Zakir Naik and his erroneous Views

It would require a complete book to describe the erroneous views (on Islamic
Jurisprudence, Fiqh) of Dr.Zakir Naik. People get too caught into personalities in the
subcontinent. Zakir has created some guidelines for misleading people, described in
Arabic as, "Kalimatu Haqqun yu'raadu bee hal-baatil" (a word of truth [spoken] with
the intention of spreading mischief". To understand this let me just present some of
Zakir's punch lines:
1. He insists that one should only, "Follow only the Quran and Sahih Hadith" and
one would reach the right conclusion.
2. When he disagree's with anyone's position he insists that his position is based on
sahih hadith and that the others position is based on "daeef" hadith.
3. He has introduced a new "prophetic seal" called "Authentic". Whatever, Zakir
calls authentic is "Authentic". So, when you read books published by "Darus
Salaam" they always read, "your source of authentic literature". Zakir Naik has
stamped Nasir-ud-deen Albani's research on Hadith as Authentic compared to the
research of the four great Imaams.
4. Zakir Naik also portrays to the people that one should only follow the Prophet
(sallahu alayhi wa sallam) and not some Imaam.
5. Zakir will insist that "Sufism" is bida'a and that it has no realities. This is the
Half-Truth formula. Tell the public only half the story not the complete story. For,
example Imaam Ibn Tamiyya and Ibn Qayyim have on one hand condemned the
bad Sufee's. This is the one that Zakir Naik propagates, but what he intentionally
leaves out is that the same people have praised the good Sufee's and have written
volumes describing the differences.
So, please be the judge, as I will be very objective and clear in my
approach to dispell the new rulings introduced by Dr.Naik.

1. There is nothing in the Quran or Sahih hadith to substantiate the rule that
following the Quran and Sahih hadith is the ONLY right way to achieve guidance and
the ONLY way to reach to the correct conclusion. There is no such statement
uttered by the beloved messenger of Allah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam). In the court
of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) such erroneous and fabricated statements
are not only dangerous but will lead one to the fire of hell. So, this is a caution for
Dr.Naik.
2. Zakir plays fast and loose with the narrators of Hadith. When it comes to the
issue of "Rafayadayn" he will make a certain hadith Sahih but when he disagree on
the position of "Ameen" he will disqualify the same "raawiyy (narrator)" that he
used when taking a stand on "Rafayadayn".
3/4. After the Three Golden Era (Sahaba, Tabieen & Taba Tabieen) no one is
immune from making grave and serious mistakes. No one can authenticate books in
our time. The only reason people will take steps to authenticate contemporary
literature / translations is because they want to create a blind-following behind
themselves. Win peoples trust and leverage this trust to hurt other Muslims under
the pretext of following the "Prestine" Islamic way of life. If the messenger of Allah
(sallahu alayhi wa sallam) is our Imaam, then why do we all have to put our trust in
Imaam Bukhari? Well, the story is told of his integrity and his dream; but who told
the story? Did the messenger of Allah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) authenticate
Imaam Bukhari? Well, Zakir will tell the viewers that the dream of the messenger of
Allah is true. But can a dream become a law? Since, when did believing in dreams
become part of Zakir's Aqeedah? Half-Truth of Zakir Naik can be seen in his video's
(on youtube) where he talks about Taraawih. However, he has yet to tell his
audience that the word "Tarawih" is nowhere to be found in any Sahih Hadith. Why
doesn't he tell us and clarify this matter once and for all?
5. Zakir Naik never tells the people that Allamah Hafiz Ibn Tamiyya wrote in his
Fataawa Ibn Tamiyya Al-Kubra volumes titled "Sulook" and "Tasawwuf". Why
doesn't he tell the people the historical facts laid out by Ibn Tamiyya who said, "As
Sufi huwa fil haqeeqa, nawun minas-siddiqeen. Fa huwa As-Sideeq, al-ladhee

iktassa bil zuhaadi wal i'baada" (The Sufi is a reality, and a type from amongst the
siddiqeen. The Sideeq are those who maintain Zuhd and Worship (to highest
standards)".
May Allah guide us all. Islam is our deen and we have speak the truth.
An answer to Dr. Zakir Naik's answer regarding Schools of thought
Composed by M. Yasin Achhodi
In a question posed to Dr. Zakir Naik regarding which school of thought a Muslim
should follow, he answered in the following manipulating manner in which a layman
can easily be affected with lack of knowledge. His answer will be quoted first
followed by the reply. To read his entire article first, click here.
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
1. Muslims should be united
Muslims today, are divided amongst themselves. Such divisions are not endorsed by
Islam. Islam believes in fostering unity amongst its followers.
The Glorious Quran says:
And hold fast, altogether, by the rope Which Allah (stretches out for you), and be
not divided among yourselves. [Al-Quran 3:103]
Which is the rope of Allah that is being referred to in this verse? It is the Glorious
Quran. The Glorious Quran is the rope of Allah which all Muslims should hold fast
together. There is double emphasis in this verse. Beside saying hold fast all
together it also says, be not divided.
Taqleed and following of an Imam has not broken unity. In the Haramayn, it is the
Muqallideen who read together and coexist peacefully whereas the ones who are
strictly against it decide to make their own gatherings, Jamaaah and also groups.

My question: who has broken unity? A Muqallid or a person with his own views of
Deen?
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
The Quran further says,
Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger [Al-Quran 4:59]
All the Muslims should follow the Quran and authentic Ahadith and ensure that they
are not divided among themselves
Why is the remaining verse of the Holy Quraan forgotten?
O you who believe! Follow Allah; follow the Messenger and those of authority
(Amr) amongst you. (Surah al-Nisaa Verse 59)
Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) says that in this verse, Amr refers to the jurists. This
explanation is narrated from Muaawiyah ibn Salah from Ali ibn Talhah which is a
sound chain, Al-Itqaan)
The verse continues, And if you dispute, then refer to Allah and the Messenger if
you really do believe in Allah and in the last day. (Surah al-Nisaa Verse 59)
Allahs statement subsequently if you dispute proves that those of Amr are
indeed jurists because He has ordered everyone else to follow them and then
proceed to say that if you dispute.. Hence Allah has ordered those of Amr to refer
the disputed issue to the Book of Allah the traditions of the Prophet. The lay person
would be unaware of how to refer the disputed issue to the Book of Allah and to the
Sunnah and how their proofs would apply to the situations and events. Thus, it is
established that the second command, is for the scholars. (Ahkaamul Quraan, vol
2, pg 257)
My question: Why state quarter of the verse as proof for not following scholars
when the remainder of the verse denies your claim?

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

2. It is prohibited to make divisions in Islam.
The Glorious Quran says:
As for those who divide Their religion and break up Into sects, you have no part in
them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of
all that they did. [Al-Quran 6:159]
In this verse Allah (swt) says that one should disassociate oneself from those who
divide their religion and break it up into sects.
But when one asks a Muslim, who are you? the common answer is either I am a
Hanafi or Shafi or Maliki or Hanbali. Some call themselves Ahle-Hadith.
When a non-Muslim asks, who are you? the common answer is I am a Muslim
When a Muslim asks, who are you? the common answer is, son of so n so or I
am a Gujrati/Pakistani/Malaysian etc. Does this mean that to be a Pakistani is
being guilty of the people mentioned in this verse?
I, till today, have not heard I am a Hanafi or Shaafiee being the answer to who
are you?
Furthermore, Taqleed has not created divisions. This is grave misconception. Ahlus
Sunaah Wal Jamaaah are proud to follow the Sahaabah. The Islam of the Sahabaah
was the complete Islam. They saw Nabi (s) and they saw the Quraan in him. The
understandings of the Sahaabah is our understanding.
There were differences of opinion in the Sahaabah too. Ibn Abbas (ra) narrates that
Umar ibn Khattab gave a sermon at Jabiyah and said, O people! If you want to
know about the Quraan, go to Ubaid ibn Kab. If you want to know about
inheritance, go to Zaid ib Thaabit. If you want to about Fiqh, go to Muaadh ibn

Jabal. If you want to know about wealth, then come to me for Allah has made me a
guardian and a distributor. (Tabarani)
We hear it all the time, oh you follow them, but we follow Quraan & Sunnah.
Those who claim to follow the Quraan & Sunnah as understood by themselves,
please take a moment to observe the following.
Salim ibn Abdullah narrates that Abdullah ibn Umar was asked about a person who
owed another person some money and had to pay the load at a fixed time. The
creditor then agrees to forgive a portion of the load if the debtor pays before the
deadline. Ibn Umar disliked this agreement and forbade it. (Muwatta Imam Malik)
There is no explicit Hadith of the Prophet which has been offered as proof nor was
any proof sought from Ibn Umar (ra). It is evident that this ruling was a personal
judgement of Ibn Umar.
Abdur Rahmaan narrated that he asked Ibn Sireen about entering public baths. Ibn
Sireen said that Umar used to dislike the idea. (Mataalibul Aaliyah by Hafiz Ibn
Hajar)
Ibn Sireen, who was one of the most learned followers of the Companions, did not
mention any proof except to say that Umar used to dislike the idea.
This is despite the fact that there are several Ahadeeth regarding the issue of public
baths.
There are plenty more examples available. Now my question: Who is causing the
division? The one who follows a jurist like the Sahaabah and those who followed
them did? Or the ones who are breaking all bonds and ties from the people of
authority, the people of knowledge and telling everyone not to follow those of
authority and to follow only Quraan & Sunnah no matter how you understand it?
Who is this verse more likely to refer to?
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

3. Four Schools of Thoughts

The Islamic world has produced several learned Islamic scholars (Imams), but out
of these, four became more famous and their teachings spread in different parts of
the world.
It is a misconception that a Muslim should follow any one of these four schools of
thoughts i.e. Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali or Maliki. There is no proof whatsoever in the
Quran or any authentic Hadith that a Muslim should only follow one of these four
Imams.
Umar Ibn Khattab (ra)s sermon at Jabiyah in which mentioned who to go to for
which subjects is also not mentioned in the Quraan. It is very easy to say it is a
misconception, maybe if the conception was mentioned, the misconception would
not remain. To avoid the possibility of contradictions amongst the scholars of
differing Ijtihad over a primary source, the laity were encouraged to follow only one
Madhhab and Mujtahideen instead of referring to several. This idea gained
domination during the 3rd and 4th century AH. One of the most important reasons
for this was that a person can not take the judgement which suits his desires best.
According to some jurists for example, Talaaq (divorce) takes place whereas
according to some, it doesnt. Most people will no doubt follow the jurist which suits
their desire best.
Following desires to the extent that they believe Halaal to be Haraam and Haraam
to Halaal is disastrous. Disobedience of this nature is fatal and makes religion and
law mere shame. For this reason, the acceptance of following only one Madhhab
has successfully continued for around 11 centuries in the majority of Muslims.
Furthermore to proudly state its acceptance in the eyes of Allah that it is the
scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaaah, those who do follow the Quraan, those
who do follow the Sunnah, those who do follow the two as understood by the
Sahaabah and those who do follow an Imam are those who Allah has accepted to
lead prayers in the Haramayn Shareefayn.

My question: Is Quraan & Sunnah your only source of making judgements? If yes,
why did the Sahaabah not ask for proof from Quraan & Sunnah? Why did some
Sahaabah refer to other Sahaabah for rulings? Were they not learned enough?
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
4. Respect all the Great Scholars of Islam.
We must respect all the great scholars of Islam, including the four Imaams, Imam
Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, Imam Hanbal and Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with
them all). They were great scholars and may Allah reward them for their research
and hard work. One can have no objection if someone agrees with the view and
research of any one or more from these four great scholars of Islam.
Again, please refer to following rulings which suit the desires under number 3. I see
no other reason why one would object to their ruling.
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
5. All Four Imam said follow the Quran and Sunnah.
All the four great Imams said that if any of their Fatwas or teachings contradict
Allahs word, i.e. the Quran, or the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) i.e. authentic
Hadith, then that particulars Fatwa of theirs should be rejected, and the Sunnah of
the Prophet should be followed.
To give you an example in this context Imam shafi said that when a women
touches a man who is in a state of wudhu, the wudhu of the man breaks. However,
this ruling of Imam Shafi contradicts the authentic saying of the Prophet.
Narrated Aisha
The Prophet (may peace be upon him) kissed one of his wives and went out for
saying prayer. He did not perform ablution. (Sunan Abu Dawood Vol. 1 Chapter No.
70 Hadith No. 179)

Thus this particular teaching of Imam Shafi contradicts the authentic saying of the
Prophet. So I reject this specific ruling of Imam Shafi who himself said , If I say
something, then compare it to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger
and if it agrees to them, then accept it and that which goes against them, then
reject it and throw my saying against the wall This is a saying of ash-Shafieerahimaullah. See Al-Majmoo of an-Nawawee (1/63).
Thus by rejecting this particular teaching of Imam Shafi which contradicts the
authentic Hadith, I am practically a better follower of Imam Shafi than those who
call themselves Shafi.
The response to this is; This is the opinion of Ibn 'Umar and some other Sahabah.
However, when the Sahabah disagree in a matter, their statements are not a proof
unless proof is brought from the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (s). As we
stated before, Ibn 'Abbas and the reports from 'Aa'ishah contradict the opinion of
Ibn 'Umar and those with their opinion. Thus, the opinion of Ibn Umar is not
accepted unless supported with proof from the mouth of the beloved Messenger
Muhammad (s). This topic itself is a lengthy topic in which one can not lightly
accuse Imaam Shafiee (Rahimahullah) of going against a Hadeeth.
Furthermore, everyone learning Ahadeeth and extracting rulings from them in the
light of Quraan is unreal and somewhat impossible. Not many if not all have the
ability to do so. Therefore, to say one can follow a different ruling if they find a
Hadeeth which contradicts it, is absurd for a common person.
Bearing in mind, does a common person have enough knowledge to know that
there is no other stronger Hadeeth that this ruling? Does the layman have enough
knowledge to understand why Imam Shafiee uses that Hadeeth as Hujjah and
Imam Abu Hanifah uses this?
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
Similarly in practice, I claim to be a better follower of Imam Abu Hanifa than those
who call themselves Hanafi. I claim to be a better follower of Imam Hanbal than

those who call themselves Hanbali. I claim to be a better follower of Imam Malik
than those who call themselves Maliki. If being a Ahle-Hadith means following
Quran and authentic Hadith then I claim to be a better follower of the Quran and
authentic Hadith than those who call themselves Ahle-Hadith. All these are mere
labels (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Ahle-Hadith) that are not endorsed by the
Quran or the Sahih Ahadith.
The only label or title given by the Quran and the Sahih Ahadith is MUSLIM.
Very easy to fall for this last statement, yet the solution and answer is even easier.
A Muslim is a person who believes in one Allah and believes in Muhammad (s) as
the final Messenger. A Hanafi, Shafiee, Hanbali, Maliki does not come contradictory
to MUSLIM. As the meaning of Hanafi is not the opposite of what makes a person
MUSLIM. Being a Hanafi does not take the Shahaadah away from a MUSLIM. In
fact, the following (Number 6) helps.
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
6. All the Groups have sub divisions
I personally have no objection if someone calls himself Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki
or Ahle Hadith. People give different labels to themselves to identify which set of
teachings they prefer to follow and to disassociate themselves from those people
who follow wrong practices. From history we come to know that all the labels given
to different groups, at a later stage the people from that group themselves did not
follow their teachings and made new sub-groups. Therefore in all the groups you
find a sub-division.
But as far as giving a label to identify what a person practices in Islam is
concerned, there can not be better label than what Allah (swt) has given i.e. a
Muslim.
We have never labelled ourselves as an entirety Hanafi or Shafiee. But to use it
to deny Taqleed is using false logic and inaccurate claims. Every title or label has its

position. If a person says, I am a MAN, does this change the fact that he is a
Human? The Quraan and Hadeeth says we are son of Adam, does this mean we
cant say we are son of our blood father? When one can claim that this logic is out
of context, then how can saying, I am a Hanafi hence not MUSLIM as the Quraan
labels us be true logic?
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
7. Our Prophet was a Muslim
Who was our beloved Prophet (pbuh)? Was he a Hanafi or a Shafi, or a Hanbali or
a Maliki ? No! He was a Muslim, like all the other Prophets and Messengers of Allah
before him.
This is enough to show the desperateness of trying to deny Taqleed. Was Imam Abu
Hanifah , Imam Shafiee, Imam Ahmad or Imam Malik before our Prophet (s)? A
Muslim is a person of Islam. Unless Hanafi, Shafiee, Hanbali or Maliki is a religion,
one can not use the above to clarify anything which is trying to be proven. The
entire context is off track.
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
It is mentioned in chapter 3 verse 52 of Al-Quran that Jesus (pbuh) was a Muslim.
Further , in chapter 3 verse 67, Al-Quran says that Ibrahim (pbuh) was not a Jew
or a Christian but was a Muslim.
To clarify my above point, I use this quote of Doctor Zakir Naik. Here he has put a
MUSLIM in oppose to Christian or Jew. Christianity and Judaism are religions, so
this can be used to prove Jesus was a Muslim. Hanafi or Shafiee etc is not a
religion, it is mere ignorance to use this out of such context.
InshaAllah I will not have to use any more Quraan, Hadeeth, Logic or doctor Zakirs
own statements to answer the following as InshaAllah one will be able to
understand his lack of awareness by reading his following proofs.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

8. Quran says call yourselves Muslims
There is no Quranic verse or any authentic Hadith that says you should call
yourselves Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Ahle Hadith.
If anyone poses a Muslim the question who are you, he should say I am a Muslim,
not a Hanafi or a Shafi or a Ahle-Hadith.
In Surah Fussilat chapter 41 verse 33 Allah (swt) says: Who is better in speech
than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says, I am of those
Who bow in Islam (Muslim)? [Al-Quran 41:33]
The Quran instructs, Say: I am of those who bow in Islam. In other words, say, I
am a Muslim.
The Prophet (pbuh) dictated letters to non-Muslim kings and rulers inviting them to
accept Islam. In these letters he mentioned the verse of the Quran from Surah Al
Imran chapter 3 verse 64:
Say ye: Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (submitting to Allahs
Will).[Al-Quran 3:64]
9. Lip Service Muslims
Allah knew that even in the Muslim Ummah there will be many people who claim to
be Muslims (i.e. claim to submit their will to Allah) but practically will not follow
Allahs commands.
Allah refers to such people in the Quran as lip service Believers (Al Quran 5:41).
Thus we can conclude that those who claim to be Muslims but do not follow Quran
and Sunnah are Lip-Service Muslims. Those who follow the Quran and authentic
Hadith should not change their label, and stick to the best label given by Allah (swt)
i.e. Muslim and which the Prophet also called himself.

This verse is being used once again against the Muqallideen. This time, the
Muqallideen are said to not be following the Quraan & Sunnah.
Imagine giving a person the Quraan, the Ahadeeth and then saying, live your life
according to these rulings. Will that person be able to understand what the Quraan
means by Quroo in the verse where Allah says, And those women who are
divorced should wait for three Quroo?
And what type of (Mukhaabarah) will he know or understand in the Hadeeth where
Nabi (s) said, Whoever does not stop the practice of Mukhaabarah should hear the
proclamation of war (against him).? (Mukhaabarah is a certain type of farming.
There were several forms of Mukhaabarah practiced) The Hadeeth is fairly general,
how would a lay person distinguish between the permitted ones and the forbidden
one?
Then theres one Hadeeth which says, Whoever has an Imaam, then the Imaams
recitation is his recitation. On the other hand, another Hadeeth says, There is no
Salaah for he who does not recite the Faatihah. How would a common person
which Quraan and Hadeeth be able to choose which Hadeeth to follow, or what is
the middle route, or does it refer to something else, or was the Hadeeth for a
particular event only? Obviously one is will have to turn to a learned jurist who has
mastered himself in these issues and whom Allah (swt) has blessed unrecognizable
wisdom. So when the person asks this jurist/imam, is he now following the Imaam
or Quraan and Sunnah?
Obviously he is following the Quraan and Sunnah as passed on by these scholars
as they compiled rulings. And it is common sense that if a person tries to follow all
the Madhaahib then he will lead to following the rulings which suit him best.
My question is, who is following a more reliable and sound meaning of the Quraan
and Sunnah and who is taking literal and incomplete perceptions of the Quraan and
Sunnah. The obvious answer would be the one who chooses to follow a Madhhab is
safer from making his own meaning of Deen whereas following a Madhhab is
actually following a sound understanding of Quraan and Hadeeth.

Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:

10. The Prophet had said that there would be 73 sects.
Some may argue by quoting the Hadith of our beloved Prophet, from Sunan Abu
Dawood Hadith No. 4579. In this Hadith the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have
said, My community will split up into seventy-three sects.
This hadith reports that the prophet predicted the emergence of seventy-three
sects. He did not say that Muslims should be active in dividing themselves into
sects. The Glorious Quran commands us not to create sects. Those who follow the
teachings of the Quran and Sahih Hadith, and do not create sects are the people
who are on the true path.
According to Tirmidhi Hadith No. 171, the prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said,
My Ummah will be fragmented into seventy three sects, and all of them will be in
Hell fire except one sect. The companions asked Allahs messenger which group
that would be. Where upon he replied, It is the one to which I and my companions
belong.
The answer of Nabi (s) is so strong and true in its wisdom. He did not say, It is the
one who follows Quraan & Sunnah. He said, It is the one to which I and my
companions belong. Note, the Sahaabah are mentioned. The Sahaabah passed on
the true Islam to the Tabieen. When the Tabieen followed the Islam of the
Sahaabah, they are included in that sect. Now will you say that the Tabieen arent
because they followed the Sahaabah and not the Quraan and Sunnah? The Tabieen
turned to certain Sahaabah and similarly the Tab Tabieen turned to certain
Tabieen for certain issues. Why did they not look directly into Quraan and
Hadeeth?
A Madhhab is a compilation of rulings, an understanding of Fiqh related issues. The
Islaam we follow is the Islaam of the Sahaabah. Do we have a better understanding
of Hadeeth and Quraan than these great scholars? If one does, they can feel free

to be a Mujtahid and have their own Fiqh. As for those who follow a Madhhab, they
are following the Islaam of the Sahaabah.
Dr. Zakir Naik wrote:
The Glorious Quran mentions in several verses, Obey Allah and obey His
Messenger. A true Muslim should only follow the Glorious Quran and the Sahih
Hadith. He can agree with the views of any scholar as long as they conform to the
teachings of the Quran and Sahih Hadith. If such views go against the Word of
Allah, or the Sunnah of His Prophet, then they carry no weight, regardless of how
learned the scholar might be. A true Muslim will not follow any ruling or teaching of
any great scholar of Islam if that particular ruling or teaching contradicts the Quran
and Saheeh Hadith.
Thus, the only school of thought that a Muslim should follow, is that of Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh). The only Madhab that a Muslim should follow, is the Madhab of
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And Allah knows the Best.
By saying the only school of thought you should follow is Prophet Muhammad, you
have clearly showed that you do not understand the meaning of school of
thought. A school of thought is a doctrine, The point of view held by a particular
group (dictionary) a set of ideas or opinions which a group of people share about a
matter (Cambridge).
The Islaam of Nabi (s) was not a point of view. It was the true Islaam in its state.
When the narrations varied after the Sahaabah, that is when the need for school of
thoughts emerged. That is when a strong opinion was required. A common person
can not conclude the Deen with his own understandings.
[END OF ARTICLE AND ANSWERS]
The following questions were posed very nicely upon the above reply:
Questioner wrote:

Brother mash'Allah nice points. I'm guessing that you beleive in madhabs and that
we should follow them?let me ask you on what basis?Does following a madhab go
against the teachings of Rasulullah?Brother if you have a problem with the
statement made by our honorable Zakir Naik then oh well.Till now brother
mash'Allah nice points,but what you said is the same exact thing people say to
approve of madhabs.Why is this?
Reply:
Questioner wrote:
I'm guessing that you beleive in madhabs and that we should follow them?let me
ask you on what basis?
On the basis that the Muslims of early years were more knowledgable, more pious
and less affected by Shaytaan than us. If you have the ability to extract rulings
from Qur'aan in the light of Ahadeeth so it does not contradict other Ahadeeth
being aware of the chains of narrations making sure that when you take one
Hadeeth for the ruling, the other Hadeeth is not rejected and a valid reason is
available, if you are able to distinguish between different terms used for the same
ruling or the same word used in different context for multiple rulings, if you are
able to distinguish between a weak chain and a sound chain of narrations, if you are
able to distinguish between rulings which were permitted for a certain period of
time, if you are able to do all this and more then by all means, Taqleed is not for
you.
Now ask yourself, are we capable of even 1% that they spent their entire lives on?
If everyone becomes this, what will happen to Muslims? The entire Muslim world
will differ in rulings and the entire Muslim population will be stuck in books their
entire lives.
Now you tell me, on what basis should we not follow a Madhhab and on what basis
should we reject what has been a successful way of life from the time of Sahaabah.
Like i said above in reply to Dr Zakir Naik, even the Sahaabah (ra) followed other

Sahaabah in Fiqh matters and did not look into Qur'aan & Hadeeth as the Sahaabah
they followed in the matter knew the ruling better than them. They did not ask for
proof in differences of opinions like we do.
Questioner wrote:
Does following a madhab go against the teachings of Rasulullah?
Following a Madhhab is securing oneself to following a steadfast Fiqh instead of a
purpose driven misunderstood perception of what a person makes of Ayaat and
Ahaadeeth.
Questioner wrote:
Brother if you have a problem with the statement made by our honorable Zakir Naik
then oh well.
Ironic that you used the word honorable. In your honor for him, you have forgotten
that he dishonored all the verses I mentioned, the Ahadeeth and events of the
Sahaabah i mentioned above and also the ways of the Muslims since the 3rd
century AH. I'm afraid he lost all his honor upon this one article. This doesn't
change the fact the he speaks very good intellectual things. But once he talks about
'Aqaaid or Taqleed, I can't but help feel sorry for him as do many scholars and
highly respected and learned Ulamaa-e-Kiraam.
Questioner wrote:
Till now brother mash'Allah nice points,but what you said is the same exact thing
people say to approve of madhabs.Why is this?
What I said is not to approve Madhhabs, to approve Madhhabs, there are much
stronger and evident literature available. What I said was a simple answer to
everything Dr Zakir Naik has said. Any person attacking Taqleed with Qur'aan and
Hadeeth can be answered with their own statements because all their statements
are incomplete and very easy to be blinded to a simple minded person.

"The Legal Status of Following a Madhab" by Chief Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi
Usmani is a book i recommend. If any, read this inshaAllah at the least. If you still
do not agree then Innallaha Yahdee Man-Yashaau Wa Yudhillu Man-Yashaa.
And Allah knows best.The article itself
The following is his entire article article. One can easily notice how he manipulates
the mind in thinking that Taqleed holds no value.
1. Muslims should be united
Muslims today, are divided amongst themselves. Such divisions are not endorsed by
Islam. Islam believes in fostering unity amongst its followers.
The Glorious Quran says:
And hold fast, altogether, by the rope Which Allah (stretches out for you), and be
not divided among yourselves. [Al-Quran 3:103]
Which is the rope of Allah that is being referred to in this verse? It is the Glorious
Quran. The Glorious Quran is the rope of Allah which all Muslims should hold fast
together. There is double emphasis in this verse. Beside saying hold fast all
together it also says, be not divided.
The Quran further says,
Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger [Al-Quran 4:59]
All the Muslims should follow the Quran and authentic Ahadith and ensure that they
are not divided among themselves
2. It is prohibited to make divisions in Islam.
The Glorious Quran says:

As for those who divide Their religion and break up Into sects, you have no part in
them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of
all that they did. [Al-Quran 6:159]
In this verse Allah (swt) says that one should disassociate oneself from those who
divide their religion and break it up into sects.
But when one asks a Muslim, who are you? the common answer is either I am a
Hanafi or Shafi or Maliki or Hanbali. Some call themselves Ahle-Hadith.
3. Four Schools of Thoughts
The Islamic world has produced several learned Islamic scholars (Imams), but out
of these, four became more famous and their teachings spread in different parts of
the world.
It is a misconception that a Muslim should follow any one of these four schools of
thoughts i.e. Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali or Maliki. There is no proof whatsoever in the
Quran or any authentic Hadith that a Muslim should only follow one of these four
Imams.
4. Respect all the Great Scholars of Islam.
We must respect all the great scholars of Islam, including the four Imaams, Imam
Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, Imam Hanbal and Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with
them all). They were great scholars and may Allah reward them for their research
and hard work. One can have no objection if someone agrees with the view and
research of any one or more from these four great scholars of Islam.
5. All Four Imam said follow the Quran and Sunnah.
All the four great Imams said that if any of their Fatwas or teachings contradict
Allahs word, i.e. the Quran, or the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) i.e. authentic
Hadith, then that particulars Fatwa of theirs should be rejected, and the Sunnah of
the Prophet should be followed.

To give you an example in this context Imam shafi said that when a women
touches a man who is in a state of wudhu, the wudhu of the man breaks. However,
this ruling of Imam Shafi contradicts the authentic saying of the Prophet.
Narrated Aisha
The Prophet (may peace be upon him) kissed one of his wives and went out for
saying prayer. He did not perform ablution. (Sunan Abu Dawood Vol. 1 Chapter No.
70 Hadith No. 179)
Thus this particular teaching of Imam Shafi contradicts the authentic saying of the
Prophet. So I reject this specific ruling of Imam Shafi who himself said , If I say
something, then compare it to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger
and if it agrees to them, then accept it and that which goes against them, then
reject it and throw my saying against the wall This is a saying of ash-Shafieerahimaullah. See Al-Majmoo of an-Nawawee (1/63).
Thus by rejecting this particular teaching of Imam Shafi which contradicts the
authentic Hadith, I am practically a better follower of Imam Shafi than those who
call themselves Shafi.
Similarly in practice, I claim to be a better follower of Imam Abu Hanifa than those
who call themselves Hanafi. I claim to be a better follower of Imam Hanbal than
those who call themselves Hanbali. I claim to be a better follower of Imam Malik
than those who call themselves Maliki. If being a Ahle-Hadith means following
Quran and authentic Hadith then I claim to be a better follower of the Quran and
authentic Hadith than those who call themselves Ahle-Hadith. All these are mere
labels (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Ahle-Hadith) that are not endorsed by the
Quran or the Sahih Ahadith.
The only label or title given by the Quran and the Sahih Ahadith is MUSLIM.
6. All the Groups have sub divisions

I personally have no objection if someone calls himself Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki
or Ahle Hadith. People give different labels to themselves to identify which set of
teachings they prefer to follow and to disassociate themselves from those people
who follow wrong practices. From history we come to know that all the labels given
to different groups, at a later stage the people from that group themselves did not
follow their teachings and made new sub-groups. Therefore in all the groups you
find a sub-division.
But as far as giving a label to identify what a person practices in Islam is
concerned, there can not be better label than what Allah (swt) has given i.e. a
Muslim.
7. Our Prophet was a Muslim
Who was our beloved Prophet (pbuh)? Was he a Hanafi or a Shafi, or a Hanbali or
a Maliki ? No! He was a Muslim, like all the other Prophets and Messengers of Allah
before him.
It is mentioned in chapter 3 verse 52 of Al-Quran that Jesus (pbuh) was a Muslim.
Further , in chapter 3 verse 67, Al-Quran says that Ibrahim (pbuh) was not a Jew
or a Christian but was a Muslim.
It is mentioned in chapter 3 verse 52 of Al-Quran that Jesus (pbuh) was a Muslim.
Further , in chapter 3 verse 67, Al-Quran says that Ibrahim (pbuh) was not a Jew
or a Christian but was a Muslim.
8. Quran says call yourselves Muslims
There is no Quranic verse or any authentic Hadith that says you should call
yourselves Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Ahle Hadith.
If anyone poses a Muslim the question who are you, he should say I am a Muslim,
not a Hanafi or a Shafi or a Ahle-Hadith.

In Surah Fussilat chapter 41 verse 33 Allah (swt) says: Who is better in speech
than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says, I am of those
Who bow in Islam (Muslim)? [Al-Quran 41:33]
The Quran instructs, Say: I am of those who bow in Islam. In other words, say, I
am a Muslim.
The Prophet (pbuh) dictated letters to non-Muslim kings and rulers inviting them to
accept Islam. In these letters he mentioned the verse of the Quran from Surah Al
Imran chapter 3 verse 64:
Say ye: Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (submitting to Allahs
Will).[Al-Quran 3:64]
9. Lip Service Muslims
Allah knew that even in the Muslim Ummah there will be many people who claim to
be Muslims (i.e. claim to submit their will to Allah) but practically will not follow
Allahs commands.
Allah refers to such people in the Quran as lip service Believers (Al Quran 5:41).
Thus we can conclude that those who claim to be Muslims but do not follow Quran
and Sunnah are Lip-Service Muslims. Those who follow the Quran and authentic
Hadith should not change their label, and stick to the best label given by Allah (swt)
i.e. Muslim and which the Prophet also called himself.
10. The Prophet had said that there would be 73 sects.
Some may argue by quoting the Hadith of our beloved Prophet, from Sunan Abu
Dawood Hadith No. 4579. In this Hadith the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have
said, My community will split up into seventy-three sects.
This hadith reports that the prophet predicted the emergence of seventy-three
sects. He did not say that Muslims should be active in dividing themselves into
sects. The Glorious Quran commands us not to create sects. Those who follow the

teachings of the Quran and Sahih Hadith, and do not create sects are the people
who are on the true path.
According to Tirmidhi Hadith No. 171, the prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said,
My Ummah will be fragmented into seventy three sects, and all of them will be in
Hell fire except one sect. The companions asked Allahs messenger which group
that would be. Where upon he replied, It is the one to which I and my companions
belong.
The Glorious Quran mentions in several verses, Obey Allah and obey His
Messenger. A true Muslim should only follow the Glorious Quran and the Sahih
Hadith. He can agree with the views of any scholar as long as they conform to the
teachings of the Quran and Sahih Hadith. If such views go against the Word of
Allah, or the Sunnah of His Prophet, then they carry no weight, regardless of how
learned the scholar might be. A true Muslim will not follow any ruling or teaching of
any great scholar of Islam if that particular ruling or teaching contradicts the Quran
and Saheeh Hadith.
Thus, the only school of thought that a Muslim should follow, is that of Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh). The only Madhab that a Muslim should follow, is the Madhab of
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And Allah knows the Best.
Zakir Naik, Salafi's and Prayers
People always send me emails and queries wondering why I continue to write about
Dr.Naik; knowing well that he has so many great contributions - especially in the
field of comparative religion. What most Muslims fail to understand that
comparative religion is a specialized branch of Islam and Jurisprudence is another
specialized branch in Islam. A medical doctor is not expected to build the next
tallest building in the world! So, this criticism is based on Dr.Naik's weakness in the
area of Jurisprudence.
Take for example, the video above: Dr.Zakir is quoting Sunan Abu Dawood Volume
1, Book of Salaah Chapter 271, Hadith No.755. This is what he is saying, "...there is

a hadith in Abu Dawood, if you read....which says that the prophet kept his hands
below the navel when he offered his salaah, BUT this is a Daeef (weak) hadith."
Dr. Naik Continues further, "Immediately, the next sahih hadith says that the
prophet kept his hands above the navel. There are other Sahih Hadeeth, like in
Sahih ibn Khuzaima that the prophet kept his hands on the chest":
Dr. Naik now draws his conclusion as follows:
"When there are Sahih Hadith saying that the prophet kept his hands (not clear if
Zakir is saying hand or arm) on his chest, so the hadith of below the navel is weak.
Thus, the right way to offer salaat is to keep the hands on the chest." This research
is based on the Works of Nasirudeen Albani's book "Sifah Salatu Nabi".
The problem is that Dr.Naik (and Albani) contradicts himself by saying that there is
a Sahih Hadith that the messenger of Allah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) prayed with
his hands above the navel. If that is the case, then there are two methods of
placing the hands, that is, one above the navel and the one as suggested viz "on
the chest".
Examining Zakir (and Albani's) Claim:
Here are the Narrators of Ibn Khuzaimah:
1. Mumil lbn Ismail
2. Sufyaan
3. A'asim
4. Kulaib
5. Wail (radhi allahu anhu)
Please note that if any of the above listed narrators appear in a chain of a Hadith;
Albani, the Ahle-Hadith, Salafi's and all those who follow the literalist school of

thought outright brand that particular hadith as daeef (weak). In the narration of
Ibn Khuzaimah (quoted by Dr.Naik) all four unacceptable narrators appear in that
hadith back-to-back. This is the Mother-Lode of DAEEF - according to Albani's
criteria. Yet Albani and Zakir have now conveniently hidden this fact from the
readers. When Albani and Zakir see that a hadith fits the purpose of their thoughts
they brand it Sahih eventhough there exists a weak narrator. In Ibn Khuzaimah's
narration Mu'mil ibn Ismail is extremely weak.
In fact, what Zakir Naik needs to tell his audience is how did Imaam Bukhari
perform his Salaat, and where did Imaam Bukhari place his hands? Why did such a
great Muhadith like Imaam Bukhari not quote a hadith in his Sahih? So, should we
be ranting and raving like Dr.Naik that the Sahih Hadith of where the hands should
be placed during salaat did not reach Imaam Bukhari? The Arabic words "Ala'a
Sadr" (on the chest) are not to be found in Imaam Bukhari's and Muslim's Sahih!
Zakir Naik in light of India's History
It is amazing how people have such a short memory of the historical facts that have
led to the success of Dr.Zakir Naik. The subcontinent -India and Pakistan - has
produced some of the most remarkable Muslim scholars that have left an indelible
mark on Islamic History. For example, Pakistan - having the second largest
population of Muslims in the world - stands at a very critical juncture as war in the
region unfolds in front of our eyes. However, the war waging in Pakistan dates back
to pre-partition; when Pakistan was actually India. A time when the British had
waged an ideological war against the Muslims of India. The colonialists launched a
deceptive campaign, using Christian Evengalists, to create confusion in the hearts
of Indian Muslims. Before Zakir Naik was even born, Maulana Rahmatullah Kairanvi,
a Hanafi scholar educated in the "Darse-Nizami" curriculum came to the forefront of
rescuing the faith of the Muslims in India. Sheikh Kairanvi was a contemporary of
the great Maulana Imadadullah Muhajir Makki (rahmatullahi alayhi). In fact, both
will later migrate to Mecca when the the British stepped up their "Lal-Masjid" type
mission of slaugtering the Muslim scholars. Maulana Kairanvi (rah) wrote his

magnum opus, "Izhar-ul-Haq" in 1864 becoming the most authoritative work on the
Christian Bible:
"This book, internationally recognized as one of the most authoritative and
objective studies of the Bible, was originally written in Arabic under the title
Izharul-Haq (Truth Revealed) by the distinguished 19th century Indian scholar,
Rahmatullah Kairanvi, and appeared in 1864. The book was subsequently translated
into Urdu, and then from Urdu into English by Mohammad Wali Raazi. Rahmatullah
Kairanvi wrote the book in response to the Christian offensive against Islam during
the British rule in India, and specifically to counter the subversive attack made by
the Rev. C. C. P. Fonder. Rev. Fonder had written a book in Urdu entitled Meezanul
Haq, the open intention of which was to create doubts into the minds of the
Muslims about the authenticity of the Quran and Islam. Sheikh Kairanvis intention
in his book was first of all to show that the Bible cannot in any way be considered
as a directly revealed book. He does this very effectively by means of his
voluminous and authoritative knowledge of the Jewish and
Christian scriptures. He demonstrates beyond doubt that the Books of the Old and
New Testaments have been altered, almost beyond recognition, from their original
forms. The work is even more notable in the light of subsequent Jewish and
Christian scholarship and the various discoveries that have since been made in this
field which all bear out the truth of Sheikh Kairanvis thesis."
Let us wind past the events of Maulana Kairanvi to the time when all went quite,
history quitely folded its events with the passage of time; until another Muslim
Scholar was born. Sheikh Ahmed Deedat was born in India, but later migrated to
South Africa. Turn of events would lead Ahmed Deedat (rahtullahi alayhi) to the
discovery of a historical event that would turn the tides on Christian Missionaries;
the book "Izhar-ul-Haq". The profound nature of the book would pave the path for
Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, taking him to great heights of scholarship and rewarding his
life with the title of "Muslim Scholar of the Christian Bible".

Sheikh Ahmed Deedat will become an inspiration for millions, if not billions of
Muslims across the world including Dr.Zakir Naik. It is sad that Dr.Naik down plays
the role of Hanafi Ulema, who sacrificed their lives and saved millions of souls
despite being branded as "Mullahs". It is so sad that he has not given the classical
ulema the respect that they deserve; yet he enjoys his fame under the pretext of a
doctoral title and as a "modern" forward thinking "scholar". He got his authentic
seal from Sheikh Ahmed Deedat (rah) who possessed "ilm-Laduna" through the
book of Maulana Kairanvi (rah). Dr.Naik would not be what he is today had he not
drank from the fountain of knowledge flowing from stream of classical Ulema - who
were in fact non other than from the "Deoband" school of Islamic scholarship.
Let me conclude with this very couplet I learned from my grandmother, who
actually saw the great Muslim scholar Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullahi
alayhi) in her teens. The couplet is:
"Baa Adab Baa Naseeb" (He / She that possess 'Adab' - etiquettes & respect - is
very blessed)
"Bay Adab Bay Naseeb" (He / She that possess no 'Adab' is without blessing)
Zakir Naik and the Yazeed Dilemma
In

summary, the

Ahle-Sunnah-wal-Jamaa'a

refrain

from

cursing

Yazid

Ibn

Mu'awiyya; and this is also the position of Dr.Naik. This is the most balanced,
correct and acceptable view.
On another note, this issue with Yazid bin Mua'aawiyah tends to remind a lot of
people in from the Subcontinent about Abdul Ala'a Maududi's book in urdu titled,
"Khilafaat-aur-Mulookiat" - Khilafah and Kingship. Mr.Maududi (acclaimed scholar
and thinker) was praised by the Ulema until he raised his pen against Sayyidna
Usman Ibn Affan (radhi Allaho anho) and called him "Khaain" - one who steals, or
does not measure with equity. However, Maududi's book gave Shia's the boost they
needed in accusing the Sahaba (radhi allahu anhu) of stealing, lying, cheating and
political favortism (astaghfirullah). Anyway, if Usman Ibn Affan (radhi Allaho anho)

is "khaain" then where does that leave us regarding the integrity of the Quran and
the compilation of the Quran? The followers of Mr.Maududi feel insulted when he is
challenged, yet no one feels insulted when the Sahaba Ikhraam are labeled
"Khaain" (cheaters) - God Forbid. I would like to add that Justice Mufti Taqi Usmani
has written a monumental book in the Urdu language titled, "Hazrat Mua'awiyya aur
Tareekhi Haqaaiq" (available from http://www.albalagh.net/). This book is a
response to Maududi's "Khilafat aur Mulukiat" and is an excellent reading on this
very challenging subject.
I personally like Dr.Naik and appreciate his contributions and efforts. However,
when it comes to the issue of Yazid, Dr Naik's organization has put out a
clarification on "Youtube" and to ones surprise he has listed Darul Uloom Deoband
at the top of his list. It is sad that on one hand Dr.Naik knows the reality of Ulemaof-Deoband, however, he insists on spreading ill feelings amongst his fans against
"Deobandi" scholars! Here a very scholarly response from Scholars in South Africa:
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?
askid=e65dfd0bcc40c10cb8b82b808fc45dfd
Zakir Naik the second Muslim Group
In an oft quoted hadith, regarding the 73 sects in Islam , one finds many a scholar
like Zakir Naik insisting that the four schools of thought and any Muslim following
the research of the four illustrious jurists are sects in Islam. Conversely, he has
argued that the rightly guided out of 73 are those following the Quran and Sahih
hadith. To examine Dr.Naik's claim we have to look at two major groups of people in
the world today:
1. Those who follow only the Quran but they reject the Sunnah; specifically the vast
literature of Hadith. They claim that the Quran is enough and there is no need for
Hadith. In their catechism (if I spelt the word right), they belief that the Quran is
Absolute, it is the word of God, whereas the the Hadith is the word of man which is
not absolute in its purity. By rejecting hadith they want to rid the world of the

inconsistencies created by hadith. This group of people are rejectors of the

Sunnah and not in the fold of Islam by all logical and Quranic evidence.
2. The second group are those who follow the Quran and Hadith but reject the Fiqh.
They claim that the Quran and Hadith is enough, and that Fiqh is the reason for
confusion. These people have gone so far as to brand the four schools of thought as
the reason behind the disunity of this ummah. This group proudly claims that the
word of the Prophet (SAW) has more value than the word of a fallible individuals like the four Imaams. The problem with this rule is that Imaam Bukhari is also a
fallible individual yet Dr.Naik follows Bukhari blindly and accepts all the narrators
(who are also fallible individuals) blindly in the chain that links upto the Messenger
of Allah (pbuh). But when it comes to trusting Imaam Abu Hanifa (or the other
jurists who are Thiqa / Adil), suddenly the people following their investigation are
branded as "Mushriks" and "Kafirs" and all the reason behind dividing the ummah
into sects! Furthermore, Dr.Naik claims to follow the Quran (script of Hafs an-Asim
al Kufi -another blind following) and Sahih ahadith trusting the research of Nasirud-Deen Albani, yet branding the following of Mujtahid Imaams as a misguided
practice? When Dr.Naik follows someone blindly it is a guided practice, but if I follow
Imaam Azam Abu Hanifa blindly, he categorizes me as a sect - doomed to Hell! So,
there is no doubt that Naik's claim is erroneous and false. He is unable to show, nor
will he ever be able to show till the day of judgement, a single hadith from Imaam
Bukhari regarding the placing of hands during salaat (i.e., below, on or above the
navel). This group of Muslims has created more confusion in the Ummah by blindly
following their own teachers, lecturers and Imaams, yet, they continue to brand
everyone else misguided for assuming such a position. Dr.Naik has taken
established practices of Islam and rejected them; for example he insists on 8
rakaats of taraawih instead of 20. This group of Muslims always want the masses to
focus on daeef (weak) vsSahih, but they never tell the people the whole truth.
For example, they never tell the people that there is not a single Sahih hadith in
Bukhari or Muslim where the prophet (pbuh) uttered the words Tarawih. So,
where did they get this word from? Well, their scholars took it from the four schools
of thought but failed to tell the people that they have done so. Regarding the Hadith

of Aisha (ra), Dr.Naik has created an erroneous interpretation that 8 rakaats when
prayed in 11 regular months are called "Qiyamul-Layl (night prayer)", but when
prayed during the month of ramadaan are called Taraawih. Now, if Dr.Naik is such
a champion of following Sahih Hadith why can't he ever prove this claim; 8 in
ramadhan equals Tarawih, 8 outside ramadhan equals qayamul layl - all from Sahih
Hadith? Everyone is welcome to search this hadith, carefully read it and sincerely
see for themselves the problem with Dr.Naik's interpretations / claims.
What it all boils down to is mass confusion created by these two groups that never
tell people the whole truth. Yet they continue (without fear of Allah) to leverage
their podiums in spreading bigotry, hate, mistrust and erroneous information.
Another example is the Al-Maghrib institute in America, which has done a disservice to Muslims in America by not really explaining the basis of Fiqh. By not
explaining fiqh, and talking to people about Usool-ul-Fiqh; yet being rejectors of
the four established schools of jurisprudence is an extremely dangerous position. I
as a Muslim should be sincere and open to the people when explaining something,
and letting people know my position. This allows others to understand my approach
and correct me where I am wrong. But by playing Mickey Mouse games, hide and
seek, charging people money, and passing out printed material that fails to cover
1/1000 of Fiqh, goes to show that there is something seriously wrong with such
groups of Muslims.
Finally, before the need for another Fiqh can be suggested, we need someone that
can explain the existing Fiqh as understood by the Jurists. For example the hadith
on a fly falling into a cup of Milk is known to all Muslims. But this is the ONLY
hadith. If someone where to ask Zakir Naik (and this is a challenge to him), please
could you show a hadith or ayat where if four ants fell in a cup of yogurt, whether
one can remove the ants and eat the yogurt or not? It is here that we find the
intelligence of the Fuqahaa who derived from this hadith a list of insects. Ijtihaad in
modern issues is necessary but the rules to base the ijtehaad have to come from
the established four schools.
Zakir Naik going where Shk.Deedat didn't go!

It was 1991 when I picked up the phone and called South Africa. The person that
answered on the other side was Sheikh Ahmed Deedat. After asking my age and
where I was calling from, he said, "Assalam alaykum son, my only area of
specialization is comparative religion. I am not an Imam, a sheikh that can answer
questions related to fiqh / masail, nor am I am a Muhadith or a Quranic teacher; if
you are seeking any services other than my area of expertise you have reached the
wrong number." I assured him that my question was regarding "Christianity". On
the other hand, Dr.Naik has suddenly shifted lanes from comparative religion to
Fiqh; an area where he lacks understanding. His Ustaaz (teacher) the late Sheikh
Ahmed Deedat (rahmatullahi alayhi) never delved into the arena of fiqh.
Dr.Naik has generated a series of videos and lectures blaming that the four schools
of thought viz Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali are the reason behind the Muslim
Ummah's disunity. In an effort to set the record straight he has offered following of
the "Quran and Sahih Hadith" as the means to solving the problem. In regards to
the four schools of thought he boldly quotes the statements of Aimma Mujtahideen
that these great illustrious men absolved themselves by saying that if a sahih
(authentic) hadith is found to contradict their madhab, then follow the Hadith. All
pious people of Allah have taken great care in matters of deen by adding
disclaimers to show their humility and piety (taqwa). A lesson for all of us to learn.
All Dr.Naik had to do was to tell the viewers, listeners and readers what Allamah
Hafiz Ibn Hajr has written in his book "Fathul Bari bi Sharh al Bukhari" that the
statement of Imam Shafi, "Idhaa saahal hadith, fa huwa Madhabi" (if you find a
sahih hadith than that is my madhab) has doubt (Shakh) in it. How can one prove
in this time and age that a certain hadith reached Imam Abu Hanifa or not? To
make this discussion painless, Hafiz ibn Hajar (ra) cites the example that Imam
Malik has recorded two saheeh ahadeeth in his Muwatta regarding tying of hands
during salaat. Eventhough, these ahadeeth reached Imam Malik and are recorded in
his Muwatta, his practice on these ahaadeeth was quite different. Dr.Naik fails to
explain this to his audience. Qadhi Sahnoon - a student of Malik (ra) - writes in AlMudawwanah that Imam Malik considered the practice of tying of hands during
fardh salaat as"weak" (eventhough he has two sahih ahadeeth in his Muwatta).

Dr.Naik boasts that he is a Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali according to the rule of
"Idhaa saahal hadeeth fa huwa madhabi". However, one finds that the illustrious
fuqahaa are being misquoted by Naik. Imaam Malik has recorded two sahih
ahaadeth, yet his practice was that tying of hands is not a "Sahih" during obligatory
prayers; rather a practice to be adopted during "Sunnah" and "Nawaafil". Is this the
practice of Dr.Naik? No, he blindly follows Albani's research of placing hands on the
chest.

But

now

listen

to

Zakir

Naik

on

this

video

link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeGc0zSAlQ. Why did Dr.Naik keep all the

facts away from the audience if his intention was to explain and elaborate a critical
issue? However, he falsely claims that he is Maliki - watch the video! Not only that
but Dr.Naik does not allow anyone to post any comments against this video on
"youtube". Try posting a note that "cheers" him and then post something
"opposing" him. The black and white of Dr.Naik's response will show you his extent
of bias. He is quick in criticizing the Muslim masses yet not able to take criticism.
Verdicts About Dr Zakir Naik
(Fatwa: 1541/1322=B/1429)
The statements made by Dr Zakir Naik indicate that he is a preacher of
Ghair Muqallidin, he is of free mind and does not wear Islamic dress. One
should not rely upon his speeches.
Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) knows Best
Darul Ifta,
Darul Uloom Deoband
(Fatwa: 352=363/B)
He seems Ghair Muqallid and his knowledge is not deep. Therefore, he is not
reliable and Muslims should avoid listening to him.
Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) knows Best

Darul Ifta,
Darul Uloom Deoband