particular teaching of Imam Shafi contradicts the authentic saying of the Prophet. So I reject this specific ruling of Imam Shafi who himself said , “ If I say something, then compare it to the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah of His messenger and if it agrees to them, then accept it and that which goes against them, then reject it and throw my saying against the wall” – This is a saying of ash-Shafi’ee-rahimaullah. See Al-Majmoo’ of an-Nawawee (1/63).Thus by rejecting this particular teaching of Imam Shafi which contradicts the authentic Hadith, I am practically a better follower of Imam Shafi than those who call themselves ‘Shafi’.In a separate speech it was said that Zakir also said:But if the literal label has to be taken then I say to them, I am more than a hannafi than the hannafees. say Why? Abu Haneefa said, whatever fatwa you recieve of mine, if it opposes Allâh and His Messenger (ÇallAllâhu alaihi wa sallam), then throw it against the wall. Abu Haneefa, his students said, when you pray, tie your hands below the navel, which contradicts a Saheeh Hadees in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah, there is a zikr that Muhammad (ÇallAllâhu alaihi wa sallam) tied his hands on the chest, so I threw the fatwa of Abu Haneefa and his  students against the wall. So did I become a complete (pakka) hannafi or not?

Note one should not use abbreviations like ,صلعم after the name [saw and pbuh?]  صof the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.

The arrogance and the stupidity of this man astonishes me. In the first instance this person is thinking of himself to be at the same level as Imam Ash-Shafi^iyy and Imam Abu Haneefah. If you asked him to mention the narrators of the above hadeeth that he cites from Abu Dawud, I’m sure he would not be able to do so. How does he even know if it is authentic or not?! And to presume that Imam Ash-Shafi^iyy was at best according to him ignorant about the existence of this narration or worse, deliberately going against a hadeeth is slanderous. Even if he is claiming the former, i.e. Imam Ash-Shafi^iyy was ignorant about this narration, then what about all the great Imams that I mentioned above, all of whom were Shafi^iyys, did all of them prefer to follow Imam Ash-Shafi^iyy rather than following the hadeeth?! The same An-Nawawiyy that he cites, and many others like Abu Shujaa^ in basic standard textbooks of the Shafi^iyy madh-hab mention that if one touches one’s wife without a barrier that this invalidates one’s wudu`.

[? It was that the response to this is: This is the opinion of Ibn 'Umar and some other Sahabah. However, when the Sahabah disagree in a matter, their statements are not a proof unless proof is brought from the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. As we stated before, Ibn 'Abbas and the reports from 'Aa'ishah contradict the opinion of Ibn 'Umar and those with their opinion. Thus, the opinion of Ibn Umar is not accepted unless supported with proof from the mouth of the beloved Messenger Muhammad çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.

Likewise, similar points can be made about what he claims in regard of Imam Abu Haneefah going against the hadeeth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.Zakir has truly missed the point here, although I have sympathy with something that he was maybe trying to allude to. The following extract from the article entitle refutation of the reed flute addresses the problem that Zakir was maybe trying to address, but instead just made worse by adding his own misguidance to it.It was said: “It is strange that when some people see something wrong in the one whom they love, they do not correct them for fear of upsetting them. This is not true love, for true love leads to doing what benefits others.It is also strange that some people exaggerate the status of their shaykhs, even about the reliable and pious ones. They say that whatever the Shaykh says is correct and they adhere to it, even if it goes against the rules of the religion. Some people they do not reject the falsehood and instead defend it. This is not a good practise. Remember the sayings of two of the greatest men of this nation: firstly when our master ^Umar radiyallaahu ^anhu was corrected in a judgement that he had given by a female scholar who had a lower rank than him. Sayyidinaa ^Umar radiyallaahu ^anhu responded, “the lady is right and ^Umar is wrong” . Secondly Imam Malik said, “everyone of us corrects the other, except for the one who is in this grave”. He then pointed to the grave of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, the best of all

creation, çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.Nowadays one does not find a Shaykh who reaches the level of our master ^Umar radiyallaahu ^anhu. In fact even amongst the companions, only Abu Bakr radiyallaahu ^anhu had a higher rank. Nevertheless ^Umar said, “I was mistaken and that woman was correct”. He admitted that he had committed a mistake. When some people are told of the error of one of their Shaykhs, they do not reject the wrong saying, regardless of the many proofs that they are given. They adhere to the statement of their Shaykh without having any proof for their claim. Again this is not a good practice. This is the way of those who lose in the Hereafter. The Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam himself said in meaning: in each and every one amongst you, there is something of what he says that is not correct, except for the Prophet of Allâh çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. This is a strong hadeeth and it is narrated by At-Tabaraniyy. Shaykh ^Abdul Qadir Al-Jeelaniyy and Shaykh Ahmad Ar-Rifaa^iyy, two of the greatest Sufis both said: if the follower knows of a mistake of the Shaykh, then let him bring it to his attention; if the Shaykh does not recant, then let the follower stick to the rules of the religion. This is why Imam Ash-Shafi^iyy said, “I did all I could to avoid committing mistakes in my books, but there are mistakes, (but I don’t know where)”.

There are degrees of mistakes; some are sinful, some are not. Nevertheless a mistake is still an error. This is why Imam Abu Haneefah said, “if you find that any of my sayings do not comply with the hadeeth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, then leave my saying and adhere to the hadeeth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam”. This was the practice of the pious and truly knowledgeable people. Nowadays, when some people are corrected in an error, they respond, “but my Shaykh said such and such”. When you tell them, “there is a verse in al-Qur’ân which disproves your saying”, they again say, “but my Shaykh said such and such”. When you tell them, “the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said such and such”, they say, “but my Shaykh said such and such”. When you tell them, “Imam Abu Haneefah and others among the Mujtahids said such and such”, they again tell you, “but my Shaykh said such and such!”. These people need to “wake up” and take account of themselves. They need to follow the correct path. A person might make mistakes, even blasphemous mistakes, but they can repent of these. And repentance from blasphemy means to know the blasphemy as blasphemy, to quit it, to regret having done it and to intend never to return to it. Subhaan-Allâh some people act as if they do not want to repent and stubbornly object to Allâh and the teachings of His Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. Shaytaan tricks them into thinking that their stubbornness is submission to Islam, that their ignorance is knowledge, that their misguidance is guidance and that their misunderstanding is understanding. Truly these people are the biggest of losers.

May Allâh protect us from the deviance of the ignorant people who belie Allâh and His honourable Messenger Muhammad çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam in order to preserve the dignity of those individuals who speak merely from their opinion.”

Zakir Naik wrote: “Similarly in practice, I claim to be a better follower of Imam Abu Hanifa than those who call themselves ‘Hanafi’. I claim to be a better follower of Imam Hanbal than those who call themselves ‘Hanbali’. I claim to be a better follower of Imam Malik than those who call themselves ‘Maliki”. If being a ‘Ahle-Hadith’ means following Qur’ân and authentic Hadith then I claim to be a better follower of the Qur’ân and authentic Hadith than those who call themselves ‘ Ahle-Hadith’. All these are mere labels (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Ahle-Hadith) that are not endorsed by the Qur’ân or the Sahih Ahadith.”

The arrogance of this man is amazing. He claims to better than scholars like Shaykh As-Sarakhsiyy Al-Hanafiyy, Shaykh ^Abdul Qadir Al-Jeelaniyy Al-Hambaliyy, Shaykh Abu Bakr Al-Baaqilaaniyy Al-Malikiyy and Shaykh ibn Hajar Al-^Asqalaaniyy.

Zakir further wrote: The only label or title given by the Qur’ân and the Sahih Ahadith is MUSLIM.

Subhan Allâh, is this person implying that being a Hanafiyy or a Shafi^iyy is somehow contradictory to being a Muslim?! Moreover, the Qur’ân does not just refer to people as being Muslim, but also Quraysh, Muhaajireen, Ansaar etc and I have already given several such examples in authentic hadeeth cited above.

Then in a somewhat contradictory fashion Zakir states: I personally have no objection if someone calls himself Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Ahle Hadith. People give different labels to themselves to identify which set of teachings they prefer to follow and to disassociate themselves from those people who follow wrong practices. But as far as giving a label to identify what a person practices in Islam is concerned, there can not be better label than what Allâh (swt) has given i.e. a Muslim.When did any of the scholars or their followers say that “we are not Muslims, but are Shafi^iyys or Hanafiyys” etc?? This is flawed logic with a touch of stupidity. Would somebody ever say that the fact that the Qur’ân refers to us as Banoo Adam, the descendents of Adam ^alayhis salam that this is contradictory to it referring to us as Muslims?!

Zakir Naik wrote:  “Who was our beloved Prophet (pbuh)? Was he a Hanafi or a

Shafi, or a Hanbali or a Maliki ?” No! He was a Muslim, like all the other Prophets and Messengers of Allâh before him. Zakir also said: Thus, the only school of thought that a Muslim should follow, is that of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The only Madhab that a Muslim should follow, is the Madhab of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And Allâh knows the Best.

Again, the fact that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam was a Muslim, does not mean that he was not a Haashimiyy, a Qurayshiyy and the best of the descendents of Prophet Adam ^alayhis salam. Furthermore, Zakir seems to be implying that following one of the four famous madh-habs is like a following a religion other than Islam. Being a Hanafiyy does not negate one from being a Muslim, whereas being a Christian or Jew does. In his concluding statements he seems to imply that those who strictly adhere to following one madh-hab are somehow people not following the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. This would mean that if a person followed all the same rulings that Imam Abu Haneefah followed he would somehow be going against what the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam came with. His last statements are implicit in claiming that the Imams themselves were not following the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. He seems to claim that we should all just act like Mujtahids. However, as I have already clarified, it is not an easy thing for one to be a Mujtahid. It seems clear to me from what I have read and heard of Zakir’s comments that does not even know what a Mujtahid is and what it means to follow one, just as we are commanded to do so in the Qur’ân and the hadeeth. Let me repeat again in summary some of the things that a person needs to be able to directly take judgements from the Qur’ân and the hadeeth:One needs to know what is related to judgments in the Qur’ân and Sunnah, al-^aamm and al-khaass, al-mutlaq and al-muqayyad, al-mujmal and al-mubayyan, an-naasikh and al-mansookh. Also from the Sunnah he knows the mutawaatir, al-ahad, al-mursal, al-muttasil, and the trustworthiness and/or discredibility of the narrators. The Mujtahid needs to know the sayings of the Companions, and the Mujtahids after them, the ijmaa^ and other matters, including al-qiyaas (the hidden and apparent, the correct and incorrect). He needs to know the mother tongue of the Arabs that the Qur’ân was revealed in, and he needs to know the essentials of the belief. It is further a condition that the Mujtahid be trustworthy, have strong intellectual ability, and have memorized the aayaat and hadeeths that pertain to deducing rules. Moreover, the people of knowledge would profess such traits to him. Clearly, no one among the acknowledged scholars has professed such traits--nor even what is less than them to the likes of Zakir Naik.It is sufficient for refuting his statement to mention the following hadeeth which is mutawaatir and saheeh by consensus:

ء� ه@ ه# ه; ه ش?ا Aش� ن ش� ، ء� هي ه@ Bش Cه Dش هي ش� ء� ه@ ه# ه; ه ش?ا Aش� ن� ش# ش�ا ش1 ه8 ش0 ش8ا Eش ش9ا ش�Fا ش-ا ش# ش9ا ش&ا شو ش# ه%! ش� ش@ا ش Gش ه8 ش0 ة-ا ش� ه ا ن� �� ش ا� ش� Hش� Iه�  ش م�ن فق�ه�� أ ه�و� م�ن �ل�ى إ .

Which means: May Allâh flourish a person who hears my saying, understands it, and

delivers it the way he hears it. One may carry a religious knowledge and he is not knowledgeable, and one may carry a religious knowledge to someone who is more knowledgeable than himself. The saying of the Messenger: “One may carry a religious knowledge and he is not knowledgeable” means that among you are those who do not have a share in understanding the judgments contained in the hadeeth they hear from the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. However, their share is to deliver it to others whose share may be in deducing judgments and performing ijtihaad. In this hadeeth the Messenger divided his companions into two categories, one category, more numerous, who do not have a share in deducing judgements and ijtihaad, rather they are narrators that will let others hear what they have heard from the Messenger, çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. The second category are those who can understand and deduce judgments.I have included in the appendix at the end some transcripts of video clips in which he makes similar assertions to those that are cited above. This is to the extent that he implies that those who call themselves Hanafiyys, Shafi^iyys, Malikiyys or Hambaliyys belong to sects from amongst the 72 that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said would be punished in Hellfire!

Zakir claims that some Sufis are mushriks who worship graves.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=319_wWmlAok&feature=relatedA woman reported that her husband was a Sufi who did things that she found difficult to accept and Naik said: there are different types of Sufism and the type which is really away from Islam is associating partners with Allâh ta^ala and we find some of the ignorant Muslims, they even go the graves and they worship the graves, and they intercede on behalf of those people who have died, so all this is wrong. What you have to do sister is that if you give him books talking about tawheed, about the oneness of God or you can get some video cassettes talking about these topics, and then inshaa` Allaah if you read these books and try to convince your husband that shirk is the biggest sin in Islam and that you should stay away from that, then inshaa` Allaah we pray to Allâh ta^ala that may He give hidaâyah to your husband.

It is clear that Zakir does not even understand what is Sufism. True Sufism was at the time of the companions, the four Khaleefahs and they were all Sufis, for the meaning of Sufi is he who works in accordance with the Shar^eeah of Allâh and who has gone against the desires of the self. He does not follow these desires in eating, drinking, dressing and other than these, rather he satisfies himself with that which keeps his body in good health in eating, drinking, dressing and the like, whilst at the same time exerting a lot of effort in performing the acts of worship, which are obligatory and those which are recommended, sunnah and which are nawaafil. This is the meaning of the Sufi and it was the situation of the highly ranked companions, the four Khaleefahs

and other than them. Al-Hafidh Abu Nu^aym Al-Asbahaaniy has authored a famous book called Hilyatul Awliyaa`. [This is a book that is in many volumes and it talks about the companions]. He began with the Sufis amongst the companions, then he followed them with the Sufis amongst the taabi^een and then with the Sufis from the atbaa^ut-taabi^een (followers of the tabi^een) up until the Sufis in the 4th century and Abu Nu^aym died after the end of the 4th century. He stated the history of the Sufis from the first century and the history of those that followed them in the subsequent centuries, he also mentioned that some people have pretended to be Sufis and amongst them there are those that had the ^aqeedah of al-hulool (the belief that Allâh dwells inside His creation) and as Abu Nu^aym mentioned not everyone who attributes himself to Sufism in the past and in the present time is a Sufi, that is amongst the best of Allâh’s worshippers. There are those people who are not from amongst the true Sufis and they only try to resemble them for their own self interest. The fact that such people exist, this does not negate the status of the original true Sufis, for the situation of the Sufis is similar to the situation of the ^ulamaa`, for the ^ulamaa` not every single one of them is pious, amongst them are those who are pious and those who are not pious. The name Sufi did not exist in the first century, however the meaning did exist and it existed even before this. It was mentioned by at-tawaatur that our master ^Isaa ^alayhis salam was far away from luxuries and enjoyments, and he was known to eat from the trees and he was known to wear the wool of the goats and sheep, without it being sewed; he did not take a place of residence for himself, but rather wherever night fell upon him, he would sleep, either in a mosque or in a place other than this. Having zuhd in this dunyaa, cutting yourself away from the enjoyments of this world is amongst the doing of the true Sufis, for the Prophets were like this. Hence, Sufisim is a rank amongst the ranks of Muslims, amongst them are the true sincere ones, and amongst them are those who just imitate without them being true. Thus, we do not judge the Sufi-claimers in the same status as the true Sufis. Just as we do not judge all the ^ulamaa` (scholars) in one judgement, rather we judge the scholars who implement their knowledge in one way and we judge those who do not implement their knowledge in a different way. Likewise, all of the other statuses amongst the people, people of trade, farmers and other than these. As for fighting Sufism, generally this is being ignorant of the reality. Nowadays the name Sufi to the Wahhaabies has become a great disgrace, in spite of their leader Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah not having made a judgement upon them, rather he said about the master of the Sufis, Junayd ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdaadiy  that he is imaamu hudda (an Imam of guidance). As for those who dispraise the Sufis, Sufism for them is a great disgrace.

As for the permissibility of visiting the graves of pious people seeking the blessings there, this is something which confirmed in numerous hadeeth. Amongst them is what Imam Ahmad, Al-Hakim, and others narrated about Marwan Ibnul-Hakam--an unjust

ruler--that he once passed by the grave of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam and saw a man with his cheek on the grave of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. Marwan Ibnul-Hakam asked: ‘Do you know what you are doing?’ Nearing the grave, Marwan Ibn al-Hakam realized it was Abu Ayyub al-Ansariyy, one of the greatest companions of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. Abu Ayyub al-Ansariyy replied, ‘Yes, I know what I am doing. I came here for the Messenger of Allâh--not for the stone.’ By this he meant he was seeking the blessings from the presence of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, not for the stone covering his grave. Also it is permissible to ask the dead for help and to benefit the dead by reciting for them. Each of these is confirmed in the authentic hadeeth. For example Al-Bayhaqiyy in dalaa`il an-nabuwwah narrated that once it did not rain for a long time in Madeenah during the time of the Caliphate of ^Umar and a man visited the grave of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam and said:

�وا �ك ه�ل ق�د %ه�م �ن ف�إ �ك� م%ت� أل �سق� ت �س ا الله ول� س� ر� �ا ي

Which means: O Messenger of Allâh ask Allâh to send rain for the Muslims because they are in a very difficult situation. Allâh then sent the rain and none of the companions, including our Master ^Umar objected to this practice.We only worship Allâh and Allâh is the One Who creates everything. This belief is not negated by the fact that one may ask others for help, whether those others have passed away or are still alive on this earth.

Zakir’s prohibition of reciting for the dead:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=87542697688731399&q=zakir+naikA female asked Zakir Naik: When somebody dies they gather together and they read Qur’ân for them...Zakir said: I understand the question, what the sister is talking about is Qur`aan Khaaniy, there are some Muslims who after a person dies they gather together and they read the Qur’ân thinking that it will be good for the person who is dead. Sister, there is no Qur’ânic verse or hadeeth of the Prophet which says anywhere that you should do this. If a person is alive, when he is alive then he should read the Qur’ân. Now imagine a person dies and then you read the Qur’ân for him, there is no evidence in the Qur’ân or the hadeeth, this is a bid^ah sister, it is an innovation that is not what the Prophet advised us. So those people who do that is wrong. Yes, if you want to read the Qur’ân, you can read that anytime, it is good, read with understanding so that you get the guidance and you implement the guidance of Allâh subhan wa ta^ala.

Benefiting the dead in their graves.If you read al-Qur’ân, it is permissible to read it at home and then make a du^a`, ‘O Allâh make the reward of my recitation reach so and so’, which means a similar reward. This does not mean that one does not themselves get any reward. It is not that

you recite and then you don’t get any reward; rather a similar reward is given to the deceased. It is also permissible to go to a person’s grave and recite there, both matters are permissible. If you recite at the grave, you do not need to make that du^a`, ‘O Allâh give so and so’, without making that du^a` inshaa`Allâh he will benefit.Imam Abu Ja^far At-Tahaawiyy in his famous ^aqeedah detailing the creed of Ahlus Sunnah, he said in point 83 what means: “in the supplication and charities of the living, there is a benefit for the dead. Allâh ta^ala is the One Who answers the supplications and fulfils the needs”. And this is our stance on this issue. It is not true that Ahlus Sunnah do not have any proof for this practice, but rather that Zakir does not have any proof for his prohibition of this matter. He claimed that we are not allowed to recite al-Qur’ân and then to ask Allâh let the dead people benefit from that. Let him produce his proof for this claim of his. Allâh revealed in the Qur’ân in Surat Al-Baqarah (S2) âyah 111:

ن� ص�اد�ق�ي �م �نت ك �ن إ �م �ك ه�ان �ر ب �وا ه�ات ق�لWhich means if you are truthful then bring up your proof. It is easy to claim things. We have our proofs, but we do not even need to present anything in the first instance, since he is the one who is claiming that it is wrong and a bid^ah.If we want, we can mention that Al-Bukhariyy , Muslim , Abu Dawud , At-Tirmidhiyy , Ahmad  and An-Nasaa`iyy  narrated from ibn ^Abbas that Allâh’s messenger çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam passed by 2 graves and said: � ال �ان� ف�ك اآلخ�ر� م%ا

� و�أ %م�يم�ة� �الن ب �مش�ي ي �ان� ف�ك ح�د�ه�م�ا� أ م%ا� أ Pير� �ب ك ف�ي �ان� �ع�ذ%ب ي و�م�ا �ان� �ع�ذ%ب �ي ل %ه�م�ا �ن إ

�ه� �ول ب م�ن �ر� �ت ت �س يWhich means: “They are tortured for things which some people do not consider enormous, while truly they are. One of them used to practise tale-bearing [nameemah], and the other used to contaminate himself with urine” Then the Prophet, çallAllâhu  ^alayhi wa sallam, asked for a green branch of a palm tree and he split it into two, and he stuck one in the first grave and the other in the second and said:

ا �س� ب �ي ي �م ل م�ا ه�م�ا ع�ن �خ�ف%ف� ي %ه� �ع�ل لWhich means: [?it is hoped that this will make the torture lesser for them”.Also the hadeeth narrated by Imam Muslim in his saheeh and others:ء� ش� ش� ه� ش-ا ه� Cه Gن Bش ش% ه� ن� ء$ ه� ه& ه� ش-ا �ء ش� ه شJا �ء �ش ش� Kش هن ه ,� ش ه*ال �ء �ش ش� ش�ل هن ه ,� ش ه*ال ن� ن� ش8 ش& ن� ه� ش& Gش Lش ش@ Iه ا نن شMا Iه ه*, ال Nش شا شOا ه*ا

�ه� ل �دع�و ي Pح� ص�الWhich means: that when a person dies, [?his deeds stop except for three: sadaqah jaariyah, knowledge which benefits others and pious offspring praying for him. The dead Muslim is not just benefitted by these three things, as is known by the fact that we perform salaatul janaazah for the dead, which is without doubt to benefit the dead. Furthermore, ibn Hibban, Abu Dawud and others narrated in a saheeh hadeeth that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said:

�م �اك م�وت ع�ل�ى يس ء�وا اقر�Which means: recite yaa-seen for the dead. And Imam Muslim narrated in his saheeh that Prophet Musa ^alayhis salam benefited the nation of Prophet Muhammad

çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam after his death, as during the night of mi^raaj, he told the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam to ask Allâh to [?at-takhfeef, ?to make things easier].There are also other proofs to support this practice, but the above should suffice to emphatically refute the claim of Zakir that there is no proof for reciting to benefit the dead. 

notes:

  Saheeh Al-Bukhariyy: Kitaabul Janaa`iz: Chapter on the punishment of the grave in gheebah and urinating on oneself.  Saheeh Muslim: Kitaabut-Taharah: Baab ad-daleel ^alaa najaasatil bawl wa wujoob al-istibraa` minhu.  Sunan Abu Dawud: Kitabut-Taharah: al-istibraa` minal bawl.  Jaami^ah At-Tirmidhiyy: Kitaab Abwaabut-Taharah: Baab maa jaa`a fil tashdeed fil bawl.  Ahmad in his Musnad, Vol 1.  Sunan An-Nasaa`iyy: Kitaabut-Taharah: Baab tanazzahu ^anil bawl.

In conclusion:Islam was and is the religion of truth. It is not the case that suddenly we arrived in the 20th century and western science made some advances that the Qur’ân was thus confirmed to be the revealed book from Allâh!One can continue citing other points on which Zakir has erred and contradicted what the Qur’ân and the saheeh hadeeth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam teach us. However, the above are sufficient examples to illustrate his misguidance. The Muslim scholars mentioned that sometimes a person would see something broken and because of his desire to do good, he would try to fix it, but rather than fixing it he makes it worse. This is because the ignorant person, many times he wants to do something good, but all that he ends up doing is something bad.Zakir has given weight to strange titles such as: “Similarities Between Hinduism and Islam” and done a great disservice to Islam. Hinduism is an invalid religion for a human being to follow; Islam is the only valid religion. I am at a loss to find anything in our religion which permits the usage of buffoonish titles such as the above-mentioned. Many Muslims sadly seem to think that we were in need to be defended by attacks by non-Muslims and Zakir was a saviour. However, it is very clear to anyone who looks with an open mind that Islam is by far superior to all other religions and does not need to be defended by the likes of Zakir. He claims to follow the Qur’ân

and the hadeeth, but did he ever hear a hadeeth in which the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam tried to convince the people to embrace the religion of Islam by telling them about similarities between their religion and the religion of Islam?! Rather the methodology of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam and all those who followed him focused on showing the differences and thus highlighting the validity of Islam and the invalidity of other religions.Moreover, much of Zakir’s attempts to prove the scriptures of other religions as false, rather than disproving those texts, has in the eyes of many given more weight to them!!! Often kafirs stand and insult the religion of Islam, claiming that the Qur’ân is wrong and full of mistakes, and because of Zakir’s teachings, his followers sit in the audience and clap!!! Most certainly applauding such ugly blasphemy is nothing short of blasphemy itself.Zakir has produced a crowd of ignorant followers and well wishers, many of whom attend his dialogues for entertainment sake. Truly Zakir is an entertainer who knows about some other religions, but knows very little about Islam. He is a charlatan who has been exposed.Most people if they truly thought about their situations and asked themselves, how did he truly benefit us? They would find that he did not. If a person needed to hear that modern science has made some discoveries that confirm what is mentioned in the Qur’ân or that there are inconsistencies in the bible etc for them to be convinced of the truthfulness of the religion of Islam, then something has very seriously gone wrong. Also a much more powerful way of refuting the people of misguidance is to use the intellect. The Muslim scholars in this regard said that the human mind bears witness to the truthfulness of the religion of Islam.There has been a trend amongst many Muslims to occupy themselves with issues that are not beneficial. Many of the people who attend gatherings such as those presented by Zakir have not learned the personal obligatory knowledge, that minimum amount of knowledge which every Muslim male and female is obligated to acquire.It is a very important matter to acquire the knowledge of the Religion. It is not enough for one to be obedient to Allâh ta^ala that one just to be born of Muslim parents. It is not enough for one to be named Muhammad or Ahmad or ^Aliyy or Fatimah or Khadeejah or the like for one to be successful in the Hereafter. For one to be successful in the Hereafter, one needs to obey the orders of Allâh and refrain from what Allâh ta^ala forbade, that is one needs to follow the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam. The one who really wants to follow the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, needs to know what are the matters that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam ordered us with and what are the matters that the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam told us not to do; what are the good deeds and what are the sins. However, there is no way for the person to know these except by learning.Many times a good thing can be made to appear bad and the bad thing good. How is it that a person though can actually know the good thing from the bad? It is through the

knowledge. If a person doesn’t acquire the religious knowledge, then he doesn’t have any scale to judge what he sees or hears. Knowledge enables one to be able to differentiate the right from the wrong, the truth from the falsehood. Knowledge is to see the reality as it truly is, i.e. to see the truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood. I ask Allâh to grant us the ability to see the truth as truth and enable us to follow it and help us to see the falsehood as falsehood and grant us the ability to avoid it.I end by reminding us of the hadeeth of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam in which we have been warned about those who deviate from his way as was mentioned in the hadeeth related by Al-Bukhariyy, Muslim and others: م�ن %م ه�ن ج� �ب� و�ا ب

� أ ع�لى د�ع�اة# ك�ر، �ن و�ت ه�م م�ن �عر�ف� ت �ا، �ن �ت ن لس�� �أ ب %م�ون� �ل �ك �ت ي �ا، �ن د�ت ل ج� م�ن ناس#

� أ�ه�ا ف�ي ق�ذ�ف�و�ه� ط�اع�ه�م

� أThis means: “There are people from our nation who speak the same language as we speak, but who mix the truth that you know with the deviation that you reject. They beckon to Hellfire and invite others to their deviation. Those who obey them will be thrown into Hellfire.”

Appendix:Further proof that Zakir claims that the followers of the Hanafiyy, Shafi^iyy, Malikiyy and Hambaliyy madh-habs belong in Hellfire.Below are a selection of clips from talks that he has given in different parts of the world. I have included the web link to see the video of his claims and provided a transcript of some of his statements.

It was said: if Islam Demands Brotherhood, What's with the Sects?!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zRP9HaoP0Zakir in response to a question about sects in Islam said, “the answer is in the Qur’ân (S3 V103)... hold to the rope of Allâh strongly and be not divided. Which is the rope of Allâh? The Glorious Qur’ân is the rope of Allâh ta^ala, it says that the Muslims should hold to the rope of Allâh, the Glorious Qur’ân and the saheeh hadeeth and they should not be divided. And the Qur’ân says as I mentioned earlier in Surat Al-An^aam, chapter number 6, verse number 159: that anyone who divides the religion into sects that you should have nothing to do with him, Allâh will tell him about the affairs on the Day of Judgment, that means it is prohibited for anyone to make sects in the religion of Islam. But when you ask an ordinary Muslim, what are you? Some say, I am a Hanafiy, some say I am a Shaafi, some say I am a Hambaliy, some say I am a Malikiyy. What was the beloved Prophet? Was he a Shaafi, was he a Malikiyy? Was he a Hambaliy? What was he? He was a Muslim... so if anyone poses a question to you, what are you? You should say, I am a Muslim. I have no objections if someone says, I believe in certain verdicts, certain views given by a great scholar like Abu Haneefah, Imam Shaafi, Imam Malik, Ahmad ibn Hambal, may Allâh be pleased with

them all. I respect all these great scholars. If someone agrees with certain view of Imam Shaafi sometimes, sometimes Abu Haneefah, I have no objection, but if anyone poses a question, what are you? You should say that you are a Muslim.(It says in the hadeeth) mentioned by Abu Dawud, hadeeth number 4579, it says that the religion of Islam will be divided into 73 sects, but if you note the wording of the Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam, he said that the religion will be divided, he didn’t say, you should be divided... So anyone who follows the Qur’ân and the hadeeth is on the true path, Islam doesn’t believe in division, every person he is a Muslim, anyone who follows the Qur’ân and the hadeeth, he is a Muslim. And Islam is against dividing the religion into sects and divisions. So if you read the Qur’ân and the hadeeth, then Muslims should be united on the basis of the Qur’ân and the saheeh hadeeth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBq6h7dc-5MSomebody asked in Islam there are hadeeth which are interpreted differently by different Imams and this has lead to some confusion amongst my friends. For example, one Imam says that in wudu`, you need to wipe at least three strands of hair and others say, you need to wipe the whole head.

Zakir said: in relation to the issue of wet wiping in wuzu, why can’t there be just one hadeeth etc. Sister, in following the hadeeth, the first thing you need to do is check the authenticity of the hadeeth. If it is saheeh, then you have to follow, if it is da^eef then you don’t have to follow, there are saheeh hadeeth, da^eef and mawdoo hadeeth. If it is saheeh, then you have to follow, if it is not saheeh, then you don’t have to follow. No two saheeh hadeeth will contradict and there is a science of hadeeth for which you have to go through years of studies... With respect to which madh-hab to follow, the answer is given in the Glorious Qur’ân in Surat Aal-^Imrân, chapter number 3 V 103, it says, hold to the rope of Allâh and be not divided. Which is the rope of Allâh? This [book], hold to the glorious Qur’ân and the saheeh hadeeth and be not divided... that means that dividing the religion of Islam into sects is haram in Islam, but when you ask a person, what are you? Some say, I am a Hanafi, some say I am a Shaafi, some say I am a Malaki, some say that I am a Deobandi, some say that I am a Jamaatay Islaami, some say that I am Brailwi. What was our beloved Prophet? Hanafi? Was he Shaafi? Was he Deobandi? What was he? He was a Muslim.... so if someone asks you the question what are you? You should say, I am a Muslim. If you don’t follow that, then you are going against the Qur’ân. Don’t call yourself a Hanafi, a Shaafi or a Malakiy, call yourself a Muslim. You can agree with the views of a certain scholar, but if the view of that scholar goes against the Qur’ân and the hadeeth, then you have to reject that scholar. Let them be the greatest scholar in the world, if it goes against the Qur’ân and the saheeh hadeeth, you have to reject that scholar... so as Muslims we

should follow the Qur’ân and the saheeh hadeeth. If we have difference of opinion, this scholar says that and this (other) scholar says that, if it matches with the Qur’ân, then you agree with that scholar, if it does not agree with the Qur’ân, then you reject that scholar. The problem that we have is that we don’t read the Qur’ân with understanding. If you read the Qur’ân with understanding, most of your problems will be solved.

Dr. Zakir Naik on Sectarianism Part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nr7BGzfeXwIn this Zakir says it is mentioned the Qur’ân: as to those who divide the religion, O Prophet, thou has nothing to do with them... there are several other verses which say don’t make sects in the religion of Islam, it is haram, it is prohibited, that Allâh prohibited us from dividing into sects, yet when you ask a Muslim what is he? Some say I am a hanafi, a shaafi. Who was our Prophet? Allâh says in the Qur’ân, Surat aal ^Imrân S3, Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian. Allâh says in the Qur’ân in Surat Hajj chapter number 22, verse 78, O you who believe strive in the way of Allâh as you ought to strive with steadfastness and discipline, Allâh tells us in many other verses call yourselves Muslims... Allâh doesn’t say call yourself a Hanafi, a Shaafi or ahle-hadees. Allâh says call yourself... Muslimeen, say that I am a Muslim... in no less than 7 places in the Qur’ân, Allâh says, say that you are a Muslim. I love these 4 aa`imahs... but if we read the history of these Imams, then we will really be understanding about what they said.

Dr. Zakir Naik on Sectarianism Part IIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mY8fKRfTRIIn this video at approximately 4 mins 40, he says Surat Aal-^Imrân chapter number 4, verse 59. Surat Aal-^Imrân, is actually the third surah of the Qur’ân.Naik also said in this video, if you call yourself other than Muslim, mu`min and ^Abdullah, if you call yourself anything other than these three things, you are calling yourself to Hellfire. He refers to ibn Taymiyah, as Shaykh ibn Taymiyah. He claims that taqleed cannot be made of an Imam, but we only make taqleed of Allâh and His Prophet çallAllâhu ^alayhi wa sallam.One can refer to the article in which I have clarified that it is not haram to say that one is a Qurayshiyy or one of the Muhaajireen etc. According to his above claim, he would be accusing our master Abu Bakr of calling himself to Hellfire, which is ironic for many reasons, amongst them is the fact that our master Abu Bakr radiyallaahu ^anhu was given the title of ^Ateeq, he was given this title with the meaning that he is saved and protected from Hellfire.

Are there sects in Islam?Sunni,Shia,Shafi,Wahaabi,Hanafi??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVfTENzcKaUAnother video clip with practically the same strange statements as above.

In several of his videos, Zakir Naik can be seen quoting the hadeeth that mentions that there will be 73 sects in this nation, 72 in hellfire and one in paradise and implies that the righteous Hanafiyy, Shafi^iyy, Malikiyy and Hambaliyy madh-habs of Ahlus-sunnah are not included in the group that will go to paradise, but are amongst the 72 of Hellfire!!! He also explicitly claims that attributing yourself to belonging to one of those madh-habs is going against the Qur’ân. Zakir said: “if someone asks you the question what are you? You should say I am a Muslim. If you don’t follow that, then you are going against the Qur’ân. Don’t call yourself a Hanafi, a Shaafi or a Malakiy, call yourself a Muslim.” The obvious question that arises from the above is then what does Zakir then say about al-Bayhaqiyy? Or about An-Nawawiyy or ibnul Jawziyy or ^Abdul Qadir Al-Jeelaaniyy? or ibn Hajar Al-^Asqalaaniyy? Or As Sarakhsiyy? Or As Suyootiyy or Al-Ghazzaaliyy?? All of these great scholars attributed themselves to following one of the four madh-habs. Does he thus claim that they were callers to division and people who went against the Qur’an and thus deserving punishment in Hellfire as part of the 72 sects??!

wa-llâhuta^âlà 'a^lam