One thing I must admit is that Dr. Zakir Naik has become the equivalent of a religious rockstar of modern times. His study and memorization of various religions including Hinduism is highly impressive.
And of course, he is a great believer in Islam and I am sure he has been able to convert many people to his faith.
But, should people start believing in Islam and disbelieving in other religions just because a great scholar has appeared out of nowhere and asking them to embrace Islam? There are many fundamental problems about converting to or believing in any religion especially Islam.
Empirical evidence - He claims that Islam is the most logical and scientific religion on earth right now. For the sake of argument, let's accept that. But, in science empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. So even if we accept that Islam is the most logical religion(hypothesis), there is no empirical evidence to vouch for it and make it convincingly better than the competing religions(hypotheses).
In India the extremist Hindus can force M.F. Hussain to leave the country because of his objectionable paintings, but in Bangladesh extremist Muslims will kill Avijit Roy if he doesn't listen to them. In Pakistan, a false rumor spread by an angry Muslim neighbor against a Hindu is enough for the crowd to burn down a Hindu temple whereas in India the Human Rights organizations can do their best to fight the reigning CM and would-be PM (Narendra Modi) accused of abetting riots.
The Muslim population in India has gone up from 9.93% (1951) to 14.88% (2011) but in Bangladesh and Pakistan - countries which had a significant Hindu population when they were created - Hindu population keeps going down.
In Pakistan too, Hindu population has gone down from 22% (1951) to 1.7% (1998).
This clearly points out the low tolerance levels for other religions in Muslim majority areas whereas the opposite is true for Hindu majority areas. Can anyone imagine a Hindu scholar debating about religions in any Islamic country and speak openly, confidently and without fear about Islam? The Indian ethos has the tolerance to accept the contrasting viewpoints and the prevalent Hindu belief system should be congratulated for it. In brief, the freedom which Dr. Zakir Naik(a Muslim) has, to speak about every religion in India, would not have been possible in any Islamic Country for a non-Muslim.
Again for the sake of argument, let's believe that Islam is the most logical and rational religion. But what is the point of it all if this theory doesn't translate to results. If the terrorists keep coming out of Muslims and keep killing innocents then how can his claims be taken seriously?
Terrorism - Dr. Zakir Naik in the following video claims that media is behind projecting Muslims as terrorists and it's possible since Muslims are not strong in Media. This is simply running away from a tough question. There are thousands of Muslim leaders openly urging people for Jihad, asking people to take up arms and killing others. How is media responsible for that? As a Hindu I seriously believe that caste system is a big problem and I don't blame media for creating this problem. Similarly, he should introspect and clean up his religion first before blaming the media.
In summary, even if we accept his claim that theoretically and rationally Islam is best (for the sake of argument) - there is no evidence to support this claim. If the theory is too complicated for anyone to understand or it is very easy for people to twist the theory to suit their own ends and create Jihadis then this theory is of no use.
Twisting the interpretation -
In the above video Dr. Naik claims that rigveda book 2 hymn 1 verse 11 mentions Allah. Now the actual verse is here :
तवमग्ने अदितिर्देव दाशुषे तवं होत्रा भारती वर्धसेगिरा |
तवमिळा षतहिमासि दक्षसे तवं वर्त्रहा वसुपते सरस्वती ||
The word is iḷâ which can be pronounced ila but definitely not Allah. According to Sâyana, the most celebrated commentator on the Vedas, iḷâ is the other name of Agni (the deity of fire). Furthermore, the entire Hymn (2/1) has been dedicated to God Agni and hence there is no doubt that the word iḷâ in the verse stands for Agni.
So there is considerable doubt about this claim and many similar ones.
In the end, I must congratulate Dr. Zakir Naik for bringing comparative religious study into limelight. But his claims need to have more empirical substance rather than only theoretical assertions.
And of course, he is a great believer in Islam and I am sure he has been able to convert many people to his faith.
But, should people start believing in Islam and disbelieving in other religions just because a great scholar has appeared out of nowhere and asking them to embrace Islam? There are many fundamental problems about converting to or believing in any religion especially Islam.
Empirical evidence - He claims that Islam is the most logical and scientific religion on earth right now. For the sake of argument, let's accept that. But, in science empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. So even if we accept that Islam is the most logical religion(hypothesis), there is no empirical evidence to vouch for it and make it convincingly better than the competing religions(hypotheses).
In India the extremist Hindus can force M.F. Hussain to leave the country because of his objectionable paintings, but in Bangladesh extremist Muslims will kill Avijit Roy if he doesn't listen to them. In Pakistan, a false rumor spread by an angry Muslim neighbor against a Hindu is enough for the crowd to burn down a Hindu temple whereas in India the Human Rights organizations can do their best to fight the reigning CM and would-be PM (Narendra Modi) accused of abetting riots.
The Muslim population in India has gone up from 9.93% (1951) to 14.88% (2011) but in Bangladesh and Pakistan - countries which had a significant Hindu population when they were created - Hindu population keeps going down.
| Year | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|
| 1941 | 28.0 |
| 1951 | 22.0 |
| 1961 | 18.5 |
| 1974 | 13.5 |
| 1981 | 12.13 |
| 1991 | 11.62 |
| 2001 | 9.6 |
In Pakistan too, Hindu population has gone down from 22% (1951) to 1.7% (1998).
This clearly points out the low tolerance levels for other religions in Muslim majority areas whereas the opposite is true for Hindu majority areas. Can anyone imagine a Hindu scholar debating about religions in any Islamic country and speak openly, confidently and without fear about Islam? The Indian ethos has the tolerance to accept the contrasting viewpoints and the prevalent Hindu belief system should be congratulated for it. In brief, the freedom which Dr. Zakir Naik(a Muslim) has, to speak about every religion in India, would not have been possible in any Islamic Country for a non-Muslim.
Again for the sake of argument, let's believe that Islam is the most logical and rational religion. But what is the point of it all if this theory doesn't translate to results. If the terrorists keep coming out of Muslims and keep killing innocents then how can his claims be taken seriously?
Terrorism - Dr. Zakir Naik in the following video claims that media is behind projecting Muslims as terrorists and it's possible since Muslims are not strong in Media. This is simply running away from a tough question. There are thousands of Muslim leaders openly urging people for Jihad, asking people to take up arms and killing others. How is media responsible for that? As a Hindu I seriously believe that caste system is a big problem and I don't blame media for creating this problem. Similarly, he should introspect and clean up his religion first before blaming the media.
In summary, even if we accept his claim that theoretically and rationally Islam is best (for the sake of argument) - there is no evidence to support this claim. If the theory is too complicated for anyone to understand or it is very easy for people to twist the theory to suit their own ends and create Jihadis then this theory is of no use.
Twisting the interpretation -
In the above video Dr. Naik claims that rigveda book 2 hymn 1 verse 11 mentions Allah. Now the actual verse is here :
तवमग्ने अदितिर्देव दाशुषे तवं होत्रा भारती वर्धसेगिरा |
तवमिळा षतहिमासि दक्षसे तवं वर्त्रहा वसुपते सरस्वती ||
The word is iḷâ which can be pronounced ila but definitely not Allah. According to Sâyana, the most celebrated commentator on the Vedas, iḷâ is the other name of Agni (the deity of fire). Furthermore, the entire Hymn (2/1) has been dedicated to God Agni and hence there is no doubt that the word iḷâ in the verse stands for Agni.
So there is considerable doubt about this claim and many similar ones.
In the end, I must congratulate Dr. Zakir Naik for bringing comparative religious study into limelight. But his claims need to have more empirical substance rather than only theoretical assertions.
No comments:
Post a Comment