+ Enlarge

Transcending theology and politics: the moral argument on Dr. Zakir Naik’s statement about Yazid b. Muawiyah

With the recent furore about Dr. Zakir Naik’s ban on entering the United Kingdom, it may help to look at the core concern Shi’i Muslims and Muslims in general have on Dr. Zakir Naik. The most important of which is his statement on the tragedy of Karbala and the character of Yazid, the son of Muawiyah (the 1st Ummayyad caliph).

During a 10-day peace conference held at Somaiya Ground in Mumbai at the end of 2007, Zakir Naik stated that the tragedy of Karbala (where Husayn, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad, his family, children and companions, were brutally martyred by Yazid’s army on 61/680), was a ‘political war.’ Furthermore, after mentioning Yazid’s name he stated ‘may Allah be pleased with him’ and that ‘there is a difference of opinion on Yazid’s character.’ The statements are highly surprising and somewhat embarrassing from someone proclaiming to be engaged in the study of religion.

The reason we say this is because according to the majority of key Shi’i and Sunni historical sources, Yazid was a corrupt, brutal and immoral man. It cannot be said that he was a Muslim or represented Islam. Moreover, forcing Husayn and his followers to swear allegiance to him or face being killed by a vastly superior army is not political warfare. It is dictatorship of the highest order, heightened by Yazid’s command to his officers not to spare the lives of women or children. Ali Asghar, the 6 months old baby of Husayn, is the most saddening example of his brutality. He was killed by Hurmala via an arrow to the neck, as Husayn was holding him up begging for water in a last plea for mercy. History has rarely seen such monstrosity in one day, recognised as such by fellow non-Muslim writers such as Edward Gibbon and Charles Dickens.

It is here that we feel the moral argument to this event and what Dr. Zakir Naik has said is missing. Often, differences in issues of Muslim leadership are regarded as theological, political or social. However, these are decidedly secondary. The primary argument as to why we protest at Yazid and anyone that supports him is because the person in question is advocating injustice. It gives legitimacy to dictatorship which arguably no human being would find permissible. The reason why Dr. Zakir Naik’s comments are insulting is because they insult the human conscience and very dignity by which we live by. This would naturally cause upset and incite tension amongst Muslims who hold the Prophet Muhammad’s family and the values he stood for close to their hearts. His statement is an example of the kind of fanaticism that one would like to disassociate with and which tarnishes the just message of Islam. We wonder, would any rational human being give any sort of legitimacy to Saddam Hussein?

As a final point, the issue of Dr. Zakir Naik only serves to underscore the importance of Shi’as living in the United Kingdom and the West to come together and form intellectual engines in order to combat such distortion of history. There is a need to be progressive and academic in our deliberations, rather than reactionary. This would prevent speakers such as Dr. Zakir Naik from unduly consuming the public and media space which he is given.

The Centre for Islamic Shi’a Studies

22nd July 2010