In response to the offer wrong in Hinduism
Hinduism Onslaught
The true meaning of religion know that non-Hindus
INTRODUCTION
I have mentioned in almost every chapter, the notion of bringing the wrong people about Hinduism. This chapter is dedicated to respond to certain persons, who have tried to take their religion at the top of Hinduism. However, 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 people in their diversity, diversity is the basis of existence. However, people have tried to take the occasional incidence and spread like a drum from the common Hindu practice. Arrogance and envy, have slashed the context Hindu texts real and tried to convince the world that Hinduism is a religion, with a lot of traps, mistaken beliefs and blind faith. While Hinduism as a religion has never tried that comparative education, these leaders have been forced to become comparative Hinduism. In the following sections, we discuss how this great religion was attacked and still under attack from various forces devastating.
ASSAULT ON HINDUISM HISTORICAL
We can not continue and develop each and every event story in this book and therefore, we will have quick background of how people of the eternal religion had suffered massacres and torture by forcing invaders of India their beliefs and practices of centuries.
Threat to 'Sanatana Dharma' Islamic invasion began long ago from 800 DC, says Will Durant in his book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" page 459:
'The Muslim conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great joy and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, conversions forced abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam in 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus convert to Islam by the sword in '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, more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese "
Any historian, and who knows the history, can see the figure in the table and understand what is happening is the country called "Bharat" or "Hindustan" and now India – a country every peaceful 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 of them.
The data relating to attacks on Hindus:
Muhammad Ghazni (997 – 1030): the death of more than 50,000 Hindus, river in Thanesar foaming with blood, the people can not drink the water
Muhammad Ghori (around 1192): 20,000 Hindus were slaughtered and their heads are offered online
Qutab-ud-Din-Aibak (around 1206): killed some 50,000 people, 20,000 enslaved
Badauni in 1254, killed all the men visible above the age of 8 years and is destined for women.
Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1360): Attacked an island in the sea-coast where "nearly 100,000 men had taken refuge Jajnagar with their wives, children, family and relationships. "The swordsmen of Islam turned" the island in a river of blood for the killing of nonbelievers. "A destination beat worst Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: "Women with babies and pregnant women were haltered, handcuffed, chained and shackled, and pressured as slaves into service in the house of every soldier. "
Timurlane (December 1398): he ordered the execution of at least 100,000 captives before the battle of Delhi, and then the battle to those who were not killed were taken as slaves
During the invasion of Timur in 1399 citing the Koran in his Tuzk-i-Timurid: "O Prophet, make war on the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them harshly. "He continues:" My main objective in invading Hindustan had been in a religious war against the infidel Hindus … [That] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and the value of the Hindus. "First taken by assault the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers "to kill all men, that women prisoners and children, and plunder and raze all property. "
Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. While preparing for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the river Yamuna, its Emirs advised "that the great day of battle, the 100,000 prisoners could not stay with the luggage, and would be completely contrary to the rules of war to establish these idolaters and enemies of Islam in freedom. "Therefore," no other course remained but to make all food from the sword. "Tuzk-i-Timurid continues: "I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and that did not meet thus must be executed and their property given to the informant. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, which drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. "
Bahamani Sultans (1347 – 1528): Approximately 1,00,000 Hindus.
Akbar (1556 – 1605): Emperor Akbar ordered the slaughter of about 30,000 (captured) Rajput Hindus 24 of February 1568 AD, after the battle of Chitod. Another reference indicates that the slaughter of 30,000 Indian farmers in Chitod is recorded by Abul Fazl, the court historian of Akbar itself. Khondamir Afghan historian records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, 1,500,000 people were killed.
Centuries later, the same blood lust of fans who took tyrannical Muslim emperors and generals in an orgy of slaughter and destruction continues today in Kashmir.
To classify an example of barbarism faced by Hindus, a quote from 'Tarikh-i-Firuz Firuz Shah written during Tughlak Shal says:
"The order was due attention to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan. The true faith was declared Brahman and the right field said. But refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the cape with his hands and legs tied and was released on the wooden board on top. The battery lights up two places the 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 Muslim domination India. Hindus have seen the greatest slaughter of human beings the world has ever known and they are still facing in its most complete form, under cloudy political boundaries and national. 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 has to come back, which come for the Hindus – because only the Hindus who have understood God and shows his understanding over time through sustained maturity and love, even to the butchers. Not that the Hindus were not great fighters, however, were not cowards – such as the land of the gods are worthless. Their bravery of the celebration of the ability to forgive even the demons and allowing them to grow as a human being, and the best example is Prithvi Raj Chauhan (who defeated and spared time Maryland Ghori 16 times, but 17 with the help of Jaychand when Mr. Ghori won did not hesitate to show his evil character – a character Hindus would not take Hindu leaders.) The Hindus were the fighters and the bravest men the world ever see. From there, the Indians have shown a value none. Mahabharat shows many realities. But the Indians were not cowards, they were not political and were not among those who attacked horribly. India would not have seen the evil face of the Mughals, had Prithivi Raj Jaichand achieved union. Mongolians have turned him had Mahrana Sanga have been deceived by Babur. Courage land ownership is Indian. Is defeated by treachery at times, but again erupts to stand for the cause of Hinduism in this land.
In fact, tolerance of the Hindus is a sign of courage, that when you return to the battle never allows the enemy so easy to get through. Real men are men brave. Hinduism is the truth, and therefore, the Indians are the bravest in the land and his courage is the first reflected through tolerance. Anyway, With would be unnecessary, as recent history has been against the Hindus, disintegration and then win them over though. Even today, no religion is close to Hinduism, no religious leader has the courage to deal with the Hindu saints and to attack the bottom of illiterate society Indian to cheat and force conversions – a cowardly act of inhuman activities.
Islam against Hinduism
To understand the bias and conspiracies created against Hinduism, other religious groups to begin with and prepare speeches and writings of one of the best known Islamic leader in nowadays – 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 religions other than Hinduism, and Hinduism do not teach me. My aim was purely to expose the facts on concepts created by him against of Hinduism. He writes:
"Aryan Religions are further subdivided into Vedic and non-Vedic religions. The Vedic religion is given the wrong name Hinduism and Brahmanism. Religions are not Sikkhism Vedic, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. Almost all Aryan religions are non-Prophetic religions.
I would not do comments on its classification as arias and religious divisions that he has done, as it has done just as other Western historians. However, I would note, the use of the word 'Brahminism' as synonymous with Hinduism and called the two as inappropriate. First, that Dr Naik everyone to understand the meaning of Brahmanism – probably not? The way you mentioned clearly implies that we have tried to relate to the caste system, while 'Brahmanism in Hinduism regards clearly "Brahma – the creator of the universe. We all try to find ways to get ahead in your book, if supported its perception, in any form. Additionally, stated categorically that Sikkhism, Buddhism and Jainism religions are not Vedic. He says so clearly evident from the Indian point of view you know any these religions in their true form – they are all Vedic religions, and that his philosophy is 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 Dr Naik had met Veda, have understood that although Islam is not outside the scope of Veda – The only thing is that Islam has taken in most of the destruction ('Tamasika ") part of the natural laws as described in the Vedas.
Comes forth in his book, "Concept of God in Hinduism 'chapter, which began with a description of" Hindu "Is the name given to the inhabitants of the people beyond the Indus valley – like other historians. I talked a lot about this in" Myth of Truth "and chapter written only here that Hinduism is the religion known to Hindus as the word Hindu or Hinduism is not found in any Hindu scriptures – the name itself, including Brahmanism is a deception to the world about this religion, eternal flame as' Sanatan Dharma. "
Go ahead, said:
"Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. In fact, most Hindus attest to this by professing belief in a multitude gods. Some Hindus believe in the system of three gods, while Hindus really believe in the existence of thirty-three million rupees. However, he learned of Hindus who are well versed in the scriptures insist that a Hindu should believe and worship one God. "
Dr. Naik has produced three points different views about the Hindus, not based on the Hindu scriptures, but based on what he thinks is practiced and is known by Western historians. He discussed in detail about Hinduism as a polytheistic religion in the "Idolatry and Rs 33 million Hindu gods. Here, just to reiterate the perception that Hindus believe in many gods or three Gods are Dr. Naik ignorance about Hinduism and he should go through my chapter "A Indian real God to understand the Hindu god.
"The main difference between Hindu and Muslim perception of God is the common belief Hindus in the philosophy of pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and not living to be divine and sacred. Hindus consider both the trees, the sun, the moon, animals and even human beings as manifestations of God. For the common Hindu, everything is God.
Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider he and his surroundings as examples of God's creation rather than a divinity. Muslims therefore believe that everything is ", ie God with an apostrophe in 'Gods. 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 main difference between Hindu and Muslim beliefs differ from the apostrophe. " The Hindus say that everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God, God with an apostrophe '.
This is where prompted me to write an explanation to their writing. It is evident that reflects their understanding of Islam is superior to Hinduism. No Hindu believes such comparison and focuses simply to focus on God, unlike ideology above where the fight begins. How can God be higher or lower no matter what it is called – and this is widely understood Hindu ideology, which is assigned a name of pantheism? Moreover, the development of understanding superiority and enforce the understanding of others is a sign of arrogance, a human nature "Tamasika 'or the destructive aspect, as has been said.
But since Dr. Naik has led to this point, I am grateful to him as this point is clarified, why and how Hindus are correct in their understanding all as a manifestation of God. Although this is elaborated in the chapter 'The Hindu God, I would brief to clarify the misconception. Earlier, if everything is God "(with an apostrophe '), then it is assumed that God is an entity (material), which owns everything.'s attitude to human nature and therefore, saying that everything belongs to God, reflect that God is like a king and many others like him who is master of this universe (one of many) as a property – A classic example of closed thinking and materialistic, the union of God with materialistic behavior, while religion says that God is not material and the infinite. This also implies that God is the owner is different and separate entity from the creations. While Islam stop thinking here, Hindus have moved beyond thinking more about this. And he begins to ask simple question: "How can you say that everything is God? It's because Islam believes that God created the universe?" Who is this God? How did this material (Universe), if intangible?
The law of conservation of mass and energy in a more universal was established with the Hindu science test thousands of years before modern science understood. To understand the concept of God as demonstrations, take an example of "Pot and Potter." Potter created the boat, and he created the Earth. Therefore, Potter is the creator, and Earth is the source. While the earth remains the same even after the creation of "Pot" and just going cyclical transformation, 'Potter' is not only a means to make this transformation will take place. Worldwide of creation, the Hindus have similar questions, and answered. If God created the universe, for what he did to create? And the answer is – if conservation holds, then the universe is that the transformation of the same God and God has to be the middle too. This is certainly going to the understanding of modern science – that God is infinite energy transformation and matter and energy existing in them. This also establishes 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 of nature of this philosophy. This act of creation must be in place, because the law of conservation holds the universe in balance. The other way around the question involves, if this law is not correct in the sense of God, then Why are not thousands of years the incidence of imbalance. There is no explanation in this world – scientific or religious establishment which can describe in integrity, as in Hinduism. (See the Rig Veda, 10.29, 10.30 and 10.31). I just tried to be brief in response to the philosophy of Dr. Naik's apostrophe. "
Philosophically, perceived primarily as a manifestation of God creates a mass ideology to respect and use everything that according to natural laws creating a harmless and peaceful society. Hindu scriptures emphasize the fact that the arrogance and ego are the cause of much suffering and violence differences. And these two attitudes can be killed only by the strength of respect and love in worship-power. And therefore, consideration of all as a manifestation of God, of course, lowers the ego and arrogance and helps to strengthen weak human understanding your inner self. The concept that everything belongs to God, must not be falsified by events treatment, an example may be the killing of animals and humans in the name of God. How can a creation of God to be humiliated with an account that God has done, if for humans? O God created the animals, or if he has created, is respectable and friendly – after all God has created human beings and understand this. Very important when God and who are seen as two different entities, which immediately brings a separation between the two, thereby laying the foundation of all evil and adverse events (range Good and evil both can be very easily established for this reason). While a unit of God and us, inspires us to maintain and carry out acts of pious and prosperous.
And it's not that Hinduism did not consider Dr. Naik apostrophe philosophy. In fact, Hinduism as a religion has matured after the envelope in many fields such as science, socialism, philosophy, psychology, etc. Otherwise, why not religion that is considered a simple truth – that no life on other planets like Earth or required another galaxy and environment similar to realize life, a planet is not known by modern science, however, detailed in Purans however. We can understand the concept of God and creations to be equal and parallel relative to each other by simply taking into account the existence of other planets without life. A simple question – who would have talked about God if there had been life on earth? Who is talking about God in Jupiter, Venus or Mercury? How will demonstrate of God that all the planets belong to him and he 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 there had been life on earth, while all that was a manifestation of God still held meaning. For Thus, life and God has to be parallel to each other and agree with the study of Hinduism as extended. 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. Naik apostrophes "conveys the message that God is" there "the segregation of life and God and not allow humans to reach God in any of the terms, Hinduism understands the depth and the first says that under the theory of the manifestation of God is "here" – in our own work in the way of life. The first step in both Hinduism is to realize the Self and feel God in the light of the relationship between the life of God.
Here are some quotes from Bhagwad Geeta which may initially be interpreted as what is emphasized by Dr. Naik, confirming that Hinduism has gone beyond the considerations of Islam or any other religion of this world. And Hinduism, do not stop to put a full stop that everything belongs to God. Go ahead and ask questions ahead of wearing it near and dear to God.
Bhagwad Geeta
9.4: This whole world is pervaded by me in my unmanifested form, all creatures exist in me, but not inhabit them.
9.5: Do not make things exist in me, here is my Yoga Diving! Carry out and support the loved, my car does not stop there.
9.9: These acts are not binding on me, sitting as a neutral, attached to them.
9.11: Unaware of my staff, as the great Lord of beings, fools ignore Me, living in human form.
9.13: But the great soul in possession of the Divine Prakriti, knowing that I'm the origin of living and immutable, I honor with one mind.
9.14: I glorify long struggle with strong determination, bent toward me in devotion, always strong, I will honor.
So far, Dr. Naik find everything for your Apostrophe concept is, as they say that God is not dwelling on being or not being, and calling on the great souls of focus in one and only God. And Dr. Naik to be happy to cut these scriptures in the words of support. But then it is incomplete in its understanding of Hinduism, as these writings are only a consideration of one of philosophy known and understood by him. Hindus do not stop there. Do not want to close my eyes and return to the ignorance of the philosophy of a unique and limited. They want to understand God more. They want answers related to life and death. They want answers about what happens in this world and the universe. And so, moving forward from here. Therefore, what Dr. Naik says 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), a project over and over Once all this multitude of beings (the universal creation including life), powerless under the influence of Prakriti (nature).
9.10: Because of my proximity, Prakriti produces all this, the mobile and stationary, the wheels round and round the world, because of this.
9.15: Others, too, sacrifice for the Yajna knowledge (ie seeing the car in total), my worship and all training, as one, as something different, such as multiple.
9.16: I I am the father of this world, the mother, the support, the grandfather, the purifier, the thing (one) to be known, (the syllable) Om, and the Rk, Saman and Yajus; the goal, the supporter, the lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge, the friend, the origin, dissolution, substrate, warehouse, immutable seed. I give heat, I withhold and send the rain, I am immortality and death, being and not – that's me
Suddenly, the meanings in the same chapter seem to be changing. Began as God does not dwell on being or not – to be and that comes to God is being and not – be both.
9.22: People who, meditating on me as I honor not separated, in all beings, to all those involved jealously, 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 and negative.
Go ahead, we find Dr. Naik to the texts of religious books.
'The Holy Holy Quran says:
Come to common terms as between us and you. First is the common term to worship none but God.
Therefore, we will try to find common ground, analyzing both the Hindu scriptures and Islamic.
The most popular of all Hindu scriptures is the Bhagwad Geeta. Consider the following verse of the Geeta.
Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender to demigods and follow the rules and regulations of worship according to their nature.
Bhagwad Geeta, Chapter 7, verse 20 '
Bhagwad Geeta lines, seems to be saying the same things in the Quran as long as the context and the actual lines of Bhagwad Geeta are not exposed.
I would like to quote the actual lines here:
'Prapadyantenyadevatah Kamaistaistarhritgyanah
Tang Tang niyammasthaya niyatah prakritya SWYAA '
Meaning: "Others again, stripped of discrimination by this or desire that after this or ritual that is involved in other gods, headed by its 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"), my translation quote, not losing all the words, shows that there is a context that is in "this" word and meaning becomes deep in context.
The translation of verse 19: "At the end of many births the wise man takes refuge in me realizing that this is the closest I very rarely is that the great soul. "
This makes clear that the Hindu text emphasizes concepts such as self-knowledge and self – confidence in his power of human beings in the path of God realization.
Regarding the concept of God as "One" is considered, it is certain that God can not be limited by the lower number is finite and not so easy to measure as "One." If we say that God is 'One' and 'One' only questions are added – if you? And that many concepts are forged, as God is not an entity and, if not material, how can we define as "One."
These two words of Dr. Naik also reflects the change in the boundaries between the two religions. While the Holy Quran, as Dr. Naik, strictly specifies that one has to reach a common agreement (an ideology that forces do not think about the future and not to contest anything beyond what it is said), Bhagwad Geeta, according to the same Dr. Naik, very humbly, sets the path of wisdom to follow his own nature (an ideology that never sets a point about human thought, allowing the knowledge to grow enormously to attainment of self-realization divine qualities as a first step.)
Dr. Naik more or very skillfully, or within their study biased and partial, begins by citing the writings of the Upanishads, hiding the actual text and explain exactly what it sounds 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 higher education in Hinduism and quoting a word or group of words They show that the person has simply overlooked the details and tried to steal the things that help to criticize or limit Hindu understanding. Vedas and Upanishads must not be seen and understood in the way Dr. Naik has tried to do. If he really wanted to quote from these books, which should have cited the ten lines and ten lines later along the lines that you mentioned and presentation have changed. Anyway, I'm coming for you, quote the lines set and their explanations, following the appointment of Dr. Naik (Svetasvatara Upanishad, 6.9).
'Na na casy chadhipah kasuj Janita'
For there is neither parents nor Lord.
A Hindu is agree to the above sense, but asked for more, why there is no parent or master. And the answer is in the entire verse, which is not exposed. Verse is complete as
"Na tasya kaschit patirasti loke
Na na cheshit AIV tasya lingam
Sa karnadhipadhipo Karnam
Na na casy Kaschijanita chadhipah '
Meaning: The Lord is the cause of all, he is the creator and the creation of both. He is all manifestations. If there was a father or lord of he, himself one of the demonstrations. If he is not the Whole, if he is not the whole event, if it exists as an entity separated from all events and all belong to him – who did? Some logic then able to prove that God is a manifestation of a god Super. Therefore can not be a father or lord of it, since it is all the same event – a response that is not in any religious book.
(Svetasvatara Upanishad, 4.19)
"Na tasya Pratima asti"
No likeness of him.
A Hindu is in accordance with the above meaning, but again to ask: Why are not there like it? The full verse goes like:
'Nainmurdhwam na na Tiryanch madhye parijgrabhat
Na tasya Pratima asti mahadyashah ysya Naam '
Meaning: No one can have either top or bottom or the middle, as it is infinite in the divinity and manifestations. Can not explain in words or images that the human imagination can not get there, as he is all infinite manifestations. Now, you could come here to request immediately, the mood of the attack, then why Hindus have pictures and idols – who read my chapter idolatry "and Rs 33 million Hindu gods "response.
Dr Naik quoted verse cleverly complete, which is somewhat similar with the verse of the Quran.
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]
'Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na cak u € pasyati canaiam kas. HRDA hrdistham weeks you ENAM, I bhavanti amrtas vidur evam '
Dr. Naik said the above lines and immediately following correlated with the Holy Quran.
His way is not to be seen, no one sees with the eye. Those who through heart and mind He knows who dwells in the heart become immortal "
El Santo Holy Qur'an refers to this in the following verse:
No vision can grasp Him But His range is above all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet it is familiar with [Quran 6:103] all things'
I have not contradicted their appointments on Hindu scriptures up, just set its partial quotes. What seemed like the Holy Quran gives birth in supporting and what goes against not dare to look at them and simply deflects the issue of the incidence of malpractices in society. Dr. Naik is wrong to perceive that the Hindu scriptures if details would be against the Koran. Of Indeed, beyond the Hindu texts Koran and the Koran is one step towards the Hindu scriptures, if a Muslim would dare to know more about of God. Probably, some fear that surrounds Dr. Naik, you need rest and the first step would be to kill his own arrogance and accept that knowledge is limited and is as vast as God. And so the Koran or any single Scripture alone is not enough to wrap around. Therefore, Muslims should be allowed to grow in their knowledge and do not live at the borders, in particular the limits that give bad reputation. This book may be a sincere request to Dr. Naik, and fellow Muslims, to understand a very basic fact – had been Hindu scriptures against Muslims, who have enjoyed free growth (from 5% to 20%) in the country like India, in particular when Hindus are decreasing in their countries.
If I had wanted to do a similar event, as Dr. Naik was quoted Hindu scriptures, there would be hundreds and easy similarity clearly formulated and contradictions between the Koran and Hindu scriptures. But Indians are not taught about it. The Indians have a culture of respect and consideration in the blood, carried through the practice of worship and love. And I have every reason to respect the Quran as long as 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 Quran and in their understanding of an attempt to define God, and follow that definition and must be respected. But coming across it provides an example:
'Tape recorder, for example, are manufactured in large quantities. Has never been suggested that to understand what is good for the recorder manufacturer should become a writer itself. Simply assumed that the manufacturer will publish a manual, and with full knowledge of their product. In short, the manual contains the do's and don'ts for the machine.
If you think a human being as a machine, in fact a complex creation of God. Our Lord and creator God does not need come in the form of a human being who knows what is good or bad for humans. Just reveal the instruction manual for mankind. The Holy Qur'an is the instruction manual for humans.
On the other hand, God will call this the creation of the account on the Day of Judgement. Therefore logical that the Creator informs us about the dos and don'ts of life. "
Now, here is a big mistake in the explanations.
1. First, the comparison of the recorder the human being is not correct. Recorder is the director of the manufacturer. It is humans that created recorder and humans as it may not do two. And So man has to be a human 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 report to the manufacturer, then it would be a meaningful comparison to say that the Quran is the manual for us and also a creation of God and be judged based on the manual. And therefore, the example would produce an effect as there are many God and the creation of one is being judged by others based on in the manual of Koran, in fact, this can be considered as manifestations which Islam denies. Even the Muslims would not agree.
2. Second, manuals are produced for users of the recorder, and can go up gradation to improve the characteristics of the recorder. Manual is produced for human beings and therefore, the manufacturer must 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 a chapter full and closed by the recorder, as it enhances and improves tape recorder features are possible, so the manual update. Obviously, humans are daily changing their behaviors. Thus, the Koran (the manual human) should be changed accordingly, it is not happening. The actual example and contradictory.
3. Very important, concepts are an insult to God himself. We all know that humans have existed for thousands of years. There must be instruction manuals before Qur'an, and probably the Bible or even before the Vedas. If all these manuals are written by humans and not God, then what happened to the instructions by God during creation, and their creations have been around for thousands of years and humans can not have the power to destroy God's instructions. Either we accept with grace equal to that of all religious books (which the Hindus do in respect of God or Allah) and there would be no fight, no comparison, no contradictions and no fighting against top-down – all would be creations of Allah and the Koran, probably an upgrade from previous versions, or simply not to assert that the Qur'an is the last word of Allah or manual. As a matter of fact, earlier, as the Vedas, the Upanishads, Purana, and Bhagwad Gita of the Hindus are so great that the Quran seems to be a river in the sea.
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 have already died? Have not seen the Day of Judgement? If Dr. Naik is talking about a specific day, which probably would be the end of world is not doing a good job for humanity. As this would strengthen his people to do inhumane acts on the assumption that everyone in any event sanctioned killing and at the last day. Vedas have described as destruction in terms of "Yug" and are also not without logic. It was considered that the human population grows, Unlike other species, but not the size of the earth. Population containing many good and bad, constructive and destructive powers distributed in both. Ignorance and knowledge would always be there, diversity is the basis of existence, and therefore, the day would come when this would lead to a natural imbalance through various means such as increasing pollution of various types, attempts to balance environmental manipulation through technology advances, envy crowd in behalf of religion, etc, and to reach such imbalance, you need a period described as "Yug" in the Vedas, after which natural force (in the form of natural power of first order in human form, otherwise it is like God, to make sure nothing occurs naturally even in phase of creating a new balance – a concept of the Hindus that is so logical and realistic) that come into play to change the order and restore stability and balance. For me, this seems logical, as this is what is going on – the 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 traveling to higher diversity, human impatiently and excitedly taking rhythm in the name of religion, region, nation, politics, policies, socialism, etc, which lead to a last day? But this does not that there would be a Judgement Day of God and the rest are for us. Although an estimate, Hinduism emphasizes human beings to behave in order to work towards 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 species, all living in the same world as us. Where is the manual for them and makes them understand the manuals? And what God ceased from creating more species as intelligent as humans? If Dr. Naik did not have the answer to that, let me say that what manuals are intended to describe the machines machines that can do nothing by itself. And if the Koran is a manual, which means that his followers do not have emotions like humans (and is this the reason given by Mr. Naik to support terrorism.) In fact, this is the biggest difference between Hinduism and Islam – while Islam (as I have understood by Dr. Naik Opinion) is an "Order", while the Hindu scriptures are "messages." These two have different implications – "Order" shows that human beings are unable and illogical, while 'Message' shows that human beings have their own thinking and who can interpret the message and do good or wrong. While 'Order' to restrict human to go beyond, "Messages" allows you to extend the reach of God.
In conclusion, in any way, can the writer play such an explanation that God can take human form. In fact, Bhagwad Geeta describes why nature creates one age, a human capacity for divine qualities (See "A Hindu God" chapter.)
Dr. Naik cites another example:
"Each attribute God is unique and has his own. "
The above example of support to say how it goes:
"If someone says Neil Armstrong is an American, attribute of being American possessed by Neil Armstrong is correct but not sufficient to identify it. Similarly, Neil Armstrong is an astronaut. The attribute of being an astronaut is not unique Neil Armstrong. To identify a single person to look for a single attribute. For example, Neil Armstrong was the first human to walk on the moon. So when one asks: 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 single Creator of the Universe. If I say creator of the building may be possible and certainly not unique. Thousands of people can make a building, so there is no difference between men and God. However, each attribute of Allah points to none but God. "
"For example,
Ar-Reheem: the Most Merciful
Ar-Rahman, the Most Merciful
Al-Hakim, the wiser "
"In continuity with the previous example, if someone says Neil Armstrong is an astronaut American is only four feet high, the attribute (American astronaut) is correct, but as partners (only four feet high) is false. Similarly, if someone says that God is the Creator of the universe with a head, two hands, two feet, etc attribute (Creator of the Universe) is correct, but as partners (As humans) is erroneous and false.
Since there is only one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God. To say that Neil Armstrong was an astronaut was the first American on the moon, but his second was Edwin Aldrin's wrong. Both have unique qualities similar to that which is God the Creator and Sustainer is no God is absurd because there is one God with all these attributes combined.
Again Dr. Naik has made the same mistake as in the example above.
1. The and the example clear that both the forces of God to be an entity, an identifiable entity, a physical identification with the attributes known entity.
2. Single is a term that applies only when a large number of similar forces. Therefore, this also implies that there are many forces equivalent to Allah, but God has unique attributes that separates them. I do not know how Muslims agree with this, but Hindus not safe.
3. The quote that Dr. Naik has said it does not suitable for the sample. The "more" merciful, the 'more' full of grace, and the wisest "most" is correct that would be identified. However, it is then, that alone has not and therefore it is not exclusive. As the word "more" clearly means that these qualities are in the hands of many others, including humans. Therefore, God simply stands to humans in these qualities. The qualities are not unique to Allah only the amount of these qualities than its competitors. I'm not saying that the definition is wrong, but incomplete. Hindus go beyond understanding that no can understand God and no one can actually measure the multitude of its manifestations. As for "most" is concerned, we manifestations of God in human form also with these qualities.
4. Neil Armstrong must be many in the land. Every human being on this earth is unique, and can be done only through the identification of different meanings as name, address, achievements, date of birth, etc. An attempt to define God with attributes and the unique attributes would lead to the vision of his world composed by many as him but with different characteristics and qualities, which requires God to create for itself the singularity of their identity. Undoubtedly, these conditions left a person in the dark when it comes to really understanding God and God realization. This darkness is nothing but ignorance and responded called in philosophy Vedic.
5. As for trying to find the oneness of God is attempted by Dr. Naik, who could not realize that by the grace of God himself, every creature every kind are created only with a change in some other way. Therefore, my features are unique and not match anyone in the world. Even the definition God in the Quran has not managed to convey a simple message that everything is a manifestation of God himself, because everything else is unique in nature. Therefore, Hindu ideology is of universal significance which is evidence of sound from all angles.
6. Importantly, when Dr. Naik says: "Since only there is one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God who is making a big mistake. An attempt to identify and close to God can not be carried out as part of the explanation human. The statement clearly shows how difficult it is to the limit in Allah, that you should have the attributes that drew on his own. Reflects a lack of maturity in understanding of God. This is also reflected in their texts even when granted hearing, seeing and other human attributes to God.
In one case, mentioned about God and Vishnu has four hands and other human attributes. However, I have elaborated in detail under "33 million rupees of Hindu gods, I reiterate here that Vishnu is not regarded as God, but again a manifestation of God in a natural and heritage (which is one of the Tri-Deva, therefore a deity as the Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma). God is fully explained in Hinduism (See chapter 'A Hindu god), and is subject to study very high. I suggest religious leaders of the world to listen to the preachers and the Hindu saints – I'm sure you will not find any attack on any religion, find no "Hindu" of the word in preaching and most of the time the preaching would be philosophical, social, psychological and scientific. This will certainly help change their perception of Hindu gods and a limited understanding of a myriad Hindu ideologies.
Apart from understanding God, Dr. Naik has also brought in Scripture relating to living standards and behavior of the Hindus, including their eating habits. In his book, 'Response to non-Muslims, frequently asked questions about Islam ", in Chapter 6 – Eating non vegetarian food, has been mentioned many Hindu texts to support Islamic way of killing animals feasting on food and non-vegetarians. However I have detailed this in my book "Laws of Nature ' I at least visit Dr. Naik quotes from Hindu scriptures and present realities.
I would avoid commenting on anything in the Qur'an as the Qur'an does not talk about Hinduism as such. And focusing 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 (mentions iron, vitamin B1 and niacin).
First, there are rich sources of protein (grains such as "Dal ') And these elements in vegetarian diets as well. Therefore, it is right to say nothing of "only" non-vegetarian diet.
"4. Humans are omnivores set of teeth.
5. Humans can digest vegetarian and non vegetarian food.
In explanation, Dr. Naik, either do not know about teeth Omnivore or tried to hide in his explanation. Both animals omnivores and carnivores have sharp, pointed and set of teeth protruding, used to kill animals and wear and tear. Does Dr. Naik wants to convince his followers that we have the natural ability to kill animals to the teeth and tears to live? We have pointed teeth, but did not come out and said not enough flesh to boot. And this is a major reasons why people on all around the world cook meat and make them edible, that is not natural.
As digestion is concerned, our system tract is not at all made to digest non-vegetarian food. Consider the following points:
Human omnivores herbivores and carnivores
Stomach Acidity: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach stomach acid: pH less than equal to 1 with food in stomach stomach acid: pH less than equal to 1 with food in stomach
The capacity of the stomach: Less than 30% of the total digestive tract of the stomach's ability: 60% to 70% by volume total digestive tract of the stomach's ability: 60% to 70% of the total volume of digestive tract
Small Intestine: More than 10 times its body length Small Intestine 3 to 6 times the body length of small intestine: 3 to 6 times its body length
Columbus: Columbus long and complex: simple, Columbus Short and smooth, simple, short and soft
Kidney: Moderately concentrated urine from the kidney: Extremely concentrated urine from the kidney: Very concentrated urine
Human beings are exactly the type of herbivore stomach. The digestive system is subjected to tremendous pressure, wear to digest dietary non-vegetarian raw. Our immune system has the ability to build the wear and therefore is not exactly understood by consumers of non-vegetarian diet. Anyway, we move forward to reach that point, which is religious and encouraged me to consider this issue as part of this chapter.
Dr Naik says:
7. writings Hindus give permission for non-vegetarian food.
a. There are many books that are strictly vegetarian. They think it is against their religion to eat non-vegetarians. But the fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat. Writing 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 eats does nothing wrong, even if you do day after day, in itself created some to eat and some eat. "
c. Again next verse of Manu Smriti, which is chapter 5, verse 31 says: "Eating meat is right for the sacrifice, this is traditionally known as the rule of God '
d. In addition to Manu Smriti, Chapter 5, verse 39 and 40 says: "God himself created sacrificial animals 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 is based on the Vedas. Manu Smriti is purely human creation, based on styles of life in those times. However, lifestyle has nothing to do with vegetarian food vegetarian or not, as human beings then and now were just human beings. More importantly, Manu Smriti was rejected by the Indians long ago, and that goes against the Vedas in many places. Somehow, the critics took this opportunity and took it back to the Indian attack, declaring that Manu Smriti is the law book of Hindus. However, what is shown to the world of that book Not true and complete.
To clarify this, I will quote the same book that still conveys the rules of the Vedas.
Chapter 5, Verse 4: "Through neglect of Veda study, through deviation from the norm of conduct to be negligent in the performance of duties, and through misconduct by eating forbidden food, Death becomes eager to shorten the life of the Brahmins.
The above statement clarifies that prohibits the use Vedas non-vegetarian food as a rule of conduct (such as natural law) and the Vedas are made for the type of man, not only Brahmins. In fact, as I detailed in my chapter 'Castes', the Vedas are not segregated society in all based on birth. Clearly states that the way to four times more than one person to exist in this world is necessary and the choice depends on one individual to another depending on their nature and attitude. Therefore, Brahmanism is not a caste or a birth in the Vedas, is the state high spiritual knowledge and true human behavior as natural laws.
First misdirection by Dr. Naik is that he says' Manu Smriti 'is the book of the law of the Hindus. Indeed, to his knowledge, Manu Smriti is an optional subject for those who are learning the Vedas and are directed to adopt is only for knowledge of the facts. There is no book of law for the Hindus, there are only books of knowledge. Vedas, the Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta are the only books are authenticated to follow and law books which are not because the laws imposed on the Hindus, but because it simply contains details of the nature and the natural way of leading life.
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 animals for these purposes means that both he and the animal to enter a most blessed state.
Sage Manu, begins by emphasizing in which a man (born twice: first in the company, second in the world of true knowledge of the Vedas), to kill animals only to enter a been blessed. No mention here that he kills and eats the meat of the animal. The murder occurs only for the betterment of society, perhaps in the war, to protect forest car, or for other reasons. And he makes his point clear in terms of eating meat.
Verse 33: "A twice-born man who knows the law must not eat meat except in conformity with the law, because if you've eaten illegally, he, unable to save himself, be eaten after the 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 cause damage to any creature that is not sanctioned by Veda.
Verse 46: He who does not seek to cause the suffering of bonds and death to living things, but desires the good of all beings, obtains endless bliss.
Verse 49: After having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of human beings corporeal tying and killing, let's all refrain from eating meat.
Verse 51: He who permits the slaughter of animals, which is cut up, the killer, he who buys or sells the meat, which is cooking, serving, and who eats it, everyone should be treated as murderers of animals.
Verse 52: No sinner larger than the man who, despite not worship the gods and / or hair, try to increase the thickness of his own flesh by eating the flesh of other beings.
Of verses earlier, it is very clear, as some people are trying to divert the world about Hinduism as a religion. Unfortunately, not all Hindus read these books (the Most of them stick to Bhagwad Geeta alone – as is the concise form of vast knowledge), and not against these conspiracies.
Finally, Dr. Naik, cited a conversation between Ydhistira and Bhishma, speaking of animal sacrifice as a ritual process "in the Hindu Sraddha. On the other hand, is Bhishma describing the killing and consumption of meat is not as common. It is also noted that the entire episode of the Mahabharata is based on the fact that the activities crime and lawlessness in the peak and the birth of Lord Krishna to ensure that laws are reinstated.
So, first, the conversation can not be taken as a basis for authentication Hindu scriptures allow non-vegetarian diet.
Secondly, and Bhishma Yudhistira-family ruler and a soldier and kill (killing in war) is by nature. If they had been certified as correct and, Lord Krishna would have explained all Bhagwad Geeta to Arjuna. Discussion between these two soldiers are not the law of nature, it's just their perception. And Veda Vyas has mentioned these things to make people realize that these things are not right to the standard of living of human beings.
Third, Bhishma just started describing the beliefs of Sraddha here. Later, in writing, Bhishma describes Shraddha how the process began as a pure vegetarian diet, even without salt. As this is a very long debate, I can not list them all. It is suggested to read the entire conversation before the courts conclude on Dr. Naik.
Fourthly, Hinduism, as I had always emphasized, is not a thoughtless laws limit. Allows people to think and do anything that could be constructive. Set to the fundamental principle that definitions can not bind the infinite God and Creations, directions can only be established with them. Therefore, vegetarianism is an explanation in Hinduism as a healthy and fair food (food sattvika). Therefore, the statement Dr Naik that is allowed in Hinduism is not a correct statement is only mentioned as harmful diet Hinduism.
Later he says:
"7. Hinduism was influenced by other religions
Though Hindu Scriptures permit its followers to non-vegetarian food, many Hindus adopted vegetarian system because they were influenced by other religions like Jainism.
This is absurd, and explained in detail above. To ensure, see Bhagwad Geeta later writings, which I think was long before any known religion Jainism or the world:
Bhagwad Geeta, Chapter 17, verse 7, 8, 9, 10:
"The food also (as worship, yajna, austerity, charity, knowledge, action, intelligence, strength, joy, etc.) is triple '
"The foods that increase vitality, energy, strength, health, joy, and appetite, which are tasty, oily, important, nice and pure, it sattvika.
"Foods that are bitter, sour, saline, excessively hot, pungent, dry and hot, is Rajasika '
"That which is stale and foul taste, cooked overnight, refuse and impure Tamasika.
In no way has the concept of a gift of Jainism vegetarian. Jainism have gone the hard way, and produced from Hinduism. Jainism has only tried to live the "sattvika 'as described in Hinduism.
He also mentioned:
'8. Even plants have life
9. Even plants can feel pain
10. Killing a living creature with two senses less is not is a misdemeanor "
Not understanding that a man of letters Dr. Naik can not differentiate between vegetarian and non vegetarian diet, even in terms of life how it is integrated as an organization, how they exist as creatures.
I have information on vegetarianism in the second volume, but we'll see some things As is known, even to children.
We understand that animals grow proportionally in your body and after a certain period of time until they too stops during Unlike animals, plants have the power to extend its life inside and outside your body (it is not necessary to know the methodology of plant growth here.) The plants grow on natural resources, while animals depend on whether plants or animals. More importantly, we can preserve the plant for a period longer in contrast to the animals. Now what is more important to understand here is that the effects of conservation are different in both cases. When we preserve plants, which are the preservation of his life. But when we are preserving the animals, we are only holding the lifeless body away from the biological effects. Plants do not eat like animals. Plant does not move like 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 can be very simple to realize that when we eat plants that are consumed in the state of public holidays, unless they cook, but when consumed by animals, eat the dead. In fact, humans do not eat dead plants and rotting the immediately visible difference in the flesh. Therefore, there is no reasoning test consumption of the plant is the same as animal feed.
The way forward, we find an argument over it.
'11. On population cattle
If every human being was a vegetarian, which would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and multiplication is very fast. Allah (SWT) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to balance its creation properly. No wonder we have allowed meat from cattle. "
Is incredible to realize that Islam has no limit on the control of its human population, but allows humans to control the animal population of another. Dr. Naik not want say that cows are multiplying faster than the human population – one can compare the two populations in any country, any region to understand this, where people do not eat cow.
The second important thing: who is able to control the human population or nature? If Dr. Naik think human beings is the that is controlling the population of millions of species, then I have to say. But if nature has this ability, the conclusion becomes the foundation. It's just one reason for the protection of our human taste.
'12. The 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, no meat to satisfy the demand. But if all Indians are vegetarians, still have enough food to meet increasing demand and also lower prices and that's why nature created humans to be vegetarians – Balance is not broken.
How can they 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 raise awareness of human 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 – there is life there human beings, no one even knowing God? Therefore, every creature is of equal importance to God and are expected to behave according to natural laws. All others behaves really well, except humans. While vegetarians naturally made, to enforce the methodologies and effort to support their illicit behavior through various logical challenge that pretty and helpless creatures are made to be killed by them and for them (the taste and authority.)
For So the belief that Hinduism is against the flesh is true, as Hinduism understands that life is a property of God and life just does not mean that human life is related with any other entity involved in creating a life support system, refers to any creature that has realized that system. The data that more than 99 percent of offenders terrorists and 100 percent are meat eaters, vegetarians allows to condemn meat-eating. Eating meat is a barbaric act and as Hindus underestimated kills and sell it, buy it, her cooking, serving and eating contribute equally in the killing of animals humble. They all contribute to the death of humility which in turn induce them the barbaric nature, some carry it forward to become criminals, murderers and terrorists.
About the Author
SHINE THE LIGHT PROMOTIONAL VIDEO
Mail this post
