Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Reply to Dr.Naik

  1. #11
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Reply to Dr.Naik

    Check this post, especially the quotes from the Sanskrit Literature:
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3462
    Last edited by satay; 26 October 2009 at 01:48 PM.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  2. #12

    Re: Reply to Dr.Naik

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan View Post
    Dr.Naik vs Ravishankar - A counter.( with a touch of humour)

    Dr. Naik:

    The word Hindu has
    geographical significance and was used to describe the
    people living beyond the river Sindhu or people living in
    the land watered by river Indus. Most of the historians,
    they say, that this word Hindu was first used by the Arabs.
    Some historians say it was used by the Persians when they
    came to India through the north western passes of Himalaya.
    According to encyclopedia of religion and ethics, Volume
    #6, Reference #699, it says that the word Hindu was not
    found in any of the Indian literature before the advent of
    the Muslims to India. According to Pandit Jawaharlal
    Nehru, he writes in his Book “the discovery of India” on
    page #74 and #75 that the word Hindu can be earliest traced
    to a source a tantrik in 8th century and it was used
    initially to describe the people, it was never used to
    describe religion.

    Sudarshan:

    False, The word Hindu has been used in the text Merutantra, and defines Hindu as "himsAyAm dUyate yasmad hindurityaBiDhIyate". One devoted to ahimsa is a Hindu - just the opposite of a muslim we see in pratice. I hope muslims will allow Hindus to be "real Hindus" (or not)?
    So to Hindus here :- Take pride in the word Hindu. It means one who is steadfast to ahimsa. ( but be careful while applying this to adharmis)




    Dr.Naik

    There are several revelations of Almighty God
    sent on the face of the earth, by name, 4 are mentioned in
    the Qur’an; the Torah, the Zabur, the Ingil, and the
    Qur’an; but there are various others like Suhufi Ibrahim;
    but all the scriptures that came, all the revelations that
    was sent by Almighty God before the last and final
    revelation of the glorious Qur’an, they were only meant for
    a particular group of people; and the message which they
    preached was supposed to be followed only till a particular
    time period. But because Qur’an is the last and final
    revelation of Almighty God, it was not sent only for the
    Muslims or only for the Arabs, it was sent for the whole of
    humanity.

    Sudarshan:

    Total BS. It is high time to rewrite Quran to prevent all its followers from taking to terrorism. Allmighty Allah's final revelation has been an absolute fiasco. This religion has been made only for some Asuras, and fortunately men are divine by nature that prevents a total tragedy..
    By naming something a "final revelation" all these religions have ensured stagnation of mankind.


    Dr.Naik:

    First, we will discuss the concept of
    God in Hinduism in the light of the Hindu scriptures. If
    we ask the common Hindu that how many Gods does he believe
    in? some may say 3, some may say 100, some may say 1000,
    while others may say 33 crores, 330 millions. But if you
    ask a learned Hindu who is well Versed with his Hindu
    scriptures, he will tell you that in Hinduism you should
    believe and worship only one God. But the common Hindu, he
    believes in a philosophy known as pantheism, everything is
    God. The common Hindu believes that the tree is God, the
    sun is God, the moon is God, the human being is God, the
    snake is God. What we Muslims believe is everything is
    God’s, everything belongs to God’s, ‘G’ ‘O’ ‘D’ with an
    apostrophe ‘s’; the tree belongs to God, the sun belongs to
    God, the moon belongs to God, the human being belongs to
    God, the snake belongs to God. So the major difference
    between the common Hindu and the common Muslim is that the
    common Hindu says everything are Gods, we Muslim say
    everything is God’s. The major difference is the
    apostrophe ‘s’.


    Sudarshan:

    Mr.Naik has to first learn what Hinduism is, having confused Hinduism with pantheism or monism. That is only one view of Hinduism. Other Hindus do not beleive dog, tree etc to be God( in the sense of monism). In any case there are no Hindus who beleive there are multiple supreme Gods.

    And you have no authority to kill others based on what they believe. What harm does a polytheist do to you? This idiotic Islamic monotheism has felled too many heads due its corrupted monotheism.



    Dr.Naik:

    It is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad Chapter #6, Section #2, Verse #1; ekam evaditiyam God is only one without a second.


    Sudarshan:

    Yes, it means that there is no second to God, that is there are no Satan or evil forces. The entire existance has God alone as the basis of existance. It has nothing to do with your interpretation of "one without a second".


    Dr.Naik:

    It is
    mentioned in the Swethaswethara Upanishad; Chapter #4,
    Verse #19 Na Tasya Pratima Asti of that God there is no
    Prathima, there is no likeness, there is no image, there is
    no picture, there is no photograph, there is no sculpture,
    there is no statue.

    Sudarshan:

    That does not mean God is a "nothingness", but simply inexpressible in human words or symbols. As long as the Andromeda galaxy is not photographed, the astronomer would use only a general nebula symbol while representing it. A peasant milking cows in India can grasp this much better than the so called scholars of Islam.


    Dr.Naik:

    It is mentioned in Swethaswethara
    Upanishad; Chapter #4, Verse #20; no one can see the
    Almighty God and it is further mentioned in Bhagwat Gita
    Chapter #7, Verse #20; all those whose intelligence has
    been stolen by material desires, they worship many Gods.

    Sudarshan:

    No one can see God with senses or mind - that is what is implied. The same Gita says that Arjuna was able to see God with the divine eyes. Men whose intelligence has been stolen due to passions like hatred, worship other demi-gods like Allah.(assuming that such a god exists)


    Dr.Naik:

    We Muslims
    have got no objection if someone says that Almighty God is
    khaaliq or Creator, but if someone says this Almighty God
    has got 4 heads and on each head is a crown, you are giving
    an image to Almighty God. We Muslims take strong exception
    to it.

    Sudarshan:

    Who cares about your objections? Your Allah is only the pagan moon god elevated to the status of the christian tyrant god by Muhammed after he had some hallucinations in a cave. So after all Islam is only "disguised paganism".

    Is there a rule that Almighty cannot assume heads? Brahma's four heads refer to the four vedas which he protects, that does not mean some God called Brahma sits with four heads outside the universe.
    Brahma is jnana-svarupi, the embodiment of wisdom, the role model of perfection, and hence denoted by four vedas.

    A formless God used in Islam is an utterly unemotional and useless form of worship. It is equivalent to nihilism in the garb of theism.



    Dr.Naik:

    We Muslims have got no objection
    if someone calls Almighty God as Rabb or Sustainer, but if
    someone says he is Almighty God who has got 4 hands and
    8 The True Call – A Paradigm Shift www.thetruecall.com
    giving an image to Almighty God, in one hand is the lotus,
    the second hand is the conch, traveling on the sea on the
    bed of snakes, we Muslims take strong objection to it.


    Sudarshan:

    You have no knowledge of Hinduism. Do you even know who this great Lord Vishnu is? He is infinite and all pervading, and is the one cause of everything, including your moon god Allah.(if he exists)
    How could he have hands and legs in the way you have imagined? Are you still thinking that Vishnu is a God watching things from outside the universe like your moon god? He is right here, and fills every atom here. His magnificent spiritual form cannot be described adequately even by greatest sages.

    Vishnu's chakra is the great discuss that purifies the senses, mind and intellect. The Chakra is Vishnu himself, called by the name of Sudarshana. Beware of this chakra before abusing it, it can rip through the mleccha throats.
    Vishnu's gada is symbolic of his great prowess. Mace always stands for might.
    Vishnu's lotus is his symbol of peace,grace,tranquility and bliss, which is sorely lacking in your tyrant God.
    Vishnu's conch is Jnana - the touch of the conch bestows on you divine wisdom.(which is sorely missing in the Islamic sensous heaven of 72 virgins)
    The sea on which he resides is the ocean of Satchidananda.
    The snake Ananta on which he rests is the bedrock and foundation of all creation - the source of serpent power referred to by Yogins.

    Your Allah has no form like Brahma or Vishnu because he possesed none of these qualities.


    Regarding the sly question of Saadiq Bhai to Sri Sri Ravishankar on Vishnusahasranama:

    I was disappointed to see Ravishankar giving no defence to this. Perhaps he did not want to trigger any passions. I dont beleive that God is formless, and disagree with Islam's formless moon god. But the chaturbujam should have been easily explained by Ravishankar. It is too well understood to represent the three Ahamkara Abhimani devatas, the fourth being Mahat or Brahma, which are part on his divine body. Hindus use too many names and forms without understanding the significance and simply try to avoid answering by explaining it as an imagined form of Vishnu. Why should we even consider Islam as an alternative form of Dharma to whom nothing would make sense?
    Will he even try to understand if things are explained? Naw.

    Islam is just an amalgam of many myths rolled into one colossal myth.



    Dr.Naik's view on Kalki Avatara is plain bogus.

    Kalki = Muhammed?

    Kalki is Vishnu, full incarnate, Muhammed=ordinary mortal who died of poisoning unable to save his own life!! Vishnu indeed.
    Kalki will appear around the year 427,000 A.D.

    Eight qualities of Muhammed mentioned by Dr.Naik in Kalki section -

    wisdom,
    Self Control
    Revela knowledge
    Respectable lineage
    Valor
    Strength
    Gratefulness
    charity

    I wonder if Muhamed had even one of these...

    The eight powers in Kalki Purana refer to ashta-maha-siddhi or the powers of Anima,Mahima,Laghima,Garima,Prapti,Prakamya,Vashitva and Ishitva. Muhammed had none of these. He was just bookish 'prophet' who never knew God. He was a shrewd politician, that is all.


    If Dr.Naik believes in the authority of vedas and wants to quote them just where it fits him, his points maybe ignored. If he believes their full authority, then it is not a problem for us, but he will only become a Hindu, and no longer be a muslim.

    The Arabian religion prior to Muhammed may have its roots in Sanatana Dharma as pointed out by others. But Muhammed destroyed these cultures and people, borrowed these ideas and mixed them with other religions and also bluffed that he was to be the final messenger.


    Brotherhood between Hindu and Muslim maybe possible but I really doubt if that is possible as long as the muslim believes that he is the only truth and the final revelation of God. His intolerant version of monotheism will never allow this.
    Namaste friend!
    Very nice comments!!!
    This self obsessed mulla Zakir Naik misinterprets scriptures selectively and controls his debates. For anyone willing to debate him, he puts condition that the person should be able to gather a crown of 10,000 people. What a fool.
    Thanks for your explanations. Mulla Naik needs to be dealt with very very strongly!! He says he's a researcher. But all his so called research is to align everything under one Koran, whether it is all Vedas, Puranas, Bible.. anything. There is no way all the vast Vedic knowledge can be crammed up in the Koran. He says that we cannot say Ram or Krishna were messengers but Muhammad was. Saying OM and wishing Merry Christmas is haram according to Zakir Naik. His job is to sidetrack everything under koran. All this is biased hot air let out with mistranslated verses. Normal person questioning him doesn't remember so many verse numbers etc. so Zakir puts pressure on him quoting all that and then propounding his mistranslations.
    But there are many people whom Zakir Naik never face in a just unbiased fair debate sitting face to face.
    I welcome banning of Naik to Canada and UK. It's just Bharat, its just HUNDU sthan that is patiently listening to him abusing and offending Hindu Sanatana dharma, Gods and sentiments.

    Regards,

    Yogkriya
    Last edited by Yogkriya; 26 September 2010 at 03:58 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    January 2011
    Location
    under Maya
    Posts
    68
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: Reply to Dr.Naik

    Here are some replies to Zakir Naik's answers Commonly Asked by Non-Muslims.

    http://agniveer.com/611/naik-faq-hinduism/

    It is OK for Islam to worship and respect the Black stone at Kaaba and not OK for Hindus to worship deities????
    SarveSha cAdhiKAro vidYAYA ca shreyah:
    kevalaYA vidYAYA veti siddhah.


    It has been established that everyone has the right to the knowledge of Brahman and the Supreme Goal is attained by that Knowledge alone.
    Adi Shankara in Taittiriya Upanishad, Bhasya 2.2.

  4. #14

    Re: Reply to Dr.Naik

    Quote Originally Posted by anatman View Post
    Here are some replies to Zakir Naik's answers Commonly Asked by Non-Muslims.

    http://agniveer.com/611/naik-faq-hinduism/

    It is OK for Islam to worship and respect the Black stone at Kaaba and not OK for Hindus to worship deities????
    Namaste anatman,

    Good point. Although if you ask Muslims they will say that they don't worship the stone, they just "venerate" it...and kiss it...

    Every religion has icons, statues, etc. that they "venerate". Hindus have murtis, Christians have the cross, Catholics have statues and the bread and wine, and Muslims have the stone at Kaaba.

    Obviously different religions have different views on it, and there are different views even within the religions themselves. I don't "worship" a murti itself, because it is not God, it is a murti. But during puja God enters the murti and I pray to God through the murti. Muslims will say about their stone and Christians with their cross that they just "venerate" them, that is pay respect to them because they are sacred. Although the Catholics with the bread and wine are completely different because they literally believe the bread turns into Jesus and they will pray to that. Actually, in a way that is taking it further than even Hinduism does, because we don't believe the murti itself is God, but the Catholics believe the bread itself turns into Jesus.

    Sorry for the rambling, just my observations and thoughts on this matter of "idol worship"

    Jai Sri Ram

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •