Bharatiya God's Blessings and peace be upon you,

After reading your refutation I totally agree with your presentation and how you assrted yourself. I am guilty in saying that I'm unfamiliar with Zakir and I will make more of an effort to read and understand him through his website (if it is intellectually possible). I also want to note that as a Philosophy/Philosopher student  have been blessed enough to experience the diversity in religion and to be exposed to religious institutions. I just want to point out that the foundation of what Hinduism stands for is widely misunderstood by all people not just Muslims. Of course from the outside looking in many Muslims as well as other adherents of faiths would certainly misundertood Hinduism and overlook its monotheistic core.

I have read certain books that briefly talked about Hinduism and read some hymns based on some of the sacred text. Even though Hinduism has its monotheistic roots you have to understand that in the Muslim mind when looking at various spiritual figures apart from God (i.e. idols) people will interpret that as a form of polytheistic worship. In conclusion you definitely have a good response and I hope we can bring to light the relationship between Muslims and Hindus...

Hello Dear Bharatiya

I have been very regularly listening to Mr. Zakir Naik. At least 3 of his debates were covering the Hinduism in detail. These were:-

1. Concept of God in major religions.

2. Universal Brotherhood.

3. Similarities between Islam and Hinduism.

So if you had an opportunity to listen to these you must have observed that a great numbers of Hindus were present at that time as well. At least a few hundred in the first two debates and a few thousand in the third one. So once he was quoting from Hindu scriptures he quoted the verses in Sanskrit and its translation in English. None of the Hindu sitting there contradicted him. Why?

There can be only two possibilities that he was quoting right (as these translations were of the Hindu pundits and not of his own team) or if he was wrong all the Hindus sitting there were ignorant of the Sanskrit and believed in what he said.

So if none of the Hindu can understand the Sanskrit or the Hindu scriptures why to accuse Zakir of not knowing Sanskrit. Of course he has no mastery over Sanskrit but he knows of it at least to deduce sense out of it, which most Hindus even don't know.

Regarding your saying that all religions lead to one objective this is totally wrong. All religions mostly preach good things but they don't lead to one objective. It's just like two sons of a father given equal status of which one is obedient while other refuses to accept his father as father. How can they be equal? Similarly one who worships one God can't be of like those who worship hundreds. One for sure is grossly wrong and will have to suffer for his deeds.

Hinduism is not classically a RELIGION like of any other religion. Whether you believe in one God or thousand or even do not believe in God you still remain a Hindu. You go to temple or simply refute all the forms of worship you still are Hindu. You whether draw figures / make idols of the Hindu gods or simply refuse to accept them you remain a Hindu.

What is really essential for a man to be a Hindu? Just to be born in Hindu family? So its more of a cultural dress having multiple and diverse paths of superstitious myths, whit no real religious codes to follow. Caste system, animal worship, considering their waste as sacred etc are the most humiliating and un-hygienic rituals established in the Hinduism, and once you find no justification for that you simply have to refute a person who is calling you to the truth and challenges you to bring forth any logic or proof for denial. 

Shams Zaman     Pakistan.

Shams Zaman wrote: So if you had an opportunity to listen to these you must have observed that a great numbers of Hindus were present at that time as well. At least a few hundred in the first two debates and a few thousand in the third one.

'hindus' do not consider 'hinduism' to be the ultimate religion.  The core of 'hinduism' is Spirituality.  Even I listen to the Quran on the Q TV.  I listen to what the Father says at our local Church.  Whatever gives us peace, is sufficient.

So once he was quoting from Hindu scriptures he quoted the verses in Sanskrit and its translation in English. None of the Hindu sitting there contradicted him. Why?

Because they were not present their for contradicting.  And if I were sitting their and I were to contradict him, who would listen to me?

I really want to meet Mr. Zakir.  Hope I can get an appointment when I go to Mumbai and discuss it.  But I hate to defend 'hinduism'

There can be only two possibilities that he was quoting right (as these translations were of the Hindu pundits and not of his own team) or if he was wrong all the Hindus sitting there were ignorant of the Sanskrit and believed in what he said.

Well, he was not quoting right.  The second possibility is right.  All the 'hindus' sitting their were ignorant of what he was speaking.

So if none of the Hindu can understand the Sanskrit or the Hindu scriptures why to accuse Zakir of not knowing Sanskrit. Of course he has no mastery over Sanskrit but he knows of it at least to deduce sense out of it, which most Hindus even don't know.

I am accusing Mr. Zakir because he was misinterpretting and showing our scriptures in bad light.  Even if a 'hindu' misinterprets(most 'hindus' do misinterpret), I would accuse him.
You are right brother, majority dont know Sanskrit.  It is still said that, Sanskrit instead of Hindi should have been made our National Language.  And in near future Sanskrit, the mother of all Indian languages(including Urdu, Urdu has taken syllable from Sanskrit and script from Arabic) will become the National Language.

Regarding your saying that all religions lead to one objective this is totally wrong. All religions mostly preach good things but they don't lead to one objective. It's just like two sons of a father given equal status of which one is obedient while other refuses to accept his father as father. How can they be equal?

I dont want to prove you wrong.  I am not here to prove anyone wrong.

Similarly one who worships one God can't be of like those who worship hundreds.

You are right.  You mean to say 'hinduism' is a farce.  Yes it has been a farce, it is still a farce, and it will be a farce.  Do you have any problem?  We do not force you to idolatry nor we ask you to follow our religion.  Then whats the problem.

One for sure is grossly wrong and will have to suffer for his deeds.

Thats the basis of 'hinduism'.  If you do good, good will follow and if you do bad, bad will follow.

Hinduism is not classically a RELIGION like of any other religion.

Damn right brother.  No 'hindu' knows what "hindu" means.  But still uses the word.  I dont know why.

Whether you believe in one God or thousand or even do not believe in God you still remain a Hindu. You go to temple or simply refute all the forms of worship you still are Hindu. You whether draw figures / make idols of the Hindu gods or simply refuse to accept them you remain a Hindu.

'hinduism' is not a religion as you have said.  Our so called 'religion' doesn't have any name.  We never used the word 'hindu' until the first Muslim attacked Bharat.  But still we used to have that so called 'gods' and their 'idols'. 

For us, it used to be, a man is called an 'Asthik'(theist) if he believes and a 'Nasthik'(atheist) if he does not believe.  Thats all their was.

'hinduism' is a huge 'religion'.

What is really essential for a man to be a Hindu? Just to be born in Hindu family?

Many have asked me this question, "What is it essential to be a 'hindu'?" or "Who is a real follower of 'hinduism'?"

I dont have an answer buddy, because, I dont understand 'hinduism'.  No one ever thought of explaining or describing 'hinduism'.   What we understand is our Philosophy.  I am the follower of that Philosophy.

So its more of a cultural dress having multiple and diverse paths of superstitious myths, whit no real religious codes to follow.

You are right.  The present day 'hindus' are superstitious.  Most of them have been superstitious since the medieval times.

Caste system, animal worship, considering their waste as sacred etc are the most humiliating and un-hygienic rituals established in the Hinduism,

No defence or offence(I am tired of explaining to everyone)

...and once you find no justification for that you simply have to refute a person who is calling you to the truth and challenges you to bring forth any logic or proof for denial.

 And what  "truth"  is it?  You  believe  in submission  to Allah.  So be it.  We believe in  realisation .  We believe in reason.  Our ancestors have asked us not to believe blindly(which few follow in modern India).  They asked us to reason out everything.

Peace and Love.

Kumar

Dear Kumar

I am simply asking you that once you know a lot is wrong in the Hindu Philosphy then why you follow it?

And what  "truth"  is it?  You  believe  in submission  to Allah.  So be it.  We believe in  realisation .  We believe in reason.  Our ancestors have asked us not to believe blindly(which few follow in modern India).  They asked us to reason out everything.

What reason is this once you know there is some thing terribly wrong with Hinduism and it also lacks religious dimension why to follow it? Which is this logic. And what is the purpose of live you have no concept of divine punishment so how does one get one. Only by becoming a lower specie animal no one has claimed to be one yet? And neither the population of the animals has grown as so many dead humans change their form to animals but rather most species are at the verge of extint. And once you yourself has not read the Hindu scriptures how can you say the other one qouting is wrong?

I will certainly agree that you must meet Zakir and if he is quoting wrong you must tell him to stop. Because no one has the right to quote wrong but if he is not wrong I will certainly like to listen to your view point. 

Lets suppose if I am wrong then should I continue like this or if you are wrong should you continue like this? Surely I am not responsible for deeds of anyone else but as as a fellow human I must try to save others from suffering a huge loss.    

Shams Zaman   Pakistan.

Shams Zaman wrote: Dear Kumar I am simply asking you that once you know a lot is wrong in the Hindu Philosphy then why you follow it?

Who said there is a lot 'wrong' in the 'hindu' Philosophy?  Our philosophy is the most perfect(if you dont want to believe, its your wish).

What reason is this once you know there is some thing terribly wrong with Hinduism and it also lacks religious dimension why to follow it? Which is this logic.

Something terribly wrong?  Buddy, there is nothing wrong with so called 'hinduism'.  'hinduism' lacks religious dimension?  Who the hell did say it?

And you were asking why do I follow it.  The answer is BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO.

And what is the purpose of live you have no concept of divine punishment so how does one get one. Only by becoming a lower specie animal no one has claimed to be one yet? And neither the population of the animals has grown as so many dead humans change their form to animals but rather most species are at the verge of extint. And once you yourself has not read the Hindu scriptures how can you say the other one qouting is wrong?

Lets suppose if I am wrong then should I continue like this or if you are wrong should you continue like this? Surely I am not responsible for deeds of anyone else but as as a fellow human I must try to save others from suffering a huge loss.

Please, when there is nothing wrong with 'hinduism' or any religion for that matter, whats the point in "try to save others...".

Ok, lets suppose all the religions, except Islam, are inherently wrong.  THEN WHY MOST OF THE TERRORISTS IN THE WORLD ARE MUSLIMS?

Dear Kumar

There is indeed a strange contradiction in your answers. On one side you accepts that in Hinduism everyone has his own way of living, Hinduism is a way of living, there are no must religious rituals, you don't even are suppose to follow your religious scriptures and there is even no true Hindu.  And on the other side you are astonished once I say that there is no religious dimension in Hinduism.

Well while standing in bright sun light well how you can say its day light? Can I do something?? I can say nothing, These are some of your faith fellows who say this:

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU said in page 37 of his The Discovery of India:

"HINDUISM as a faith is vague, amorphous, many sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word. In its present form, and even in the past, it embraces many beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often opposed to or contradicting each other."

The Manu Samriti says :

1. A Brahmin is born to fulfil Dharma. Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmin. On account of the excellence of his origin, he is entitled to all. All mortals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmin.
2. Ignorant or learned, a Brahmin is still a great deity.

Dr Ambedkar says the cardinal principles of Brahminism are six:

1. Graded inequality between the different classes.
2. The complete disarmament of the Shudras and Untouchables.
3. The complete prohibition of education to the Shudras and Untouchables.
4. Ban on the Shudras and the Untouchables in occupying places of power and authority.
5. Ban on the Shudras and the Untouchables in acquiring property.
6. The complete subjugation and suppression of women.

Also written in Manu Smriti that : "Inequality is therefore the official doctrine of BRAHMINISM" (IBID - 204). Similarly this is also written:

"Devadhinam jagat sarvarm Mantradhinam ta devata Tam Mantram Brahmandhinam Brahmana nam devata"

"The Universe is under the power of gods, The gods are under the power of the mantras, The mantras are under the power of the Brahmins, Therefore the Brahmins are our gods."

And why are most Muslims terrorists??

I will not agree to that, I would say that Muslims are suffering in the world and they are retaliating. Like in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechanya and Iraq etc. Why is everyone targeting them? Either they are wrong and rest of the world is right or they are right and rest of the world is wrong. So I can confidently say that those who follow Islam are on the right path because no other religion gives the concept of ONE GOD and universal GOD. Neither is a concept of universal Prophet in any religion. Nor any religious book is free of scientific errors except for Quran.

There are lot of Muslims who are not following their religion, and there are some among them who are terrorist like of in any other society. And why are they terrorists or hijackers because they don't follow the real teachings of Islam.

But as far as Osama etc are concerned their claims are right (US must exit the Saudi land) but their strategy is wrong. Well did he master mind the 9 11 attacks I don't believe so. You can read the famous book of Thierry Meyssan "9/11 THE BIG LIE". We will know 30 years from now that it was a big drama like of the operation planned against Cuba in the bay of pigs which the Pentagon has de-classified recently.

The biggest beneficiary of this incident are the neo-cons and the zionists in the US admnistration.

Shams Zaman 

bharatiya wrote: .........  Thats why I quote only the quotes from the inspired souls.  I just translate our Scriptures(authentically) and put them. What you quoted from Manu Smriti are wrongly translated.  It takes not only a good Sanskrit scholar but also a man with great understanding. Its not easy to translate our Scriptures.............

Probably you would like to name some of these "inspired souls" who wrote your quotes (I mean the name of the author of your source) and you simply translated them "authentically" more than anyone else.

Probably you may like to post your side of translation about these "wrong or misunderstood" translation from Manu Smriti.

Sorry for intruppting you guys, but couldn't hold on and thought to know the replies from such obvious questions. Regards

AhmadJoyia wrote: Probably you would like to name some of these "inspired souls" who wrote your quotes (I mean the name of the author of your source) and you simply translated them "authentically" more than anyone else.

Inspired souls are like Sankaracharya, Swami Vivekananda etc.

Sankaracharya(who is considered to be the reincarnation of Buddha) was a great scholar who was born in 7th century AD.  He explained thoroughly what are written in the Vedas, Upanishads etc.

Swami Vivekananda was born in the 19th century.  And he had a great knowledge about Bharat.

It is said that, if you know Vivekananda totally, you will know India totally.

Probably you may like to post your side of translation about these "wrong or misunderstood" translation from Manu Smriti.

About the translations, you haven't quoted actual text.

And I well know where you have taken this translation from.  From the same site you can find a lot more degradation of 'hinduism'.  I have visited that site long ago and I have even commented that the guy is a little twisted.

Similar sites can be found about Islam which defame the Prophet.  But don't you know that truth?  Likewise, I know that truth, I need not  defend myself.

And the one you have quoted "Daivadinam jagat ..." is definitely misinterpreted as I have already told 'devata' means angel and not God. LOL.

Buddy, if you don't like 'hinduism', its not a problem.  You need not try to degrade other religions to prove your religion to be great.

Peace and Love.

Dear Bhartayia

If you know the Sanskrit and can translate the Hindu religious scriptures in Urdu or English I would be very thankful and will definitly read them to comment. I have lot of intrest in other religous scriptures beside Islam.

Thank you for sparing your precious time for discussion and answering my queries. Actually Islam is very simple and there is not much philosphy involved. Mostly we are told in very clear tone what to do and what not to do. I have read your post in other forum just now. "Why I have starting to hate Islam". I will God Willing post reply to your questions shortly.

Regards, Shams Zaman.

bharatiya wrote: About the translations, you haven't quoted actual text.

Probably you would like to tell us something about "law of manu" and its articles containing specifics about varna (caste) system through your own translation especially considering chapter 10. 

Buddy, if you don't like 'hinduism', its not a problem.  You need not try to degrade other religions to prove your religion to be great. Peace and Love.

I didn't quote anything from any website against hinduism. Kindly verify and reconcile.