1) Dr. Naik provides a very simplistic translation of 'Brahma' in English ('Creator'), translates that to Arabic as 'khalik', correlates that with Quran, and then claims that Muslims have no objection with that. He says that Muslims take exception if Brahma is described as one with four heads etc.
- First of all, to support this viewpoint, Dr. Naik quotes his favorite verse from shevatashvatara upanishad "na tasya pratima asti" [which I have shown elsewhere - part 1 - to be an illogical and inappropriate application of the statement, taken completely out of context]. His understanding of "na tasya pratima asti" from the material perspective of form is incorrect.
- Secondly, it does not matter if a Muslim has an objection, or takes an exception, or not, that should not be the criteria for comprehending truth and the true nature of God.
- It appears that Muslims are simple minded and need direct instructions, as they do not seem to understand symbolic language of the 'hindu' ideology, as such the Lord provides that which matches their intelligence - Quran.
- Muslims and Dr. Naik should not to attempt to understand (and thus criticize) 'Hinduism' from the eyes of Islam or Quran; it is just as inappropriate as the attempt to understand the planetary systems using a stethoscope or a microscope, just because that is all you have. It needs a deeper analysis than the superficial treatment that Dr. Naik provides.
- Thirdly, this word to word translation is too immature because a rich language like Sanskrit renders itself to the context; the word brahma has virtually limitless definitions, so it is inappropriate to provide such a simplistic translation and then authenticate it using Quran, which is not a litmus test.