Answering - "Should we cooperate with Dr. Zakir Naik?

"

* Introduction:

This is in response to the series of articles written by Sajid Kayum, who has
written a series of articles against Dr. Zakir Naik, an orator and student of
knowledge. When I had read those articles, the first thing that came to mind is
Abdullah bin Saba. Abdullah bin Saba was the one who spread rumours about Uthman
bin affan radhiyallaahu anhu; and was the one responsible for the division of the
Muslim Ummah; and was instrumental in the killing of Uthman bin Affan radhiyallaahu
anhu. Artistic words, and manipulation of matters were the key tools of Abdullah
bin Saba, the hypocrite who wanted to see the Muslims fight against each other.

I don't say that Sajid Kayum to be of the creed of Abdullah bin Saba; but I have no
doubt that the consequences of his writings are leading to the division of the
Muslims. If Sajid kayum's intention is to please Allah, and if he has brought facts
to the common man's notice, then we pray that Allah accepts his endeavour. But if
he had an intention to malign a Muslim, based on giving misinformation and by
construing false stories on an individual, then we pray to Allah that He punishes
such mischievous people in duniya and Aakhirah.

* Why am I writing this series?

I was never interested to refute Sajid's works. But, many of my close friends
encouraged me to refute his articles. Hence, after being encouraged by them, I have
taken this step of refuting his series of articles.

* Who is Sajid Kayum to me?

Some months ago, soon after the NDTV dialogue of Dr. Zakir Naik with the famous
movie star Shah Rukh khan, Soha Ali and others, Sajid Kayum was the one who called
Shah Rukh Khan as a "Kaafir". When I saw his comments, wherein he called Shah Rukh
a Kaafir, I advised him to go slow. I advised him to wait until the Hujjah (proofs)
are established. I had discussed this issue with various scholars here in India,
and learnt that Shah Rukh is living in India, which is not an Islamic state; hence,
the ruling to call an individual in a non Islamic state must be done only after
explaining the individual the DEEN; and only after the correct DEEN is presented to
him, and if he rejects the truth, then one may call him a Kaafir. There is no doubt
that Shah Rukh Khan has uttered the words of Kufr in the past; but we don't know
the state of his heart while saying. There's no doubt that he has been showing
signs of disobedience to Allah, but we don't know if he has repented for them or
not. Hence we would want to ensure the real state before passing a verdict. I had
not come across any scholar in India calling him a Kaafir, but Allaamaa Sajid Kayum
(Allaamaa for his students), passed a statement that he is a Kaafir. Soon, he had
even started to call those who didn't call Shah Rukh a Kaafir, as Kaafirs. Ever
since I came to know this nature of Sajid Kayum, I kept myself away from his
forums; for I'm not too concerned about labelling people as Kaafirs.

Sajid Kayum is blessed with a crafty technique. Whenever he posts his notes, he
used to delete the comments that were going against his views. He used to
misrepresent our comments, while the previous comments were deleted by him, thereby
giving misinformation to the reader. Hence, I had removed him from my friend's list
months ago.

Another incident to your notice. Some people in Bangalore came to my office and
asked me about my understanding of the DEEN. They were a little skeptic towards
meeting me and socialising with me. After they clarified all doubts about me, they
recalled themselves to have been given misinformation about me from a man currently
living in the city of Kuwait. The man was none other than Sajid Kayum. Yes,
backbiting about me and my centre DIET, and working towards keeping people away
from me, has become another mission of Sajid Kayum. Never mind, I never retaliated
to all of these.

This is in short, my experience with Sajid Kayum.

___________________________________________________________________

Current issue:

Sajid Kayum's articles against Dr. Zakir Naik didn't surprise me. But, what
surprised me was his instantaneous and unexpected attack. He claims to know Dr.
Zakir since a long while now. But, why attack him abruptly after so many years .
Why didn't he bring these articles a long time back? What made him to wait for so
many years to refute Dr. Zakir? Is it an endeavour to correct a person of his
mistakes, or is it to defame a well known personality? Is it character
assassination in the name of public awareness? Is it personal vendetta, or sincere
advise to Dr. Zakir? These were some questions that came to my mind.

When I read the articles, I learnt that the author Sajid Kayum had gone overboard
in making his point. The adjectives used in a disrespectful manner shows that he
has written these articles to haul down Dr. Zakir. The articles were surely not an
advise.

Prophet said that the religion is sincere advise. Sajid kayum's articles were not
an advise; rather it was market gossip. Let us analyse now the articles
inshaallaah. I shall refute in this note the introductory article of his.

* # Sajid kayum said: "Should we Cooperate with Dr. Zakir Naik?

Answer: Why not Sajid Kayum! Why shouldn't we cooperate with Dr. Zakir Naik?

Allah says in the Qur'an, in Surah Maidah, Chapter 5, verse 2,

"Help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety);
but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allah. Verily, Allah
is Severe in punishment."

If any Muslim is doing a good work and services in the cause of Islam, we may join
him in those deeds to gain rewards from Allah, as Allah instructs us to help one
another in good deeds. Hence, we must cooperate in the good works of Dr. Zakir
Naik, to get rewarded by Allah.

Prophet Muhammad was even willing to cooperate with Non-Muslims towards working on
helping widows, poor and the needy. Remember Hilful Fudhool, the platform under
which the Prophet showed interest to work with the Non Muslims in Makkah, to help
the poor and the needy.

* # Sajid kayum said: "That is a question, asked by many who affiliate

themselves to the call of returning back to the way of the Salaf, and see Dr. Zakir
Naik upon this way in general;"

Answer: There are many Muslims who have given up Shirk and Bidah, after hearing to
the lectures of Dr. Zakir. You are right, many are returning back to the way of the
salaf ( the pious predecessors); they are those who have forsaken grave worship and
other innovations. People like Dr. Zakir are the ones who vehemently do Da'wah to
them in open grounds and media channels. The real hard core Da'wah is done by
people who do Da'wah and Islaah, outside the Masjids. Dr. Zakir is surely one of
them who has brought the masses to an awareness about returning back to the way of
the Sahaabaa and the pious predecessors amongst the earlier generations. Dr. Zakir
is not on the way of those who return to the way of the Salaf; rather, he is one
among those who calls people to the way of the salaf.

* # Sajid Kayum said: "BUT then They see him publicly, openly and exclusively
exposing the weaknesses of the Salafis.

Answer: You say that Dr. Zakir exposes the weaknesses of the salafis? Where did he
do that? Secondly, do you mean to say that the salafis have weaknesses too, to be
exposed. Whom are you calling as salafis? Are you referring to the first three
generation of the followers of Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam; or are you
referring to people living in contemporary times? Which Salafi are you talking
about? Your statement is vague and absurd, without clear orientation. Get to
specifics please.

* # Sajid kayum said: "They see that he deems ascription to the terms Ahlul-
hadeeth/Salafi as sectarian;"

Answer: Who are "they" you are referring to? Once again there is no clarity in
expression. Now let's get to some serious discussion.

The word "Ahlul Hadeeth" means "People of Hadeeth". The word Ahle Hadeeth is seen
in the books of scholars, referring to the scholars who memorised hadeeths, lived
their lives in accordance to the hadeeths and taught and disseminated the hadeeths
to others. Hence the scholars of Hadeeths, such as Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Ibn
Hajar, Ibn Taimiyyah are all the people of hadeeths. Even the great scholars such
as Abu Hanifa, Shafi', Ahmad bin Hanbal and Imam Malik (may Allah's mercy be upon
them) were all people of hadeeth. They didn't follow their desires; rather they
followed the hadeeths of the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam.

The people of hadeeths were referred by many other names too. Names such as "As-
haabul Hadeeth", "Ahl al Aathaar" were used interchangeably by the people of
Sunnah, in the books and their vocabulary. The words were used to identify those
who followed Allah's book, Prophet's hadeeths and the way of the companions of the
Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam.

Al-Dhahabi quoted Bukhari as saying, "I have memorized one hundred thousand
authentic hadith and two hundred thousand that are not authentic".

(Source: Tathkirah al-Huffath, vol. 2, pg. 556)

Those were the Ahlul Hadeeth, the People of Hadeeth, who were referred in the books
of the scholars. They were the people who staunchly adhered to the narrations,
sayings and commandments of Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam.

Noting the academic prowess of the people of hadith, Al-Dhahabi remarked, "Where is
the knowledge of hadith, and where are its people? I am on the verge of not seeing
them except engrossed in a book or under the soil."

(Source: al-Dhahabi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad. al-Mu`allimi. ed (in Arabic). Tadhkirah

al-Huffadh. 1. India. p. 4.)

Hence the people referred as Ahlul Hadeeth were the scholars who memorised
hadeeths, and worked towards preserving the Prophet's Sunnah, by discarding the
Da'eef (weak) and Maudhoo (fabricated) narrations that were inauthentic. To
understand the science of hadeeth, one may hear to the lectures of Dr. Bilal
Philips on the link Dr. Bilal Philips-The Sciences of Hadith

But then, today there are organisations by the name Jamiat Ahle hadeeth. It is an
organisation that was founded in the year 1916, with ramifications braching out in
various parts of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiat_Ahle_Hadith)

The Ahle Hadeeth movement and organisations work towards the methodology of the
Ahlul Hadeeth. They are the ones who strictly adhere to the teachings of Quran and
Sunnah, while keeping themselves away from the innovations and deviance in the
religion. But, today, a man who is a member of this Jamaath would easily call
himself as Ahle Hadeeth. Now, that was not the case in the past. In the past, the
scholars of hadeeth were referred as Ahle Hadeeth. But today, a common man, who
adheres to the Ahle Hadeeth Jamaath would call himself as a Ahle Hadeeth. There's a
huge difference between the two. What is important is to educate people of the
importance of adhering to the methodology of following the way of the Sahaaba; and
not to disassociate oneself from the rest of the Muslim masses. The problem with
the organisations in India is that they don't encourage the Muslims of a particular
Jamaath to mix freely with the people of other Jamaaths. That's also a drawback to
reformation. Group mentalities would not help people to have peaceful relations
with other Muslims. Hence, calling oneself as Salafi or Ahle hadeeth must not be
used to form groups; rather it may be used to identify oneself the methodology of
seeking knowledge, since the words such as Ahle hadeeth and Salafis are there in
the common vocabulary.

But then these words are not limited to the words such as Ahle Hadeeth and Salafi.
The terms may be different in different places. In Kerala, India, they call
themselves as "Mujahids", and there are two groups amongst them. In Tamilnadu,
there are many names such as "Najath", "Ahle Hadeeth" and "Tawheed Jamaath", all
claiming themselves to follow the Qur'an and Sunnah, as understood by the Sahaabaa.
In some parts of the world, they call themselves as "Ansaaris". In Mangalore, the
Salafi Movement has a different office; while the Ahle Hadeeth has a different
office. In bangalore there are "Jamiat Alhe Hadeeth", "Jamiat Ulema Ahle ahadeeth",
"Guraba Ahle Hadeeth", "Jamiat Alhe Hadeeth Degani Saheban", "the Labaabeen Ahle
Hadeeth", "The Qureshi Ahle Hadeeth" and so on. In fact, they have different
offices for each Jamiat. Some of them totally against each other. Even physical
assaults were witnessed amongst them, until the issues were settled by the local
police station. They even have their cases in the court of law, fighting for
authority over the main Ahle Hadeeth Masjid, Bangalore. One Jamiat even goes to the
extent of calling other Ahle Hadeeth Jamiat scholars as innovators and Biddatis.
These are not good signs though. I'm not getting into specifics here, just to cover
the names of those who have committed excess with their brothers.

There is no harm to identify themselves, while understanding that these labels are
not mandatory, nor are they from the injunctions of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Dr. Zakir argues that he has not found the Sahaabaa calling themselves as Salafis
and Ahle Hadeeth, hence he doesn't feel comfortable in calling himself with those
labels. He has a valid point here.

In the past, the people who were adhering to the Qur'an and Sunnah, were tagging
their names with Hanafi, Hambali and so on, to identify their school of thought, in
matters of fiqh. These tags were only to identify, not to form groups. But today,
people form groups, and severe ties with members of other groups. That's a sickness
that needs to be addressed. In Karnataka, there are separate Masjids for Hanafis,
and separate Masjids for the Shafi's. The Hanafis in Puttoor, Karnataka, do not
have marriage alliance with the Shafi's of Puttoor district. These are the negative
outcomes of tags used.

The words such as Madani, Makki, Hindi, Andalusi were used by the scholars of the
past to identify the place or institution that they come from. Even these names
were not intended to make groups. Hence there is no harm in using such tags, as
long as one does not use them to make groups, or to belittle others.

The Qur'an addresses the Sahaabaa with beautiful names. They were addressed as
"Muhaajiroon" and "Ansaar". The Muhaajiroon were the people who migrated from
Makkah to Madina; while the Ansaar were the dwellers in Madina. These are beautiful
names that were addressed by Allah, while honouring the Sahaabaa.

Yet, when some of the Sahaabaa used the same names Muhaajiroon and Ansaar, for
wrong purposes, to divide their strength of the Muslim Ummah, Prophet Muhammad
sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam said that it was the call of Jaahiliyyah.

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was upset by an incident that occurred when a
young man from the Muhaajiroon and a young man from the Ansaar quarrelled. So
the Muhaajir called out: "O Muhaajiroon (meaning: rally to my help)!" While the
Ansaari called out: "O Ansaar!" When the Prophet (peace be upon him) heard this, he
said:

Is it with the call of jaahiliyyah that you are calling out to, whilst I am still
present amongst you?

(Source: Saheehul Bukhari)

Hence, the name tags used must not have any adverse effects; and it must not be
used in an inappropriate manner. Any tag that can bring divisions amongst the
ummah, must not be used to create dissension amongst the members of the ummah.

Watch Dr. Zakir Naik explaining his stance towards calling oneself by the name
Salafi.

Dr. Zakir Naik-Salafi's

Watch Shaikh Assim Al Hakeem cautioning the Muslims of getting extreme with the
name tags.

Shaikh Assim Al Hakeem-Islam Hijacked

If one uses the name Salafi, then there are certain conditions to take care.

Islamqa-1087

* # Sajid Kayum said: "while Salafi scholars and Ahle-Hadeeth moulanas are the
highlights of his conferences and TV channel."

Answer: The total population of Ahle hadeeth Jamaath members in Pakistan is just 4
%. The total population of Ahle hadeeth Jamaath members in India is 25 millions -
30 millions (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahl_al-Hadith),

while the total Muslim population in India is more than 20 crores. The second
highest Muslim population in the world is that of India. Ahle Hadeeth Jamaath
members in India are about 10% of the total Muslim masses. Yet, Dr. Zakir is
promoting them because, he knows that they are the ones who are hammering the truth
across. If Dr. Zakir wanted the numbers alone, he could have promoted the Hanafi
madhhab alone, and satisfied the majority, and acquired the majority's cooperation
and strength. But, he opted to please Allah; hence he is promoting all those who
have knowledge to benefit mankind with the knowledge that they possess. May Allah
bless him for that. He promotes even the scholars from deoband and Jamaath e Islami
because, there are muwahhidoon amongst them. There are muwahhidoon amongst Shafi's,
Hanafis, Hanbalis and Malikis. Why shouldn't he promote them?

* # Sajid kayum said "And this, despite the well-known fact that the Ahlul-
Hadeeth youth, masjid and Dawah centers have been at the forefront of promoting,
popularizing and supporting Dr. Zakir".

Answer: It's the other way round. The Da'wah centres get recognition while
promoting the works of Dr. Zakir. The CDs that are sold in the Da'wah centres are
excellent resource materials to explain the tenets of Islam to the non Muslims.
There are many amongst the non Muslims who have embraced Islam, just by watching
his talks. It is Allah Who guides people to the truth. But, the duty of the Da'ee
is to only notify the truth. May Allah reward Dr. Zakir for notifying the truth
about Islam.
The CDs and books of Dr. Zakir does not contain any copyrights. There are many
Dawah centres which sell the CDs of Dr. Zakir, and run their centres with the
profits made out of the CDs. Its a well known matter to all, the largest sale
material are the CDs of Dr. Zakir. That has been our experience too. Youngsters
flooding to our centres demanding the CDs of Dr. Zakir is the norm.

Da'wah centres promote him because, many Da'wah centres were started after looking
at the success of Dr. Zakir. Many youngsters were inspired by his talks and were
motivated to start Da'wah centres and to give public talks. The idea that one need
not be a scholar to do Da'wah was instilled in the youngsters, after looking at Dr.
Zakir in the public forums. No wonder the Da'wah centres are promoting Dr. Zakir
Naik.

* # Sajid Kayum said: "A number of confusions and questions have thus arisen,
and people have been asking them since the year 2000, until now in 2011.

So what is the Salafi / Ahle-Hadeeth Dawah about? Who are its bearers and allies?

Is the labeling sectarian?

Whom to support and whom not to support?

What to make of Dr. Zakir�s public criticisms on the Ahlul-Hadeeth / Salafis?

Answer: These questions needs to be addressed with wisdom and justice. One must not
add anything from his own desire to exaggerate the importance of a subject. By the
way, people have found it comfortable with what Dr. Zakir has explained in this
issue. Whom to support, Whom not to support etc etc, are all dealt by scholars of
Ahlus Sunnah in great detail.

I would encourage the Muslims to watch Shaikh Yassir Al Qadhi's talk on "Unity and
Disunity in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah". Layman like Sajid Kayum must not take
this responsibility to answer the questions that needs scholarly intervention.

Shaikh Yassir Al Qadhi - "Unity and Disunity in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah"

* # Sajid Kayum said "Base-Rule: The Scholars are the reference point. As long
as we know who we are, and what the Salafi Dawah stands for, and are able to
distinguish a Scholar from a Daee (caller), and know that scholars should be our
reference point � then, we will be safe and protected from many doubts and
confusions"
Answer: If what Sajid Kayum says is what he believes in, then why did he go ahead
of scholars? There are scholars who are better to handle these questions, rather
than a novice like Sajid Kayum. If Sajid Kayum had considered the scholars as the
reference point, he wouldn't have put himself ahead of the scholars such as Dr.
Bilal Philips, Dr. Ziaurrahmaan Madani, Shaikh Assim Al Hakeem, Dr. R.K. Noor
Muhammad Madani, Shaikh Abdul Azeem Madani and others. He would have consulted them
before posting such articles.

* # Sajid Kayum said: "And even when confusions and disagreements occur, we
have been blessed by great contemporary scholars, al-hamdulillah, to whom we can
refer back to. We have Kibaar (major) scholars, who passed away in recent times,
like Allamah Ibn Baaz, Allamah Naasirud-Deen al-Albaani, Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen, and
many others � may Allah have mercy on them all.

And we have Kibaar (major) scholars who are alive today like Allamah al-Fawzaan,
Shaikh ar-Rajihi, Shaikh Saaleh aal-Shaikh, Shaikh Abdul-Aziz Aal-Shaikh (the
current grand mufti), and others (hafidhahumulla)"

Answer: The list of scholars mentioned by Sajid Kayum, are the scholars of Dr.
Zakir Naik too. Dr. Zakir quotes from Shaikh Naasirudeen Albani and Shaikh Bin Baaz
rahimahullah. Sajid Kayum is listing these names. Dr. Zakir Naik meets the scholars
in Madina and Makka, and has regular interactions with them and updates with
necessary knowledge in the field of Da'wah. He is in regular touch with Dr.
Ziaurrahmaan Madani the great scholar in Madina (as told by Shaikh Arshad Basheer
Madani). He is in regular touch with Shaikh Assim Al Hakeem and other great
scholars of Saudi such as Shaikh Saleh al Munajjid (as told by Shaikh R.K. Noor
Muhammad Madani). Dr. Shaikh R.K. Noor Muhammad Madani is also a member working
with Dr. Zakir in his IIS School, Chennai. He is surrounded by scholars of Madina
and other scholars from other parts of the world. Scholars are surely our reference
point; but we don't do Taqleed of any of them. We follow only the best man who
walked the face of the earth, Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam. That's
the difference that makes a clear distinction.

* # Sajid Kayum said: "Referring back to the major scholars and trusting their
conclusions becomes even more critical and vital when those who have taken formal
Islamic education, and are supposed to guide people - either remain quiet upon
falsehood or use their education to justify the wrong, and let people remain
confused.

In this case, the fatawa and conclusions of the great scholars help us gain the
correct understanding, and counter the falsehood of those who are far more
academically qualified than us."
Answer: Who are the scholars that Sajid Kayum is referring to have taken formal
education, remaining quiet upon falsehood & using their education to justify the
wrong, and letting people remain confused? Sajid kayum has attacked the scholars
here. The accusation is made on general sense. Whom is he referring to? His attack
on scholars too has gone haywire; totally out of control. It's like shooting in
wilderness, while keeping one's eyes closed, not knowing who the target is. Let
Sajid Kayum list the names of the scholars he is attacking. On one hand he says
that the scholars are his reference point, while on the other hand he is
disrespecting them with the statements that are totally uncalled for.

* # Sajid Kayum said "In the context of our discussion, when the questions
arise;

1. Should common people, with rudimentary knowledge of the Deen (religion), be

encouraged to argue and debate with non-Muslims?
2. Should the common people read books of the disbelievers, and expose
themselves to the doubts they spread against Islam?
3. What is the ruling on Nasheeds, and using them for Dawah?
4. What does Islam say about speculations and allegorical explanations of some
matters of the Ghayb (unseen)
5. and other issues of Aqeedah, Fiqh, Dawah, Manhaj (methodology)

...we should seek direction and guidance from the scholars, or those teachers/daees
who are upon the way of the scholars."

Answer: Yes, we shall refer to the scholars. But, remember we seek proofs from the
scholars. Dr. Zakir never encourage people to debate with non-Muslims unless a
person is well ground with the Islamic knowledge. He himself has given hundreds of
public talks, but his dialogues with non Muslims are just a hand few. To say that
Dr. Zakir encourages the Muslims with rudimentary knowledge on Islam to argue or
debate with non Muslims is preposterous. No book or documents records any such
practise of Dr. Zakir; and to talk ill about a person out of assumptions, is
nothing less than slander.

The usage of Nasheed for Da'wah is an issue which can be discussed. Dr. Zakir uses
the Nasheeds that do not contain any musical instruments, except the Daff that is
permissible according to the majority of the scholars. He is not the only one in
the world using Nasheed in the productions. You name any Islamic channel or Video
productions, you'll find most of them using Nasheed in the background. We must feel
good that this is a good alternative for the existing songs and instrumental music
that the world is possessed with. According to Islam-qa.com question no. 11563,
Nasheed is permissible.

The complete fatawa is here below.

The clear saheeh texts indicate in a number of ways that it is permissible to
recite poetry and listen to it. It was narrated in saheeh reports that the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his noble Companions (may Allaah be
pleased with them) listened to verse, recited it (as nasheed) and asked others to
recite it, both when they were travelling and when they stayed at home, in their
gatherings and whilst they were working, individually, as in the case of Hassaan
ibn Thaabit, �Aamir ibn al-Akwa� and Anjashah (may Allaah be pleased with them),
and in unison, as in the hadeeth of Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) which
describes the digging of the ditch (al-khandaq). Anas said:

When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw how
exhausted and hungry we were, he said (in verse):

�O Allaah, there is no life except the life of the Hereafter, so forgive the Ansaar
and the Muhaajireen.�

And they said in response:

�We are the ones who have pledged allegiance to Muhammad, to make jihaad for as
long as we live.�

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3/1043)

And in gatherings too: Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated with a hasan isnaad that Abu
Salamah ibn �Abd al-Rahmaan said: �The Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not speak in devious tones or in a soft
manner. They used to recite verses in their gatherings, denouncing the affairs of
their jaahiliyyah, but if it was the matter of their religion, they would become
very serious and cautious (8/711).

This evidence indicates that nasheeds are permissible, whether recited individually
or in unison. The word nasheed in Arabic means raising the voice when reciting
verse and making the voice sound beautiful and gentle.

There are conditions to which attention must be paid with regard to this matter:

Not using forbidden musical instruments in nasheed.

Not doing it too much or making it the focus of the Muslim�s mind, occupying all
his time, or neglecting obligatory duties because of it.

Nasheed should not be recited by women, or include haraam or obscene speech.

They should not resemble the tunes of the people of immorality and promiscuity.

They should be free of vocal effects that produce sounds like those of musical
instruments.

They should not have moving tunes which make the listener feel �high� as happens
to those who listen to songs. This is the case with many of the nasheeds which
appear nowadays, so that the listeners no longer pay any attention to the good
meaning of the words, because they are so entranced by the tunes. And Allaah is the
Source of strength.

References:

Fath al-Baari, 10/553-554-562-563

Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 8/711

Al-Qaamoos al-Muheet,411

Hence, we would say that Sajid Kayum was haste in making his statements against Dr.
Zakir and the people who work with him.

* # Sajid Kayum said: "Once we know who we are and what we stand for, we will
be sturdy enough to benefit even from the daees (callers) who have mistakes -
without being harmed in our Deen� Insha�allah."

Answer: Sajid Kayum himself says that we can benefit from the callers who have
mistakes, then what's the problem! When we can cooperate with callers with
mistakes, then why not cooperate with an excellent caller Dr. Zakir Naik.
 * # Sajid Kayum said: "Dr. Zakir Naik has some good debates with militant-
vegetarians, Christians, and the like, which can be benefited from; but if someone
is shown the guidance of the scholars in matters of the Sharee�ah, and he replies
back saying, �but Dr. Zakir says such and such�, then that is a clear indication
that he has a serious problem identifying scholars and knowing their status!"

Answer: Don't follow anyone blindly; not even Dr. Zakir Naik. When we Muslims don't
follow Imam Abu hanifa and Imam Shafi' rahimahullah blindly, then we must not
follow even any scholar or Dr. Zakir Naik blindly. Look in for the proofs from
Qur'an, and follow the narrations from authentic hadeeths. That's exactly what Dr.
Zakir Naik says. If someone follows Abu Hanifa rahimahullah blindly, would you
blame Imam Abu Hanifa for that? Similarly, if someone blindly follows Dr. Zakir,
don't blame Dr. Zakir. Educate the one who has erred, and tell him that Dr. Zakir
does not tell anyone to follow him; but rather he asks people to follow the Qur'an
and the Sunnah.

* # Sajid kayum said: "Who is responsible for levying accusations publicly, and
explicitly targeting the Ahle-Hadeeth/Salafis? Who started this? Does he take
advice? Does he clarify a mistake, or simply stops mentioning it � while the
mistakes recorded in tapes continue to be circulated? How do we know that the
mistake was acknowledged, and who is to correct misunderstandings caused? If Dr.
Zakir misrepresented the position of Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen (rahimahullah) publicly,
should he be corrected, or should people be allowed to have a bad-opinion about an
individual or group, because of a false accusation?

Answer: Sajid Kayum wants everyone to take his advise, while he does not want to
take the advise of others. What appears wrong to Sajid Kayum, are not appearing to
be wrong to many scholars. Infact, even if there may be some differences of
opinions amongst the scholars, he has blown it out of proportion, exaggerating the
issue to the extent of calling people towards disconnecting all cooperation with
Dr. Zakir Naik. Sajid Kayum is not from the Kibaar Ulema, nor is he a ruler of an
Islamic state; not even an M.L.A in the streets of Mumbai. What authority does he
want to enforce on Dr. Zakir, while Dr. Zakir is one among the 100 most influential
people in India Dr.Zakir Naik - Among 100 most powerful indians

;and he is one amongst the 500 most influential Muslims in the world,

Dr.Zakir Naik - Among 500 most influential Muslims in the world, Refer page 127

Dr. Zakir didn't misquote Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen rahimahullah. Sajid Kayum must have
slept while the class was on, to discover something which he is unaware of. Hence
his allegations on Dr. Zakir is presumptuous and overboard.
 * # Sajid Kayum said: "Yes, we are well-aware of our environment and
situations. We are aware that it�s a small and ever shrinking world, and that those
who provide Islamic services, in its various forms, are a select few; and such type
of discussions cause dissensions and embarrassment amongst brothers......"

Answer: Sajid Kayum was very well aware of what was to happen out of his articles.
"Dissensions and embarrassment amongst brothers", as he said. He knew what he was
writing, and he knew the consequences before hand. Dissension amongst brothers is
brought out by Satan. Satan wants mankind to fight amongst themselves. If Sajid
Kayum had wanted to give Dr. Zakir Naik a sincere advise, then the choice of words
that he would have used would have made a huge difference. But, his articles don't
serve the purpose of advise, but rather a hate campaign to belittle the works of
Dr. Zakir. I pray to Allah that I continue the answers for all the nine more
articles of Sajid on the same subject. May Allah end the dissensions amongst the
brothers, and bring peace and compassion amongst them.

And all Praises and Thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the Universe.

- Umar Shariff

www.discoverislam.co.in

--------------------

Answering - "Should we cooperate with Dr. Zakir Naik?"

Dear Readers,

This is in response to the series of articles written by Sajid Kayum, who has
written a series of articles against Dr. Zakir Naik, an orator and student of
knowledge.

The refutation is to refute the allegations against Dr. Zakir. For those who have
no idea of the articles written by Sajid Kayum, I would not encourage you to read
this article. Please don't waste your time on this. In case you are quite
inquisitive to know all about it, then read the introductory note before the series
of articles to follow. Baarakallaahu feek.

_____________________________________________________________

Inshaallaah I will be refuting Sajid Kayum's Article no. 1 here.

 * #Sajid Kayum said: "I've had many interactions with people associated with
IRF since way back around 1993, and the general orientation of all of them, back
then, was:

1. Quran-only types: They either rejected Hadeeth, or gave it no significance

treating it as unbeneficial information.

If you mentioned a Hadeeth to them, the first thing that would come to their minds
was, 'What would a non-Muslim think about this Hadeeth?

And we would argue with them that let us benefit from our religion
first, and be good Muslims ourselves, before we are concerned about what non-
Muslims think, or how to go about explaining such and such to them."

Answer: Sajid Kayum says that he had many interactions with "people associated"
with IRF, and to his disappointment the people whom he found there were "Qur'an-
only types". Sajid Kayum calls them "the people associated" with IRF. If that was
his interaction with the people in IRF, then IRF is not responsible for that. Many
members come to Da'wah centres to read books. Back in 1990s, "Da'wah centre" was a
rare and an unusual thing. General masses in India had no clue over what a Da'wah
centre was. Those were the times when most of Muslim men were clean shaven; while
most of the Muslim women were without Hijaab; and most of the Muslim children
watching Hindi movies of Amitabh Bachan and Dharmendra, with their parents in movie
theatres.

When Dr. Zakir founded the organisation IRF, Islamic Research Foundation, the aim
of the organisation was to spread the message of Islam, in the light of the Qur'an
and the Sunnah, the way of Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam. The books
in IRF were encouraging the Muslims to follow the Quran and the Sunnah. Dr. Zakir
in his lectures was encouraging the Muslims to follow the Quran and Sunnah. Then
how can IRF be blamed for the statements of those who come to the organisation to
read books there? Sajid Kayum must say about what Dr. Zakir said. If IRF was the
"Quran only type", how is that they pray 5 times a day, sport the beards and follow
the Sunnah in all matters. If IRF were the "Quran only types", then their
literature would have said that; their CDs must have said that; or their websites
must have said that. Alleging an organisation by calling it's members as "Quran
only types" is certainly a grave issue. Sajid Kayum is empty handed without the
necessary proofs from the literatures and CDs of IRF. He reminds me of Dr. William
Campbell, who was narrating his personal interactions with Prof. Keithmore. All
those who watched Dr. Zakir's debate with Dr. William Campbell will understand what
I'm saying.

In fact, back in 1990s the works of IRF was revolutionary. A man wearing a skull
cap, sporting a beard, wearing pants above the ankles and giving a talk in English
to the general masses was the pioneering movement in the field of Da'wah. The CDs
of the 1990s will prove to us the nature of audience that Dr. Zakir had. Majority
of audience in the CDs of Dr. Zakir in 1990s were Muslim men neat shaven, and most
of the women in Chudidaars and Sarees.

The people who were enthralled by the talks of Dr. Zakir were visiting his centre
IRF. Zealous they were; but not engrained with knowledge. Knowledge is something
that comes to a person over a period of time. Hence, if Sajid Kayum had come across
any person in IRF, who happens to be "Quran only type", Sajid must understand that
many common men were visiting IRF to learn more about Islam.

If one comes to our centre DIET, on any given day, you may find many visitors of
various jamaaths and religions, discussing with us, reading books at the reading
library, and many a times seeking guidance through the Da'ees in the centre. You
may find even Shias attending our Arabic classes. If one sees Shia in our centre,
let him not consider DIET to be promoting Shiism. Lookin to the resource materials
and make your judgement. Hence, to judge the centre, based on the visitors is a
clear misjudgement. One must rate a shop, by what the shop sells; not by the
customers who come to buy in the shop. Hence make judgement about a centre, based
on the books, CDs and the manifesto of the organisation.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "(they were) avid fans and admirers of Shaikh Ahmed Deedat
(rahimahullah) to the extent that they imitated him in behavior, attitude and
mistakes.

Answer: Sajid Kayum is commenting on the behaviour of some Da'ees who imitated
Shaikh Deedat rahimahullah. It's quite a natural behaviour of people to imitate
those whom they like. In those days, Shaikh Deedat was the one who boosted the
morales of the Muslims. At an age when Muslims were feeling proud to send their
children to convent schools, while letting them learn the bible in the moral
science classes, Shaikh Deedat was the one who challenged the Christian
missionaries to introspect their faith in Christianity. No doubt the Muslims in
1990s loved Shaikh Deedat. The masses in those times didn't have access to many
books and videos. Remember the days when people had no Internet, CDS or Daarussalam
books in India. Those were the days. Hence, it's quite natural for people to have a
strong liking for Shaikh Deedat; and as a consequence could have mimicked him out
of natural instinct of human nature. Human beings generally imitate the one's they
admire. Little children imitate their parents. Students imitate teachers. Some tv
worms imitate the tv personalities. So must have been the case with the Da'ees
imitating Shaikh Deedat. It is the love for Shaikh Deedat that must have let them
to imitate him. Loving Shaikh Deedat for the sake of Allah is not haraam. But, the
love for Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam must be more than any amongst
mankind. It is but natural that students in classroom would speak like the
teachers. So is the case with those students of Shaikh Deedat, who learnt the
Da'wah skills by watching his videos. May Allah forgive the sins of Shaikh Deedat,
and admit him in Jannatul Firdouse.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "If Shaikh Ahmed Deedat (rahimahullah) made an

inappropriate hand-gesture about the beard - as if to show that this is something
silly being discussed by Muslims - they all imitated those hand gestures.

See. Deedat: Inappropriate hand gestures and belittling fiqh discussions"

Answer: What seemed inappropriate to Sajid Kayum, did not seem so for the general
masses. The scholars in Saudi Arabia respected him; and I would term him a "Roaring
Lion". Yes, Shaikh Deedat was a solitary "Roaring Lion" of the past century. His
gestures were just so intrinsic of his innate nature. If Sajid Kayum drew
conclusions based on the hand gesture of Shaikh Deedat, thats too quick to assume
things. Shaikh Deedat has encouraged in his lectures to ask Shaikh Bin Baz
rahimahullah, the matters concerning Islam. He said that he is a professional
towards debating with Christian missionaries. But, when it came to the matters
concerning fiqh and deeper disciplines of Islamic theology, he would say "Ask
Shaikh Bin Baz" rahimahullah, the former grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. Shaikh Deedat
was humble enough to admit the fact that he was not a scholar in Islam; but he was
surely a master in debate. To pick on late Shaikh Deedat, and make irresponsible
remarks on him, is not good etiquettes.

Allah says in the Qur'an, in Surah Baqarah, verse 134,

"That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they
earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to
do."

* Sajid Kayum said: "(they had) Utter Dislike for Discussion on Differences
amongst Muslims, and no concern about whom amongst the Muslims, is upon the correct
understanding, and who is a caller to falsehood and deviation?

Answer: Once again these remarks are made on unknown visitors to IRF. And even if
some members didn't want to discuss on the differences amongst Muslims, that is to
avoid altercations in the Da'wah centre. Time, place and person matters a lot.
There were instances in the life of Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam,
wherein the Prophet advised some Sahaabaa to keep their Islam secret, and not
proclaim in the city of Makkah. But then the Zealous Sahaabi announced his Islam
loudly, saying LAA ILAAHA ILLALLAAH, until when he was beaten up by the Kuffaar of
Makkah. Hence, if a person didn't want to speak about a subject in a particular
place and time, it doesn't mean that he does not form his own opinions on a matter.
Let me give an example: In India, people vote for political parties. But, the
adverts in televisions advises the general masses to not reveal their choice of
party to public. No wonder, even when one gets to the voting cabin, he/she doesn't
reveal to whom they vote. That's to avoid unwanted hatred. If IRF, in the initial
stages had a policy of not discussing the matters concerning the divisions of the
Muslims, it should be understood to have made to keep away from altercations and
violence. And moreover, how can people talk about a subject, when they don't have
much knowledge of it. Not everyone is an expert in giving sermons on Aqeedah.
Hence, to put certain bar to budding Da'ees to stay away from getting into matters
that need more knowledge is not an issue. What is important to learn is that, IRF
was open for learning and progressing. The foundations for growth was strong from
the beginning. It was "obey Allah, and obey the Rasool". Not every child runs from
the day one. It takes a long time to crawl, stand, walk and then run. Sajid Kayum
has seen the crawling IRF in 1993; now it's a marathon runner, raising the banner
of Islam, racing ahead with the Aqeedah of the salaf -as- saaliheen (the pious
predecessors).

* #Sajid Kayum said: "Ahmed Deedat's flattery of Khomeini (May Allah's Laanah
be upon Khomeini)"To complete the circle - after belittling differences amongst
Muslims that are a result of innovations, Shirk and heretical ideas - we see in
this clip, Ahmed Deedat�s flattery of Khomeini and his Shia revolution. Again, he
only mentions their minor innovations whilst neglecting their major Shirk and
heretical beliefs."

Answer: Khomeini was never a hero for Shaikh Deedat. If one acknowledges a good
work of an enemy, that does not make one endorse to all that one does.

Al-Bukhari recorded a story in his Sahih from Abu Hurayrah, in the chapters on the
virtues of the Qur'an and the description of Shaytan. In this narration, Abu
Hurayrah said,

"Allah's Messenger assigned me to keep watch over the Sadaqah (charity) of Ramadan.
A person snuck in and started taking handfuls of foodstuff. I caught him and said,
`By Allah, I will take you to Allah's Messenger.' He said, `Release me, for I am
meek and have many dependents and am in great need.' I released him, and in the
morning Allah's Messenger asked me, `What did your prisoner do yesterday, O Abu
Hurayrah' I said, `O Allah's Messenger! He complained of being needy and of having
many dependents, so I pitied him and let him go.' Allah's Messenger said, `Indeed,
he told you a lie and will be coming again.' I believed that he would show up
again, for Allah's Messenger had told me that he would return. So, I watched for
him. When he (showed up and) started stealing handfuls of foodstuff, I caught hold
of him again and said, `I will definitely take you to Allah's Messenger.' He said,
`Leave me, for I am very needy and have many dependents. I promise I will not come
back again.' I pitied him and let him go. In the morning Allah's Messenger asked
me, `What did your prisoner do last night, O Abu Hurayrah!' I replied, `O Allah's
Messenger! He complained of his great need and of too many dependents, so I took
pity on him and set him free.' Allah's Messenger said, `Verily, he told you a lie;
he will return.' I waited for him attentively for the third time, and when he (came
and) started stealing handfuls of the foodstuff, I caught hold of him and said, `I
will surely take you to Allah's Messenger as it is the third time you promised not
to return, yet you returned.' He said, `Let me teach you some words which Allah
will give you benefit from.' I asked, `What are they' He replied, `Whenever you go
to bed, recite Ayat Al-Kursi- Allahu la ilaha illa Huwal-Hayyul-Qayyum, till you
finish the whole verse. (If you do so), Allah will appoint a guard for you who will
stay with you, and no Shaytan will come near you until morning.' So, I released
him. In the morning, Allah's Messenger asked, `What did your prisoner do yesterday'
I replied, `O Allah's Messenger! He claimed that he would teach me some words by
which Allah will grant me some benefit, so I let him go.' Allah's Messenger asked,
`What are they' I replied, `He said to me: Whenever you go to bed, recite Ayat Al-
Kursi from the beginning to the end, Allahu la ilaha illa Huwal-Hayyul-Qayyum. He
further said to me: (If you do so), Allah will appoint a guard for you who will
stay with you, and no Shaytan will come near you until morning.' (One of the
narrators) then commented that they (the Companions) were very keen to do good
deeds. The Prophet said, `He spoke the truth, although he is a liar. Do you know
whom you were talking to, these three nights, O Abu Hurayrah' Abu Hurayrah said,
`No.' He said, `It was Shaytan.''' An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith in Al-Yawm
wa Al-Laylah.

Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wasallam said that "Shaitaan is a liar, but he
spoke the truth". At one instance, shaitaan spoke the truth. Prophet acknowledged
that. So is the case with Khomeini. If Khomeini has done something that is right,
that does not mean that he is a righteous person. If Shaikh Deedat spoke good about
any thing that Khomeini did, that does not mean that he is a follower or admirer of
Khomeini. No where did we come across people becoming Shia after hearing to Shaikh
Ahmed Deedat's talks. Hence to misrepresent things out of context and blow things
out of proportion is not something praiseworthy of Sajid Kayum. Shaikh Deedat won
the King Faisal award from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; he did not win the Khomeini
award from the kingdom of Iran!

We love the Ahle Bait. But we don't get to extremes in the love for them. We hate
those who hate the Ahle Bait and the Sahaaba Ajma'een. If Khomeini has made
disrespectful remarks on our righteous Sahaaba, we pray to Allah that He punishes
the one who hates HIS slaves, with whom HE is pleased with.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "(Shaik Deedat) was Indulging in, �Maro Sale Ko (Urdu
slang for, �beat the sucker�)� style of Debate"

Answer: The Urdu phrase "Maro Sale Ko" is an expression. The literal translation of
it would mean "Hit the brother-in-law". In Udru, the word "Saala" has many
meanings. It would mean "brother-in-law"; it's a word that is addressed by close
friends to each other; it is a word that is addressed to anyone out of anger. Let
me tell you something that is personal about me and my friend Azmat, who lives
currently in Kuwait. We are childhood friends. Whenever we meet each other I
address him by calling him "Saale", and he addresses me with the same word "Saale".
It's just an expression. And we love using that on each other. I sincerely love him
for the sake of Allah, and I know that he too loves me for the sake of Allah. We
have great respect for each other. And we are good friends now, and we want to
leave this world as good friends to each other. AAMEEN. The point I want to make
here is, the word "Saale" can be used in various contexts. When Shaikh Deedat says
"Maro Sale Ko", it simply means an expression to infer "Break the falsehood". Why
would Shaikh Deedat want to call a Christian missionary as his brother-in-law?

The Sahaabaa during the time of Prophet Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam used
to say an expression "Let my parents be sacrificed for you" addressing it to
Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihiwasallam.
For example, in the following hadeeth:

The Prophet said, "I saw myself (in a dream) entering Paradise, and behold! I saw
Ar-Rumaisa', Abu Talha's wife. I heard footsteps. I asked, Who is it? Somebody
said, 'It is Bilal ' Then I saw a palace and a lady sitting in its courtyard. I
asked, 'For whom is this palace?' Somebody replied, 'It is for 'Umar.' I intended
to enter it and see it, but I thought of your ('Umar's) Ghira (and gave up the
attempt)." 'Umar said, "Let my parents be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle!
How dare I think of my Ghira (self-respect) being offended by you? [al-Bukhari]

Many Sahaabaa have said this phrase "let my parents be sacrificed for you", in
various ahaadeeth. But, if one literally takes this expression and arrive at his
conclusion, he may not get things right. The expression "Let my parents be
sacrificed for you". If one says, all sacrifices must be done to Allah alone, then
how can one sacrifice one's parents to the Prophet? Or if one says, sacrifices
means to take their lives to dedicate? That is not the expression intending to. It
is an expression of love and joy, which would mean that Prophet Muhammad
sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam is more dearer to them than their very parents. And it
would mean that they are willing to sacrifice all things in the world, to seek the
love of Allah and His Rasool. Hence, taking out expressions to arrive at
conclusions based on literal words, is not appropriate according to the linguistic
disciplines.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "You can see this reflected in Ahmed Deedat�s clip when he
blames the Muslims of being involved in petty internal conflicts and neglecting
Dawah to the non-Muslims; and he relates this to Muslim girls marrying non-Muslim
men, while in fact, those �Muslim� girls are doing so, not because of our failure
to do Dawah to non-Muslims, but because of our failure to educate our girls about
Islam."

Answer: Sajid Kayum may not be aware of thousands of Muslims who have converted to
Christianity by the Christian missionaries in India. I have personally met many
Murtads in India. Shaikh Deedat was right. Muslims like me and Sajid are wasting
our time, rather than to do Da'wah to the non-Muslims. The issues concerning the
secondary and tertiary issues are important; but we may not mixup our priorities.
When Shaikh Deedat blames the Muslims of neglecting Da'wah to the Non-Muslims, it
would mean that those who know Islam are not conveying the true message of Islam to
the Non-Muslims. Shaikh Deedat was not against one learning more about Islam; he
was only concerned about fighting on differences amongst the Muslims. To
misrepresent Shaikh Deedat's words is indeed a great error.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "Much Emphasis upon Reading the Books of the Disbelievers,
whilst being poor in Islamic knowledge."

Ahmed Deedat said about reading passages from the bible,

"You owe it to yourself to read it just once in your lifetime. After that, you will
really appreciate the Holy Qur�aan!...

Obtain your own Bible and color code it for easy reference. You may color the
various references from this booklet in your Bible; 'Yellow' for all
contradictions, use 'Red' for pornographic passages and 'Green' for sensible,
acceptable quotations as the ones I have mentioned at the beginning of this essay -
that is words that you can effortlessly recognize as being those of God and His
Holy Messengers. With just this preparation, you will be ready to confute and
confuse any missionary or Bible scholar that comes your way!" [Is The Bible God�s
Word]See. Studying the books of the ahlul-Kitaab, and teaching them to seekers of
knowledge for comparing it to Islam

Answer: Shaik Deedat rahimahullah didn't ask the Muslims to read the Bible for
guidance. He asked them to read, to understand the difference between the bible and
the Quran. He was very right. Those who read the Qur'an, and then read the Bible,
will know the world of difference between the two. They will understand that the
bible is no way close to comparison to the last and the final revelation, "AL
QUR'AN", the miracle of miracles. Muslims read the Qur'an; but they need to read it
with understanding.

Reading and quoting from the Ahle Kitaab is absolutely fine, if one does it with
certain conditions. Scholars of Islam say that we can quote from the books of Ahle
Kitaab.

"Israelite Accounts and Tales

The Israelite accounts and stories should only be used as supporting evidence, not
as evidence themselves. There are three types of these accounts and tales; a kind
that we are sure is authentic because we have in our religion something that
testifies to the truth. The second type is what we know to be false based on what
we have. The third is of neither type. Hence, we neither affirm or deny this type,
and we are allowed to narrate it, ............."

(Source: Tafseer Ibn Katheer Vol.1, page 31, Darussalam Publication, English
translation)

Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam said, "convey on my behalf, even if

it is one Aayah, (sentence), and narrate from the children of Israel, as there is
no sin in this. And whoever intentionally lies on me, let him assume his assured
seat in the fire".

(Source: Fath Al Baari 6:572, Bukhari)

Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam permitted one to quote from the books
of Ahle Kitaab. Hence it is absolutely fine to read and quote from the books of the
Ahle Kitaab; but surely not to the extent that one neglects reading the Qur'an and
the aahaadeeth.
 * #Sajid kayum said: "Amongst the people I interacted with, and who were
regular attendees at IRF, three stand out, and I vividly remember some of my
discussions with them, even after all these years.

The first is a brother who had much proficiency in books of Hinduism, a regular
attendee at IRF, with a wall in his home - full of books on Hinduism. I had a
series of interesting discussions with him exploring common ideas between Hindu
ascetics and Sufism.

Despite being well-versed with Hinduism, this brother was very poor in
his understanding of Islam. In fact, from his general social mannerism, it was
difficult to distinguish if he was Muslim or a non-Muslim from central Maharashtra.

The second brother Rizwaan, who currently resides in the US. He had immense passion
for dawah to non-Muslims, had memorized verbatim Bible and Sanskrit quotes (back
then this was something unique)......

Answer: Sajid Kayum says that the persons whom he's referring to are "attendees".
"Attendees" are those who attend to the lectures and conferences of Dr. Zakir. They
were not paid Da'ees working full time in the Da'wah centre. Hence, to judge a
Da'wah centre, based on interactions with the regular attendees is totally
misplaced. I can relate to my experience in our Da'wah centre DIET. We have regular
attendees who don't sport beards. We have regular attendees who don't wear hijaab.
That doesn't mean that we encourage people to be clean shaven and walk without
hijaab. Our job is only to notify the truth, and we leave the matters to their
discretion; and we pray to Allah that He guides them to the straight path. Once
again, to form an opinion, based on the interactions with the attendees is
baseless; and to describe the nature of the attendees is totally irrelevant to
understand the nature of IRF.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "The third and most important person that I and a friend
of mine, had a series of memorable discussions with was Prof. Hamza Virani.

We understood him to be from the core members of IRF, and when I saw the recording
of Dr. Zakir�s 2005 speech, "Unity in The Muslim Ummah"; it was a d�j� vu of our
discussions with the professor.

According to Prof. Hamza, there should be no discussions about sects, and

differences amongst Muslims are of insignificant nature - after all we all believe
in Allah, the Messenger, and the Quran.
[This misunderstanding was taken from Ahmad Deedat, as seen in lecture, From
Hinduism to Islam]"

Answer: Sajid Kayum believes that Prof. Hamza Virani, with whom he had discussions
in 1993, to have influenced Dr. Zakir to deliver his talk in 2005.

What an assumption! What an idea Sarji!

He even goes to the extent to say that they are all influenced by Shaik Deedat's
lecture on Hinduism and Islam. What a far fetched assumption!

And to say that Shaik Deedat had influenced them is totally ridiculous. No where
does Dr. Zakir says that he was influenced by Shaikh Deedat to talk about "Unity
amongst the Muslim Ummah". For all you know, Shaikh Deedat never spoke about the
factions amongst the Muslim Ummah. That is not the area of specialisation of Shaikh
Deedat. Sajid Kayum's quick conclusions to mislead the readers is truly not
appreciated.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "His (Prof. Hamza Virani's) view was that we should not
speak about Jam�aats. We would argue that when someone converts to Islam through
your organization - and IRF has a strict policy on not to involve him in matters
related to Muslims - what will you do then? Will you leave him in the company of
grave-worshippers, or shias, or non-practicing �Muslims�?

Answer: Sajid Kayum says that IRF does have a strict policy to not involve in
matters concerning Muslims. That's a vague statement. If that was true, why do you
think that the grave worshippers were opposing Dr. Zakir in chennai, while he was
supposed to give a talk there? If that was true, why do you think that the Shias
opposed him? They all oppose him because he calls people to forsake those Jamaaths,
and follow the way of the Sahaabaa.

Yes, the reverts need not know all the factions among the muslims. What comes
first, must come first. Since the reverts are new to the religion, one must not
confuse them with too many unwanted informations. When we tell the reverts what is
right, they will understand what the wrong paths are. Reverts must be taught the
basic 6 articles of faith and 5 pillars of Islam. And the rest slowly slowly, bit
by bit, they need to progress and learn as much is within their capacity. Too much
information at the beginning would prove too heavy on them.

* #Sajid Kayum said: "We now, of course, know the answer to this question; IRF
would do a 180 degree turn on its policy, providing most services like any other
jamaa�at, and effectively creating a new jamaa�at with frantic adoration for its
chief."

Answer: Here Sajid Kayum is assuming IRF to form another Jamaath, while making
frantic adoration for it's chief Dr. Zakir. That is totally ludicrous. Utter
nonsense. Sajid Kayum is linking his dramatised events to make people believe what
he assumes to come from his fairy tale world. We have heard of "Alice in the
wonderland"; its about time to know "Sajid Kayum in his wonderland", daydreaming
and writing all his dreams in the form of articles. He is speaking like a fortune
teller who predicts the future. He is talking about what is to come in the future.
He says that IRF would make a new Jamaath, with frantic adoration for it's chief.

When a person doesn't want to call himself with any other label, other than the
word "Muslim"; hoping to unite the Muslim Ummah, why would he start a Jamaath to
divide the Muslim Ummah?

Dr. Zakir shares his future plans through his talks and books. If Sajid Kayum talks
about Dr. Zakir, about things which he has not mentioned of his future plans, then
Sajid is claiming to know his intentions. That's a dangerous road that Sajid Kayum
is driving into.

May Allah give him guidance and good character. I would suggest the readers to pass
these articles to only those who are confused by the articles of Sajid Kayum; and
not share with those who are saved from his fitna.

In the end, all praises and thanks be to Allah. I pray to Allah that He let's me
write answering all the other 8 articles of Sajid Kayum. Baarakallaahu feekum.

Umar Shariff

www.discoverislam.co.in