Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Part 5: Dr. Zakir's absolutely Misplaced references and inferences

Continuing from the previous section ...

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.
2) The same issues of 'translation immaturity' applies to other 'attributes' Dr. Naik discusses from the vedic scriptures. Example, Vishnu is simplistically translated as "one who sustains", so that it fits with the Arabic equivalent of 'rubb' described in Quran. Again, if Dr. Naik were to take the primary meaning of Vishnu (which is from the root word 'viSh' which means to pervade, to spread, to embrace, and as such VishNu is all pervading, omnipresent) it would be haram for him from the Quranic perspective, so he seems to deliberately skip the real meaning. You need not force yourself to come to 'common terms', we can be at peace as long as you have the heart to acknowledge and appreciate the differences. 

3) Wow! here is Dr. Naik's greatest blunder number 1! He claims that the word ALLAH is in all religious texts. This is an interesting claim because this is akin to saying that "ALLAH" is the NAME of God, which is untrue!!!! This is a very important point where Dr. Naik badly trips because he himself says elsewhere that Allah is NOT a NAME of God but an Arabic word that MEANS God. He has argued that the Muslims prefer to use the Arabic word 'Allah' over the word 'God' so as not to confuse the conceptions of God from other religious conceptions. So, now to say that ALLAH's name can be found in all religious scriptures is totally absurd and ridiculous. 

4) Blunder number 2, where his credibility goes for a toss. 
Dr. Naik claims that the name of Allah (which itself is illogical at the outset; a discussed in the earlier point) is mentioned in the Vedic texts. He provides examples from Rigveda Book 2, Hymn 1, Text 11: तवमिळा षतहिमासि दक्षसे तवं वर्त्रहा वसुपते सरस्वती || Where, iLA is said to refer to Allah. Dr. Naik needs to note that this is a book in praise of Agni, who is praised as "the hundred-wintered Iḷā to give strength". iLA here is supposedly feminine, a shakti dEvate - umA (consort of Lord Shiva). Interestingly, in Sanskrit, 'अल्ला’ means Mother or Supreme Goddess

Mr. Naik, caution: If this were to be accepted as referring to 'Allah' then it would be harAm and shirk. So this reference is inappropriate even from the Islamic perspective. So not sure why you make this futile attempt, but that also exposes your ignorance of vedic texts and ideologies. 

5) Next, Dr. Naik refers to RigvEda Book 3, Hymn 30, verse 10: "अलात्र्णो वल इन्द्र वरजो गोः पुरा हन्तोर्भयमानो वयार" (He who withheld the kine, in silence I yielded in fear before thy blow, O Indra). This is a hymn in praise of Indra, where 'अलातृन' implies 'miserliness' or 'not granting anything', which is being 'in silence'. I am in utter shock at Dr. Naik jugglery. 

6) He then refers to Book 9, Hymn 67, and verse 30: "अलाय्यस्य परशुर्ननाश तमा पवस्व देव सोम" (Lost is alAyya's (an epithet of Indra) axe. O Soma, God do thou send it back hither in thy flow), where Dr. Naik hints that "अला" here refers to Allah. Again, Dr. Naik needs to be aware that these verses are in praise of Indra, a demigod, a partner of Allah, and is involved in Shirk. 

Dr. Naik then intelligently concludes saying "similarly, the name of Allah is mentioned in several places in the Vedic texts". We have already looked at all the references he has provided, and how absurd - and anti-Islamic, un-islamic, unbecoming - they are. These references are not only objectionable and worthy of laughter for 'Hindu's but also highly objectionable to Muslims, Islam and Quran. 

Come to think of this, some people trust him! I feel sorry for his ignorance but appreciate his courage, discipline, dedication, and hardwork. 

1 comment:

  1. Well written Sir.Truth always triumphs . Can u please suggest how to read Rig Veda.