Monday, May 13, 2013

Responses to Dr. Zakir Naik: Part 1: Pratima and Partners

This post is in response to a recent 'discussion' on FB, about Dr. Naik and his 'knowledge' of Hindu scriptures. My intention here is not to 'beat' Dr. Naik in his debate but to reflect my thoughts on some of his claims; to highlight why they are misplaced and misinterpreted. 

1) "na tasya pratima asti": God has no images! 

Conclusion: Dr. Naik takes it out of context, as usual.

"na tasya pratima asti" - "there is no image of Him". This is one of Dr. Naik's most repeated, and also the most misinterpreted, misrepresented, and misplaced vedic statements. This is a superficial translation of a text taken out of context. As an independent statement it may mean that, but it is not so. So my objection is not in how it is translated but how it has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by taking it out of context. 

He accuses people of other religions of taking verses from Quran out of context but does the same when it comes to other religious texts. He fails to take the spirit of a verse or a concept and overly deals with the literal interpretations of the texts; but when it comes to Quran he extends ordinary Arabic words beyond what most Islamic scholars do. Anyway.

Here is my attempt at providing the context to it:

Reference: shvetashwatara upanishad , chapter 4, verse 19: Before exploring verse 19, it is important look into the previous 2 verses [at the least]; a clearer context can be got only by exploring the entire chapter, and if possible [ideally] the entire upanishad.  The first 3 verses of the 4th chapter can also help get the context of what is being discussed. Anyway, for now let us focus on just a few.

Verse 17:
एष दॆवॊ विश्वकर्मा महात्मा सदा जनानां हृदये सन्निविष्टः ।
हृदा मनीषा मनसाभिक्लुप्तॊ य एतद् विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥
eSha devO vishvakarmA mahAtmA sadA janAnAM hRudaye sanniviShTaH |
hRudA maneeShA mansAbhikluptO ya etad viduramRutAste bhavanti ||

This divine being (deity), the architect of this universe, the great soul, is situated at the center of everything (living and non living), in accordance to the spirit (soul, heart, emotions), thought (intellect, prudence, prayer, desire, hymn), and mind (imagination, perception, will, attitude, intellect, inclination). One who comprehends this becomes immortal (transcends death).

Verse 18:
यदाऽतमस्तान्न दिवा न रत्रिर्न सन्नचासच्छिव एव केवलः ।
तदक्षरं तत् सवितुर्वरॆण्यं प्रज्ञाच तस्मात् प्रसृता पुराणी ॥
yadA tamas tan na divA na rAtrirna sanna cAsacChiva Eva kEvalah |
tadaksaram tat savitur varENyam prajnA ca tasmat prasrta purANee ||

When, upon this realization, there is neither daylight (knowledge, heaven), nor darkness (ignorance, hell), neither living, nor death [the being becomes detached and unaffected by these changes]. Then there is only grace (auspiciousness), which is eternal, splendor of enlightenment (bright spirit), realized knowledge (prudence), which extends to the timeless past [and future].

Verse 19: 
नैनमूर्ध्वं नतिर्यञ्चं न मध्ये परिजग्रभत् ।
न तस्य प्रतिमा अस्ति यस्य नाम महद् यशः ॥
nainamoordhvaM na tirya~ncaM na madhye parijagrabhat |
na tasya pratimA asti yasya nAma mahad yasah ||

Nothing (none) can grasp him from above, the sides or the center [He will have transcended vertical (ceiling, depth), horizontal (breadth, boundaries), and central limits]. He will not have parallels (similitude; likeness to him; he is unique; there are no 'measures' or 'scales' that limit him), and be nothing but limitless glory (honor, excellence, splendor, beauty, veneration).

This also sets the context to what is to come - that the reference throughout is of the SPIRITUAL nature of existence, which Sri Krishna alludes to again and again in Srimad Bhagawad Gita. Even the "roopa" mentioned in the subsequent verses refer to this spiritual nature not the material form, which is expounded in the Gita chapters 2 and 15 (the least we should refer to here). 

So, it is not the image that is being discussed here but the similitude, and there is no similitude with God in this material world.

2) "andham tamaH pravishanti ye asambhootiM upAsate": those who worship "partners" (other 'gods' but Allah) enter darkness (i.e. HELL).
Here again, we need to see the context of the verse. This is part of a long discussion between disciple and a student. The first part of the discussion is around which is more important - whether the material knowledge or the spiritual knowledge; and then whether the material being or the spiritual being. 

The first argument goes like: some say that material knowledge [bodily consciousness; or so called 'scientific knowledge'] is superior to 'spiritual knowledge' while others claim that 'spiritual knowledge' is superior to 'material knowledge'. The conclusion is "avidyayA mrutyum teertva vidyayA amrutaM ashnute" [here, "vidya" is classified as "spiritual knowledge" (knowledge of the 'self') and 'avidya' as the 'material knowledge' (or 'nescience')] - that 'material knowledge' helps one to cross the ocean of the 'material world', and 'spiritual knowledge' helps one transcend death (enter immortality). So, both are to be pursued for their own reasons; i.e. neither is to be ignored. 

The subsequent verses are about the 'being' [not just knowledge; i.e. an invitation beyond 'knowledge' domain, from knowledge to being]: अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति ये असंभूतिं उपासते । ततॊ भूय इव ते तमॊ य वु सम्भूत्याम् रताः ॥ andham tamaH pravishanti ye asambhootiM upAsate । tatO bhooya iva te tamO ya-vu sambhootyAM ratAH ॥

The conversation continues. In the context of the previous verses, we can understand that 'asambhooti's is the material, bodily consciousness; material body, which will eventually be destroyed. And, 'sambhooti' is the spiritual being (soul, consciousness), which is eternal. It argument goes like: some propose that understanding body [and mind, as self] are better than exploring the spiritual self (soul); that there is a disagreement regarding what 'being' is to be pursed. But, the concluding verse is: 
sambhootim ca vinAshaM ca yas tad vEdobhayam saha | 
vinAshEna mrutyum teertva sambhootyAmrutam ashnute ||

Observe how 'asambhooti' has now been replaced by 'vinAshaM' - referring to the impermanent body that decays and dies, whereas the indestructible soul remains. So, it concludes that both have to be pursed - i.e. the bodily welfare is important because it is needed to pursue material objects, and spiritual consciousness is needed to transcend the material existence, into the spiritual self. Both are equally important.

There is no point about 'HELL' here at all, and neither references to 'partners of Allah' (even though there are some translations about 'demigods', which requires a separate interpretation but even then falls short of the argument proposed by Dr. Naik). Such a deep concept cannot be explained through superficial thinking (by playing with word to word translations) but requires contemplation, inquiry, reflection and understanding. Moreover, such amazing words of the Upanishads manifest according to one's intellectual capacity and maturity, and I doubt if Dr. Naik has evolved enough to do that. 

This concludes my menial attempt at explaining the limiting misinterpretations of Dr. Naik- part 1.

Part 2 is here:


  1. Hello Mr. Girish

    My name is Rafiul Nakib and I am from Bangladesh. I found your blog recently in the web and have read almost all the posts you made on Hinduism and Islam in reply to Dr. Zakir Naik. I don't know if what you have said in your blog posts is 100% right or wrong (I have no knowledge on Sanskrit) but I must say that you did make a very good approach. I have been watching his lectures for quite a some time. I am not a fan of Dr, Zakir Naik. As I try my best to follow Quran that's why I can't believe whatever he says without checking it, because doing so would be against the teachings of Islam. However, till now I haven't seen him making any mistakes while referring to Quran or explaining Islam. I don't know if what he says is wrong about hinduism (again, I don't know sanskrit so I can't verify).

    So far I am concerned after reading your blog I think you are a 'learned' Hindu. It seems you know your religion very well unlike most other Hindus and can provide argumentative speeches if required. Why don't you challenge Dr. Naik directly in front of a large crowd? I mean if you can make an attempt to prove him wrong on the internet why not publicly? If Dr. Naik is spreading false knowledge publicly about Hinduism, shouldn't he be proved wrong publicly? It would at least stop creating confusions among the 'not so learned' general Hindus unlike you. The reason I am saying this is, till now I haven't seen any of the so called Hindu scholars could prove him wrong, not even the respected Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. May be you can do it. I am not a fan of Dr. Naik but I have to admit he is intelligent and argues well. On Hinduism, I've read many blogs and articles protesting his views but your blogs are different than others. If you are a learned Hindu as I think of you, if what you have said in your blog is authentic, if your interpretation of the sanskrit verses are 100% correct; you may finally be able to defeat him in a debate which nobody could do till date. Why don't you do that? Wouldn't it be better than hiding beneath the web and shouting that Dr. Naik is wrong?

    May the Almighty be pleased with you. Have a nice day.

    Rafiul Nakib.

    1. Dear brother Rafiul Nakib,

      1) Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it, more because it is not routed in hatred and intolerance like most other comments I have received - which I have duly deleted. I am NOT against Islam, if you read me right, but against misrepresentation of one individual called Dr. Zakir Naik.

      2) I am NOT a expert in my religion but my level of understanding is enough to dismiss the nonsensical arguments of Dr. Naik, It is unfortunate that most of my fellow "Hindu"s do not know the scriptures, like myself and it has a history to it.

      3) Why not challenge Dr. Naik? We all have different strengths, priorities and interests. He has dedicated all his time to this and I have other things to take care of. However, I may engage in public debate one day.

      4) My primary intention is not to prove "him wrong", but to educate myself and my own people who do not know our own scriptures, which permits "others" to mislead, misinterpret and misrepresent. Through these blogs even if I have reached a handful of people, I am happy. I have no intention to change the perspective of the world; world has the right for its perspective. Just as you stumbled on to my blog, many have. I believe in that.

      4) "Hindu scholars" are NOT interesting in proving him wrong because they know how meaningless that attempt it. Sri Sri is NOT a Hindu Scholar, he is a Yoga Guru. He has a perspective of the religion but is not a scholar of scriptures (neither am I), and he is NOT interested in proving someone right or wrong. This is my opinion. For a Hindu, every religion is right. You believe in Allah because that is your intelligence. God responds according to one's devotion and faith, and there is no one right. If you feel this is right, for you it is. I have no interest in proving you wrong. I believe this applies to many Hindus. We respect differences.

      5) Yes, Dr. Zakir is gifted with amazing wit, memory, presence of mind and debating abilities. There are many atheists who are equally gifted with that. Dr. Naik has memorized verses and chapters, and he understands Christianity and Islam well because they are close to one another. However, he has very little understanding of Hindu spirituality. He has almost no understanding of the fundamental aspects of Hindu thought, which is what I have argued against in my blog. His perspectives are not mistakes but blunders.

      6) I am NOT interesting is "defeating" anyone. He has his right. I like all his Islamic lectures and debates but when he spoke about some scriptures that I know a little about, I realize how little he knows.

      7) I know what I am. Neither am I hiding nor am I shouting, neither am I interested in defeating someone, nor am I interested in winning. I am simply writing because its my duty. If this reaches you, it reaches others :) If I can write to you, I can write to others.

      Its the same almighty who protects both you and me. You call Him Allah in Arabic, we may call Him different. Our perspectives may differ, but that does not affect Him.

      I sincerely thank you again for your comment. I value perspectives.

      Have a wonderful year ahead.


      Please take your time to watch this video. If, you already have watched this then I would like to know your opinion on whatever this person is telling about Hinduism and Islam.

      Thank you.

    3. Dear Rafiul,

      I have listened to this talk before, and had a laugh. I do not want to waste too much time on this because its not worth it. I will throw just a few instances because it is a 2 hour talk and I do not want to waste my energy and time on it.

      He misinterprets key texts in accordance to his Quanic teaching and bias. This is like interpreting Quran or Islam based on Hindu texts or philosophy. This is akin to distorting the true essence of Islam or Hinduism. So please do not engage in such time wasting things, rather worship the Lord you believe.

      He mixes fake (non-sense) with sense and hopes to pass it on like people who mix fake currency with actual currency and cheat people. I will give just a few examples of how misplaced he is, this may help you understand where I stand:

      1) In the youtube video @ 31:13: he quotes Bhagawad Gita 15.3 and chants some rubbish (gibberish). Anyone with minimum knowledge of Gita and Sanskrit will know he is faking, and will be laughing out loud at his mischanting, mistranslation, and also misinterpretation. Nothing he says is there in that verse.

      Here is the verse: and its correct translation.

      2.a) At 32:45 - he says that the first verse of rigveda is "tvamEva mAtA cha pitA tvamEva tvamEva bandhushcha sakha tvamEva tvamEva sarvam mama deva deva". Hilarious. First of of all, this is not from Rigveda and not the first shloka of Rigveda.

      First verse of Rigved is "animeeLe purohitaM yajnasya devaM ratveeyam hotAraM ratnadhAtamam" etc.

      2.b) He says at 33:13 that "tvameva" "tva amam" or something. That is ridiculous way of splitting a Sanskrit compound word. There is no meaning to his gibberish "tva amam". Infact "tva" also means "tvam". "tvameva" simply is "tvam + eva", "tvam" means YOU, and "eva" means ONLY (even a primary school student will know this). So, "tvameva" means "YOU ONLY". This is a pathetic attempt to misinterpret such simple texts. So, it means "you only are the father, you only are the mother ...".

      Why do people like him want to make a fool of themselves and fool others too?
      ..... (Contd..)

    4. 3) At 35:07, first of all "nar" itself has many connotations which often means "human" or "the mortal" or even "celestial beings". And, nar and nArAyaN are complementary terms.

      "nArAyan", he thinks means "guru". Absurd. "nArAyaN" means the all pervading Lord. The Lord guides but from within. nArAyaN is within us all - whether you are a Muslim or Hindu or Atheist, whether one believes or not.

      For instance, the first verse of nArAyaNa sukta is "sahasra shirsham devam vishvAksham vishvasambhuvam", which states clearly that Lord Narayana, is the imperishable, the supreme and the goal. He is omnipresent and omniscient, the resplendent, the source of delight for the whole Universe.

      He needs to understand the language and the spirit better. It is unfortunate that he fakes himself as knowledgeable.

      4) Interestingly, when he talks about "PROOFS":
      a) he quotes Gita 15.15, which says "sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto", where the Lord says I live in the heart or center of everything and everyone. That is nArAyaNa tatva, that the Lord is within each of us. So, he nails his own foot.
      b) He quotes Rigveda 15.7, there is no such chapter or text like that, same with samaveda. These are not individual books but collections of "books", and he does not even know that.
      c) the verse "ahamkAram bale nirmam ...." is a B*LLS**T. He is trying to chant a verse in Gita 18.53: "ahankaram balam darpam kamam krodham parigraham vimucya nirmamah santo brahma-bhuyaya kalpate". He fails miserably. "drapam" = "deep"? Check this:

      I have only watched the first 40 minutes and that is enough to understand that he is faking knowledge. Atleast Dr. Naik does not claim that he knows Sanskrit. He mixes common sense with fake or superficial knowledge of Sanskrit.

      Do you want me to interpret the whole talk? Why waste your time on someone who is cheating himself? Worship Allah and I worship the same Lord in a different name.

      Wish you well.

    5. I just watched one more of his videos. This guy is hilarious :)

      I had given up on guys like these, but you have reignited my interest in the humor side of such people :)

      If you understand even a little Sanskrit you will be laughing like crazy. For example, he thinks "aham aadir" in "aham aadir hi dEvaanaam" refers to Ahmad :P What has happened to these guys, I wonder. There is a limit to stupidity. "aham" means ME and "aadir" means PRIMEVAL/PRIMARY.

      I left this comment on the video:
      TEXT 1

      sri-bhagavan uvaca
      bhuya eva maha-baho srnu me paramam vacah
      yat te 'ham priyamanaya vaksyami hita-kamyaya

      sri-bhagavan uvaca--the Supreme Personality of Godhead said; bhuyah--again; eva--certainly; maha-baho--O mighty-armed; srnu--just hear; me--My; paramam--supreme; vacah--information; yat--that which; te--to you; aham--I; priyamanaya--thinking you dear to Me; vaksyami--say; hita-kamyaya--for your benefit.

      The Supreme Lord said: My dear friend, mighty-armed Arjuna, listen again to My supreme word, which I shall impart to you for your benefit and which will give you great joy.

      TEXT 2
      na me viduh sura-ganah prabhavam na maharsayah
      aham adir hi devanam maharsinam ca sarvasah

      na -- never; me -- My; viduh -- know; sura-ganah -- the demigods; prabhavam -- origin, opulences; na -- never; maha-rsayah -- great sages; aham -- I am; adih -- the origin; hi -- certainly; devanam -- of the demigods; maha-rsinam -- of the great sages; ca -- also; sarvasah -- in all respects.

      Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and sages.

      Here, there is no mention of "jnAni to come" or anything :) The Lord is talking about Himself, not sending a jnAni. This is height of misinterpretation. "aham aadir hi dEvanAm", he thinks it is talking about "ahmad" :P hehe ... cannot laugh enough :) 

    6. I don't know whether you are right or wrong because I don't know sanskrit, but what I want to say is that; this guy named Ahmed Pandit happened to be a hindu. He was not just a hindu but a well respected Acharya and head priest. Though I don't want to believe blindly that what he is saying is perfectly true. For the same reason I also can't believe you. It's not only him, there is another person who also talks like him or like Zakir Naik. This person IS a Shankar Acharya, his name is Swami Laxmi Shankar Acharya. My question to you is, when 'religiously learned' people among from your own religion are showing similarities in the concept of god in Islam and Hinduism, are they preaching false knowledge? Well, if they are how could you prove it? Why are they not being stopped, they are all Indians after all. If they are really lying they would have been killed by now!!! Just like you are pointing out at them, I can also point out at you. Moreover, you are not even a scholar like them and you admit it yourself. I understand that your belief is firm and I respect that. You quote references from a website Why should I trust this site? If Dr. Zakir or these hindu/Ex hindu pandits can play with words, how should I know that whatever are there in are authentic? You must have heard about Dr. Ved Prakash Upaddhay, he WAS a well renowned hindu scholar, and as far as I know he was the first person who found out the similarities in Hinduism and Islam and other well renowned, highly educated sanskrit scholars approved his research. How could they all be wrong? Why are there so many contradictions in this religion of Hinduism? How can god's acts contradict each other? I can show you so many examples within my short knowledge of Hinduism. Whenever I ask any hindu these questions, they bring the term spirituality and try to express their ideology in way as if they are the only people who have achieved spirituality but their explanations are always vague. Unfortunately, I must say you are no different. Just like you, I also believe there is only one god. If god is one his nominated religion should also be only one.! It's us humans who divide ourselves in many sects.

    7. Dear Rafiul,
      1) Whether you know Sanskrit or not, check anywhere basic words like "aham" and "aadi", or talk to anyone who knows little Sanskrit, it is enough to prove that this guy knows very little Sanskrit, and he is outright non-sense, hilarious and funny. I am not a Sanskrit scholar but definitely not as bad as this fellow is. He does not even know to chant those verses. Suppose I chant Quran without knowing Arabic, how would it be?

      2) He can have any name. Not all those who have Muslim names know Quran. Who told you he was a well respected Acharya? Head priest of where? Even if he was, it is a shame that he was. There are people who have last name as Aacharya, and also people who claim to be aachaaryas, that does not make them so.

      3) If you cannot believe me, do not. I am not asking you to. I am speaking truth and can say with confidence that this fellow is a fake.

      4) Bring 100 people and if they speak truth I will accept it, if they speak non-sense I will reject it. Particularly when it is as obvious and silly a mistake as this one.

      5) I do not know of Swami Laxmi Shankar Acharya. I have no idea, so I cannot say whether he is right or not, but after listening to Ahmad Pandit I can say with confidence that he is a fake.

      6) "Are they preaching false knowledge?", I cannot say that, I have just showed why and where they are wrong. Ahmad Pandit and Dr. Naik have poor understanding, I cannot talk about others.

      7) They could be proved wrong only by simple understanding of the Sanskrit text. I have tried to provide enough evidence and ask anyone who knows Sanskrit and they will agree.

      8) "If they are really lying they would have been killed by now" - Hinduism is not like Islam. You have the right to practice your belief system. If you say non-sense its your stupidity, there is no killing for such silly reasons because we value life.

      9) I am not pointing out without logic. I am showing only places where he is wrong. If you are bent upon proving someone wrong, I am not interested. If something is wrong, we need to have the guts to call it wrong.

      10) I may not be a scholar but good enough to know that they are not scholars, and that they are faking to be. They are interpreting Hindu text from Islamic viewpoint, which is wrong. I have not tried to prove Islam wrong but defending the non-sense claimed by the. If you cannot digest that, please ignore me and my post :)

      11) My belief is firm not blindly but by careful consideration and study. Just that I do not claim to be a scholar does not make me ignorant :)

    8. (CONTD)

      12) Why should I trust this site? Its your choice. Look at any valid translations and you will find very little difference. I quoted that text because that is the most popular translation based on Sri Aurobindo's translation.

      13) I am a student of Sanskrit and have enough sources to understand what is the right translation and what is not. What you are engaging now is called kutarka and I am not interested. Its your choice. I am not asking to believe me but I know I am sincere and not wrong unlike this so called Pandit :)

      14) Are you really interested in understanding Hinduism? If you are trying to prove yourself right and impose Islam on me, then sorry my friend. Your path for you and mine for me (does not Mohammad say this too?). So please leave my faith to me because I am convinced that this is the best path and Islam is not for me.

      15) Just as I am not different, you are no different from many Muslims I have interacted with. This is because we are convinced in our own faiths.

      16) There is only one God, there is no contradiction about this but the concept needs understanding.

      17) If you observe, I have never tried to speak low of Islam or that Hinduism is better but only pointed mistakes where there are. Does not Dr. Naik and others correct wrong conceptions about Islam? When I see some ridiculous interpretations passed down as facts then I cannot help but make my comment. I have never stayed beyond my intention to defend nonsensical interpretations of texts that I am very familiar with. Whether you think it is right or not does not matter to me, I know I am sincere and my Lord knows that I am.

      I wish you well.

    9. I understand your points and I am not trying to impose Islam on you or anyone else. I am just trying comprehend why there are so many contradictions in the concept of god in Hinduism.! As you just admitted my friend that you don't know Swami Laxmi Shankar Acharya, I would like to introduce him to you. Just watch the following videos of him and then if you want to deny, I would love to hear your arguments. :)

      And here are many more videos of him if you like to see.

      One more thing, as I said before most of other orthodox hindus always bring the terms 'spirituality', 'essence of sanatan dharma' etc. whenever non-hindus question them. To understand these things I have started to read Bhagvad Geeta and then I will study Vedas. As I don't know Sanskrit and Bengali is my first language, I am reading a Bengali translation of Geeta. I would like to ask you some questions on some verses. Do you understand Bengali? If not I would have to translate those verses from Geeta in English.

    10. There are NO contradictions in the concept of God in Hinduism. It is clear and crystal clear [Dr. Naik is right only there hehe]. There are differences in understanding in its followers; there is long history to it; Muslim, British and other foreign invaders have also contributed to it. These differences are like the differences Muslims have - Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, Sufi etc etc. Divisions are always there, but the underlying concept is the same. yekam sat viprAH bahudA vadanti - truth is only one but beliefs are many. aakaashaat patitam toyam yatha gacchati saagaram sarva deva namaskaarah keshavam prati gacchati - just as all water eventually reach the oceans, all salutations to all the deities eventually reach that one Lord, Keshava (call it Allah or whatever). Islam is too narrow, intolerant, simplistic and materially oriented from a Hindu perspective. Even though Hinduism and Islam could be more than 90% similar, in many respects, where we differ is where we fight on :) Anyway.

      I will take a look at the new aachaaryaa's video even though I am not interested :)

      I avoid talking about spirituality because it is a language that needs to be comprehended, not something that can be discussed over a chat or a blog. It will create more confusion than not. Bhagawad Gita is a good start but not an easy choice :) But, it is important to choose authentic versions. And, just as when I first read Quran I found nothing but mistakes, you may find the same because we are often blinded by our faiths. However, when I read Quran for the 2nd and 3rd I developed a better understanding and appreciation for it. So, it needs some openness, lacking which you could be wasting time. Instead, I suggest you focus on quran and increase your faith for Islam - this is what you may find in Gita. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. However, this is not the right forum for it. You may write to me on a.girishchandra @ and I will respond.

      Anyway. Good luck with everything. I wish you well.

    11. I listened to Swami Lakshmi Shankaraacharya's video you shared. He does not say anything wrong or insensible, so there is nothing to comment or criticize about it. He talks sense, and sounds like a knowledgeable person based on this video. As he says in the end, some idiots (both Muslims and non-Muslims) have maligned Islam, which is otherwise a religion with virtues; I may not completely agree with it and may not find it complete because I find my path glorious and perfect. Anyway. We may call the Lord Ishvar and you may call Him Allah, but He is one and of that there is little doubt. As Lakshmiiji rightly quotes, Lord confirms this in the Geeta. I respect such people who speak truth without misrepresenting texts as Dr. Naik or Ahmad Pandit do. This is my opinion. Take care.