|
Similarities between Islam and Hinduism |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 7> |
| Author | |||||||||||||||
AhmadJoyia 
Senior Member 
Joined: 20 March 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1647 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Similarities between Islam and HinduismPosted: 22 August 2005 at 9:36am |
||||||||||||||
|
O my dear brother The One, Repeating the same answers to avoid it would not solve the issue. Why don't you simply reply the direct question where the question is the rationality behind the concept that you say ��, but we say that everything is God..�? " and not the proof of it. I hope you are not mixing the two. However, if you still don't provide any rational in this concept of yours other than avoiding it, I would only conclude that its purely your own faith, based upon your own experiences and then finding a so called rationality to it to satisfy your self. Isn't it? With this line of reasoning, I hope we can proceed further. Secondly, as sister has already picked up a vital difference between the two analogies, I would rather ask you a different question when you say "But telepathy is a real thing which everyone can do and most of us do unconsciously, but we are not aware. Now coming to your objection of not responding to your questions, I would say that almost all of them are discussed in this forum at various appropriate threads. So there is really no need to duplicate the info everywhere. Just for example, the questions you asked about authenticity of Quran is still under discussion at http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1677& ;PN=1&TPN=6 Hope you shall find your concerns being raised in that discussion and then the appropriate replies as well.
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Nausheen
Moderator Group 
Female Joined: 10 January 2001 Status: Offline Points: 4251 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 August 2005 at 9:14pm |
||||||||||||||
|
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir rajeem, Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim,
Mind if I asked a few questions in the middle of your interesting discourse with Ahmad and others? Gibriel is not a human being. He is the cheif Angel. In your comparison of their coversation with that of Krishna and Parth .... do you regard Krishna as a human being? Was he not an Avtaar? or are you saying that Avtaars are considered as human?
A Hindu is not entirely same as a Hindustani. A Hundustani can be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh, a christian or a Parsi, but a Hindu is only a Hindu, not a muslim or christian or follower of any other religion. We cannot mix the two. Peace, Nausheen Edited by Nausheen |
|||||||||||||||
|
<font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
The One
Groupie 
Joined: 10 June 2005 Location: India Status: Offline Points: 62 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 August 2005 at 8:52pm |
||||||||||||||
|
Oops, mine is a bookish definition. Let it be. But my definition is right, isn't it?
I have already clearly pointed to you, "I was just comparing your belief and our belief. Our beliefs about God can only be proved only when we can prove that God exists. And to understand my statement you have to know about our concept of God. For that you can go to any Hindu forum. There you can easily know the rationality I used." When I said "our beliefs", I was refering to both your and our belief.  And to know clearly, you can definitely go to a Hindu forum. Thats why I concluded, "There you can easily know the rationality I used." The concept itself takes huge volumes to explain and I cannot do that.  So I would better suggest you to go to a Hindu forum where you can meet live people and discuss whatever you want to know just like I doing here. Similarly how do you rationally explain the telepathic use of relating the story of Gita from one human to another? Just like you can explain how Mohammad heard from Gabriel.  But telepathy is a real thing which everyone can do and most of us do unconsciously, but we are not aware. Ahmad bhai, why are you just asking questions and not answering mine? I think the topic is "Similarities between Islam and Hinduism", isn't it? It would be good if we discuss about both. Please answer my questions reading my posts once again. Aparichithudu. Edited by The One |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 August 2005 at 6:08pm |
||||||||||||||
|
"First know about "rationalism" brother and then you can know what it means when anyone says "Man is a rational being". Rationalism according to Philosophy means "the theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge." I thought I would avoid going into the basics with a philsopher friend like you...Any how, ok, for the purpose of remaining focus to the point, even with your own bookish definition of "rationality" how do you explain your own comment when you say "��, but we say that everything is God..�? Your answer to this question of mine "This is a simple statement. There is no need of any proof........" is everything except rationality. Is this the way you have been learning through your experiences rationally? Similarly how do you rationally explain the telepathic use of relating the story of Gita from one human to another? |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
The One
Groupie
Joined: 10 June 2005 Location: India Status: Offline Points: 62 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 August 2005 at 9:15am |
||||||||||||||
|
Oh,
I see. I thought you were �free� ever before as well. Hmm!! As the day
is over, may I ask have you remained �free� after the day, as well or
waiting for another day like this to come? Nevertheless, a good joke to
enjoy, indeed.
Yes Ahmad bhai, I was ever free. I was born in a country where freedom is a birth right. Yes, beside rationality, origin of truth is another attribute, a universal kind of attribute of the truth. This is where I was saying that your approach is not linear. What do you mean by "truth"? Truth is that which always exists. It is not bound by space and time. And main attribute of truth is it should be independent. God is Truth, so you mean to say God has origin? Quite interesting!  Simply because rationality can be construed out of human wisdom which it turn has inherent limitations of human experiences. Please read my entire post and then respond. I have given you the relation between rationality and emotion. But you consider it to be an "identification" by me. All minds are perfectly rational. But majority of people think emotionally, not rationally. Thus a thing may appear perfectly rational to one human, because of difference in experience, may not be the same to others. Isn�t it? No brother, it is not.  Experiences do not make you rational, but they just make you understand how and why the things happen the way they happen. Man only learns from experiences. Why and how does he learn? He learns because he is rational. Remember, "man is a rational being". And it is not "man learns to be rational through experiences". Similarly, the �truth� for someone, though how seemingly rational it may appear, could be relatively �falsehood� for other human based upon the differences of experiences. A "truth" to one cannot be a "false" to another. If it is, then it is not truth. It is just an effect of some cause. As I have said, rational nature of human beings is not based on experiences. It is inherent in every human being. If it is not, then we would have just been mere animals. First know about "rationalism" brother and then you can know what it means when anyone says "Man is a rational being". Rationalism according to Philosophy means "the theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge." Thus, to over come this human limitation, we must need to verify the source or origin of the �truth�; �divine� or �human�? Thus, there is no human limitation whatsoever. And... Source of origin is important for dogmas and doctrines. And, as I told you, we are neither dealing with dogmas nor doctrines when we are dealing with the Vedic religion. No one is forced to follow or believe them until they are realized. Oh, do you think this will bring �perfectly rationality�? I don�t think so. Otherwise, for example, all among �Buddhist� who meditates would have recognized the same truth. On the other hand, we do see so many branches of Buddhists, as some attribute divinity with Gotama and some don�t. Before any one wishes to challenge their meditation, other examples of people in pantheism could also be provided like wise. Of course, meditation helps. It helps us control our emotions which allows us to be more rational. But, here what you are talking about is paths to the goal, but not the goal itself. There are many paths, but only one destination. Buddhists goal is reaching God, they call it "Nirvana". And the main point to note is that one branch of Buddhism does not contradict another branch. Even Indian pantheism does not contradict Buddhism. To recognize the truth, one should have the will to recognize it. And... we are rational about many things and not about one particular thing. We are rational even in making our day to day decisions. Your example does not hold anything. A similar question arises when we consider Islam. Why are there divisions like Sunni, Shia, Sufis Ahmadis etc? And truth does not depend on what you think or on what you do not think. Based upon same arguments, I think, almost all religions of the world would provide you similar rational arguments. No difference at all. Just hop into any other religious forum and you would hear all kind of rational (according to them) behind their beliefs. Yes, let them provide similar rational arguments. Whats wrong with that? And why should there be any difference? However, would they provide the authentication to their evidence, is another question. The same I am asking to you brother. Tell us who was Sri Krishna? How is his sayings have reached us by surviving the thunderstorms of history? It is this logical reasoning that is need before we start putting our faith (believing him) on his sayings. So you are more interested in the person who told the truth rather than the truth itself. Interesting. I have no problem in telling who he is. But I would like to tell you one thing, if truth depends on who tells it, then it is not called truth. I have already told you about Krishna. But once again... Sri Krishna was the King of Dwaraka about 5000 years ago. Arjuna was Sri Krishna's brother-in-law and his close friend. Bagavadh Gita is the dialogue between the two. This dialogue took place in the middle of battle field just before the battle was about to start. The battle was chronicled telepathically by Veda Vyasa, just like Mohammad heard Quran from Gabriel. But unlike Quran, Gita was written by one person, i.e., Veda Vyasa. And it was written in a perfect written language by a well learned man. How is his sayings have reached us by surviving the thunderstorms of history? Just like Quran has reached you. Your rationality is linked up with your own experiences. Isn�t it? As I have said my nationality is not linked with my experiences. I only learn from my experiences because I am rational. However, as you said, its origin is from Sri Krishna. So, though not to question your experiences, however, the historicity of Sri Krishna and then his �saying� can be looked into relatively easily. Thus, though this methodology, one can access these beliefs without any biasness. Isn�t it? Yes, this methodology is easy, but it is the methodology of the weak. So we are not encouraged to believe in dogmas or believe in someone blindly. For us, "it is a sin to consider ourselves weak". Yes, indeed, my brother. Let the truth come to everyone of us without being afraid of it. I said, I am not afraid to be wrong. And I did not say I am afraid about the truth. So you do believe that Sri Krishna is correct and all his sayings that have reached you through history are his own and no corruption has been done in them. Hmm!! Have you ever done any critical analysis of this or it is your own conviction? Read my post in its totality once more and you will not get this doubt. And why do you think it could have been corrupted? And how do you think we can find whether it is corrupted or not? I love the Gita for whatever it is now. And this love is irrespective of it was said by Krishna. My love for Gita is different from my love for Krishna. Coming to Quran. Quran was collected from anonymous sources and it is in a verbal language, i.e., Arabic(which we have already discussed in this post, but you considered it off-topic). Most of the Quran is allegorical. No one knows what is meant by many of the verses, but just blindly believe that it was the word of God. Now, how do you know that Quran is not corrupted? Why do you believe in what Mohammad has said? And how do you know that Quran is the word of God? Please. Here you go my dear brother. Now, exactly what tools of rationality have you applied to conclude this beliefs when you say ��, but we say that everything is God..� This is a simple statement. There is no need of any proof. I was just comparing your belief and our belief. Our beliefs about God can only be proved only when we can prove that God exists. And to understand my statement you have to know about our concept of God. For that you can go to any Hindu forum. There you can easily know the rationality I used. Whatever you would say, in the end, would remain limited to your own experiences. However, for others to recognize this, we have nothing else but to ask you your source of info and how reliable it is. Isn�t it logical rational? No brother. It is not limited to my experiences. If anything is limited, then I will definitely point it out. Just read my posts and you will find it yourself. Whatever I have said can be recognized by anyone. Satyameva jayathe I think, now I have presented at least few examples to show that my question is, after all, not all that �meaningless and childish�. I know that I have given enough material to prove that you need a good study of what rational means. This is where faith comes in. A belief that the person who has brought a certain truth has a divine origin. Though, not the truth itself, however, we can examine the reliability/authenticity of his testimony through the annals of history. Isn�t it? How do you think we know that it is of a divine origin? Because of the simple reason that belief in the presence of God is itself a matter of faith which cannot be proved. I want to know how we can know through the "annals of history"(considering Arabs have no significant history before Mohammad). Now, it does seem that you do understand the limitation of human rationality. So, before we do this decision of �pick and choose�, we must apply another test and that is to ask for the source or origin of this knowledge. Now it does seem that you will definitely know about rationalism atleast for the sake of this discussion. Can you tell me how authentic Quran is(as I have already asked)? Aparichithudu. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
human
Guest Group 
Joined: 25 July 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 120 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 August 2005 at 1:51pm |
||||||||||||||
|
Ahmad, This is a very interesting, though, frequently frustrating and confusing discussion. One of the simplest books I have found on Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma) is Am I a Hindu? I highly recommend it, it answers lots of questions you have asked. There are many schools of thought in Hinduism. Many of the holy books (for the want of a better term), were written or communicated over a period of several centuries. Rishis used a oral tradition, perhaps because written books were hard to come by. So as a consequence, and in order to make it easier to remember the teachings, they compressed many writings into shlokas (short sentences in Sanskrit). As I said earlier, it was not done by one individual, and hence there is a lot of uncertainty about who said what when. In fact as a result of compression, a lot of the original meaning behind the shlokas has been lost or re-interpreted. As an aside, even though Quran claims to be entirely the work of Muhammad (though he himself didn't write it), there is a strong evidence that he borrowed liberally from the old and new testaments. And there is no certainty as to who wrote the old testaments, if I am not mistaken. Hinduism places a lot importance on self realization. What this means is that, though you need a guru to learn things, you will reach nirvana only by introspection and meditation. As a result of this freedom, there have been many many philosophers who have created different paths towards salvation. In fact there is even a tradition of athiesm within Hinduism. Krishna (apparently speaking in God's voice) says in Gita very clearly, there are many different ways to reach me (i.e., salvation) and all are equally good. Therefore there is no claim of superiority over other faiths. In some ways, as regards to faith, Hinduism and Islam are poles apart. But there are traditions within Hinduism (called the Bhakti movement) which is very similar to Islam in that it places a great deal of importance on faith. Basically it says you reach salvation by devotion to God and you do that by performing rituals and signing praises of God. I also suggest writings by J Krishnamurthy and Osho Rajaneesh. They were great original thinkers and have delved very deep into Hindu philosophy. In my humble opinion, all religions teach a few basic truths: be truthful, love thy neighbour, help those in trouble, do good. If we agree on this much and practice good things, there will be much less strife. Regards, Human |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 August 2005 at 2:18pm |
||||||||||||||
|
Oh, I see. I thought you were �free� ever before as well. Hmm!! As the day is over, may I ask have you remained �free� after the day, as well or waiting for another day like this to come? Nevertheless, a good joke to enjoy, indeed.
Since the subject matter is highly non-linear, wouldn�t any linear approach to understand it be illogical?
I already defined it in my post, the same as you highlighted it in the next question. I repeat it here: Oops, I have made a mistake here. Kindly read word �truth� instead of �rationality� in the above statement. Yes, beside rationality, origin of truth is another attribute, a universal kind of attribute of the truth. Simply because rationality can be construed out of human wisdom which it turn has inherent limitations of human experiences. Thus a thing may appear perfectly rational to one human, because of difference in experience, may not be the same to others. Isn�t it? Similarly, the �truth� for someone, though how seemingly rational it may appear, could be relatively �falsehood� for other human based upon the differences of experiences. Thus, to over come this human limitation, we must need to verify the source or origin of the �truth�; �divine� or �human�?
Yap, but as I said, depends upon whom you ask to. Simply because, it is not a unique attribute of truth.
We cannot base our rationality on other's rationality. Even if we base it, it is with our own rationality with which we are basing our belief. And sometimes rationality is dictated by our emotions. So we have to control our emotions to be perfectly rational. My dear, I think you have yourself identified the limitation of rationality, though you consider it something absolute. However, like I said, it is purely based upon human experiences and hence a relative term.
For this reason, we are asked to meditate.
Now it is upto us to base our belief on meditation or not. I do not meditate just because Sri Krishna asked me to meditate. Neither Krishna asks us to believe him blindly nor any Hindu believes him blindly. We believe him because he has clearly given us the reasons. He has clearly explained why we should meditate, what is the state of mind, why we feel sometimes happy and sometimes sad, what is the purpose of everything, purpose of life etc. Based upon same arguments, I think, almost all religions of the world would provide you similar rational arguments. No difference at all. Just hop into any other religious forum and you would hear all kind of rational (according to them) behind their beliefs. However, would they provide the authentication to their evidence, is another question. The same I am asking to you brother. Tell us who was Sri Krishna? How is his sayings have reached us by surviving the thunderstorms of history? It is this logical reasoning that is need before we start putting our faith (believing him) on his sayings.
Your rationality is linked up with your own experiences. Isn�t it? However, as you said, its origin is from Sri Krishna. So, though not to question your experiences, however, the historicity of Sri Krishna and then his �saying� can be looked into relatively easily. Thus, though this methodology, one can access these beliefs without any biasness. Isn�t it?
Yes, indeed, my brother. Let the truth come to everyone of us without being afraid of it. Simply because, I repeat your quote �Truth alone triumphs�. So you do believe that Sri Krishna is correct and all his sayings that have reached you through history are his own and no corruption has been done in them. Hmm!! Have you ever done any critical analysis of this or it is your own conviction?
Here you go my dear brother. Now, exactly what tools of rationality have you applied to conclude this beliefs when you say ��, but we say that everything is God..� Whatever you would say, in the end, would remain limited to your own experiences. However, for others to recognize this, we have nothing else but to ask you your source of info and how reliable it is. Isn�t it logical rational?
I think, now I have presented at least few examples to show that my question is, after all, not all that �meaningless and childish�.
Correct.
Then how can we know that it is of a divine origin? This is where faith comes in. A belief that the person who has brought a certain truth has a divine origin. Though, not the truth itself, however, we can examine the reliability/authenticity of his testimony through the annals of history. Isn�t it?
Now the rationality of the mind comes into picture. Where ever we go, we have to be rational, and we, most of the time, have a conflict with our emotions. Yap, this can be a true statement, simply because rationality is highly dependant upon human emotions/experiences.
Now, it does seem that you do understand the limitation of human rationality. So, before we do this decision of �pick and choose�, we must apply another test and that is to ask for the source or origin of this knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
The One
Groupie
Joined: 10 June 2005 Location: India Status: Offline Points: 62 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 August 2005 at 9:03am |
||||||||||||||
|
"It is quiet surprizing to note that you follow the philosophy of Vedas
but you are not ready to accept it as a Hindu text.Why do you follow
its Philosophy if it is not a Hindu text?"
Where did I say that Vedas are not Hindu texts? What do you mean when you say "why do you follow its Philosophy"? Its just like asking why I eat food. "You say that Philosophy is totally different from practice,for philosophy you follow "Vedas" but for practice you follow other religious scriptures of Hinduism." Who said I follow other religious scriptures of Hinduism? "For example let us take the subject of Physics, their are different books that are used for reference purpose ,but only one of them is used as the main book for studies. Will you find different concepts about a perticular topic of physics in different books? Will the idea of force of gravity will be different in one book and different in the other? Can you expect that a perticular theory that is being taught in one book can have entirely different concept of practicals in other book? How can you follow an entirely different concept of practice that has no reference in Vedas? " What are the other scriptures? And did you read any of them? If so please guide me because I myself am not aware of "practical" books that you are talking about in Hinduism. "The question is that if Vedic Religion is different from Hindu Religion, then why do you follow the philosophy of Vedas?" I am a follower of Vedanta. So what? What do you want to know exactly? "Any person having a perticular religion will always follow the teachings and philosophies of that religion to which he belongs. " Is it? Thank you. "As far as the term "Hindu" is concerned, yes it is a local word and it refers to the people living in the region of Indus Valley. Its a misnoma." Who said it is a local word? "Hindu", "Indus", "India" are not local words. Actual name of India is Bharat. If you look at our passports, it is written as "Bharat Ganarajya", which means "Republic of Bharat". Hindu is a Persian word and not a local word. And the very word "Indus" is derives from "Hindu". For your information, there is no word in Indian languages which means "Religion". And in categorization we call "Sanathana Dharma" for what you call "Hindu Religion". "It is a Geographic Identity, like American, British and Pakistani. So Hinduism is a religion that is only for the inhabitants of the region of India(Hindustan), it is not a universal religion like Islam." Yes, you are right. Its a Geographic Identity. With that identity even Muslims, Christians, Sikhs etc., are also Hindus. Its just a name to call the inhabitants of India, which is turned into a name of a religion. And who said Hinduism is not a universal religion? Your G.K. is far more worse than mine. "Can you please explain how Vedas is without begining and without end? I don't understand how can it be infinite. I have done some discussions with Ahmad about this. You can refer to them. If you are still unable to understand, then go to a Hindu forum. "Ok, if this is the case then how do you know that one attribute of God has a perticular face and shape and the other attribute has a different face and shape?" Who said attribute has a face, shape etc? "You are right my friend, space and time are both part of creation and they will vanish during the end time and I also agree with you that we should not consider "Time" and "Space" when we talk about eternal life(life hereafter)." What is the "end time"? If time vanishes, then how can their be "end time"? And when you say "hereafter", it is also a point in time, a future point, isn't it? What you want to say is exactly opposite of what you want to know. "As far as your question is concerned that what is the need of heaven? It is just like saying that what is the need of giving an academic award or any price to a person who has worked hard through out his academic life in school and has devoted his time and energy on studies before the final exam? My friend just as their is traditon of giving award to the highest score achievers in final exams ,in the similar way God has made heaven for his people who obey his commandments in the life of the world and are concious about his teachings." Can you tell me why God wants to test us? And doesn't God know who will get the "highest score" because He is the Creator of Time? A good discussion can follow if you want to. Aparichithudu. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 7> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
". Can you provide the scientific Journal in which this "real" thing is published? Is it peered reviewed or just based upon some people's experiences?
the One wrote: