Posts Tagged ‘Zakir, uneducated, illogical, truth, knowledge, terminology, Hindu, Sanatan, Dharma, religion, Islam, Non-Muslim, unified theory of field, unified theory of entity, Advait, symbolic, poetry, image, en’

Is it that Zakir Naik is uneducated or illogical or both?

How much importance should be given to Zakir Naik?

Should we argue with him?

Has he realized the universal truth?

Has he scientific knowledge on behavior of the universe? Has he been satisfied by that or has he  some questions? If he has questions, what are his questions?

Does he tell the truth?

Has he defined the truth or whatever he uses the terminology?

Is he having multiple standards?

Has he ill will towards Hinduism and other non-Muslim religions?

Is he educated and learned?


A person can tell a lie due to its defective perceptions,

A person can tell a lie due to its misconceptions,

A person can tell a lie due to its insufficient knowledge,

A person can tell a lie due to its illogical interpretation and conclusion,

A person can tell a lie due to its lacking, in sense of significance, relevance and proportion,

A person can tell a lie to achieve its predetermined motive.

All the above conditions can be covered under illogical interpretation and conclusion which is the result of lacking in sense of significance and proportion. This could be due to its predetermined motive and something what it likes to take it for granted.


Shankarachaarya describe it as under:

Suppose Vedas tell Fire is cold. But our experience says the Fire is hot. Then the truth is Fire is hot.


Truth is objectives. That is the truth depends upon the tools we use to understand. Measuring instruments and our limbs are the tools.


Now let us take his point which he took as a most prominent point, “the image of God”.

Zakir quotes a hymn of Yajurveda (यजुर्वेद) to support his so called logical conclusion. The Yajurveda says the God has neither an image nor a figure.

On this ground he says that to have a statue of the God and to worship the statue is worshiping a false God.

Hindus can clarify and reply as under:


There is no need to quote from Yajurveda. Every well honored religious book of Sanatan Dharma (सनातन धर्म) (Hindu’s Religion as per tradition) states that God has no image, no figure and he is beyond (characteristic) property.  God is Nirgunah (निर्गुणः) and Nirakarah (निराकारः).

Shankaracharyah (शंकराचार्य), who promoted “Advait Vadah (अद्वैतवादः)”, based on Veda’s philosophy (तत्त्वज्ञान) , says that God is Nirguna (निर्गुण) and Nirakara (निराकार). Shankaracharya was staunch Advaitavadi (अद्वैतवादी). Despite of this he has never said that if you would worship the God in a form of a statue, your worship would be treated as a worship of a false God. According to Hindu philosophy and tradition, worshiping the God through a statue is not banned. Not only is this, but to worship the God through his statue not a crime. It is not an insult to him.

It may be a point, that Zakir may not be capable to understand “Unified Theory of Fields” of Einstein. Thereby, there is no point to believe that he could be capable to understand the “Unified Theory of Entity (Prana प्राण). (Advaita अद्वैत)” which is the Indian style of understanding the universe.


Now let us take one quote from Koran.

“You can call the God by any name”. This means that one can call God, by any name, God does not mind.


Zakir is supposed to have the sense to understand that every name has a character and image. When you say Beautiful, an image of one or other beautiful image comes up to you. When you say, he is almighty, an image of a strong thing or an issue difficult to resolve, or a big work, construction, reconstruction, development, redevelopment, hazard, happening comes in your mind. Every name has a physical meaningful characteristic.

When you say your heart is broad, your face is beautiful like a moon, you are merciful, you are pious, you are great, you are logical, you are understanding etc… are all comparison. You cannot have a word which can be imagined without any physical entity or happening. If a woman’s face is called as Chandra-Mukhi, she would not mind, though she knows the surface of the moon is rough. It is her facial beauty and the pleasantness which is compared with the beauty of the distant moon.

That is why in Sanskrit it is said, “Naasti Arthaheenah Shabdah, Naasti Moolam anaushadham, Nirarthakah Purusho Naasti, Yojakah tatra Durlabha”.


नास्ति अर्थहीनः शब्दः, नास्ति मूलं अनौषधम्‌

निरर्थकः पुरुषो नास्ति, योजकः तत्र दुर्लभः

There is no word without meaning, there is no root having no medical usage, No person is useless. What is hard to get, is the proper person who can identify them appropriately.

Shankarachaarya talks about the God beyond feeling. He with the support of Vedas says that the God is beyond feeling. He is capable to generate a self-sufficient system. The God cannot be described by any word. The God can be described with “Negation” only, that is by saying that “HE IS NOT LIKE THAT (Na Iti न इति  i.e. नेति)”


Shankarachaarya says like this; “Na Bhumihi Na Cha Aapo, Na Vanhihi Na Vaayu, Na Cha Aakaasha Bhaaste, Na Tandraa Na Nidraa, Na Grismam, Na Sheetam, Na Desho, Na Vesho, Na Yasyaasti Murtihi, trimurti Tameele”

न भूमिः न चापः न वन्हिः न वायुः, न चाकाश भास्ते न तन्द्रा न निद्रा,

न ग्रीष्मं न शितं न देशो न वेषो, न यस्यास्ति मूर्त्तिः त्रिमूर्त्ति तमीळे

God is not solid like earth, God is not liquid like water, God is not gaseous, God is not a flame like fire, God is not like space, God is not like light, God is not like thought, God is not like dream, God is not hot, God is not cold, God has no length, breadth and hight, No cloth that can cover God, God has no image. Oh! God (I worship) your three-face image (which does creation, maintenance and destruction).



Let us take a book of Koran. Book itself is not a Koran. The contents in the book is Koran. Contents is also not Koran. The meaning of the contents is Koran. Despite of this we do not insult Koran. The book itself is respectable, though the book is not Koran.

Hindus worship images and symbolic presentation. Hindus worships God and God’s given constituents symbolically presented as powers. Indian philosophy does not ban to respect God’s entities of various power.

Koran bans to reproduce or to draw or to take image or to take photo of a man. (However this is not strictly followed by Muslims.)


Human has a body. Is it that body is itself? After the death of a human, its body starts disintegrating. Muslims bury it. The disintegration continues.

Human body partially turned into ash and the rest dissolved into atmosphere if the body is cremated.

Now as per Koran, on the day of the justice, a human has to be presented before the God. All mighty God restructures the human body and provide justices to the human.

The period from the date of the death to the date of the justice, what happens to the human in question?

Was the human existed during this period?

Had the said human been existed, then in what form had he existed?

The said human had no body. Either the said human had not existed or the said human had existed in the form of a soul. Muslims use the word “Soul (Rooh)”. Rooh and body are different according to them.


Is it a matter or energy or field? What is its shape?

If it is matter, is it round, square, triangle or in any other shape? Is it two dimensional or three dimensional or more dimensional?

If it is an energy then is it which energy? Kinetic or potential?

If it is field then is it which field? Weak, Strong, Gravitational or Electromagnetic?



Now everybody knows, field and energy can exists only if there is a matter. That is, field or energy are always associated with matter. The energy or field has no independent existence. Because the field or energy is the property of matter.

Koran says we should have scientific logical thinking. Hence no Muslim can deny science.

Zakir has not clarified any of these above points.


Anyway, since the shape of soul is not known that is why soul is shapeless. Because a human is differentiated by its soul or so to say, the human is identified by its soul, and soul is the human, and the soul has no shape we should not prepare an image of human.

Is it not so? Zakir has not clarified.

Now suppose, for any reason we identify a “being” by its body. The body is three dimensional. We take a photo. But the photo is not the “being”. Because the “being” which has been identified by its body has three dimensions. The photo of the body is two dimensional. Hence the photo is not having the proper image of the body of that “being”.

Now suppose that body is a human body. Human body is a three dimensional entity. We took a photo of that human. The photo is two dimensional. We have a great respect for that human. We get a pleasure by looking at that photo.

What would happen to that human?

Would that human become angry with us?

Would that human, object and strike you, saying “you are giving respect to a false body”?

Or would he say that you are giving respect to a false entity?

What are we doing with the great personalities?

We preserve personal belongings of a great personalities. That is we preserve the items which he/she used. E.g. his/her spectacles. His/her shoes, His/her clothing, His/her hair, His/her house where he/she once lived, His/her Birth place. Would it mean that we are insulting him/her? Would he/she become angry with us? Suppose he/she is capable to punish us, would he/she punish us?

No. It would not be the attitude of anybody.

If God has created human, why has he inserted such tolerant into the human being which is quite opposite to the God’s own attitude?

God is supposed to have the same tolerant attitude that a man has.

Why the God is so much intolerant, mad and illogical?

Why should the God be so much crazy to throw the human into the hell when the human worshiped him through a symbolic image? Everything is a part of the universe and it said that the universe is created by the God.


Hindu philosophy has classified human beings in four types depending upon their dominating tendency of their mind. A Hindu may prefer devotion, Work, Knowledge or Concentration depending upon its liking. One may worship the God in any form he/she likes and gets pleasure.

Any form you worship is a wrong form. What you need is a pious feeling whatsoever you worship. Worship with rituals, prayer, going around a symbol, bow your hands, say hi, salutation, bend yourself, take off your hat, cover your head or hairs, spell slogans and recitation, to touch some one’s feet, hug,  …  etc… are all the sign of the same feeling of giving respect in different proportion. The meaning of symbolic signs differs society to society. To say that such sign or such slogan are reserved for God, is humbug, because all are arbitrarily fixed and then taken for granted.

What does Shankaracharya say about work is worship?

I concentrate in you, because you are my soul, My brain is your female form, my body is the house of the soul (I keep it neat and clean), Whatsoever I eat and drink is your worship (that is, I should be pious in eating and drinking), My sleep is my concentration in you, My walk (the movements), you please take it as if I am going around you, whatsoever work I do, O peace giving God!, take it, as my devotion to you.

Cosmic God

It is very difficult to understand the deepness of Hindu religion. The central idea of Hindus religion is to be associated heartily with Cosmos and its constituents. What we see is the universe of which we are part and parcel. God has created the universe from within. Respect the creation of God treating it a form of God, because we see only his creation. Respect it by giving your contribution in maintaining it.


It is Hindu who keep his/her names of birds, animals, vegetation, natural events like rain, summer, winter, hot cold, color, pleasure, sorrow, cloud, lightening, planets, sun, earth, stars, star cluster, space and what not …. Hindu talks about full freedom of thoughts that does not harm others.

The philosophy of science, society and technology are coordinated in life style of Hindus. For Hindu the whole Cosmos is a society. Hindu pray God to provide pleasure to all.

Zakir Naik talks a lot illogical and make immature statements. He says “I do not know what Osama Bin Laden does …  but if the US calls him terrorists, I say I am a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist, I repeat.” But since this is not the scope of this article, let us not discuss. He has the liberty.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Zakir, uneducated, illogical, truth, knowledge, terminology, Hindu, Sanatan, Dharma, religion, Islam, Non-Muslim, unified theory of field, unified theory of entity, Advait, symbolic, poetry, image, energy, field, matter, Prana, any name, God, Soul, Rooh, comparison, human, characteristic, not like that, worship, respect, honor, creation, great personality, Koran, Book, content, abstract

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: