Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 

My Thread on Dr Zakir Naik

Jump to page:

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
abu mohammed
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,969
Brother
2,979
#106 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 19:20
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post


If you could post a clip it would be helpful so that we can judge for ourselves exactly in what context he said it...!

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,570
Brother
8,019
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#107 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 19:20

abu mohammed wrote:
View original post

Text:

Halalified YT Audio

Here is wasting 5 minutes of life to transcribe for you.

ZK: Sister, By definition Hindu is a person who lives in India.

Sister: No Sir, it’s not like that.

ZK:Sister, Hindu is a geographical definition. You don’t know. I know. I am a Hindu by geographical definition. I am a Hindu. Sister, geographically the word Hindu was first used by the Arabs. There are many Arabs here. They call me Hindi when I go there….Hindi Hay Hindi….They (stutters)…I am a Hindu. The word Hindu was first used by Arabs when they came to India…It was also used by the Persians to describe people who lived in India…So geographically I am a Hindu

Questions?

  • Hindi and Hindu are two separate matters in Arabic, here is the King Faisal Award description

    kfip.org/ar/sayyid-abul-hasan-ali-al-hasani-al-nadawi/

    وُلِد الشيخ أبي الحسن علي بن عبد الحي الحسني الندوي في قرية تكيا بولاية أوتار يراداش بالهند سنة ١٣٣٢هـ/١٩١٣م. وتنتسب أسرته إلى الحسن بن علي، رضي الله عنه، وأبوه هو العلامّة والمؤرخ الهندي الكبير السيد عبد الحي بن فخر الدين الحسني، صاحب كتاب نُزهة الخواطر وبهجة المسامع والنواظر في تراجم علماء الهند وأعيانها. وقد توفي أبوه وتركه صغيراً، فساعدته أمّه في تعلّم القرآن
  • Hindi and Hindu are two separate matters in even Urdu and Persian, here is Allamah Iqbal

نہ میں اعجمی نہ ہندی ، نہ عراقی و حجازی
کہ خودی سے میں نے سیکھی دو جہاں سے بے نیازی

Junaid Jamshaid (RA) recites it somewhere at the begnning of Tu Nay Poochi Hay Imaamat....

The challenge still stands, let Professor Maripat and the Sister declare "I am a Hindu" and I will bow out of the thread.

Arabs DO NOT say that Hindi means Hindu by any stretch of imagination and neither did they visit India, observed Hinduism and decided to call it Hind.

  • Pakistani is not a religious connotation
  • Inglistani is not a religious connotation
  • Hindi is not a religious connotation
  • Hindu is a religious connotation

You all know it linguistically and technically but you seem to be just arguing about it anyways.

Muslims of India are Hindi but not Hindu

report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,969
Brother
2,979
#108 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 19:35
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post


So whats the origins of the word "Hindu"?

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,969
Brother
2,979
#109 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 19:38
Dr Zakir Naik is right the Hindu is a misnomer classically there is no religion called "Hinduism".

The following is taken from a "Hindu" website.

Meaning and Origin Of The Word "Hindu"


The word Hindu is very much misunderstood and misused. Many people have no idea how the word originated. In India, some politicians use the the words Hindu and Hindutva with communal overtones either to promote or oppose some ideology or party. To the rest of the world, Hindu and Hinduism refer to a set of people belonging to definite religious system.

The fact is that the BOTH the words "Hindu" and "India" have foreign origin. The word "Hindu" is neither a Sanskrit word nor is this word found in any of the native dialects and languages of India. It should be noted that "Hindu" is NOT a religious word at all. There is no reference of the word "hindu" in the Ancient Vedic Scriptures.

It is said that the Persians used to refer to the Indus river as Sindhu. Indus is a major river which flows partly in India and partly in Pakistan. However, the Persians could not pronounce the letter "S" correctly in their native tongue and mispronounced it as "H." Thus, for the ancient Persians, the word "Sindhu" became "Hindu." The ancient Persian Cuneiform inscriptions and the Zend Avesta refer to the word "Hindu" as a geographic name rather than a religious name. When the Persian King Darious 1 extended his empire up to the borders of the Indian subcontinent in 517 BC, some people of the Indian subcontinent became part of his empire and army. Thus for a very long time the ancient Persians referred to these people as "Hindus". The ancient Greeks and Armenians followed the same pronunciation, and thus, gradually the name stuck.

The word "India" also has a similar foreign origin. Originally, the native Indians used to address the Indian subcontinent as "Bharat". As a matter of fact in Mahabharat,which is one of the two "Itihasa", we find reference of the word "Bharat". As per legend, the land ruled by the great King "Bharata" was called Bharat.

The ancient Greeks used to mispronounce the river Sindhu as Indos. When Alexander invaded India, the Macedonian army referred to the river as Indus and the land east of the river as India. The Greek writers who wrote about Alexander preferred to use the same name.

For the Arabs the land became Al-Hind. The Muslim rulers and travelers who came to India during the medieval period referred the Indian subcontinent as "Hindustan" and the people who lived there as Hindus.

Thus, if we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any person living in the land beyond the river Indus is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she practices is Hinduism, the word Hindu is a secular word. Hinduism denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the people living in the Indian subcontinent.

The proper word to use for those people who follow the Scriptures of The Vedas is "Sanatana Dharma", not "Hinduism" as is commonly used.

artstudio.co.za/index.html


report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,570
Brother
8,019
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#110 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 19:52

Abdur Rahman ibn Awf wrote:
View original post

Do not know and if you want to send me on a wild goose chase that's fine and I will look into it when I have time. Don't care at this point..

What I have categorically proven is that in Arabic, Urdu and Persian geographical residents of India are not Hindu but Hindi

Now you can admit that fact or you can keep on going in different directions. Muslim have NEVER called themselves Hindus, they have (and still) refer to themselves as Hindi.

I am certain that a man of your calibre know what is a Hindu!

As I have said, these are pre-staged events and thing are flippantly thrown for maximum TV ratings.

Abdur Rahman ibn Awf wrote:
View original post

If not let the Indian Muslims claim that “They are Hindus” and I bow out of the discussion. I myself won’t refer them to as such but if they wish to label themselves as such they can claim to be “Hindus” and that will be the end of this strand of the discussion.

I think you all understand very clearly and distinctly the difference between the words in the context of Arabic, Persian and Urdu.

If he would have said in English this word originates as such it would have been different. He claims Arabs coined it (based on religion).

Let the Indian Muslims claim to be “Hindus” in this thread.

And the discussion of this strand ends.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,969
Brother
2,979
#111 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 20:06
No historically as stated in the above article I posted the word "Hindu" is a geographical location it is not a religious definition

Here is a chap from the Hindu academy on the origins of the Word youtu.be/pLxzbeu3tY0

Here is Shaykh Ahmed Deedat on the origins of the word Hinduism www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIzKgBxzg-I

No you have been going on a wild goose chase all by yourself.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
20,904
Brother
7,005
abu mohammed's avatar
#112 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 20:16
Currently time does not permit to go through videos, but here he starts off by saying what I'm saying and then adds what Muadh is saying.

He starts off by his definition and then introduces his Arab friends in this video.
Point to note, even the Hindus don't call themselves Hindu in their scriptures.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=hWaCDUv6D2k

By definition of the racist, Zakir Naik is also a Paki.

But I'm asking brother Muadh, are you a Paki?

Edit: sorry, I'm replying to the first post on this page and didn't realize my post didn't post and since then, there were many posts :(
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,570
Brother
8,019
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#113 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 20:44

abu mohammed wrote:
View original post

  1. As an American I am a "Paki" and we use it all the time.
  2. In the British context it may be disrespectful and hurtful
  3. In the second context "British Pakistanees" don't refer to themselves as such but the title is granted to them. No self-respecting British Pakistani self claims to be a “Paki”. It is a title given to them by others
  4. Neither Arabs nor Persians call Indian Muslims Hindu
  5. Indian Muslims don't call themselves Hindu

Paki or Pakistani are both NOT religious connotations.

From Hindustani, you become Hindi and not Hindu I have quoted both Arabic, Persian and Urdu examples.

As I said, I am fairly certain that all of you know the differences between Hindi and Hindu but keep going.

There are many Indian Muslims on this forum let them claim “I am a Hindu "” and that will end this strand of discussion.

Abdur Rahman ibn Awf wrote:
View original post

Neither Arabs nor Persians claim or call Muslims of India Hindus, the word Hindi doesn't equate to Hindu

Its fairly standard Arabic construction

Arabic and Persian, not British colonial definition

And importanly Indian Muslims don't call themselves Hindus

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
20,904
Brother
7,005
abu mohammed's avatar
#114 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 21:03
Quote:
There are many Indian Muslims on this forum let them claim “I am a Hindu "” and that will end this strand of discussion.

According to Zakir Naik's definition and the definition I posted from Wikipedia, I am also a Hindu. I am also a Paki just like the way you are a Paki from the definition from the urban dictionary.

By being born in England, I should also be English!
But in England I can only be called British.

We can go on and on.

Now, shall we end this strand of discussion?
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,969
Brother
2,979
#115 [Permalink] Posted on 27th June 2017 21:10
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post


Why are you continuing along this path...? your argument has proven to be erroneous and what you have proven is that you completely ignored the context of what he was saying.

In his polemics Dr Zakir Naik uses the scriptures, books and historians of his questioners to debunk their arguments , whilst the majority of Indian historians claim the word "Hindu" originates from the mispronounciation of the word Sindhu in reference to the Indus river by the Persians there is a minority who claim it originates from the word hindi used by the arabs...And he uses for the reference of the word Hindu originating from Arabic an individual that every Indian will have heard off that is Pandit Jawal Nehru who mentioned this in one of his books.

He was clearly speaking of the word Hindu in its historic context and not in the evolved modern context.

"As I said, I am fairly certain that all of you know the differences between Hindi and Hindu but keep going."


I am fairly certain you know the differences between historic meaning and context and modern meaning and context.







report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Arfatzafar's avatar
Offline
India
1,259
Brother
1,489
Arfatzafar's avatar
#116 [Permalink] Posted on 28th June 2017 11:13
Historically Arab came in Sindh and aboriginals of Sindh,probably, would call themselves as SINDHI but Arab changed Sindh as Hind, Sindhi as Hindi and Sindhu (name of the river) as Hindu.

I don't think that the aboriginals ever called themselves as Hindu, not even geographically, no matter what Arabs or Persians or others called them.

Dr zakir naik is the first Indian Muslim who called himself as Hindu, geographically though.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
2,149
Brother
2,840
Maripat's avatar
#117 [Permalink] Posted on 29th June 2017 08:42
Quote:
The challenge still stands, let Professor Maripat declare "I am a Hindu" and I will bow out of the thread.


I am a Hindi.

I also got the answer to my query - the sectarian and corrosive bigot that Dr Zakir Naik is, he can not be taken as an asset of Muslim Ummah.

My assessment of course differs from that of brother Muadh Khan - for me Dr Naik is over all an asset. Dr Naik's Fiqh is not very strong and he can be put on the defensive and back foot in this regard and hence I am not unduly scared of him in this regard even if I find Salafis in general unpleasant.

I also take it that Muadh Khan has changed his views about Dr Zakir Naik from what he wrote in his blog post here at MS.

I also assume that if some of us try to do some work of Deen in which we want to take Dr Zakir Naik with us then brother Muadh Khan will not be for it and will not particiapte.

Allah SWT says in the Noble Qur'an that do not fight amongst yourself otherwise you will get busted.

In view of this we have to make some decision about Dr Zakir Naik.
If we cut-off from him then we lose a mighty Dawah worker.
If we take him along then brothers like Muadh Khan are lost.

I am thankful to brothers Abu Muhammed and Abur Rahman bin Awf for making their views explicit about Dr Zakir Naik. As is obvious to brothers and sisters here at MS my views are by and large the same.

We also thought that brother Muadh Khan too had similar views but somewhere he has changed. He has a right to do so.

I simply do not believe that the question and answers in Dr Naik's presentations and conversions are all and outrightly staged. A Hindu is taking a considerable risk while converting to Islam and it is rather indecent to deprive him of the credit by accusing him of being a part of some public deception so that Dr Naik can get a reputation.

We have killed enough time and effort on Hindi-Hindu and hence we now move on to the topic of Dr Naik's conversions being staged. I shall request brother Muadh Khan to present the evidence that he has from his ground sources. In thsi regard there should not be any hesitation because brother Muadh's sources do not have much to fear from dr Zakir Naik who is rightly or wrongly running for his own safety.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Asaaghir's avatar
Tragic-istan
469
Brother
226
Asaaghir's avatar
#118 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd July 2017 23:29
^^^ and I thought Hindi was a language.
That's like Muadh saying that he's Urdu or have I got that all wrong.

Back on topic, sorry :(
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
2,149
Brother
2,840
Maripat's avatar
#119 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd July 2017 08:02
Asaaghir wrote:
View original post


Actually not only brother Muadh Khan but all of us do have this problem of finding it difficult to separate the grain from chaff. To cut the c-r-a-p and to come to the point is not a trivial task and all of us find it difficult to perform. Unfortunately we are talking about those issues that are rather critical and people aredying in India, Syria and elsewhere in the Muslim world as we bread our heads on these issues. Sooner or later we got to speak publicly, in the open.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,570
Brother
8,019
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#120 [Permalink] Posted on 4th July 2017 11:32

Maripat wrote:
View original post

Dear honourable and respected (Sir) Professor Maripat Saheb,

Changing Positions:

It is but stones which remain rigid in their stance.

We (humans) process information, analyse facts and articulate our position. Dr (Allamah Muhammad Iqbal (RA) originally praised the discipline of the Qadiyani Jamaat when he looked at the matter purely from a “Punjabi Muslim” perspective. When he actually got to know the beliefs and tactics behind the Jamaat, he absolved himself from Qadiyanees. When he was confronted about his original position and the fact that he had changed his mind, he uttered the famous line which I have written above.

Dr Israr Ahmed (RA):

I have always been admirer of Dr Israr Ahmed (RA) since the days of Al-Huda, long before the English speaking Muslims or those outside of Pakistan have heard of him. As I grew older and consciousness developed (my uncle a stanch Ahl-e-Hadeeth) used to come to our father and praise Dr Israr Ahmed (RA) and his Aqeedah.

Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadeeth (Pakistan) were staunch supporters of Dr Israr Ahmed (RA) UNTIL he made his views clear about Ashari Aqeedah and then they threw the book at him.

Deobandees have opposed him pretty much from day 1 on account of him (not being a Scholar) on similar grounds to what they did with Maulana Maududi (RA). The Deobandees equate and consider them both to be the same and it is (fundamentally) flawed position. Nevertheless, it is their stance.

I have read and heard Dr Israr Ahmed (RA). I have met his students researched his centre (in Lahore and Karachi). There is nothing which has made me change my mind in his person, his organisation and his teachings and his dogma (in general). I do disagree with his views on Jihad and revolution so the agreement is not total but general.

Dr Zakir Naik:

I was one of the first people amongst Deobandees to look at the Dawah of Dr Zakir Naik and contact Ulama (including www.askimam.org). I had private discussions with then (student) Abu Hajira that in the Indian Muslim context his efforts should be praised and appreciated. The issue is about a Muslim against (Non-Muslims) of India.

The article is still here:

https://www.central-mosque.com/index.php/society/avoiding-dr-zakir-naik-in-matters-of-fiqh.html

As I began to view Peace TV and delve into Dr Zakir Naik and IRF, I began to get uneasy. They clearly have a divisive, corrosive, sectarian, communal and poisonous agenda. I then made contact with people on the ground in Mumbai and got to know about financial irregularities and fake stage sessions and drama long before Indian (citizens) through Indian Media got to know about it.

Based on new and irrefutable evidence, I had to change my view on Dr Zakir Naik. It would have been irresponsible, callous, careless, unethical and immoral for me not to do so. You seem to have not done your research and seem to be sticking to your original premise. As a professor, how can you accuse me of not being able to separate the wheat from the chaff? That is an absurd accusation. Your original accusation that my stance is guided by sectarian concerns (Ahl-e-Hadeeth vs Deoband) is even more absurd because you seem to be a bigger Deobandi then me? In the last 10 +years that you have interacted with me, when you have seen or viewed me to be a dogmatic Deobandi?

I also view Dr Zakir Naik t be coward who fled and left India and Indian Muslims and abandoned him when things got tough for him. You and Brother Abdur-Rahman disagree with that assessment and clam that it is pragmatism so let’s agree to disagree. I am saying (as someone who has been the victim and suffered) that Dr Zakir Naik has the unique position to raise funds, get a crack legal team and has the ability to make his voice heard despite IRF and Peace TV being shut down. Akhlaaq who was lynched does not! I am perplexed as to why an Academic of your stature is so acute and obtuse in your vision that you cannot see this point? Effectively, it appears to be that you have given up on the hope and cause of Indian Muslims, there is no ray of light in your opinion and everything is (simply) futile. If Dr Zakir Naik with his resources cannot get justice then NO INDIAN MUSLIM can!

Aqeedah:

I respectfully submit that you are being disingenuous here and going out of your way to sidestep a fundamental Aqeedah point which goes against you.

  1. Hindi: A person of Indian origin
  2. Hindu: A person who follow Hinduism

I believe that a person of significant Academic stature and learning such as yourself, knows it. Instead of coming clean and informing many (common) Muslims that YES it is an error, you have taken a diplomatic way out and said that you are a Hindi. I don’t believe that you can possibly and sincerely advocate or articulate the position that Indian “Muslims” are Hindu.

I have always respected you for your stature and courage but your accusations are unfounded and unsubstantiated. Your responses also don’t befit your stature as a leading (Muslim) Academic.

Sir, it is I, who has researched the subject and changed my stance due to new information. It is YOU, who has remained dogamtic on the original premise of defending Dr Zakir Naik (merely) on the basis of his Dawah.  Sir, I would like to respectfully submit that it is I who has pragmatically evolved (with the circumstances) while you have remained ideologically wedded to your original positon. How can you as a leading (Muslim) academic blame me or chastise me for my evolution of thought? Dear Sir, am I not displaying maturity, complexity and ability to separate wheat from chaff while you are displaying stubbornness, dogmatism and idealism?

Yours sincerely,

Muadh Khan

04th of July 2017.

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top

Jump to page: