In this article, we shall briefly analyze the research article by self-proclaimed expert on comparative religion, Dr Zakir Naik on “Concept of God in Hinduism”. You can review the original article by clicking here. This is his second article in this series. (The first was “Introduction to Hinduism” which we have already analyzed.)
The bulk of this article goes to provide evidences from Hindu texts that there is only one God. I sincerely thank Dr Naik for collecting these references at one place which are pride of not only Hindus but entire humanity.
But the motive of Dr Naik in putting this references was quite different. He starts his article falsely assuming that bulk of Hindus do not believe in one God. And then goes ahead to prove that this is wrong and Hindus should believe in one God only. In previous article, he has already planted seeds of doubts over Vedas and basis of Hinduism, and established importance of Bhavishya Puran. After this article, he would go for the final kill – by proving that Hindu scriptures talk of Prophet only and hence imply that Hindus should leave other texts and accept only Quran! You can review the rest of the articles in this site itself.
For present, we shall critically comment on the first part of his article on “Concept of God” and try to understand the true Hinduism and motives of this stage performer in process. As in previous article, I shall cite excerpt from Dr Naik’s articles followed by comments in bold italics.
Lets begin:
Dr Naik: “1. Common Concept of God in Hinduism: Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in multiple Gods. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three gods, some believe in thousands of gods, and some others in thirty three crore i.e. 330 million Gods. However, learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.“
Comment:
(1. English has only word God to mean All-mighty Omnipotent whom Hindus call Ishwar and other human-like creatures who act smart – like one who sends Angels, gets angry, sits on a throne or creates Heaven and Hell.
2. In Hinduism, the word to describe All-mighty Omnipotent is Ishwar. Thus Ishwar = God. But writers take God to mean Devata. Now Devata does not mean Ishwar. Devata means any entity – living or dead that gives us anything or benefits us. In English, I would call Devata to mean “Helper”.
3. While Vedas believe in one single Ishwar and 33 types of non-living Helper Devatas, even the average Hindu does not consider these Helper devatas to be Ishwar.
4. Thus Hinduism is essentially monotheistic and Quran has derived its concept of monotheism basically from Vedas
5. The three Gods are symbolic description of 3 functions of Ishwar – Creation, Maintenance and Destruction. Different Hindu sects may differ with regards to the importance one should be attaching to these various symbols or importance of Helper-Devatas, but all unanimously agree that there is one and only one Ishwar/God. Dr Naik has no new USP of Islam to sell here)
Dr Naik: “The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God!”
Comment:
(1. Dr Naik speaks this sentence with a slight smirk in his face in his video shows so that the audience feels humorous. But either he is mistaken or deliberately acting humorous.
2. Because Hinduism basically represents a school of thought believing in Law of Karma. The rest of the details are left to individual interpretation. All Hindus do consider functioning of each object – living or dead – as a gift of God, but they DO NOT consider the tree, sun, moon, monkey, snake, human as same as God/Ishwar.
3. Even the Advait believers, also admit that even if these things are considered to have origin in Ishwar or Brahma, currently there is a layer of ignorance or Maya separating them.
4. For rest of Hindus, they worship these objects, to show their thankfulness to Ishwar/ God to have created and gifted such wonderful things! Different sects do take this thankfulness to different levels, but none would consider everything to be God in present state, as IRF foolishly believes or wants the world to believe. Thus the crux of this article and its prime agenda become outrightly baseless.
5. The problem is that the Islam which Dr Zakir Naik wants all Hindus to embrace does not have any philosophy or need for subtle thinking that demands finesse of mind and intellect. It would want us to believe that polygamy is right because there are more women in USA than men (Although there are far less women than men in marriageable age!). Or that had Islam been brutal in India, why would there be only 15% Muslim in India after so many centuries of rule? (And he would conveniently ignore 33 crore Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan which were originally part of India. Not to talk of Afghanistan!
But we need to beware of designs of those who openly support Bin Laden and ban on other religions in Muslim countries or have a vision to make India a Muslim country in 5 years!)
Dr Naik: “Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is God’s i.e. the word ‘God’ with an apostrophe ‘s’. In other words the Muslims believe that everything belongs to God.
The trees belong to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the snake belongs to God, the human beings belong to God and everything in this universe belongs to God.
Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God’s.”
Comment:
(1. As mentioned before the analogy of apostrophe ‘s’ is good for stage shows but is actually baseless. The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim belief or Dr Zakir Naik is that Hindus believe in freedom of thought and analysis and do not curse anyone to Hell permanently. Or contrary, Dr Naik’s Islam would demand not only belief in God, but also belief in following:
- Muhammad as final Prophet
- Quran as final and only acceptable word of God beyond any doubts or questions
- Permanent Hell for those who refuse to believe in above and Heaven only for the rest
- Existence of angels like one who came to Muhammad to narrate him the Quran, that was compiled 20 years after Muhammad’s murder/death, by his followers who were fighting like beasts to kill each other.
2. Incidentally, Islam is not as uniform in its belief as Dr Naik wants us to believe. There is a Hadith of Muhammad’s times that Islam has 73 sects and Prophet has said that only one of them will go to Heaven and rest will go to Hell. Today, some sects have written their own new Quran as well! Many of the sects doubt authenticity of present Quran. Here is a sampler:
- Hashamiya – They believe that Prophet disobeyed Allah
- Azraqiah – They do not believe that revelations happen any more
- Nazzamiyah – They refuse to believe in miracles of Quran or Muhammad
- Ibriyah – They refuse to accept Muhammad as Prophet
- Tanasikhiya – They believe in reincarnation of soul as Hindus
You can read the complete list here
Many other sects of Islam also exist who have their own Qurans and Prophets. Search Wikipedia or google on “sects of Islam”)
The rest of the article only emphasizes the point that Hindus already know. In the end, Dr Naik adds a para claiming that Vedas call Muhammad the Prophet. He writes:
“The Prophecy confirms:
1. The name of the Prophet as Ahmed since Ahmed is an Arabic name. Many translators misunderstood it to be ‘Ahm at hi’ and translated the mantra as “I alone have acquired the real wisdom of my father”.
2. Prophet was given eternal law, i.e. the Shariah.
3. The Rishi was enlightened by the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an says in Surah Saba Chapter 34 verse 28 (34:28):
“We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not.”"
Comment:
(1. An analysis of this foolish claim can be found here.
2. If Allah himself says that most men will not understand, then it is fault of Allah and not of men that their lack of understanding was already pre-decided by Allah!)
I hope, after reading these articles, Dr Naik and IRF would go into an introspection and would be honest enough to embrace their original roots – the Vedas. Or at least, accept our invitation for an open-house debate that is long pending.
PDF 
Twitter
Facebook
Email
2. Incidentally, Islam is not as uniform in its belief as Dr Naik wants us to belief. There is a Hadith of Muhammad’s times that Islam has 73 sects and Prophet has said that only one of them will go to Heaven and rest will go to Hell. Today, some sects have written their own new Quran as well! Many of the sects doubt authenticity of present Quran. Here is a sampler:
- Hashamiya – They believe that Prophet disobeyed Allah
- Azraqiah – They do not believe that revelations happen any more
- Nazzamiyah – They refuse to believe in miracles of Quran or Muhammad
- Ibriyah – They refuse to accept Muhammad as Prophet
- Tanasikhiya – They believe in reincarnation of soul as Hindus
You can read the complete list here
Many other sects of Islam also exist who have their own Qurans and Prophets. Search Wikipedia or google on “sects of Islam”)
No one can write its Own Quran
dont post false information
Please search yourself. It is called Furqan.
I did not write. Dr Naik and translator of Quran wrote!
You write that Muhammad was killed by his followers? What sources have you got to back that up?
Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman captured from the battle of Khaybar. He did not die at that time but a death a few years later may have contributed but I know of no direct proof of murder by followers.
Thanks.
Dear Sister,
Could you help me locate where I have written that Muhammad was killed by his followers?
About 3/4 the way down in your comments about Naiks reference to god's.
- Existence of angels like one who came to Muhammad to narrate him the Quran, that was compiled 20 years after Muhammad’s murder by his followers who were fighting for each other’s death.
Hey Amina….
"- Existence of angels like one who came to Muhammad to narrate him the Quran, that was compiled 20 years after Muhammad’s murder by his followers who were fighting for each other’s death. "
I think you read it in a different way!!!
This is to be read as follows:
"- Existence of angels like one who came to Muhammad to narrate him the Quran, that was compiled {(20 years after Muhammad’s murder)} by his followers who were fighting for each other’s death.".
Agniveer has nowhere mentioned that Muhammed was murdered by his followers.
He said that Quran was compiled by his followers after Muhammeds murder.
But Muhammad was not murdered according to Hadith.
The sentence maybe should read:
- Existence of angels like the one who came to Muhammad to narrate him the Quran, that was compiled 20 years after Muhammad’s death, by his followers who were fighting for each other’s death."
It should be after Muhammad ***death*** not after his ***murder***
I have changed the sentence a bit, though I still retain the mention of murder. Because many Muslims do believe that Prophet was poisoned. Some even blame it on Aisha. These theories may have some weight considering the way he died, and the way his followers started killing each other after his death, and the way even her beloved child-wife Aisha took arms. Considering that origin and aftermath of Islam is so deeply colored with blood, nothing can be far-fetched. Sometimes, I feel that it may have happened that Muhammad was a simple saintly person, and he was used as a guinea pig by his followers and Aisha who cooked hadiths and ayats of Quran on his name to suit their designs. That is why there is so much of contradictions in Quran. Some may have been written by Muhammad and later were cooked up by his fighting tribe. Further, its a mystery that how else could an illiterate write such things? And further almost all Ayats were revealed when Muhammad was with Aisha, who deserted Muslims later.
This is for scholars to explore, but origin of islam is full of questions and barbarism.
I was in confusion after the talks of Dr Zakir Naik which I used to see on the internet.
I consider myself as a rationalist but was demoralised when I watched the conference between Dr Naik and Sri Sri Ravi Shanker where Dr Naik had an upper hand.
Thank you for bringing out the truth;satya-meva- jayate,
Sadar pranam.
Deepak
Zakir Naik is smart enough to choose opponents and formats of programs where he can have upper hand. That is why he keeps ignoring invitations from us for a debate.
Deepak ji,
Why do we look out for someone to defend us/our faith, unless our belief in our own faith is shaky?
Were Swami Dayanand and Swami Vivekananda and our innumerable gurus foolish? Think over it…
Dear Dogra Jee , I would like to clarify the misunderstanding created about sri sri ravishankar ji,with reference to the so- called debate. Sir , it was never a debate in the very first place. actually the event was to link the common threads b/w hinduism & islam. this was just an attempt by Sri Sri to educate these madarsaa bred terrorists so as to bring them to the path of peace.Islam was born out of hatred and so are the muslims who follow it. Sri Sri thought that by showing them the common threads, they might show some respect to other religions as well. But sri sri was backstabbed, Zakir Naik, very well hijacked the program and turned into a debate on hinduism v/s islam,If you watch the WHOLE program carefully. And as the saying goes," IF YOU ARGUE WITH A FOOL, THE SPECTATORS WON'T BE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE".This is what precisely Sri Sri did. There was no point arguing with this Dr. Foolish Nayak.
And Dear Agniveer ji, I want to do Shaashtang Pranam to you for the way you have defended hinduism. But Sir, you said sri sri knows nothing about vedas. This is very untrue.there was no point arguing with zakir nayak, as you really don't argue with fools and his well managed crowd. Sir, TO SAVE HINDUISM, THE FIRST AND FOREMOST PREREQUISITE FOR US IS TO STOP FIGHTING AMONGST US. then only we can stop the islamic invasion of our beloved BHARAT
Namaste
I have no personal enmity with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. But I have my reservations against the methods of our gurus who live lavishly, spend crores in self-glorifying activities and distort the essence of Dharma to suit their own marketing agenda. Nowhere have I seen Sri Sri Ravi Shankar provide any reference to Vedas. His courses are designed to attract celebrities, and accordingly very liberal in nature, going beyond the maryada of Vedic dharma. Thus I believe that while they may get very popular, they cannot counter the threats we are facing from fanatics and vulgar media industry.
I believe that saving our Dharma from external threats and presenting the right concepts of the Dharma to everyone should be the prime focus for all enlightened ones. Those are are scared to put forth the criticism of invaders, or shy away from supporting reconversion movements, or do not equip people with the right perspectives of Dharma are of no use for this mission. I look forward to support from all avenues for this. Trust me, for this mission, I am not going leave any stone unturned. So do not view my criticism as a personal fight with or rejection of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.
But I do hope that gurus of the country come forth more proactively to combat the challenges ahead. Just imagine, if someone provides even 1 crore per year to counter these threats, unimaginable wonders can happen. And we spend countless crores on non-core activities.
The onus is on us to come forward and defend our faith. We cannot rely on Sri Sri Ravishankar or someone like him to fight for us. We have to take the responsibility on our shoulders. There is no unfortunately no shortcut. This intellectual warfare demands men of erudition (not of Ravishankar type, of course) to come forward and be the leaders. I congratulate and thank Agniveer jee for being one of them.
and also i think in some years the time is arrived that lord shri krishna had said.,
यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत ।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् ॥४-७॥
परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम् ।
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे ॥४-८॥
bhagwan sabaka bhala kare.,
jai sia ram
@Anirudh
namaste brother,
Let's discover Krishna within ourselves rather than waiting for anybody. Eeshvar never comes in human form, and Shri Krishna was an enlightened soul, who became legend due to his own deeds.
there is no single verse in the holy quran proved to be wrong .. wht abt that . that means it is from almighty
@jasim
no single verse? How about verses that order u to have sex with slaves? How about verses that tell ur enjoyment with virgins in paradise and tons of alcohol? Verses of killing apostles? Verses that show no valid reason why allah created us and destined our fate to be kafirs and momins?
wats ur source of saying tat ? its said in paradise u will get wat is not allowed for u here… tats the gift we will get Inshallah…. verses that orders to have sex with slaves is not mentioned anywhr…. :S u r misguided becoz on net u get many edited quran which is not frm the real Quran which is unedited since it was revealed… thr r many things u can mail me if u have any questions i am ready to answer ur questions.
tc brother
If Sri Sri Ravishankarji thinks that arguing with follish man is foolish, why agin few months back he participated in another programme with Dr.Naik, the title of which was 'Concept of Jihad in Quran and Bhagavad Gita'.