certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad (02 Nov 2008 NewAgeIslam.Com)



If Dr. Zakir Naik , a supporter of Osama bin Laden, calls Yazeed Rahmatullah Alaih, what about Narendra Modi and Togariya…? Asks Urdu Daily Sahafat, Delhi

 

By Aman Abbas, Daily Sahafat, Delhi

Lucknow: 31, October, 2008. May God bless Janab Ainul Hameed Ralawi, Sajjada Nasheen of Kakori Shareef! It is because of his peaceful efforts that some individuals and organizations have become active and they have been able to get their protest registered before the district administration and the latter has banned Dr. Zakir Naik’s Lucknow programme to avoid breach of peace. Before this, thanks to the efforts of Shaukat Bharti, president of Asar foundation, Dr. Naik’s Allahabad programme has also been stopped. …..

You must have heard BJP leader Mr. Advani claiming on TV channels: We don’t say that all Muslims are terrorists are Muslims, but this is also true that all terrorists are Muslims.” Such statements derive strengths from the type of statements people like Dr. Zakir Naik make. Dr. Naik openly says in his speeches freely available in English CDs: If Osama bin Laden is terrorising America, we are with him and every Muslim should be a terrorist.” This is the person who calls Yazeed, the Fasiq, Fajir and Maloon in Islamic gatherings Rahmatullah Alaih. Still some self-serving Muslims stand up in his defence…. If you can say that about some one who killed the family of Prophet Mohammad,  then what about Narendra Modi and Togariya…?  ….

We should be understand that we are living in a multi-cultural society like India, where double standards may be acceptable and can work, but Islam calls for purity of means as much as aims. …

We would like to appeal to Muslim intellectuals that they should come out and apprise our countrymen of the curious fact that this supporter of Osama bin Laden is not only travelling in the West freely on visas granted by Western countries but also receives funding freely from citizens of these countries in an atmosphere in which it has become very difficult for ordinary Muslims to get visas. ……

We would also like to appeal to intellectuals in the Muslim community that they should convince common Muslims not to invite Dr Zakir Naik and similar characters for making such speeches. It is time Muslims went in for introspection and took a determined step to lead the community in this hour of trial towards eschewing the company of such preachers of violence. …..

(Excerpts from Urdu Daily Sahafat, Delhi, Nov. 1, 2008, available on

Source: Sahafat.in

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/if-dr-zakir-naik-,-a-supporter-of-osama-bin-laden,-calls-yazeed-rahmatullah-alaih,-what-about-narendra-modi-and-togariya…?-asks-urdu-daily-sahafat,-delhi--/d/949

 




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   49


  • Dear Brother Aamir Mughal , Assalam-o-Alaikum, I salute your knowledge and skills in which you have debated with SAF RIZVI. The paras of your debate are worth studying. I don't know about the others but it really enlightened my knowledge. Whats more interesting that you proved him wrong through his reference books only and its an eye opener. It is quite evident that the rivalry between Banu Ummaiya and Banu Hasim was not much at that time as it is being showed now otherwise the marriages would not had taken place between the two.
    Whats more surprising for me that these followers of Abdullah Ibn' Sabaa by habbit of their cursing(Nauzubillah) they have reached upto the level where they now have started to curse even Allah Subhanuhu Ta'alaa'.So, its better to avoid them till they repent.
    You have explained each and every thing quite patiently and in an elaborated manner so that when he didn't find any reason to doubt you he started saying you Mr.Cut and paste as though he was saying all the things from his memory then why is he crying here he can go in any of the debates of Dr.Zakir Nayek and can challenge him. It is nothing but their usual tactics of defaming any person they even didn't spare Hazrat Hasan (Rz) when he signed the treaty with Hazrat Ameer Ma'aviya (Rz) the started calling him "AARUL-MOUMINEEN" (shame of Momins) instead of saying him "AMIRUL-MOUMINEEN" which they earlier called him.
    You have demolished their entire castle based upon TAQIYA only one brick is left which is their Imaams. Although they claim to be true Ahle B'ait (due to their relationship with Hazrate Fatmatuzzohra(Rz)but their Imaams find its out dated. Therefore they left no stone un-turned to discard their relationship with Ba'ate Nabee and established their relations with slave girls:
    1. Zainul Aabedin  S/o - Shar Banu (Irani slave)
    2. Musa Kazim S/o - Haeeda Barbariya (Slave)
    3.Ali Bin Musa Raza S/o - Taktum or Arvi(Slave)
    4.Imam Taqui S/o- Sabika or Khaizraan (Slave)
    5.Imam Ali Naqi S/o-Samana Maghrabia(Slave)
    6.Imam Hasan Askari S/o- Hadis or Saleel(Slave)
    7.Imamul Asr S/o- (Slave)
    This contradicts their entire faith because the purity of Ahle bait is lost and they are not pure as they claim. It also shows their Imams preferred even slave mushrik girls over the girls of Ahl' bait. Then how do they claim that on the day of judgement Allah Subhanuhu Ta'ala will prefer them over other umma.
    Any how brother I admire the way you have debated. May Allah enhance your knowledge as well as mine and Give the Hidaya to all...........Aameen
    By nehal - 9/11/2012 3:58:27 PM



  • Dear Mr. Ashike Rasul (Aashique Rasul), The most humbly i can say that you are nothing but a dumb. Its evident from your post that you don't even know the basics of Islam but have the guts to challenge the history of 1400 years.
    1.Do you know how to pronounce/ write Aashique Rasool?
    2. Do you know where Rahmatullah Alai. is to be used. please don't take the references from those who have been born to curse.
    3. Please give the reference of your statement as where it is mentioned that "without muhammad(SAW) and ale rasul No body can get jannat"
    4. Its surprising that on one hand you claim to be Aashique Rasool(SAW) and  on the other hand you didn't even mention  Sallallaho- Alaihe-Wasallam or SAW in short after the name of our beloved Prophet (SAW) thereby rejecting Prophet's (saw) statement and disrespecting our Prophet(SAW). Therefore you are not an Aashique Rasool rather Gustakhe Rasool or in your words Munafiq.
    By nehal - 9/11/2012 2:20:44 PM



  • Comments from Dr. Zakir Naik.


    “The Quran says it is important to crosscheck all information,” Dr Naik countered. “I would say the person who destroyed the Twin Towers in New York was a terrorist. But did Osama? I don’t know. I don’t know if he is good or bad.”

    “He has repeatedly said that Muslims should not in their prayers seek favours from the Prophet, but only from Allah himself,”

    “I don’t know why I’m being singled out,” Dr Naik told HT. “Hundreds of scholars across the world have said the same things I have.”

    “The Prophet has said, ‘If you praise someone who does not deserve praise, no matter; but if you curse someone who should not be cursed, the curse comes back to you’,” responded Dr Naik.  “Thus I preferred not to curse anyone, not even Yazid.”


    By Saeed -



  • Assalam o Alaikum to all

     I've read a bit above and was surprised to know that you all are wasting your time and arguing for one individual Dr. Zakir Naik.

    I agree that he's intelligent and a good presenter yet to me he's not the one who has sound knowledge of Sharia. We must appreciate his efforts to bring enlightenment among Hindus and christians about Islam yet his remarks about Yazeed, Osama, Sufism etc are so shameful.

    He is the one who is just propagating Wahabism and nothing else within Muslims. It is not Naik but the Saudi and Yazeedi thinking. He's getting million of dollars from Saudi Arabia to spread this division..... and it is clear that Saudis bear American Islam among Muslim world -- in other words Jewish !!!

    Naik's own sister is Shia and living abroad.

    We must have sound knowledge and educate our coming generations.

     Assalam

    Hyder


    By Hyder -



  • From: Susqueh@aol.com <Susqueh@aol.com

    Subject: The Fight over the Meaning of Islam, NewAgeIslam.Com - 18 Dec, 2008

    To: dnkashyap@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 8:18 PM

    Is this the one you wanted? In a message dated 12/21/2008 4:47:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

    dnkashyap@yahoo.com writes:

    u  and janab dr zakir adaab. This must be my 7th latter to u with no response as yet. For a man with I.Q of 800 who dares the whole man kind to question ur knowledge. It looks u have only nookish knowledge but no wisdom. So let me repeat my qs to u with a copy to my Islamic frnds as well. 1) On terrorism. u said i am a fundamentalist  follower of Islam, and each fundamental follower of Islam should be a  terrorist, elaborating it with 2 examples i.e. he should be a terrorist to all  anti social elements like a police man. my ans was not even the worst killer  rapist etc will feel terror seeing a policeman, he will have a fear y, because  he knows that the policeman can arrest him, at best can kill him in an  encounter, but will not, repeat will not kill his innocent wife, amd children.  The terror comes when u feel that he will kill innocent people. No ans.1. a) ur 2nd argument was Gandhi was a freedom fighter to us but was a terrorist to British govt. u fallowed it with another example of Mandela who won noble prize for peace was considered a terrorist by the apartheid govt of S.A. told u here also u are wrong neither British govt nor apartheid govt of S.A considered them as terrorist because they knew when in power none of them will kill brutally the innocent people (like their family) there is a world of deference between terror and fear. Look into oxford dictionary. now that I can neither visit ur site not ur channel is aired so I do not know whether u have submitted a public apology or not, some one tells me that u have revised on Gandhi and have the offender to revise it by saying that radical members of freedom fighter were considered as terrorist by British govt. if so let me remind u that even the most passionate freedom fight will attach innocent people like women, and children, he may kill a tyrant ruler. Whom u is trying to deceive with such statements u urself?2) U said where few ulammas agreed with u that qoran-a-pak prohibited a Muslim to bow before any one other then Allah, hence Muslims can not sing bande matram. It is such a preposterous statement that I should believe that that a man of ur 600 I.Q will say so. Because even I a moron can say that this statement is absurd. I am quoting 5 different thing where u/any member of Islamic faith now.1A) go to hazt ali and see for urself'2a) during urs not only they bow mazar but bow even to theholy chadder that will be put to mazar.3a)  when u entered a court of a nawab/king u bow to him.4a) when a player wins or when he is playing tycavendo he has to bow to receive his medal of honour.5a) I don’t know if u are western enough to greet ur parents, of that matter any elder with hai, hai, or with a salaam. if  u do hai hai can not argue but if say slam as any normal Muslim will do this  when u take ur hand up to touch the head, ur head will come dawn even if a  minuscule. i can quote 1 more but that will hurt ur  sentiment, and my religion prohibits me. i can not stoop to ur heights to hurt  others faith as u do by taking Jesus/Christianity apart brick by brick. I believe the faith comes from heart not from head, and if u hurt some ones faith u kill him thousand times in one life. If u recall when u said u are a fundamental fallowed of Islamic faith. I replied i am also a fundamentalist of humanity as religion. Mark the difference between faith, and religion. There can be no other religion other then humanity, rest are all faiths, the moment u convert the faith into religion then u will impose ur faith on others, that is where the fight begins. The faiths were created by man, and the basic reason to create the faith was only 1 i.e. to stand together to face the tyranny of greedy, and lustful people. Jesus didit, so did Prophet Mohammad, only their approach was different. U is scholar so u must have read allama iqbal, and he said MAZHAB NAHIN SIKHATA APUS MAY BAIR RAKHNA HINDI HAI HUM VATAN HAI HIBUSTAN HAMARA. WHILE U ARE PRECHING HATERED AT THE TOP OF UR VOICE OVER PEACE T.V i am not a lawyer and do not know if u can be prosecuted for fanning hatred to propagate ur faith. But this is a food for thought for all. i know Dr Naik will not accept my challenge, as he has  not done till now, but request the members of new Islamic age to send me their  reaction. I may be absurdly wrong but will correct my perception if u tells me where I am wrong.


    By Susqueh -



  • A systematic disinformation campaign is going on here on the web site by certain elements, who are averse to the speeches of Dr. Zakir Naik. To clear the clouds surrounding him, let me introduce that I am  notin awe of Dr. Zakir Naik nor do I approve of what all he said or doing. Yet as is required of a true Muslim, I respect this genius in Dr. Zakir Naik, who is no doubt a scholar among the scholars, a rare breed among the Muslims. The rest are just hypocrites. Ignorance about the Islamic history led many like Rizvi and others to lambast Dr. Zakir Naik for his comments on Yazid RA. No doubt majority of the critics were either shias or worshippers of graves. I for one who stand for liberal views on Islam. I feel still as a Political Scientist and Columnist myself, I see no reason to get agitated over his remarks on Yazid RA. What he said was reiteration of history and what is due to Yazid, who was sinned more than sinning.

    Perhaps, Dr. Zakir Naik has not properly explained his points of view on Yazid RA or the people have not properly read his full text of speech, he purported to have delivered in Italy and elsewhere in India. To me Dr. Zakir was the second person after me to hold the same opinion of Caliph Yazid RA, as the most successful commander of the first Islamic Naval force that attacked Constantinopole (now Istanbul) which according to various Hadees, was foreseen by Prophet Mohammed PBUH and gave the tidings that whoever participate in that naval battle, he will be rewarded with a place in Jannat. Incidentally, even Imam Hussein was part of that Naval force with so many great sahabis of the time, best known being Abu Ayub Ansari RA, the host of Prophet PBUH, for he participated for he heard the same tidings from the mouth of Prophet PBUH. Such a great commander who later partook in many a battle against Kafirs in many countries, was unnecessarily maligned by the Shias to divide Islam. The type of Islam practiced by shias and their sub-sects like Khomeni of Iran, Khojas, Bohras, Memons, etc., has no sanction in Quran or Hadees. The Shia according to their moulvis, is a religion when they call "Shia mazhab jabaja". It is not tatal Islam as was preached by Prophet Mohammed PBUH. It cannot be Islam also because their prayers are diferent, they have no Imam to lead the prayers, and every thing they do has not relevance to what Sunnis, the real Muslims, practice. Naturally, the shias find Yazid RA a convenient tool to strike at Sunnis claling him drunkard, womaniser, nawozubillah and what not. It was not an attack on Yazid alone but intended on Sunnis as a whole, for they think Sunnis were responsible for the killing of Imam Hussein, in Karbala. But as a matter of fact, Imam Hussein was not killed by Sunnis as alleged but by the rebel who accompanied him to Karbala, and killed him in the skirmishes that erupted on 10th day of Moharram at Karbala. These shias under the influence of their leader Abdullah ibne Saba, created a deep fissure in the Islamic rank and file. The Ibne Saba was the same person who engineered revolt against Hazrat Usman RA and eventually killed him and installed Ali RA as the fourth Caliph. His party was responsible later for the killing of Hazrat Ali RA also and then moved to Iraq and Iran where they consolidated as Shias. This is pure history and what is wrong when Dr. Zakir Naik said the truth and called rightly Yazid RA.

    What is further wrong if Dr. Zakir Naik had said that we must seek guidance and help from Allah only. It is ordained in Quran and Hadees. One day a group of Sahabis went to Prophet Mohammed PBUH and asked him as to how to ask help from God; whether by shouting aloud or by murmur? Then a message (Wahi) came from Allah and the Arch-Angel Gabriel recited this: "Wa Iza Salaka Ibadi anni, faanni khareeb, mujibu dawatadai falyestajibu li" meaning, Tell my believer who ask about me that I am (Allah) very near to them and I hear whatever they say how ever they". This puts an end to it that one must ask for help only from Allah and no one else. But it is a different matter of visiting the graves of sufi saints which is not totally prohibited in Islam but asking help from them is wrong. That is why these friends of Allah can be visited and prayed and there is nothing wrong in it. The Wahhabis do not approve such visits for they fear that innocent people may make it a place of worship and started asking for help from them. This is what exactly the Wahhabis wanted to convey and Dr. Zakir Naik said this exactly. There is nothing wrong in it. I go and visit the Wali Allah and sit at their graves and pray. I respect those saints and sufis of Islam for they were the friends of Allah and they are truly alive in their graves. How they are alive and how they are fed it is not within our knowledge but Allah. Certain things which cannot understand must leave it untouched to Allah. Neither Zakir Naik was wrong nor Iam wrong nor Wahhabis are wrong as long as they do not harm the religion. This is the stern message I wish to convey to one and all.


    By A.M.Jamsheed Basha, Chennai, India. -



  • Assalam Alaikum
    see, we should try to speak jamsheed Basha rahmatullah alaih and also with Zakir

    Rahmatullah Alai.
    Because both are more genius than whole history of Muslims And Islam. After

    1400 yrs, yazid is proved radiallaallahu anhu, and great gentleman of Islamic

    history. maqasid of Zakir is Prooved.
    But I wanted to Say if munafiqin who in islam are alots but no benfit because

    without muhammad and ale rasul No body can get jannat. which knows all

    muslims in whole world, but it is matter of fact somebody always ready for

    tauhine rasul like denmark, Zakir naik, Basha, and alots of people of world

    especily muslims.
    Dua for me


    By Ashike Rasul -



  •  RE:Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    A different face of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    They are basically cheats and fraud - Part 2.

    Pakistani perpetrated Psychological Warfare in Kashmir has badly damaged legitimate political cause of Kashmiris. One wonders as to what the Brother of Hafiz Saeed [Chief of an Anti Indian Jihadi Org worked and kept active under the very nose of Pakistan Army (Coalition of the Willing under USA) from 1999-to date] was doing in the USA? How the hell he reached to the USA?

    Read..
     
    Pakistani imam may be deported

    * US judge says Muhammad Masood lied to obtain Green Card

    By Khalid Hasan

    WASHINGTON: A United States federal judge said on Thursday that the admission by a Pakistani imam that he had lied repeatedly to obtain a green card could lead to his deportation. Under a tentative deal disclosed at a hearing in which Imam Muhammad Masood changed his plea to guilty, the former prayer leader of the Islamic Centre of New England, would be spared imprisonment, but he would have to serve three years on probation and pay a $1,000 fine. US District Judge Douglas P Woodlock said that he would decide at Masood’s sentencing on May 22 whether to accept the agreement or hand down a different punishment for five federal crimes of making false statements and committing fraud in an immigration application.

    “Regardless of the sentence, Masood’s guilty plea could lead to the expulsion of the 49-year-old imam, the judge said. Before Masood was indicted last August, he faced civil immigration charges, including overstaying his visa,” reported the Boston Globe. Masood is the brother of Hafiz Saeed, founder of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. He has said that he has nothing to do with his brother, nor does he share his outlook on religion and politics. Masood came to the United States in 1987 under a special visa for exchange students and enrolled at Vanderbilt University, transferring to Boston University the following year. He became the imam of the Sharon mosque around 1998. In December 2002, Masood admitted, he falsely told authorities in an application for permanent legal residency that he returned to Pakistan from 1991 to 1993 after ending his studies. Immigrants with the kind of visa Masood had are required to return to their country for two years before they can seek a green card. Masood faces a maximum of 10 years in prison on three of the federal charges and a maximum of five years in prison on the other two charges. The plea deal calls for the dismissal of four other federal charges.

    Saturday, March 01, 2008

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C03%5C01%5Cstory_1-3-2008_pg7_17


    By Aamir Mughal -



  • RE:Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    A different face of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba,

    They are basically cheats and fraud.


    http://www.jamatuddawa.org/data1/taqreer/conference/14aug08/dpc14aug0832k.wma.


    [Ex-generals’ wisdom [Daily Dawn Editorial February 07, 2008] Read: http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/07/ed.htm

    Read about the cheat brother of the so-called Jihadi Hafiz Saeed of Jamat Dawaah.

    Pakistani imam may be deported

    * US judge says Muhammad Masood lied to obtain Green Card

    By Khalid Hasan

    WASHINGTON: A United States federal judge said on Thursday that the admission by a Pakistani imam that he had lied repeatedly to obtain a green card could lead to his deportation. Under a tentative deal disclosed at a hearing in which Imam Muhammad Masood changed his plea to guilty, the former prayer leader of the Islamic Centre of New England, would be spared imprisonment, but he would have to serve three years on probation and pay a $1,000 fine. US District Judge Douglas P Woodlock said that he would decide at Masood’s sentencing on May 22 whether to accept the agreement or hand down a different punishment for five federal crimes of making false statements and committing fraud in an immigration application. “Regardless of the sentence, Masood’s guilty plea could lead to the expulsion of the 49-year-old imam, the judge said. Before Masood was indicted last August, he faced civil immigration charges, including overstaying his visa,” reported the Boston Globe. Masood is the brother of Hafiz Saeed, founder of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. He has said that he has nothing to do with his brother, nor does he share his outlook on religion and politics.

    Masood came to the United States in 1987 under a special visa for exchange students and enrolled at Vanderbilt University, transferring to Boston University the following year. He became the imam of the Sharon mosque around 1998. In December 2002, Masood admitted, he falsely told authorities in an application for permanent legal residency that he returned to Pakistan from 1991 to 1993 after ending his studies. Immigrants with the kind of visa Masood had are required to return to their country for two years before they can seek a green card. Masood faces a maximum of 10 years in prison on three of the federal charges and a maximum of five years in prison on the other two charges. The plea deal calls for the dismissal of four other federal charges.

    Saturday, March 01, 2008

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\03\01\story_1-3-2008_pg7_17


    Taking Osama's name in vain By Syed Saleem Shahzad

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA27Df02.html

    KARACHI - Just as the mention of a book by Osama bin Laden can send it hurtling up the best-seller list, so the name of the al-Qaeda leader can be manipulated by jihadis to serve their cause.  Sales of Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by former US State Department employee William Blum rocketed from obscurity to the top 20 on Amazon's top-seller list after bin Laden praised it in a video aired on Al-Jazeera television network this month.  Similarly, the banned Pakistan-based jihadi group Laskar-e-Toiba (LeT), or Jamaatut Dawa as it is now known, unashamedly exploits bin Laden's name to gain popularity among the masses, even though the group has very strained ties with al-Qaeda, while denouncing him to win support from mentors.

    "Osama is a hero" is the motto the LeT spreads in Punjabi to draw in fresh recruits for its jihad in Indian-administered Kashmir, where it concentrates its activities.  "Osama is a deviant" is the Arabic phrase the LeT uses to solicit patronage and funds from Saudi Arabia, where Saudi-born bin Laden rejects the current leadership. The LeT, whose name means Soldiers of the Pure, is uniquely focused. On the one hand it operates against Indian rule in Kashmir, on the other it bans its members from joining the jihad in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area (against the Pakistani army) and from taking part in the Taliban-led Afghan resistance. The LeT has been blamed for a number of attacks beyond Kashmir, the most recent being in the technology hub, Bangalore. In 2000, it carried out audacious armed attacks inside the Red Fort in Delhi.

    The LeT apparently does not want to dilute its goal, described in a pamphlet titled "Why Are We Waging Jihad?" as the restoration of Islamic rule in India, by waging jihad anywhere else.

    Ratting on al-Qaeda

    Soon after September 11, 2001, a top al-Qaeda operator, Abu Zubaida, came to Pakistan and handed over a sum of money to Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, then chief of the LeT and now head of the Jamaatut Dawam, into which the LeT evolved after being banned, along with other Islamic groups, in January 2002 under US pressure.  According to sources in the LeT, the amount of money was US$100,000, which was to be used to take care of Arab jihadis and their families displaced from Afghanistan by the US-led invasion of 2001.  The LeT was the only organization in Pakistan the Arabs from Afghanistan would deal with. There were a number of reasons for this, apart from both having Salafi backgrounds, the most important being ties established during the Afghan resistance against the Soviets in the 1980s.  So the LeT organized temporary housing for many Arab families after the fall of Kabul and Kandahar. The next step was to arrange forged travel documents and air tickets.  But Hafiz, and the money, were not forthcoming. Abu Zubaida, who was living in a safe house of the LeT in Faisalabad, traveled to Lahore to speak to Hafiz, who complained he did not have enough money to help the Arabs.

    Abu Zubaida was incensed, and returned to his safe house. A few days later the house was raided and he was arrested.  These events are part of jihadi folklore. However, what is new is added by a source who left the Pakistani army to join the LeT, with which he soon became disillusioned and left for Africa to become a businessman. "Abu Jabran was the chief bodyguard of Abu Zubaida. He was also arrested along with Abu Zubaida. The logical conclusion is that he should be in Camp X-Ray," the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the source said. "But he is serving as the personal adviser to the No 1 man in the Laskar-e-Toiba, Zakiur Rehman," the commander-in-chief of the LeT in Indian-administered Kashmir.  Asia Times Online inquiries indicate that Abu Jabran was freed by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation eight days after being arrested with Abu Zubaida. As soon as he was released, he was elevated as adviser to Zakiur Rehman. Abu Jabran is known in the internal circles of the LeT as Janab Jabran Chaca.

    Damage to al-Qaeda

    Since al-Qaeda was structured on vertical lines at the time of the arrest of Abu Zubaida (it is now set up horizontally), his apprehension was followed by the capture of a number of al-Qaeda operatives, including Yasir al-Jazeri, who was chief of financial matters.  And they all blamed it on Hafiz for his initial betrayal. According to a Guantanamo returnee, many inmates include loud qanoots (in essence bad prayers) against Hafiz, calling for his death.

    Double-faced


    After September 11, the LeT was in a bind. It wanted to recruit fresh blood, but this was impossible without invoking bin Laden's name. And it wanted to retain its pro-establishment ties without upsetting its mentors in Islamabad and Riyadh.  On the death of King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz last year, the Jamaatut Dawa published an article on its website in praise of the Saudi king. And since Saudi rulers were demanding that their friends denounce bin Laden, Hafiz did so.  Last year, for instance, he wrote an article in an Arabic magazine in which he described bin Laden and al-Qaeda as khwarij (away from mainstream Islam, or those extremists who do not make a distinction between a minor and a major sin and deal with sinners as infidels). Hafiz chose Arabic so as not to upset his members still enamored with al-Qaeda and the concept of worldwide jihad.  At the same time, the LeT - or Jamaatut Dawa to be precise - is teaching a distorted version of Islam. Many Koranic verses concerning jihad have been deleted from the books its members use, with emphasis placed on following the ameer (chief).  The aim is to prevent members joining the fighters in South and North Waziristan and Afghanistan, where the pull grows stronger by the day.  Asia Times Online contacts claim that in the past few months hundreds of people have broken their ties with the LeT and headed for Waziristan, which is once again a powerful hub of the Afghan resistance movement.  The battle for the hearts and minds of potential jihadis is truly on, with twisted ideologies and contradictory, tortuous positions a part of the process, with a little help from the Osama bin Laden brand name. 


    By Aamir Mughal -



  • Naik has not only called Yazid Rahmatullah Alaih, in a subsequent address in Italy he has called him a ‘Jannati’ and has challenged anyone to debate with him on the subject.

    His praise of Osama Bin Laden is not out of context as somebody has pointed out. He has glorified Osama on many different occasions while answering questions from his audience.

    Naik also has the following beliefs:

    1.     Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is dead. It is ‘Haraam’ to ask him for anything.

    2.     Recitation of Quran for Eisal Sawaab of Marhumeen (the dead ones) is a Bidat (Innovation).

    3.     The event of Karbala was a ‘political war’

    4.     He has his own translation of Ayah 2/154 in Surah Al-Baqarah saying – “And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, "They are dead." Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not” …. Which according to Naik means that those who have died in the way of Allah are dead and will be resurrected in the hereafter and then rewarded?

    After glorifying Yazid and Osama, belittling the status of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and calling Karbala a political war, Naik has gone on to misinterpret the Quran and Hadees to suit his self-professed fabricated beliefs. His Fitna appears to be a part of a bigger conspiracy against Islam aimed at dividing the Muslims and creating chaos and confusion. It should be checked where he is getting his funds from for running his Peace TV. To me, he appears to be financed by the Wahabi Sect which perpetrates violence in the name of religion and in the form of Osama brand of Islam.

    Fatwa against Naik

    At a press conference held in Lucknow on November 5, 2008 and attended by a number of Muftis and Maulanas from across the state, Lucknow’s Shahar Qazi Mufti Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali has described Naik as a Kafir (agnostic) in his fatwa, which states he should be ex-communicated from Islam.


    By Ibadus Salam Khan -



  •  

    Mr. Fayaz,

     

    Are you simply stupid or demented? Or doing PR work for the terrorists of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba? In fact, if my memory is serving me right you once advised the Editor of this website Mr Sultan Shahin to join Lashkar-e-Tayyaba; so one should assume that you yourself have already done so and maybe even work for them. Why else would you be looking for recruits for them and spreading canards like 2, 50, 000 Kashmiris having been killed by Indian security forces. Maybe as a Kashmiri you know better. But I live in the midst of Kashmiris too and have never come across this figure. No Kashmiri says that, except that maybe the Punjabi Lashkar-e-Tayyaba people say that in their bid to brainwash our young people.

     

    You castigate Mr Sultan Shahin for using an honorific like Hazrat for Sri Ram and Sri Krishna. I must say I was also stunned for a moment when I came across this usage for the first time. It was certainly very bold on the part of Mr. Shahin to do so. But then it became clear to me after a moment of deliberation that he was simply trying to make a point by doing so. If we Muslims do truly believe in respecting all prophets equally, and we have no choice in the matter as the Holy Quran itself asks us to do so, then why should we not use the same honorific for all prophets?

     

    But apparently it is too much for people like you, Fayaz to accept this. No wonder communal relations in India are so bad. Many Muslims consider Hindus beneath contempt, though they don't generally express their contempt as openly and as brazenly as you are doing by denigrating the editor of this website for using a honorific for Sri Ram. But then come to think of it we use Hazrat for the most illiterate and ignorant of mullah and maulvis. Not just Hazrat, indeed we use even Maulana, a term that should really be used only for God, because it means My Lord. It would not be unusual to hear even the most ignorant mullahs being addressed as Hazrat Maulana. I suppose one is not elevating Sri Ram too highly by calling him Hazrat. You may not know this, of course, but Allama Iqbal Rahmatullillah caled Sri Ram “Imam-e-Hind". And Sri Krishna, of course, is, as I understand, even more highly esteemed by our Hindu sisters and brothers than Sri Ram. And how come you also have a problem with the term Mahatma Budha?

     

    As for Kashmiris and Indian security forces, I must add that, while there is no justifying atrocities on innocent populace by any army, we should remember that all security forces in the world behave more or less the same way. Best is to try and not invite them. If there was rigging of elections in Kashmir, Kashmiris could have taken the constitutional route of fighting that with the help of other political groups or human rights groups, etc. in India. There are plenty of them and they do quite creditable work. If you pick up the gun you are inevitably inviting the wrath of armed forces on you.

     

    Your Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Fayaz belongs to Pakistan. Do you remember what Pakistan did to East Pakistanis who had not even picked up any gun; they were simply demanding that the results of a free and fair elections organised by the Pakistan Army be implemented. What did the Pakistan Army do? Killed between one and three million people, its own citizens and co-religionists. All Muslims. Figures of rapes too run into millions. The killing was targeted; mostly educated Bengalis got killed selectively from university and college campuses and hostels, etc.

     

    It's a good thing, Fayaz, your parents did not migrate to Pakistan. You might have then known what the Pakistan security forces did to Muhajirs in Karachi. And, of course, the less we talk about what they did to Baluchis the better. This is not at all to defend what the security forces do. No sane person would do that. Not least a woman. But this is what they do. Better not invite them in the first place. However your figure of 2, 50, 000 Kashmiris killed is simply outrageous. Only Lashkar-e-Tayyaba manuals must be using that to indoctrinate Muslim youth and send them to Hell.

     

    It’s a good thing also – you seem quite lucky in a way – that Indian intelligence people don’t monitor newspapers or websites like this one. If they did, they might have had a question or two for you to answer.

     

    One last point! I have been wondering for some time and discussing among friends why the editor of this website never responds to your calumnies, though you seem to address him and him alone, no matter who writes what on the site, and in the most disgraceful way imaginable. The consensus is that he probably believes in the adage “ Jawabe Jahilan bashad khamoshi.” But a thought crossed my mind today: he probably also thinks “Jawabe Pagalan bashad khamoshi”. Be that as it may we are lucky to have a website on which there is hardly any monitoring and readers are free to read articles on subjects that interest us Muslims, particularly of the South Asian sub-continent, and comment freely. But let us not abuse this process.

     

    A note for the Editor: Maybe I am contradicting myself here, but I suppose a certain amount of abuse is inherent in any freedom. So please don’t take away this freedom on account of Jahilan and Pagalan like Fayyaz. I particularly value the freedom to compose the way one would like and it’s quite funny to see some people express their anger or angst in the way they compose their comments. No other website I know gives this facility.

     

    Nazuk Naqshbandi


    By Nazuk Naqshbandi -



  • Comment publish Indianmuslimblog Syed Hasibur Rahman Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
    —-Syed Md Asadullah —
    You have quoted Dr Zakir Naik out of Context. I think you have not watched  his videos fully. You would have 
    watched some clip or small part of video  on youtube intentionally by his criticizers.
    ——“If Osama is terrorizing America, we are with him; all Muslims should  be terrorists,”—-
    You should also type what he said before and after this line. I can only laugh  at you.
    As far as what he said about Yazid, i am not interested in that … but one  thing i cannot understand …. Dr Zakir naik is 
    doing a great job… but he is
    also a human being … he can do mistakes … a person who has done all  goods just does one mistake … and you all are 
    after him … forgetting the  goods he did and is doing.
    You have horribly quoted him out of context.
    And also to MR ME AGAIN … Dr Zakir is not a propaganda master. If you  wish i can discuss this with you on our 
    personal mails.
    Why are you not publish my comment editor sb
    about Syed Hasibur Rahman
    you are asking email id Mr Me Again
    Syed Hasibur Rahman sb what you understand only you know Islam And  Quran
    who understant so who is great jahil
    wassalam
    By Syed Md Asadullah -



  • Here are some of the views on Yazeed but there is a near unanaminy that Yazeed was drunkard. loved the world vices of woman and boys. was a pedophile, never prayed and was a symbol of monstoristy.  Still  the ignorant Zalir Naik calls him RA,  All sects of Muslims should excommunocate him and I am surprised that he is called  scholar.  he is the most illiterate man who incidentally wears the garb of klnowledge.

     

     

     

     

    On Cursing Yazid Bin Muwaiya

    Q. What is the Ahlus Sunnah position on Yazeed bin Mu’awiyah and the act of cursing him?

    A. There is a difference between a minority of the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, some said it is

    impermissible to curse him, while others, particularly those connected with taswwuf, were of the

    opinion that he was cursed and a tyrant. People of tasawwuf prefer the later. The following are

    some of the opinions of the scholars who held Yazeed bin Mu’awiya in contempt.

    1. Hafiz Ibn Kathir’s comments on Yazeed:

    Ibn Kathir himself writes in the famous ‘Al Bidayah’:

    ‘Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to kept the company of

    boys with no facial hair [civil _expression for paedophilia boys, a form of homosexuality], played

    drums, kept dogs [civil _expression for bestiality], not a day would go by when he was not in a

    drunken state.’

    2. Ibn Katheer in Al Bidayah Volume 8 page 222 stated:

    ‘Muslim was ordered to ransack Medina for three days. Yazeed committed a major sin. Sahaba

    and their children were slaughtered openly; other heinous acts were also perpetuated. We have

    already mentioned that he had Ibn Ziyad kill the grandson of Rasulullah (s) Husayn and his

    companions. In those three days in Madina, it is difficult to mention the type of acts that were

    carried out. By doing this act Yazeed wanted to secure his governance, in the same way Allah

    (swt) broke the neck of every Pharoah, the true King (swt) also broke the neck of Yazeed.’

    3. One who attacks Medina is cursed

    We read in al Bidaya Volume 8 page 223: ‘Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and

    frightened the residents of Medina, the curse (la’nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is

    on such a person’

    4. Ibn Atheer’s comments on Yazeed

    In Tareekh al Kamil Volume 3 page 450 Ibn Atheer narrates from Munzir bin Zabeer: ‘Verily

    Yazeed rewarded me with 100,000 dirhams but this cannot stop me from highlighting his state,

    By Allah he is a drunkard…’

    5. Ibn Atheer’s comments on Yazeed

    In ‘Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’ Volume 4 pages 37-38, Dhahabi narrates: ‘Ziyad Hurshee narrates

    ‘Yazeed gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like that before and I enquired

    where he had obtained its ingredients’. Yazeed replied ‘it is made of sweet pomegranate, honey

    from Isfahan, sugar from Hawaz and grapes from Burdah…Yazeed indulged in alcohol and

    would participate in actions that opposed the dictates set by Allah (swt).’

    6. Ibn Jauzi’s comments on Yazeed ‘the drunkard’

    Ibn Jauzi in Wafa al-Wafa: ‘Yazeed appointed his cousin Uthman bin Muhammad bin Abu

    Sufyan as Governor of Madina. He sent a delegation to visit Yazeed who bore gifts so that they

    might take the oath of allegiance to him. Upon their return they said ‘We have returned having

    visited a man who has no religion, he drinks, plays instruments, keeps the company of singers

    and dogs [civil word for bestiality], we declare that we have broken our allegiance to him.

    Abdullah bin Abi Umro bin Hafs Mukhzumee commented ‘Yazeed gave me gifts. But the reality

    is this man is an enemy of Allah (SWT) and a drunkard. I shall separate myself from him in the

    same way that I remove my turban [from my head]….’

    7. Ibn Hajr’s comments on Yazeed

    In Sawaiqh al Muhriqa: ‘One group have deemed Yazeed to be a kaafir, another has stated he was

    a Muslim but a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that commits debauchery) and a drunkard. There

    is consensus over his fisq (transgression). One party of Ulema have stated that you can curse him

    by name, this includes individuals such as Ibn Jauzi and Ahmad. One group made up of

    individuals such as Ibn Jauzi deem Yazeed a kaafir, others say he was not a kaafir but rather this

    is a matter that has caused a difference of opinion.

    The majority of Ahl’ul Sunnah all agree that he was a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that

    commits debauchery) and a drunkard. Waqidi had recorded a narration ‘Verily we opposed

    Yazeed fearing Allah (swt) would reign stones down on us, Yazeed considered nikah (marriage)

    with mothers and sisters to be permissible and drank alcohol.’

    ‘Dhahabi narrates that when Abdullah bin Kuzai returned from Damascus he stated that Yazeed

    performs zina with his mother, sister and daughters. We had better start a movement to oppose

    Yazeed otherwise stones may reign down on us’

    This is one reason why Ibn Hajar al Makki calls Yazeed one of the most debased men in history.

    8. Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz’s comments on Yazeed

    In ‘Sirush Shahadhathayn’, Shah Abdul Aziz, the great Muhadith states: ‘Imam Husayn did not

    give baiah to Yazeed because he was a drunkard, a fasiq and Dhaalim.’

    9. Ibn Taymeeya’s condemnation of unjust Yazeed

    Ibn Taymeeya in Minhajj: ‘Yazeed had the sword and hence he had the power to deal with

    anyone that opposed him. He had the power to reward his subjects with the contents of the

    treasury, and could also withhold their rights. He had the power to punish criminals; it is in this

    context that we can understand that he was the khalifah and king. Issues such as Yazeed’s piety or

    lack of it, or his honesty or lack of it, is another matter. In all of his actions Yazeed was not just,

    there is no dispute amongst the people of Islam on this matter.’

    10. The World reknown Muslim Historian Ibn Khaldun states:

    ‘Yazeed’s time of governance can be seen as fisq and debauchery, and the blame is on Mu’awiya

    who should have controlled him.’

    11. We read in Tareekh Kamil:

    ‘The narrator states ‘By Allah, Yazeed drinks alcohol and abandons Salat’

    12. We read in Tareekh Abul Fida:

    ‘Yazeed played the tambourine, drank alcohol and raised bears [civil _expression for bestiality].’

    13. Hayaath al Haywaan states:

    ‘Yazeed would hunt with cheetas, play chess and drink alcohol.’

    14. People opposed Yazeed due to his atrocious deeds

    We read in Tareekh Khamees: ‘The people of Medina broke the baiah to Yazeed on account of

    his bad acts, he used to drink alcohol’

    15. The Famous Hanifa scholar Qadi Thanaullah’s comments on Yazeed’s kufr poetry

    We read in most famous Tafseer Al- Mazhari: ‘Yazeed deemed drinking alcohol to be Halaal, and

    he recited these couplets ‘if the Deen of Ahmad deems alcohol to be haraam…’

    16. Shariat Muhammad Majid ‘Ali Shakir stated in Badh Shariat:

    ‘Some say ‘Why should we discuss such a thing since he [Yazeed] was a King and he [Husayn]

    was also a King’ - one who makes such comments {refusing to hold opinion on Yazeed and

    Husayn (R)] is accursed, a Kharijee, Nasibi and hell bound. The dispute is over whether he

    [Yazeed] was a kaafir. The madhab of Abu Hanifa stipulates that he was a fasiq and fajir, nor was

    he a kaafir nor a Muslim.’

    17. Yazeed’s attack on Harra

    We read in ‘au khanar al masalik’ that Shaykh al Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakaria stated:

    ‘The army that Yazeed had sent to Medina comprised of 60,000 horsemen and 15,000 foot

    soldiers. For three days they shed blood freely, 1000 women were raped and 700 from the

    Quraysh and Ansar were killed. Ten thousand women and children were made slaves. Muslim

    bin Uqba forced people to give bayya to Yazeed in such a manner that people were enslaved and

    Yazeed could sell them as he pleased, no Sahaba who were [with the Prophet (saws)] at

    Hudaibiya were spared.’ All the Badr Sahaba were killed in this battle.

    18. Yazeeds rejection of the Qur’an

    Citing Tadhkira, Maqathil and Shazarath al Dhabah. This is also found in the Arabic (non-

    Leiden) version of the History of Al-Tabari: When the head of Husayn (R), the grandson of the

    Holy Prophet (saws), was presented before Yazeed he recited the couplets of the kaafir Zubayri:

    ‘Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies neither was there

    any revelation’

    19. Imam Alusi In Tafseer Ruh al Maani it is stated clearly:

    ‘Allamah Alusi stated, Yazeed the impure denied the Prophethood of Rasulullah (s). The

    treatment that he meted out to the people of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet

    proves that he was a kaafir.’

    Point references:

    1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 8 page 204 Dhikr Ras al Husayn

    2. Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 249 Dkikr Yazeed

    3. Sharh Foqh Akbar page 73 Dhikr Yazeed

    4. Sharh Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21 Surah Ibrahim

    5. Shazrah al Dhahab page 69 Dhikr Shahadth Husayn

    6. Maqatahil Husayn Volume 2 page 58 Dhikr Shahdath Husayn

    7. Tadhkira Khawwas page 148

    8. Tareekh Tabari Volume 11 pages 21-23 Dhikr 284 Hijri

    9. Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani (commentary of Surah Muhammad)

    10. Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 231 narrates this hadith on the

    authority of

    20. Yazeed’s own admission that he killed the family of the Prophet (saws)

    We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar: ‘Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said ‘I avenged the

    killing of my kaafir relatives in Badr through killing the family of the Prophet.’

    21. The testimony of Shah Abdul Aziz that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain [R]

    We read in Taufa: ‘Upon the orders of Yazeed the disgraceful people from Syria and Iraq killed

    Imam Husayn.’

    22. Yazeed ordered his Governor Waleed kill Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Maqathil Husayn: ‘Yazeed wrote a letter to Waleed the Governor of Medina, in which

    he stated ‘Force Husayn to give bayya. Should he refuse then strike off his head and return it to

    me.’

    23. Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad telling him to kill Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Mutaalib al Saul that: ‘Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husayn ‘I have received information that

    you have arrived in Kerbala, and Yazeed has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his

    authority and mine.’’

    24. Ibn Ziyad’s own admission that he killed Imam Husayn on the orders of Yazeed

    We read in al Bidayah: ‘When Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad ordering him to fight Ibn Zubayr in

    Makka, he said ‘I can’t obey this fasiq. I killed the grandson of Rasulullah (sawas) upon his

    orders, I’m not now going to assault the Kaaba’.

    25. Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Tareekh Kamil: Ibn Abbas replied to a letter of Yazeed stating ‘You killed Husayn

    ibn ‘Ali as well as the youth from Banu Abdul Muttalib, who were beacons of guidance.’

    26. The testimony of Abdullah Ibn Umar that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Maqathil al Husayn: ‘Ibn Umar wrote to Yazeed, ‘Hasn’t your heart gone black yet?

    You murdered the family of the Prophet?’

    27. The testimony of Shah Abdul Haqq that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (R)

    We read in Ashiath al Lamaath: ‘It is unusual that some say Yazeed did not kill Husayn when he

    instructed Ibn Ziyad to carry out the killing.’

    28. Yazeed’s pride at killing Imam Hussain (as)

    We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 204: ‘Ibn Asakir, writing on Yazeed, states then when

    Husayn’s head was brought before Yazeed, he recited the couplets of Ibn Zubayri the kaafir ‘I

    wish my ancestors of Badr were hear to see the severed head of the rebellious tribe (The Prophet

    (saws’s tribe of Hashim).’

    Imam Jalaladun Suyuti (ra) records this tradition in Khasais al Kubra, on the authority of Sahaba

    Uns bin Harith: ‘I heard Rasulullah (sawas) say ‘Verily my son (Husayn) will be killed in a land

    called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.’

    Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125 (Maktaba Nurree Rizvi Publishers, Pakistan)

    29. Yazeeds own words noted in Sharh Fiqh Akbar:

    ‘Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said: ‘I avenged the killing of my kaafir relatives in

    Badr through killing the family of the Prophet.’

    30. The Fatwa of Allamah Baghdadi - Yazeed denied the Prophethood, to curse him is an act

    of Ibadah

    We read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani page 72 commentary of Surah Muhammad: ‘The wicked

    Yazeed failed to testify to the Prophethood of Hadhrath Muhammad (sawas). He also

    perpetrated acts against the residents of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet (sawas).

    He indulged in these acts against them during their lives and after their deaths. These acts are so

    conclusively proven that had he placed the Qur’an in his hands it would have testified to his

    kuffar. His being a fasiq and fajir did not go unnoticed by the Ulema of Islam, but the Salaf had

    no choice but to remain silent as they were living under threat.’

    31. The Fatwas of Qadhi Abu Ya’ala and Abu Husayn deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed

    Ibn Katheer in al Bidaya stated: ‘Whoever frightens Medina incurs the wrath of Allah, His Angels

    and all the people - and some Ulema have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed. This includes

    individuals such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Allamah Hilalee, Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz, Qadhi Abu

    Ya’ala and his son Qadhi Abu Husayn. Ibn Jauzi wrote a book deeming it permissible to curse

    Yazeed.’

    32. Al Suyuti personally cursed Yazeed

    In Tareekh ul Khulafa page 207, Dhikr Shahadath Husayn we read as follows:

    ‘May Allah’s curse be upon the killers of Husayn and Ibn Ziyad.’

    33. Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee deemed it permissible to curse the kaafir Yazeed

    We read in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21, under the commentary of Surah Ibrahim verse 28

    as follows: ‘The Banu Umayya were initially kaafir, then some of them presented themselves as

    Muslim. Yazeed then became a kaafir. The Banu Umayya maintained their enmity towards the

    family of the Prophet (sawas), and killed Husayn in a cruel manner. The kaafir Yazeed

    committed kufr in relation to the Deen of Muhammad (sawas) proven by the fact that at the time

    of the killing of Husayn he made a pointed reference to avenging the deaths of his kaafir

    ancestors slain in Badr. He acted against the family of Muhammad (sawas), Banu Hashim and in

    his drunken state he praised the Banu Umayya and cursed the Banu Hashim from the pulpit.’

    34. Allamah Alusi set out the viewpoint of the Shaafi Ulema on this topic as follows

    Haseeya Nabraas page 551: ‘Amongst the Shaafi’s we are in agreement that it is permissible to

    curse Yazeed


    By ZIYARIZVI -



  • Comment by Syed Fasiullah   Pak Friends 
    YEH ZAKIR NAIK EK SCHOLAR JO SIRF AUR SIRF QURAN KO PADHNE KE DOOSRE MAZAHEB KO CHALLENGE KARTE HAIN AUR ISLAM KI HAQANIYAT KO TASLEEM KARNE PAR LOGON KO MAJBOOR KARNA CHAHTE.
    YEH EK BAHUT BADA MISSION HAI, LIKIN JAB ADMI ZIADA MASHHOOR HOJATA IN MAMLAAT MEIN TU ISKA GROUP BADHJATA HAI AUR WHO APNE HOSH WA HAWAS KHO BAITHTA HAI.
    ZAKIR NAIK KOI ALIM,FAZIL,KAMIL YAA SUFI AULIA NAHI HAI JISKO MUKAMMAL SHARIAT KA SHAWOOR AUR SOHBATH ASAR RAHEGA YEH TO EK QURAN KO DOOSRE HOLY BOOKS SE COMPARE KARNE WALA SHAKS HAI ISKI HAQEEQATH ITNI HI KE WO JITNA JANTE HAIN UTNA BOLE
    By Syed Md Asadullah -



  • Message for’

    Janab Mohammad Ahmad and friend Syed Mohammad Asadullah saheb......sallamun alaikum'    

        

    Just writing to thank you both for your kind words...and also request you to join me and beseech ALLAH  swt  to reserve the harshest of punishment,  for all those,  who are dividing the world of ISLAM for their  own vested interests,  Specially the WAHABIS who propagate  their own interpretations of the Holy Quran , Hadith  and AL QAEDA brand of faith in the guise of Islam and leave no opportunity to belittle the greatness of Allah swt’s  most beloved Prophet pbuh  and his progeny. Zakir naik says wasilah is haram….and I ask this front face  of the Wahabis …That ALLAH swt  who is all powerful  and All knowing  approached his own creation,  the mankind Through (Wasilah)  one hundred and  twenty four thousand Messengers to guide the mankind…and this Wahabi Mullah  proclaims that  MAN, who is so small and timid when compared to his creator, does not need a WASILAH….May ALLAH swt’s  curse lay heavily upon all those who nurture hatred in their hearts for the progeny of the Prophet pbuh in this world as well as hereafter…may their faces be devoid of  grace and their utterances be devoid  ILM… ameen’                                 

     


    By safrizvi -



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content