Shattered Truth

In response error in the budget Hinduism

Onslaught on Hinduism
The true meaning of religion that Hindus do not know

INTRODUCTION
I have mentioned in almost every chapter, the people carry the wrong notion about the Hinduism. This chapter is devoted to answering certain people who have tried to bring his religion into the top of Hinduism. While Hinduism does not teach the attacks, which helps bind people to God and humanity; is compatible with any methodology that is harmless and useful to society and is based on methodologies that unite the people in their diversity, diversity is the basis of existence. However, people have tried to draw the casual and widespread impact as a common practice hype Hindu. Arrogance and envy, that Hindu texts have been cut real context and tried to convince the world that Hinduism is a religion, with a lot of traps, erroneous beliefs and blind faith. While Hinduism as a religion has never tried to comparative education, these leaders have been forced to become comparative Hinduism. In the following sections we examine how this great religion was attacked and still under attack from various forces devastating.

HISTORICAL ATTACKS on Hinduism
We can not continue and develop each and every event of history in this book and, therefore, we will have quick background of massacres like the people of the eternal religion and had been tortured by the invaders to India forcing its beliefs and practices of centuries.

Threat to 'Sanatan Dharma' Islamic invasion began way back from 800 AD, says Will Durant his book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage page" 459:

'The Muslim conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great joy and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus converted to Islam by sword during this period "

French Journalist Francois Gautier says:

"The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis, or the slaughter of Armenians by the Turks, the wider even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese "

Any historian, as they know the story, you can see figure in the following table and understand what has been happening to the country called "Bharat" or "Hindustan" and now India – a peaceful country each for the world, a country that remains most Hindus, the Hindus who seem to be living as refugees in their own country – this book is a dedication to all them.

The data on attacks against Hindus:
Ghazni Mohammed (997 – 1030): the death of more than 50,000 Hindus, river threw Thanesar foam with blood, people can not drink the water
Muhammad Ghori (around 1192): 20,000 Hindus were slaughtered and their heads offered to sing
Qutab-ud-Din Aibak (Circa 1206): kill about 50,000 people, 20,000 slaved
Badauni in 1254: They killed every man visible above the age of 8 years and bound women.
Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1360): Attacked an island in the sea-coast where "nearly 100,000 men Jajnagar had taken refuge with their wives, children, family and relationships. "The swordsmen of Islam turned" the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of nonbelievers. "was a fate worse than to Indian women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: "Women with babies and pregnant women were halters, handcuffed, shackled and chained, and pressed as slaves in service at the house of every soldier. "
Timurlane (December 1398) ordered the execution of at least 100,000 captives before the battle of Delhi, and then of the battle who were not killed were taken as slaves
During the invasion of Tamerlane in 1399 citing the Koran in his Tuzk-i-Timurid: "Oh Prophet, make war on the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them harshly. "He continues:" My great object in invading Hindustan had been to war against the Hindu religious infidel … [That] the army of Islam can gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus. "First he assaulted the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers "to kill all men, for women prisoners and children, and plunder and lay waste all their property. "
For now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. While preparing for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the river Yamuna, his Emirs advised him "that in the great day of battle, the 100,000 prisoners could not remain with the luggage, and would be entirely contrary to the rules the war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam in freedom. "Therefore," no other course remained but to make all foods sword. "Tuzk-i-Timurid continues:" I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should apply to the death, and that did not meet and it must be executed and their property given to the informant. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. "

Bahamani Sultans (1347 – 1528): 1,00,000 Hindus killed around.
Akbar (1556 – 1605): Emperor Akbar ordered the slaughter of about 30,000 (Captured) Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod. Another reference indicates that the slaughter of 30,000 Hindu peasants is registered Chitod by Abul Fazl, the court historian of Akbar himself. Khondamir Afghan historian records that during one of the many repeated invasions in the city of Herat in western Afghanistan 1,500,000 inhabitants perished.
Centuries later, the same bloodlust that led to tyrannical fanatical Muslim emperors and their generals in an orgy of destruction and slaughter continues today in Kashmir.

To classify an example about the barbarism faced by Hindus, a quote from 'Tarikh-i-Firuz Shah written Firuz during Tughlak Shal says:

"An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before the sultan. The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right path said. but he refused. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied and was thrown to the tablet of wood on top. The stack lit at two places his head and feet. The fire first reached him on his feet and pulled out a cry and then fire completely enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to the law and righteousness "

Millions of Hindus were massacred including children and women, tens of thousands of temples demolished during the domination Muslims in India. Hindus have seen the biggest slaughter of human beings ever known in the world and still today we are facing in their most complete, cloudy under the political and national boundaries. No other religion is so peaceful and tolerant, as Hindus, no other religion is as mature as the Hindus and no other religion has taken any other religion as Hindus – and therefore it is said that if God ever came to earth, he has come for Hindus and if He have to come again, to come for Hindus – because only the Hindu God who has understood and have shown their understanding over time through its maturity and love continuously until the butchers. Not that the Hindus were not great fighters, however, were not cowards – such as the land of the gods would have been worthless. Their courage is started from the conclusion of the ability to forgive even the demons and allowing them to grow as a human being, and one of the best examples is Prithvi Raj Chauhan (who beat Maryland and forgave Ghori 16 times, but time is 17, with the help of Jaychand when Mr. Ghori won did not hesitate to show his evil nature – A character Hindus in their leaders would not Hindus). The Hindus were the fighters and the bravest men the world would see. From the existence, Hindus have shown unparalleled courage. Mahabharat shows many such realities. But the Indians were not cowards, they were not political and were not among those who attacked horribly. India would not have seen his face diabolical Mughal Raj had Prithivi at the junction of Jaichand. Mughals would have been overthrown again Mahrana Sanga was not fooled by Babur. The Bravery is land of India. It is sometimes defeated by treachery, but again erupts presented the cause of Hinduism in this land.

In fact, tolerance of the Hindus is a sign of courage, that when we return to the battle never let the enemy so easy to get through. Real men are brave men. Hinduism is the truth, and therefore the Indians are the bravest in the land and his courage is first reflected through tolerance. Anyway, it would be with unnecessary as recent history has gone against the Hindus, break and then win more of them however. Even today, no religion is close to Hinduism, no religious leader has the courage to deal with the Hindu saints and so attack the bottom of the illiterate Hindu society to deceive and force conversions – a cowardly act of inhuman activities.

Islam against Hinduism
For understand the bias and conspiracies against Hinduism created by other religious groups to begin with and prepare speeches and writings of one of the best known Islamic leader of the present day – Dr. Zakir Naik. In his book, "Concept of God in Major Religion" has said much about Hinduism. I will not comment on what he has said about their own religion and all other religions other than Hinduism, and Hinduism do not teach me. My approach would be purely to expose the facts about concepts created by him against Hinduism. He writes:

"Aryan Religions are further subdivided into Vedic and non-Vedic religions. Religion Vedic is given the misnomer of Hinduism or Brahmanism. Religions are not Sikkhism Vedic, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. Almost all Aryan religions are non-Prophetic religions.

I would not comment on its categorization as arias and religious divisions that he has done, as it has done this just as other Western historians. But I would point out, the use of the word 'Brahminism' as synonymous with "Hinduism and called the two improper post. First, that Dr. Naik fail completely to understand the meaning of Brahmanism – probably? The way it is mentioned clearly implies that he has tried to relate to the caste system, while "Brahmanism" in Hinduism clearly refers to "Brahma – the creator of the universe. We all try to find ways then in his book, if has supported their perception of any kind. It has also categorically said that Sikkhism, Buddhism and Jainism religions are not Vedic. He said so clearly reflected from the Indian point of view that knows none of these religions in their true form – they are all Vedic religions, and that his philosophy is not different from the Vedas. They may have developed its own database of books, but the philosophy of these religions do not go against the constructive part of the Vedas. In fact, if I had known Dr. Naik Veda, would have understood that Islam is not even out of reach of Veda – The only thing is that Islam has been adopted in most destructive ("Tamasik") part of natural laws as described in the Vedas.

What lies ahead in his book, under "Concept of God in Hinduism, which has begun with a description on 'Indian' is the name given to the inhabitants of the people beyond the Indus Valley – as other historians. I talked a lot about this issue chapter 'The myth of truth' and only briefly here that Hinduism is the religion of the Hindus do not know, as the word Hindu or Hinduism is not found in any of the Hindu scriptures – the name itself, including Brahmanism is a deception to the world about the eternal religion called as "Sanatan Dharma.

Going forward, said:

"Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. In fact, most Hindus attest to this place, professes the belief in many gods. Some Hindus believe in the system of three gods, while some Hindus really believe in the existence thirty-three crore. However, learned Hindus are well versed with scriptures insist that a Hindu should believe and worship one God. "

Dr. Naik has produced three different views of the Hindus, is not based on Hindu scriptures, but based on what he believes is practiced and is known through Western historians. I have discussed in detail on Hinduism as a polytheistic religion in the chapter "Idolatry and 33 crore gods of the Hindus. Here, simply reiterate that the perception that Hindus believe in many gods or three Gods are Dr. Naik ignorance about Hinduism and he must go through my chapter "A Hindu God to understand God's real Hindu.

"The main difference between Hindu and Muslim perception of God is the belief Hindu community in the philosophy of pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and nonliving, to be divine and sacred. Hindus consider both trees, sun, moon, animals and even human beings as manifestations of God. For the common Hindu, everything is God.

Islam, by contrast, calls the man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of God's creation rather than a divinity. Muslims therefore believe that all is, God, God with an apostrophe. " In other words, we believe that everything belongs to God. The trees, the sun, moon and everything in this (Universe belong to God).

Therefore, the major difference between Hindu and Muslim beliefs is the difference between "the apostrophe is. The Hindus say that everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God, God with an apostrophe is'.

This is where prompted me to write an explanation to their writing. It is evident that reflects their understanding of Islam is more than Hinduism. Hindu not believe in such comparison and focuses simply to focus on God, unlike over ideology, where the fight begins. How can God be higher or lower, no matter how you call it – and this is widely understood, Hindu ideology, which is assigned a name of pantheism? Moreover, the development of understanding of superiority over others and enforce the understanding is a sign of arrogance, a human nature in 'Tamasik' or appearance destructive, as has been said.

But since Dr. Naik has brought to this point, I am grateful to him as to clarify this point, why and how Hindus are correct in their understanding of everything as a manifestation of God. Although this is elaborated in the chapter "The Hindu god ', I would short to clarify the misconception. First, if everything is Gods '(an apostrophe is'), then this implies that God is an entity (materialistic), who owns everything. The attitude to human nature and therefore, saying that everything belongs to God, reflect that God is like a king among many others like him, who is the Universe (one of many) as a property – a classic example of closed and materialistic thinking, the union of God to the material behavior, although religion says that God is not material and the infinite. This also implies that God is the owner is a different and separate entity from the creations. Although Islam stop thinking about that here Hindus have moved beyond thinking about it anymore. And start to ask simple questions: "How do you say that everything is Gods? Is it because, Islam believes that God created the universe? Who is this God? How did this material (Universe), if he is indifferent?

The conservation law mass and energy in a more universal form was established for the test by thousands of Hindu science of years before modern science understood. To understand the concept as manifestations of God, Let's take an example of "Pot and Potter." Potter creates the jackpot, and he created the earth. Therefore, Potter is the creator, and the Earth is source. While the earth remains the same even after the creation of the "pot" and just going cyclical transformation, 'Potter' is only a means to make this transformation takes place. In the world of creation, Hindu and answered similar questions. If God created the universe, so did you create? And the answer is – if conservation is maintained, then the universe must be the transformation of the same God and God has to be the means too. This no definitely going with the understanding of modern science – that God is the transformation of the infinite energy existing in matter and energy in them as well. This also establishing the old saying – God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, Hindus believe that everything has to be a manifestation of God has a very deep and well established law the nature of this philosophy. This act of creation must be in place, because the law of conservation holds the universe in balance. The setback issue wraps, if this law is not correct in the sense of God, then why are not thousands of years an incidence of imbalance. There is no explanation in this world – scientific or religious building can be described in the integrity and in Hinduism. (See the Rig Veda, 10.29, 10.30 and 10.31). I simply tried to be brief in response to the philosophy of Dr. Naik of "apostrophe's.

Philosophically, perceived primarily as a manifestation of God creates an ideology mass to respect and use everything as natural laws, thus creating a society innocent and peaceful. Hindu scriptures emphasize the fact that the arrogance and the ego is the cause of much suffering and violent differences. And these two attitudes can be killed only by the strength of respect and love in the form of worship power. And therefore, consideration of all as a manifestation of God, of course, drives down the ego and arrogance and assistance to a weak human understanding to strengthen their inner self. The concept that everything belongs to God, must not be falsified by the inhumane acts, one example is the killing of animals and humans in the name of God. How can a creation of God to be humiliated with a mind that God has done, whether for humans? O God did not create animals, or if he has created, which is respectable and friendly – After all God has created human beings and understand this. Very importantly, when God and are seen as two different entities, which immediately brings separation between these two, thereby laying the foundation of all evil and harmful acts (range, both good and evil can be easily established for this reason). While a unity of God and us, inspires us to sustain and carry out acts of pious and prosperous.

And it's not that Hinduism had not considered apostrophe in "Dr. Naik philosophy. In fact, Hinduism as a religion has matured after wrapping in many fields such as science, socialism, philosophy, psychology, etc. Another case, why not religion that is considered a simple truth – that has no life on other planets like Earth or need another galaxy and environment similar to realizing life, a planet is not known to modern science, however, is detailed in Purans however. We understand the concept of God and being equal and parallel Creations and for the other, simply taking into account the existence of other planets without life. A simple question – who would have talked about God if it had not been life on earth? Who is speaking of God in Jupiter, Venus or Mercury? How to test the will of God that all planets belong and who was going to try out there? God becomes immediately sense if we consider that there is no life. Thus everything is God becomes a meaningless phrase if it had not been life on earth, while all that was a manifestation of God still hold its meaning. Therefore, life and God has to be parallel to each other and are under study as spread of Hinduism. And if life and God are so important to each other, if so there is a relationship between the two is also possible to realize this relationship. But how! This is possible only if one is available. While Dr. apostrophes Naik "conveys the message that God is" there " segregation of life and God and not allow humans to come to God in terms, Hinduism understands the depth and the first says that under the theory of manifestation that God is "here" – in our own work in the way of life. The first step both in Hinduism is to realize the Self and feel the God in the light of the relationship of life-God.
Here are some quotes from Bhagwad Geeta that initially can be interpreted as what is emphasized by Dr. Naik, confirming that Hinduism have gone Beyond the considerations of Islam or any other religion of this world. And Hinduism, do not stop at putting an end to everything belongs to God. Go ahead and ahead to ask questions that takes you near and dear to God.

Bhagwad Geeta,
9.4: This whole world is pervaded by me in my unmanifested form, all beings exist in me, but I do not dwell on them.

9.5: there are no beings in me, here is my leap of Yoga! Bring forward and support the people, My car is not stop them.

9.9: These acts do not bind me, sitting as a neutral, not associated with them.

9.11: Unaware of my staff, because the Great Lord of beings, fools respect me, that dwells in human form.

9.13: But the great of soul possessed of the Divine Prakriti, knowing that I am the origin of immutable beings, honor me with a single mind.

9.14: I always glorify and struggling with firm determination, leaning toward me in the devotion, always strong, that I honor.

So far, Dr. Naik find everything for your concept of 'Apostrophe, as they say Dwelling of God is not loved or not loved, and asking the great minds to focus on one God. And Dr. Naik would happy to cut these scriptures say about this support. But then incomplete in their knowledge of Hinduism, as these writings are only a review of one of philosophy known and understood by him. The Hindus would not stop here. They do not want to close their eyes and return to an ignorance, and limited only philosophy. They want to understand more about God. They want answers related to life and death. They want answers regarding what happens in this world and the universe. And so, moving forward from here. So what Dr. Naik declared as a difference of "apostrophe, is actually a very early step in Hindu seeks God. Just a few sentences later in the Bhagwad Geeta chapter.

9.8. Animation of my Prakriti (nature), I proposed again and again all this multitude of beings (including universal life creation), helpless under the influence of Prakriti (Nature).

9.10: Because of my proximity, Prakriti produces all this movement and still, the world's wheels turning and turning, because of this.

9.15: Others, too, sacrifice for the Yajna of knowledge (ie seeing the car in total), I adore and the All-Formed, as one, as distinct, so different.

9.16: I am the father of this world, the mother, the breadwinner, the grandfather, the purifier, the (a) what is known, (the syllable) Om, and the RK, Saman and Yajus; the goal, the defender, the lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge, the friend, the origin, the dissolution, the substrate, the store, the seed immutable. I give heat, retain and sends rain, I am immortality and death, being and not – be me too

Suddenly, the meaning in the same chapter seem to be changing. It began as God does not dwell on being or not – is to be and God is being and not – be both.

9.22: People who, meditating on me like not separately, worship Me in all beings, for which all committed zeal, I carry what they lack and preserve what they already have.

The deeper meanings, and I have dealt with this detail in my chapter "The Hindu god. Here, I just brought to notice that the image exposed to the world of the Hindus is very limited or negative.

Moving forward, we find Dr. Naik to the texts of religious books.

"The Holy Holy Quran says:

Coming to terms common as between us and you. The first common term is that worship none but God.

Therefore, we will try to find common by analysis of Hindu and Islamic scriptures.

The most popular among all the Hindu scriptures is Bhagwad Geeta. Consider the following verse of the Geeta.

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender to demigods and follow specific rules and regulations of worship according to their own nature.
Geeta Bhagwad, Chapter 7, verse 20 "

Bhagwad Geeta lines, seems to be saying the same thing in the Quran as long as the context and the actual lines are not exposed Bhagwad Geeta.

I quote the actual lines here:

"Prapadyantenyadevatah Kamaistaistarhritgyanah
Tang Tang prakritya niyammasthaya SWYAA niyatah '

Meaning: "Others again, stripped of discrimination by this or that desire, as a result of this or that rite, are dedicated to other gods, led by their very nature. "

In one case, this seems similar to what has been written by Dr. Naik. But there is a difference while hiding Dr. Naik translation of context ("Tang Tang"), cited in my translation, not losing all the words, reflects a context is in the word "this" and the meaning becomes more profound in its context.

Translation of verse 19: "At the end of many births, man of wisdom takes refuge in Me, realizing that all this is the inner self, very rare is that great soul. "

This makes it clear that emphasizes Hindu text on concepts such as knowledge of self confidence and self – as a power of human beings in the path of God realization.

As soon as the concept of God as "a" is considered, it is certain that God can not be bound by the lower number is finite and not so easy to measure as 'One'. If we say that God is 'One' and 'One' only, the questions are added – if you? And that many concepts are forged, as God is not an entity material and if not, how can we define as 'One'.

These two words of Dr. Naik also reflects the change in the boundaries between two religions. While the Holy Quran, according to Dr. Naik, strictly specifies that one must reach a common agreement (an ideology that does not require thinking the future and not to challenge anything beyond what is said), Bhagwad Geeta, according to the same Dr. Naik, very humble, down the path of wisdom to follow one's nature (an ideology that never puts a turning point in human thought, allowing the knowledge to grow enormously to the attainment of divine qualities for self-realization, as a first step.)

Dr. Naik more or very cleverly, or within its partial and partial survey, starts quoting scripture the Upanishads, hiding the actual text and explain exactly what seems to support their understanding and their religion. This is also biased, since it seems to be fearful of revealing the immense knowledge hidden in the Upanishads, if in some way and to some extent known. As a matter of fact, the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Puranas are subject to studies in Hinduism and quoting a word or group of words in them shows that the individual would be limited to overlook the details and tried to steal the things that help to criticize or limit Hindu understanding. Vedas and Upanishads should not be seen and understood as Dr. Naik has tried to do. If he really wanted to quote from these books, he should have cited the ten lines and ten lines forward along the lines that you mentioned and presentation have changed. Anyway, I'll get you, and I quote all the lines and their explanations, following the appointment of Dr. Naik (Svetasvatara Upanishad, 6.9).

'Na na casy kasuj chadhipah Janita'
From him there is neither parents nor Lord.

A Hindu agree in the sense above, but also asks why there is no neither parents nor lord. And the answer lies in the complete verse, which is not exposed. The whole verse goes like:

"Na tasya kaschit patirasti loke
Na na tasya lingam naive cheshit
Sa karnadhipadhipo Karnam
Na na casy Kaschijanita chadhipah '

Meaning: The Lord is the cause of everything; he is the creator and the creation of both. He is all manifestations. If there had been a father or lord, he would be one of the demonstrations. If not all if He is not the whole event, if it exists as a separate entity from all demonstrations and all belong to him – who did? Some logic then able to prove that God is a manifestation of a god Super. Therefore, there can be a father or lord of it, since it is all the same expression – A response that is not in any religious book.
(Svetasvatara Upanishad, 4.19)
"Na tasya Pratima asti"
There is no likeness of Him.

A Hindu agrees to the above sense, but again wonders: Why not like it? The whole verse goes like:

"Na na Tiryancha Madhya Nainmurdhwam parijgrabhat
Na tasya Pratima asti mahadyashah ysya naam '

Meaning: No one can stop either of principle or at the end or the middle, since it is infinite in the divinity and manifestations. You can not explain with words or images as the human imagination can not reach, as it is all infinite manifestations. Now one of them came here to ask immediately, mood of the onslaught, then why Hindus have images and idols – to read my chapter "Gods and Idolatry 33 crore Hindus" response.

Dr Naik quoted verse cleverly complete, which is somewhat similar to the verse of the Quran.
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]
'Na samdrse tisthati rupam Asya, na kas pasyati caksusa canaiam. Manasa HRDA hrdistham you ENAM, Vidur EVAM amrtas bhavanti you '

Dr. Naik said over the lines and immediately following correlates with the Holy Quran.

Its shape is not seen, no one sees with the eye. Those who through heart and mind known as dwelling in the heart become immortal '

The Holy Holy Qur'an refers to this in the following verse:

No vision can grasp him, but his reach extends to all the vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is familiar with the Koran all things "[Santo 6:103]

I have not contradicted their appointments, Hindu scriptures about above, I exposed their partial quotes. What seemed like the Holy Quran which gives birth to support and what goes against not dare to look at them and simply diverted the topic to the incidence of improper practices in society. Dr. Naik is wrong to perceive that if detailed Hindu scriptures would against the Koran. In fact, goes beyond Hindu texts Koran and the Koran would be the step towards the Hindu scriptures, if a Muslim would dare learn more about God. Probably, some fear that surrounds Dr. Naik, that he needs to break and the first step would be to kill his own arrogance and accept that knowledge is limited and is not as vast as God. And so the Koran or any Scripture alone is not enough to wrap around. Therefore, Muslims should be allowed to grow in their knowledge and not living in borders, in particular the limits that give bad reputation. This book can be a sincere request to Dr. Naik, or Muslim brothers to understand a very basic fact – had been against Muslims Hindu scriptures, there would be enjoying free growth (from 5% to 20%) in the country like India, particularly when Hindus are declining in their countries.

If I had wanted to do a similar act, as Dr. Naik did with a quote from the Hindu scriptures, would easily and clearly made hundreds of similarities and contradictions between the Koran and Hindu scriptures. But Indians are not taught about it. Hindus have a culture of respect and consideration in the blood, run through the practice of worship and love. And I have every reason to respect the Quran, always they are peaceful for mankind and creatures out of its practitioners.

I do not want to comment on what Dr. Naik has said about the Koran and God in the Koran, as it is in their view an attempt to define God, and follow that definition and must be respected. But to meet him, provides an example:

'Tape recorder, for example, are produced in large quantities. He has never suggested that to understand what is good for the recorder manufacturers should become a writer himself. It simply means that the manufacturer publishes an instruction manual because it has a thorough knowledge of your product. In short, the instruction manual gives the dos and don'ts for machine.
If you think a human being as a machine, is undoubtedly a complex creation of Allaah. Our Lord and Creator Allah, does not have to come in the form of a human being to know what is good or bad for humans. Just reveal the instructions for humanity. The Holy Qur'an is the instruction manual for humans human.
On the other hand, Allah will call this the creation of the account on the Day of Judgement. Therefore, logically, that Creator informs us about the dos and don'ts of life. "

Now, here is a large error in these explanations.

1. First, the comparison of the tape-recorder with humans is not correct. Recorder is the director of the manufacturer. It is humans that created recorder and human beings to judge him by two or not to do. And therefore man has to be a human being to judge, and this is what a Hindu says that God has to take the extreme form of Human Rights to address human error. If the recorder is to judge their performance and inform its manufacturer, therefore, would have a meaningful comparison to say that the Quran is the manual for us and also a creation of God and would judged based on the manual. And therefore, the sample could produce an effect as many Allah and the creation of one is being judged by others based on the manual of Koran in fact, this can be thought of as statements that do not accept Islam. Even Muslims would disagree with this.
2. Second, the manuals are produced for users of the recorder, and can go up gradation which improves the characteristics of the recorder. Manual for humans occurs and therefore, the manufacturer has necessarily be a human being and get into the mind of its users to create an easy to read manual. Again, the manual is not complete and closed a chapter of the recorder, as further refinement and improvement to the recorder functions are possible, to update the manual. Obviously, humans are changing every day in their behavior. Thus, the Koran (the manual human) must change accordingly, which is not happening. The actual example and are contradictory.
3. Very importantly, these concepts insult to God himself. We all know that humans have existed for thousands of years. There must be instruction manuals before Quran, too, and are probably the Bible or even before the Vedas. If all these manuals are written by humans and not God, then what happened to the manual given by God during creation, their creations have been around for thousands of years humans can not have the power to destroy God's manual. Or accept with grace like that of all religious books (which Hindus do in respect for God or Allah) and there would be no fight, no comparison, there are contradictions and not fight against the superior-inferior – all would be creations of Allah and the Koran, probably an upgrade to earlier versions, or simply to assert that the Koran is the last word of Allah or manual. As a matter of fact, earlier versions, like the Vedas, the Upanishads, Purana and Bhagwad Geeta of Hindus are so vast that the Koran appears to be a river in Tues
4. And a major error is to declare that God entered into the accounts only on the Day of Judgement. What about people who are dying today and who have already died? Have not seen the day of Judgement? If Dr. Naik is speaking of a particular day, which probably would be the end of the world is not doing a good job with humanity. As this strength to his people to inhuman acts in the assumption that everyone in any case, kill and punished on the last day. Vedas have described as destruction in terms of "Yug" and are also not without logic. It has considered the human population would grow, unlike other species, but not the size of Earth. Population containing both good and bad, constructive and destructive people with powers distributed in both. Ignorance and knowledge always be there, diversity is the basis of existence, and so the day would come when this would lead to an imbalance through a variety of natural means such as increasing pollution of various types, attempts to balance environmental manipulation through technology advances, the mass of humanity on behalf envy of religion, etc. And to get to this situation of imbalance, it takes a period described as "Yug" in the Vedas, after which natural force (As a natural power of first order in human form, otherwise it seemed to God, to make sure that nothing is done, not natural, even at the stage of creating balance again – a Hindu concept that is so logical and realistic) that come into play to reorganize and restore stability and balance. For me, it seems a logical as this is what is going on – human population is increasing at a pace and humans have every reason to decrease the population of animals and birds (some species have become extinct). Contamination of all orders are traveling towards higher diversity, they are human and hectic eagerly taking in the name of religion region, nation, politics, policies, socialism, etc. If that would lead to a final day? But this does not mean that there would be a Judgement Day by Allah and the rest are for us. Although an estimate, Hinduism emphasizes humans to behave in order to work towards the improvement of human beings and all other creatures within the laws and limitations of natural laws.
5. Last but not least, God has created millions of species, all living in the same world as us. Where is the manual for them and making them understand the manuals? And he failed to God from the creation of more intelligent species as like humans? If Dr. Naik did not have the answer to that, let me say that what the manuals are to describe the machines, the machines can not do anything itself. And if the Koran is a manual, it means that his followers do not have emotions like humans (and this is the reason given by Mr Naik to support terrorism.) In fact, this is the big difference between Hinduism and Islam – while Islam (as I have understood by Dr. Naik conclusions) is an 'Order', while Hindu scriptures are 'Messages'. These two have different implications – "Order" shows that humans are incapable and illogical, while 'Message' shows that human beings have their own thinking and who can interpret the message and do what's right or wrong. While 'Orders' human restricting go there, 'Messages' allows you to expand the disclosure of God.

In conclusion, no way, can the example of demand-recorder Tape an explanation that God can take human form. In fact, Bhagwad Geeta describes why nature creates one of every age, a human being capable of godly qualities (See chapter 'A Hindu god).

Dr. Naik cites another example:

"Every attribute of God is unique and possessed by him alone. "

In the example above the support that goes like:

"If someone says Neil Armstrong is an American, the attribute of being American possessed by Neil Armstrong is correct but not sufficient for identification. Similarly, an astronaut Neil Armstrong. The attribute of being an astronaut is not unique to Neil Armstrong. To identify the person only have to look a single attribute. For example, Neil Armstrong was the first human to walk on the moon. So when one wonders: Who was the first man on the moon, the answer is one, ie Neil Armstrong. Similarly, the attribute of Almighty God should be, for example only, the Creator of the Universe. If I say that the creator of the building may be possible and certainly not unique. Thousands of people can make a building, so there would be no difference between man and God. But each attribute of Allah points to none but Allah. "

"For example,
Ar-Reheem: the Most Merciful
Ar-Rahman: The Merciful
Al-Hakim: The Wise '

"In continuation with the previous example, if someone says astronaut Neil Armstrong is an American who is four feet high, the attribute (American astronaut) is correct, but its associated quality (only four feet high) is false. Similarly, if someone says that God is the Creator the universe with a head, two hands, two feet, so the attribute (Creator of the Universe) is correct but the quality of associates (in the form of a human being) is wrong.

As there is only one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God. To say that Neil Armstrong was an American astronaut who first set foot on the moon, but the second Edwin Aldrin was wrong. Both have unique qualities similar to saying that the Creator is one God and Lord God the other is absurd, because there is only one God with all these attributes combined together. "

Again Dr. Naik has made the same mistake as in the example above.
1. The words and the example clear, therefore, the forces of God to be a entity, an identifiable entity, a physical identification entity with known attributes.
2. Unique is a term that applies only when a large number similar forces. Therefore, it also means that there are many forces equivalent to Allah, but Allah has unique attributes that segregates them. I do not know how Muslims agree with this, but Hindus not safe.
3. The quote that Dr. Naik has been cited as unfit for example. The "more" merciful, the 'more' friendly, and "the wisest", is right to give him identification. However, It is then that he alone has not and therefore is not unique to him. As most of the word "clearly means that these qualities are in the hands of many others, including humans. Therefore, Allah is just excellent human beings in these qualities. The qualities are what God is not unique, only the amount of these qualities superior to its competitors. I'm not saying that the definition is wrong, but incomplete. Hindus go beyond understanding that nobody can really understand God nor can anyone measure the multitude of its manifestations. As for 'the majority 'is concerned, we manifestations of God in human form also with those qualities.
4. Neil Armstrong must be many in the land. Every human being on this Earth is unique, and can be done only through various meanings of identification such as name, address, completion, date of birth, etc. An attempt to define God with attributes and unique attributes would lead to the vision of the world composed of many like him but with different characteristics and qualities, so that requires God to create for itself the singularity of their identity. Without doubt, these terms leaves a person in the dark when it comes to really understanding God and realize God. This darkness but ignorance is not called and the response was the Vedic philosophy.
5. As for trying to find Oneness of God tries Dr. Naik, has failed to realize that by the grace of God, every creature of every kind are created only with a change in some other way. As Therefore, my features are unique and does not correspond to anyone in the world. Even the definition of God as the Qur'an has not been able to convey a simple message everything is a manifestation of God himself, because everything else is unique in nature. Therefore, the Hindu ideology is of universal significance which is evidence sound from all angles.
6. Very important, when Dr. Naik said: "Since there is only one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God is making a big mistake. An attempt to identify and close to God can not be carried out as part of the human explanation. The verdict clearly shows how difficult it Allah is the limit must necessarily have the attributes that points to him alone. It reflects a lack of maturity in the understanding of God. This is also reflected yet more in their texts when they were granted hearing, seeing and other human attributes to God.

In one case, he mentioned about how God Vishnu and has four hands and other human attributes. Although, I have elaborated in detail in chapter 33 crore Hindu gods, I must reiterate here that Vishnu is not regarded as God, but again a manifestation of God in a natural and intangible (he is one of the Tri-Deva, therefore a deity as Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma). God is very well explained in Hinduism (See chapter "A Hindu god), and is subject to study very high. I suggest to the world's religious leaders to listen to the preachers and Hindu saints – I'm sure you will not find any attack on any religion, would not find a word "Hindu" in preaching and most of the time the preaching would be philosophical, social, psychological and scientific. This will surely help them to change their perception of Hindu gods and limited understanding of endless Hindu ideologies.

Apart from the understanding of God, Dr. Naik has also brought in scripts related to the standard of living and behavior of the Hindus, including their eating habits. In his book, 'Response to non-Muslims, Questions Frequently Islam ", in Chapter 6 – Eating Vegetarian No, he has mentioned many Hindu texts to support Islamic way to kill animals and delighting with non-vegetarian food. Although, I have detailed this in my book "Laws of Nature ', I at least visit of Dr. Naik quotes scripture Hindus and present realities.

I would avoid commenting on anything in the Koran as the Koran does not speak on Hinduism as such. And focus only on what Dr. Naik is saying about the scientific understanding and religious non-vegetarian diet.

"3. The meat is nutritious and rich in complete protein (Type iron, vitamin B1 and niacin).

First, there are good sources of protein (grains such as "Dal ') and these items in the vegetarian diet as well. Therefore, it is not to correct words 'only' in the non-vegetarian diet.

'4. Humans are omnivores set of teeth.
5. Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non vegetarian food.

In his explanation, Dr. Naik, or not known about or tried Omnivore teeth to hide in his explanation. Both animals omnivores and carnivores have sharp, pointed teeth and sticking together, which they use to kill animals and the wear and tear. Does Dr. Naik wants to convince his followers that we have the natural ability to kill animals to the teeth and tear them live? We have pointed out teeth, but not sticking out and not remember enough to start living flesh. And this is one of the main reasons why people all around the world over and cook make them edible, which is not natural.

As far as digestion is concerned, our digestive system is not quite done to digest non-vegetarian food. Consider the following points:

Human omnivores herbivores and carnivores
Gastric acidity: pH 4 to 5 with food in your stomach heartburn: below pH = 1 with food in stomach stomach acid: pH less than equal to 1 with food in stomach
Stomach capacity: Less than 30% of the volume total capacity of the digestive tract Stomach: 60% to 70% of the total digestive tract of the stomach's ability: 60% to 70% of the total volume of the digestive system
Small Intestine: More than 10 times the body length of small intestine: 3 to 6 times the body length of small intestine: 3 to 6 times the body length
Columbus: Columbus' long and complex: Simple, short and smooth Columbus: Simple, short and soft
Kidney: Moderately concentrated urine from the kidney: Extremely concentrated urine from the kidney: Extremely concentrated urine

Human beings are exactly the type of herbivore stomach. The digestive system suffers tremendous pressure, wear to digest without cooking non-vegetarian diet. Our immune system has the ability to build the wear and therefore is not exactly understood by consumers of non-vegetarian diet. Anyway, we went on to get to that point, which is religious and prompted me to study this aspect as part of this chapter.

Dr Naik says:

7. Hindu scriptures give permission for non-vegetarian food.
a. There are many books that are strictly vegetarians. They think it is against their religion to consume non-vegetarian food. But the fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat. Scripture Hindu sages and saints mentioned in the consumption of non-vegetarian food.
b. It is mentioned in the Manu Smriti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5, verse 30: "He who eats meat eats that have eaten the day not doing anything wrong, even if some days later, in itself created some to eat and some you eat. "
c. Again next verse of Manu Smriti, which is chapter 5, verse 31 says "Eating meat is suitable for slaughter This is traditionally known as the rule of God '
d. In addition to Manu Smriti, Chapter 5, verse 39 and 40 says, "God created animals slaughter for sacrifice … therefore killing in a sacrifice is not killing '

The first thing people should know that God's creation in Hinduism is Vedas. Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta are based on the Vedas. Manu Smriti is purely human creation, based on the lifestyle in those days. However, lifestyle has nothing to do with vegetarian food vegetarian or not, human beings were then and now, only humans. More importantly, Manu Smriti was rejected by the Hindus time ago, since it goes against the Vedas in many places. Somehow, the critics took this opportunity and brought it back to the Hindus attack, declaring that Manu Smriti is the book of the law of the Hindus. However, what is shown to the world of that book is not true and complete.

To clarify this, I will quote the same book still conveys the rules of the Vedas.
Chapter 5, verse 4: "Through neglect of the Veda, through the standard deviation of conduct through remiss in the performance of duties, and through misconduct forbidden to eat food, Death becomes eager to shorten the life of the Brahmins.

The above statement clarifies that the Vedas are forbidden to eat non-vegetarian food as a norm of conduct (such as natural law) and the Vedas are made for the man kind and not for the Brahmins alone. In fact, as I detailed in my chapter "caste system, the Vedas do not segregate society at all based on birth. It clearly says that the road four times of an individual who exists in this world is necessary and the choice depends on one individual to another according to their nature and attitude. Thus, Brahmanism is not a caste or a birth in the Vedas, is the highest state of spiritual knowledge and true human behavior as natural laws.

First misdirection by Dr. Naik is that he says 'Manu Smriti' is the law book of Hindus. In fact, to his knowledge, Manu Smriti is an optional subject for those who are learning Vedas and directed to take is just for knowledge sake. There is no book of law for Hindus, only book knowledge. Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta are the only books that are authenticated to follow and law books which are not because these laws are imposed on the Hindus, but simply because it contains details of nature and natural form of life he leads.

Here are a few verses of that chapter of Manu Smriti and things clearly:

Verse 42: A twice-born man who, knowing the real meaning of Veda, kill the animal for these purposes due to himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.

Sage Manu, begins by emphasizing that a man (born twice: first in the company, second in the world of true knowledge of the Vedas), the Killing an animal just to get into a blessed state. No mention here that he kills and eats the flesh of the animal. The murder occurs only for the betterment of society, such After the war, in the forest to protect himself or for other reasons. And make your point more clearly in terms of eating meat.

Verse 33: "A man twice-born who knows the law should not eat meat except in conformity with the law, because if you've eaten illegally, he, unable to save himself, be eaten after death of their victims. "

Verse 43: A twice-born man of virtuous disposition, if he lives at home, with a teacher, or in the forest, should not, even in emergency situations to cause damage to any creature that is not sanctioned by Veda.

Verse 46: He who does not seek to cause suffering of bonds and death to living creatures, but desires the good of all beings, obtains endless bliss.

Verse 49: After having considered the disgusting origin of flesh and cruelty of the shackles and murder corporeal beings, he left everything to refrain from eating meat.

Verse 51: allowing the slaughter of animals, cut it into pieces, which kills, he who buys or sells meat, cooking it, which serves, and eats it, everyone should be treated as murderers of animals.

Verse 52: There is no greater sinner than that man who, despite not worship the gods and / or the mane, the, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by eating meat other beings.

From the above verses, it becomes very clear how some people are trying to divert the world about Hinduism as a religion. By Unfortunately, not all Hindus read these books (most of them adhere to Bhagwad Geeta alone – as is the summary of the vast knowledge) and not against these conspiracies.

Finally, Dr. Naik, has cited a conversation between Ydhistira and Bhishma, speaking of animal sacrifices as a process of 'Sraddha "A ritual in the Hindu. Moreover, Bhishma is describing the slaughter and meat consumption as a common practice. It is also noted that the whole episode of Mahabharat is based on the fact that the activities of crime and lawlessness in the peak and the birth of Lord Krishna was to ensure that laws are reinstated.

So, first, the conversation can not be taken as the basis for authentication Hindu scriptures allow non-vegetarian diet.

Second Instead, Yudhisthira Bhishma and are aware of the ruling family and soldier and kill (kill in war) is by its nature. If they had been certified as correct and, Lord Krishna would have explained everything Bhagwad Geeta to Arjuna. Discussion between these two soldiers are not the law of nature, is simply your perception. And Veda Vyas has mentioned these things to make people realize that these things are not right for the standard of living of human beings.

Thirdly, just started describing the beliefs of Bhishma Sraddha here. Later in Scripture, Bhishma describes how the process of Shraddha began as a pure vegetarian diet, even without salt. As it is a very long debate, I can not name them all. It is suggested to read the entire conversation before ruling on the pegs of Dr. Naik.

Fourthly, Hinduism, as already always stressed, is not a thoughtless laws limit. It allows people to think and do anything that can be constructive. Set to the fundamental principle that definitions can not bind the infinite God and creation, the addresses can only be established with them. Therefore, vegetarianism is an explanation in Hinduism as a healthy food and just (food sāttvika). Therefore, the assertion of Dr. Naik is allowed in Hinduism is not a correct statement is only mentioned as Hinduism harmful diet.

It also states:

'7. Hinduism was influenced by other religions
Though Hindu Scriptures permit its followers to have non-vegetarian food, many Hindus adopted the vegetarian system because they were influenced by other religions like Jainism.
This is absurd, and has detailed above. To ensure, see below scripts Bhagwad Geeta, I think that existed long before Jainism or the world's known religions:

Bhagwad Geeta, Chapter 17, Verse 7, 8, 9, 10:
"The food is also (as worship, Yajna, austerity, charity, knowledge, action, intelligence, strength, happiness and others) is triple "

"The foods that increase vitality, energy, strength, health, joy, and appetite, which are tasty, oily, important, nice and pure, is sāttvika.

"Foods that are bitter, sour, saline, excessively hot, hot, dry and hot, is Rajasika '

"That which is stale, tasteless, stinking, open kitchen, refuse and impure Tamasik.

In no way has the concept of a gift Jain vegetarian. Jainism have gone the hard way, and produced from Hinduism. Jainism only tried to live "Sāttvika way" described in Hinduism.

Also mentioned:

'8. Even plants have life
9. Even plants can pain
10. Killing a living creature with two senses less is not a misdemeanor "

No I understand that a man of letters as Dr. Naik can not differentiate between vegetarian and non vegetarian diet, even in terms of life, the way they are composed as a body, how they exist as creatures.

I have detailed information on vegetarianism in the second volume, but we will see some things that are known even to children.
We understand that animals grow proportionally in your body and after certain period of time until they were also in contrast to animals, plants have the power to spread his life in and out of your body (do not need to know the methodology of plant growth here). The plants grow on natural resources, while animals not dependent on plants or other animals. More important Moreover, we preserve the plants a longer period in contrast to the animals. Now what is more important to understand here is that the effects of preservation are different in both cases. When we are preserving the plants, we are preserving their lives. But when we are preserving the animals, we simply maintain the lifeless body away biological effects. Plants do not eat like animals. The plant does not move as they do animals. We all know that these differences between plant and animal kingdom. Reasoning that when we eat plants that kill is not entirely rational. It is very simply realized that when we eat plants that are consumed in the living state, unless they cook, but when the animals we eat, we consume dead. In fact, humans do not eat dead plants and the party may be immediately visible difference in the flesh. By Therefore, there is no argument that proves that eating plant is the same animal consumption.
The way forward, we found more reasoning from him.
'11. In the livestock population
If every human being was a vegetarian, which would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, although their reproduction and multiplication is very fast. Allah (SWT) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to balance its creation properly. No wonder he has allowed us to beef cattle. "
It's amazing to realize that Islam has no limit on the control of its human population, but also allows humans to control the animal population another. Dr. Naik not mean that the cows are multiplying faster than the human population – the population can compare two in any country, any region to understand this, where people do not eat cow.

The second important thing: who is able to control the population, or human nature? If the doctor believes that human Naik is the one who is controlling the population of millions of species, then I have to say. But if nature has this capability, the conclusion becomes the basis. It's just one of the reasons for the protection of our human taste.

'12. Cost of meat is reasonable, since not all are non-vegetarians
I do not care if some people are pure vegetarians. However, should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact, if all Indians become non-vegetarians then the present non-vegetarians would be the losers because meat prices rise.
The price of beef in any case is much more than vegetarian diets. Dr. Naik is so poor in its reasoning, I had not gotten to know at this point. It's so simple, if all non-Indians are vegetarians, there is no meat to satisfy demand. But if all Indians are vegetarians, still have enough food to meet increasing demand and prices would fall and that's also why nature created humans as vegetarians – balance is not broken.

How can humans say that human beings are more important than all other creatures? What if God had not created trees and plants and created humans only? What if there were no water? What if it were not air? In fact, to make human awareness of the importance of all creatures and creations of equal value, God created other planets do not have these things and we all know what the atmosphere there – no life, no man, no one to realize that God? Therefore, every creature is of equal importance to God and are expected to behave according to natural laws. All others actually behave well, restricting human beings. Although, of course, vegetarians actually enforce the methodologies and effort to support their wrongful conduct through various logical challenge that these beautiful, defenseless creatures are made to be killed by them and for them (the taste and authority.)

Thus the belief that Hinduism is against the flesh is true, as Hinduism understands that life is a characteristic of God and life just is not human life, refers to any other entity involved in creating the life support system, refers to every creature which has realized that system. The data over criminals 99 percent and 100 percent of terrorists are meat eaters, vegetarians allowed to condemn meat. Eating meat is a barbaric act and underestimated by Hindus, who kills and sells it, who buys it, the cooking, serving, and eating are contributing equally in the murder of animals humble. All of these contribute death of humility which in turn induce in them the barbaric nature, some carry it forward to become criminals, murderers and terrorists.

About the Author

“GOD DAMN AMERICA!” A Fresh Perspective On Rev. Wright pt.2