Friday, July 18, 2008

Zakir Naik's popularity is convincing proof of Islamic fanaticism

This Islamic preacher of Indian origin supports

(1) Death to apostate as he thinks they are traitors of Islam.
(2) Polygamy should be legalized
(3) No religious right to non-Muslims
(4) Every Muslim must be terrorist against America

And he has millions of followers in Muslim world!!!

[3] is very serious. Just read this:

*****

Interviewer: Here is a question from a non-Muslim from India. Are non-Muslims allowed to preach their religion and to build their places of worship in an Islamic state? If so, why is building of temples and churches disallowed in Saudi Arabia, whereas Muslims are building their mosques in London and Paris?

Zakir Naik: I ask the non-Muslims, suppose you are the principal of a school and you intend to select a mathematics teacher. Three candidates come and you ask them, what’s the total of 2 plus 2? The first replies: 2 plus 2 equals 3. The second answers: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And the third one answers that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Now, I ask these non-Muslims, will you allow the candidate to teach in your school who says that 2 plus 2 equals 3 or that 2 plus 2 equals 6? They’ll say, no. I ask, why? They’ll say, because he does not have correct knowledge of mathematics. Similarly, as far as matters of religion are concerned we (Muslims) know for sure that only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God. In the Holy Quran (3:85), it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question, regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worshipping is wrong? Therefore, we will not allow such wrong things in our Islamic country.

Interviewer: But is it not that they (non-Muslims) also think that their religion is true, whereas we (Muslims) think that our religion is true?

Zakir Naik: In religious matters only we know for sure that we Muslims are right. They (non-Muslims) are not sure. Thus, in our country we can’t allow preaching other religions because we know for sure that only Islam is the right religion. However, if a non-Muslim likes to practise his religion in an Islamic country, he can do so inside his home — but he can’t propagate his religion. It is exactly as if a teacher thinks in his mind that 2 plus 2 equals 3. He has the right to do so, but we can never allow such a person to teach this to our children. Non-Muslims are no doubt experts in science and technology. But they (non-Muslims) are not sure about religious truths. Therefore, we are trying to get them to the right path of Islam.”


Should we in India or in America also ban Islam because we think it is vile????


Can any supporter of Naik will clarify me why they support this Mullah Zakir who even does not admit the
religious right of non-Muslims? Should we apply Zakir's argument on them as we can provide thousands of logics why Islam is notorious as faith and therefore it must be wiped out from India, Europe and America?

This man has millions of supporters. Which mean they also do not support religious plurality. This is height of communal sentiment. This is the reason we all think most of the Muslims are fanatics.

Who’s responsible for the stereotypes of Islam?

Sudheendra Kulkarni


Islam fascinates me. But the conduct of some of its adherents also frustrates me. The positive aspects of Islam are too numerous to escape the attention of any unprejudiced and truth-seeking non-Muslim. For example, Hindus have much to learn from Muslims about the virtue of solidarity and fellow-feeling within their community. During the month of Ramadan, I am captivated by the sight of Muslims who, after offering their evening namaz, end their day’s fast by grouping together and eating from the same plate, without any distinction of class or status

Also, one can only marvel at the power of devotion and the degree of self-surrender of many Muslim mystics, whose lives have undoubtedly influenced pious, ordinary Muslims. Here is a story told by Vinoba Bhave, the great Gandhian who learnt Arabic at age 50 just to study the Holy Quran in the original. An old Muslim saint once had a thorn in his foot. It had gone deep and doctors were worried that the pain involved in removing it would be too much for the old soul to bear. One of his devotees then told them, “Don’t worry. You remove it while he is offering his prayers. He will be so engrossed in Allah that he won’t feel anything.”

Sadly, this ennobling aspect of Islam sits uneasily with the fanaticism that tarnishes its image. Last week I was shocked to watch an interview with Zakir Naik, a well-known Mumbai-born Muslim preacher, whose TV talks on Islam are highly popular in India and around the world. His books and audio/video cassettes are sold in huge numbers worldwide.

Watch the interview at YouTube, the free video site on the Internet, and draw your own conclusions.

Interviewer: Here is a question from a non-Muslim from India. Are non-Muslims allowed to preach their religion and to build their places of worship in an Islamic state? If so, why is building of temples and churches disallowed in Saudi Arabia, whereas Muslims are building their mosques in London and Paris?

Zakir Naik: I ask the non-Muslims, suppose you are the principal of a school and you intend to select a mathematics teacher. Three candidates come and you ask them, what’s the total of 2 plus 2? The first replies: 2 plus 2 equals 3. The second answers: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And the third one answers that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Now, I ask these non-Muslims, will you allow the candidate to teach in your school who says that 2 plus 2 equals 3 or that 2 plus 2 equals 6? They’ll say, no. I ask, why? They’ll say, because he does not have correct knowledge of mathematics. Similarly, as far as matters of religion are concerned we (Muslims) know for sure that only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God. In the Holy Quran (3:85), it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question, regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worshipping is wrong? Therefore, we will not allow such wrong things in our Islamic country.

Interviewer: But is it not that they (non-Muslims) also think that their religion is true, whereas we (Muslims) think that our religion is true?

Zakir Naik: In religious matters only we know for sure that we Muslims are right. They (non-Muslims) are not sure. Thus, in our country we can’t allow preaching other religions because we know for sure that only Islam is the right religion. However, if a non-Muslim likes to practise his religion in an Islamic country, he can do so inside his home — but he can’t propagate his religion. It is exactly as if a teacher thinks in his mind that 2 plus 2 equals 3. He has the right to do so, but we can never allow such a person to teach this to our children. Non-Muslims are no doubt experts in science and technology. But they (non-Muslims) are not sure about religious truths. Therefore, we are trying to get them to the right path of Islam.”

Naik’s views provoke a troubling question in my mind: “Why do some Muslims demand secularism and more than equal treatment in countries where they are a minority, but aggressively turn anti-secular and deny even equal treatment to non-Muslims in many Muslim-majority countries?” Muslims cannot escape their responsibility to answer this question.

Naik’s defense of the denial of fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia is not unrelated to an unbelievable incident that happened recently in the land where Islam was born. On February 26, four French nationals — all non-Muslims working in Saudi Arabia — were killed by gunmen. Their crime? They were resting on the side of a desert road about 10 miles from the holy city of Medina, which, like Mecca, is restricted to Muslims only.

Whenever non-Muslims, including those who admire Islam’s positive features, express alarm at incidents like these, or at views such as Zakir Naik’s, they are accused of spreading “stereotypes” about Islam and Muslims. But shouldn’t Muslims themselves be debating what produces these stereotypes?

Sunday, July 13, 2008

What is God? Will he exist anymore?

God has various meaning and hypothesis beyond actual existence or non-existence. You can look at God from various angles--philosophy ( absolute truth), social science (self organization), study of self (spiritualism), social evolution (Memetic theory), micro-economic model ( spiritualism as basic need and God/religion as product to meet the need ).
Let start from a social evolution theory--I wrote a short note on it last year

Basically an ensemble of society will evolve from polytheism to monotheism to atheism-atheism does not necessarily mean only no God. In analytical philosophy it means lack of absolute truth. In that sense communists were not atheist-they believed in historical materialism as absolute truth. Atheism also does not mean lack of spiritualism (study of self). Spiritualism does not need a God or absolute truth or religion.
Question is why such evolution will happen-I have explained that in
as matter of emerging force of self organization of the society. Even today, despite electronic media is behind the social integration, God stands out as much superior force of integration because of cultural legacy. But as the media will be all pervasive and single most important factor in social integration, political power of 'God' will decrease proportionally. But God will rule spiritual domain for sometimes-let me explain this aspect of spiritual God.
A human being can be viewed as chaotic system-unless one place enough boundary around him/her, he/she does not function as a productive system. That is --we all follow certain sets of disciplined functions to keep ourselves focused and a utility machine in the society.Much of these disciplined functions are cultural inheritance-which can be ethnic, religious, political etc. Through these sets of disciplined functions, we bond ourselves with the society and matter around us.
But this chain of commands of marriage, family, society, job etc. also hold our conscience/thoughts to hostage-these sets of cannons force a contraction and pressure on our thought process and you feel as if your mind has been imprisoned by your wife, kids, parents, society, political parties etc. So your mind seeks freedom from this material bondage and this process of liberation can unfold in various synthesis in human beings-most common of which is the complete submission of the self ( ego and very presence of yourself) to a ' God' ( existence of absolute truth). This is the central message of Quran and Gita. To the atheists, this synthesis can be quest for more material (empirical) truth to liberate himself/herself. No matter what-one must develop a conflict within himself/herself for progression of his mind through a synthesis of ideas. A synthesis needs a conflict between thesis (liberation) and anti-thesis (cannons) in your mind. Dr Radhakrishnan and Jiddu Krishnamurty spoke at length on the synthesis of spiritual mind.
Question is: why most of the people seek liberation through God and not through empirical truth? Answer is very simple--it is a lot easier process-does not require much background-mentally more enjoyable as well. Seeking liberation through knowledge is called Gaan Yoga in Hinduism and liberation through submission to God is called Vakti Yoga. Indeed in Gita, Arjun asked this question to Krishna--if knowledge can lead to salvation why do you need submission to God? Krishna answered in the same way-most of the people don't have background to set a quest for knowledge-so for them submission to God serves better purpose.
However, poor people's love for spiritual God has been exploited throughout and is still being exploited even today all over the world. And it all happened because common people can not distinguish between" political God" and "spiritual God". This is darker side of blind submission without any rationality.
But that is another story in another day.
Biplab

Exposing Dr Zakir Naik's claim of science in Quran and Polygamy

This is my video rebuttal against Indian Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik who is falsifying data in public lectures to support Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism. Such businessman of religion, is dangerous for secular state and growth of true spiritualism.

Part-1:
Scientific hint Quran? I have explained how Middle East petro-dollar has been used to
'buy' western scientists to speak on Science in Quran-many of their statements have been manipulated as they have later confessed after the money game behind it was exposed by a Wall Street Journalist in 2002

http://www.humanists.net/avijit/article/Western_Scientists_Bribed.htm

There is no science without experimental data-since Quran does not have experimental data, it is waste of time and insane to speak about science in Quran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBn166l3-m8

video

Part-2:
Polygamy supported by demographic data? My exposure will show Dr Zakir Naik does not have minimum knowledge of Anthropology and Social Science to speak on this topic.
I have shown how he is making a sale of religion based on
identity crisis of the Muslims. It is a dangerous trend to justify
outdated customs in the name of science without knowing even minimum basics of
science..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LULgVB9Tpo
video

Thanks
Biplab
7/15/2008