|| Satyameva Jayate ||

Dedicated to “Bharat” and “Dharma”

Join the discussion on Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik – Part II

I have moved the last few comments on the discussion on Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik, Godhra post here to prevent comment overload.

Please continue discussing your thoughts on this thread.

The extract below picks up from the last few comments.

*** Comments Begin ***

*** Comment by Naved

There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the Messenger of Allah.

A Muslim believes in the existence of that which is beyond human perception. A Muslim believes in Allah and His attributes. A Muslim believes in the angels, the scriptures, and the Prophets. A Muslim believes in the Hereafter and what it entails of the Resurrection, Heaven and Hell, the Balance, and the Bridge and other details mentioned in the Quran and the authentic Sunnah. So without Imaan, we would not even exist.

From what you guys state here, I am afraid you have read or learnt nothing about Islam.

Anyhow.. Dr Zakir Naik is not trying to prove the Quran to be the word of God, with the help of science. What he is trying to do, he brings a compatibility, and shows the superiority Quran – That what your science has told us yesterday… Quran has told us 14 hundred years ago. He is trying to prove that our yard stick… the Muslim yardstick… the Quran, is far superior to your yard stick – The science. Therefore, you should believe in Quran, which is far superior.

Bible was not revealed in English – It is Old Testament in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek. Though Jesus Christ peace be upon him, spoke Hebrew – But the original Manuscript that you have – it is in Greek. The Old Testament, the original Hebrew is not available – do you know that? The Hebrew translation of the Old Testament is from the Greek – So even the original Old Testament, which is in Hebrew, is not present in Hebrew. So you have a double problem – No wonder you have scribal errors, etc. But the Quran – Alhamdulillah, the original Arabic is maintained. It has been… Alhamdulillah scientifically – you can prove it is the same.

The Quran says in Surah Al-Rad, Chapter. 13, Verse 38, that Allah Subhanawataala has sent down several Revelations. By name only 4 are mentioned – The Torah, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Quran. The Torah is the Wahi, which was given to Moses, peace be upon him. The Zaboor is the Revelation, the Wahi which was given to David, peace be upon him. Injeel is the Revelation, Wahi which was given to Jesus, peace be upon him. And Quran is the last and final Revelation which was given to the last and final Messenger, Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him.

But the present Bible is not the Injeel, which we believe in, which, was revealed to Jesus Christ peace be upon him. This Bible according to us, it may contain the words of God – But it also contains words of Prophets, words of historians, it contains absurdities, obscenity, as well as innumerable scientific errors. If there are scientific points mentioned in the Bible – there are possibilities – why not? It may be part of the word of God, in the Bible. But what about the scientific errors? – What about the unscientific portions? – Can you attribute this to God?

As Jesus Christ, peace be upon him said…‘Search ye the truth, and the truth shall free you.’ We have the Old Testament, we have the New Testament – Now you should follow the Last and Final Testament, which is the Glorious Quran.

We have many a number of versions of the Bible and it does not exist anymore in the original form either in memory or text anywhere on the earth, nor has it existed as such for at least 1,500 or more years. Infact none of the religious scripture exist in its original form… they have been revised. The Quran on the other hand, is exactly preserved and memorized as it was during the lifetime of the holy prophet, peace be upon him. The teachings of Islam from the Quran and the hadeeth of Muhammad, peace be upon him, are very clear and available in the original texts in Arabic for whomsoever would like to read them. Allah has said that he would preserve His deen till eternity.

ISLAM is a great religion – it represents the final word of god – it is a matter of individual conscience whether you accept or reject it at an existential level — one man could not be defeated over a period of 23 years -despite attempts at assasination — there are now 1.3 billion muslims and fourteen centuries of history-god will defend his own faith. If a person could not arrive at belief through the miracle of his own intellect, after obviously having studied Islam thoroughly enough to debate with a Muslim, nothing could turn his heart.

“Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).” (Qur‘an 2:7).

Prof. Tejasen accepted Islam on the strength of just one scientific ‘sign’ mentioned in the Quran. Some people may require ten signs while some may require hundred signs to be convinced about the Divine origin of the Quran. Some would be unwilling to accept the Truth even after being shown a thousand signs. The Quran condemns such a closed mentality in the verse:

“Deaf, dumb and blind, They will not return (To the path).” [Al-Quran 2:18]

The Quran contains a complete code of life for the individual and society. Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah), the Quranic way of life is far superior to the ‘isms’ that modern man has invented out of sheer ignorance. Who can give better guidance than the Creator Himself? I pray that this humble effort is accepted by Allah, to whom I pray for mercy and guidance (Aameen).

Also, all your answers to the questions you posted here are at the below post. I dont intend to attack your thoughts, all I want is to present to you the truth.. Islam as it is and not as many non-muslims think it to be. As I said.. want to clear the air.

http://navedz.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/is-the-quran-god%e2%80%99s-word/
http://navedz.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/the-quran-and-modern-science-compatible-or-incompatible/
http://navedz.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/then-which-of-the-favours-of-your-lord-will-you-deny/

People try and link terrorists with Islam which is wrong. Terrorists do not have a religion. They use it as a mantle to do what their religion forbids. At its heart is the desire to meet their own narrow agenda.

If we look into the historic records, it proves that a large number of terrorist acts in the 20th and 21st century were committed by non-Muslims. The so-called global phenomenon of “Islamic terrorism/militant Islam” was a creation of the western governments and their media outlets. Politics lies at the heart of labeling Muslims across the globe as perpetrators of terror acts.

Dr. Zakir, who is one of the Muslim world’s leading and most prolific speakers, has quoted from the scriptures of other religions and has proved that associating killing with Islam is incorrect.

“It says in the Book of Numbers that whoever worships other than God should be killed,” he said, referring to the Bible, yet such militant verses were conveniently ignored by the Western media.

“In every religion there are black sheep and the media keep putting these people forward. This is a media conspiracy and a way of pushing people away from Islam.” he added.

No religion encourages terrorist acts or violence. Islam is a religion of PEACE. It doesn’t teach us to kill unlike other religions. Muslims start their greetings with “As-salaam-wa Alaikum Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh”, which means in English “May GOD’s peace, mercy and blessings be upon you.”

Allah states : “Whoever kills a human being [unjustly]… then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind.”

No one probably ever heard of such a stunning message of peace, which considers killing just one person (be it innocent or not) tantamount to killing the entire humanity? The doubters should not have any more skepticism about Muslim’s claim that “Islam is a religion of peace”. The unjustified criticisms of and spitting venoms at Islam by the hateful Islam-bashers got to stop now.

Palestinians are called terrorists just because they are fighting to get their land back. We can cite the examples of LTTE (in Sri Lanka), IRA (in UK), Lord’s Salvation Army, which trains the young children to conduct terrorist attacks, and many other non-Muslim terrorist outfits. The lives claimed by these outfits are more than the ones by the SO CALLED Muslim terrorists.

Naxalites/Maoists across India and the LTTE in Sri Lanka were non- Muslim terror organisations, which had had developed pan regional bases beyond national boundaries. Other such non-Muslim terror outfits included the United Liberation Front of Asom, National Democratic Front of Bodoland and All Tripura Tiger Force in the Northeast.

On international examples, the Japanese Red Army, Lord’s Salvation Army and the ETA in Spain were also non-Islamic in character and composition.

So nothing is more removed from truth as to suggest that Muslims have monopolized terrorism. The Irish Republican Army, which was considered to be terrorist group, has a history of 100 years of violence against the British, but the British government doesn’t seem to be scared about them as they are about radical Islamic groups. Besides, even a single killing by a Muslim is condemned by Islam, whatsoever the reasons. Islam does not justify using wrong means to reach the right goals. People should not take the law in their hands.

India has seen maximum number of communal riots in recent years. Politicians have been using the ‘Divide and Rule Policy’ to secure their vote banks. However, the masses should not get instigated by them. Terrorism is a monopoly of politicians. People, regardless of their religion, wish to live harmonious lives, but politicians feed the feeling of hatred amongst them.

What is happening in Palestine.. some people have the opinion that it is muslim terrorsim. I think you are not aware of what has been happening.. they need to read the authentic history. you would know about the biggest ever robbery in history for 20th century.. read up on the history of Palestine and Israel.

Read about a group of people homeless in Europe. Read about them set their eyes on a land they not only wanted to live in, but rule over. Read about them coming into Palestine and throwing people out of their homes, bulldozing them down and making people refugees in their own land. Read about bloodshed, read about their domination, occupation spreading like a infectious disease. Read about their sophisticated missiles and tanks, whose design, manufacture was aided in Britain and America; massacre families, and the resistance of the Palestinians named as terrorism. Palestinians who grew up generation after generation in the muddy squalor of refugee camps in their own land attempted to fight this occupation with whatever they had. Read it all.

http://navedz.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/top-5-lies-about-israel%e2%80%99s-assault-on-gaza/
http://navedz.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-biggest-robbery-of-the-20th-century/

For further interaction visit my site http://navedz.wordpress.com/

Regards,

Naved Zia

*** Comment by Patriot

@Naved:

What would you have to say about this discourse on your prophet?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm

And, allah is the only god? What a terribly, terribly narrow view to have … have you looked at my god? You can find his noodlyness here:
http://www.venganza.org

Seriously, get a life or at least stop wasting the one that you currently have.

Cheers

*** Comment by Patriot

“That what your science has told us yesterday… Quran has told us 14 hundred years ago. He is trying to prove that our yard stick… the Muslim yardstick… the Quran, is far superior to your yard stick – The science.”

mmmmmm, really? Some evidence please?

Just the proof that the Quran discovered penicillin should be enough?

Oh and yes, cars.

Thank you.

*** Comment by Patriot

BTW, Naved, you say:

The Quran on the other hand, is exactly preserved and memorized as it was during the lifetime of the holy prophet, peace be upon him”

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly? Pls prove this with a proper chain of custody evidence link.

Thank you

*** Comment by Patriot

Oh, Naved, one final thing:

As I read Islamic history and history of the Arabian peninsula, I find that Mohammad drove out the Jews from Medina for being non-believers, and killed all those who refused to convert or leave.

So, if we are setting right historical wrongs, I think we should start with Medina – pls let me know when the muslim community is ready to hand it over to the jews.

Also, since you say that Islam does not justify the killing of any innocent and that wrong means for a right end are unacceptable, I trust that you are going to write a post denouncing Faizullah and Osama bin Laden. Send me a link when you have done that.

Thanks.

*** End of Comments ***

.

Please continue the discussion below and please do read:

Join the discussion on Islam, Hindutva, Dr Zakir Naik, Godhra – Part I

May 15th, 2009 Posted by | Debates & Discussions, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Islam & Reform, Sanatana Dharma, Science & Mathematics in Ancient India | 64 comments

64 Comments »

  1. @Bhagwad Jal Park

    You say-
    “there’s nothing special about cows compared to another form of life”

    In fact there is some thing special about the cow.

    1)We consider it sacred. This in itself should be a sufficient reason. In Australia killing dog meat is banned to respect the religious sensibilities of Christians. What it is such a big deal here?

    2)For an un-biased and scientific study – “The Sacred Cow” by Robin Winter – on why Cow is indeed sacred for India, read the following –

    http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow.html

    Just a small quote from the above giving the scientific validation of just one aspect of the sacredness of cow-

    “The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms of excrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow’s dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it or not, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean. ”

    Cow is not like any another animal. It is special!

    Comment by GyanP | August 6, 2010

  2. I have stayed in Mud Hut coated with Cow Dung and it has excellent properties to retain the right temperature in all seasons and is free from flies and mosquitoes.

    Comment by Rohit | August 6, 2010

  3. =>
    BJP wrote:
    For this reason, I’m against the ban on the burqua in France which is only thinly concealed racism…
    =>

    BJP, by the same logic, are you against the law that forces women to wear burqa – whether one likes it or not, whether one is Muslim or not – in certain Islamic countries? Or does your “human-ness”/we-are-humans-first not extend to these Islamic countries and the humans living there, and is limited only to democracies?

    If so, why?

    Comment by Kaffir | August 6, 2010

  4. BJP, one more question.

    If France’s law is “thinly concealed racism” – even thought there were Muslim ministers who were in favor of this law, what is Shar’ia law – practiced in numerous countries – that not only makes a clear distinction between Muslims (superior) and non-Muslims (eh, don’t really care), with Muslims accorded much more rights than non-Muslims, but puts it into practice?

    Comment by Kaffir | August 6, 2010

  5. @GyanP

    “We consider it sacred.”

    Your love for the cow is not unselfish. You love it only for what it gives you, not for the cow itself. Replace the word “sacred” with “useful” and you have a point.

    @Kaffir

    BJP, by the same logic, are you against the law that forces women to wear burqa?

    Obviously.

    “what is Shar’ia law – practiced in numerous countries – that not only makes a clear distinction between Muslims (superior) and non-Muslims (eh, don’t really care), with Muslims accorded much more rights than non-Muslims, but puts it into practice?”

    I don’t know why you assume I approve of Sharia law. Have I said this? If so, do show me where…

    Comment by Bhagwad Jal Park | August 7, 2010

  6. @Bhagwad Jal Park

    It is because of security reasons they have ban Burqa. One can only see eyes and no part of face which hides the physical identity of the person and not an easy task to communicate.

    My views are, Cow is sacred because of humble and peaceful animal. Cow has choices to eat what he likes but will only eat veg fodder.

    Comment by Indian | August 7, 2010

  7. @Indian

    You can’t praise a cow for just following its nature. “Humble and peaceful” are human traits. A cow will eat whatever is in it’s nature to eat. It has no ethics any more than a tiger does.

    Comment by Bhagwad Jal Park | August 7, 2010

  8. Jal Park… Ethics of Tiger. I’m interested in ethics of a spider’s web garden. As I imagine, I am… Thanks Park! It needs to go down as dope of week… Ethics of Tiger

    Comment by JC Moola | August 7, 2010

  9. @BJP

    Accepting cow as sacred is a Hindu’s way of showing its gratitude. Maybe such sentiments are above you!

    Moreover, Hindus take care of cows even when they become useless and old. And don’t eat them after making use of them. This is called sentiment. Perhaps you did not read the link I gave above. Here is a relevant portion-

    ” Perhaps the heaviest criticism of the pastoral culture of India is directed at the insistence of the farmers on protecting even sick and aged cows. Westerners find this to be the height of absurdity. At least they could be killed and eaten or sold. But no. Animal hospitals or nursing homes called goshallas, provided by government agencies or wealthy individuals in search of piety, offer shelter for old and infirm cows. This is thought to be a luxury that India cannot really afford, as these “useless” cows are seen to be but competitors for the already limited croplands and precious foodstuffs. The fact is, however, that India actually spends a great deal less on their aging cattle than Americans spend on their cats and dogs. And India’s cattle population is six times that of the American pet population.

    The Indian farmer sees his cattle like members of the family. Since the farmers depend on the cattle for their own livelihood, it makes perfect sense both economically and emotionally to see to their well-being. In between harvests, the cattle are bathed and spruced up much like the average American polishes his automobile. Twice during the year, special festivals are held in honor of the cows. These rituals are similar to the American idea of Thanksgiving. Although in principle the same, there is a basic difference in the details of how we treat the turkey and how the more “primitive” Indians treat their cows.”

    Nothing is sacred in itself. Only we human beings make it.

    Comment by GyanP | August 7, 2010

  10. @BJP

    How societies care for the welfare of their animals is a measure of how advanced they are as a nation. That is purely a question of ethics because no right thinking people would want to inflict needless pain on animals. In the UK there are very heavy penalties on people who do just that from jail terms to fines.

    Even the UK draws a line at preserving the lives of animals. Countless dogs or put down because they have no homes. In India they wander as strays and suffer neglect and abuse. Much the same fate awaits the cow past its useful economic life for which homes are provided by animal welfare charities. Hindu religious sentiment baulks at utilizing for economic benefit as food and for the leather industries. That would make sense for a wealthy economy like the UK which does not make the same choice as India seems to make as regards their cows. When India’s people in many cases are in no better condition than the afflicted cows, this is a policy no sane Indian government should be pursuing. Obviously politics and religion has interceded to skew the argument for the policy that is now pursued.

    There is a fundamental issue at the root of the matter. The other major religions of the world make a very clear distinction between the reason with which God has endowed mankind and absented from the animal kingdom. Should Hindus in the 21st century continue to endow the cow and other animals with godly qualities and want to appear ridiculous in the eyes of the world? The highest qualities of Hinduism enjoins Hindus to be free by acknowledging the truth. Which other religion has the epitaph “God is Truth”. Ethics as regards the humane treatment of animals is truth enough for me without importing religious doctrines and sentiments into the issue when they are clearly not necessary.

    Comment by Khandu Patel | August 7, 2010

  11. @Khandu Patel
    You say-
    There is a fundamental issue at the root of the matter. The other major religions of the world make a very clear distinction between the reason with which God has endowed mankind and absented from the animal kingdom. Should Hindus in the 21st century continue to endow the cow and other animals with godly qualities and want to appear ridiculous in the eyes of the world? The highest qualities of Hinduism enjoins Hindus to be free by acknowledging the truth. Which other religion has the epitaph “God is Truth”. Ethics as regards the humane treatment of animals is truth enough for me without importing religious doctrines and sentiments into the issue when they are clearly not necessary.

    Your above comment is not quite clear in its intent.

    Should we change our thinking so as to not look ridiculous? According to a Hindu, God is in all living things. Even in non-living things. We see God everywhere. Christianity thinks God is only in and for Humans.

    Should we make more economically sensible decisions – like killing the old cows and using it’s meat and hide? But, this is what the above cited study shows – that the way our society has been traditionally treating cows makes perfect economic sense. Only thing is we express our sensibilities in a more religious language.

    Personally, it doesn’t matter to me what other countries think about us. There are so many things in their religions that seem to be ridiculous to us!

    Excuse me if I misunderstood you!

    Comment by GyanP | August 7, 2010

  12. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/indian-linked-to-alqaeda-plot-unearthed-in-canada/129611-2.html?from=tn

    An Al-Qaeda-linked terror plot was unearthed by Canadian security agencies on Wednesday, with one of the suspects reportedly hailing from India.

    Though police didn’t name the suspects, one of them is said to be 36-year-old Misbahuddin Ahmed who worked as an X-ray technologist at an Ottawa hospital. Reports quoted sources as saying that Ahmed comes from India.

    Comment by Indian | August 26, 2010

  13. Noah Feldman: Politics and religion are technologies
    Noah Feldman makes a searing case that both politics and religion — whatever their differences — are similar technologies, designed to efficiently connect and manage any group of people.

    Comment by Rationalist | January 19, 2011

  14. Regarding the following verses brought into the picture by Mohammad Ali:

    In the mean time what is your opinion on the following verses of the Holy Gita:

    �If however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sin, for neglecting your duties, and thus lose your reputation as a fighter�. [Bhagavad Gita 2:33]

    �Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles, so there is no need for hesitation.� [Bhagavad Gita 2:33]

    Wrong translation!

    Krishna advocates fighting for dharma, dharmic principles, and some moron translated “dharma” as “religion” and now mohammad ali is using the wrong translation to imply that the Bhagavad Gita was advocating some kind of religious war like the Quran does.

    Krishna is not asking Arjuna to wage war against Jains, Buddhists and Christians or Jews, but fight for dharma and against adharmic people.

    There is no need to bring in any kind of context here. The verse is clear by itself, asking people to fight on the basis of dharmic principles.

    Is Mohammad Ali trying to say there is no Jihad in Islam? This is a strange kind of Islam, and he must be the only person who believes in it.

    Comment by Harish | September 5, 2011

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.