Dr Zakir Naik in debate with bollywood "muslims"

[شمله ور خراساني]

Zakir Naik does not inspire people to have a superficial understanding of the religion.

This assumption is not doing him justice.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Zakir Naik does not inspire people to have a superficial understanding of the religion.

This assumption is not doing him justice.

I dont disagree and should watch a lecture of his (no prior exposure). In my generation, when I was young, the Afghans and Pakistanis were watching a gentleman named Ahmad Deedat. Now what I admired about him was that he advocated actually reading the Bible and understanding it... but when you really study the details of both religions from the aspect of the what theologians have studied... or from what scholars like Azami have written about... you realize that there are are folks who have truly made Islam their scholarly calling and others that are polemacists.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Zakir Naik is a great man. He might have some statements which are questionable. But he is a good remedy for modernists and kuffar.

Thanks to him in Afghanistan thousands of people have turned interested in Islam again.

His videos are translated in Farsi and Pashto and are sold everywhere in Afghanistan.

He has inspired many young men and women.

that's all well and good but the thing is we need intellectually honest representatives about Islaam. I don't think that most of the anti Islam contention has legit grounds for disparaging him, but similarly there aren
't many literalists who have legit grounds either

[Roshina]

The issue is that the early islamic scholarship (the same folks that I believe Roshina called small Arab men, mind you) were actually wonderful and very honest in how well they collected data and preserved it for posterity.

Really? When and where was that? I'm interested to see where I called any classical or contemporary figure a small Arab man. And then someone like Bukhari?! Whoa. It's beyond me where you must have read that. I'll be waiting for a reference to that post or posts.

However, if it's just that you "think" or "believe" I said that, then I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing your comment, no? 'Cause this way, you're spreading a lie against me, which is against everything ethical and religious and spiritual and Pukhtun.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Really? When and where was that? I'm interested to see where I called any classical or contemporary figure a small Arab man. And then someone like Bukhari?! Whoa. It's beyond me where you must have read that. I'll be waiting for a reference to that post or posts.

However, if it's just that you "think" or "believe" I said that, then I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing your comment, no? 'Cause this way, you're spreading a lie against me, which is against everything ethical and religious and spiritual and Pukhtun.

Per Below. Those 9th century arab men (not a small group by the way) refer to Bukhari who cites Ibn Masud himself regarding it being banned, ipso facto and ibn Masud was one who learned the Quran directly from the Prophet. Aishah, mother of the believers, on discussing the sequence of surahs clearly agreed with the logic of a tabaeen questioner when he discussed the progression to banning ethanol consumption. Just as zina does not put anyone out of the fold of Islam, its a little bit far fetched, actually a lot far fetched, to state as you do below that it is not banned in Islam. The ayah groups it with idolatory and refers to it as Satan's tool. Last I checked, dabbling in Satan's tool is a sin.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking is like one of the most common thinks in Arab, (Muslim) African, and Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt and Morocco.

Anyone who thinks that drinking makes you a non-Muslim, please define "Muslim." I mean, what MAKES a Muslim a Muslim? Is "no drinking" one of the 5 pillars of Islam? I ask because according to many Muslims, the 5 pillars define a Muslim. Feel free to disagree with this, but then don't forget to give us your definition of Muslim. And then also tell me if killing someone else, intentionally, makes a Muslim not-Muslim, too, or lying or cheating or cursing and so on. Geeez, if that's the case, I don't think there exist any Muslims in the world. ALLLLLLLLLL of them do something that Islam doesn't allow.

By the way, according to Muslim jurists (on a consensus, or ijma', meaning "alll jurists who *matter* agree on this) the Quran says that drinking has more harms than benefits (and some of them refrain from saying that it's "haraam" completely because the Quran doesn't explicitly say that; they also don't call it "sin" because the term used for "Sin" in the Quran in the verse on alcohol doesn't actually MEAN sin; that's just how it's translated and interpreted, though it really means disadvantages).
What's important about their consensus is this:

They -- again, all those who "matter" -- say that Muslims *should not* drink, but if they DO, it's okay. Their drinking does not make them un-Islamic or non-Muslims. What makes them heretics (not necessarily "non-Muslims" or "kafir") is when they disagree with the "scholars who matter" (who are a tiny group of Arab men of the 9th and 10th centuries) by saying that "drinking IS allowed in Islam" So, unless you wanna be labeled a heretic by these folks and be damned to hell BY them in the fatwas they issue against all "heretics" (who are to be killed ACCORDING to them), don't say that drinking in Islam as acceptable And don't admit that Muslims drink, lest all who drink shall be killed!

Also according to the fatwas on alcohol and drinking, Muslims who drink alcohol are to be lashed I believe 30 times. Interestingly, the first time I heard about this HAPPENING was last year in November during Ramadhan when a Malaysian woman was seen drinking in a Malaysian bar (or beach, some sources said). The government decided to lash her 30 times (some sources said 6 only, but it depends on which source you're reading) or so but only after Ramadhan ended because they believed it's not nice to punish Muslims in the holy month.

She was visiting from Singapore and was supposed to be leaving Malaysia soon, but the brave woman that she was/is, she decided to stay and fight for her right NOT to be lashed when *Muslim men* were never lashed for drinking and were always seen drunk throughout Malaysian bars. ANNNND on top of THAT, she also demanded to be lashed *in public*, not behind private bars in a jail, to prove to the world how unjust and in fact un-Islamic and inhumane the Malaysian government is. That's what I call gut, man. That's what I call confidence.

I didn't follow the story, but I heard that the government later decided not to lash her.

The story is all over the web. Just type in "Malaysian woman/model caned for drinking," or something like that

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Really? When and where was that? I'm interested to see where I called any classical or contemporary figure a small Arab man. And then someone like Bukhari?! Whoa. It's beyond me where you must have read that. I'll be waiting for a reference to that post or posts.

However, if it's just that you "think" or "believe" I said that, then I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing your comment, no? 'Cause this way, you're spreading a lie against me, which is against everything ethical and religious and spiritual and Pukhtun.

I didnt think you meant it malignantly, which is why I did not stress it. I dont find your posting on religious matters malignant at all and did not mean it that way. I just figured it traced back to your views on male dominance of early Islamic judiciary matters. Besides, they may have been short, jk, and hence "small" Arab men.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

As an example, the Quran does not directly make it haraam to bury your female daughter. Yet would you argue that the ayaah about burying females does not clearly show how God views it?

"When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned, for what crime she was killed.”

Ibn Kathir expands on that particular ayaah with the following way God's Prophet executed law based on that ayaah:

Abdur-Razzaq said that Isra'il informed them from Simak bin Harb, from An-Nu`man bin Bashir, who reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab that he said concerning Allah's statement,

(And when the female infant buried alive is questioned.) "Qays bin `Asim came to the Messenger of Allah and said, `O Messenger of Allah! Verily, I buried some daughters of mine alive in the period of pre-Islamic ignorance.' The Messenger of Allah said,


(Free a slave for each one of them.) Then Qays said, `O Messenger of Allah! Verily, I am an owner of camels.' The Prophet said,

Its just I do not get why you have to attempt and challenge orthodoxy on all reasonable matters where its clear that the consensus is just and reasonable. What would the motive have been of this "small group of Arab men" in the 8th or 9th century to devise a ban on alcohol?

To simply stretch the text to make the forbidden to be bidden is as bad as making the allowed to be haraam.

[Roshina]

I didnt think you meant it malignantly, which is why I did not stress it. I dont find your posting on religious matters malignant at all and did not mean it that way. I just figured it traced back to your views on male dominance of early Islamic judiciary matters. Besides, they may have been short, jk, and hence "small" Arab men.

Thank you for the clarification.

As you see, my comment reads "a tiny group of Arab men." A "tiny group of Arab men" does not mean "small Arab men," as you already indicated that you know. There's a huge difference, after all, between a "small man" and "a small group of men." I am sure that, in the future, you will be careful with how you word your phrases, as they can be quite misleading if worded even slightly more differently than what had been said originally. Manana.

Short - maybe, or maybe not. But I neither know nor care to know anything about their physical looks. I am interested only in their ideas and why they believed the way they did, so I don't know whether they were short or tall or big or small (physically). But regarding Bukhari's and other Classical Islamic scholars' scholarship, they have impressed some of the most brilliant scholars of our own time, and while I don't always agree with what they say (which may be because I haven't studied them as deeply as I intend to), it's impossible to disrespect them or shun their ideas right away--or to consider them "small"!

And, yes, men have indeed historically dominated Islamic judiciary matters, just like in all other cultures and religions, but since everyone knows this to be a fact, I doubt it needs an explanation, eh.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Thank you for the clarification.

As you see, my comment reads "a tiny group of Arab men." A "tiny group of Arab men" does not mean "small Arab men," as you already indicated that you know. There's a huge difference, after all, between a "small man" and "a small group of men." I am sure that, in the future, you will be careful with how you word your phrases, a they can be quite misleading if worded even slightly more differently than what had been said originally. Manana.

Short - maybe, or maybe not. But I neither know nor care to know anything about their physical looks. I am interested only in their ideas and why they believed the way they did, so I don't know whether they were short or tall or big or small (physically). But regarding Bukhari's and other Classical Islamic scholars' scholarship, they have impressed some of the most brilliant scholars of our own time, and while I don't always agree with what they say (which may be because I haven't studied them as deeply as I intend to), it's impossible to disrespect them or shun their ideas right away--or to consider them "small"!

And, yes, men have indeed historically dominated Islamic judiciary matters, but since everyone knows this to be a fact, I doubt it needs an explanation, eh.

Yes, but Aishah's contributions to the basis of Islamic jurisprudence should not be underestimated. What is your basis, when she provided confirmation to the tabaeen regarding the ban in the ordering of surahs question, to assume that a group of women jurists would have created a radical California version of Islam that would have made the discussoin of alcohol consumption somehow less restrictive?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Thank you for the clarification.

As you see, my comment reads "a tiny group of Arab men." A "tiny group of Arab men" does not mean "small Arab men," as you already indicated that you know. There's a huge difference, after all, between a "small man" and "a small group of men." I am sure that, in the future, you will be careful with how you word your phrases, as they can be quite misleading if worded even slightly more differently than what had been said originally. Manana.

Short - maybe, or maybe not. But I neither know nor care to know anything about their physical looks. I am interested only in their ideas and why they believed the way they did, so I don't know whether they were short or tall or big or small (physically). But regarding Bukhari's and other Classical Islamic scholars' scholarship, they have impressed some of the most brilliant scholars of our own time, and while I don't always agree with what they say (which may be because I haven't studied them as deeply as I intend to), it's impossible to disrespect them or shun their ideas right away--or to consider them "small"!

And, yes, men have indeed historically dominated Islamic judiciary matters, just like in all other cultures and religions, but since everyone knows this to be a fact, I doubt it needs an explanation, eh.

Please dont tell me you find Crone and Cook "refreshing."

[Roshina]

^ It was dominated by men; that doesn't mean every single one of the people who "mattered" was a male. Aisha is one of the few exceptions - there were a couple of other important females who contributed to Islamic Studies until a few centuries after the Prophet's death.

Please dont tell me you find Crone and Cook "refreshing."

I haven't come across them yet, actually, so I don't know whether they're refreshing or not. You know what kind of people I do find refreshing, though? ... Khaled Abou el-Fadl. I more than strongly recommend his book Speaking in God's Name, which I never tire of saying is the best non-fiction book I have ever read. Actually, if you can get hold of any of his articles, too, many of which are very short, that'd suffice as well. He deals with authority and Muslim leadership, my current research topic in broad terms. And he also deals with hadiths and women (and non-Muslims), my other favorite area of research. But, yeah, that's who's refreshing to me.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

^ It was dominated by men; that doesn't mean every single one of the people who "mattered" was a male. Aisha is one of the few exceptions - there were a couple of other important females who contributed to Islamic Studies until a few centuries after the Prophet's death.



I haven't come across them yet, actually, so I don't know whether they're refreshing or not. You know what kind of people I do find refreshing, though? ... Khaled Abou el-Fadl. I more than strongly recommend his book Speaking in God's Name, which I never tire of saying is the best non-fiction book I have ever read. Actually, if you can get hold of any of his articles, too, many of which are very short, that'd suffice as well. He deals with authority and Muslim leadership, my current research topic in broad terms. And he also deals with hadiths and women (and non-Muslims), my other favorite area of research. But, yeah, that's who's refreshing to me.

What is your opinion on the Salaf? Do you agree that people confuse the term Wahabi and Salafi all too often?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

^ It was dominated by men; that doesn't mean every single one of the people who "mattered" was a male. Aisha is one of the few exceptions - there were a couple of other important females who contributed to Islamic Studies until a few centuries after the Prophet's death.



I haven't come across them yet, actually, so I don't know whether they're refreshing or not. You know what kind of people I do find refreshing, though? ... Khaled Abou el-Fadl. I more than strongly recommend his book Speaking in God's Name, which I never tire of saying is the best non-fiction book I have ever read. Actually, if you can get hold of any of his articles, too, many of which are very short, that'd suffice as well. He deals with authority and Muslim leadership, my current research topic in broad terms. And he also deals with hadiths and women (and non-Muslims), my other favorite area of research. But, yeah, that's who's refreshing to me.

They are not refreshing, they stink of dead carcasses.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.danielpipes.org/1841/stea...d-abou-el-fadl

Well if Dan Pipes hates him, I'll now have to read up on him. Thats an automatic endorsement of sanity.