Dear Dr. Sohail Ahmed.      

I had a chance to look at your mail to Ali Sina in which you have stated that Mr. Sina is 'afraid' of meeting Dr Naik. You have also stated that Ali Sina quotes the Quran out of context. If that is the case, can you please enlighten us as to what the 'correct' context is? Moreover you had stated that Dr ZN doesn't even quote scriptures belonging to other religions out of context and you referred to his lectures on  'SIMILARITIES BETWEEN HINDUISM AND ISLAM' and his verse from Bhagwad Gita on 'Jihad'.

I heard this lecture too. Let us analyze what Dr Zakir Naik had to say about Bhagwad Gita and Jihad.

He says that Shri Krishna implores Arjuna to fight against his cousins in the battle of Kurukshetra. Krishna also tells Arjuna that if he dies in the battle, he will go heaven and if he wins, he will enjoy the power on earth and this is exactly what Allah told to the Muslims during their battle against mushriks. Dr Naik also added that in the battle of Kurukshetra, Krishna asks Arjuna to fight a 'battle of Truth' the same way as Allah revealed to the Muslims through Muhammad to fight the 'battle of truth'. Then Dr Zakir Naik finally says "If today I say that Krishna asked Arjuna to kill his cousins, then I will be quoting the Gita out of context, right?" Wow what an analysis.

First of all let me start the refutation by saying that it is ridiculous to even compare these two battles. Now, let us see why.

If you read the Mahabharat, you will see that the Pandavas and Kauravas were cousins. The Kauravas invited the Pandavas for a game of dice which the Kauravas won through deceit with the help of their uncle Shakuni. The Pandavas were humiliated and their wife, Draupadi, was disrobed in front of everybody. After the humiliation, the King Dritrashtra (father of Kauravas) gave back everything that the Pandavas lost fearing the curse of Draupadi. Now, again the Pandavas were invited for a game of dice for the second time which the Kauravas once again won through deceit. Now, the Pandavas were asked leave their kingdom and go to the forest for 14 years. Now, as per the agreement, the Pandavas, after 14 years, came back to their cousins claiming their kingdom. The Pandavas even sent Krishna as a messenger of peace. Kauravas ridiculed Krishna and told him that EVEN A NEEDLE POINT OF LAND will not be given when Krishna, on behalf of Pandavas, asked for just 5 villages and not even the whole kingdom. So THAT was when the war began when all doors of peace were totally shut. Whether this is historically true or not is not the point here. I have just presented the case as it is.

Now, if we see the battle against mushriks, there is no historical evidence (even in the Quran or the Hadiths) to prove that the kaafirs were the ones who broke the treaty between them and the Muslims. It was the Muslims who started the war. SO THEY WERE THE FIRST OFFENDERS. After entering in to Mecca, the Muslims gave 4 months time for all the non-Muslims to convert or else face the consequences (which meant paying an unreasonable tax called Jiziya or face death). It was during this war that Allah revealed verses that say 'Kill them where ever you find them'. But there were certain commonly agreed upon ethics for the war of Kurukshetra.

The two Supreme Commanders met and framed "rules of ethical conduct" for the war. The rules included:

• Fighting must begin no earlier than sunrise and end exactly at sunset.

• Multiple warriors may not attack a single warrior.

• Two warriors may "duel," or engage in prolonged personal combat, only if they carry the same weapons and they are on the same mount (no mount, a horse, an elephant, or a chariot).

• No warrior may kill or injure a warrior who has surrendered.

• One who surrenders becomes a prisoner of war and a slave.

• No warrior may kill or injure an unarmed warrior.

• No warrior may kill or injure an unconscious warrior.

• No warrior may kill or injure a person or animal not taking part in the war.

• No warrior may kill or injure a warrior whose back is turned away.

• No warrior may strike an animal not considered a direct threat.

• The rules specific to each weapon must be followed. For example, it is prohibited to strike below the waist in mace warfare.

• Warriors may not engage in any "unfair" warfare whatsoever.

Did Muhammad have any kind of ethics? See, nothing actually tells the warrior to take other men's wives as booty. In comparison, Hinduism never suggested anything like FIGHTING FOR ALLAH/ JIHAD as Islam suggests its ummah to against the Mushrikeens and Kuffars. War for justice is common sense, whereas war for God and his apostle is superstition.What happened to the jews belonging to Bani Quraytha? There is no proof that they broke the treaty. I've searched the nine books of Hadeeth (Saheeh Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Al-Tarmithi, Sunan Al-Nasa'i, Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan Ibn Majah, Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta' Malik, and Sunan Al-Darimi). In my search I did not find any single Hadeeth which indicates that Bani Quraytha either officially (or even unofficially) renounced the treaty, nor did I find a Hadeeth which indicates that Bani Quraytha violated the treaty in any way.

As a matter of fact, the only Hadeeth I found regarding Bani Quraytha's position was one Hadeeth [Musnad Ahmad - 22823] which says that Bani Quraytha actually refused to assist the Pagan Arabs in any way in their assault against Mohammed. We saw that the Bani Quraytha Jews actually refused to aid the Pagan Arabs or even let them in through their fortresses. Yet Mohammed was determined to eliminate all non-Muslims from Arabia. The Jews were innocent yet that didn't stop him, he marched to Bani Quraytha and ruthlessly slaughtered all their men, enslaved their women and children. He violated the treaty himself, and he was the one who always preached how treaties should be kept.

Ofcourse Dr ZN says "there is verse in between that says if they surrender and stop fighting, take them to a place of security and tell them the word of Allah". So in other words, the only option the non-Muslims were given was to either die in the war or get converted if they surrender. My question is WHY? Why does the Quran not give the option to the non Muslims to follow their religion? Why should they pay additional tax just because they are non Muslims? Isn't this bad? Some Muslims say that it is for their security. Really? If I am ruled by a government that demands MORE money for my security than it demands from other citizens just because I happen to belong to a certain religion, I will never like it. Will you? Please give a truthful answer.

Dr Zakir Naik also says that these verses ("Kill them where ever you find them", "you will reach heaven if you kill the kaafirs" etc) were meant for motivating the Muslims when they were fighting a war that was meant for self-defense. This is laughable. Where does self-defense come in to picture here? If I am the attacker, the concept of self-defense is generally applicable only to the one who is attacked (unless I am foolish enough to attack someone who is stronger than me that I have to defend his blows!). Mohammed also pre-empted most of the attacks by claiming that he was doing it for self-defense. Of course there were 'revelations' to him from Allah to do so.

Now comes the most important issue. Dr Zakir Naik says that the battle of Kurukshetra and the battle of Mecca were 'Battles of truth'. This is totally incorrect. THE KURUKSHETRA WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. Both the warring parties had no problems about what religion their enemies were following. The battle of Kurukshetra was obviously a battle between JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE where as the battle against mushriks was a battle between what MUHAMMAD AND MUSLIMS THOUGHT WAS THE TRUTH AND WHAT MUHAMMAD AND MUSLIMS THOUGHT WAS THE UNTRUTH. There is an ocean of difference between them. Please do not even compare these two battles, one that was fought for justice and the other that was fought to impose a religious ideology on the people of Mecca. Please give your truthful opinion on this.

Dear Dr. Sohail, when we make an inference, it should be done with detachment. If there is any emotion associated with the decision-making process, (whether it is love or hatred), the inference most certainly will go wrong. This is what Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita, when he talks about Duty without any partiality.  You are a Muslim and I presume you love Islam the way so many Muslims do. I am not trying to find fault with you, but I suggest why don't you try reading the Quran with detachment (i.e. without love or hatred) and analyze whether it is correct or not.

 
Peace!

With warm regards
Aman Garg