Why god doesn’t stop crime? He protects your free will: Dr. Zacharias

I recently saw this video. Here Dr. Ravi Zacharias tries to answer a very hard question. The question is that why doesn’t god stop crime if he’s watching? Even though very complex, the answer fails at the very basic premise, that is, free will. Here is my review of the ‘free will’ model of god as opined by Dr. Zacharias.
Saying that god has given us full free will because he loves us so much and hence he doesn’t interfere for instance in every rape event, goes against any concept of justice, leave aside divine justice. God has been viewed as a father, whose sons and daughters we are. In that sense, your proposed view would like this: A father has 10 sons, some of them are good and some bad. The bad ones screw up the lives of the good ones. The good ones however try to dissipate injustice and they fail. And guess what? No interference from their father, why? Because he loves them so much that he gave them complete free will. Now when the good ones come to him for rescue, all he promises them is a good life after they die. Meanwhile the bad ones keep on screwing the life of the good ones.
So what is the model of justice here? It is that until you die, the crooks can torture you, rape you, wrong you, but don’t worry after that it will be fine. Suppose now that such a model of justice is proposed by a nation’s judicial system, would you accept that? Wouldn’t it give every criminal a free hand everywhere and every time to wrong anyone? Would you sit back and see one of your sons wronging another son of yours for their whole lives?
I’d like to add that freewill would be wrongly interfered with if the very necessary functions of mine (critical to my survival and growth, unharmful to my neighbours) are taken out of my choice. If X wants to rape a woman, it is out of the boundary of ‘justifiable freewill’. X’s freewill is to rape a woman and her freewill is not to get raped, which one would god support?

What Albiruni said about the Hindus of 10th Century AD

Al_biruni_28-02-2010

Abu Rayhan Albiruni penned down a book named ‘Kitab-ul-Hind‘, an account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about A.D. 1030. In the first chapter of his book, he gives a general introduction of the Hindus. Here he mentions a few of the dearest things of the Hindus (Sanskrit, Indian Science, Books) going in the wrong direction. Here is what he has to say.

1. On Sanskrit: First, they differ from us in everything which other nations have in common. And here we first mention the language (Sanskrit), although the difference of language also exists between other nations. If you want to conquer this difficulty (i.e. to learn Sanskrit), you will not find it easy, because the language is of an enormous range, both in words and inflections, something like the Arabic, calling one and the same thing by various names, both original and derived, and using one and the same word for a variety of subjects, which, in order to be properly understood, must be distinguished from each other by various qualifying epithets. For nobody could distinguish between the various meanings of a word unless he understands the context in which it occurs, and its relation both to the following and the preceding parts of the sentence. The Hindus, like other people, boast of this enormous range of their language, whilst in reality it is a defect. (Para 1)

2. On the scribes: Add to this that the Indian scribes are careless, and do not take pains to produce correct and well-collated copies. In consequence, the highest results of the author’s mental development are lost by their negligence, and his book becomes already in the first or second copy so full of faults, that the text appears as something entirely new, which neither a scholar nor one familiar with the subject, whether Hindu or Muslim, could any longer understand. It will sufficiently illustrate the matter if we tell the reader that we have sometimes written down a word from the mouth of Hindus, taking the greatest pains to fix its pronunciation, and that afterwards when we repeated it to them, they had great difficulty in recognising it. (Para 5)

3. On blind patriotism: We can only say, folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science whatsoever. Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khurasan and Persia, they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they travelled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is. One of their scholars, Varahamihira (6th Century A.D.), in a passage where he calls on the people to honour the Brahmans, says : ” The Greeks, though impure, must be honoured, since they were trained in sciences (astrology & astronomy), and therein excelled others. What, then, are we to say of a Brahman, if he combines with his purity the height of science”. In former times, the Hindus used to acknowledge that the progress of science due to the Greeks is much more important than that which is due to themselves. But from this passage of Varahamihira alone you see what a self-lauding man he is, whilst he gives himself airs as doing justice to others. (Para 14)

4. On Hindu Sciences: The Hindus had no men of this stamp both capable and willing to bring sciences to a classical perfection. Therefore you mostly find that even the so-called scientific theorems of the Hindus are in a state of utter confusion, devoid of any logical order, and in the last instance always mixed up with the silly notions of the crowd, e.g. immense numbers, enormous spaces of time, and all kinds of religious dogmas, which the vulgar belief does not admit of being called into question. Therefore it is a prevailing practice among the Hindus jurare in verba magistri; and I can only compare their mathematical and astronomical literature, as far as I know it, to a mixture of pearl shells and sour dates, or of pearls and dung, or of costly crystals and common pebbles. Both kinds of things are equal in their eyes, since they cannot raise themselves to the methods of a strictly scientific deduction. (Para 17)

Source: Book, Albiruni’s India by Dr. Edward C Sachau (translated Kitab-ul-Hind).