Category Archives: Answering Hindu Cult

A Response to Sakshi Maharaj’s Suggestion of ‘Muslim Cremation’


A Brother has posed a brilliant response to the Indian Pandit’s moronic suggestion of “Muslim Cremation”, here is what he has to say:


(Translation: Sakshi Maharaj said, “Muslims too should cremate their dead because India doesn’t have land for 20 crore Muslims i.e. for burials…”)
My Counter-Question is:
100 CRORE Hindu bhaiyon ko Bhi Dafnaya karo. kyu Ki Zameen toh Bohat badi hai lekin Lakkdi nahi hai hindustan mai… Naxalwaadi lakkdi lene nahi denge..

(Translation: Even 100 Crore Hindus too should bury their dead, because land might be vast but wooden logs are less in India…. The Naxalwaadis won’t provide the logs for Cremation)




The Origins of Idolatry

[Majlisul Ulama]

“And they (the leaders of the mushrikoon) said (to their  followers): ‘Don’t ever abandon (worshipping) your gods, and don’t ever abandon (worshipping) Wadd, nor Suwaa’,  nor Yagooth, Ya’ooq and Nasr.” [Surah Nooh, Aayat 23]

These  five, viz., Wadd, Suwaa’,  Yagooth, Ya’ooq and Nasr, were  the first idols made on earth. These were the names of  righteous men – Auliya  – who  lived from the time of Nabi  Aadam (alayhis salaam) until the  age of Nabi Nooh (alayhissalaam).
They were renowned for their  worship and piety, and the people followed their teachings which they had inherited from Nabi Aadam (alayhissalaam) and  Nabi Sheeth (alayhissalaam), the  eldest son of Hadhrat Aadam  (alayhissalaam) who had become  the Nabi after Hadhrat Aadam  (alayhissalaam). 

While these Auliya were alive, all  the people were following the  one true path of the Deen. There  was no shirk, kufr or any other  religion or ideology. The people  had profound love for these  Auliya and they followed their  teachings. After they died, their  followers were grief-stricken.  There was much crying and mourning.

Shaitaan appeared in human form to the people and  presented his plot to deceive  them from Siraatul Mustaqeem  (the Straight Path). He took  advantage of their love and yearning for these Auliya, and he  prepared perfect pictures which  closely resembled these Auliya.  He convinced the people to keep  the pictures solely to refresh  their memories of their noble    Guides and to derive greater  inspiration. This would enhance  the quality of their ibaadat.

The simple folk readily fell into  this satanic trap. Initially the  pictures were not worshipped.  They were only kept and viewed  to create greater enthusiasm for    worshipping Allah Ta’ala in the  way in which these Auliya had  taught them. When the next  generation arrived, Shaitaan 
convinced the people that their predecessors used to actually worship these pictures. The arguments and interpretations of  shaitaan convinced the people  that their predecessors had actually worshipped these  pictures of the Auliya. Thus they   resorted to actually worshipping the pictures. This was the origin of idolatry.

The pictures ultimately led to the  making of stone idols. Shaitaan  again arrived and convinced the  people that a better way of  worshipping these Auliya was to  erect their likenesses in stone.  Thus, came into origin the  worship of stone images.

According to one tafseer, Wadd  was actually the title of Nabi  Sheeth (alayhissalaam). This  word means ‘love’. It was the  profound love which people had  for him that he was given this title.

Nabi Nooh (alayhissalaam) according to the Qur’aan Majeed  lived for 950 years. This was not  the average age of the people.    Allah Ta’ala had granted him this  long age. During his lifespan  several generations came and  departed from the world. Allah  Ta’ala had granted him this long  age. During his lifespan several  generations came and departed  from the world. Despite his tableegh, every successive  generation obstinately clung to  the worship of these five idols.

The Mushrikeen of Makkah had  adopted these five idols for their  worship. The tribe of Kalb had  taken to the worship of the idol  named Wadd. The tribe of Huzail  worshipped the idol Suwaa’.  The tribes of Muraad and Banu  Ghateef had adopted for their  worship the idol Yagooth while  Ya-ooq was the idol of the tribe Hamdaan. Nasr was worshipped  by the Zil Qalaa’, an offshoot of  the tribe of Humayr.

More corrupt beliefs developed  with the passage of time. Wadd  was believed to be the god of  male virility and became the god  of love. Suwaa’ was made the  god of beauty, hence the idol  was erected in the form of a  woman. Yagooth was their god  of strength and power. This idol  was therefore moulded in the  forms of a lion and a bull. The  god of speed was Ya-ooq which  was made in the form of a horse  (perhaps a horse with wings).  Nasr was believed to be the god  of powerful vision hence the  form of this idol was an eagle.  Today in India, these idols are  also worshipped generally  symbolizing the same issues. 

The original idols did not have  these forms nor were these  beliefs attached to them. These  doctrines of shirk were later  accretions which developed    among the Arab mushrikeen after  the idols were retrieved.

During the Great Deluge of Athaab (Divine Punishment)   which destroyed the people in Nabi Nooh’s time, these idols were buried under the earth, and  the Arabs of Makkah had discovered them. After unearthing them, they were set up by the  different tribes as their special deities.

After steadfastly with the greatest toleration and  perseverance engaging in  tableegh for more than nine  centuries, Allah Ta’ala informed  Hadhrat Nooh (alayhissalaam): “Never will your people accept Imaan accept those who have already believed.”, Hadhrat Nooh  (alayhissalaam) supplicated to  Allah Ta’ala invoking curses on  his mushrik nation since all hope of their reformation had now  receded into oblivion. Thus he  supplicated: 

“O My Rabb! Do not leave on earth even a single house of the kaafireen. Verily, if You should leave them, they will only mislead  your servants and give birth to  only immoral unbelievers.”     [Surah Nooh, Verses 26 and 27]

Then came the mighty and tumultuous Athaab of the Great Flood which utterly wiped out the mushrikeen. Islam’s  uncompromising stance against all forms of picture-making of animate objects and its severe prohibition are therefore readily  comprehensible. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “The worst-punished people on  the Day of Qiyaamah will be the picture-makers.”

The story of the origin of idolatry  also illustrates the deception of  Iblees. He approaches sincere  and pious men to swerve from  Siraatul Mustaqeem with  ‘pious’  and ‘logical’ arguments. May  Allah Ta’ala save us from such  talbees of Iblees.

Refuting P.N Oak’s False Contentions on the Ka’bah

[By Majlisul Ulama of South Africa]

Some  “researcher”  known  as  P.N.  Oak  has  come  up  with  some ludicrous,  puerile  and  absurd  comments  regarding  Islam.  His  theory postulating  the  “impact  of  the  Vedic  religion  on  Islam”  is  laughable. Those  acquainted  with  history  will  smile  at  the  silliness  of  the assertions made by Oak.

Among  the  fallacious  claims  made  by  Oak  is  that  The  Holy  Ka’bah  in Makkah  was  “originally  a  Shiva  temple“.  But,  for  this  astounding  and absurd  claim  he  fails  to  present  any  evidence.  He  permits  his imagination to  play  havoc  with  him,  hence  he  bases  his  claim  on  “a  gold dish”  supposedly  located  in  the  Ka’bah.  Oak  alleges  that  some inscription  on  the  gold  dish  supposedly  found  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah  refers to  “Vikram’s  enlightened  rule“.  Assuming  that  such  a  dish  was  in  fact located  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah,  how  on  earth  can  such  a  chance  finding override  and  abrogate  the  volumes  of  historical  facts  surrounding  the Holy  Ka’bah?    If  a  copy  of  the  Holy  Qur’aan  is  found  in  some  Hindu temple  or  in  a  Christian  shrine  or  in  the  Pope’s  headquarters,  does  it follow  that  these  places  were  some  Muslim  Shrines  in  some  remote point  in  time  and  that  it  will  be  correct  to  conclude  from  such  a  finding that  Islam  has  made  an  impact  on  the  respective  religions..?  No  person of  intelligence  can  uphold  such  a  ludicrous  and  unreasonable conclusion.  The  finding  of  some  dish,  parchment,  plate,  garment  or  any other  object  is  not  an  intelligent  basis  for  upturning  and  negating  facts which  have  been  testified  for  accuracy  by  authorities,  from  generation to  generation.  If  every  simple  find  such  as  a  dish,  constitutes  a  valid basis  for  revising  historical  facts,  then  we  dare  say  that  the  entire history  of the  world  will have  to  be  re-written.

If  Oak’s  “key”  to  his  “research”  is  a  mere  dish  supposedly  located  in  the Holy  Ka’bah,  every  man  of  some  intelligence  can  understand  the  fallacy of  his  entire  research-conclusions.  It  staggers  the  imagination  to  be informed  that  a  man,  supposedly  a  research  scholar,  is  prepared  to dismiss  the  wealth  and  volume  of  historical  facts  on  the  basis  of  a  dish which  has  been  claimed  to  have  been  found  in  the  Ka’bah.  If  the  same or  a  similar  dish  singing  the  praises  of  Vikram  had  to  be  found  in
Buckingham  Palace  will  it  be  sensible  to  aver  that  this  Palace  was  a Hindu  shrine  once  upon  a  time..?

We  have  no  knowledge  of  any  “golden  dish”  with  Hindu  praises  having been  found  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah.  Let  Mr.  Oak  furnish  factual  proof regarding this  “dish”.

Mr.  Oak  should  also  be  apprised  of  some  historical  facts  pertaining  to the  Ka’bah.  Prior  to  the  advent  of  Prophethood  of  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  Ka’bah  was  filled  with  hundreds  of  idols  —  the gods  of  the  pagans  who  had  abandoned  the  true  religion  of  their forefather,  Nabi  lbraaheem  (Prophet  Abraham  alayhissalaam) [for more details read this: How Idols found place in the Ka’aba during Pre-Islamic Era??]. The pagan  Arabs  in  fact  had  a  god  (an  idol)  for  each  different  day  of  the year.  It  will  not  be  at  all  surprising  if  Mr.  Oak’s  research  could  have suggested  that  the  cult  of  idol  worship  which  existed  among  pre-Islam Arabs  was  the  impact  of the  Vedic  religion.  Since  the  Hindu  or  the  Vedic religion  is  an  idolatrous  cult  with  a  multitude  of  gods,  the  idolatry  of the  pagan  Arabs  in  the  pre-Islamic  era  can  understandably  and reasonably  be  attributed  to  the  Vedic  religion.  The  idols  of  the  pagan Arabs  and  the  idols  of  the  Vedic  religion  are  birds  of  a  feather,  but,  to suggest  that  the  Vedic  idolatrous  religion  had  any  impact  on  Islam  and its  rigidly  monotheistic  teachings  and  beliefs  is  preposterous  and absurd  in  the  extreme.

Again  assuming  that  some  Hindu  golden  dish  was  located  in  the  Holy Ka’bah,  common  sense  would  have  concluded  that  the  “dish”  was  a relic  of  the  idolatrous  pagans  who  had  filled  the  Holy  Ka’bah  with  360 idols.  The  idolatrous  pagans  of  the  pre-Islam  era,  having  imported  their cult  of  idolatry  from  the  Hindu  east,  had  similar  rites  of  idol-worship.  Offerings  of  a  variety  of  kinds  were  made  to  propitiate  the  idols.  It  will, therefore,  not  at  all  be  surprising  if  the  supposed  golden  dish  was among  the  offerings  which  the  pagans  had  made  to  the  idols  which  had been  installed  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah  by  the  pagan  Arabs  heavily  influenced by  the  idolatry  of  the  east  —  the  idolatry  of  the  Vedic  religion  being  the most  profound.

In  terms  of  the  “golden  dish”  theory  as  propounded  by  Oak,  Vedic missionaries  had  arrived  in  Arabia  to  preach  their  religion.  This  is  the claim  supposedly  made  in  the  inscriptions  on  the  “dish”. If  this  is  indeed so,  then  it  accounts  for  the  paganism  and  the  idolatry  of  the  Arabs before  the  advent  of  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  The  Arabs, being  the  followers  of  Nabi  lbraaheem  (Prophet  Abraham  alayhissalaam)  were  rigidly  and  uncompromisingly  believers  in  THE  ONE  GOD.  The  spread  of  idolatry  among  them  is  therefore  surprising.    However, the  “dish”  theory  of  Oak  throws  light  on  the  origin  of  idol-worship among  the  pre-Islam  Arabs.  A  “golden  dish”  located  in  the  Ka’bah,  with Vedic  inscriptions  is  testimony  for  the  origin  of  the  idols  which  had once  occupied  the  Holy  Ka’bah  Mosque  in  the  days  before  Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  When  the  Holy  Ka’bah  had  housed  even  the  idols of  the  pagan  Arabs  sedated  by  Hindu  idolatry,  then  the  location  of  a mere  “dish”  with  Vedic  inscriptions  should  come  as  no  surprise.

Mr.  Oak  presents  a  number  of  fallacious  points  for  his  conclusion  that the  Vedic  religion  had  an  impact  on  Islam.  The  article  in  the  LEADER states:

In  his  research Mr.  Oak  furnishes other  proof reinforcing  the  belief that Arabs  were  once  followers  of  the  Indian  Vedic  way  of  life.

That  the  pre-Islam  Arabs  were  pagans  and  idolaters  is  an  undeniable and  a  well-established  historical  fact  which  ten-year  old  kids  in  a primary  school  are  aware  of.  If  the  Arab  idolatrous  cult  was  the influence  or  even  the  product  of  “the  Indian  Vedic  way  of  life”,  there  is nothing  surprising  about  it.  But,  the  cult  of  the  pre-Islam  Arabs  should not  be  confused  with  the  uncompromising  religion  of  monotheism  of Islam  delivered  to  mankind  by The Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  No one  will  deny  the  idolatry  of  the  pagan  pre-Islam  Arabs.  If  some  theory or  research  establishes  that  the  360  idols  installed  by  the  Arabs  in  the Ka’bah  prior  to  the  advent  of  Islam  were  the  influence  or  the  impact  of the  Vedic  religion,  we  shall  not  contest  such  a  claim  since  reason  can accept  that  a  religion  grounded  and  advanced  in  idolatry  can  spawn  a  cult  of  lesser  idolatry,  the  lesser  idolatry  in  this  instance  being  the idolatry  of the  pagan  Arabs. One  of his  points  is  the  Hajj.

In  this  regard  Oak  states:

The  annual Hajj  of  the  Muslims  to  the  Ka’bah  is  of  an  earlier  pre-Islamic  congregation.

It  is  clear  that  Mr.  Oak  is  a  poor  student  of  history.  Even  our  little children  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Hajj  pilgrimage  was  in  existence prior  to  the  appearance  of  Nabi  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  The Hajj  worship  came  into  existence  among  the  Arabs  during  the  time  of Nabi  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam).  From  this  angle  it  will  be  correct to  conclude  that  the  Hajj  of  the  present-day  Muslims  “is  of  an  earlier pre-Islamic  congregation”.  By  “pre-Islamic”  will  mean  the  era  prior  to the  advent  of  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  But,  it  is  ridiculous  to infer  that  the  Islamic  Hajj  is  the  impact  of  the  Vedic  religion  merely because  it  was  in  existence  from  the  time  of  Prophet  lbraaheem (alayhissalaam).  Every practice  of  the  pre-Islam  pagan  Arabs  cannot  be  attributed  to  Vedic influence  or  the  influence  of  some  other  idolatrous  cult.  While  the actual  worship  of  Hajj  among  the  Arabs  came  into  existence  during  the time  of  Nabi  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam),  the  Arabs  who  later abandoned  the  true  religion  of  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam) introduced  many  pagan  and  idolatrous  rites  into  the  Hajj  pilgrimage presumably  under  influence  of  Vedic  idolaters  who  came  to  Arabia  to preach  the  idolatry  of  the  Vedic  religion.  But,  such  idolatrous  influences introduced  by  the  pre-Islam  pagans  cannot  be  cited  as  a  basis  for  the preposterous  claim  that  the  Hajj  itself  is  a  Vedic  rite.  There  is  absolutely no  factual  or  historical  evidence  to  substantiate  this  fallacious  claim made  by  Oak.

Another  absurd  claim  made  by  Oak  is  stated in  the  Leader  as  follows:

The  principal shrines  at Varanasi, in India  and  at  Mecca,  in  Arrastan, were  Shiva  temples. Even  to  this  day  ancient  mahadeva  emblems  can be  seen.

Such  emblems  can  be  seen  on  the  Shiva  temples  in  India.  But  the allegation  of  such  signs  of  idolatry  —  such  emblems  of  paganism  —  on the  Ka’bah  is  a  blatant  falsity.  What  is  Oak’s  proof  for  existence  of  such emblems  in  the  Ka’bah..?    Such  “emblems  of  Mahadeva”  allegedly  in  or  on  the  Ka’bah  are  the  reflections  of  Oak’s  imagination.

The  “dish”  theory  constrains  Oak  to  conjecture  the  following conclusion which  he  seems  to  believe  as  factual evidence:

According  to  the  inscriptions,  if  King  Vikram  spread  the  Vedic  religion, who else but he could  have  founded the  Ka’bah  temple?

If  king  Vikram  did  in  fact  spread  the  Vedic  religion  of  idolatry  which  gave  birth  to  the  360  idols  of  the  pagan  Arabs,  it  does  not  follow  therefrom  that  the  Holy  Ka’bah  was  a  Hindu  temple  built  by  Vikram. For  such  a  preposterous  claim  factual  proof  is  required.  The  wishful  thinking  of  Mr.  Oak  cannot  override  the  facts  of history. Even  the  pagan Arabs  were  fully  aware  of  the  origin  of  the  Ka’bah.  They  had  full knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Nabi  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  was the  founder  of  the  Ka’bah.  The  groundless  suggestion  of  a  man  in  this belated  century  is  nothing  other  than  pure  wishful  thinking  —  a  fallacy to  be  dismissed with  contempt.

In  support of his  conclusions  based on  the  “dish”  theory,  Oak  claims:

Pilgrims’ shaving  of  head  and  beard  and  donning  white cloth  are remnants  of  the  old  Vedic  practice  of  entering  temples  clean  shaven.

Oak  demonstrates  his  lack  of  knowledge  of  Islamic  practices  by  his claim  of  shaving  the  beard.  Hujjaaj  (pilgrims)  do  not  shave  their  beards. Muslim  males  are  not  permitted  to  shave  their  beards  whether  they are  at  home  or  entering  temples  or  Mosques,  be  it  the  Sacred  Mosque of  the  Ka’bah.  While  shaving  the  head  for  male  pilgrims  is  a  rite  of  the Hajj,  shaving  the  beard  is  not  permissible.  It  may  be  a  Vedic  practice  to shave  the  beard,  but definitely  not  a  Muslim  practice.
Muslim  pilgrims  do  not  shave  their  heads  in  order  to  enter  temples  or  Mosques.  If  shaving  the  head  is  a  Vedic  practice  necessary  for  entry  into  a  temple,  Mr.  Oak  should  learn  from  us  that  it  is  not  a  practice  of Islam.  Muslim  pilgrims  either  shave  or  clip  some  hairs  to  release  them from  the  restrictions  of  the  Hajj  (pilgrimage).

If  donning  white  cloth  was  a  custom  of  “old  Vedic”  religion,  it  does  not  logically  follow  therefrom  that  the  white  garments  which  Muslim pilgrims  don  are  “Remnants  of  old  Vedic  practice”.  What  are  Oak’s grounds  for  this  fictitious  theory..??  It  is  absurd  to  suggest that wherever a  white religious  garb  exists  it must be the  result of  Vedic  influence.

Among  the  points  put  forward  by  Oak  for  his  fallacy  is  the  emblem  of the  crescent  moon. Stating  this  point of  Oak,  the  Leader  says:

In  India  the  crescent  moon  is  always  painted  across  the  forehead  of  the Shiva  symbol. The  same  emblem now  adorns  the  flag  of  Islam.

Mr. Oak  has  transgressed all bounds  of absurdity  in  putting  forward  this ignorant  claim.  What  is  the  “flag  of  Islam”  in  Oak’s  understanding??   From  where  did  this  ‘research  scholar’  obtain  his  information  in  this regard!  If  the  flags  of  Muslim  countries  have  the  symbol  of  the crescent,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Flag  of Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  —  the  Flag  of  Islam  —  also  displayed  the  crescent  emblem.  The crescent  emblem  is  an  innovation which  did  not exist during the  time  of the  Holy  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  nor  during  the  time  of  his righteous  Khulafaa  (Representatives  and  Successors).  Assuming  that the  crescent  emblem  did  exist  among  the  Muslims  of  the  Prophetic  era,  then  too,  Oak  will  have  no  grounds  to  bolster  his  claim  of  Vedic  origin and  Vedic  influence.  One  cannot  venture  such  claims  without producing  facts  and  proofs  to  substantiate  one’s  claims  which  are  in conflict  with  all facts  of history.

Endeavouring  to  present  his  wishful  thinking  as  a  fact  of  history,  Oak asserts  that  the  Tawaaf  (circumambulation)  of  Ka’bah  by  pilgrims  is  the influence  of the  Vedic  religion. Thus,  the  Leader  says:

Muslim pilgrims  go around  the  Ka’bah  seven times,  a  common  practice among Hindus.   In  no other  mosque  does  circumambulation  prevail.

Circumambulation  of  the  Ka’bah  is  because  of  the  special  religious significance  which  Muslims  believe  is  exclusive  to  the  Ka’bah,  the  first Place  of  Worship  ever  to  be  constructed  on  earth.  According  to  Islamic Belief,  the  first  person  to  build  the  Ka’bah  was  Aadam  (alayhissalaam)  —  the  first  man  on  earth.  Its  superior  rank  and  the  special  divine presence  which  Muslims  believe  surrounds  the  Ka’bah  are  the  facts underlying  the  circumambulation.  If  Hindus  do  in  fact  circumambulate  some  temple  seven  times,  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  such  a  Hindu practice  gave  rise  to  the  Tawaaf  (circumambulation)  rite  of  Islam.  Mere similarities  between  opposite and  divergent  religions  cannot  be  cited  as evidence  for  one’s  claims  unsupported  by  factual proof.

Another  point of  Oak  stated by  the  Leader  is:  

Eid  in  Sanskrit  means  worship  and  Bakri  Eid, which  derives  from sacrifices of  Vedic  times  was  celebrated  with  mutton  feasting  at the time of  the  sun’s  entry  into  Aries.

If  the  term  “Eid”  means  “worship”  in  Sanskrit,  we  have  to  apprize  Oak  of  the  fact  that  in  Arabic  the  word  “Eid”  does  not  mean  “worship”.  In Arabic  “Eid”  means  ‘the  Day  of  Return’.  The  Islamic  Festivals  are  known as  such  because  of  their  ‘return’  or  ‘repeated  coming’.  The  term  itself does  not  connote  ‘worship’  in  Arabic.  Thus,  there  is  no  question  of  the Arabic  term  ‘Eid’  being  the  Sanskrit  term  contended  by  Oak.  There  is, therefore,  absolutely  no  point  for  Oak’s  “dish”  theory.  in  the  Arabic word,  “Eid”.  “Bakri  Eid”  being  the  occasion  when  Muslims  sacrifice animals  unto  Allah  Ta’ala  has  no  resemblance  with  any  Vedic  muttonfeasting  practice  dedicated  to  idols.  The  word  “Bakri”  is  not  Arabic.  It  is an  Urdu  term  meaning  ‘goat’.  Since  goats  are  generally  sacrificed  in  India  on  the  occasion  of  Eidul  Adhaa,  Indian  Muslims  have  coined  the name  “Bakri  Eid”.  The  main  animal  of  sacrifice  for  the  Arabs  has  always been  the  camel.  Eidul  Adhaa  —  the  original  and  correct  name  of  this auspicious  Day  —  is  the  name  known  to  the  Arabs.  The  sacrifice  of animals  on  this  occasion  is  in  commemoration  of  the  supreme  sacrifice of  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam).  There  is  absolutely  no  resemblance to  any  Vedic  mutton-eating  custom  of  idolatrous  merry-making.  If  the  Vedic  custom  of  mutton-feasting  is  to  mark  the  sun’s  entry  into  ‘Aries’, the  Islamic  practice  of sacrificing animals  is  not.  Even  the  Christian  Bible speaks  of  the  sacrifice  of  animals.  If  the  Islamic  custom  of  sacrificing  animals  has  to  be  the  result  of  Vedict  impact,  then  Oak  may  also  argue that  the  biblical  practice  of  sacrificing  animals  is  likewise  the  influence of the  Vedic  religion.

Oak  then  claims:

The  Islamic word  Eidgah,  signifies  “House  of  Worship”  which  is  the exact  Sanskrit  connotation  of  the  term.

Again  Oak  exhibits  his  total  ignorance  of  Islam  and  its  practices.  In  Arabic  there  is  no  such  term  as  “Eidgah“.  This  term  was  unknown  to  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  His  followers  during  the  early  history  of  Islam.  The  term  ‘gah’  means  place  in  the  Urdu  language.  It  is  not  of  Arabic  origin  nor  does  Eidgah  in  Urdu  mean  “House  of  Worship”. The  Eidgah  is  a  special  venue  set  aside  for  solely  the  prayers  which  are performed  on  the  Day  of  Eid.  Eidgah,  therefore,  means  in  Urdu  the place  where  the  special  Eid  prayers  are  performed.  Since  the  term  is not  of  Arabic  origin  nor  is  it  the  word  used  by  the  Arabs  to  describe  the place  where  the  Eid  prayers  are  conducted,  there  is  no  support  in  it  for Oak’s  conclusions  stemming  from  his  “dish”  theory.  In  Arabic  the  place where  the  Eid  prayers  are  conducted  is  known  as  the  “Musallaa“.

Oak  betrays  his  ignorance  of  Islam  in  similar  fashion  by  tendering  the following point in  substantiation  of the  “dish”  theory,  

Also  the  word  ‘Namaaz’  derives  from  two  Sanskrit  roots  ‘nama’ and ‘yajna’  meaning  bowing  and  worshipping.

The  word  “namaaz”  is  not  an  Arabic  term.  It  was  never  used  by  the Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  nor  by  the  Arab  Muslims. Even to  this  day  the  Islamic  practice  of  prayers  is  described  as  Salaah,  not NamaazNamaaz  is  of  Persian  origin.  While  Salaah  (Islamic  prayers)  is known  as  ‘Namaaz‘  in  Persian  and  Urdu,  it  has  never  been  the  case  in Arabic.  How  ridiculous  then,  is  it  not,  for  Oak  to  cite  an  Urdu  term coined  ages  after  the  Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  to  bolster  his  theory  arising  out  of  a  dish  supposedly  found  in  the  Ka’bah..??    The Urdu  language  consists  of  words  from  many  languages,  including Sanskrit.    But,  the  Urdu  language  was  not  the  language  of  the  Prophet (on  whom be  peace)  or  of  the  Arabs.

It  is  therefore  meaningless  to  seek  to  forge  a  theory  concerning  the Arabs  of  the  pre-Islam  and  post-Islam  era  by  tendering  terms introduced  by  non-Arab  Muslims  centuries  after  the  advent  of  the Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Presenting  another  preposterous  and  fallacious  point  in  substantiation of his  “dish”  theory,  Oak  says:

…..that shabibarat is the  corrupt form  of  Shiva  Ratra  and  that the  term ‘eidul  fitr’  derives  from  the  eid  of  piters  (worship  of  forefathers in Sanskrit  tradition  and  Pitri  Paksha  among  Hindus).

The  term  “shab”  is  not  Arabic. The  occasion  referred  to  is  the  15th  night of  the  month  of  Sha’baan  in  the  Islamic  calendar.  The  Arabs  do  not know  this  night  by  the  name,  ‘Shabibarat‘.  This  is  an  Indian  term,  also introduced  ages  after  the  Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  It  is blatantly  false  to  aver  that  the  Urdu  or  Faarsi  word  ‘shab‘  is  the  corrupt form  of  ‘Shiva’.  Whatever  Shiva  may  mean  in  Sanskrit,  it  has  absolutely  no  relationship  with  the  Urdu  term,  ‘shab‘ which  means  night.

The  word  ‘baraa-ah‘  is  not  a  corrupt  form  of  the  Sanskrit  term,  ratra’- Oak  has  allowed  his  imagination  to  play  havoc  with  him.  He  makes sweeping claims  without furnishing grounds  for  his  fallacies.

His  claim  regarding  “Eid ul  Fitr”  is  just  as  fallacious.  Eid ul  Fitr  has absolutely  no  connection  with  some  idolatrous  worship  of  forefathers. Eid ul  Fitr  is  the  Day  of  Happiness  marking  the  end  of  the  month  of fasting,  viz.,  the  month  of  Ramadhaan.  In  Islam  there  is  no  ritual  or practice  which  is  even  remotely  akin  to  the  Hindu  custom  of worshipping forefathers.

Oak  claims  that the  word  ‘Allah ‘, the  Islamic  term  for  God  Almighty,  is  a Sanskrit  word  meaning  ‘goddess  or  mother’.  If  there  is  some  such  word in  Sanskrit  having  these  meanings  stated  by  Oak,  there  is  absolutely  no  proof  for  the  claim  that  the  Arabic  word,  Allah  has  been  borrowed from Sanskrit.  In  Arabic,  the  word  ‘Allah’  does  not  mean  ‘goddess’  or ‘mother’.  The  word,  ‘Allah’  has  been  known  to  the  very  first  man  on earth,  viz.,  Aadam  (alayhissalaam).  If  some  of  the  progeny  of  Aadam  in  the  different  parts  of  the  world  retained  the  term  ‘Allah’  after having  abandoned  the  true  religion  taught  by  the  Prophets,  there  is  no surprise  whatsoever.

It  is  the  belief  of  Muslims–a  belief  stated  by  the  Qur’aan–that  Almighty Allah  had  sent  Prophets  to  all  nations. Prophets  of  Allah  have  therefore appeared  in  India  and  in  all  places  to  deliver  the  Truth  of  Islam.  It  is, therefore,  quite  possible,  in  fact,  almost  certain  that  the  Prophet  or Prophets  who  came  to  India  many  thousands  of  years  ago,  had  come  with  the  word,  Allah.  The  Indians  must  have  been  apprized  by  the Prophets  that  God  Almighty  is  Allah,  The  One.  Therefore,  it  is  not  at  all surprising  if  the  term  ‘Allah  ‘  has  been  retained  by  the  Sanskrit language.  But,  then  why  do  Hindus  not  refer  to  God  with  the  Name  Allah  if  their  language  and  their  religion  claim  that  the  correct  word  for God is  ‘Allah’ ??

Oak,  spurred  on  by  his  imagination,  is  reading  too  much  in  word similarities.  Word  similarities  exist  in  most  languages.  A  word  of  the same  or  similar  pronunciation  may  be  found  with  the  same  or  different meanings  in  different  languages.  Historical  facts  of  certitude  cannot  be deduced  from  such  similarities  of  ambiguity.  Such  flimsy  theories  which are  the  product  of  mere  imagination  and  wishful  thinking  cannot constitute  facts  and  grounds  for  the  negation  of  historical  and  religious facts supported by the testimony of generations of authorities.

In  conclusion  we  are  compelled  to  observe  that  the  findings  of  Oak are  amazing  in  absurdity  and  in  their  degree  of  fallacy.

In  response  to  the  queries  and  views  of  ‘Rationalist’  (The  Leader,  3rd June 1988) we wish to say:

(1)  Whatever  the  meaning  and  significance  of  the  Black  Stone  at  the Ka’bah  may  be,  it  is  NOT  the  interpretation  which  is  associated  with  the “Lingam-Yoni  worship”.  It  is  not  our  intention  here  to  engage  in  any refutation  of  the  rites  of  paganism  and  immoral  cults.  Our  concern  is  with  the  baseless  and  blasphemous  interpretations  and  vile connotations  which  self-appointed  historians  seek  to  attach  to  the religious  rites  and  acts  of  worship  of  Islam.  

P.N.  Oak  is  no  authority  on  any  Islamic  matter.  His  views  are  essentially his  personal,  unfounded  and  unsubstantiated  opinions  devoid  of  truth and  stripped  of  any  sort  of  evidence.  Theories  can  be  propounded  in abundance.  But,  as  long  as  theories  remain  unsubstantiated  by  facts, they  will  be  regarded  as  the  figments  of  imagination  and  the  products of  whimsical  fancy.  Thus,  the  baseless  interpretation  regarding  the Black  Stone  which  “Rationalist”  seeks  to  trade  is  raised  on  the  hollow foundations  of  an  unsubstantiated  theory  of  one  Mr.  Oak  who  avers that  the  Ka’bah  was  a  Shiva  temple.  In  postulating  his  idea  regarding the  Black  Stone,  Rationalist  has  placed  the  cart  before  the  horse.  Let  him  and  Oak  first  prove  conclusively  that  the  Holy  Ka’bah  was  in  fact  a Shiva  temple.  Once  they  have  succeeded  (and  never  will  they  ever succeed)  in  backing  up  their  ill-begotten  theory  with  facts  and evidence,  then  only  will  it  be  rational  for  Rationalist  to  embark  upon  his interpretation  which  he  has  postulated  for  the  Black  Stone  by implication of his reference to the Ka’bah as a Shiva temple. 

Since  we  do  not  accept  Oak  as  any  authority,  his  views  are utterly  baseless  and  puerile  and  in  stark  conflict  with  historical evidence.

(2)  On  the  contrary,  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  the  arguments  of  Oak  are  irrelevant  in  entirety  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  has  advanced  his personal  idea  unsubstantiated  by  evidence.  His  allegation  about  a “dish”  –  a  Shiva  dish  –  a  Vedic  dish  —  is  laughable,  to  say  the  least.  One  has  to  be  really  senile  in  the  mind  to  regard  the  dish-trash  as  evidence for  upsetting  and  negating  the  historical  evidence  which  has  been transmitted  reliably  down  the  long  corridor  of  time.  A  theory,  no matter  how  plausible  it  may  sound  and  how  appealing  it  may  appear  to the  imagination  of  some  persons,  remains  pure  conjecture  as  long  as evidence  cannot  be  advanced  to  make  it  stand  on  its  legs.  A  mere allegation  of  a  “dish”  supposedly  discovered,  is  not  evidence  for  the ridiculous  contentions  made  by  Oak.

To  men  of  intelligence,  the  claims  of  Oak  do  not  appear  reasonable  ”by large”  as  Rationalist  asserts.  On  the  contrary  his  claims  appear downright childish  and  ludicrous.

(3)  Arguing  in  vindication  of  Oak’s  blasphemous  views  pertaining  to  the Holy  Ka’bah,  Rationalist  states:

He  has  established that there  is  a  well  at Mecca  called  Zam  Zam

Rationalist  presents  this  as  a  wonderful  discovery  made  by  Oak.  Every little  child  –  all  Muslim  children  by  the  million,  the  world  over,  know  of the  existence  of  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  We  are  certain  that  numerous non-Muslims  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  There is  no  secrecy  surrounding  the  existence  of  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  The Zam  Zam  is  not  some  hidden  relic.  It  is  not  a  discovery  which  any archeologist  has  made.  It  is  a  Well  which  has  been  in  daily  use  since  the advent  of  Nabi  Ismaa’eel !  (alayhissalaam).  It  is  indeed  laughable to  read that  Oak  has  finally,  possibly  after  prolonged  research  and  years of  in-depth  investigations,  established  the  existence  of  a  Well  which  is as  famous  as  Makkah  itself.  This  reflects  the  degree  of  historical knowledge  possessed  by  the  self-appointed  historians  of  the  age  –  by those  who  pride  themselves  with  investigations  conducted  in  the  socelled  search-light of scientific  facts.

(4)  Again,  Rationalist  lending  support  to  the  vile  theory  which  Oak propounds  in  relation  to  the  Sacred  Ka’bah,  seeks  to  display  Oak’s  mentioning of the  Black  Stone as  a  significant discovery,  hence  he  avers that  Oak  has  established  the  existence  of  the  Stone  in  the  Ka’bah.  But, the  existence  of  the  Black  Stone  at  the  Ka’bah  is  not  a  secret–  has never  been  a  secret  hence,  Rationalist’s  claim  In  regard  to  the establishing of this  fact by  Oak  is  meaningless.
(5)  Rationalist  then  makes  the  lurid  and  the  stupid  conclusion  that  “to the  Saivites  this  is  Siva’s  lingum“.  Stones  and  immoral  inscriptions elsewhere  may  be  “Siva’s  lingum”.  But  to  associate  the  Sacred  Black Stone  at  the  Ka’bah  as  the  miserable  lingum  of  siva  is  among  the  worst statements  of blasphemy.

Let  Rationalist  and  Oak  inform  us  precisely  when  did  this  ludicrous  idea developed  among  Saivites..??  Since  when  has  saivites  considered  the Sacred  Black  Stone  at  the  Ka’bah  to  be  the  lingum  of  siva..??  Why  has this  idea  arisen  in  this  belated  century  belated  in  relation  to  the  Vedic religion..??  Even  if  Saivites  have  imagined  this  silly  notion,  what  is  the evidence  to  support  this  conjecture??  The  allegation  of  a  chance-finding of some  idolatrous  “dish”  is  not  evidence.  

(6)  Rationalist  also  alleges  that  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam  to  the  Saivites represents  the  river  Ganges.  How  childish  can  Rationalists  and scientists  become  in  presenting  the  figments  of  their  imagination!  Since when  have  saivites  regarded  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam  to  represent  the river  Ganges  of  India..?  Is  it  rational  to  aver  that  the  Zam  Zam  Well  in Makkah  represents  the  river  Ganges  in  India??  What  is  the  rational  and the  scientific  factor  of  relationship  of  this  supposed  representation?? Rationalist  prides  himself  with  the  “searchlight  of  scientific  facts”.  But, how  rational  and  how  scientific  is  he  behaving  by  postulating  a relationship  between  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam  at  Makkah  and  the  river Ganges  in  India??  Rationalist  should  drop  the  outer  facade  of rationalism which  he  has  sought  to  adopt.  Rational  thinking  has  no  scope  for  the type  of  ridiculous  relationships  and  baseless  representation  which Rationalist  has  endeavored  to  portray  between  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam and  the  river  Ganges.

In  our  reply  to  Oak’s  views  we  had  already  answered  the  claims regarding  the  circumambulation  and  the  shaving  of  the  head.  We  shall,
therefore,  not  repeat  ourselves  here.  Our  earlier  reply  suffices  to dismiss  the  unfounded idea  of  Rationalist  stated in  support of  Oak.

(7)  In  an  attempt  to  force  another  relationship  between  the  idolatrous Vedic  cult and  Islam,  Rationalist  avers:

The  moon  has  an  important place  in  Islam. The  sighting  of  the  moon on  certain  occasions  is  imperative.  To  the  Hindus  the  moon  is  an emblem on  Shiva’s  forehead.

Be  the  moon  “an  emblem  on  Shiva’s  forehead”.  It  is  not  the  emblem  of  Islam.  The  adoption  of  the  crescent  moon  on  the  flags  of  most  Muslim countries  is  not  a  teaching  of  Islam.  Islam  is  what  the  Qur’aan  and  the Traditions  of our  Holy  Nabi  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  teach. The acceptance  of  the  crescent-symbol  on  Muslim  flags  is  not  grounded  in Islamic  teaching.  It  is,  therefore,  baseless  to  portray  the  moon  as  an object  of  religious  significance  in  Islam.  It  may  have  religious significance  in  the  cult  of  shiva  and  the  pagans,  but  it  has  no significance  in  Islamic  teaching.

The  imperativeness  of  sighting  the  moon  “on  certain  occasions”  is  not because  of  religious  significance  which  Muslims  attach  to  the  moon. Rationalist  exhibits  his  ignorance  of  Islam  by  having  made  this  claim. Muslims  have  a  lunar  calendar.  Just  as  the  sun  is  the  imperative  object in  the  determination  of  the  solar  calendar,  so  is  the  moon  in  the  lunar calendar  which  Islam  has  adopted.  Since  Islam  is  the  universal  religion for  all  mankind,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  which  are  simple  folk  inhabiting  villages  and  the  country-sides,  Islam  has  fixed  a  simple  way for  all  to  determine  the  beginning  of  the  months  of  the  lunar  calendar. The  lunar  month  for  Muslims  commences  with  the  sighting  of  the crescent  moon.  Thus,  the  imperativeness  of  the  sighting  is  purely  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  commencement  of  the  new  lunar month.  The  sighting  of  the  moon  is  not  restricted  to  “certain occasions”.  Rationalist  conveys  the  impression  that  auspicious occasions  in  Islam  are  related  to  the  moon.  This  notion  is  utterly  false. The  sighting  of  the  crescent  moon  is  imperative  to  establish  the  beginning  of  every  month  in  the  Muslim  lunar  calendar.  Hence,  some Muslims  in  a  community  are  required  to  sight  the  crescent  moon  every month.  There  is  absolutely  no  other  occasion  and  no  other  purpose  for which  the  moon  is  sighted.  There  is  thus  no  religious  significance  and no  symbolic  interpretation  which  Islam  associates  with  the  moon. Rationalist  is  indeed  exhibiting  irrationalism  by  his  ideas unsubstantiated by  proof and  facts.

(8)  The  following  statement  by  Rationalist  demonstrates  his  profound ignorance  about  Islam:

What lends  added support to  Oak’s  findings  is  that the  Holy Qum  by Abdullaah  Yusuf  Ali page  62  foot  note  160  makes mention  of  a  male and  female  idol near  the  well of Zam Zam.  To  the  Hindus  these represent  Shiva  and  Parvathi.

Indeed,  Rationalist  just  does  not  realize  what  he  is  saying.  Firstly,  the Qur’aan  is  not  a  Book  by  any  Abdullah  Yusuf  Ali.  The  Qur’aan  is  the revealed  Word  of  Almighty  Allah.  Furthermore,  Abdullaah  Yusuf  Ali  is  a non-entity  in  Islam. He  is  no  authority  in  Islam  in  fact, many  of his  views are  his  personal  opinions  just  as  baseless  as  Rationalist’s  and  Oak’s  ideas.  Yusuf  Ali  in  his  spurious  commentary  of  the  Qur’aan  is  guilty  of  certain  opinions  and  theories  of  blasphemy.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned Rationalist  may  just  as  well  say  “the  Holy  Qur’aan  by  Oak”.  Just  as unworthy  as  we  consider  Oak’s  and  Rationalist’s  propositions  and suppositions,  so  do  we  consider  many  of  Yusuf  Ali’s  comments  and views.  Rationalist  has  not  at  all  enhanced  his  hypothesis  by  introducing Yusuf  Ali  since  he  is  no  authority  in  Islam.  In  fact,  Yusuf  Ali’s commentary on the Qur’aan  is  heretical.

Thus,  Rationalist  should  understand  that  the  statement  which appear  in  the  footnotes  of  Yusuf  Ali’s  commentary  do  not  constitute the  Qur’aan  nor  are  his  comments  authentic  Qur’aanic  exegesis.  They are  merely  the  baseless  suppositions  of  a  mere  child  gone  astray  in  the spiritual  realm  of  Islamic  Knowledge  springing  out  of  the  Qur’aanic Fountain.  

Without  having  checked  Yusuf  Ali’s  comment  mentioned  by  Rationalist and  without  any  attempt  to  verify  the  historical  veracity  of  the  claim  of the  idols  in  close  proximity  to  the  Zam  Zam,  let  us  assume  for  a moment  that  such  idols  did  exist  once  upon  a  time  near  to  the  Sacred  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  If  such  idols  did  in  fact  exist  there,  it  will  not  be  cause for  any  surprise  when  it  is  a  historical  truth  that  even  the  Holy  Ka’bah  was  polluted  and  contaminated  with  the  presence  of  hundreds  of  idols which  the  pagan  Arabs  had  installed  possibly  under  the  influence  of  the devilish  missionaries  who  had  hailed  from  India  according  to  Oak  some millennium  ago.  What  then  is  so  surprising  if  some  of  the  idols  of  the idolaters  had  been  left  near  to  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam..??  If  Hindus  indeed  did  or  do  regard  the  miserable  idols  which  allegedly  and  supposedly existed  near  to  the  Zam  Zam  once  upon  a  time,  as  Shiva  and  Parvathi, then  by  all  means  let  them  soothe  themselves  with  such  silly  notions. We  discern  nothing  rational  and  nothing  scientific  in  this  preposterous supposition  fabricated  by  Rationalist.  Whatever  the  Hindus  may  think or  may  have  thought  of  the  imagined  idols  at  the  Zam  Zam,  all  idols  are evil  and  condemned  by  Islam.  The  Arabs  since  their  adoption  of  Islam eliminated  the  traces  of  their  pre-Islam  idolatrous  cult  and  idolatrous and  a  paganistic  cult  of  evil  and  immorality  which  was  akin  to  the idolatry  of  the  Hindus.  But,  the  pre-Islam  idolatry  of  the  Arabs  should not  be  confused  with  any  teachings  of  Islam.  To  imagine  any relationship  between  the  idolatrous  rites  of  paganistic  cults  and  Islam  is pure  conjecture.  There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  to  back  up  the  claims made  by  Oak  and  Rationalist  in  this  regard.  

(9)  Rationalist  arguing  in  support  of  Oak  mentions  some  poem  of  a  pre-Islam  pagan  Arab.  The  poem  purports  to  sing  the  praises  of  India  and the  Vedic  religion.  But,  any  such  poem  cannot  be  cited  as  any  relationship  between  Islam  and  the  idolatrous  Vedic  religion  of  the Hindus. The  pre-Islam  pagan  Arab  was  just as  idolatrous  as  the  idolaters of  India.  One  idol-worshipper  lauding  the  religion  of  other  idol worshippers  cannot  be  interpreted  as  any  relationship  between  Islam and  the  Vedic  religion  of  idolatry.  Even  if  the  idolater  happens  to  be  an Arab,  it  presents  no  evidence  for  the  ridiculous  theories  of  Oak.  We  fail to  understand  the  absurd  level  of  thinking  portrayed  by  Rationalist  in his  support for the  ideas  propagated by  Oak.  

The  polytheists  in  their  iconological  zeal  have  indeed  stretched  their imagination  to  absurd  proportions  by  the  attempt  to  strike  a resemblance  between  the  monotheistic  teachings  of  Islam  and  the idolatrous  practices  of  the  cult  of  iconolatry.  Idolatry  paralysis  the  human  mind  and  spirit  and  diminishes,  not  only  diminishes  but  utterly  destroys  the  dignity  of  human  being  –  a  dignity  which  pervades  him  by virtue  of  his  intelligent  belief  in  the  natural  concept  of  Tauheed  (Unity of Allah).

(10)  Rationalist  alludes  to  an  apparent  contradiction  in  our  explanation of  the  origin  of  the  Holy  Ka’bah.  It  was  said  in  our  explanation  that Aadam  (alayhissalaam)  was  the  first  person  to  build  the  Ka’bah. Again  we  stated  that  Nabi  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  was  the founder  of the  Ka’bah. Thus,  Rationalist  asks,

Was  Nabi  Ibraaheem  and  Adam  the  one  and  the  same  person?
No,  Nabi  Ibraaheem  and  Nabi  Aadam  (alayhimussalaam)  were  not the same  person.  Islam  teaches  that  the  first  House  of  Worship  on  earth was  the  Ka’bah  which  was  first  erected  by  Aadam  (alayhissalaam) under  the  guidance  of  Jibraeel  (the  Archangel  Gabriel).  The  great Deluge  during  the  time  of  Nabi  Nooh  (alayhissalaam)  destroyed the  building  of  the  Ka’bah  and  so  it  was  lost  to  mankind.  According  to the  Qur’aan  Nabi  Ibraaheem  and  his  son  Nabi  Ismaa’eel  (alayhimussalaam)  under  divine  instruction  and  guidance  once  again  founded  the Holy  Ka’bah  and  erected  the  holy  building.  The  Father  of  the  Arab nation  was  Ismaa’eel  the  son  of  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam). Historical  links  of  the  Arabs  leading  to  Ibraaheem (alayhissalaam)  were  well  recorded among  the  pagan  Arabs.  Thus,  while  they  were  fully  aware  of  the  fact that  Nabi  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  erected  the  Ka’bah,  they  did not  necessarily  have  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Aadam  (alayhissalaam)  was  the  first  man  on  earth  to  have  built  the  Ka’bah.  Our  contention  that  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  was  the  founder  of  the Ka’bah  was,  therefore,  in  relation  to  the  Arabs  and  their  known  history. There  is  thus  no  real  contradiction.

(11)  In  an  attempt  to  refute  the  Islamic  contention  of  the  Ka’bah’s special  significance  in  so  far  as  Muslims  are  concerned,  Rationalist states:

But in the  Holy Quran,  Abdullah  Yusuf  Ali advocates  that  it  merely typifies  activity.

Commenting on  this  view  of  Yusuf  Ali,  Rationalist  asks,

Which  of  the  two is  acceptable,  what is written in  the  Holy Quran  or what the  Ulama  say..?”  

This  statement  reflects  Rationalist’s  stark  ignorance  about  matters pertaining  to  Islam.  Nowhere  in  the  Qur’aan  or  even  in  the  Ahaadeeth (Traditions)  is  it  said  that  the  circumambulation  (Tawaaf)  of  the  Ka’bah typifies  activity.  Rationalist  has  confused  Yusuf  Ali’s  personal  idea  and opinion  with  the  Qur’aan.  Rationalist  seems  to  be  labouring  under  the mistaken  notion  that  Yusuf  Ali’s  views  and  comments  are  in  fact  the Qur’aan  of  Islam.  What  Yusuf  Ali  believes  and  propagates  is  not  Islam. On  the  contrary  the  Ulama  present  what  is  propagated  by  the  Qur’aan. Yusuf  Ali’s  views  on  many  issues  are  just  as  fallacious  as  Oak’s  and Rationalist’s  theories  and  ideas  pertaining to  Islamic  issues.  

12)  For  the  information  of  Rationalist,  Muslims  do  not  believe  in  the Black  Stone  as  a  deity.  Islam  does  not  teach  the  Black  Stone  to  be  a possessor  by  divine  power.  Muslims  do  not  worship  the  Black  Stone. Kissing  by  no  means  constitutes  an  act  of  worship.  In  contrast, prostration  and  other  specific  acts  of  propitiation  do  constitute  acts  of worship.  Muslims  do  not  believe  the  Black  Stone  to  be  an  intermediary  between  them  and  Allah.  Kissing  the  Black  Stone  has  absolutely  no relationship  with  icon-worship.  Icon-worship  is  the  practice  of  the idolaters  who  believe  in  the  deification  of  man-made  idols.  Worship  is offered  to  man-made  idols.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  Muslim  belief (which  Rationalist  is  not  asked  to  believe  or  accept)  that  the  Black Stone  heralds  from  Jannat  (Paradise).  Its  present  form  is  not  its  original form  of  beauty  and  lustre.  It  is  kissed  as  an  expression  of  love  for  the Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  who  had  kissed  it  because  of  its origin.  It  originated  from  man’s  original  and  true  home,  viz.,  Jannat (Paradise),  the  abode  where  Aadam,  the  first  man,  was  created. Aadam (alayhissalaam),  our  father,  inhabited  Paradise.  The  original  home  of  man  is therefore  Paradise.  Man  will  have  to  return  to  his  original  home  one day.  The  Black  Stone  is  a  momento.  It  reminds  us  of  our  Home.  Our kissing,  it  is  thus  a  mere  expression  of  love.  Such  expressions  of emotions  are  perfectly  valid  and  reasonable  for  people  in  love.  Even those  in  love  with  transitory  worldly  objects  have  their  emotional  ways of  expressing  their  love  and  affection  –  ways  which  have  nothing  to  do with  worshipping.  

(13)  Rationalist  asks:

Cannot  one  have  communion  with  Allah  without these tangible  and intangible  supports..?

What  are  the  intangible  supports  to  which  Rationalist  refers?,  Here  is  a self-contradiction.  The  ‘tangible’  supports  obviously  refer  to  physical objects.  But, what does  Rationalist  mean by  “intangible  supports??”  

Out  of  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  Muslims  who  inhabit  this  earth  only about  a  million  annually  perform  the  pilgrimage  to  Makkah.  The  vast majority  of  Muslims  never  gain  the  opportunity  to  visit  the  Holy  Places, yet  they  commune  with  Allah  Ta’ala  without  any  ‘tangible  supports’. Even  those  who  perform  the  pilgrimage  and  have  the  opportunity  of expressing  their  love  by  kissing  the  Black  Stone  of  Jannat  commune with  their  Creator  Allah  without  the  support  of  the  tangible  Black Stone.  The  object  of  kissing  the  Black  Stone  is  not  to  establish communion  with  Allah.  Rationalist  possesses  absolutely  no understanding  of  Islamic  practices,  hence  he  jumps  to  baseless conclusions  which  are  merely  his  wishful  thinking.  Even  when performing  their  Salaat  (obligatory  five  daily  prayers)  Muslims,  while required  to  face  the  direction  of  the  Ka’bah  are  not  at  all  required  to  contemplate  the  Ka’bah  or  the  Black  Stone  or  any  other  physical  or tangible  object.  Such  contemplation  of  physical  objects,  viz.,  idols,  is the  practice  exclusively  of  those  who  have  sold  their  souls  to  satanic iconolatry.  Rationalist  has  thus  gravely  blundered  in  attempting  to strike  a  parallel  between  the  Islamic  act  of  kissing  the  Black  Stone  and the  worship  of icons  by  the  idolaters. 

(14)  Rationalist  states:

The  whole  controversy, initiated  by  Ahmad  Deedat need  not  have arisen:  We  agree  with  Rationalist  in  this  observation  and  condemn  Deedat  for initiating  such  useless  and  destructive  controversies.  Deedat  is  not  an ambassador  of  Islam  nor  is  he  qualified  to  speak  on  matters  pertaining to the Islamic Shariah

Hinduism: An Analysis

What is Hinduism??

[By Mushafiq Sultan]

What, in the first place, has Hinduism to say about God and His attributes, and what kind of worship does it teach mankind??

At the very threshold, we are met with the formidable difficulty that Hinduism is not one religion but many religions jumbled together under a single name. It is a hodge-podge or conglomeration of many mutually conflicting religions, and is not the child, so to say, of any one father. Those who practice it differ very much from one another in their faith and practice. Hinduism includes in it Vedism, Brahmanism, Sivaism, Vishnuism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Idolatory in is greatest forms, Tree-Worship, Serpent-Worship, Demon-Worship and so on.

It is not easy therefore to give a definition of Hinduism, “Hinduism and its gods,” says Sir Alfred Lyall, “are a troubled sea, without shore or visible horizon, driven to and fro by the winds of boundless credulity and grotesque invention. A tangled jungle of disorderly superstitions, ghosts and demons, demi-gods and deified saints, household gods, tribe gods, local gods, universal gods, with their countless shrines and temples, and din of their disordent rites, deities who abhor a fly’s death, those who delight still in human victims, and those who would not either sacrifice or make offerings, such religious chaos”.

The Authoritative Books not one but many

A further difficulty regarding Hinduism lies in the fact that all its professors have no common sacred Book or Books to depend upon for their doctrines. Some refer to Vedas as the basis of their faith.

Others rest their faith on the Shrutis, a term which includes not only the four Vedas but their Brahmanas and Upanishads as well.

The Mahabharata styles itself as the fifth Veda, containing the quintessense of all the rest. Other Hindus agains follow the teachings of the Puranas. The present day educated Hindus are mainly depending upon the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical treatise, for their guidance in matters of faith. We shall therefore briefly inquire into the contents of all these books to see what they teach about God and the way in which man should worship Him.

The Religion of the Vedas

(a) Nature Worship

Vedism, or the Religion of the Vedas, teaches the worship of the deified forces or phenomenon of Nature, such as Fire, the Sun, Wnd and Rain. Here is the opening verse of the Rigveda, the oldest Veda, of which the others are mere repetitions and borrowing:

अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवं रत्वीजम | होतारं रत्नधातमम ||

“I Laud Agni, the great high priest, god, minister of sacrifice, the herald, lavishest of wealth.” [Rigveda Mandal 1: Sookt 1: Mantra 1]

The whole of the Veda goes on in this strain throughout in the hymns collected for different purposes.

The contrast between the opening verse of the Rigveda which teaches Polytheism, and that of the Jewish scriptures and of the Holy Qur’an which teach Monotheism, cannot fail to be noted even by the most superficial reader. Thus the Jewish Pentateuch begins,

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” [Genesis 1:1]

The Holy Qur’an strikes the key note of its whole teaching in a still more profound manner, unparalleled in other religions:

ﺑِﺴْﻢِ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣْﻤَـﻦِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣِﻴﻢِ – ﺍﻟْﺤَﻤْﺪُ ﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﺭَﺏِّ ﺍﻟْﻌَـﻠَﻤِﻴﻦَ – ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣْﻤَـﻦِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣِﻴﻢِ – ﻣَـﻠِﻚِ ﻳَﻮْﻡِ ﺍﻟﺪِّﻳﻦِ

“In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgement.” [Surah Al-Fatiha 1:1-4]

Thus Vedism teaches the worship of the powers of Nature.

(b) Polytheism

That it teaches polytheism is also evident from the expression used in the same verse and in all the succeeding verses as well:

अग्निः पूर्वेभिर्र्षिभिरीड्यो नूतनैरुत | स देवानेह वक्षति ||

“He (Agni) shall bring hitherward the gods.” [Rigveda 1:1:2]

अग्ने यं यज्ञमध्वरं विश्वतः परिभूरसि | स इद्देवेषु गछति ||

“Verily goes to the gods.” [verse 4]

अग्निर्होता कविक्रतुः सत्यश्चित्रश्रवस्तमः | देवो देवेभिरा गमत ||

“May Agni, priest, the god, come hither with the gods.” [verse 5]

The number of gods in Hindu Pantheon is given as 33 in one place (Rigveda 1:34:11), which says,

आ नासत्या तरिभिर एकादशैर इह देवेभिर यातम मधुपेयम अश्विना | परायुस तारिष्टं नी रपांसि मर्क्षतं सेधतं दवेषो भवतं सचाभुवा ||

“Come, O Nasatyas, with the thrice-eleven Gods; come, O ye Asvins, to the drinking of the meath. Make long our days of life, and wipe out all our sins: ward off our enemies; be with us evermore.”

Similarly it is mentioned in Rigveda 8:30:2,

इति सतुतासो असथा रिशादसो ये सथ तरयश्च तरिंशच्च | मनोर्देवा यज्ञियासः ||

“Thus be ye lauded, ye destroyers of the foe, ye Three-and-Thirty Deities, The Gods of man, the Holy Ones.”

In Rigeveda 10:52:6 the number is 3,339. It says,

तरीणि शता तरी सहस्राण्यग्निं तरिंशच्च देवा नवचासपर्यन | औक्षन घर्तैरस्त्र्णन बर्हिरस्मा आदिद्धोतारं नयसादयन्त ||

“The Deities three thousand, three hundred and thirty-nine, have served and honoured Agni, Strewn sacred grass, anointed him with butter, and seated him as Priest, the Gods’ Invoker.”

Later Hinduism has gone still further by saying that there are no less than 33 crores of them.

(c) Pantheism

Why not then say that everything is God, and God is everything? The Purusha Sukta (Rigveda 10:90)

which every orthodox Brahmin is expected even now to recite daily in his prayers shows that Pantheism is also taught in the later portions of the Vedas:

पुरुष एवेदं सर्वं यद भूतं यच्च भव्यम | उताम्र्तत्वस्येशानो यदन्नेनातिरोहति ||

“This Purusha(i.e. Brahma or God) is all that yet has been and all that is to be.” [verse 2]

The caste system which has proved the curse of India is likewise taught in the same hymn:

बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः | ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ||

“The Brahmana was his (Purusha’s) mouth. Of both his arms was the Kshatriya made. His thighs became the Vaishya. From his feet the Sudra produced.” [verse 12]

Religion of the Upanishads

The Upanishads reject the Karma, Kanda or Salvation by means of sacrifices and other rituals taught in the four Vedas and Brahmanas, and advocate the Gnana-Kanda or the theory of Salvation by knowledge. Hence they consist of speculations about the individual souls (atma) and the Supreme soul (Param-atma), and about the relationship subsisting between them, their aim being to get rid of man’s earthly existence by absorption of the individual soul into the World Soul through correct or true knowledge. They teach that the Universe or Nature (Prakriti) is unreal or Maaya , that is to say, it does not really exist but it only an illusion of the mind. What really exists in the Supreme Soul or Brahman, and the individual souls are all emanations from Him and identical with Him. Only they do not know it, as Brahman has invested Himself/Itself with the Maaya, and they also are under the influence of the same mystic power. The individual souls can be disillusioned only by means of Correct knowledge, and as soon as this consummation is reached, they know themselves to be Brahman, and get absorbed into Him. The famous formula referring to this theory is ‘Tat tvam asi’ तत् त्वम् असि meaning ‘That art thou’, whoever knows this ‘becomes the All’. Even the gods are not able to prevent him from becoming it. For he becomes their self. [Brihadaranyak Upanishad 1:4:6]

This theory is known as the Vedanta, the essence of the teaching of the Vedas, and has taken an immense hold on the minds of the people and lent a deeper colour to all subsequent literature. A Christian missionary asked a Brahmin, “Who and where is Brahman?” “He is talking to you,” was the prompt reply.

A Vedantist once began to dilate upon the truth of his belief in the presence of a king and vehemently maintained that the whole world was Mithya or unreal, imaginary: whereupon an elephant was ordered to be brought quite near to him and the man fled in terror. “Why do you run away for your life? The elephant is Mithya” said the king.

But the Vedantist proved himself equal to the occasion and without a moment’s hesistation replied that the running away too was Mithya.

Such is the fool’s paradise in which most of the misguided Hindus live. The expression that is often heard on their lips, and which has unfortunately recently been made famous by a debater:


meaning ‘One only without a second’
It does not mean that they believe in the ‘Only One True God’ but it is the Vedantic or Pantheistic formula which asserts that the only real existence of the World Soul and the identity of the individual souls within it, totally denying the existence of the phenomenal world.

Religion of the Puranas

The characteristic of popular Hinduism of today is the belief in Divine incarnations, idolatory and caste. Popular Hinduism believes in the doctrine of Trimurti or Hindu Trinity as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, in their characteristic of the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer of the Universe.

Vishnu Worship

The distinct feature of Vishnu worship is the incarnation of God. When wickedness in the world increases Vishnu is said to take upon himself the form of an animal or man in order to be able to protect the good and to punish the bad. The principle incarnations He is said to have so far assumed are those of (1) a fish, (2) a tortoise, (3) a Boar, (4) a man-lion (5) a Dwarf, (6) a Brahmin hero called Parasu Ram, (7) a Kshatriya Prince, the hero of Ramayana, (8) a shepherd Prince Krishna and (9) a Kshatriya heretic, Buddha.

Krishna declares:

“On an occasion of marriage, or of enjoying a woman, or when life is in danger, or when one’s entire property is about to be taken away, or for the sake of a Brahmin, falsehood may be uttered. These five kinds of falsehood have been declared to be sinless. On these occasions falsehood would become truth and truth would become falsehood.” [Mahabharata Book 8; Karna Parva; Section 69]

Cow Worship

It is natural for Indians to set a high value upon the cow on account of its utility, but the worship the Hindus pay to it is irrational and absurd to a degree. It is considered to be the most sacred of all animals. Every part of its body is considered to be inhabited by some deity or other. Even its excreta are considered to be most sacred. Its urine is looked upon as the best of all holy waters; a sin destroying liquid which sanctifies everything it touches, while nothing purifies like cow-dung. The ashes of its dung sprinkled over a sinner are able to convert him into a saint.

Veneration of Cow in Hindu Culture

Present day Hindu culture is pivoted solely on the cow. Its material and spiritual concepts are both engulfed in cow worship. Such an animal worship is known as zoolatry. This is a vestide of animistic cultures among whom the worship of monkeys, sheep, elephants, cows and even snakes was prevalent. Animal worship culminated in the taking of human beings for gods so that the silhouettes were stamped on the coins and painted on the flags, and upon their honour depended the glory and honour of their realms.

Among cultivators cow worship is not a strange thing. In many countries, notably, India, Iran and Egypt, it was prevalent. Among Hindus veneration of the cow is referred to in the Vedas as Puranas and in Hindu Jurisprudence and folklore. In the Vedas several verses refer to saluting and prostrating before the cow as the following sections illustrate:

“Prajapati and Parameshthin are the two horns, Indra is the head, Agni the forehead, Yama the joint of the neck. King Soma is the brain, Sky is the upper jaw, Earth is the lower jaw… All worlds and all the gods are as the cow from head to foot.” [Atharvaved Kaand 9: Sookt 7]

“You are being created and have been created for salutations and prostrations. Salutations and prostration to you, O image of God, to your hair, to your hooves.” [Atharva 10:10]

Curiously enough, the Vedic Rishis likened the chanting of their mantras (hymn) to the lowing of the cows:

अभि विप्रा अनूषत गावो वत्सं न मातरः | इन्द्रं सोमस्य पीतये ||

“As the cows moo in the presence of their calves so do Brahmins recite their mantras while drinking the soma juice in the presence of Indra devta.” [Rigveda 9:12:2]

In old Vedic times the pious people picked out the grain from the cow-dung, and then ate it. They also squeezed out its water and drank it (Mahabharata). Its urine was considered a source of redemption of sins and a means of cow-dung bathed with water extracted thus.

Krishna revered the bull by stroking its back before mounting it. In short, in Hindu religion the cow in venerated to an extent which gods and godesses and even God Himself does not merit.

Cow-Worship and the humiliation of Mankind

It is to be noted that the sacredness of the cow as compared with the scant regard for human life has come to this that Swami Dayanand Saraswati in accordance with the Vedas, opines that the blood of thousands or hundreds of thousands of humans, may be shed to please these animals; (See his translation of Yajurveda 33:14 and Rigveda 1:121:10)

In Vedic times, there lived an untouchable people in a village named Kikat, in todays Bihar. The used to rear cattle. Obviously to the Aryans this was a crime. So they invoked their god Indra to wage war against them and loot their cows.

“O Indra, what do the cows make for you among the Kikatas. They neither yield milk for your offerings, nor do they warm the vessel of libation. Bring to us these cows, bring to us also the wealth of Pramagand (their King). O Brave one, grant us the possessions of the people of low status.” [Rigveda 3:53:14]

On the basis of this clear prnouncement, non-Aryans and untouchables have no right to keep cows. Aryans and Brahmins whenever they wish can kill them and appropriate their possessions. Hindu culture thus becomes the culture of the progress, civilization and welfare of the Aryan people alone.

Status of the Cow

The fact remains that Hindu culture is based on the cow. Actually it is cow-worship as may be inferred from the discussion so far. As the Noble Qur’an states,

“And their hearts absorbed (the worship of) the calf because of their disbelief.” [Surah Baqarah 2:93]

The cow is also called mother and this is a relic of the age of ignorance. In primitive times when the mother of a young child died, the child too would die of malnutrition after two or three days. The father did not know how to save the child’s life as a substitute for the mother’s milk was not known. By chance, some wise person thought of the idea of giving goat’s milk to the child. As the goat was easier to control and milk than the cow, goat’s milk was used to save the infant’s life. Later on the cow was tamed for this purpose. From then on the polytheists began to call the cow ‘mata’ i.e. mother. But other animals as well, such as goats, sheep, camels, supply milk as substitute for mother’s milk; yet they are never called ‘mother’. Strangely enough, in this age of science when so many baby-foods have been invented, none of these is called ‘mother’, yet wealthy and educated Hindus still apply this epithet to the cow alone.

The nation which cannot differentiate between a cow’s tail and a man’s head, lives in an extreme abyss of culture. The cow is at the utmost an animal, while even the most degraded man, being still a human being, is yet far superior to a cow.

Religion of the Gita

Since Mahabharata fails to serve as a handy and useful book of the essence of Hinduism, the present day educated Hindus are adopting the Bhagvat Gita as their guide.

Like all the other scriptures this famous poem too fails to teach True Religion to mankind. It is a highly Philosophic poem just as ill-suited to teach Religion as Berkley’s Principle of Human Knowledge or Milton’s Paradise Lost can be. The principle of its composition is Eclecticism and tries to combine Sankhya, Yoga, and Vedanta teaching into one whole to support the Vaishnava theory of Krishna’s deification.But is does promote ideas like Polytheism and Caste.

Krishna claims to be the author of the caste system in India:

“The four Castes were created by me according to the appointment of qualities and works.” [Gita 4:13]

The Gita does not insist on the worship of the One and Only True God but promotes belief in polytheism:

“Those who worship gods go to the gods” [9:25]

“Worship the gods thereby; The gods shall yield thee grace.” [3:3]

That there are inconsistencies in the Bhagvad Gita is admitted today even by Hindu scholars. For example at Chapter 9, stanza 29 Krishna declares that ‘none is hateful to me, none dear. ‘Linked by no ties to earth, steadfast in Me, That man I love’. ’ And yet the remarkable verses at the close of Chapter 12 contradict it,’. At Gita Chapter 5, stanza 15 it is said, that ‘the Lord receives the sin and merit of none.’ Yet at Chapter 5, stanza 29, and again at Chapter 9, stanza 24, Krishna calls himself ‘the Lord and enjoyer’ of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may well be asked, can the Supreme Being ‘enjoy’ that which he does not even ‘receive’??

The doctrine of transmigration is the basis from which the argument of Bhagvad Gita takes its start.

Matter and spirit are without beginning (13:20). God (Krishna-Vishnu) is eternal, almighty, unborn, without beginning, the great Lord of the World (10:3). He is different not only from the fleeting world, but also from the changeless and indestructible energy of all beings. Vishnu is born from age to age (4:6-8). Krishna-Vishnu is wholly distinct from Brahma and Brahman is distinctly a lower deity than Krishna (11:15,37). In 12:1-7, the two classes, those who believe in a personal God Krishna-Vishnu, i.e. theists, and those who believe in Brahma ,i.e. pantheists are contrasted, and preference is given to former. In other words, final bliss is difficult of attainment for those who follow the Vedas and seek the heaven of Brahma. All external observances and duties prescribed by the Vedas are held to be mischievous and thrown overboard (7:20; 18:34,66). The Vedas and the works enjoined by them cannot win one the vision of the Divine (11:48,53). What a contempt is expressed for the Vedas in the following words: “Steady understanding does not belong to those, whose minds are drawn by that flowery talk (i.e. Vedas) which is full of ordinances of specific acts for the attainment of pleasures and power, and which promises birth as the fruit of acts- that flowery talk which those unwise ones utter, who are enamoure of Vedic words, who say there is nothing else, who are full of desires, an whose goal is heaven. The Vedas merely relate to the effects of the three qualities; do you, O Arjuna! rise above those effects of the three qualities.” (2:42-45). Thus the Vedas are being spoken of in very disparaging terms and the followers of Krishna were inimical to the Vedas.

This was in brief about Hinduism and in our future articles all the topics discussed here would be dealt with in detail separately.