Response to Zakir Naiks claims on Vedic

Theology
-On the matter of Idol worship.

Namasthe.
The aim of this article is NO WAY , a means to demean Zakir Naik, or to offend him.This
is an analysis of his speeches about Hinduism and to see the depth of his claims as he
states that idol worship is against Hinduism.
Here are sections of transcripts of Zakir Naik's lectures and certain responses to his
ideas regarding Vedic religion;s theological outlook.
The interesting part of his speeches are, that he has taken some of the key essential
pieces of hindu philosophy,which should have been kept at side as he quoted these
verses, and have selectively chosen them to make it similar to Islamic theology, and
then impose Islamic theology onto it.

(I am not quoting ALL verses from Zakir Naik's talks about Vedas, but only those key
ones which he had used to debase the concept of "form worship", and tried to inject
Islamic form of monotheism into the hindu one.)

***An Important Note To Remember:

This article is NOT FULLLY PRESENTED AT THE MOMENT. IT IS ONLY TO PROVIDE THE
READER A GLIMPSE OF THE MATTER.THERE ARE FEW MORE ADDITIONS TO BE
MADE,WHICH SHALL BE DONE IN TIME AND THE ARTICLE SHALL BE EXPANDED AND
DEVELOPED.
Let us now move onto some of his statements in his speeches.

Zakir Naik:

"Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most

Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in a multitude of
Gods. Some Hindus believe in the system of three God while Some
Hindus actually believe in the existence of thirty-three crore i.e. 330
million Gods. However learned Hindus who are well versed with their
scriptures insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.

The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of
God is the common Hindus' belief in the philosophy of Pantheism.
Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living to be divine and
sacred. The Hindus therefore consider the trees, the sun, the moon, the
animals and even the human beings as manifestations of God. For the
common Hindu, everything is God.

Response:
Partly yes.
This is because Upanishads themselves states this, in an indirect sense.
for example Mundaka Upanishad relates that, just like a Spiderweb comes out from the
spider, and then returns back to itself, similarly the universe comes from Akshara
Brahman( an aspect of God, as being "indescructable, or changeless as the universe
changes).
Thus, the Vedic principle is that God is ultimately changeless and beyond space and
time, and that the universe is a tiny,infinitestimally small projection of God's "energy"
into a manfestation.
Nothing is separate from God. God dosent "become" the universe, and changes to the
form of this universe,which is what many people may think hindus belive.No. God is
changeless,only a tiny projection from His infinitude is manipulated, or manifested as
the universe.
In this way, God, pervades and encompasses all existence,because
everything,ultimately, is a manifestation of a tiny part of Gods infinite energy.
The spier web comes from the spider, bit that dosen't change the spider or change its
nature.it remains the same when the web is there outside or within its mouth.
The same way here, God remains unchanged.

The remaining some portions of his speech echoes the same stuff. Let me move on.

Zakir Naik:
Bhagwad Geeta
The most popular among all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagwad Geeta.
Consider the following verse from the Geeta :

"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender

unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship
according to their own natures."

[Bhagwad Geeta chapter 7 verse 20 (B.G. 7:20)]

The Geeta is referring to people who are materialistic and therefore

worship demigods i.e. besides the True God.

Response:
Bhagavad Gita is the essence of Upanishads(Vedantha) not just a "popular book".
Wether Zakir Naik agrees on this or not, is not the issue here.
Bhagavad Gita has a metaphorical setting,which signifies a man battling his own
decisions, and here,the teachings of Upanishads and Vedas are creamed by Krishna to
Arjuna.

anyways, first of all,the verse dosen't condemn worship of deities for materialistic
benefits the same way Islam condemns idol worship by saying that all of them would go
to hell.
Bhagavd Gita says, in these verses that, a person may worship a manifestation of God
for materialistic gains.Bhagavad Gita teaches that materialistic gains are just
momentary, and not permanent. Only worship, or, dedication of one's life for the sake of
dharma alone, and with attatchments only from s psiritual platform is the correct way of
worship.Bhagad Gita here talks about the attitude of such worshippers- they worship
manifestations of God(the word "demigod" is not right, the word used here is "devatha",
and it means a "Deity").
worship of form is not condemned in Bhagavad Gita, Krishna himself is here a
manifestation which speaks the Gita.
In Gita, Krishna represents the Unmanifest Brahman,which is the Ultimate Supreme
being according to Upanishads.
The deities are representations,or symbolic figures that symbolise the Supreme
Brahman for people to meditate upon, or worship.For common people, it is better to
meditate on a form,since a form for meditation,or worship, helps him to fix his mind
more efficiently.
Here, Krishna tells that people whose minds are stolen worship manifestations that
symbolise materialistic boons.But their mode of worship is not spiritual,since it is only
for materialistic gains and thus, is depreciated in that sense. STILL,THERE IS A CHOICE
OF WHICH DEITY OR MANIFESTATION,FOR A PERSON TO WORSHIP. AND GITA DOSEN;T
TELL THAT THEY WOULD GO TO HELL,OR AN ETERNAL DAMNATION,FOR THAT MATER. IT
ONLY STATSES THAT THE ATTATCHMENT A PERSON'S MIND MAKES DETERMINES HIS
CONSCIOUSNESS,WHICH INFLUENCES HIS THOUGHTS AND KARMA,WHICH INTURN
INFLUENCES HIS KARMIC FATE.

Zakir Naik:
Upanishads:

The upanishads are also considered sacred scriptures by the Hindus.

Consider the following verses from the Upanishads :

i) "Ekam evaditiyam"

"He is One only without a second"

[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:lT

ii) Consider again, the following verses from the Upanishads :

"Na casya kasuj janita na cadhipah."

"Of Him there are neither parents nor Lord"

[Svetasavatara Upanishad 6,9] Vpart II page 263.]

None of these are not accepted by Hindus. "ekam sat viprah bahutha vadanthi"(Rig
Veda)-Truth is One, referred to as many".
The fact that the Supreme is there eternal, is accepted by hindus.
The Ultimate Brahman, exists as unborn and eternal.

Zakir Naik:
Consider the following verses from the Upanishads :

"Na tasya pratima asti"

(There is no likeness of Him.)

[Svetasvatara Upanishad chapter 4:19]

"Nainam urdhvam na tiryancam na madhye na parijagrabhat
na tasy pratime asti yasya nama mahad yasah." 3

"There is no likeness of Him whose name is great glory". 3

well, the same verse appears in Yajur Veda 32:2 too. "na tasya prathima asti " verse.
But here, it is mixed with Islamic notion which drives away its actual meaning.
The verse tells that God does not have any implicit form.
true that.
but the ifference with Islamic concept of God is that, hinduism allows symbolism.th
deities are a symbolis representation of abstract aspects of God.
allegorism and symbolisms are allowed in hinduism. Physically God has no form, and
thus cannot be "seen" with eye. but can be represented as symbols.

This "symbolism" part will be dealt with more clearly, in the following responses.

Zakir Naik:
The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of
Man to imagine God in a particular form :

"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas

canaiam. Hrda hrdistham manasa ya enam, evam vidur amrtas
te bhavanti".

"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye. Those who

through heart and mind know Him as abiding in the heart become

immortal".

This again alludes to the fact that God has no physical form that can be see, but that
dosen't mean that symbolism is not allowed.His form is not to be seen,because, God has
no physical form as Brahman is beyond space and time. But His aspects are symbolised
as forms.There is a difference between literal taking of a form, and symbolic take of a
form. literal take of a form would contradict the verse, but not a symbolic take of the
form,since in the latter case, the person keeps in mind that the form is NOT LITERAL,
PHYSICAL FORM OF GOD, but a symbolic representation.

Zakir Naik:
The Vedas
Vedas' are considered the most sacred amongst all the Hindu scriptures.
There are 4 main vedas. Rig Ved, Yajur Ved, Sam Ved and AtharvaVed.

1. Yajur Ved

i) Consider the following verses from the Yajur ved :

"Na tasya pratima asti"

"There is no image of Him" 5

[Yajurved 32 : 3]

It further says "as He is unborn, He deserves our worship."

"There is no image of Him whose glory verily is great. He sustains within

Himself all luminous objects like the Sun etc. May He not harm me, this
is my prayer. As He is unborn, He deserves our worship"

[The Yajurveda by Devi Chand M. A. pg 377]

ii) "He is bodyless and pure." Is mentioned in Yajurved 40 : 8:

He hath attained unto the Bright, Bodiless, Woundless, Sinewless, the

pure which evil hath not pierced. Far-sighted, wise, encompassing, he
self-existent hath prescribed aims, as propriety demands, unto the
Everlasting Years".

[Yajurved 40 : 8]

Response:
Here again, the persistent denial of the fact that hinduism allows symbolism is
missing.or overlooked. and that too,the meaning of the word "symbolism " is not
understood clearly.

To put it more clearly,

the verse gives an objective truth-that Brahman has no physical form.
but the twist comes in the fact that hinduism allows metaphorisms, or symbolisms to
represent an absract concept for the mind to fix on to meditate.
the forms in hinduism are taken as metaphors, and not as literal reflections of the
Supreme.
the verses before Yajur Veda 32:3(which he quoted) says that "He is agni,he is sun,he is
the waters, he is bright,etc..." and thus relating manifestations to "Him" which is stated
later that it has no form.
This is because,
one) hinduism believed that the universe is a projection of God, as the Upanishads
says,that the universe comes from God and returns to Him, as spider web comes from
spider and then returns back to it.thus,all manifestations u see around are
manifestations of God's energies, or, "lower nature/energy" as Bhagavad Gita
states.This is not saying that everything is blindly "god".all that exist is pervaded, or
encompassed by an infinite Being)(God) and all that exists are infinitestimally
small,elementary parts of God's infinite energy manifested as all we see around.
This is the real philosophy of hinduism.
two) the verse also means that God has ultimately no form, but His aspects/attributes
can be represented, or symbolised as forms.
The second explanation woule be more apt for justifying form worship, since it directly
talks about symbolisisng the spiritual aspects of God.
In this, most crucial case, hindus do not blindly worship the form as a physical being,
but reflect upon what it symbolised and meditates upon the meaning.The form, is a
visual aid for meditation.This is no sin in hinduism.
any one of these explanations would bridge the gap of the immediate meaning of this
cherry picked verse, and the "form worship" aspect of hinduism.

The crucial part, and the subsequent question that can naturally come up with reference
to Scriptures of hinduism is that "where in Vedic texts, or hindu holy books does it tell
that symbolism is allowed?"
well, here are those situations:
Rig Veda 1.164.46:
"46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varua, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged
Garutmn.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mtarivan."

Yama, Matarisvan, Garutman( the winged eagle carier of Vishnu),Indra(who holds the
thunderbolt and drinks Soma juice when given as offering) Varuna,Agni(which is fire,that
sybolises wisdom and also enlightenment) are all manifestations with anthropomorphic
forms.Any person who has skimmed through the pages of Rig Veda would easily
understand this, that all these are manifestations with anthropomorphic forms.
Here, it is stated that all these are references the sages give to the "One" being.that is
formless.
Here again,Vedas clearly allow symbolic representation, or metaphorical representation
of God's aspects which we can perceive.

Another direct verse that relates to this is from the Upanishads.

from Maithrayayana Upanishad:
The Valakhilyas said: O Saint, thou art the teacher, thou art the teacher. What thou hast
said, has
been properly laid up in our mind. Now answer us a further question: Agni, Vayu, Aditya,
Time
(kala)which is Breath (prana), Food (anna), Brahma, Rudra, Vishnu, thus do some
meditate on one, some on another. Say which of these is the best for us.' He said to
them:
6. 'These are but the chief manifestations of the highest, the immortal, the incorporeal
Brahman. He who is devoted to one, rejoices here in his world (presence), thus he said.
Brahman indeed is all this, and a man may meditate on, worship, or discard also those
which are its chief manifestations. With these (deities) he proceeds to higher and higher
worlds, and when all things perish, he becomes one with the Purusha( an aspect of God,
personification of the All pervasive Brahman), yes, with the Purusha.
Maitrayaniya IV.5 - IV.6

Thus, what actually Hinduism teaches is that, God is Ultimately and objectively formless
as Brahman,etc. But at the same tme, hinduism, talks about symbolic, or figurative
representations of God's aspects which we humans can grasp, or understand.
The form is NOT A FULL REPRESENTATION OF GOD, but rather a symblism of an aspect
of GOD THAT WE CAN SEE, or it symbolises an aspect that God encompasses,which is
within our range of understanding,so that we can have some sort of understanding of
God.

The problem is the Zakir Naik has taken away the key features of hindu pluralistic
theology,which allows hindus to symbolise Gods aspects which is a very crucial aspect
that makes it different from Abrahamic faiths.

The 2+2 logic

In another video, where a hindu told Zakir Naik that idoles are used for concentration at
the primal stages, Zakir Naik gave an example of 2+2= 3(or)4.
The link to that video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we0aY3hdIMk
(I dont know if that is removed at the moment the reader is reading this article).

The "two+two= four or three" logic that Zakir Naik said elsewhere is futile here, since
that is A MISLEADING EXAMPLE, just to discredit symbolism.the correct one would be
something like,
"numbers are only abstract concept, and we represent each quantity with number,
which is a symbol",
or "we represent a physical dimension,like distance, or velocity,acceleration, or force, lik
gravitational force, with a symbol, (like letter "F" for force, "v" for velocity) and a
represnt them as formulas.
The case here is similar.
the actual case here is that an abstract, formless aspect, is represented as a symbol.it is
the meaning of the symbol that has to be payed attention to, and not to mistake the
form as literal and physical reflection of God's form(which dosen't exist!).
the flaw in relating the "two plus two equal four or three" is that, first, its either "true of
false",while this either this or that principle dosent exist in symbolism when we
consider two symbols representing the one idea-- the same idea could be represented in
different forms, and none of them are taken literally,but symbolically, and all mean the
same. But here, "2+2=3" and +2+2=4" are two different statements with two different
meanings.
Second, the example Zakir Naik gave is a case where two statements,each of them
implying a literal meaning, are taken.
But in case of symbolism,the same idea is represented in two different forms.
Its like the same meaning represented in two different sentences, or two different
languages.apparently they are different, but ultimately they are the same.
It is the meaning that is given importance,not the sentence that represent it.
Similarly, symbolism also gives priority to the meaning of what the symbol means, in
this case, an abstract aspect of God,(and not the literal, physical form of God).and, if the
meaning is theologially valid, then the form can be meditaed upon, considering or
remembering what it signifies,by the worshipper/devotee.

Either Zakir Naik is delibrately misleading by giving a misleading example to debase the
concept of "form worship", or he hasn't clearly understood the spirit of the word
"symbolism" that he denounced it by relating it with an unrelated, but apparently
related, example.

There are several other verses he has quoted out of context and, ripped away from the
basic teachings of hinduism, and those shall be studied , or looked at,later.