ALLAH IN THE NAME OF THE MOST BENEFICINT AND MERCIFUL

BOOK REVIEW

Concept of God in Major religions

By- Dr. Zakir Abdul karim naik
Published by- Islamic research foundation

Review by-NASEEB AHMED SIDDIQUI

RESEARCHER – INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA,

Department of Engineering

Email- siddiquinaseeb@gmail.com
BOOK REVIEW:
Name of the book - Concept of God in Major religions
Authored by – Dr. Zakir Abdul karim naik
Summary

This book has been authored by a well-known scholar of comparative religion, Dr Zakir
Naik, on the concept of God in major religions of the world from past to the last one
including Sikhism. He has put forward the interpretation of God from the relevant scripture
of the religion without explicitly exploring the philosophy behind their Monotheism belief.
He tried to show that all the dominant religions as per the scripture, agree on the concept of
`Monotheism’ but he has not attempted to show what is behind this `Monotheism’ belief. In
the end, he concludes this process after detailing some aspects of Islamic `Monotheism’ and
its philosophy and declares that in Islam, the concept of god is much more than
`Monotheism,’ and that is called `Unification’ (Touheed).

Analysis

He, in the beginning, has made a big claim that:

`Followers of all the major religion believe that the God they worship is the same god for
them as well as for others’ (pg-2).

This claim has no basis in reality, as we shall comment shortly. First, we need to understand
that to make any concept requires a rigorous process of human’s outer senses (Touch, sight
etc.) and its internal senses (Common sense, thinking, imagination etc.) and the generation of
the concept is the last stage of association which earlier steps produced as the real product. So
when he discusses the matter of concept, he should discuss it with theological as well as the
Metaphysical aspect so that any difference can come into the picture. If God, which is
common for all the major religion then where is the problem & why people differ in the name
of religion? The answer is one, their concept of God is not the same in terms of his nature &
attributes, and if the very nature of God is different for people then how come the God of
Zoroastrian is the same God for Muslims?, No, it cannot be in any case. The concept needs to
be supported by their philosophical understanding of God, and if they are as per the teaching
of the Lord of the MUHAMMAD (sal’lallahualaihiwasallam) then it is ok otherwise it is
false. The question is not about Monotheism or Unity one does believe, the question is with
what perspective & understanding does one believe in God. This is the reason even in the

1
semantic religion people distorted the concept of God and between non-sematic religion,
conflict started and came into existence a new form of God.

Surprisingly, the author has added after this claim the religion of `Zoroastrian’ in the list of
the same God as of Muslims, it’s absurd. The author has not described the full philosophy of
this religion and directly quoted the references from its book. The reality is that it is a religion
of Iranian Aryan who settled there with a good life and because of the excellent stability of
their institution, the other group of Aryans hated them. For this reason, the conflict started to
denounce the deities of each other- The Devas and the Ahuras. They believed that there exist
two kinds of power, first the power of Goodness and the second is the power of evil, and they
were worshipping plurality of God for this reason. Now, the question was how to reconcile
the existence of evil with that eternal goodness of God. So he (The Zoroaster) reduced the
plurality of good spirits to unity, and called it `Ahuramajda’. Similarly, he reduced the power
of evil to unity and called it Druj-Ahrima which he thought not as two separate identities but
two parts of a single primary-being the God. It means theologically he is `Monotheist, but
philosophically a `Dualist’. However, the consequence of this concept is that now the
principle of evil is the very essence of God, so any conflict between good and evil will be the
struggle of God against himself. This is absurd and impossible in the concept of ALLAH
which Muslim believes because in Islam, our Lord al-mighty has the power of all thing and
both Good and evil are from him only:

`Wherever you may be, death will overtake you, though if you be in strong forts. And if some
good reaches them, then they say, 'this is from Allah and if some bad reaches them, then they
say, 'This has come from you. Say you, 'All is from Allah. Then what happened to them, they
seem not to understand anything’ – (CH-4, V-78)

Does he want to say that the Dualism God of Zoroastrian and the God of the Quran are the
same? No, they are not because the God of Islam is one, all things are from him and he can
do everything, not because he is a cause or agent by his very essence but because of voluntary
will which defines what he does. Moreover, any act is not good because it is good rather it is
good because ALLAH al-mighty commands us to act like that. The qualities of God which he
has quoted from the book `Avesta’ is with such interpretation which is combined in one
(Dualism), so they say him- Creator, Most-might the Greatest which is not the same in
essence when a Muslim say and believe that:

2
`Say you, He is Allah, the one.’ – (CH-112, V-1)

We believe in him with the perfect ALLAH the al-mighty but Dualism is the same as the
philosophy of Trinity (Three separate identities but they are one) in Christianity even though
Christianity is not the same as Zoroastrianism. This concept is entirely against the very
foundation of Islamic belief & the entire religious scholars. When he differentiates the
concept of God between Hinduism and Islam, then he considered the primary reason is the
philosophy of `Pantheism’ that everything is God (Pg- 4). Now I would ask why he used the
philosophy to differentiate. Why not he explained the same philosophical difference for
Zoroastrianism? The logic must be universal.

Now, it is illogical to directly understand the concept of God only from the direct religious
scripture verses without knowing the historical background of the development of that
concept in the past. In the case of Islam, it has well defined long history and the first and
oldest religion that anybody can analyze. While discussing the concept of God in Hinduism
he considers that only `Pantheism’ is significant difference between Hinduism & Islamic
concept of God, on the contrary, it is not because it consists their belief on the physical
attribute of their Lords which is more than one as he describes them Brahma- the Creator,
Vishnu- The sustainer (pg. -7-8) on the contrary for them they are separate identity and are
doing their work independently. Secondly, it is their assertion of Nirguna brahman &
Sagunna brahman consideration which believe the God with form & without form as an when
required. As per Shaiva Siddhanta, Arrupa & Lingam word has been used for formless &
with form. Although I do not know about Hinduism like the Author knows but this is what
the root of their concept of God is, obviously such concept of God is not as per Islam. Then
he quoted from Yajurved that (Pg.-6) that he is bodiless and without any image, but he
proclaims & belief that as per Islam `ALLAH al-might is sitting on his throne’
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fid9o1DK5mg&nohtml5=False- this is the link of
lecture in which he says the same). Then again in one of his lecture
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9eOi5yWx2g) during the answer he says –

`According to Bible Jesus and other prophets is son of God if they follow the lord and if I
follow the ALLAH I am also the son but not the begotten son’

Here, what does it mean by not a begotten son? Which form of the son does he want to
interpret for the Lord Almighty? Whatsoever he thinks, it is not the concept of Islam to assert
anything which does not belong to him. Because ALLAH al-mighty even declared that:

3
`And the Jews and Christians said we are sons of Allah and His dear ones'. Say you; 'why
then does He torment you for your sins'? But you are human beings of His creations. He
forgives whom He pleases. And to Allah belongs the Kingdom of heavens and earth and all
that is between them. And towards Him is the return’ – (CH-5, V-18)

Now, whatever form he supposes of the son, it is contrary to the qur’anic explanation because
ALLAH says all are human beings of his creation and no one can be called the son of God
because of following him. Even the Al-mighty declared about his beloved prophet
(Sal’lallahualaihiwasallam) that:

`Mohammed is not the father of any of your men; yes He is the Messenger of Allah and the
last one among all the prophets. And Allah knows all things’- (CH-33,V-40)

It is in the sense that we know prophet (sal’lallahualihiwasallam) had sons, but al-mighty
declared that he is not the father of any men, it means the form other than `Begotten’, then
what about the lord the one and only ALLAH al-mighty who is free with all these things
whether begotten or any other form of son. How could one assert this philosophy being a
Muslim for the sake of just answering the question, which is totally against the Islamic
concept? Moreover, if he says men are son, then by logic, he is saying that all women are
either the daughters or the wife of God (astaghfirullah) according to the bible. It is impossible
and illogical to explain the meaning of the concept of God by taking an example from the
concept of God from other religions. It means now for Hinduism, the god is with no image
and no one can imagine but as per author, he has another form of son & sitting at Arsh are not
the same God.

About his position about the sitting of God on Arsh is against the Islamic belief. He can use
this verse from QURN to prove his interpretation:

`Undoubtedly, your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and earth in six days, then he
Istava the Throne befitting to His Dignity. He covers the night and day by each other

4
following it swiftly, and made the sun and moon and stars all subservient to His command.
Behold! His is the creation and command. Blessed is Allah, the Lord of the Worlds’ – (CH-7,
V-40)

According to this verse and others in the Quran, he has taken the literal meaning of word
Istava as sitting which is against the Majority of Muslim scholars from the time of
companions (Radiallahuanhum). Imam Jalaluddin suyuti (rahmatullahali) has written a whole
book on this issue named `Al itqan fi ulumin quran’ and in (Vol-2, pg-3) he says that-`This
verse is Mutashabeh’ means we do not know the real meaning of this verse but what is
revealed is in reality not what ALLAH intends. Similarly, Imam Bahyqi (rahmatullahali) in
his book `Kitabul asma’o wasifat’ says- Our ancestor Oulma never attempted to comment on
the meaning of such words & never made any tafsir on that as they did with the Mutashabeh
verses of attributes of al-mighty (V-3,Pg-150). Than Imam Nasafi (rahmatullahali) says in his
tafsire Madari under the verse-5 of surah taha:

`Mazhab is what Hazrat Ali (radiallahuanhu) has said about this verse, he (Hazrat ali
(radiallahuanhu) said- al istawa’o majhooli (istawa is Majhool means we cannot understand
that) `wattaqifu gairu maquli’ (its essence is not clear) `Wal imaano behi wajibun’ (but it is
wajib for us to believe in this verse) `assuwalo anhi biddat’ ( and to question about this is
Biddat). then explained that `when there was no arsh the lord was present, and after creating
arsh he is present and when there will be no Arsh he will be present, so he does not need Arsh
for himself’ (Vol-3, P-48) – (All the three quoted references are not the word by word
translation of what is written but an explanation). Arsh is a creation like other and it has a
beginning its not eternal so if someone believes that Al-mighty is sitting at Arsh, then he has
to answer where he was before? Otherwise, it does not make any sense to claim that he is
now on Arsh. Secondly, if he is sitting on arsh then it will be evident that there must be a
sense of touch but ALLAH al-mighty is free from touch & feel. Thirdly space is creation &
limited but the lord is the creator and he is out of space & time, so how come the eternal
comes to feet infinite space? It is illogical in any case to believe as the author claimed. It is
best to be on the Mazhab of Moula Ali radiallahuanhu.

5
With said explanations, now check the validity of his claim & contradiction. He wrote on
page number 18 that `It is not possible to conjure up a mental picture of a true God’ and `The
moment you can imagine what God is, he is not God’. Is it not it, self-contradictory with his
explanation of God? As per the concept of God of the author if he is sitting on Arsh then he
has a location in-universe, then its self-evident that `To sit’ is the physical attribute of matter
which must have a form otherwise matter without form is impossible so that one can have a
visible mental picture of the God. So according to his logic, the true God, who is the lord of
Muslims in actual is not in his concept & formulation a true God. We Muslims are free from
his own interpretation of the concept. According to the enormous majority of Oulma, our
Lord is not material, not in space, not in time; there is none like him; he is eternal &
possesses no physical attributes. We do not make any Aqeedahh based on the Mutashabeh
verses. ALLAH says in QURAN:

`It is he who sent down upon you the book in which some verses have clear meanings they are
substance of the book, and others are those in the meanings of which there is doubt. Those in
whose hearts there is perversity pursue doubtful one desiring deviation and searching their
own view point on it, and its right interpretation is known to ALLAH alone. And those of firm
knowledge say `We believed in it, all is from our lord and none accept admonition save men
of understanding’ – (Ch-3 , v-7)

Allah says those in whose hearts there is perversity pursue doubtful one desiring deviation
and searching their interpretation but only ALLAH al-mighty knows the real meaning.
However, the people of firm knowledge say we believe it; it is from our Lord like our master
Moula Ali radiallahuanhu said.

Similarly, a further big issue has been raised that `If ALLAH al-mighty can do everything then
why cannot he takes human form? (Pg-18). At first, this is related to the concept of God of
religions that how they pursue their concept. We can say that the existence of God is enough
to reject this ideology. There could be two possibilities for this interpretation. In one case the
God as a whole comes into form of human being and that is not possible because then who
will be there to sustain the world as, at the moment where God is Al-Qadir (The all-
powerful), he is Al-wahid ( The unique, The single) and Al-Ahad (The one , The indivisible).
He is indivisible so that is not possible as per his very nature described by himself. However,
it is not like that his very nature necessitates something to act; on the contrary, he acts
voluntarily according to his will. He creates causes not by necessity but by voluntarily will.

6
For the same reason, he chooses messengers to convey his messages & explain to the people
his unity and commands. He says in the QURAN:

`It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from
behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah
wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise;- (CH-42, V-51)

Indeed, man is not of that status that ALLAH (al-mighty) should speak to him so he chooses
Messenger for this purpose. He voluntarily selected this way even if he has the power to
communicate the message without messenger & inspiration. So if he denied the possibility of
even talking directly to man than what to talk about coming in between them? Moreover, live
a mortal life? It is illogical to think of that perspective. Now, the question will reduce to the
point why he chooses messengers? We say because he does not speak with any man directly.
Secondly, he is Al-hayy (The ever-living one) and Al-Baqi (The everlasting one), so in any
case, his attributes do not contradict each other, because the moment you suppose that He can
take form, then his attributes of Al-hayy & Al-Baqi will be in contradiction as everything has
to taste the death except the Lord who is Al-Muhyi (The Giver of Life). So it is he who
encompasses the whole universe with his attributes and they must be compatible, not
contradictory. So this is as per voluntarily will after having power he does not take human
form. However, our serious objection is what the Author has explained the reason. He says:

`If God wishes he can become a human being. But then he no longer remains God because
the qualities of God and human beings in many respects are completely incompatible. (Pg.
18) on page 19 with the word ` He ceases to be God if God becomes human’

At first, it is not his necessity to do so, and even though let us suppose that he by his
voluntarily will take the form of God (which is not possible), then who is there to stop him
being a God? Who will take his power to regain his status? What is the intention of the author
when he says, No longer remains God or Ceases to be God? Who is there beside him to take
his position- no one, and if he has the power to become human, then similarly has the power
to become God again. None can stop him from doing so. How one can purpose such an
alternative for God? What is the logic behind this belief? From where did he get this
understanding? Who are the religious scholars supporting this view? Does he have any proof
for such a proclamation?

Then again, one dangerous object is on his proclamation that:

7
`God can be unjust if he wants, but the moment God does injustice he ceases to be God’ (Pg-
19)

The belief that Allah can be unjust is illogical and not the view of what the majority of
Ahlesunnah scholars held. We say that, if someone says that Darkness is nothing but the
absence of light, he is negating the absence of darkness by affirming the presence of light.
Similarly, with a syllogism, if just & unjust are two different things and the presence of one
thing will deny the presence of others. So ALLAH al-mighty says in QURAN:

`Allah is never unjust in the least degree: If there is any good (done), He doubleth it, and
giveth from His own presence a great reward’- (CH-4, V-40).

Also, his name is Al-Adl (The just) and the Al-Haqq (The Truth), the presence of Just is self-
evident in itself that there is no unjust. He is the truth and truth is the justice or justice reveals
the truth; they are compatible with each other. Even in verse, ALLAH al-mighty is saying
that he is never unjust in the least degree; after such verses in Quran the author believes that
the possessor of Al-adl and Al-Haqq can do injustice if he wants. However, whatever he
wills, he already declared that he is never unjust. He says:

`He does what He intends (or wills’) - (Ch-85, V-16)

Even though the author has quoted this verse but did not get its essence & significance. This
is not the belief of Muslims and our ancestor’s scholars. We ask again from where he thought
it logical to utter such belief? Then again, if `he does unjust, he ceases to be God’, we say
who authorized you to think in this manner and who is beside him to cease his power even if
he does unjust (which is not possible)?

Conclusion

The type of concept he has about God is not in line with Islamic theology and alien to
Muslims in general. Moreover, he contradicts himself in some places when he discusses the
similar concept of God. He included the `dualism’ concept in his list to relate the God with
the God of Muslim which is absurd & false. So, he was unable to reveal the mystery of the
real concept of God in this book and purported wrong interpretation which has nothing to do
with the Islamic concept of knowledge. To negate all these fallacies, we would quote what
ALLAH al-mighty has declared through his beloved prophet MUHAMMAD
(sal’lallahualihiwasallam) that:

8
Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I
worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of
what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."- (CH-109, V-1-6)

May ALLAH al-mighty protect us from evil concept and forgive us if we committed
something wrong unintentionally.