Unmasking Dr. Zakir Naik by Indrajit Bandyopadhyay SignUp
Boloji.com
Boloji
Home Kabir Poetry Blogs BoloKids Writers Contribute Search Contact Site Map Advertise RSS Login Register
Boloji
Channels

In Focus

Analysis
Cartoons
Education
Environment
Going Inner
Opinion
Photo Essays

Columns

A Bystander's Diary
Business
My Word
PlainSpeak
Random Thoughts

Our Heritage

Architecture
Astrology
Ayurveda
Buddhism
Cinema
Culture
Dances
Festivals
Hinduism
History
People
Places
Sikhism
Spirituality
Vastu
Vithika

Society & Lifestyle

Family Matters
Health
Parenting
Perspective
Recipes
Society
Teens
Women

Creative Writings

Book Reviews
Ghalib's Corner
Humor
Individuality
Literary Shelf
Love Letters
Memoirs
Musings
Quotes
Ramblings
Stories
Travelogues
Workshop

Computing

CC++
Computing Articles
Flash
Internet Security
Java
Linux
Networking
Culture Share This Page
Unmasking Dr. Zakir Naik
by Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Bookmark and Share
 

– Insulting Ganapati is Insulting Allah, Mohammad and Islam

I was referred to a video on youtube where I watched Dr. Zakir Naik insulting Ganapati Ganesha. No doubt, he has communal agenda, and he wants to rip benefit by fomenting communal unrest.

Even at the onset, we can dismiss Dr. Naik as nonsense and a pseudo-scholar because he has little reading and understanding of Vedas and Puranik Narratives or the true significance of RgVedic Ganapati, and has zero understanding of the Plurality that Hinduism stands for; however, the reason I want to say something on the matter is: Dr. Naik’s agenda is self-defeating and backfires, and his nonsensical ideas on Ganesha are actually insult to Islam, Allah and Prophet Mohammad too.

The Hindu Civilization and Culture has survived (because it evolved) and evolved (because it survived) for thousands of years despite various invasions and attacks – physical, academic and religious. So, it is not that the future of Hinduism depends on my taking up pen to defend Hinduism. One purpose of this article, taking Dr. Naik’s case as an example, is to show that, Hinduism is such vast spaces that any trickery attempted with Hinduism will not only go astray but will also yield the exactly opposite result to such intended trickery.

In that youtube video, I watched Dr. Naik saying with reference to the Puranik narrative of Shiva’s beheading Ganesha, such like things: “Your God Shiva could not recognize his own son; how would he recognize me in my distress?” (“Apka bhagavan apka bete ko nehi pehechen sakta hai; jab mai taklif me hunga to mujhe kaise pahechane ga?”)

While saying this, Dr. Naik smarts as if he has done the cleverest thing on earth. Then, narrating the Puranik narrative of Shiva’s replacing Ganesha’s head with an elephant’s, Dr. Naik asks sarcastically “Is this your God?” (“ea apka bhagavan hay?”)

Dr. Naik has obviously no reading and idea of RgVeda or Shruti, though he occasionally flaunts and parrots some particular Rks from memory to claim that Prophet Mohammad has been predicted in Vedas – as if the Vedic Rshis had no other work but to predict Prophet Mohammad, or that Vedas are nothing but astrology.

Going by Dr. Naik’s logic of deriding Ganesha, if the believer in another Religion is tempted to ask him: “Your Allah cannot even protect innocent Muslims from being slaughtered by Islamic terrorists, what kind of God is he?” – How will he feel, then?

Such mudslinging is of course not the way of any rational and reasonable person; therefore, we would stick to academically examine Dr. Naik’s provocative words.

Ganapati finds first mention in RgVeda -

“O God! O Ganapati!
Among us, your subjects, You are our master. Hail to you.
Among those who are wise, You are the wisest.
Among superiors, You are the highest lord.
Among the glorious, You are the most glorious.
Among the souls, You are the Supreme Soul.
With this prayer, Lord, we are asking You to bless us with
your presence in our midst to give us Your protection.”
– (RV- 2.23.1; by Grtsamada Shaunaka, later Grtsamada Shaunaka)[i]

Ganapati is “the wisest”, and one of 99 names of Allah is “Al-Hakim - The Perfectly Wise.” Ganapati is “the highest Lord”, and two names of Allah are “Al-Malik - The Absolute Ruler” and “Al-Ali - The Highest.” Ganapati is “the most glorious”, and one name of Allah is “Al-Majid - The Glorious.” Ganapati is “Supreme Soul”, and one name of Allah is “Al-Muta'ali - The Supreme One.” Ganapati is “protector”, and one name of Allah is “Al-Wali - The Protecting Friend.”

In Ganapatyarthavashiirsha or Ganapati Upanishad – a late Minor Upanishad [ii] (ca. 16th-17th century CE) connected with Atharva Veda, Ganesha is identified with Ultimate TruthBrahma

“Homage to Lord Ganesha. Om. Reverence to Ganapati. You are indeed the visible ‘That Thou Art’ [tattvamasi]. You indeed produce the universe. You indeed sustain it. You indeed destroy it. You indeed are the all pervading reality. You are the manifestation of the eternal self (Brahma).”

Dr. Naik’s hypocrisy is astounding. He seems to be much interested in Atharva Veda in finding prediction of Prophet Mohammad; however, he has no knowledge of Ganapatyarthavashiirsha.

In two later Puranas again – Ganesha is Samyoga (abstract synthesis with absolute reality and soul) in the Mudgala Puranam (ca. 1100-1400 CE) [iii] and Ganesha is union of Saguna and Nirguna concept wherein Saguna Ganesha is a prelude to Nirguna Ganesha in Ganesha Puranam (ca. 1100-1400 CE) [iv], which are revered texts of Gaanapatyas (Devotees of Ganesha) and Hindus in general.

Thus, Ganapati and Allah are two names of the same One God or Supreme God.

Ganapati Ganesha is the only deity to have universal appeal and foremost place of worship irrespective of sects of Hinduism. Ganesha’s physical figure represents the sacred Vaak and the Rasa of RasasAUM. In The Holy Qur’aan we have Alif Laam Miim (ALAM) – to which no human meaning can be ascribed; therefore, representing unmanifested Vaak (Speech, Words, and Language) or the Original Qur’aan – the “Mother of the Book” (umm-ul-Kitaab) with Allah. The idea is echo of Vaac-Sarasvatii inspiring the Vedas.

Even at the onset then, Dr. Naik’s insult to Ganapati is insult to Allah and Islam. Elsewhere I heard Dr. Naik mentioning the famous mantra of RgVedaEkam sad vipraa bahudhaa vadantya:

There is that One God they call by so many names:
Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, Garumat, Yama, Matarisvan.

indram mitram varunamagnimaahuratho divya? sa suparno garutmaan
ekam sad vipraa bahudhaa vadantyagnim yamam maatarishvaanamaahu? (RV- 1.164.46)

It is thus obvious that Dr. Naik represents the well-known phenomenon of our times (- some would say Post-Modern): wearing mask of liberalism with parochial agenda within. In tune with that, it seems Dr. Naik’s memory works like automatic light – now on now off – and he remembers the mantra while wearing the mask of Universal Brotherhood, and forgets that while pursuing his agenda of proselytizing Islam.

We can dismiss Dr. Naik as anti-Hindu, anti-Islamic and therefore, anti-Humanistic, but let us continue further to unmask Dr. Naik’s poverty in scholarship. After all he has a huge mass following – most of who are ignorant of Scriptures, and most of whom are dumb fellows clapping at his utterances without understanding, and surely many of them appear to be paid spectators on contract to dance to his tune.

Let us now see further, how Dr. Naik’s insulting Ganapati has an ironic dimension.

The Puranik narrative of Ganesha’s beheading by Shiva and replacement of the head by an elephant’s has great allegorical and philosophic significance.

The Elephant is Naaga – the primordial force in all beings – the Instinct from which stems the Intuition. Elephant is an animal with intelligence, intuition and strong emotional and maternal instinct.

The Human Body is the miniature of a Rashtra where all faculties must work in harmony for a human to live a balanced and meaningful life. Brain-Centricity fosters Ahamkaara (Pride, Arrogance), which in academic field results in – what Shri Raamakrshna called – Dry Intellect or Shukno Paanditya (“Dry” Scholarship or Rasa-less Scholarship).

Ganesha with Elephant-Head represents understanding not only with head, or Dry Intellect, but with intellect empowered by Instinct, Intuition, and the Heart; in other words, understanding and comprehension through actualization, realization and Feelings.

In fact, Heart-Centric Brain is the humanistic message of all Religions of the World. The Vedas and Upanishads say the same. For example, the RgVedic Rshi says

shraddhaamhrdayyayaakuutyaa shraddhayaa vindate vasu - Man winneth Faith by yearnings of the heart, and opulence by Faith” (RV-10.151.4).

The Rshi of Chaandogya Upanishad says – “sa vaa esha aatmaa hrdi (This AAtmaa verily is in the Heart)” (8.3.3)

For example, Vyasa says in Mahabharata –“Heart is purest among purity (tiirthaanaam guravas tiirtham shuciinaam hrdayam shuci)” (13.148.22a)

The Holy Qur’aan says the same. For example, Suurat Al-Haj (22.46) where we have that one has to Understand with Heart (that is, Brain functioning through Heart):

Have they not traveled through the land, and have they hearts wherewith to understand and ears wherewith to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.

In the Hadith Jami At-Tirmidhi (considered one of the six canonical Hadith compilations in Sunni Islam), we have Prophet Mohammad saying: ‘“Taqwa is here,” and he pointed to his chest.’ Indeed, one of the functions of the heart is ta’aqqul (understanding).

Thus, in deriding Ganesha, Dr. Naik betrays his lack of understanding of the Heart-Centric philosophy of Vedas and Upanishads and The Holy Qur’aan.

Dr. Naik derides Ganesha’s birth. The narrative of Ganesha’s birth in Shiva Purana – that is, his birth from Parvati’s body-washed turmeric paste or “soil” - that Dr. Naik mentions too – has the same significance of creation of man by Allah. In The Holy Qur’aan Suurat Ar-Rahmaan (55.14) we have “He (Allah) created man from dry clay like earthen vessels”.

Thus, Dr. Naik, in deriding Ganesha’s birth has in fact derided the same Qur’aanik Belief of human’s birth from “clay” – a Belief shared by Christianity too.

Well, no modern educated man will believe literally that God or Allah created man from dry clay; therefore, these narratives have to be understood as poetic metaphors of philosophic import, and then, since birth of Earth preceded birth of beings, not only man but all beings are really “born of clay”, and we all return to “clay” when we die.

As Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi wrote in “The Root of the Root of Your Self”

“Molded of clay, yet kneaded
from the substance of certainty,
a guard at the Treasury of Holy Light —
come, return to the root of the root of your Self.”
(Translated by Kabir Helminski)

Ganesha symbolizes love and respect for the Mother. It is for obeying his mother Parvati that he does not hesitate to stand even against Shiva. The Shiva Purana narrates that on hearing that Shiva has been liberated from Gajasura's stomach and is on his way to Kailash, Parvati starts preparing for a bath. Since Nandii is not nearby to keep guard of the door, Parvati takes the turmeric paste (for bathing) from her body and makes a form of a boy and breathes life into him. She instructs the boy to guard the door and not to let anyone in till she finishes her bath. Shiva returns, and when Ganesha obstructs him from entering, Shiva beheads him.

“Beheading” in Upanishadik philosophy has the significance of destroying Ahamkaara (Pride, Arrogance). For example, in Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad we have the narrative of Yaajnavalka telling Shaakalya that “If you cannot clearly tell me of Him, your head shall fall off (muurdhaa te vipatishyatiiti).” Indeed, Shaakalya cannot answer; and his head falls off (tasya ha muurdhaa vipapaat” (3.9.26)

Ganesha’s beheading has same significance, with the additional significance that the Brain-Centricity of the human brain is now replaced by Elephant-Head bearing the significance of Intelligence and Intellect but powered by Instinct and Intuition – signifying the completeness and fullness and siddhi of the Brain.

In a narrative in Shiva Purana, once Shiva and Parvati were playing with their two sons – Ganesha and Karttika. The Gods had given a fruit that had in it the nectar of Supreme Knowledge and Immortality – and both Ganesha and Karttika wanted it. Shiva and Parvati decided that the one who could circle the world three times and come back first would get the fruit as prize. Karttika got on to his Peacock Vaahana and set off immediately. Ganesha knew that he could not outdo Karttika in physical speed. So, he simply circumambulated Shiva and Parvati with great devotion. When asked why instead of circling the world he was doing that, Ganesha said, “My parents, Shiva and Shakti are the whole world. Within them is the entire universe. I need go no further.” Naturally, with such devotion, love and reverence for parents, philosophic insights and wit, Ganesha won the fruit.

In another Puranik version, the reward was marriage with Siddhi and Buddhi, and Ganesha achieved that by circumambulating Shiva and Parvati instead of physically circling the World.

Ganesha is mostly worshipped as a celibate God; and the above narrative may be interpreted as symbolic marriage of the Atma (Soul) with Wisdom and Success – the synthesis of Ganesha, Shri-Lakshmi and Vaac-Sarasvati.

However, the most important point that the narratives make is that: Parents are the Highest Gods in the Universe, and the whole Universe is contained in them.

Dr. Naik of course has no understanding of this. However, his deriding Ganesha becomes his derision of Allah and Prophet Mohammad in an ironic way.

The Holy Qur’aan teaches high respect for parents; and the Mother has the highest place. For example, the Qur’aan speaks of Mecca as 'Umma Al-Qurá (“Mother of Township”) [Qur’aan: Suurat Al-'An`aam (6.92); Suurat Ash-Shuurá (42.8)], and the unmanifest Qur’aan with Allah as 'Ummu Al-Kitaabi (“Mother of the Book”) [Qur’aan: Suurat 'AAli `Imraan (3.7); Suurat Ar-Ra`d (13.39); Suurat Az-Zukhruf (43.4)].

With Mecca regarded as “Mother of Township” (umm-ul-Quraa’) and Original Qur’aan as “Mother of the Book” (umm-ul-Kitaab), all patriarchal interpretation of The Holy Qur’aan is therefore, false; further owing to the fact that Prophet Mohammad says that “(Allah) it is Who created you from a single being, and of the same kind did He make his mate” [Suurat Al-'A`raaf (7.189); trans. M. Habib Shakir]

This Qur’aanik idea is echo of similar idea in Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad (ca. 900 BCE)-

“HE became as big as man and wife embracing each other. He parted this very body into two. From that came husband and wife. Therefore, said Yajnavalkya, this (body) is one-half of oneself, like one of the two halves of a split pea. Therefore this space is indeed filled by the wife. He was united with her. From that men were born.” (1.4.3)[v]

Dr. Naik, therefore, insulting Ganesha, insults Parvati, the Universal Mother, and therefore, insults the similar idea of the Mother in The Holy Qur’aan, which itself represents the Mother.

Ganesha’s circumambulating the Mother Parvati has similar significance in the Islamic ritual of ?awaaf (literally circling) around Kaaba. One of the Five Pillars of Islam requires every Muslim who is able to do so to perform the Hajj Pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime. Multiple parts of the Hajj require pilgrims to make ?awaaf, the circumambulation seven times around the Kaaba in a counter-clockwise direction.

Parvati and Shiva represents the Universe and Oneness around which Ganesha rotates, evoking the image of electron rotating in an atom, or stars and galaxies rotating in the Universe; similarly, Kaaba represents the Oneness and the Universe, and Hajj represents the Muslim pilgrims rotating like electrons, stars and galaxies.

The Muslim pilgrim starts Tawaaf leaving the Kaaba on his left – which has the symbolic meaning of the heart of man, (which is the place where Allah looks as I mentioned before), facing the House of Allah in Tawaaf.

The Tawaaf around Kaaba is seven times; and in The Holy Qur’aan, the Mystic Number “7” is of much significance echoing the wider significance of Mystic Number “7” in the Vedas. The connection of Ganesha and Mystic Number “7” is interesting.

Sindhu is a sacred word in the Vedas. It has probably the root √sidh – “to go”, and connotes “a river, stream (esp. the Indus), flood, waters (also in the sky), ocean, sea – also the “water ejected from an elephant's trunk” and “the exudation from an elephant's temples.” (Monier-Williams)

Ganesha as elephant-headed and the connection of elephant with Sindhu is not accidental. Sindhu, with all its connotations has the foremost “Head”- place in Hindu Civilization and Culture (and as per one theory, the word Hindu is derivative of Sindhu).

In classical Indian poetry and prose we have frequent references to elephants in musth (whose temporin secretion is often referred to as "ichor"); for example, Kalidasa in the Raghuvamsha, says that the king’s elephants drip ichor in seven streams to match the scent put forth by the seven-leaved 'sapta-cchada' (= "seven-leaf")

In the verse, uurja is another name for Kaartika, one of the two months that make up Sharad in which saptacchada is an essential element of the white serenity.

We note again the Mystic Number “7” – common to both Vedas and Qur’aan. Dr. Naik’s insulting Ganesha, is therefore, insult to the symbolic meaning of ?awaaf and Qur’aanik Mystic Number “7”.

Dr. Naik relies heavily on two Puranas – namely, Bhavishya(t) Puraana and Kalki Purana – parts of which have been interpolated as late as the 18th-19th century CE. – to propagate that Prophet Mohammad has been predicted in Bhavishya(t) Puraana and that Prophet Mohammad is the Kalki Avataara of Kalki Purana.

The idea is ludicrous and self defeating. Even admitting that Prophet Mohammad has been “predicted” in Bhavishya(t) Puraana, the mentioned Mahamada  is an Asura (therefore, Dr. Naik must be admitting Prophet Mohammad as an Asura).

Further, following Dr. Naik’s own methodology, “Mohammad” then can be interpreted as “Mahaa Mada” meaning “Great Intoxication” or “Moha Mada” meaning “Illusion, Delusion and Intoxication”- which is an anti-God or anti-religious connotation because Moha and Mada are considered Evils - as two of ?ada Ripus (Six Evils), namely, Kaama (Desire, Sexual Desire), Krodha (Anger), Lobha (Greed), Moha (Illusion and Delusion), Mada (Intoxication, Wine-addiction), and Maatsyarya (Envy, Jealousy). Besides, Mada in its literal sense is wine – which is prohibited in Islam.

In Bhavishya(t) Puraana, Mahamada is an expert in expanding illusion, and Shiva says: “There was a mystic demon named Tripura (Tripurasura), whom I have already burnt to ashes once before, he has come again by the order of Bali. He has no origin but he achieved a benediction from me. His name is Mahamada and his deeds are like that of a ghost.”

Is Dr. Naik then admitting Prophet Mohammad as a Ghost too? Will any pious Muslim accept and tolerate Dr. Naik?

Further, in Bhavishya(t) Puraana, the Mahamada appeared at night in front of King Bhojaraja and said: "O King, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still, by the order of the Lord, I am going to establish a terrible and demoniac religion and enforce a strong creed over the meat-eaters [mlecchas]. My followers will be known by their cut [circumcised] genitals, they will have no shikha [tuft of hair on their head, like Brahmanas], but will have a beard, make noise loudly, and eat all kinds of animals except swine without observing any rituals. They will perform purificatory acts with the musala, and thus be called musalman, and not purify their things with kusha grass [one of the Vedic customs]. Thus, I will be the originator of this adharmic [opposed to Vedic or Aryan Dharma] and demoniac religion of the meat-eating nations."

Will any pious Muslim accept and tolerate Dr. Naik for preaching that Prophet Mohammad is Adhaarmik, and Islam is inferior to Vedic Dharma?

Admitting that Prophet Mohammad is Vishnu’s Avataara Kalki in Kalki Purana is equally self-defeating because in Kalki Purana we find that Kalki is not invincible and is ultimately defeated by Raja Shashidhwaja. Further, though Kalki marries Raja Shashidhwaja’s daughter after that, he rules on earth for 1,000 years as the king of Shambhala.

Will any pious Muslim accept that? 1000 years since Prophet Mohammad are already over! Therefore, Dr. Naik, in his prediction-finding-spree is actually predicting the end of Islam!

Now, the Mother of irony in Dr. Naik’s proselytizing motive…

Dr. Naik has perhaps no idea or perhaps suppresses the fact that in Mudgala Puranam and Ganesha Puranam, akin to the Puranik narrative of Vishnu’s ten Avataaras, we have the narrative of Ganesha’s eight and four Avataaras respectively, named Dhuumravarna (Mudgala Puranam) and Dhuumraketu (Ganesha Puranam) who would bring end to Kali Yuga and are yet to be born. The future Avataara will kill Abhimana Asura -  the Evil of Pride and Vain Ego.

This should be Dr. Naik’s pathetic dilemma, other than the fact that Prophet Mohammad is a Messenger or Rasuul and not Avataara. There is no Belief in Avataara in The Holy Qur’aan. Therefore, in considering Prophet Mohammad as an Avataara, Dr. Naik is anti-Islamic, and goes against the very tenets of Islam and The Holy Qur’aan.

Hinduism is a pluralistic Religion; and all Hindus do not have and need not have similar sets of Beliefs. As Shri Ramakrshna said, a Hindu is free to follow his Belief that suits his nature and inclination – that suits his “digestive power”.

It is Shri Ramakrshna who accepted not only all Belief Systems of Hinduism, but also accepted all Belief Systems of all Religions of the World; and thus he redefined Hinduism saying – “Yata Mat Tata Path” (As Many Opinions, So Many Paths).

If Dr. Naik follows one stream of Hindu Belief of the 10 Avataaras (which Hindus are at liberty to believe or not to believe) and thinks that Kalki Avataara has already been born as Prophet Mohammad, then as per the other Belief, the future Ganesha Avataaras of Kali Yuga is yet to be born. If Dr. Naik thinks that Bhavishya(t) Puraana and Kalki Purana are all that defines Hinduism, then, giving so much importance to Puranas, Dr. Naik is also accepting Mudgala Puranam and Ganesha Puranam as important Texts of Hinduism.

So, here we have the scenario as per Dr. Naik –

1) If the last Avataara of Hindus is already born, and there is no other future Avataara, then Kalki Avataara is none other than Ganesha’s Avataaras – Dhuumravarna or Dhuumraketu;

2) In the light of above, if Prophet Mohammad is Kalki Avataara, then Prophet Mohammad is Ganesha’s Avataaras too;

3) If Prophet Mohammad is Ganesha’s Avataara, then how can Dr. Naik insult Ganesha?

4) If Dr. Naik insults Ganesha, then he insults Prophet Mohammad too;

5) If Dr. Naik equates Prophet Mohammad with Ganesha’s Avataaras, then he equates Prophet Mohammad with Ganesha who is Supreme God as per Ganapatyarthavashiirsha, Mudgala Puranam and Ganesha Puranam;

6) In light of above point-5, Dr. Naik is then equating Prophet Mohammad with Allah which is not permissible in Islam;

7) If Kalki Avataara is already born as Prophet Mohammad, but Kalki Avataara is not the same as Ganesha’s Avataaras – Dhuumravarna or Dhuumraketu, then as per Mudgala Puranam and Ganesha Puranam, the last Avataara of Hindus for Kali Yuga is not yet born;

8) In the light of above point-7, therefore, as per Dr. Naik, Prophet Mohammad is not the Last Prophet, and he should be waiting for Dhuumravarna/Dhuumraketu to be born.

Dr. Naik insults Ganesha, but he has no idea that as per one narrative in Present Mahabharata, Ganesha is the first writer of Mahabharata and the Giita that Krshnadvaipaayana Vyasa dictated to him.

And it is in Giita, Krshna says that Avataaras will be born again and again in different Yugas to uphold Dharma and destroy Adharma -

yadaa yadaa hi dharmasya glaanir bhavati bhaarata /
abhyutthaanam adharmasya tadaatmaanam srjaamy aham // (Giita- 4.7)

Prophet Mohammad may be the Last Prophet of Islam, but not of humanity.

That is why I have been saying that any attempted trickery with Hinduism is bound to backfire and be self-defeating. Dr. Naik should learn his lessons well.

While the true spirit of Universal Brotherhood should be – as Shri Ramakrshna said – “Yata Mat Tata Path” (As Many Opinions, So Many Paths) – Dr. Naik, under the garb of studying comparative religion, has in fact this hidden agenda of denigrating other Religion and Hinduism.

Dr. Naik’s words are provocative of communalism, and anti-Islamic because he violates the basic teaching of The Holy Qur’aan - "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Lakum Diinukum Wa Liya Diini)." (Suurat Al-Kaafiruun (109:6) – other than violating the principles of “Liberty of Belief” (of Hindus, in this context) as enshrined in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, and violating “public order, morality and health” under Article 25(1), and violating Article 26(b) under which Hindus have right “to manage its own affairs in matters of religion” (Ganapati puujaa in this context), and violating the Fundamental Duty (Article 51A) to “(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions” and “(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.”

The Indian Constitution under Article 25 guarantees “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion”. However, such right is not absolute and under Article 25(1) conditional and subject to “public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part.”

How can Dr. Naik hurt the religious sentiments of millions of Indians by insulting Ganapati Ganesha and go scot-free? In my opinion, therefore, Dr. Naik should be stringently dealt with as per Law of the Land.

Reference:

1) Stephen Knapp. “Prophet Mohammed: Is He Really Predicted in the Bhavishya Purana?”

[i] ganaanaam tvaa ganapatim havaamahe kavim kaviinaamupamashravastamam /
jyeshtharaajam brahmanaam brahmanas pata aa nah shrnvannuutibhih siida saadanam
(RV- 2.23.1)


[ii] Courtright and Thapan date it to the 16th or 17th century. The text is listed at number 89 in the Muktikaa canon of 108 Upanishads compiled in the mid 17th century, and is also mentioned c. 1800 by Upanishad Brahmayogin in his commentary on the Muktika canon


[iii] R. C. Hazra suggests that it is earlier than the Ganesha Puraanam which he dates between 1100 and 1400 A.D; other scholars suggest that might have expanded upto 18th century AD


[iv] Lawrence W. Preston considers the period of composition as AD 1100–1400, though it might have expanded upto 18th century AD


[v] sa vai naiva reme |
tasmaad ekaakii na ramate |
sa dvitiiyam aicchat |
sa haitaavaan aasa yathaa striipumaamsau samparishvaktau |
sa imam evaatmaanam dvedhaapaatayat |
tatah patish ca patnii caabhavataam |
tasmaad idam ardhabrgalam iva sva iti ha smaaha yaajnavalkyah |
tasmaad ayam aakaashah striyaa puuryata eva |
taam samabhavat |
tato manushyaa ajaayanta
|| BrhUp_1,4.3 ||

16-Apr-2017
More by :  Indrajit Bandyopadhyay
 
Views: 210
 
Top | Culture







A Bystander's Diary Analysis Architecture Astrology Ayurveda Book Reviews
Buddhism Business Cartoons CC++ Cinema Computing Articles
Culture Dances Education Environment Family Matters Festivals
Flash Ghalib's Corner Going Inner Health Hinduism History
Humor Individuality Internet Security Java Linux Literary Shelf
Love Letters Memoirs Musings My Word Networking Opinion
Parenting People Perspective Photo Essays Places PlainSpeak
Quotes Ramblings Random Thoughts Recipes Sikhism Society
Spirituality Stories Teens Travelogues Vastu Vithika
Women Workshop
RSS Feed RSS Feed Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Site Map
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Developed and Programmed by ekant solutions