Islam and Hinduism

My dear Baharatiya

May peace be on you

Please excuse me as I read your reply once I had already posted my comments and therefore it might appear to you that I have raised the same questions again.

Anyhow, thanks for your kind consideration, but the matter doesn�t seems to be over yet.

First of all I didn�t say that you said something bad about Islam and neither I have said any thing derogatory, if I have said, I offer my apologies. This is a discussion forum and we may sometimes, say something emotional and it should not be taken as an insult.

Your first point, that Why Zakir Naik speaks on Hinduism. Dear Zakir is one of the few scholars in Islam who has great expertise on the comparative religion. He does not only speak about Hinduism but also speaks about Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and Islam. He also bring forward the common terms between these religions. You can down load some important topic free of cost from his web site at : www.irf.net/irf/main.htm

He speaks on Hinduism because he thinks that Hindus are on the wrong path as they neither read their Hindu scriptures and nor follow them. He has requested the Indian government in his debate �Concept of God in Major Religions� and �Universal Brotherhood� that The Sanskrit should be made as compulsory in India so that Hindus should be able to read, understand and act on the teachings of their religious scriptures.

You said that most Hindus are blind believers and I would add �this blind belief of their have caused them to go astray.� I mean if you don�t follow what your religious books tell you do then what is the purpose of these books, then these books are absolutely useless. It is simply impossible that one who follow the religious scripture and one who doesn�t are equal. Can two persons in a society be termed as equal, one who violates the state law and one who adhere to it. You have fallen in the trap of Satan and please think for yourself before its too late.

If there is no true Hindu and Hinduism lacks the religious dimension then there is some thing seriously wrong with this system. I would say it is the ignorance of Hindus about Hinduism to say that there is no religious dimension and its only a system or a way of life lacking religious dimensions. I would say that Hindus over a period of time have transformed this religious dimension of Hinduism into just a metaphorical inkling. I have just recently bought the translation of Bagwad Geeta (translated by Dhanan J Das) and Rig Ved (written by Sawami Dyanand Sarswati and translated by Nihal Singh) soon I will read them to know what they actually say. What I have heard from Zakir these say that, God or whatever you call Him (Aishwar or Baghwan or Vishnu) is one and alone, there is no image of him, one who makes his images is ignorant and sinner etc. As told in Ajurved, Ch. No. 32, Verse No. 3, which says� �Natastya Pratima Asti�- There is no image of Him.  Ajurved, Ch. No. 40, V.No.8, which says �God is bodyless�- as well as Upanishads, Ch. No. 4, Verse No. 19, of Sweta Satra Upanishad, which says: �Natastya Pratima Asti���There is no likeness of Him�. It is mentioned in the Rigveda Book. No. 8, Hymn No. 1, Verse No. 1 �Maach dangadi Samshata� - that means� �Do not worship anyone besides Him alone - Praise Him alone�. It is mentioned in the Rigved, Book No. 5, Ch. No. 81, Verse No. 1, - it says �Verily great is the glory of the Divine Creator�.  Rigved Book, No. 6, Hymn No. 45, Verse No. 16� �Ya ekt it mustihi� - �Praise Him who is Matchless and Alone�.  The translations mentioned above are of RigVed translated by Satya Prakash Narayan and Satyakam Vidyalankar, as well as by Ralph.T.Grifith, Vol. I and Vol. II.

Regarding your other replies, Was the caste system and Satti was a part of Hindu religion and was it mentioned in any of the scriptures? If yes why have you changed it and who gave its authority to amend? Does that mean that the scriptures are written by a common man who was so inhumane to treat people like animals? And what is the guarantee that rest of the other things in these scriptures are true?  And if these were not mentioned in the scriptures, then why such ruthless rituals were adopted for such a long time? This means that Hinduism has no standing as a religion but also as a way of living. Because there is no guarantee that what now is being followed is the true path. As for your description of caste system is concerned, its new for me. An other fellow of your religion told me that this caste system is divine because Brahman was created from the head and neck of god Ram or Vishnu (I am forgetting his name, you have too many gods to exactly remember each one of them) and Kashtari was created from his arms and upper abdomen, Vaish was created from the lower abdomen and thighs, and Shudar was created from legs below the knee and his feet. So once born in a particular caste its not possible to qualify for the higher. Dr. Umbeed Kar (the Famous leader of the so called lower caste Hindus) also threatened to change the religion either to Buddhism or Islam, once he felt in 1940�s that upper caste is edging them out of Indian society.

Our concept of angels is that an angel is a creation of God who has no power or authority of its own. In fact no creation has power of its own even the Jinns,  Prophets and messengers, but all the power and authority rests with God and he give some of his authority to his creations on need to need basis. There is no place or room to worship an angel or Prophet in Islam, whatsoever. This is not the case with Hinduism you say that every god has his own powers and his own authority and each is worshipped in a definitive manner. They even fights amongst each other and performs sex, this is completely outrageous and derogatory. Please don�t do that God is supreme and unlike of human attributes.

I would not agree to this that British did not possess sufficient knowledge about us. Let�s give them their share, regardless of what they did to this sub-continent. They fully knew us, our customs and traditions and that is the reason they ruled us for about 300 years. I have never heard of that stuff that ancient Hindus wanted to expand their religion and they were plunderers and pirates. I have read altogether opposite to this that Hindu nation was a very docile and compact society. They had never travelled out of their mother land and a complete new world was opened for them once Al-Baureni (the famous Muslim traveller) came to sub-continent and brought new opportunities for trade and merchandise. 

This is strange that most of Hindus don�t want to know what their religious scriptures tell and have just blind faith. I think most are convinced that they are wrong and they don�t wan to face the truth and live up to the challenge. They have assumed that they are right but they actually are wrong. This is strange that all are right even if everyone is facing a different direction. If you don�t have to read or learn anything from the Hindu scriptures then simply throw them away, after all what purpose they serve if they are neither to be read or followed.

This is absolutely true what you have said, �there were many like the Prophet Muhammad in ancient India (you may take this as an offence, but its the truth).� Quran tells the same thing, �And (We sent) apostles before you of which We have mentioned to you and there are many other apostles about which we have not told you; and Allah directly spoke to Moses o (We sent) all apostles to deliver the good news and warn (their people), so that people should not have a plea against Allah after the (coming of) apostles (that we were not told); and Allah is Mighty, most Wise.� Sura Nisa (4) , Verse 164-165. 

�And to every nation was sent an apostle; so when their apostle comes, the matter is decided between them with justice and they are not dealt unjustly�. Sura Younis (10), verse 47.  So this is true that messengers did come to this land as well but what has happened Hindus gave them the status of god and threw away their teaching under the umbrella of Blind Faith. Indeed this is real blind faith as told in Quran, �And when it is said to them, Follow what Allah has revealed unto you, they say: Nay! we follow what our forefathers followed. What? (will you follow that) even if their forefathers had no understanding (and sense) at all, and nor did they follow the right path.� Sura Baqra(2) , verse 170.

�These are they who have purchased error (and trouble) at the cost of guidance, so their bargain shall bring no gains (for them), nor are they the followers of the right direction o Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire but when it had illumined everything around him, Allah took away their light, and left them in utter darkness where they cannot see o (They are) Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not revert back.� Sura Baqra (2), verse 16-18.

 Whatever interpretations you had of you books the basics remain the same it is not possible that one is driving the meaning to worship one God from the same scriptures and the other derives to worship everything. Most Muslims are doing the same thing, those who do not follow Quran are either bowing their head in front of saints and Sufis or are asking from the graves and tombs or are in a false illusion that whatever they do (in terms of sin) Prophet Muhammad will save them from the hell fire. They all are deceiving none but themselves so none will suffer but they themselves and by that time it will be too late to either reverse it or save oneself from it. To find the truth read the scriptures at least of your own religion and Quran and if possible all. You will automatically find where the true exist. I am also a convert from one of Muslim sect Sunni and sub-sect Baralvi. There is no room for sectarianism or caste system in Islam. All humans are equal. May Allah guide us all to the right path.

Shams Zaman   Pakistan.  

Thanks brother bharatiya for your response. After going through your posting elsewhere, and then following what Dr. Naik has said about hinduism in the introduction on his website, I have several more questions to understand than the answers to quench my thirst for knowldge about hinduism. Hopefully, this forum shall help me, at least, learn more about this relegion, a relegion that has been myth for me for a long time. I simply couldn't understand how so many great number of people would still believe in idol worship especially with regard to the advancement in modern day sciences. Some one would say, only ignorant people do it i.e. those who practice hinduism are almost all are ignorant (Please don't feel offended as these were my previous views) and some of those people who do call themselves hindus but actually are atheist. They don't beleive in any god and live their own life in that culture. The third category of people, that I thought might have been existing among them, must be those who don't care about the reality of their faith without any logic attached to it and just follow their ancestors under moral / cultural pressures. However, now I am experiencing the fourth category, the learned hindus. But, not surprisingly, they also seem to beleive in unity of divine power, the ultimate power who is worthy of worship. This is kind of discovering new world for me. I must be thankful to you for this discovery and hopefully this shall lead to a meaningfull information exchange.

Now coming to the topic, as a starting point, though I have read the introduction from Dr. Naik's website; can you refer me to any website with similar type of overview or gist about hinduism but from hindu perspective rather than from a "supposedly" baised person? Till that time, I may quote from his website and request that you may ignore any fault or omission based on this limitation. In his introduction, Dr. Naik discusses about several relegious books of 4 main categories i.e. the VEDAS, UPANISHADS, PURANAS, & ITIHAAS.  With the presence of this much big literature, that too centuries old (some where on his web page I read that it may be thousands of years), how it all got preserved?  I am not asking for the original perchment preservation of the scripture but through which means you think it got preserved, especially before the invention of printing press? There must be some learned hindu scholars who would continue copying from the old manuscripts to the new ones. How do you see it? Is there any special group amoung the hindu scholars who were/are dedicated for this preservation process or what; as I assume this can't be a work of few scholars working at their own for its preservation? Secondly, is all this material in one language? Are all of them in sanskrit or some other language too, assuming that sanskrit must be their original language? Thirdly, do we know all of their authors or there are some anonymous writings as well? Though the list of my questions is quite long, however, for the time being the last one is, how many number of major sects or categories are their in hinduism and what are their features to differentiate them from one another. This would lead to answer whether all of them beleive in all of these books or some group have certain preferences; and which book or books are mostly agreed upon by everyone in hinduism. I must again say thanks to you for enlightening me about this new discovery.

One last thing before I end that I couldn't understand is about your quote 

bharatiya wrote: ........And the minorities are no good.  They, in the name of religion, propagate bad about their own people.  Making holes in the very plate they eat...........

To whom are you referring here particularly and what bad propogation has been done by them?; especially once you do seem to admit that it is ignorance of the people, in general, and the ulterior motives of politicians or similar groups within hindus, in particular, who have created the atmosphere of what prevails now in India. Assuming that you meant it toward Dr. Naik's article, you may not beleive me or may not agree with me, it is his article, that you have also quoted, that helped me alot to discover the fourth category of hindus that I mentioned earlier in this post i.e. the learned ones; those who practice hinduism with full mind and logic. In this article, according to my understanding, he has simply tried to bring the real hinduism (and not the usual prevailing concept about it) at par with any monotheatic relegions of the world. This, I think need praise than scoldings. Isn't it? May Allah help us all to find the right path to success; both in this life and life hereafter. Amen.

AhmadJoyia wrote: ...I have several more questions to understand than the answers to quench my thirst for knowldge about hinduism...

Asking questions is primary in our Philosophy.  At some point of time man is bound to doubt about Existence.  One should have no doubt in seeking the Truth.  Thats why we are asked to ask questions and reason it out everything.

I simply couldn't understand how so many great number of people would still believe in idol worship especially with regard to the advancement in modern day sciences.

Most of the modern day science has already been written in the Vedas(believe it or not).

Some one would say, only ignorant people do it i.e. those who practice hinduism are almost all are ignorant (Please don't feel offended as these were my previous views) and some of those people who do call themselves hindus but actually are atheist. They don't beleive in any god and live their own life in that culture.

Yes, thats true, 90% of the 'hindus' are ignorant of their scriptures.

'hindus' is the word given to the people who lived in Bharat.  Even an atheist is called a 'hindu'.  It is similar to calling an atheist in China, Chinese.  As I have already pointed out, 'hinduism' is a way of life.

The third category of people, that I thought might have been existing among them, must be those who don't care about the reality of their faith without any logic attached to it and just follow their ancestors under moral / cultural pressures.

Yes, there are people who exist in this category.

However, now I am experiencing the fourth category, the learned hindus. But, not surprisingly, they also seem to beleive in unity of divine power, the ultimate power who is worthy of worship.

So called 'hindus' were the first one to percieve the idea of Brahman(Allah).  But I found a great difference between Brahman and Allah.  Its very difficult to understand the concept of God in 'hinduism'.  But once you understand, you feel kinda liberated.   It takes a lot of time and energy to explain about Brahman. 

Beware, the main mistake non-hindus(and even hindus) make is the misinterpreting of Brahman to Brahma or Brahmin.

Please bear in mind,

Brahman = Allah

Brahma   = Khaaliq

Brahmin  = Imam.

Even a slightest of typographical error, may lead to misunderstanding.

This is kind of discovering new world for me. I must be thankful to you for this discovery and hopefully this shall lead to a meaningfull information exchange.

Definitely brother.

Now coming to the topic, as a starting point, though I have read the introduction from Dr. Naik's website; can you refer me to any website with similar type of overview or gist about hinduism but from hindu perspective rather than from a "supposedly" baised person?

You are right brother.  There are too many philosophies in 'hinduism' and too many misinterpretations.  And one should need a teacher to explain 'hinduism'.  I can give you the site.  But you may not undestand it.  Just go here.

Till that time, I may quote from his website and request that you may ignore any fault or omission based on this limitation. In his introduction, Dr. Naik discusses about several relegious books of 4 main categories i.e. the VEDAS, UPANISHADS, PURANAS, & ITIHAAS.  With the presence of this much big literature, that too centuries old (some where on his web page I read that it may be thousands of years), how it all got preserved?  I am not asking for the original perchment preservation of the scripture but through which means you think it got preserved, especially before the invention of printing press? There must be some learned hindu scholars who would continue copying from the old manuscripts to the new ones. How do you see it? Is there any special group amoung the hindu scholars who were/are dedicated for this preservation process or what; as I assume this can't be a work of few scholars working at their own for its preservation?

Heres where the so called 'caste' system comes into play.  Actually, Varna system to be called a 'caste' system is a misinterpretation.  Varna system is similar to the Classes in Europe.

The so called 'Brahmins' used to study the scriptures from their ancestors and they were passed on to their children through word of mouth.  And of course they were written and even translated to different languages.  Yes they are not the work of a single person.  It is said that they were given to us by Brahma, Khaaliq(not Brahman, Allah).  There are numerous other theories about their existence.  At around 3200 BC, they were explained to Arjuna by Krishna.  This explanation forms 'hindu' holy scripture Bagavad Gita. 

Regarding printing, they were written on leaves.  And proof read by many.

Secondly, is all this material in one language? Are all of them in sanskrit or some other language too, assuming that sanskrit must be their original language?

Yes, they were all written in Sanskrit.  They were translated into others languages later.

Thirdly, do we know all of their authors or there are some anonymous writings as well?

We don't know much about who first wrote all those.  But they were recompiled by Veda Vyas about 5000 years ago.

how many number of major sects or categories are their in hinduism and what are their features to differentiate them from one another. This would lead to answer whether all of them beleive in all of these books or some group have certain preferences; and which book or books are mostly agreed upon by everyone in hinduism.

There are numerous branches of 'hinduism'.  Exact number is not known as no one studied or counted them.  But all branches believe in the Vedas, Upanishads and the Bagavad Gita.  

One last thing before I end that I couldn't understand is about your quote  bharatiya wrote: ........And the minorities are no good.  They, in the name of religion, propagate bad about their own people.  Making holes in the very plate they eat........... To whom are you referring here particularly and what bad propogation has been done by them?;

I am refering to the minorities in India and our very own communists and pseudo-secularists.

The minorities in India know well that a system such as a 'caste' system does not exist and the so called 'oppressors' who are Brahmins are in a minority.  And the proof is none other than myself.  I am a Shudra(the so called lower caste hindu) and if its true that caste system exists in India then I could not definitely be writing this post.

Caste system was exploited for a very short time.  If it existed in ancient India, then Krishna is a cattle grazer, he is dark in colour and he should be a Shudra.  Varna system only existed as a way to assign a certain work to a certain class.  But now that does not hold good.  And 'hinduism' may be the only religion which allows amendments.

BJP is said to be a communal party(because it has support of the RSS and the VHP, but its not vice-versa, BJP does not support RSS or VHP).  But the vice-president of BJP is a Muslim.  The so called Brahmin BJP elected a Dalit(considered lower caste) as the President of India and then a Muslim.
The only mistake we 'hindus' did was Ayodhya.  Godhra was an aftermath of killing of 'hindus'(Muslims say that its a conspiracy) and whole of the 'hindus' are termed as communal. LOL.

And the minorities know well that they are not being persecuted.  But still tell the world that 'hindus' oppress minorities(if you can meet a Jew or a Syrian Christian ask him whether they were oppressed).  Cheerio...LOL(now Indian muslims come to defend themselves saying that they love their country blah...blah...blah...)

especially once you do seem to admit that it is ignorance of the people, in general, and the ulterior motives of politicians or similar groups within hindus, in particular, who have created the atmosphere of what prevails now in India.

And what superior groups within hindus?  A foreign correspondent  said India to be an Islamic country and not a secular country.  He was saying that India has no characters of a secular country.  He says that India has no Uniform Civil Code, and most of the Government's works are dictated by the Muslims such as sending of troops to afghan or Iraq, who to become the head of the state etc.

Assuming that you meant it toward Dr. Naik's article, you may not beleive me or may not agree with me, it is his article, that you have also quoted, that helped me alot to discover the fourth category of hindus that I mentioned earlier in this post i.e. the learned ones; those who practice hinduism with full mind and logic.

Of course, Naik has pointed some wonderful quotes.  But finally they were aimed at degrading other religions.

In this article, according to my understanding, he has simply tried to bring the real hinduism (and not the usual prevailing concept about it) at par with any monotheatic relegions of the world. This, I think need praise than scoldings. Isn't it?

All religions say the same thing buddy, be it Islam, 'hinduism', Christianity, Sikhism or any other religion.  All religions believe in the existence of only one God.  But Muslims think that, its an obligation to be a Muslim to reach the Highest.

A 'hindu' on the other hand is liberal.  He never says that his is the only true religion or only the follower of Bagavad Gita reaches God.
And if a Muslim or a Christian comes to a 'hindu' and says that 'hinduism' is a farce, he just gives an indifferent smile.  This is because,
1. A 'hindu' is so cowardly to defend his own 'religion'
2. He has had it enough about being beaten by the same stick a number of times and got accustomed to it.

Truth shall triumph.

Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim,

Shams Zaman wrote: Dear Baharatyia I am a regular listener of Zakir Naik. He can't fluentely speak sansakrit but of course know a little bit to deduce meanings out of it.

 In case ppl outside India do not know. There is not one education system in India. Infact every province has its own variations.

I learnt Sanskrit till grade 8. In my province there are many schools where sanskrit is compulsory subject till matric, ie grade 10. My sanskrit teacher used to insist us to listen to sanskrit news, to become fluent in the language. I have lost the skill mostly as it has been more than a decade now, but when in school I could rea Sanskrit texts and understand mostly without any dictionary.

Does Dr. Zakir Naik know sanskrit? my guess is yes. He can know enough to understand the meanings, if not directly, then for sure with help and research.  

Peace.

Nausheen