My answer is not only about his Q&A but about other statements he has made. Its regarding a televised debate he has had. I hv just picked a few of his statements / arguments.
I found the following paragraph in irf.net, the official site of Dr. Zakir Naik. This is what he teaches to his students:
“5. EVERY MUSLIM SHOULD BE A TERRORIST
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.”
Dr. Naik claims that the anti-social elements that need to be terrorized by Muslims are the criminals, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. But isn't it the job of the police to go after the criminals? The police is trained and is paid to catch the criminals. His job is not to terrorize the criminal but to enforce the law. Those whom he catches are not criminals until proven as such in the court of law. As far as the police is concerned they are suspects. He must catch the suspect using minimum force and use force only if necessary. He must respect the human rights of the suspects. As long a the suspect is not convicted in a court of law, he remains innocent.
Who gave the authorization to Muslims to take the place of the police, the court, the executioner and terrorize people whom they accuse of crime? Don't we have a penal system to deal with these matters? Should citizens take the law in their own hands? This is in itself against the law. What this doctor is ostensibly proposing here is anarchy. We have a whole structure set in place to deal with criminals. Under what law average citizens can assume the role of the entire legal system? This is insanity!
Furthermore, in every non-Islamic country the rate of crime among Muslims is much higher than the average population. France has a high rate of crime confined mostly to it’s Muslim population. In Netherlands the rate of the crime has jumped 11% in just one year and it is exclusively because of Muslims. In an article published in Times, Lahor, April 2001, Khaled Ahmed reported that the crime rate among Pakistanis in UK "is higher than in any other community. Fully 2 percent of the prisoners rotting in British jails are Pakistanis, the highest for any one community." In Australia raping the white girls by Muslim youths has become a national problem. What are the excuses of these Muslim rapists? That "in Islamic countries girls don't dress like this!"
It would be naïf to take Dr. Naik's justification of terrorism by its face value. What this snake-oil salesman actually means by anti-social elements are the non-Muslims and those who resist conversion. According to him I would be an anti-social element that have to be killed.People who speak their mind are considered anti social because Muslims can't handle that. Are Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin anti-social elements? What about Theo Van Gogh? Was he an anti social element?
After glorifying and justifying terrorism and hyping his students to become terrorists, making them believe this is a divine mandate and a wonderful thing to do, Dr. Naik will then explain to his foolhardy alumni that "shirk is worse than killing" and the unbelievers are worse than thieves, dacoits, rapists and murderers. Therefore it is incumbent upon Muslims, to instill terror in the hearts of non-Muslims and kill them wherever they find them. To determine their innocence or guilt it is enough to ask them whether they want to convert to Islam or not.
Ironically, since according to the Quran, these non-Muslims by rejecting Islam have committed the worst crime imaginable, their property can be stolen and their wives and daughters can be raped. Thus Muslims who joined Dr. Naiks school to fight the dacoits, BECOME the dacoits, the criminals and the thugs.
There is no doubt that Dr. Naik is great. One must acknowledge the merits of his opponent. His greatness is in his ability to twist the truth. He is dexterous with words and has an excellent memory for remembering the verses of the Quran. If he was a lawyer and I was a criminal, I would want him as my attorney.
Dr. Naik says Previously in the olden days, it was the age of miracles - Alhamdulillah, the Qur’an is the miracle of miracles. Later on came the age of literature and poetry, and Muslims and Non Muslims alike, they claim the Glorious Qur’an to be the best Arabic literature available on the face of the Earth. But today is the age of science and technology.
Right from the onset, Dr. Zakir Naik makes two assumptions that are both false. The first is the claim that “in the olden days, it was the age of miracles”. We do not have any proof for such claim except the fairytales of the ancient people passed to us as "holy scriptures". Even then we see that Muhammad disclaimed being able to perform any miracles. Unable to perform miracles, he claimed that the Quran is his miracle. But the Quran is no miracle at all.
These are miracles by Muhammad:
See for examples the following Hadith that says Muhammad split the moon.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain.
Also Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830 ,831, 832
Or this one that claims he made water out of nothing.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 170
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
I saw Allah's Apostle when the 'Asr prayer was due and the people searched for water to perform ablution but they could not find it. Later on (a pot full of) water for ablution was brought to Allah's Apostle . He put his hand in that pot and ordered the people to perform ablution from it. I saw the water springing out from underneath his fingers till all of them performed the ablution (it was one of the miracles of the Prophet).
Or multiplied the bread. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 428
Of course when challenged by skeptics, Muhammad repeatedly denied being able to perform any miracle. He admitted that although other prophets before him were given the power of performing miracles, his only miracle is Quran.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 379
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection."
There are many verses in Quran that reaffirm this last Hadith, proving that Muhammad never performed any miracle and found it useless. In the following verse Muhammad is acknowledging that other prophets before him came with miracles or clear signs but still people rejected them, highlighting the futility of miracles as the proof of his revelation.
Q. 03: 138
They (also) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?" if you are truthful?
All along, the unbelievers asked Muhammad to perform a miracle so that they could believe. All they got in response was,
Q. 17: 90
They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,
And he would reply:
Q. 17: 93
Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?"
People doubted Muhammad because they saw nothing extraordinary or miraculous in him.
Q. 17: 94
And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger?
Q. 25: 7
And they say: "What sort of a messenger is this, who eats food, and walks through the streets? Why has not an angel been sent down to him to give admonition with him?
Q. 25: 8
"Or (Why) has not a treasure been bestowed on him, or why has he (not) a garden for enjoyment?" The wicked say: "Ye follow none other than a man bewitched."
But Muhammad kept telling them that he is just an ordinary man not an angel, meaning people should not expect miracles from him!
Q. 17: 95
Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.
The common sense dictates that no one would deny and call a man who performs such mighty miracles like splitting the moon, as believed by all the Muslims a mad man or possessed. But the people who knew him actually called him by these names.
Q. 15: 06
They say: "O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)!.
No one would demand him miracles if he had already performed one
Q. 15: 07
Why do you not bring to us the angels if you are of the truthful ones?
But Muhammad responded
Q. 15: 08
We send not the angels down except for just cause: if they came (to the ungodly), behold! no respite would they have!
The Quraishites kept asking for a sign or a miracle to believe and Muhammad kept saying that he is only a warner.
Q. 13: 07
“And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide.”
There are many more ayat that tell the same story. People asking miracles and him saying I am just a man, just like you, only a warner. A clear proof that Muhammad never performed any miracles is in this verse where it says that people rejected even other messengers who came with miracles and clear signs, meaning miracles are not helpful.
Q. 3: 184
Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, Books of dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment.
In the above verses Muhammad is denying any supernatural power. If he could perform the miracles attributed to him in those Ahadith, what is the meaning of these verses? In the following verse he clearly rejects miracles as the proof of prophethood comparing them to witchcrafts.
Q. 2: 3
Their hearts toying as with trifles. The wrong-doers conceal their private counsels, (saying), "Is this (one) more than a man like yourselves? Will ye go to witchcraft with your eyes open?"
He was right! What is the use of miracles anyway? Miracles may be a proof for those who witness them, but mean nothing to others. Muhammad was right in emphasizing that the real miracle is his message or the Quran, because that is what really counts. Although this is a valid principle, Quran is no miracle at all. It is a book full of errors and inconsistencies
a) Many of Ahadith and verses from Quran, if right, reveal him as an angry, ruthless, unforgiving, deceitful, and impious man. Acts like looting merchant caravans, killing those who decide to have their own faith and not follow him, cursing his enemies, treating women as second class citizens and calling them deficient in intelligence, assassinating cowardly his opponents like a common gangster, and many more acts like these are not precisely spiritual characteristics that I seek in a man I would like to follow and emulate. His deeds are far from the deeds of an "honored messenger" as he claimed to be in Q. 69:40
b) Today's modern Muslims, especially those whose standard of ethics is colored by western/humanistic precepts of right and wrong try to distance themselves from those hadithes that depict Muhammad as a ruthless immoral and unethical gangster. They deny the validity of those hadithes and all what shows Muhammad in a negative light. However, if those hadithes and verses are forged, then the whole validity of Islam crumbles and there is no reason for anyone to believe in a mythological figure whose real life and words is not known.
Dr. Naik makes another false statement and says that "both Muslims and Non Muslims claim the Glorious Qur’an to be the best Arabic literature available on the face of the Earth". This is not true. Only Muslims make this claim. If Non-Muslims believed in this why they don't convert? Non-Muslims have found many errors in the Quran, not only scientifically and logically but also grammatically. Many actually believe this book is the most asinine book ever written, not only because it is violent but also because it is confused and very tedious to read. Some of the earlier verses rhyme, but there is no beauty in this book. Ali Dashti in his Book 23 years of Prophetic Career gives us a list of such errors.
Dr Naik says As far as Qur’an and modern Science is concerned, in the field of ‘Astronomy’, the Scientists, the Astronomers, a few decades earlier, they described, how the universe came into existence - They call it the ‘Big Bang’. And they said… ‘Initially there was one primary nebula, which later on it separated with a Big Bang, which gave rise to Galaxies, Stars, Sun and the Earth, we live in.’ This information is given in a nutshell in the Glorious Qur’an, in Surah Ambiya, Ch. 21, Verse No. 30, which says…. (Arabic).... Do not the unbelievers see…? …. (Arabic)…. ‘That the heavens and the earth were joined together, and we clove them asunder?’ Imagine this information which we came to know recently, the Qur’an mentions 14 hundred years ago.
In his fervor to make the Quran look scientific Dr. Naik overlooks the fact that the theory of Big Bang precludes the concept of creation. 21:30, ‘The heavens and the earth were joined together, and we clove them asunder’
This is not an allusion to the Big Bang. It is the rehashing of the Genesis:
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. Gen 1: 6-9
So if this is a miracle, the credit should go to the Bible and not to the Quran. This fable, like many others, is borrowed from the Bible.
However, the origin of this tale dates back to pre biblical stories of Babylonians and Mesopotamians.
The Quran is full of legends borrowed from the Bible and the fables of the Pagan Arabs. These in turn were based on the myths of ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. Muhammad’s cosmology is the cosmology of the ancient people. In pre-Hebrew Semitic myth two watery tumultuous beings, one male and one female, Apsu (sweet water) and Tiamat (salt water) give birth to a variety of sea monsters and gods. In the ensuing chaos Tiamat, the female creator, tries to take control. Her descendants unite against her, choosing one of their number - Marduk, the god of Babylon to lead them. Armed with a hurricane and riding a tempest drawn by four fiery steeds, Marduk meets Tiamat and her evil accomplice Kingu in battle. He kills them both. After the death of Tiamat her conqueror forms the heavens and the earth by cutting her body open "like a cockleshell" and lifting up one half to form the sky while leaving the bottom half as the earth:
"The lord rested; he gazed at the huge body, pondering how to use it, what to create from the dead carcass. He split it apart like a cockleshell; with the upper half he constructed the arc of sky, he pulled down the bar". http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/worldview.html
So clearly Muhammad is not talking about the big bang. He is rehashing a biblical tale that was borrowed from ancient mythology.
21:30 presents also another problem. It contradicts with the verse 41.11
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
So which story is the right tale of the creation? Were the heaven and the earth joined together and Allah clove them asunder or were they apart and Allah told them to come together?
Of course both are false. The earth is inside the sky and part of it. They can neither come together nor separate. Here we have two version that contradict each other and both are scientifically wrong.
He says that When I was in school, I had learned that the Sun in respect to the Earth - it was stationary - the Earth and the Moon, they rotated about in axis, but the sun was stationary. But when I read a Verse of the Qur’an saying, in Surah Al–Ambiya, Ch. . 21 Verse No. 33, it says…. (Arabic). … ‘It is Allah who has created the night and the day.’…. (Arabic)…. The sun and the moon…. (Arabic)…. Each one traveling in an orbit with its own motion. Now Alhamdulillah, modern science has confirmed the Qur’anic statement. The Arabic word used in the Qur’an is ‘Yasbahoon’, which describes the motion of a moving body. When it refers to a celestial body, it means it is rotating about its own axis. So Qur’an says the sun and the Moon, they revolve as well as rotate about their own axis. Today we have come to know that the Sun takes approximately 25 days to complete one rotation.
Dr. Naikr claims that the verse 21:33 which says the sun and the moon follow their orbits means they rotate around their axis because the word ysbahun means rotating around its own axis. This is simply not true. Dr. Naik is fabricating evidence and twisting the meaning of the words. The word here implies that the Sun and the Moon rotate in circle, i.e. around the Earth and not around their own axis. This is what Muhammad observed and this is what he said. He stated what was obvious to him and to everyone else. See how this word is translated.
Pickthall
They float, each in an orbit.
Yusuf Ali
swim along, each in its rounded course.
Hilali-Khan
each in an orbit floating.
Shakir
all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.
Sher Ali
each gliding along smoothly in its orbit.
Khalifa
each floating in its own orbit.
Arberry
each swimming in a sky.
Palmer
each floating in a sky.
Rodwell
each moving swiftly in its sphere.
Sale
[the celestial bodies] move swiftly, [each] in [its respective] orb.
As one can see, Dr. Naik is in error. By bundling the Moon and the Sun together, it is clear that Muhammad thought they are alike with one being brighter than the other.
Attempts such as this, to twist the apparent meaning of the words reveal the desperation of Muslims to find miracles and science in the absurdities of the Quran and hide its errors. Why none of these so called miracles attributed to Muhammad are in clear language? Why Allah did not say the Earth is round and it is rotating around the Sun and the Moon is rotating around the Earth? Simple and clear! In none of the so called Quranic miracles you find clarity.
Then again, if the Quran is full of science why the Islamic countries are most wretched? Muslim's response to this is that Muslims do not practice Islam, that is why. But how is it that the Kafir countries that do not practice Islam at all are better than Muslim countries that practice it a little? Why virtually all the kafir countries are more advanced than virtually all the Islamic countries? The more Islamic a country gets the more backward, barbaric and poor it becomes. Is there in this a lesson for us all?
Fifty-seven Muslim majority countries have an average of ten universities each for a total of less than 600 universities for 1.4 billion people; From within 1.4 billion Muslims Abdus Salam and Ahmed Zewail are the only two Muslim men who won a Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry (Salam pursued his scientific work in Italy and the UK , Zewail at California Institute of Technology). Dr Salam in his home country is not even considered a Muslim.
Over the past 105 years, 1.4 billion Muslims have produced eight Nobel Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 167 Nobel Laureates. Of the 1.4 billion Muslims less than 300,000 qualify as 'scientists', and that converts to a ratio of 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The United States of America has 1.1 million scientists (4,099 per million); Japan has 700,000 (5,095 per million).
A quick calculation reveals that the likelihood that a Jew wins the Noble Prize is 2088 times higher than a Muslim winning it. If all the science is in the Quran why all the Muslims are so miserable?
One of these eight "Muslim" Noble Prize winners is the Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz. One of his best known works, Children of Gebelawi (1959), has been banned in Egypt for alleged blasphemy. In 1994 at the age of 82 yrs Mahfouz was stabbed by a man of Allah. When asked if he has ever read any of Mahfouz's books, the servant of Allah responded: "I never read any of his filthy books".
Dr. Naik says about the expanding universe that It was Edvin Hubbel who discovered that the universe is expanding. The Qur’an says in Surah Dhariyat, Ch. 51, Verse No. 47, that…‘We have created the expanding universe’ - The vastness of space. The Arabic word ‘Mohsiana’ refers to ‘vastness’ – ‘the expanding universe.’
Dr. Naik claims that the verse 51:47 talks about the expansion of the universe. This is not so. Muhammad is simply saying that the universe is vast and not that it is expanding. This verse reads
YusufAli: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
The fact that the universe is vast is prosaic and obvious. There is no mention of expanding universe in this verse. Any illiterate man can look at the sky and see it is vast. To the ancient people even the Earth looked vast. To us it looks very small.
Does God Punish People?
He says It is mentioned in Surah Nisa, Ch. No. 4, Verse No. 56, It speaks about ‘Pain.’ Previously the doctors, they thought that the brain was only responsible for feeling of ‘pain.’ Today we have come to know besides the brain, there are certain receptors in the skin, which are responsible for feeling of the pain, which we call as the ‘pain receptors.’ Qur’an says in such Surah Nisa Ch. 4, Verse 56, that… ‘As to those who reject Our signs, We shall cast them into the hell fire, and as often as their skins are roasted, We shall give them fresh skin, so that they shall feel the pain’. Indicating that there is something in the skin, which is responsible for feeling of pain, which the Qur’an refers to as ‘pain receptors.’
Lets change the subject for a moment and tell you about a cat. Suppose I have adopted this animal since he was a kitten. I bought for him all sorts of toys so he would not get bored. I personally played with him even when this meant putting aside my work. I took care of him; fed him with expensive food because he would not eat anything else. I wash him regularly and do everything a responsible owner would do to keep a cat happy. He gets into fights with other cats and sometimes hurts himself. I take him to the vet to make sure his wounds do not become infectious. I have been a good owner to this cat. However this little animal is very ungrateful. He never comes to me when I call him. He does not even turn his head to acknowledge that I exist. He slightly moves one ear when I call his name and then ignores me. But when I sit down to write and don’t want to be disturbed he insists to sit on my lap and even if I put him down ten times he just keeps coming back. It is all about him and what he wants. I leave my work and groom him with a brush to remove his falling hairs. He loves it and purrs loudly and rolls over exposing the parts that he wants me to brush. But as soon as he feels comfortable he starts emitting putrid gasses right under my nose. I think he does not have any respect for me. I am very much offended by him and his behavior and I am thinking of punishing him. He has been very ungrateful and rude. I think he deserves to die. But I don't want to kill him just like that. I want to torture him and make him die a very slow and painful death. That is because he is very ungrateful and I am very much offended. I have thought to crucify him so he can't move. Then chop his fingers one by one. Then put him over a bonfire and burn all his fur and skin. I will do that very slowly so he suffers a lot. Then I'll pour on his little body boiling water and watch him scream in pain while he is still tied to the cross and can't move. Then I'll leave him for some times to suffer in agony. Then come back and start dismembering him alive. With a pair of scissors, cut first his ears and tail inch by inch so he can suffer a lot and then dismember him live and burn him. You see, I am very compassionate and merciful. That is what my friends say about me. But I am also very just. Justice must be done and this cat has been ungrateful to me so he must be punished.
Of course I would not hurt my little cat. I would love him. I would love him particularly because he has independence. He is a lot like me, a freethinker, a free spirit, and just like me, he is not an appeaser. I am not offended by him. I will not be offended no matter what he does. Wouldn't it be insane to be offended by a cat? There is nothing a cat can do that could offend us humans. Cats are not intelligent and we do not expect much from them. But what if I was serious? Wouldn’t you say that I am a maniac, insane and dangerous? Of course you would. How could even one think of torturing a cat or any animal?
But think about it! Isn't this exactly how Muhammad described Allah? Do you really believe that the maker of this universe is a psychopath sadist? If these qualities are not befitting for a sane human how can they be befitting for God? Allah, as described by Muhammad is even worse. I could probably torture my cat for a few hours in this sadistic way until he dies and is put out of agony. But the god that Muhammad described will continue torturing humans for eternity. He is far worse than any sadist you can imagine.
Isn't this an insult to the Creator? Don't you think that holding such belief is blasphemy? When you talk of hell and eternal punishment for disbelief, you are attributing insanity to God. “Hell” is the most prevalent subject in the Quran. This theme recurs no less than 200 times. The Quran is full of warnings and threats of punishment and gruesome details of divine torture. What does this tell us? It tells us that Muhammad envisioned God as a psychopath sadist. Allah is not God. He is Muhammad's own alter ego. He is the personification of Muhammad's narcissistic wet dreams. Muslims do not worship God. By attributing sadistic qualities to Him, they blaspheme Him.
Is it possible that the maker of this vast and magnificent universe be so petty and so insane that he could be offended by what we humans think? If a cat can't offend us no matter how bad he behaves and how ungrateful he becomes, would God, a reality infinitely bigger than us be offended by what we believe? The difference between me and my cat is infinitely less than the difference between God and we humans. If we are not bothered by what a cat does and consider punishing a cat insane, how can we attribute this insanity to God? If we can love an animal unconditionally, without expecting him to thank us why can't God love his creation unconditionally? Is God less than us humans? How can God be so petulant to punish humans in such a sadistic way for not believing in him? Why is he so desperate to be worshipped? Certainly God can't be like that. Muhammad lied. That fiend had no understanding of God. How pathetic is this that a billion people follow a pervert psychopath to tell them about God! As a narcissist he thought despotism is the utmost glory. He wanted people submit to him through fear. That is why Allah is a despot. While God can't be anything but Love.
Imagine you own a vast garden; somewhere in that garden there is an ant colony. You may or may not be aware of its existence. Now imagine one ant tells to other ants that he is your messenger and that you have ordered that all ants must worship you and obey him and that if any ant decides not to obey your messenger, you would one day gather the disbelieving ants and punish them by throwing them in a huge bonfire. This is ridiculous. Why should you care if ants worship you or not? The thought of it is laughable. Yet this is exactly what is happening to us humans. A charlatan like Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the messenger of the owner of this universe, and has managed to fool the gullible people that they should obey him or they will be barbequed in the Landlord's cosmic bonfire.
This is stupid. This is pathetic indeed. But the tragedy is that today a billion people believe in this charlatan and his sadist deity. There must be a limit to stupidity. Or is there?
If you don't give a damn about ants worshipping you, why should God care whether we humans worship him or not? Who do you think you are? Have you ever thought about your insignificance in this universe? You are nothing! You and your world do not even count. Do you think that you are so important that the maker of this universe and perhaps billions of other parallel universes depends on you to worship him and if you don't show him your rear end five times a day he will be so disappointed that he would sadistically burn and dismember you for eternity? The whole concept is just insane. This is the acme of stupidity. And this is the very foundation of Islam. There is no glory in foolishness. You become the butt of jokes, despised and derided. Soon it will be an insult to call one a Muslim just as it is an insult to call one a fascist or a Nazi today. Do not persist in stupidity. Do not make a fool of yourself. The fallacy of Islam is as clear as the sun.
We can forgive the foolish people of the Seventh Century Arabia who fell prey to this charlatan’s lies, but can we forgive educated people today, who still want to be fooled?
If Muslims were capable of rational thinking, only this would have sufficed for them to see that Muhammad was an impostor mad man and not a prophet of God. His imaginary god was his own alter ego, a lot like himself, a sadist, a psychopath. Allah is everything Muhammad wanted to be - a tyrant, one who does whatever he pleases and responds to no authority; one who is worshiped, one who is feared. Being loved and feared is everything a narcissist dreams of. Muhammad invented Allah to live his narcissistic dreams. And one billion followers are unable to see the ploys of this man. This is tragedy. No wonder Muslims live in such a misery. How pathetic!
If it was not so depressing, it would have been funny that Dr. Naik should choose such a macabre statement of the Quran to prove its alleged miracle. What part of this stupid verse is miraculous? All it reveals is a sick mind of a fool. Dr. Naik speaks from the position of utter ignorance. In the old days no one knew that brain had anything to do with sensing pain or even thinking. Aristotle thought that brain acts like a radiator to cool the body. Thinking was done with heart, they believed. We still say memorizing things by heart. People feel pain right where it hurts. Pinch or slap yourself and see where do you feel it? Do you feel it in your brain? You feel the pain right where you are hurting yourself. So what part of this simplistic statement is miraculous? Muhammad is stating the obvious. There is no miracle in these harebrained verses. They do not reveal any science. They reveal nothing nut deficiency of intelligence and the characteristics of their god.
Ad Hominem in the Quran
Naik says Qur’an calls such people, as in Surah Baqarah Ch. 2, Verse 18…(Arabic)… ‘The deaf, the dumb, the blind, they will not return to the true path.’ The Bible says the same thing in Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 13, Verse No. 13… ‘Seeing they see not, hearing they hear not, neither will they understand.’
This is called poisoning the well or the famous ad hominem fallacy. The Quran fails to give one solid argument that cannot be successfully refuted. Instead of proof, Muhammad tried to undermine the intelligence and sincerity of those who did not agree with his deranged claims. He did not stop there. He then went on ordering his demented followers to fight, and wage war against the unbelievers, to crucify them, cut their fingertips and to slay them wherever they find them.
There are many more but this is enough to get started.
EDIT:
One more thing i could not help answering was that Dr Naik says that Muhammad is predicted in Hindu scriptures. Also he states that Islam is the oldest religion and has been there since time immemorial. But he does not give any facts to state that. Evidently it is only Dr Naik and his bunch of liers that are aware of that fact. Anyway let me answer that.
Dr.Zakir Naik’s (An Islamic Propagator from India ) and Dr.Abdul Haque Vidyarthi’s article on Muhammad foretold in Hinduism. It is a well know fact that the same websites insult HINDU scriptures, their idols, their ideology and criticize them vulgarly. But their desperation leads them to cherry pick some verses from Hindu scriptures and decipher them in their own terminology and claim that many mantras point to MUHAMMAD. Let us take some of the alleged prophesies of Muhammad in Vedas. Any internet search engine containing the worlds Muhammad and Hindu returns a large number of results on this theme. A number of textual proofs are given in support of this claim. While this comforts the faithful, let us analyze these proofs rationally and see whether the claim holds up under the clear light of reason, not fogged by religious sentimentality.
Brahma, the Creator in the Hindu Trinity, is declared to be actually Abraham. The initial letter A in Abraham has apparently been moved to the end making it Brahma. We are told "This analysis is accurate when one writes the two words in Arabic script, a language close to that spoken by Prophet Abraham". This immediately raises the problem of what language Abraham actually spoke and also that "a language close to that spoken" is not the same thing as the actual language. Also since the analysis is based on only phonetic similarity and on changing the position of the alphabets, the Hindus can with equal justice claim that Ramadan/Ramazan is actually a corruption of 'Ramanavami'.
Not only that, let us take a look at the linguistic root of Brahma. The term Brah comes from the root Bri which means "to worship, to select, to surround". When an h is added to Bri it becomes Briha meaning to "increase, to grow". By addition of 'an', we have the word Brahman who in Hinduism is the Supreme God. Brahman thus is the original word. Brahman is without form, without gender and cannot be plural. The cosmos came into being by its will alone. When Brahman is imagined as a masculine being engaged in the act of creation, then it is called Brahma. When Brahman is imagined as a feminine being, who is the source of energy without which the act of creation cannot take place, then it is called Brahmani. Brahma thus has nothing to do with Abraham (incidentally we can also claim that Abraham comes from Brahma), but comes from Brahman and is clearly the God of creation/the creative aspect of God and not a human.
"Similarly, Abraham’s first wife Sarah is mentioned in the Vedas as Saraswati". This again depends on mere phonetic similarity. Unfortunately, when we study the Rigvedic verses we see that Saraswati was actually a river. There is great dispute as to where this river was, but there is no doubt that it is a river. Rigveda again and again declares it to be a river with descriptions of flowing down from the mountains into the sea and it is worshipped as a river-goddess. Later on, somehow or other she became the goddess of learning as well. It was only in the Middle Ages that she became the consort of Brahma. In the Vedas, she is definitely not Brahma's wife. Unless one is willing to grant that the Sara of the Bible was originally a river, one cannot see any connection between the two.
"Noah or Nuh is mentioned as Manuh or Manu." The only similarity between the two characters lies in their stories. Like Noah Manu too was saved by God during the Flood. But this proves nothing except that these are two stories that involve flood. Moreover, the rest of the story simply does not match: Manu had no ark (only a boat tugged by God in the form of a fish) and definitely no kind of animals with him to repopulate the world. Not only that, Manu is a generic name for 14 sovereigns of the world in the myths and there is a female Manu as well who is the Mother of mankind (Manava > children of Manu (fem.) )
Similarly, it is argued that 'Maleccha' (unclean ones) come from Hebrew word "Ma-Hekha which means 'thy brethren'. (e.g., And he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. Genesis 16:12; i.e., Ismaelites are the brethren of the Israelites). This word therefore means a descendant of Ishmael, and it is well known that Muhammad (s) is a descendant of Prophet Ismail through his second son Kedar. Those who can read Arabic Script can easily see that a mistake in separating Ma from Hekha will produce a single word ‘Malhekha,’ and when adapted in another tongue like Sanskrit might sound like Malechha". Again this relies on the belief that ancient Hindus knew Hebrew and had read the version of the Bible, as we find it today. Linguistically, the term comes from 'mlech', meaning to speak indistinctly, barbarously. So 'mlechha' came to mean those who could not speak the Vedic language, those who are outside Hindu society. The term is definitely ancient since it is found in Vedas.
The third argument draws heavily from what is known as Bhavishya Purana or Book of Prophecies. Prati Sarg Parv III: 3, 3, verses 5-27 give detailed descriptions of Mohammed's doings, the establishment of the new religion and even gets the Prophet's name right. So we immediately come to the question of how authentic this book is. According to most scholars, this book is a work of compilation that went on through centuries, with the writers pretending to pass off historical knowledge as prophecies of the future. The writer argues, "A case has been made that the present Puranas are not the same collection that Vedas refer to and the real books were lost". I would be very astonished if any Hindu had actually made such a claim, because it is common knowledge that Puranas were written after the Vedas and the Vedas never mention any Purnanas. However this allows Mr. Haq and Dr.Naik to set up an useful non-existent strawman for them to demolish. He also argues that materials could not have been added in later dates because Puranas were read in public and so could not have been altered. However, only the more popular stories from the 18 Puranas were read in assemblies and Bhavishya Purana is a text that was seldom read out in public. Even if we accept the book as authentic, two questions arise. One is, why does the book contain prophecies only till Victoria 's reign? Why did God suddenly decide to suspend his revelations at that particular moment? Surely it would have been more proper to continue it (even through Muslim holy men) or to end all such prophecies with the emergence of Islam and the 'perfect' Book of Qur’an which was to replace all others. Secondly, the Purana is filled with stories of the doings of various gods and concludes that the only god who is worthy of worship is the Surya, the sun-god. If the book is authentic then all such stories are also true and therefore it is the sun we must worship. However, most Muslims have not read the whole book; those who have, argue that all such portions are corruptions. But Hindus can too use such pick-and-choose methods by declaring that it is the portions relating to Islam which are degenerations. The Bhavishya Purana is precisely described as :
“ Bhavishya Purana. This is what is told to Manu by Surya (Sun). This contains statements about future events. The book praises the worship of Surya (Sun), Agni (fire) and Naga (serpent). There is an annexure dealing with the several holy places of Bharata and the rights of pilgrims. The book contains fourteen thousand verses and it is considered to be uttama (best) to give this book along with treacle as a gift to a brahmin on the full-moon day in the month of Pausha “
Bhavishya purana also is allegedly claiming that JESUS has come to INDIA.
If muslims believe Bhavishya Purana predicts Muhammad, then why don’t they believe Jesus came to INDIA and learnt tricks from Siddhas? Bhavishya Purana also praises worship of Surya, Agni and Naga. Muslims will pray any of these? When they never will approbate any of these, how come they only believe that some unrelated verses point to Muhammad? Can you see the desperation among these two men?
Prophecy in Vedas:
(The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. They date back to around 4000BC approximately or even older. They are written in an archaic language, so ancient that when Sanskrit as a language was codified ordinary people had already started forgetting the meanings of the verses. The great pundits of the time therefore started to write commentaries and grammar books on them. Even today, it is not possible to translate the verses without these texts. However today's scholars also have the help of comparing them with other languages.)
Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.Haq declare that Atharva Veda, Kanda (chapter) 20, Mantras 126-137 prefigures about Muhammad. This portion is known as Kuntap sukta. He says that the word Kuntap means to consume sin and misery, and it is composed from Kuh (sin and misery) and tap (to consume). This is not wholly correct. The Gopatha Brahman defines the term as "that which burns away whatever is evil or ugly". However the meaning is close enough. But he goes onto say that the word Kuntap also means "the ‘hidden glands in the abdomen,’ inferring the true meaning to be revealed only to those who are able to develop sufficient insight". It is a pity that he does not give his source for this meaning. But apparently he has developed sufficient insight to read its hidden meaning: that this meaning proves it is actually a reference to Mecca which is called navel of the earth by Muslims. Then Dr.Naik and Dr. Haq "shows that the word "Kuntap is derived from Bakkah (Makkah). In the analysis of Sanskrit and Arabic words having the same meaning … , the word ‘b’ in Arabic is used as ‘p’ in Sanskrit (in our times, one example is that of soft drink Pepsi; it is written and pronounced as Bebsi in the Arab world). A certain ‘t’ in Arabic becomes silent and pronounced as h depending on its position in that word … For example, ‘tun’ in Medinatun is replaced by h when pronounced (both t and n are dropped). Further, many Sanskrit words having parallel in Arabic are written backwards … Thus one can see the similarity between the word Kuntap and Bakkah (each containing letters k, n, t, p)".
This once again is absolutely childish, on the same level as Brahma and Abraham. "Kuyang ang nam kutsitang bhavati taddopatti , tasmat [from there] Kuntap" --- the letters k, u, n, t, a, p all come from the Sanskrit words in the definition. (I have used Roman alphabets for the ordinary reader, though the pronunciation is not absolutely accurately transcribed thereby). Also, another term for the Kuntap sukt is left out. It is also called 'Khila-parva' meaning supplement; these verses are taken mostly from the Rig-Veda and are not considered to be of any great importance. Indeed many translations skip this chapter altogether, which no doubt Dr.Naik and Dr. Vidyarthi felt can only help their cause.
(Just to muddy the waters further, a Hindu has argued that the word Mecca comes from the Sanskrit root Makh or Yajna; the name Mohammad is a derivative of Krishna's another name, Madan Mohan and the word Aab (water) comes from the pure Sanskrit word Aap meaning water. We have exactly the same type of argument here that Vidyarthi/Haq gives, except that it is turned upside down: but the latter is equally valid in its methodology as the former. In fact since no analysis is given that can expose its weaknesses, -- only an assertion is made --- the Hindu claim appears more valid! Do a search on PN OAK and read all his articles).
The writers say that the third Mantra of the Kuntap Sukt translated by someone called Pandit Raja Ram is:
"He gave the Mamah Rishi a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets, three hundred steeds and ten thousand cows."
They go onto explain " The root of the word Mamah is Mah which means to esteem highly, honor, revere, to magnify and to exalt. The word "Mohammad" means "the praised one" in Arabic. Therefore, Mamah is synonymous with Mohammad when the full meaning of the verse is considered. The 'd' dropped as in the case of Mamah (Mohammad, which is derived from root letters h, m, and d)". It is a very ingenious explanation. Alas! the only problem is that Mamah is not a single word nor a name. It is a combination of two words 'mamo' and 'ahe', meaning "to me".
Then Dr.Naik and Dr.Haq go on to explain the 'hidden' (!) symbolism in the line. The hundred gold coins apparently refer to the early companions of Prophet Muhammad,. The ten chaplets refer to ten companions of Prophet Muhammad, who were given the good news of Paradise by the Prophet. Three Hundred Good Steeds (horses of Arab Breed) refers to those companions of Prophet Muhammad who fought at ‘Badr.’ We are told that though their actual number was 313, in many prophecies the numbers are usually rounded up. Ten Thousand Cows refer to ten thousand companions who accompanied the Prophet when he conquered Mecca . The interpretation is based on a hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, number 159, where Muhammad narrates a dream where cows symbolize the believers. Is there any other evidence to suggest that the hymn is a symbol of anything, far less of the meaning the writers finds? There is not. Also both of them reveal their shoddy Vedic scholarship when they declare "The Sanskrit word Arvah means a swift Arab horse particularly used by Asuras (non-Aryans)". In the Vedas the Asuras are not non-Aryans; gods like Indra and Varuna are addressed as 'Asur' which simply means 'lord'. It was far later that Asuras came to symbolize demons.
They then give their version of the mantras 1 through 13 of the Kuntap Sukt which according to them is amassed from some Hindu Pundits. However the work of Griffith and Whitney are usually considered sufficient :
1. Listen to this O people! a praiseworthy shall be praised. O Kaurama we have received among the Rushamas sixty thousand and ninety. [population of Makkah at the time of Prophet’s triumphant entry in Makkah].
The Rusama is mentioned in RigVeda as a protégé of Indra, and is elsewhere referred to as a community which has nothing to do with Mecca . Kaurama is the alternative name for Kaurava, a generous donor in the community.
2. Twenty camels draw his carriage, with him being also his wives. The top of that carriage or chariot bows down escaping from touching the heaven.
The accepted wording Whose twice ten buffaloes move right along, together with their cows; the height of his chariot just misses the heaven which recedes from its touch. You can find an accurate and famous translation of Vedas here . I have never heard of camels being used by INDIANS in Vedic Times, nor can you make notice of camels in any of Hindu Scriptures.
3. He gave the Mamah Rishi a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets, three hundred steeds and ten thousand cows.
As noted earlier it is not the Mamah rishi, but simply rishi.
4. Disseminate the truth, O ye who glorifies [Ahmad], disseminate the truth, just as a bird sings on a ripe fruited tree. Thy lips and tongue move swiftly like the sharp blade of a pair of shears. [The Prophet’s state when he received revelation through Archangel Jibril (Gabriel)].
Again, the standard translation is "Glut thee o singer, glut thee, like a bird on a ripefruited tree".However, the term 'narasansha' which is translated as singer, can also mean someone who praises. Someone who praises is not praiseworthy. Narasansha doesn’t equate to Muhammad. Apparently this version is relied on, so that it can be equated with Ahmad.
5. The praying ones with their prayers hurry on like powerful bulls. Only their children are at home, and at home do they wait for the cows. [Cows refers to companions of the Prophet. Prophet’s companions strict adherence to five daily prayers at appointed times. Refers to Battles of Badr, Uhud, and Ahzab (Ditch or Allies)].
The actual translation is”The chanters with their pious song hurry on blithely as cows; at home are their children, and at home the cows do they attend”.
6. O you who praises (the Lord), hold fast the wisdom, which earns cows and good things. Disseminate this among the divines, just as an archer places his shaft on the right point. [wisdom of the Qur’an].
Again, here the standard translation is "O singer bring thou forth the hymns..." . They say this verse in wisdom of Qur’an. Now if that is the case, Vedas were written several years before the OT,NT and Qur’an. Then why don’t muslims read Vedas instead? Look how the translation has been played with and changed to their convenience.
7. Sing the high praise of the king of the world or the Light of the Universe, who is a god and the best among men. He is a guide to all people and gives shelter to everyone. [Prophet Mohammed's qualities].
The standard translation is, "Sing the praise of Pariksit, the sovereign whom all people love, the king who ruleth over all, excelling mortals as a god". The name Parikshit is definitely mentioned. Parikshit is the name of a king of the Kaurava line, though it cannot be ascertained whether this is the same king mentioned in Mahabharata. However, this name is left out. Apparently even the writer's imagination has a hard time trying to prove that Parikshit is another name for Muhammad.
8. He who affords shelter to everybody, gave peace to the world, as soon as he mounted the throne. Men in Kuru-land are talking of his peace-making at the time of the building of the house. [Kuru means one who protects a house in Hebrew and Kore means a house. It refers to the first house of worship, the Ka’bah. In this sense, Kuru-land means the land of Koreish . This Mantra refers to the rebuilding of the Kabah five years before Mohammed's prophethood and his role in peace-making when each tribe of the Koreish (Quraish) wanted the sole honor to put the Black Stone at its right place and disputed to the point of threats to fight each other. The Black Stone is a celestial material and is the only remaining part of the original building material of the Ka'bah].
Standard translation: "Mounting his throne Parikshit best of all hath given us peace and rest, saith a Kaurava to his wife as he is ordering his house". A Kaurava is a member of the Kuru clan, descended from Kuru, whatever may be its meaning in Hebrew. Also why are the specific terms husband (pati) and wife (jaya) left out? I am sure the writer could have found some hidden significance in them as well, if only he had worked hard.
9. In the realm of the King, who gives peace and protection to all, a wife asks her husband whether she should set before him curd or some other liquor. [Due to Prophet’s protection and commandments, women could travel freely long distances without any escort or fear].
Really? Do you see any correlation between the words in the actual verses and the meaning these two muslims try to give it? Above all, liqour is mentioned. I have never heard of any men drinking liqour when Muhammad lived, as he prohibited liqour.
10. The ripe barley springs up from the cleft and rises towards heavens. The people prosper in the reign of the king who gives protection to all. [people rise from the depth of degradation to the height of glory].
From what degradation did Muhammad lift up the arabs? He said sex outside marriage is bad. Well, that was indeed older in INDIA ! Everyone followed it and believed it and forbid pre-marital sex. Instead Muhammad set a great example(not exception because muslims repeat it) by marrying a kid. Is that degrading or glorifying?
11. Indra awoke the singer of his praises and asked him to go to the people in every direction. He was asked to glorify Indra, the mighty and all pious men would appreciate his effort and God would bestow on him His rewards. [The Prophet sent letters to several kings and rulers in every direction inviting them to Islam].
What do Mr.Naik/ Mr.Haq want to tell? They tell Indra = Allah!!!In Hinduism Indra is god of weather and war ,and Lord of Heaven or Swargaloka He was also an important figure in non-Hindu traditions. Mythology is that, Indra is also cursed by the supreme power. The supreme power is the only GOD, and INDRA is supposedly a Demi-God. Refer here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra#The_curse_on_Indra . Well, there is mythology that Indra rode on chariots. Does Allah drive a chariot or BMW?? How ridiculous!Only someone very determined to prove his thesis can find that these verses refer to Islamic history.
12. Cows, horses and men multiply and increase here, because here rules the one who is bountiful and splendidly generous who gives thousands in charity and sacrifice. [qualities of the Last Prophet].
Here another reference to a demi god is left out : "Here, O cattle, ye shall be born, here, ye horses, here, ye domestics! And Pûshan also, who bestows a thousand (cows) as sacrificial reward, settles down here.". Pushan means Muhammad? No way! Pushan is again a demi-God.
13. O Indra, let these cows be safe, and let not their master be harmed. And let not an enemy, O Indra, or a robber overpower them. [Indra refers to God and cows to saintly followers of the Prophet].
The so-called schollars(for dollars??) is not quiet upto the latest researches done by his other Muslim colleagues. They are assiduously writing that Indra as the god of war and leader of Aryans, is the cruel enslaver of the indigenous inhabitants of India and is the first terrorist in the world. They very much contradict each other in their own terms!
As can be seen the writer very carefully leaves out certain words and gives others another meaning than commonly associated with them. However, even that is not enough to turn the verses into predictions about Muhammad. Read in the ordinary manner the verses simply show a picture of a kingdom thriving under a benevolent king; these are simply hymns of praise. He therefore has to take the help of symbolism. The source of his symbolism cannot be found in the Vedas themselves --- he simply imposes them arbitrarily in order to suit his theory. Only the eye of faith can produce such an interpretation of the hymn.
Then these two quote a verse from Sama Veda, II:6,8: "Ahmad acquired religious law (Shariah) from his Lord. This religious law is full of wisdom. I receive light from him just as from the sun." They get the translation almost right with a peculiarly Islamic twist. The proper translation is, "I from my Father have obtained deep knowledge of eternal Law; I was born like unto the Sun". As for 'Ahmad', once again it is a typical example of sleight-of-hand like Mamah. The actual Sanskrit term is 'ahammiddhi' , 'aham' meaning “ I ”.
To clinch the matter, the scholars then quote from Rig Veda V, 27, 1: "The wagon-possessor, the truthful and truth-loving, extremely wise, powerful and generous, Mamah [Mohammad] has favored me with his words. The son of the All-powerful, possessing all good attributes, the mercy for the worlds has become famous with ten thousand [companions]."
However, the standard translation of this verse reads, "The Godlike hero, famousest of nobles, hath granted me two oxen with a wagon. Trvrsan's son Tryaruna hath distinguished himself, Vaisvanara Agni! with ten thousands". "Vaisvanara" is another name for the fire-god, but it is not known with certainty who Trvrsan or his son might be. However, Haq leaves out the reference to the Fire-god. Trvsran becomes another name for Allah (on the grounds perhaps that there is a possibility that the name can refer to a god) while the name Tryaruna is omitted altogether. Instead he once again falls back on the standby of Mamah. Apparently wherever the particular combination of letters forming the word 'mamah', whether alone or whether occurring in combination of other letters in a word, it is employed to prove that it indicates Muhammad. The maximum the verse can be stretched to read is that, "O fire, lord of mankind! the protector of the righteous, extremely wise, lordly (incidentally the term employed here is 'asura') and rich, Trivsran's son Tryaruna has given me two cows yoked to a wagon and ten thousand gold pieces and thus gained fame". The singer of the verse is being favoured not with words of wisdom but with material gifts. One cannot call Haq's translation anything other than a lie. Not surprisingly he leaves the rest of the hymn alone. In it the singer explains that the king had given him these gifts because he had pleased him with his praise and he asks the gods to grant happiness to the donor. Further Dr.Zakir Naik in his site says
Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Rigveda
A similar prophecy is also found in Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9:
The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).
The above specified Hymn and verse translates as : “ With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra, thou far-famed, hast overthrown the twice ten Kings of men,
With sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers, who came in arms to fight with friendless Susravas.”
It speaks about Indra, a praise to Indra and not Muhammad!! Dr.Naik Susrava is singular. Susravas = plural. Group of praiseworthy people. So it does not point to Muhammad!
5. The last premise would be logic. Dr.Naik and Dr.Haq seem to commit several logical fallacies. They tend to contradict each other. They say they don’t believe in HINDU scriptures once. You can find how Zakir Naik criticizes Hindu way of worship in a section called “Conveying Islam To A Hindu”. But still he uses Hindu scriptures’ authority to prove Muhammad’s prophethood and Islam’s validity! Either this proves
*Hindu religion is truly divine.
* Allah did not give enough proofs in Qur’an to sustain his claims.
* All muslims must convert to Hinduism.
* Muslim scholars are bluffing to convert Hindus just like they do to Christian.
Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.Haq actually commit these logical fallacies : Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Red herring, Petitio principii, Non Sequitur ,Straw man and Tu quoque. Simply no hindus will convert because of such bad marketing skills!! Truth is powerful than any other attractive marketing techniques.
A Point To Ponder Upon
The Vedas are supposed to be most supreme text of Hindus along with the Gita. There are 4 Vedas.
The number of verses in the Rig Veda total 10800
The Number of verses in Atharva Veda total 5987
The Number of verses in Yajur Veda total 2000
The number of verses in Sama Veda total 1875
Therefore, length of Vedas = 10800 + 5987 + 2000 + 1875 = 20662
Length of Qur’an = 6346
Ratio = Length of Vedas / Length of Qur’an = 3.255
The Qur’an is thrice as small as Vedas. When muslim scholars take a lots of time to learn Arabic, memorise Qur’an,read hadiths, do you believe they can learn Sanskrit, or even if not, read such big Vedas, interpret them, and present it? Some people who get money do this, for them, they just vomit whatever they get on hand without giving it a thinking. Imagine, Upanishads, Puranas, Bhagavad gita,etc. when put together will take a lifetime to read and understand them.
The amount of manipulation and misdirection we see with these men is astonishing. The Islamic propagators are either grossly misled or are apparently relying on the fact that not enough of their readers will know Sanskrit or bother to look up references. They happily mistranslate and use symbolism without any shred of proof. One understands their eagerness to prove that Islam is the culmination of every religion. However one has to wonder, if the faith of the writers like these is so insecure that they have to search in other religions for legitimacy. Also one has to wonder what this says of other Muslim scholars who have read the Vedas before. None of them had ever read any of the meanings that Dr.Naik or Dr.Haq finds; obviously they were either more foolish or less learned than our Dr.Naik/Dr.Haq. However, the climax comes in this assertion: "The Vedas contain many prophecies about Prophet Muhammad. Some European and Hindu translators of the Vedas have removed the name referring to the Prophet, while others have tried to explain away the mantras (verses) on his life events, Ka’bah, Makkah, Medinah, Arabia, and other events using the terminology of the Hindus, such as purification rituals, and lands and rivers in India". In other words, explain what scholars might like, our good Islamic Sanskrit scholar knows that they would be lies. Dr.Naik/Dr.Haq operates under the assumption that anyone who tries to refute them is by the very definition a liar. This assertion is a wonderful way of not having to face the truth. (Of course I personally believe that Haq's book/ Zakir Naik’s Da’wah material is not meant for either the Hindu or the serious scholar; it is targeted at the Muslims to strengthen their faith).
when a Hindu reads this article, he/she will have increased faith in HINDUISM than converting to Islam. Thanks to bad marketing techniques of Dr.Zakir Naik blemished with lies.