Why Zakir Naik is both right and wrong

Zakir Naik is one among the few,very few people,whose talks  come down to larger mass .. I have hardly heard or read of any other scholar other than Zakir Naik and Yusuf-al-Qardawi (blame it on my poor reading).Its been little more than 5 years that I started reading Zakir Naik.Some of his orations are good,like ‘Is terrorism a muslim monopoly’ and like.I had been a fan of him,but as time passed,as I read more and more of him,well, honestly speaking,I find many of his speeches absurd..

The most ridiculous one is his version of polygamy,when he says that ‘ In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple  extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become ‘public property’. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second. “

What prevents a women from remaining single..His argument is an insult to womenhood.Agreed that being a mistress is disrespectful,but ‘Public Property’..B******t

Most annoyingly,some of his views are radical and wrong.He rants about comparing Islam to 2+2=4 and other faiths to 2+2=3.Considering the fact that he is a medical doctor,I wonder what made him say such nonsense.. The mathematical eqtn he is talking about is a universal truth,whereas religious beliefs are relative truth..If my God true to me,it needn’t be to another person. And it is high time he stop generalizing that all people except muslims are in wrong path..Nobody,even Prophet said so. Can Mr Zakir Naik please tell me whether wasn’t it Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) who said this?

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.  Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God!  I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them.  Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.  No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.  Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet.  Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.  The Muslims are to fight for them.  If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval.  She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.  Their churches are declared to be protected.  They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.  No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

Again,his comparison of human beings eating pork,to that of filthy animals,is sick..If he don’t like pork,let him stay away,why bother about others? If they aren’t bothered about tapeworm and red-content,let them have it.Why utter rubbish? (Don’t give me lecture that tapeworms can be killed by 100% cooking,I know it already)

And Zakir Naik says that apostates should be put to death.I have some idea of Quran,and nowhere have I seen Allah asking human beings to hang apostates,rather there are 3 verses that talk about people who trun away from religion,yet there is no reference to killing them..

And it goes on like that.. I don’t support Zakir Naik,nor do I support the ban.Is this the kind of freedom of expression that Britain ,and west in general is damn proud of? I thought it was Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan,who did acts like this.If they don’t support something,they ban it.Indeed an easy task.

If we condemn fatwa against Salman Rusdie,what makes this ban any diffferent?What irks me always is that how super-powers,who are champions of liberal and progressive thoughts, define the concept of “Freedom of Speech”.At least 909,681 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq alone ,since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates, all in the name of democracy and freedom of speech of their nation.About 303 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001.More than 130 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1993-2004, according to data compiled by the US State Department.

So what if Zakir Naik as a person,as an individual,shouted against these super-powers ?Is he wrong in saying that Nato forces are terrorists toIraqis and Afghanis? It is his mistake that he tried to attach religion to his arguments.Otherwise,what he says is right,the rich are terrorizing the poor ans weak nation..Am I wrong? He seems to be funded by Saudi,which takes away any of the goodness present in his doings..But anyway,there has to be somebody to shout thet truth.Super-powers are terrorists in many nations.Our turn too will come,wait for that day dear Indians..Till then you can sing ga-ga-ri about such terrorizing nations.

Mr Zakir Naik and his associates should be glad that they live and work in a wonderful country like Inida,where else would you find tolerance and fredom to move around like this? Go try the other version of your oration in your mentor nation,Saudi..If you talk a word against them,nobody,even your breath would  know when and how they will pack you underneath soil.

I have a suggestion for Zakir Naik..If UK doesn’t need you,go to countries like Pakistan,Bangladesh,Nigeria ,Sudan,Algeria,Afghanistan,Niger,  Burkina Faso,Mali,  Senegal,Tunisia , Guinea , Somalia , Azerbaijan ,  Tajikistan ,Sierra ,Leone,Libya etc etc etc ,which are muslim majority countries.. Set muslims straight first,and then bother about non-muslim’s fate and their afterlife..And yes,I suggest you to improvise muslim conditions not only through religious classes,but also by showing them a way to live this life in earth..

Finally,I have a qstn to my readers,does Dr. Zakir Naik really “foment justify or glorify terrorist violence” or “seek to provoke others to terrorist acts?” You be the judge!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT ISSUED JUNE 17, 2010

Following on from recent malicious and specious reports in the British media about my work, a press release was issued dated 11th June 2010.
Further to this I am disappointed to learn the British Government has decided to exclude me from coming to the United Kingdom to conduct a Peace Conference Tour between 25th-27th June 2010.
Despite this I intend to continue my work of interfaith dialogue; Coming together upon common terms with other people and faith groups to promote a greater understanding of the binding strands existing between the faiths, whilst dispelling fears, suspicions and misconceptions about the beautiful faith of Islam, that have been created by a media frenzy of Islamophobia.
I encourage all Muslims to serve their country with dignity and honour and my message to vulnerable young British Muslims is that terrorism and violent extremism, is totally unacceptable and has no place in Islamic life.
I would urge the British Government to permit the Peace Conference Tour to continue as scheduled and assist in the promotion of Peace and social harmony, whilst upholding the values of freedom and justice.
- Dr Zakir Naik – 17th June 2010 [Source : http://www.islamnewsroom.com]

What had Dr Zakir Naik said one week before he was banned?

“I have spoken out on numerous occasions against all and any acts of terrorism and I have unequivocally condemned such acts of violence; acts including 9/11, 7/7 and 7/11 (serial train bombings in Mumbai) which are completely and absolutely unjustifiable on any basis,” eminent Islamic scholar Dr Zakir Naik had said on June 11, exactly a week before he was banned (June 18) from entering Britain for his alleged support to terrorism and “unacceptable behavior”.
Dr Naik had issued his signed statement in response to media reports in Britain preceding his scheduled visit (June 18-28), portraying him as “Preacher of Hate” and “Terror Backer”.
“I believe recent press reports in the UK media have given a warped and wholly unjustified impression of my work by portraying me as “Preacher of Hate” and “Terror Backer”. I categorically reject as falsehoods any such allegations. These are totally untrue and a misrepresentation of the truth. It appears these sensational headlines have been based on some of my quotes that have been given either without the relevant context or are completely wrong. It is clear from my talks, that in Islam, terrorism; the killing of innocent civilians is completely forbidden and as such I have unequivocally stated that no Muslim should be a terrorist.”
Dr Zakir Naik had clearly stated that during his UK tour he will give a message of peace and a clear and concise message to young British Muslims that terrorism and violent extremism, including suicide bombings killing innocent civilians have no place in Islam.
My tour to the UK will be focused on delivering a message of peace based on Islamic values and bridging the gap of understanding between the major faiths. My visit will include engaging in constructive and positive dialogue between members of different communities and to dispel the misconceptions of Islam. I will be delivering a message of peace, unity respect and tolerance for any differences that may prevail. I also understand the sensitivities and current difficult climate prevailing within the west and therefore my tour will also include a clear and concise message to young British Muslims that terrorism and violent extremism, including suicide bombings killing innocent civilians, is totally unacceptable and has no place in Islamic life, based on the Glorious Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.”

“I hope to reach out to all youngsters and persons generally who promote confrontation and violence in the name of Islam; to engage in peaceful and constructive discussion with other communities, authorities and government to deal with any issues or grievances they may be fostering,” Dr Naik said in his June 11 statement on the letterhead of Mumbai-based Islamic Research Foundation that he heads.
He had said that he was discussing with lawyers in UK seeking legal remedy for his distorted image in the British media.
“It appears that some of the quotes have been taken from edited and manipulated excerpts uploaded onto the you-tube website including a talk that I delivered in 1996 in Singapore which was prior to the 9/11 atrocity. I am currently seeking advice from lawyers in the UK on the legal remedy and actions in the light of these reports.”
But ignoring his clarification about his views on terrorism and the purpose of his UK visit, the British government decided to ban him from entering UK the day he was scheduled to – June 18.
Announcing the ban, British Home Secretary Theresa May said: “Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour.” She further said: “Coming to the UK is a privilege, not a right and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK.”
BBC quoted a spokesman for Dr Zakir Naik as describing the move “deeply regrettable”. The UK government had bowed to pressure from certain groups to exclude him, he said. The spokesman further said Dr Naik had been holding talks in the UK for 15 years and the decision to bar his entry was disappointing.
Meanwhile the Muslim Council of Britain has deplored British Government move to ban Dr. Zakir Naik from entering UK. The Council said UK Home Secretary Theresa May’s action “serves to demonise the very voices within the world ready for debate and discussion.” [Source : Two Circles]


About these ads
  1. After reading his Polygamy remark, Nimmy I wonder if he should go to all the countries you mention!
    (countries like Pakistan,Bangladesh,Nigeria ,Sudan,Algeria,Afghanistan,Niger, Burkina Faso,Mali, Senegal,Tunisia , Guinea , Somalia , Azerbaijan , Tajikistan ,Sierra ,Leone,Libya etc etc etc)

    He can influence people’s thinking… I feel anybody who supports (or even ignores) gender bias or racial bias or caste bias or religious bias – is not without prejudices… I am not sure what to think of him. :(

    • Yes,his talks are divisive and he tries to establish supremacy of Islam over other religions..That is not the right way to preach..

  2. Kudos to you Nimmy, you have taken a right stand today and tearing apart falsehood propagated by preachers like Dr. Zakir Naik and exposed doubale standards practised by the West. Instead of defending a peacher, you admitted that {2+2} analogy was wrong. That sort of understanding is lacking in Zakir Naik. He pretend for the surity of final solution as Islam while manipulating non Muslims with peace versus of Koran.

    What I find disturbing is the same religious text especially bible or Koran that it is interpreted in two different ways. Some interpret it to preach peace while others interpret it to preach hate and both the sections are convinced about their interpretations. The constitution can be amended for future but there is no amendment in Koran from 1000 years.

    The West especially europe has more encounter with Islam than America. USA is a nation extremely liberal or blindly religious (christian). Talking about Europe, it does not accept Turkey as its part simply because they are Muslim nation. That’s complete show off of double standards.

    Also, European nation are taken aback Islamophobia. In Switzerland, it’s minarets. In France, it’s the veil, the burqa and the beard. As they fear that the population explosion of Muslims will disturb the social fabric of their society. What we are witnessing today is a shift from a Muslim to an Islamist identity. The religious self for individual Muslims is being shifted from the private to the public realm. Christopher Caldwell, a journalist who has been reporting on Muslims in Europe for over a decade goes on to voice a fundamental European concern: “It was not just that young Muslims were assimilating too slowly into European culture as the generations passed, it was that they were dis-assimilating.”

    “It is a mistake to think that religous and political radicalism among European Muslims is a mere import from the cultures and conflicts of the Middle East. It is above all a consequence of the globalization and Westernization of Islam, writes Olivier Roy. ” Check this article complete here:

    http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-05-03-roy-en.html

    • Thanks Yayaver..

      Quran has remained the same since 1400yrs..It is the hadith,the scholar’s rulings etc etc that have brought changes to the religion.. Religious laws need to be updated,but sadly they update stuff only for men,i.e Marriage and divorce over telephone,SMS-divorce and such stupid hilarious stuff..The rest ,especially those related to women are preserved all in the name of tradition..Note that these traditions have nothing in relation to Quran..

      What you and me see muslims doing around are not part of quran,but part of hadiths and rulings by men over generations.. Its high time that people open up their eyes and stop listening to brainwashing..

      Sadly,most of muslim majority nations are poor and illiterate..So evil forces,inside and outside muslims communtiy and easily influence them by various means and lead them in wrong path..The same happened with our naxals….The better-off communtiy doesn’t care for them,so they take up arms..It is easy to make statements like “Let them go to court,let them take part in election ” etc etc.. If everything was et straight so easily by jumping into conclusions,life on earth would have been more easier… :)

    • You will find this interesting..

      Shekhar Gupta: You said you go to the original sources, so are you suggesting that many others who use the medium of Islam to put many restrictions, watching television for example, or going to a model school, particularly for women, they are not reading the original scriptures?

      Zakir Naik: What I believe that they may take a verse of the Quran, Hadith and misinterpret it. Maybe there is a scholar who has misinterpreted it, 50 years back, 100 years back, 200 years back, so they believe in his view directly, without going to the source. What I do, whenever I read the statement of a scholar I go back and see why he has said that thing. Most of the people, they just believe and quote the scholar without checking what he has quoted and from where he has got it. What we believe there is no verse in the Quran or the Hadith that which says that the television is prohibited.

      Shekhar Gupta: Right

      Zakir Naik: Yes, there is a statement in the Quran which says, you know about making tasveer or portrait, you know by making by hand. But that doesn’t mean about photography and videography because at the time of the Prophet photography and videography wasn’t there, so according to me, there is no verse in the Quran or Hadith that says that television is haraam. But watching wrong thing on the television, like obscenity, like pornography, fine, that is haraam.

      Shekhar Gupta: Right, right. So do you think that Islam has actually, un-deservingly got a bad name, because of wrong interpretation of the original scriptures by many.

      Zakir Naik: That’s right. I agree with you totally. It is the most misconceived religion in the world, most misunderstood religion.

      Read rest here: http://navedz.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/walk-the-talk-with-dr-zakir-naik/

    • Sri
    • June 23rd, 2010

    Apostasy ( A Muslim leaving Islam or changing his faith) is punishable by death according to Islamic law.

    Sharia law is very clear on this and all schools of Islamic jurisprudence support it.

    Like Nimmy said it is true that Koran does not advocate death penalty for Muslims leaving Islam directly (Read the verses 4:89, 5:32, 5:54 and 9:66-68 ). But you should understand that Koran is only one part of Islam. Other part is following the teachings and practices of Prophet and his life as an example i.e. He was the first and the best Muslim ever lived on this earth.

    Koran definitely devotes more than 3 verses for apostates. It just says punish them.

    So how did this practice of killing apostates become an Islamic law? Because Prophet Mohammad enforced this law during his time. Read the following ahadith from Sahih Bukhari’s collection:

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
    Narrated Ikrima:

    Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ”

    Primary sources of Islamic law are Koran and Sunna (The example of Prophet). The secondary sources are ijma (Consensus) and Qiyas (analogy).

    Whether it is Shia or Sunni branch of Islam, both advocate death penalty for apostates. It is crystal clear.

    • :) Yes,Sharia advocated death for apostates..Sharia is not Allah’s rules alone..It contains hell lot of man-made rules too,I am sure that you are very much aware of that.. If men are wrong,can Islam go wrong?

      Sri,I know what you are talking about.I also know that it is very complicated stuff..But listen,this is how i understand it. Allah (God) sent Quran through Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). Prophet spread his messages,through his companions. As far as I have read,first generation companions have hardly committed any bad stuff.Later on,they started collecting narrations of Prophet, years and years after Prophet dies. It was then that innovations and corruptions happened in Islam as a religion. And as centuries passed,it got added on and literally speaking,Islam is now a religion followed by a majority of mislead and corrupt human beings..A muslim is not a walking symbol of Islam. Am I so? Absolutely no.

      All I know and trust is Quran . No,I am not a Quran-only Muslim. But I hardly know which hadith to trust and which not to..I know it is the problem a sick problem with current state of Islam.And until the progressive sane minded poeple in muslim community come forward and put things straight,musilms are going to remain in the sad state they are in,and people like Zakir Naik can easily twist and turn quotes to suit his mentor’s needs.. Ultimately,there is a problem,a grave problem..And muslims alone can solve it..But to me,it seems that they are going more inward..

      And please don’t lie..

      Koran definitely devotes more than 3 verses for apostates. It just says punish them.

      Quote the verses..Here are the ones that I mentioned..

      “And whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever — these it is whose works go for nothing in this world and the Hereafter” (2:217).

      “O you who believe, should anyone of you turn back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him” (5:54).

      “Those who disbelieve after their believing, then increase in disbelief, their repentance is not accepted, and these are they that go astray” (3:90).

      Where does it talk about PUNISHMENT?

      • The misconception of death have arisen from the fact that people who, after becoming apostates, joined the enemy, were treated as enemies, or that, where an apostate took the life of a Muslim, he was put to death, not for changing his religion, but for committing murder.

        Prove me wrong…

    • Reply to your last comment:

      1. Suppose that I make a claim that what I say is absolute right and your view is absolutely false in every scenario. (or)

      2. Suppose one political party claims that it only represents the best interests of Country and others with different views are traitors (Like German Nazi party). (or)

      3. Suppose one group claims they are superior and what they believe is absolute truth and others are inferior and their beliefs are inferior and false.

      What name one will give to such views and people holding such views?

      What should a ideology be called if it expresses such views?

      My knowledge tells me that the word used to describe such views, my way or high way, is fascism.

      Yes, the words are fascism, fascist and totalitarianism or exclusive.

      Of course it is fascism.. Now please tell me what did America’s topmost official mean, when he/she said that “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.”

      But when Zakir Naik told the same,he is a terrorist.. Sick joke.. I am bored of such hypocritical double standard stuff..

    • uzza
    • June 23rd, 2010

    Very good post on Naik.

    Where is that blockquote from?

    (P.s. Your BP/Bhopal coverage was also excellent.)

    • Hey Uzza,long time no see :)

      The quote is a famous one.. Many many links are available..I too from here

      Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery

      In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possesses a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400 years under Muslim protection.

      In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt.Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. An English translation of that document is presented here:

      http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Prophet-Muhammads-promise-to-Christians.html

        • uzza
        • June 25th, 2010

        Thank you.
        Wow, I never heard of this before.

        • :)

            • kish
            • November 11th, 2013

            hey nimmi r u muslim if yes than u posted wrong about dr naik he is a man any mistake took place by man not Allah as well all time he said dont follow me read Quran soplz stop…………..

  3. Hello Nimmy,

    Sharia is not a man made law. It is derived directly from the interpretations of Koran and Sunna.

    Unlike the tafsir, which is a work of a single scholar, Sharia laws are formulated based on works of many scholars.

    It is fiqh which has man made component. Fiqh is an expansion of Sharia. It covers those things which are not covered in Sharia.

    Koran + Sunna -> Sharia
    Sharia + Ijma + Qiyas -> Fiqh

    There is more than one ahadith showing that death is the punishment for apostasy.

    9:84:57, 9:84:58, 9:83:37 and 9:89:271. (All from Sahih Bukhari)

    I understand your reservations about Hadith.

    But, generally six collections are respected by all Sunni Scholars. Among these two are considered sahih (authentic). They are Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

    It must be understood that these collections have passed through strict scrutiny in the sense that veracity of the chain of narration is taken in to account.

    That is precisely, though Bukhari and Muslim collected more than 20,000 individually (Muslims collection goes in to 100,000), only about 6000 have passed the scrutiny.

    Any way it is your wish to believe in Hadith or not. But it is a important source of Sunna.

  4. Hello Nimmy,

    It is interesting that you quoted 2:217 for apostasy. Actually this verse has a very famous background.

    Nimmy, I am not lying. Koran has many verses devoted to hypocrites.

    I will mention few of them here:

    009.066
    YUSUFALI: Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.

    004.137
    YUSUFALI: Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.

    004.138
    YUSUFALI: To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;-

    004.145
    YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;-

    003.091
    YUSUFALI: As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers.

    All these are not really important. The one that really decides in this matter is 5:32 and 5:33.

    • :) Where does it talk about death penalty my friend…

      Hypocrites should get penalty..Do you kiss and honor hypocrites in your land and family?

      About 5:32 and 33,tomorrow…

      Good day

      • [5:32] Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

        [5:33]The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

        What else do you do to war criminals,those who fight you? Go ask soldiers in Kargil and like,as to why they kill enemies,and ask them to start give ‘jaddo ka jappi’ instead…

        Thanks for the quote :) Made my day…

        • When intention is to find fault alone and not to understand,everything goes wrong my friend…

  5. On “Is this the kind of freedom of expression that Britain ,and west in general is damn proud of?”
    UK is going through lot of pain from home grown radical elements these days. This is one of the measures they have taken, to not to let hate preachers inside the country.
    They dint single out this guy, last year they denied entry to Geerts wilders Duch MP for he same reason.

    I am curious to know what is your opinion on Geerts wilders.

    • Yes,I am very much aware of the long list of people UK has banned..ts not just some random person from Islam, Jew hate preachers (Rabbis),Wilders,Micheal Savage..many more… So, I won’t blame them for Islamophobia.. But is this what liberal,progressive societies do? Some states in India banned Taslima Nasrin,are they right? No way..

      Easy is to ban,difficult is to accommodate…

    • Sifar
    • June 24th, 2010

    Dear friend,

    True-Islam and terrorism are antonyms, in fact Islam hates terrorism. Prophet Mohammed was a full fledged brave-warrior who stood against falsehood and he never resorted to any kind of terrorism or terrorist tactics that are similar to sudden bombing or fear-based torture even on his most deadliest enemies. Only the most deluded and the cowards will resort to terrorism as a retaliatory solution to any given problem. When Zakir Naik calls for the terrorizing of the terrorists, it is like calling for the raping of the rapists, it takes us to no solution.

    Zakir Naik justifies his definition of terrorism by saying that a thief is terrified by a policeman, and so a police man is a terrorist to a theif. This is wrong. A policeman is only terrifying the thief not terrorizing. A policeman only tries to imprison the thief, and if evidence is provided before the court, only then is corrective measures taken. A policeman is not a terrorist to a thief. Similarly there is no terrorism in Islam, even when against the real terrorist themselves. Prophet Mohammed was devoid of the least amount of terror. He did not even terrorize the very woman that poisoned him. People used to throw rubbish on his face, yet he was a man of great patience and forbearance and he won many a hearts. This is true Islam. Such a great man he really was!

    Prophet Mohammed will never use terrorism to fight terrorism, he always used the truth along with a brave army of companions to fight the infidels only in a war of reason, code and self-defense in the way of the Truth before Allah.

    Once Ali, companion of Prophet Mohammed was at war, and he got into a fight with a very dangerous criminal, he finally overcame him and sat on his chest to kill him. The opponent spat at his face. Ali at once left him. Seeing this the man was very much surprised and asked the reason. Ali said, “I was killing you for God’s sake but when you spat on my face, my sincerity was endangered because of the personal feelings of anger.” Hearing this the man immediately submitted and asked repentance to Al-God. Such was the honor and code that these men of Mohammed had, even at the crucial moments of war.

    Whereas terrorism is akin to a mad stupid man jumping from behind a bush, stabbing, bombing and shooting an unaware person at random to cause a state of fear all around. Mohammed will never support such cowardice. True-Islam and Terrorism are antonyms any day.

    Please to understand true Islam more… do visit this link

    http://iamstillzero.blogspot.com/2010/06/pseudo-scholars.html

    Cheers,
    Sifar

    • sm
    • June 24th, 2010

    very well written
    i feel that now he is running behind publicity.
    publicity equals to money in media.

    • Sifar
    • June 25th, 2010

    Hey Nimmy,

    thanks for the comment.

    Do check this letter that I just sent him today through IRF.

    http://iamstillzero.blogspot.com/2010/06/letter-to-zakir-naik-from-sifar-anel.html

    Cheers,
    Sifar

    • Sri
    • June 25th, 2010

    To Sifar,

    In that letter to Mr. Naik, you wrote,

    ” Naik Sir, you have told us in your world famous book “FAQ On Islam” that, “a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. antisocial elements, and not to the common innocent people.”

    —— Who are innocent people here? If a Non Muslim is reading this reply to this gentle man and want to know who is innocent, just read the below passage, it is also from his own writing. Of course he says that Zakir Naik wrote like that.

    “And you also say that all Non-Muslims like Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and Jews etc are “Kafirs” who are guilty of the greatest Sin of Shirk. And so Kafirs, we all can accept before Allah, that these Non-Muslims are indeed the greatest anti-social elements.”

    —— It doesn’t really matter what Joker Naik says on this because Koran says this in unmistakable words. Read the verse 4:48.

    “So Sir, are you really asking us Muslims worldwide to terrorize all those Non-Muslims who are committing the greatest anti-social sins, should we really terrorize them along with the petty thieves, dacoits, rapists, and you mentioned America too in your speeches?”

    —— What should I make out from the above passage? It occurs to me that you happen to concur with Mr Naik’s views that disbelief in Islam is indeed a great sin. At the best you are differing with him on what should be the Islamic response to such supposedly great sin.

    “Shirk is the greatest Sin of them all, Sir.”

    ——– What is this? What ever it is, at the end you will either deny your own writings and intentions or go on to accuse me of taking your comments out of context.

    Finally, you are saying (I should use the word ‘agreeing’ ) that disbelief in Islam is indeed a crime and the greatest sin and whether to terrorize them or not is not clear for you.

    Koran indeed says shirk and fitna are great crimes but it does not tell Muslims explicitly to just terrorize Non Muslims. It also says Non Muslims should also be humiliated.

    So you say that terrorism and Islam are opposite to each other, but disbelief in Islam is a sin. Am I correct?

    • Sri
    • June 25th, 2010

    Yeah, it is very strange the way some people first say some thing and then deny about it.

    Forget it.

    I always feel that it is good to learn about teachings of Koran from Koran it self or from the sayings of Muslims.

    I wrote a lengthy article for a blog with the title ‘Lets listen to what Muslims say.’

    Below is the link:

    http://resistance-to-totalitarianism.blogspot.com/2010/04/questions-to-ponder-part-2_8069.html

    • I always feel that it is good to learn about teachings of Koran from Koran it self or from the sayings of Muslims.

      Exactly where you went wrong my friend… Muslims are not walking prisms of Islam. They are ot angels sent down from heaven.They are normal persons just like you and me..

      I would say “I always feel that it is good to learn about teachings of Koran from Koran it self ,with reference to context”..You are knowledgeable about Quran….Quran was sent in 23 yrs,Verse 3of Chapter 5 in one day,Verse 56 of Chapter 32 next day and so on..So if you open Quran suddenly and pick a verse and ask me “What the hell is this,Allah talks about violence and killing “,I can’t help it friend…

      If you have patience,read Quran in complete,else don’t read it at all… That makes more sense to me…

    • sunder
    • June 25th, 2010

    Nimmy, i sometimes feel you dont take a firm stand..may be my misunderstandings..you say Zakir is both right and wrong….but mainly why i say this two contradicting paras..

    super power are terrorist in many nations..our turn will come…In this para you are against the attitudes of Indians Psyche..

    Next para- you praise India is a wonderful country….

    Nimmy – Dont curse India, it is a wonderful country. Our ancestors have suffered through Mughul Invasion , British etc..so what is the big deal…

    Ok coming to your point of super power are terrorist in many nations….

    Go back to history? is there any peaceful period? we human beings continue to fight…..in this scenario what is the point in blaming super powers…

    If US and allied forces have not defeated Third Reich and Japanese- what will be your situation now in Afghan and Irag?
    Dont you think we have to thank US and allied forces for crushing Nazi? Now i know you will say US defended itself for pearl harbour…

    Afghan is a place with constant civil insurgency…US is spending lot of money…why it should so? the price they are paying to retain super power?

    Irag also lost many lives through insurgency and War…without US..

    I can only say one thing, those who argue US to leave Afghan and Irag should insist thay they leave the entire GULF…

    Can you Imagine that situation yourself? Now Iran is talking of Greater Iran extending

    • There is no confusion Sunder

      Zakir Naik is right when he says that America,say American govt in particular,as like all civilians in any part of the planet,civilians in America too are normal peace loving people (the are the ones who have conducted most successful protests against war) is a terrorist.. what makes Zakir Naik wrong in that statement..I agree with him there and I disagree with him in rest of parts mentioned..

      and it would be better if we start arguing about ‘peace’ established by them in Iraq or Afghan..Please do some reading on civilian deaths before and after US and allies invaded these nations..Let us not try to fool each other..
      Maybe you need to re-read what I have written about my country India..

      “Dont curse India” Don’t put words in my mouth..Think 100 times before you utter such stuff..Don’t repeat…

      It was a good laugh on your reference to money spent by NATO in Afghan…Maybe you don’t read news regularly ,to what extent Afghan is rich in oil and minerals..What invaders are doing in throw peanuts in the name of world peace and take millions in return…

      Nuclear-powers should shut up and drown themselves in some Ocean before they criticize Iran..Once they throw away their own nuclear weapons,and then preach about anti-nuclear world and bla bla,it would make sense to me… Why aren’t you not bothered about Isreal’s nukes,as about Iran’s..Please think what you are talking about my friend…

      No offense meant Sunder,but please try to see the other side too..I agree that nobody is right,but there is always a other side…

      Good day and Peace…

        • sunder
        • June 26th, 2010

        I started my comments with a rider- my understanding…

        Well i dont support USA..but want to remain neutral…yes you said think of the other side….i definetly do..thats why i menat, if there was unity in middle east, all these things would not have happenned….

        Why arent you bothered about Israel nuke? personally i feel nobody should have nuke..but that would be a wishful thinking…

        ASk a query, does Saudi bother more Israel having a nuke or Iran having a nuke?

        Read this article

        http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/22/saudis-green-light-for-israeli-attack-on-iran/

        Hey politics is not religion? No ethics in politics….it is just power….thats the reality we have to accept…thats what to me history has taught…

    • sunder
    • June 25th, 2010

    I have left my comment incomplete..have to go now…will do later..

    To put is short…Nimmy, there is no unity in the middle east region….so dont blame US for wishing in troubled waters….

    Have you not read this news item? Saudi has given clear air space to Israel in case they decide to target Iran….

    • There s no untiy in Middle east,but how does that make US not wrong?What logic is that?

    • Sifar
    • June 25th, 2010

    Hey Sri,

    I differ on the point of how we should respond to the Nn-Muslims, that is all. Qu’ran no where tells us to terrorize the Non-Muslims.

    “16:125 Call thou (all humankind] unto thy Sustainer’s path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner- for, behold, thy Sustainer knows best as to who strays from His path, and best knows He as to who are the right-guided.”
    - The Holy Qu’ran (Surah An-Nahl) of True-Islam

    So beautiful is the Qu’ran.

    It does not say that we should terrorize the anti social shirk. Terrorism is indeed an enemy of Islam. Mohammed was a brave warrior not a terrorist any day.

    4:48 is a very beautiful line. Actually Shirk is the root cause of every sin. The moment we forget Allah, and anger or terror takes control of us. Then we have ascribed something at the status of Allah in our head. Instead of Allah, it’s anger in our head. That’s the shirk right there.

    This great example should suffice:

    Once Ali, companion of Prophet Mohammed was at war, and he got into a fight with a very dangerous criminal, he finally overcame him and sat on his chest to kill him. The opponent spat at his face. Ali at once left him. Seeing this the man was very much surprised and asked the reason. Ali said, “I was killing you for God’s sake but when you spat on my face, my sincerity was endangered because of the personal feelings of anger.” Hearing this the man immediately submitted and asked repentance to Al-God. Such was the honor and code that these men of Mohammed had, even at the crucial moments of war.

    Dear Sri,
    I don’t understand your comment clearly. Are you saying that I am contradicting myself? I could not get your point. I hope this comment clears your thoughts.

    I am not interested in asking people to believe in anything, or to believe in Islam.

    I want them to SEE Allah’s ways and to submitt to Allah. Not to Islam. The Islam-of-today is some scholar driven remnant of Prophet Mohammed’s teachings.

    The True Islam means Submission to Allah’s ever revealing Ways. All good people in the world do good only because in their innermost nature even without their own knowing, they have submitted to Allah. Then only a person can do good things.

    That letter to Naik was to get to understand that Terrorism is not a method that Muslims should take up even against Terrorists.

    That was the point.

    Cheers,
    Sifar

    • Sri
    • June 25th, 2010

    To Sifar,

    I have short time, because I have to watch football match of Spanish team and I will be very brief.

    @@@ You wrote “I differ on the point of how we should respond to the Nn-Muslims, that is all. Qu’ran no where tells us to terrorize the Non-Muslims.”

    —– Otherwise you agree that they (Non Muslims) are committing a great sin by not following Allah and his laws. Just agree. That is what you want to say and already implied.

    @@@ Verse 16:125.

    ——- Yes it is beautiful. It was reveled to Prophet when he was in Mecca. I do not think it was abrogated by any later verse, for the simple reason that it is contradicting later verses.

    Now lets see some more verses:

    2:193
    Al-Hilali: And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

    8:39 also says the same thing.

    9:005
    Al-Hilali: Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    9:29
    Al-Hilali: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Really beautiful verses! right.

    OK, I have to go now.

    • Sifar
    • June 25th, 2010

    To Sri,

    Okay so you are making fun of me eh? Who do you think you are kidding?

    Eh, Rama killed Ravana and others.
    Krishna killed Kamsa and others.
    Mohammed killed many infidels.
    Indian army has killed many idiots.
    David killed Goliath.
    They all killed their enemies in a state of Ihsan and not in a state of Terror. Do you get that point. There is a difference between terrorizing and destabilizing. Koran tells no one to rape and terrorize. Qu’ran says to invite all into the way, and fight can mean many things, verbally. Physical sense comes only in the case of self-defense or survival.

    Koran verses are ihsanic, you must spend alot of time to understand each verse, throw away all those common interpretations that those silly scholars gave you.

    See man its about Truth against Evil.
    Muslim is only a synonym for Good.
    Jesus, Moses were a good men as so a Muslim.
    All the ancient prophets of India were also Muslim.
    I am not talking about the namesake Muslim reference.
    And any good man of any land is a Muslim in it’s real sense.

    You have been confused it seems.
    Go watch the world cup. Talk to you later. Bye.

    • Sri
    • June 26th, 2010

    To Sifar,

    I personally say this: damn these figure heads Rama and Krishna. You mentioned these figures assuming I am a Hindu, after all my name suggests that. You can go with it and I have no problem. And I have no intention of giving my real identity.

    So now you have come down from moral absolutism to moral relativism. Great! I am not seeing this for the first time.

    I am not kidding, it is you who can not say or write straight.

    In your view there is Islam and true Islam. To follow Allah, Islam is not needed. You want people submit to Allah but you are not calling them to Islam. You say both are different.

    It looks like you are trying to fool the readers here. Be careful. Some Maulana might issue a fatwa on you.

    Islam means submission to the will of Allah. Islam is the only way to Allah. (Verses 3:85, 3:19)

    003.085
    YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

    003.019
    YUSUFALI: The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.

    Please, no taqiyya here.

    ***********************************************
    Following are your own statements:

    I am not interested in asking people to believe in anything, or to believe in Islam.
    I want them to SEE Allah’s ways and to submitt to Allah. Not to Islam.

    Qu’ran says to invite all into the way….

    See man its about Truth against Evil.

    ***********************************************

    I will summarize your views:

    You want every one to follow Islam oh! True Islam. You are calling every one.

    Otherwise they are anti social elements as you said clearly shirk (Disbelief and setting up partners) is clearly a great sin. Of course you also included your funny definition of shirk, but it is only to confuse the readers here.

    But you do not support violence against Non Muslims but nevertheless they are criminals. So you hold the view that every one should be brought under Islam (True Islam) with out violence. In essence in one way or other you want every one to convert to Islam and the entire world must be under Allah’s law.

    My hearty thanks to you for admitting and telling what Islam is all about.

    You are a bigot and a fanatic.

    I am not worried about you. I am more worried about passive readers if at all they ever read.

    I know absolutely that most Muslims think the way you think.

    I wonder what Nimmy says now?

  6. Hello Nimmy,

    I got your threat. Felt sorry.

    OK, it is your blog. You can moderate or stop posting my comments. It is your call. I have no problem.

    Why didn’t you quote the full explanation here? What is your intention of quoting partial explanation?

    In Sharia law, No Muslim can be killed in retaliation for killing a Non Muslim.

    See the ahadith from Sahih Bukhari:

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283:
    Narrated Abu Juhaifa:

    I asked Ali, “Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah’s Book?” ‘Ali replied, “No, by Him Who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don’t think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur’an, and we have what is written in this paper as well.” I asked, “What is written in this paper?” He replied, “(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel.”

    Read the last two lines. Now you can be proud of your Islam and practice it too. But I have taken my own decision.

    @@@ You wrote ” Start a blog of your own and keep spreading your views..this is a free world……”

    —— Thanks for the advice.

    This will be my last comment here. Have a good life, Madam.

    P.S. Quoting the half explanation is a bad habit and amounts to cheating and personally I never expected this from you.

    • Quoting the half explanation is a bad habit and amounts to cheating and personally I never expected this from you. :)

      Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings

      http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13723

      Allah says, because the son of Adam killed his brother in transgression and aggression,

      [كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِى إِسْرَءِيلَ]

      (We ordained for the Children of Israel…) meaning, We legislated for them and informed them,

      [أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى الاٌّرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]

      (that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification — such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth — will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.

      [وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا]

      (and if anyone saved a life…) by preventing its blood from being shed and believing in its sanctity, then all people will have been saved from him, so,

      [فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]

      (it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Al-A`mash and others said that Abu Salih said that Abu Hurayrah said, “I entered on `Uthman when he was under siege in his house and said, `I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!’ He said, `O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me’ I said, `No.’ He said, `If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.’ So I went back and did not fight.”’ `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, “It is as Allah has stated,

      [مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى الاٌّرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]

      (if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.” Similar was said by Mujahid;

      [وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا]

      (And if anyone saved a life…) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah’s statement,

      [فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]

      (it would be as if he killed all mankind. .) means, “Whoever kills one soul that Allah has forbidden killing, is just like he who kills all mankind.” Sa`id bin Jubayr said, “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.” In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,

      [فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]

      (it would be as if he killed all mankind,) “He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.” Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that the Ayah,

      [وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]

      (and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, “He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.”

      Next

      I have copy-pasted the whole stuff that is there on the link you gave..Now what..

      I am not bothered about you calling me cheater,as I find yourself emotionally overridden.. You are welcome to continue sharing your thoughts,as you used to do initially..

      “Why didn’t you quote the full explanation here? What is your intention of quoting partial explanation?”
      .
      .
      .
      .

      I just copy pasted the whole matter from your link,not in fear of you branding me a cheater or whatever,but to make sure that no other pass-by reader will ever doubt my intentions and works..When I say something,I say it in complete, otherwise I don’t say it..When I think I have gone wrong,i apologize in public and except for a Harshad who called me bitch and bla bla, I don’t have the habit of moderating comments ,bcoz what people say is their truth..maybe i don’t agree,but that doesn’t make them wrong..

      Same goes for me too..Just bcoz i say something,it doesn’t give anybody the right to brand me angel or demon..I can go wrong and right..

      Yes,good day and Good life to you too…

    • nik
    • June 28th, 2010

    “And it is high time he stop generalizing that all people except muslims are in wrong path”

    you want him to go against the teachings of quran? :-?

    http://islamworld.net/docs/true.html

  7. For me all these arguements abt what Koran says and what so and so said are least important We live in 21 century an era of democratic Nation States living in Capitalistic economic system with food atleast 2 times a day for most ppl,reasonable freedom to express ourselves&pray to the God we like,a much better situation for women than never before etc etc These came about not because of any religion or book but inspite of it because of countless struggles of the oppressed classes and huge scientific discoveries.All religions are progressive at the time of its origin. But after few centuries as the society develops it becomes retrogressive unless it has the ability to reform itself. The reforms will not come from clerics as they will vested interest in not reforming the religion. The force that causes the reform should come from ordinary men and women. But such a corrective force is sadly lacking in Islam.Instead cleric lead West/USA bashing seemes to be the most fashionable activity for educated Muslims. The truth is Islamic terrorists kill more innocent muslims than any other force in the World. West could easily interfere in Islamic countries because of lack of democracy and continuing feudal oligarchies. Full democratisation of Islamic countries is the only way forward. Such a democratic revolution can never be lead by clerics or faith based organisations because they are inherently undemocratic as we saw in Iran. It can come only through secular political movements as it is happening in Bangladesh and Indonesia The way forward is not by looking back at ancient scriptures or prophets but by looking forward to democratic secular equitable society.

    • olga-lednichenko-saree-blouse-lehenga
    • November 24th, 2010

    i heard rumors that ZAKIR NAIK and his followers were involved in downloading pornographic materials from the ISRAELI porn sites and that zakir naik and peace tv were involved with insurance and money scams ..

    but it seems zakir naik ‘s other rumor got clarified: he is not involved in any romantic relationship with Richard P. Mohammed.

    i don’t agree with Zakir Naik – i guess i am a jew, and he hates jews..but such rumors – if they are rumors indeed, dont help anyone either

    regards
    olga-shulman-lednichenko

  8. The historical debate at the Oxford union… watch it here: http://navedz.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/dr-zakir-naik-at-the-historic-oxford-union-debate/

    • ASHFAQUE
    • November 12th, 2011

    TO BE HONEST I LOVED READING THIS REPORT AND HATS OFF TO THE WRITER OF THIS BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF WORK FOR WRITTING THROUGLY AND ALSO FOR GETTING INTO DEPTH OF THE SITUATION THANK YOU AND MAY ALLAH BLESS YOU…

    • Pan
    • December 17th, 2012

    Finally, someone is saying the right things. Nimmy, I agree with everything you wrote. However, it’s a sad thing that I only know a few people who actually read and try to understand the Koran itself. Most people have put the duty of understanding the Koran to scholars. A lot of people really look up to Zakir, and moreover, they accept and believe whatever he says blindly, without even thinking if it’s right or logical. This is what’s happening, and somehow I predict something like ‘The Inquisition’ is gonna happen. People with their man-made laws are gonna take over and control women and all that stuff, you know. There are many things that put Muslim women in debate and contoversial issues but even women themselves let theirselves be sheeps to men, following whatever they say blindly :S I just hope sooner people will open their eyes and start thinking things like why are there such rules, why is this haraam, etc….and start to take the Koran as their only guide (and also Hadiths but I must admit that it’s hard to know which ones are reliable).

    • Sri
    • June 25th, 2010

    Hello Nimmy,

    OK, no problem with me. We talk about context and we talk logically. This is what I prefer always. The context of which verse you want? 2:217! fine by me.

    Should it be my problem that Koran is not arranged in chronological order and has no contexts written below verses?

    But I know the chronological order of Koranic chapters given by Al-Azhar University, the supreme authority in Sunni sect.

    For your information, I read the complete Koran. Now please do not tell me that I have to read it in Arabic language to say some thing on Koran. I do not memorize every thing, but I can quote about 200 important verses. Similarly I read many Hadith if not complete.

    Yes, it is true that Koran was reveled over a span of 23 years (13 years in Mecca, 610-622AD and 10 years in Medina, 622-632AD). So what? In what sense this changes the nature of what Koran teaches?

    Prophet obtained 150 followers in the first 13 years when he did not wage any war. In the next ten years he waged about 90 wars and in about 20 wars he personally led his army. Only one was truly defensive, the battle of Trenches. And in these ten years he conquered the entire Arabian peninsula.

    I will ask a simple question? How did your Prophet and his honorable companions make a living? What was their occupation?

    I suggest you to read some authentic biography (Sira) of prophet, not the ones by modern liars. It will be good if you read the Sira written by Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari or Ibn Sa’ad.

    @@@ You wrote ” Exactly where you went wrong my friend… Muslims are not walking prisms of Islam. They are ot angels sent down from heaven.They are normal persons just like you and me..”

    ——– I am really glad for this in the sense that they are not walking prisms of Islam. Otherwise we would be having more troubles.

    @@@ You wrote ” I would say “I always feel that it is good to learn about teachings of Koran from Koran it self ,with reference to context”.”

    ——– Yes, you are absolutely right and I hope you stand by your word. Now can you tell me from where you get the context? Please do not give those arguments of ‘trust me nature’ (what Nimmy says is correct and what I say is wrong) . I always write the context in all my comments, not just here, any where.

    @@@ You wrote ” If you have patience, read Quran in complete,else don’t read it at all… That makes more sense to me…”

    ——- I think you should do that, so it makes sense to me that you make some sense.

    Finally, you should be careful because you will end up denying every work of major Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir, Maududi, Bulandshahri, Suyuti, Qutb Syed and Thimayya and even Hadith and Koran finally, like some people did it before with me simply saying Koran was changed and it was not the original one.

    It looks like you are very happy with those two verses (5:32 and 5:33) I put up. It just tells me that you know nothing about Koran. And finally you have no problem with the language of 5:33? Fine.

    But if you want to know what these two verses mean, please read from the below link and next two pages from there:

    http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13723

    • Sri
    • June 26th, 2010

    I am not sure about the figures quoted by Nimmy on number of people who died because of wars started by USA.

    I feel the number is much bigger.

    But I wanted to ask this? Who is responsible for most deaths, American war machine or suicide bombers?

    In 2009, about 9,000 people (civilians) died in Pakistan because of violence unleashed by various extremist groups. Do you know how honorable interior minister responded to this? He said these terrorists are worse than infidels.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BM15820091228

    Who is really complaining on Iraq? Shia’s or Sunni’s? The whole problem in Middle East is about Sunni and Shia.

    Iranian Mullah’s completely supported the invasion of Iraq by US. They sent this clear cut message to US. It is a known fact.

    Iran even supported the war in Afghanistan and removal of Taliban. After all atrocities by Taliban on Shia population is legendary.

    Check some facts:

    Bahrain or Qatar is a shia majority population nation but the govt. is Sunni dominated.

    The place where Saudi has its massive oil reserves, here the majority of population is Shia. The discrimination and violence against Shia population by Saudi in collaboration with US is well known. It is only now that the Saudi administration has taken steps to remove the discrimination.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4313761.stm

    Interestingly not much coverage was given to this incident, the Yemeni Govt. destroying Shia mosques with tanks in collaboration with Saudi Royal family.

    http://www.islamtimes.org/vdchqmnz.23nm6d10t2.html

    http://www.indymedia-letzebuerg.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31626&Itemid=26

    Similarly, Turkey made international headlines by sending Ships to Gaza in the name of Humanitarian aid. When Israel did not allow these ships, there was massive international uproar against actions of Israel.

    But, during this entire episode the Turkey carried out horrible military campaigns against Kurds and killed about 120 people. No one said any thing on this.

    So is the case with Sudan. No Islamic country or any organization said any thing when the Govt. supported Militias created a genocide in Darfur by killing 250,000 people (UN Estimates). Arab league welcomed the president of Sudan to its meeting and hugged him and praised him.

    Actually some (I think majority) of the victims are Non Arab, African Muslims. Yet no Islamic organization said any thing on this. May be Arabs have license to kill other Muslims. Of course Koran is nothing but Arab imperialism.

    Most importantly Osama Bin Laden said clearly what is he fighting for. His ultimate aim is to make Sharia law as supreme law in this world. He openly said this. Yet Muslim apologists wanted us to believe that he is fighting for a lofty cause and US is responsible for all these.

    Then there is nothing wrong with his aim i.e. to bring the world under sharia law, but his means are wrong. This is Sifar’s view. I am not sure about Nimmy’s view.

    The pretext of so called defensive warfare plays a very important role in Islam’s grand plan. Prophet himself set an example in this by following it.

  9. Hello,I didn’t bring numbers from air,the link is given.. An your ‘feeling’ or resistance to believe it is what makes your views baised..

    Keep hating Islam,I have no issues.. I have not given any word to anybody that I will spread the message of Islam and will make people accept that Islam is truth and like..This is my blog where I write what I feel like..You are free to spread propaganda,or truth as you call it..Start a blog of your own and keep spreading your views..this is a free world..

    And lately,you ave started pointing fingers at me as a person, which I will not accommodate..I never attack or criticize people,but their opinions..If you can’t do the same,please ,or you better…

    @@@ You wrote ” I would say “I always feel that it is good to learn about teachings of Koran from Koran it self ,with reference to context”.”

    ——– Yes, you are absolutely right and I hope you stand by your word. Now can you tell me from where you get the context? Please do not give those arguments of ‘trust me nature’ (what Nimmy says is correct and what I say is wrong) .

    Madam too explained this verse in certain place here, probably an explanation by Joker Naik, for she seems to be great fan of him.

    The only difference is I use authentic Islamic sources while her explanation runs like ‘trust me’. A school yard assumption

    I you don’t like my views,why bother to waste your precious time on my blog…Please don’t misuse my free will of not moderating comments…

    p.s: What does the above comment of yours have to do with what we were talking? If you want a collection of all bad things happening in Muslim world,i can help you..I keep better track of them :)

    Good day

  10. And yes,I read the Tafsir link you gave.. Again,thanks for sharing.. Helped me understand how great Islam is…

    (if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.”

    (And if anyone saved a life…) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah’s statement,

    and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, “He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.

    All from the link you gave..Thanks…

  11. And yes,I read the Tafsir link you gave.. Again,thanks for sharing.. Helped me understand how great Islam is…

    (if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.”

    (And if anyone saved a life…) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah’s statement,

    and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, “He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.

    All from the link you gave..Thanks…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: