SalafiTalk.Net » Affairs of Manhaj
» Shaikh Yahyaa's reply to 30 Questions on Zakir Naik
Search ===>

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9 • Part 10 • Part 11 • Part 12

   Reply to this Discussion Start new discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Topic: Shaikh Yahyaa's reply to 30 Questions on Zakir Naik

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

01-03-2007 @ 3:35 AM    Notify Admin about this post
unspecified Aqeel ibn Leonard Walker (USA)
Posts: 97
Joined: Oct 2002
The Reply to Thirty Questions
Confirming that Zakir the Indian and People of His Ideology are Misguided Deviants

(Answered by Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree ?
may Allaah preserve him)

Translated by Aqeel Walker

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Merciful, the Giver of Mercy

All praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of all that exists. To proceed:

These are some of the well-known, published statements of the one who is called Zakir Naik, the Indian ? may Allaah guide him ? which we are presenting to the Shaikh, the ?Allaamah, Abee ?Abdir-Rahmaan Yahyaa bin ?Alee Al-Hajooree Al-Yamaanee, for him to answer. And they are as follows:

The first question: Zakir Naik says, ?You can call Allaah with any name at all, however it must be a name that is good and beautiful.?

[Translator's note: This is my translation of the Arabic question. Please refer to the original statement of Zakir Naik, as it may not be exactly as I have translated it from Arabic but it has the same meaning. The brothers who are familiar with this man's deviance most likely know the exact quote.]

The response of the Shaikh, may Allaah bless him:

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Merciful, the Giver of Mercy. All praise is due to Allaah. We praise Him, we seek His help, we seek His forgiveness, and we seek refuge with Him from the evils of our own selves, and our own wicked deeds. Whoever Allaah guides, there is none who can misguide him, and whoever He leads astray, there is none who can guide him. And I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah alone, who has no partner, and I testify that Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger ? may prayers of blessing and peace be upon him, and upon his family, in great abundance. Thus to proceed:

So this statement, which contains in it a permission for every person that he may name Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, with what Allaah did not name Himself; this contains a cruel mistreatment of Allaah, Glory be unto Him, the Most High, and it contains fabrication of a lie against Allaah, Glory be unto Him, the Most High. And it is a statement of falsehood that is not based upon anything from the Book (Al-Qur?aan), the Sunnah, or any consensus (Ijmaa?). And indeed I have already refuted the Sufi, ?Umar bin Hafeedh in one of his statements that is similar to this statement, and that he would supplicate to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, with names that were not confirmed (for Allaah). And here is the refutation so that we do not have to repeat what has been mentioned of evidences, and it is the refutation against this Zakir person (as well):

The Sufi ?Umar bin Hafeedh said in his book ?Khulaasat ul-Madad in-Nabawee fee Awraad Aali Baa?lawee?, pg 39, under the topic heading ?Ad-Du?aa bi Asmaa?illaah il-Husnaa yaa Muqsit, yaa Naafi?, yaa Jaami?.?

The reply of Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa (hafidhahullaahu ta?aalaa):

Allaah, the Most High, says: ?And unto Allaah belong the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him with them.? (Al-A?raaf:180)

So how can he call upon Allaah with names that are not confirmed for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, like his saying, ?O Naafi?,? etc.? And how can he name Allaah with that which Allaah has not named Himself, nor did His Messenger (sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) call Him by these names. This is from the matter of speaking about Allaah without knowledge. And if we wanted to call ?Umar bin Hafeedh by a name other than his name, he would not be pleased with that, and he would consider it mistreating him by us calling him by other than his name. So how can this person not be pleased with this for himself, yet he is pleased with that treatment for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic?! And he, with this deed of his, has opposed the evidences, and the consensus of the Ummah (Muslim nation).

Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi?ee (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said: ?Allaah, the Most High, has Names and Attributes, which His Book (the Qur?aan) has come with, and His Prophet (sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) has informed of. There is no room for anyone from the creatures of Allaah, the Most High, whom the proof has been established upon him, to refute (or deny) them.? (Thamm ut-Ta?weel, pg. 121)

And Al-Imaam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said about the Attributes: ?And they are not known except by what Allaah described Himself with. So He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. And those who describe him do not reach the full extent of his Attribute, and one is not to go beyond the Qur?aan and the Hadeeth (in describing Him). So we say just as He (Allaah) said, and we describe Him with what He used to describe Himself, and one is not to go beyond the Qur?aan.? (Al-Masaa?il war-Rasaa?il fil-?Aqeedah, by Al-Imaam Ahmad, 1/277, and Ijtimaa? ul-Juyoosh il-Islaamiyyah, pg. 83, and Al-Fataawaa, 5/26.)

And the Imaam of the Imaams, Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaaq said: ?So we, and all of the Salaf, from the people of the Hijaaz, and Tihaamah, and Al-Yemen, and Al-?Iraaq, and Ash-Shaam, and Misr (Egypt), our Math-hab (way) is that we affirm for Allaah what he affirmed for Himself.? (At-Tawheed, by Ibn Khuzaymah, 1/26)

And Al-Imaam Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ismaa?eel, who was known as Al-Ismaa?eelee, said: ?And they believe that Allaah is called by His beautiful Names, and described by His Attributes, which His Prophet (sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) named and described Him with.? (I?tiqaad A?imati Ahlil-Hadeeth, pg. 35)

And Al-Imaam Abu Nasr ?Ubaydullaah bin Sa?eed As-Sijzee said: ?And indeed the Imaams have agreed that the Attributes should only be taken as Tawqeefiyyah (restricted to the texts) and it is not permissible that Allaah be described except with what He described Himself, or with what His Messenger (sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) described Him with.? (Ar-Radd ?alaa man Ankar al-Harf was-Sawt, pg. 121)

Al-Imaam Ibn ?Abdil-Barr said: ?Ahlus-Sunnah are unanimously agreed in confirming the Attributes that are reported in the Book (Al-Qur?aan) and the Sunnah, and believing in them according to the literal meaning, and not as figurative meanings.? (At-Tamheed, 7/145, and Al-Fataawaa, 5/87).

And Abul-Qaasim Al-Qushayree said: ?The Names are to be taken as Tawqeef (restricted) from the Book (Al-Qur?aan) and the Sunnah, and the Consensus (Ijmaa?).? (Al-Fath, 11/226)

And Abul-Hasan Al-Qaabisee said: ?The Names of Allaah, and His Attributes are not known except by the Tawqeef (restrictive texts) from the Book (Al-Qur?aan) and the Sunnah, or the Consensus (Ijmaa?), and one is not to enter into them with analogy (Qiyaas).? (Al-Fath, 11/220)

And Ibn Mundah said: ?And the Names of Allaah, and His Attributes are Tawqeefiyyah (restricted to the texts), and Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa?ah do not affirm for Allaah anything but what He affirmed for Himself in His Book (Al-Qur?aan), or what has been authenticated from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam).? (At-Tawheed, by Ibn Mundah, 2/135).

And Ibn Hazm said: ?So it is correct that it is not permissible that Allaah be named with any name except what He named Himself with.? (Al-Muhallaa, 8/31)

And Al-Imaam Al-Baghawee said: ?The Names of Allaah, the Most High, are taken as Tawqeef (restricted to the texts of the Qur?aan and the Sunnah).? (Ma?aalim ut-Tanzeel, 3/307)

And As-Safaareenee said in Lawaami? ul-Anwar:
?But they are in reality Tawqeefiyyah,   We have with this proofs that are reliable.?
(These are two lines of poetry)

Then he explained that, so he said: ?We have ? O people of the Sunnah and following the Salaf ? in considering the affirmation of Tawqeef (restriction) regarding the Names of Al-Baaree (Allaah), the Magnificent and Exalted, from the Legislator, reliable, lofty proofs, that fulfill the goal, because whatever is not confirmed from the Legislator, it should not be taken in unrestricted reliance upon it. And the basic principle (Asl) is prohibition (regarding issues of belief) until a proof of allowance is established. So if it is confirmed, then it is Tawqeefee (within the restriction of the texts).? (Lawaami? ul-Anwar, 1/124-125)

And Shaikh ul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said: ?And the conglomerate of statements regarding the affirmation of the Attributes is the statement that the Salaf of the Ummah were upon and its Imaams, and it is that Allaah is described by what He described Himself with, and by what His Messenger described Him with. And that is to be safeguarded from At-Tahreef (distortion of meaning), At-Tamtheel (likening with the creation), At-Takyeef (describing how they are), and At-Ta?teel (denial of them). ?There is nothing like Him.? (Ash-Shooraa:11) These (At-Tahreef, At-Tamtheel, At-Takyeef, and At-Ta?teel) are not to be applied to His Self, His Attributes, nor to His Actions.? This concludes what was wanted of his statement. (Majmoo? ul-Fataawaa, 6/515)

And his student, Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said in the principles that he mentioned regarding the Attributes of Allaah: ?The seventh is that whatever is used to refer to Him, and regarding the matter of the Names and Attributes, then this is Tawqeefee (restricted to the texts of the Qur?aan and the Sunnah).? (Badaa?i?ul-Fawaa?id, 1/162)

Based upon this, it is not permissible to affirm a name of Allaah, nor any attribute for Him, without an authentic proof conveyed from a textual evidence (i.e. the Qur?aan or authentic hadeeths). This is due to Allaah, the Most High?s, statement: ?And unto Allaah belong the most beautiful Names, so call upon Him with them. And leave off those who deviate regarding His Names. They will be punished for what they used to do.? (Al-A?raaf:180)

And affirming Attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, without an authentic evidence to support it, is considered speaking about Allaah without knowledge. And indeed Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, mentioned speaking about Allaah without knowledge along with the major Shirk (associating partners with Allaah). So He, the Most High, said: ?Say (O Muhammad): ?(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are Al-Fawhish (great evil sins, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, etc.), whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allh for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allh of which you have no knowledge.?? (Al-A?raaf:33)

And Allaah, the Most High, said: ?And follow not (O man i.e., say not, or do not, or witness not, etc.) that of which you have no knowledge (e.g. one?s saying: ?I have seen,? while in fact he has not seen, or ?I have heard,? while he has not heard). Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allh).? (Al-Israa:36)

And the Prophet (sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) used to say, ?I seek refuge with You, from You. I cannot enumerate the praises upon You. You are just as You have praised Yourself.?

This is the conclusion of the first question posed to Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree regarding Zakir Naik.
Translated by Aqeel Walker, 2/28/07

27-03-2007 @ 6:50 AM    Notify Admin about this post
unspecified Aqeel ibn Leonard Walker (USA)
Posts: 97
Joined: Oct 2002
Questions 2 and 3 to Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree regarding Zakir Naik

The Second Question: Zakir says, ?Zoroastrianism is a non-semetic, Aryan, non vedic religion, which is not associated with Hinduism and it?s a Prophetic religion. It (Zoroastrianism) is also called as Persianism and it was founded by the Prophet

The Shaykh (may Allaah preserve him) said: This statement is false. For indeed Zoroastrianism is from the religions of atheism, and the matter of him (Zakir) affirming that this religion is Prophetic and attributing it to a Prophet from the Prophets, this does not prove that it is correct. So let?s assume it as a given that some people attribute that (religion) to a Prophet ? according to what they say ? then indeed what the Messenger of Allaah came with abrogates all of what the rest of the Prophets came with, regardless of whether those Prophets were ones whose names were known, or those whose names are unknown. Allaah, the Most High, said: ?Of some of them We have related to you their story and of some We have not related to you their story.? (Ghaafir:78)

And what was sufficient for this man and those like him is the statement of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, ?And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (this Qur'n) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Muhayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way.? (Al-Maa?idah:48)

And the statement of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, ?And so judge (you O Muhammad) between them by what Allh has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad) far away from some of that which Allh has sent down to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allh?s Will is to punish them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Fsiqn (rebellious and disobedient to Allh). Do they then seek the judgment of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgment than Allh for a people who have firm Faith.? (Al-Maa?idah:49-50)

And it would also have been sufficient for him the statement of Allaah, glory be unto Him the Most High, in His Noble Book, ?Then We have put you (O Muhammad) on a plain way of (Our) commandment. So follow that (Islmic Monotheism and its laws), and follow not the desires of those who know not. Verily, they can avail you nothing against Allh (if He wants to punish you). Verily, the Dhlimn (polytheists, wrong-doers, etc.) are Auliy' (protectors, helpers, etc.) to one another, but Allh is the Wal (Helper, Protector, etc.) of the Muttaqn (pious).? (Al-Jaathiyah:18-19)

The Third Question: Zakir says, ?Sikhism strictly believes in monotheism, and Almighty God??

Our Shaykh said: This statement contains one of two matters, or it contains both of two matters: So Sikhism, their religion is known, and it is known that they worship everything that walks or crawls. So even the vagina and the penis are from the greatest of their objects of worship, as well as the trees and cows. They also have numerous statements of disbelief. No man will disagree with another man who can see regarding the disbelief of the Sikhs, and that they are polytheists and idolaters. And Allaah, glory be unto Him the Most High, says in His Noble Book, ?And whosoever disbelieves in the Faith (i.e. Oneness of Allh and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allh's), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al-Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.? (Al-Maa?idah:5)

And He says, ?Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikn (the polytheists) will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.? (Al-Bayyinah:6)

So how can he (Zakir) affirm for them monotheism (At-Tawheed) when they are upon this idolatrous condition?

So he is either an Ittihaadee (here meaning one who believes in Wahdat ul-Wujood ? the concept that Allaah is one with His creations), and from those who believe that whoever worships any stone, or tree, or cows, or idol, or vagina, or penis, then verily he is a worshipper of Allaah ? just as the people who hold this creed of disbelief say. And among them was Husayn bin Mansoor Al-Hallaaj who said (in lines of poetry):

?I am Allaah without doubt,    So glory be unto You (Allaah), glory be unto me
So Your Tawheed (Allaah) is my Tawheed,     And disobedience to You (Allaah) is disobeying me.?

And indeed they have mentioned from Abee Yazeed Al-Bistaamee, who was known by the name Tayfoor, that he said, ?Glory be unto me, glory be unto me, there is none whose condition is greater than mine, and the Paradise is the toy of my children.? And Adh-Dhahabee reported in his biography from Al-Meezaan that some of them used to affirm this statement from him (Al-Bistaamee).

And the likes of these statements in their creed of belief means all the things that exist are Allaah.

So these statements from Zakir could be from (his) belief of Al-Hulool (that Allaah indwells within His creatures). If not, then how can he affirm for these Sikhs, who are worshippers of cows, and vaginas, and trees, and whatever else that they worship besides Allaah ? how can he affirm for them that they are people of monotheism (Muwahhidoon)!?

Or (the second possibility) is that he has with him something from the speech of the Jahmiyyah, when they say that verily Faith (Al-Eemaan) is acknowledging, so whoever knows Allaah, then he is a person of monotheism (Muwahhid). Ibn Abee Al-?Izz (may Allaah have mercy upon him) reported in his book, ?Sharh ut-Tahaawiyyah?, that this statement necessitates from him (the speaker) that Fir?awn (Pharaoh) was from the people of monotheism (At-Tawheed), in that he only was in denial while his own soul actually was certain of it (Islaam being true). Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, said, ?And they denied them (those Ayt) wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof.? (An-Naml:14)

What is necessitated by this statement is that the Prophets fought the idol worshipping polytheists (Wathaniyyoon Mushrikoon) upon falsehood, and that Allaah commanded that these disbelievers be fought against by that. And this is not correct, since they were worshippers of stones, and trees, and other than that from those things that they worshipped. And if they were like that, then verily they were worshipping Allaah when they knew this (i.e. there was no reason to fight them if Allaah was in all of these created things that they were worshipping as well). So the things that are necessitated by this statement are false.

The conclusion is that the man (Zakir) has rolled up everything that crawls or walks into his pouch from the falsehoods. And there is not a paragraph from these paragraphs (from his statements in this letter) except that beneath it are deviations and falsehoods that Allaah knows. However, this is an allusion to things other than this.

Translated by Aqeel Walker, 3/26/07

21-04-2007 @ 7:04 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abdullah Tariq bin Ali Gohar (Karachi, Pakistan)
Posts: 13
Joined: Mar 2005
OK jazakallah khairan

Tariq Ali. Karachi, Pakistan.

22-04-2007 @ 5:01 PM    Notify Admin about this post
unspecified Aqeel ibn Leonard Walker (USA)
Posts: 97
Joined: Oct 2002
wa alaikum us-salaam akhee,

I was informed by a brother that he thought Hasan Somali was translating it. However, I spoke with Hasan about a month ago and he informed me that this was not the case. He advised me to continue translating it because he didn't know of anyone who was doing that work. I told him that it is rather lengthy and that if I translate it, it would take some time as I am a student and my schedule does not allow me to sit for hours at a time translating. We agreed that I should take it a bit at a time. Maybe a question or two every now and then until it's completed.

But alhamdulillaah, if it has been done I will stop. No need to re-invent the wheel, as the saying goes. We'll wait patiently for the remaining translation from you insha'Allaah.

Jazakallahu khayran akhee.
was-salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullaah

14-11-2008 @ 5:54 PM    Notify Admin about this post
unspecified ساجد (Mumbai (India))
Posts: 2031
Joined: Jul 2005
Bismillaah. Alhamdulillaah. Was salaatu was salaamu alaa Rasoolullaah.
As salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh ikhwaan wa akhwaat,

Attached are the various Questions and answers that were answered by Shaykh Yahya al-Haajooree and Shaykh Abu Amr al-Haajooree hafithahumullaah on the aqeedah and manhaj errors of our brother in Islam, Dr. Zakir Naik (may Allaah guide him and us).

These were translated by Brother Tariq Ali Brohi(salafitalk id: Tariq.Ali)who has also given footnotes and some inputs from various Salafee sources. Some inputs are from Brother Abu Hurairah Shabeer Ibn Hamza(salafitalk id: abu.hurairah.shabeer) from India and other brothers who have posted on this forum. May Allaah reward all the brothers and forgive our mistakes and sins.

SubhaanakAllaahumma wa bi hamdik wa ashadu anlailaha illa anta wa astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilayk. May Peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, His Companions and Family.

wa salaamu alaykum,
Sajid al-Hindi

TawhidFirst | Aqidah | AboveTheThrone | Asharis
Madkhalis | Takfiris | Maturidis | Dajjaal
Islam Against Extremism | Manhaj
Ibn Taymiyyah | Bidah
Best Way to Learn Arabic Online

main page | contact us
Copyright 2001 - SalafiTalk.Net
Madinah Dates Gold Silver Investments