"You" wrote:

Your next step in trying to refute him would have been.

He does not accept Madhabs. Big deal. It makes no difference to this situation.

As an example, Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. But hang on, he ain't Muslim. Since he does not accept Islam he is wrong in everything he does. If he ever referenced a Muslim scientist, well that is proof of his hypocrisy!

Bravo, Bravo, Ive heard many a silly comment, but you my friend, have surpassed em all. LOL, jus kiddin mate.

well, you see the thing with Dr Zakir Naik is he he says all Madhabs are sects, and Sects are Biddah. So by him citing a Hanafi fatawa, he is infact doing a biddah.

And infact the opinion of Imam e Azam Abu Hanifah, (the ultimate authority of the Hanafi Madhab, and the individual who lay down its foundations, and infact the foundations of Usul of Fiqh, which is used, but with minor changes in all sunni madhabs, ) it is best to remain silent. So Imam Abu Hanifah r.a. said remain silent. Now remaining silent does not mean you can say he is a muslim, and pray for him.

So, the fact that he does not accept Madhabs [b]IS[/b] a big deal, especially if he tries to prove himself right by using a fatwa from a madhab.

Personally I would have a lot more respect for him if he said he made a mistake, and apoligised to all those who were offended.

and You, You still havent told me how I was trying to character assasinate!!!

"razor" wrote:

and You, You still havent told me how I was trying to character assasinate!!!

Quote:

So by him citing a Hanafi fatawa, he is infact doing a biddah.

I rest my case.

Quote:

So, the fact that he does not accept Madhabs [b]IS[/b] a big deal, especially if he tries to prove himself right by using a fatwa from a madhab.

He is using the ruling from someone who follows a madhab, not a madhab itself.

You do not like the guy and this this is an adequate excuse to have a go at him. Just admit it.

You can laugh at my argument all you want, but it using the same thought process as yours. It is just little more extreme to show the flaws.

"You" wrote:

"razor" wrote:

and You, You still havent told me how I was trying to character assasinate!!!

Quote:

So by him citing a Hanafi fatawa, he is infact doing a biddah.

I rest my case.

Quote:

So, the fact that he does not accept Madhabs [b]IS[/b] a big deal, especially if he tries to prove himself right by using a fatwa from a madhab.

He is using the ruling from someone who follows a madhab, not a madhab itself.

I am basically presenting facts. A real biddah, is a biddah for everyone, n the rules of it cannot be changed around for when it suits you best. So by the good Dr. calling Madhabs biddah, yet citing from one himself, means he is following the madhab.

From Wikipedia - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination]Link[/url]

Quote:

Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, [b]it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person[/b].

I have not manipulated or exaggerated facts, I have linked everything, staraight from the horses mouth as they say.

My aim is to make people aware that he is not a scholor of Islam in the traditional sense, rather he is a scholor of comparitve religion. So we should not ask him questions of a nature other than comparitive religion.

"You" wrote:

You do not like the guy and this this is an adequate excuse to have a go at him. Just admit it.

I am quiet fond of some of his lectures, I think he is brilliant at debating comparitive religion. But in listening to his lectures, I have seen him make some mistakes, these misrakes are made only when he tries to go into fields of islamic sciences such as Fiqh, usul, aqeedah etc.

so by typing here, I hope people will see him as a comparitive religion debator, and stop the common misconception of thinking he is an Aalim.

"razor" wrote:

So by the good Dr. calling Madhabs biddah, yet citing from one himself, means he is following the madhab.

No it does not.

Do you even know what following a madhab is? You are getting the basic definition wrong.

"You" wrote:

"razor" wrote:

So by the good Dr. calling Madhabs biddah, yet citing from one himself, means he is following the madhab.

No it does not.

Do you even know what following a madhab is? You are getting the basic definition wrong.

Sorry I didnt explain that correct, n that comment of mine is incorrect.

What i meant, I will exlain as such.

Dr.Zakir Naik, and others who see Madhabs as Biddahs and sects, their problem is not personal with the scholors of those madhabs, but rather the idea of following an usul which somebody has set out. The reason behind this are various, for example Madhabs allow for Qiyas, to an extent etc.

Now, those who object to Madhabs, and taqlid of them, they derive rulings in various ways, either they will interpret for themselves from Quran and Ahadith, which is very dangerous unless the various sciences of understanding the different subjects within the scriptures are mastered.

Or they will use works of scholors and books of fatawa such as Al-Fiqh al islamiya, Fiqh us sunnah etc, hence effectivly normally being Muqallid, but just not to one of the 4 widely accepted schools of Fiqh.

Now Dr Zakir Naik, has many times called Taqlid a Biddah, and has called the 4 sunni Madhabs sects, he does so in the clips which I linked earlier. So, for him to cite/mention a fatwa, from a school such as Darul Uloom Deoband, who follow the Hanafi Madhab, is in itself contradictory to what he has said many a time.

Now "Admin" aka "You", stop chattin bubbles n take defeat like a man.

I hope u understand now, how Dr Zakir Naik's comments are kinda contradictory.

But the Main point of this thread was to make people aware of Dr Zakir Naik's view on Yazeed

Following a madhab, or "Taqleed" is accepting something [b]without[/b] asking for evidence from the qur'an and sunnah.

Now lets Take scholar "A". He makes a fatwa. Person "B" does not look into the matter himself and trusts Person A to have looked at the Qur'an and Sunnah to derive his fatwa. He accepts it.

Person "C" on the other hand either does not know much about Person "A", or does not accept fatwa's without looking at the proof. He asks for proof. Person "A" provides it. Person "C" accepts the proof.

Now, persons B and C both accept the same ruling by the same person. However, one is doing taqleed, the other is not.

In this example, Dr Naik would be like Person C. This does not make his actions hypocritical. (and that is what you are accusing him of - hypocrisy.)

(as an aside, you cannot do taqleed on matters of Aqeedah - that is shirk.)

glad to hear that people are coming back to the track. Thank you for your understanding