Islam and Hinduism

Nausheen wrote: 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.

Sister Nausheen,

Can you please tell me in what province you grew up(where Sanskrit is compulsory till matric)?

But not a problem, the National Language of our country will be Sanskrit by the end of this decade.

Peace and Love.

Edited by bharatiya

PEACE CHILDREN.......SHHHHHHHHH...peace

bharatiya wrote: Asalam walaikum AhmadJoyia! First of all, 'hinduism' is not a religion.  Its a way of life. My ancestors would have never thought that the Philosophy they were following would be called a 'religion' and would be called 'hinduism'.  As you well know, 'hindu' is a word of Arabic origin and is of a very recent origin just like 'India'.

Why are you so rigid about classifying hinduism not as a religion but as a way of life and yet you refer to some inspired books and use words to name or define philasophically a infinitly divine power as "Brahaman" same as in relegions people call "Allah" or God etc? What's the catch in here? Are you trying to reserve a philosophical position to defend or what?

bharatiya wrote: ...... 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 really admire this view.

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

 You mean only 10% (approximately) know what is hidden in their actual scriptures? This 90 is a big number. Do you know what went wrong and who did this to keep the people ignorant of their scriptures? I mean, who got benefited out of this and why?

So called 'hindus' were the first one to percieve the idea of Brahman(Allah).

Without arguing about your claim to be the poineer of Brahman (Allah), can you name the person or point out the one who "percieved" this "idea"?

But I found a great difference between Brahman and Allah.

Oh, really! for example whats the major difference?

" 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.

Of course, trying to define infinity is itself a different proposition and I can visualize your problem. However, you can describe various attributes of Him to make me understand in the comparison of our understanding of concept of God.

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.

Thanks for the reminder, I do now make a note of it, but excuse me if I make typos. However, what is the difference between Brahaman and Brahma? I thought both refers to the same one deity, if not kindly elaborate a little bit.

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.

I am reading through the site, but as you said, it is very difficult to grasp everything. However, with your help shall have major understanding of it.

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.

What do you mean by this? Probably you intend to say that there is a caste system (like in europe; and I don't know about it as well) in hinduism. However, as you mentioned elsewhere, if there was no restriction upon other castes to read them, then how come such a large number of population remain ignorant about their own holy scriptures. Their own liberation was in it and yet they didn't find it attractive to learn it? This is really a strange phenomenon.

Yes they are not the work of a single person.

Then by how many? Do you know their names and other details about them etc?

It is said that they were given to us by Brahma, Khaaliq(not Brahman, Allah).

Whom are you quoting here? I mean, is your source authentic or just from verbal tradition? Secondly, the difference between Brahman and Brahma as I, probably, already asked this question earlier.

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.

What do you mean by theories about their existence? This is again a strange statement indeed. The website that you refered,  describe God in such a beautiful philosophy and you say its all based on human conjecture? I am not satisfied with this reply or probably there must be more to it that I am missing in this puzzle.

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

Thanks for this piece of info as it may help in finding the solution to the puzzle.

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

That means sanskirt must be the spoken language of the people of the india in atleast 3200 BC. This is again a great peice of info.

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

This is strange. Everything is assumed to be preserved, word by word through not only verbal but written traditions as well since 3200 BC and yet no one knows about its origin? 

 

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.

And what are their major differences? Are these differences in number of dieties to pray or what? May be I am assuming too much (90% ignorant population), kindly correct me if my question is not worded properly. 

bharatiya wrote: 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.

So the not only communists and pseudo-secularists, but Brahmin are also in minority..Then who is in majority? Probably the rest of the Hindu castes.

 

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.

I am confused here. Aren't you contradicting yourself here. On one side you say caste system exists where Brahmin is in minority and from your own example shudra is another caste of the hindu system, yet in the end you conclude it doesn't exist. Probably you mean to say according to the hindu scriptures, there is no ban on any caste to hold of them and read them. This could be an explanation from present modern day enlightment but not from the long hindu history. Even now, if I am not wrong, if you go to some places where "ignorant" people still rule, you may find yourself in real big trouble. Isn't it? I think no one can deny that ignorance can mislead to anyone. But mind it, we are talking of almost 90% of ignorant population. That is a big number. So in that sense almost 90% of land is out of bound for you if you try to show them your facts. Don't blame me, I am not suggesting you to do this, but for the sake of arguments.

Caste system was exploited for a very short time.

By "short time" you mean two to three years or two to three centuries? Do you have any historical evidence to substantiate it or just a guess? If guess work, then I can even have a better educated guess to say, given that if beginning of hinduism is 3200 BC, then barring few years, or let us call it we centuries after 3200 BC, rest all periods must have been the exploited centuries especially once the responsiblity of preserving the scripture was assumed by only one class of the society. 

If it existed in ancient India, then Krishna is a cattle grazer, he is dark in colour and he should be a Shudra.

Kindly identify who is Krishna? From my little knowledge is he not the brother of Rama? If so, weren't the two brothers from a royal family? I must be wrong, so need you to identify.

Varna system only existed as a way to assign a certain work to a certain class.

This is my big question. Why? why was there need to limit human capabilities to their ancestoral professions only? What's the wisdom or logic about it other than by the ulterior motives of some privalaged class in the system to keep dominance over others?

But now that does not hold good.  And 'hinduism' may be the only religion which allows amendments.

But you just said in the begining that hinduism is not a religion? Isn't it? or you meant the 'way of life'? yeah, I understand that you mean the same thing. ok, going onward, then I am again confused when you say it allows amendments. You mean to legitimise the exploitation of caste system by someone on the name of amendments. This exploitation in relegion, I mean your way of life, to live like a slave rather worse than that, in your own home land was all legal as it allows amendments? Then certainly this was a kind of amendment that was introduced much before your or even my estimates. This is very strange reasoning that I have come across. By this, some times later you may change your philosphy about Brahman also simply because modern day science failed to find an evidence of it? After all amendments can be done as per need basis????

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).  .....

I don't believe in discussing politics as a tool to show religious correctness. So let us avoid it in our discussions as much as possible and concentrate on purely relgious (ok, way of life) aspects of hinduism.

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...)

Though I couldn't understand a bit of your reasoning here, but I just let it go as I have said no politics, as well as I don't take notes from the actions of 90% of ignorant mojority people. More important to know is from a learned people like you and not from a ordinary person who doesn't know about his obligations towards his way of life. So let us keep going on the same track. 

And what superior groups within hindus?

I didn't use word 'superior' but 'similar' in my statement and I meant the same group of people as you already pointed out in this post i.e. the communists or Brahmin etc.

 

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.

I didn't know that especially about Hinduism while looking at the 90% ignorant population. How could I have imagined about the existence of 10 % learned people? Similarly, I really really don't know about Sikhism and can't say what their actual beliefs are.

But Muslims think that, its an obligation to be a Muslim to reach the Highest.

Well I don't agree with you over here. Firstly of all you have not described what is "Highest". Do you mean reaching the highest point on earth? like mount everest or what? Obviously only fool 'muslim' can say that as atleast I hardly know any muslim reaching that peak. Or you mean highest in the wealth? This is very certainly not true and don't need any examples as they as a nation are among the poorest. Then what is this word Highest refer to in your statement? It really needs a clear definition. If you allow me to re-phare your quote, then I will say that only God fearing people will go to Janna (a place of everlasting peace in the life hereafter). Obviously, ony those who believe in the oneness of God (monotheistics) can claim to be God fearing other wise which god they are talking about if they are polytheists. I certainly like you to comment upon the concept of life after death from hindu perspective, but as far as I know there is no such concept. Then in that case this "highest" point is meaningless for them so why to worry about muslim's claim?

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.

Yes, I noted that. A hindu is very liberal so much so that any amendments can be made by any one who so ever like it to be, (as the Brahmins had done to exploit the caste system) .... perfectly no boundedness ... after all no compulsion.... But who will bell the cat for 90% population who don't understand this literature.

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.

But I would say only because the hindu (probablity of 90% of finding such a hindu) doesn't know about his religion.

Truth shall triumph.

Yes, Indeed; and I would say Amen. 

Edited by AhmadJoyia

AhmadJoyia wrote: Are you trying to reserve a philosophical position to defend or what?

Yeah, you may say I am defending 'hinduism'.

You mean only 10% (approximately) know what is hidden in their actual scriptures? This 90 is a big number. Do you know what went wrong and who did this to keep the people ignorant of their scriptures? I mean, who got benefited out of this and why?

Yes, 90% is very large a number.
What happened needs a big explanation.  And you may not understand it.
Lets put it simply.  Its because of Causality.  If we do bad, good will not follow.

Without arguing about your claim to be the poineer of Brahman (Allah), can you name the person or point out the one who "percieved" this "idea"?

I am frank.  I don't know who 'percieved' the 'idea' first.

Oh, really! for example whats the major difference?

I have already quoted the difference.  We say everything is God, and you say God is pure.

I thought both refers to the same one deity, if not kindly elaborate a little bit.

I think I made this point clear in my last post.

However, as you mentioned elsewhere, if there was no restriction upon other castes to read them, then how come such a large number of population remain ignorant about their own holy scriptures. Their own liberation was in it and yet they didn't find it attractive to learn it? This is really a strange phenomenon.

As I have said, it needs a big explanation.  Its not that 'they didn't find it attractive' etc.,.  They were not allowed to read them by the Brahmins.  That is what everyone talks about.  The Exploitation.

Then by how many? Do you know their names and other details about them etc?

I really don't know how many wrote them, but I hope I will find it soon.

What do you mean by theories about their existence?

As I have said, some believe they were given by Brahma(Khaaliq) and some believe that they were passed down by the word of mouth.

This is again a strange statement indeed. The website that you refered,  describe God in such a beautiful philosophy and you say its all based on human conjecture? I am not satisfied with this reply or probably there must be more to it that I am missing in this puzzle.

Well, take for example, you say that Quran was said by Allah.  How did He say it?  Ok, lets assume that Quran was said by Allah, then who wrote it?  Did Allah himself write it?

This is strange. Everything is assumed to be preserved, word by word through not only verbal but written traditions as well since 3200 BC and yet no one knows about its origin?

Strange indeed.  Everything is not assumed to be preserved.  It is known to be preserved.  And I have said that they were written on leaves.  Which were finally compiled by Veda Vyas.

Can I know the name of your great great great grandfather?

Vedas are like, I discovered a Truth which I pass on to my children.  They inturn pass it to their children.

And what are their major differences? Are these differences in number of dieties to pray or what? May be I am assuming too much (90% ignorant population), kindly correct me if my question is not worded properly.

Yeah, you may say so.  Its not like praying.  But its like admiring.  Some admire Krishna.  And they feel that Krishna will take care of them.  Some other admire Siva, and feel that Siva will take of them.  This admiration turns into praying and worshipping.

This prayer is even for attaining the Salvation.

So the not only communists and pseudo-secularists, but Brahmin are also in minority..Then who is in majority? Probably the rest of the Hindu castes.

No one is a kind of majority.  The rest of the 'hindu' 'castes' combined can be said to in majority.

I am confused here. Aren't you contradicting yourself here. On one side you say caste system exists where Brahmin is in minority and from your own example shudra is another caste of the hindu system, yet in the end you conclude it doesn't exist.

I was saying if at all a caste system exist then it is true.  I mean to say that caste system does not exists as the way it is propagated by the pseudo-secularists. 

Probably you mean to say according to the hindu scriptures, there is no ban on any caste to hold of them and read them.

Yes, thats true.

This could be an explanation from present modern day enlightment but not from the long hindu history.

Buddy Ahmed, as I have said,  compared to our long history, this 3000 years is very less.  And how can you say that this could be from "present modern day enlightment". 

Even now, if I am not wrong, if you go to some places where "ignorant" people still rule, you may find yourself in real big trouble. Isn't it?

No, such things are localised.  People of a certain locality are divided.  I can go anywhere in the country

we are talking of almost 90% of ignorant population. That is a big number. So in that sense almost 90% of land is out of bound for you if you try to show them your facts. Don't blame me, I am not suggesting you to do this, but for the sake of arguments.

90% are ignorant of their scriptures.  But 90% does not follow caste system.  Its the thing of the past.  Everyone is harmless as you and I are.

By "short time" you mean two to three years or two to three centuries?

Even 3000 years is very short compared to our long history.

Do you have any historical evidence to substantiate it or just a guess?

Guess? LOL. 

Krishna was raised a cattle grazer.  Valmiki(who wrote Ramayana) was a robber who was taught about Vedas by a Brahmin etc.

What about Dwaraka(Capital of Krishna's Kingdom)?  What about Saraswati River in Pakistan which was said to be a myth?  What about Adam's Bridge between India and Sri Lanka?  Even these are a tip of an ice berg.

If guess work, then I can even have a better educated guess to say, given that if beginning of hinduism is 3200 BC, then barring few years, or let us call it we centuries after 3200 BC, rest all periods must have been the exploited centuries especially once the responsiblity of preserving the scripture was assumed by only one class of the society.

I think, I need not explain.

Kindly identify who is Krishna? From my little knowledge is he not the brother of Rama? If so, weren't the two brothers from a royal family? I must be wrong, so need you to identify.

I have already told who Krishna is.

This is my big question. Why? why was there need to limit human capabilities to their ancestoral professions only? What's the wisdom or logic about it other than by the ulterior motives of some privalaged class in the system to keep dominance over others?

Aha, there was no limit set for human capabilities.  Generally, Brahmins(priests) had a good understanding of everything.  Kshatriyas(warriors) had a good built body.  Vysyas were good at bussiness.  Shudras were good at agriculture etc.  But still their was no compulsion what so ever.  Everyone was given a certain work according to their interest which is called swadharma.  First swadharma was assigned according to the time of birth.  The time of birth is unique.

Even shudras were sent to brahmins for education.  Its only in the earlier part of Kali Yuga did such a thing as exploitation start.

I am again confused when you say it allows amendments. You mean to legitimise the exploitation of caste system by someone on the name of amendments. This exploitation in relegion, I mean your way of life, to live like a slave rather worse than that, in your own home land was all legal as it allows amendments? Then certainly this was a kind of amendment that was introduced much before your or even my estimates. This is very strange reasoning that I have come across.

Yes, this is also strange.  But amendments are made not in the Scriptures but in the practices

By this, some times later you may change your philosphy about Brahman also simply because modern day science failed to find an evidence of it? After all amendments can be done as per need basis????

Don't worry buddy, amendments are only made to live a better life.  And no one will amend our Vedas etc. for they are the truth.  And you definitely don't understand about the amendments.

Well I don't agree with you over here. Firstly of all you have not described what is "Highest". Do you mean reaching the highest point on earth? like mount everest or what?

By Highest I mean Salvation.  But I want to know what are the attributes of Allah.

If you allow me to re-phare your quote, then I will say that only God fearing people will go to Janna (a place of everlasting peace in the life hereafter).

Our ancestors had been asking us to be brave.  In 'hinduism' God is  not considered to be a punisher.

But we believe in Karma.  Karma means Law of Causality.  We do not say that God will punish if we do anything bad.  We say that Karma will take care of it.  It means Action-Reaction, Cause-Effect.  Karma is not diety etc.  It is a Law.  The Law of Maya.  If we do good we get good and vice versa.

Obviously, ony those who believe in the oneness of God (monotheistics) can claim to be God fearing other wise which god they are talking about if they are polytheists.

As I have already said, polytheism is a mis-used word with respect to 'hinduism'.  I don't say that we don't pray to different dieties.  I say that though we pray to multiplicity, we believe in One.

I certainly like you to comment upon the concept of life after death from hindu perspective, but as far as I know there is no such concept.

Life after death needs a very big explanation buddy.  But to put it simply we say that after death we will enter one of the fourteen dimensions or worlds.  These worlds does not mean that a world something away from this Universe.  All the fourteen worlds are overlapping.  Muslims believe that animals can see or hear the dead.  Similarly, humans can go from one dimension to another to contact the dead ones through meditation.  Its thru meditation that Prophet meet the Angel.

Then in that case this "highest" point is meaningless for them so why to worry about muslim's claim?

You were talking about Mt. Everest etc.  It was really funny.  I was laughing my heart off.

But who will bell the cat for 90% population who don't understand this literature.

By the end of this decade, Sanskrit will be made the National Language of India.  So atleast the next generation will understand what is in our Scriptures.  And there are many scholars who know exactly what is written in our Texts.  Hope they will explain them to the next generation.

I find you to be having a great knowledge about religion.  I find it good for me.

Peace and Love.


Edited by bharatiya