Salam To: All

1- Hinduism offers no eternal Hell whereas in Islam non-believer will abide

    in Hell for eternity.

2-  Islam claims it only has the Ultimate Truth and Slavtion is achieved only

    through it unique adherence while Hinduism acknowledges that    

    everyone  and anyone has the truth and  anyone can achieve Salvation.

With reference to the above two points, it seems Hindusim is a more tolerant, pluralistic faith as a whole. However Islam seems to be violent, lacks pluralism.

It will better to restrict the discussion within the context of comparative religious studies. Arguments against Hindusim based on riots in Gujrat or their right wing issues will not help us understand both these religions teaching ( i.e their doctrines, dogmas etc).

Hinduism is gaining a significant number of converts in West and suprisingly muslims tend to brush it aside. When answering try not to be emotional from an Islamic perspective or dont use the Salafi or Wahabi ( ultra conservative approach) which rejects every notion of other Truths.

Regards

Fuhad

Fuhad wrote: Salam To: All 1- Hinduism offers no eternal Hell whereas in Islam non-believer will abide     in Hell for eternity. 2-  Islam claims it only has the Ultimate Truth and Slavtion is achieved only     through it unique adherence while Hinduism acknowledges that         everyone  and anyone has the truth and  anyone can achieve Salvation. With reference to the above two points, it seems Hindusim is a more tolerant, pluralistic faith as a whole. However Islam seems to be violent, lacks pluralism. It will better to restrict the discussion within the context of comparative religious studies. Arguments against Hindusim based on riots in Gujrat or their right wing issues will not help us understand both these religions teaching ( i.e their doctrines, dogmas etc). Hinduism is gaining a significant number of converts in West and suprisingly muslims tend to brush it aside. When answering try not to be emotional from an Islamic perspective or dont use the Salafi or Wahabi ( ultra conservative approach) which rejects every notion of other Truths. Regards

Welcome to islamicity webboard,feel free to join and share...

Fuhad,first of all which religion do you believe,your words seem like you are in an intermediate area...

 Fuhad,please  take care this book,i think you don't know so much about Hinduism; we also see that you also don't know so much about Islam;please take a look at that book,

http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/index.html - http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/index.html

Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullah,

Fuhad,

Islam is the religion sent by Allah to mankind, while Hunduism is a man-made religion. This is a sharp contrast between the two faiths. Any comparison beyond this point will be redundant.

Influence of men on others, in matters  lacking divine authoritiship or sanction is very common in the west, it should not surprise the muslims.

If you are to argue that the Puranas and the Vedas were divine revelations, there is no proof to it.

Bhagwat Geeta containts sayings of Krishna ... who is thought to be an incarnation of God, a concept strongly rejected in Islam.

Maa salaama,

Nausheen

by Dr. Zakir Naik

I INTRODUCTION TO HINDUISM:

The most popular among the Aryan religions is Hinduism. �Hindu� is actually a Persian word that stands for the inhabitants of the region beyond the Indus Valley. However, in common parlance, Hinduism is a blanket term for an assortment of religious beliefs, most of which are based on the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

II INTRODUCTION TO HINDU SCRIPTURES.

There are several sacred scriptures of the Hindus. Among these are the Vedas, Upanishads and the Puranas.

1.VEDAS:

The word Veda is derived from vid which means to know, knowledge par excellence or sacred wisdom. There are four principal divisions of the Vedas (although according to their number, they amount to 1131 out of which about a dozen are available). According to Maha Bhashya of Patanjali, there are 21 branches of Rigveda, 9 types of Atharvaveda, 101 branches of Yajurveda and 1000 of Samveda).

The Rigveda, the Yajurveda and the Samveda are considered to be more ancient books and are known as Trai Viddya or the �Triple Sciences�. The Rigveda is the oldest and has been compiled in three long and different periods of time. The 4th Veda is the Atharvaveda, which is of a later date.

There is no unanimous opinion regarding the date of compilation or revelation of the four Vedas. According to Swami Dayanand, founder of the Arya Samaj, the Vedas were revealed 1310 million years ago. According to other scholars, they are not more than 4000 years old.

Similarly, there are differing opinions regarding the places where these books were compiled and the Rishis to whom these Scriptures were given. Inspite of these differences, the Vedas are considered to be the most authentic of the Hindu Scriptures and the real foundations of the Hindu Dharma.

2. UPANISHADS:

3. PURANAS:

4. ITIHAAS:

1. Common Concept of God in Hinduism:

2. Concept of God according to Hindu Scriptures:

Consider the following verse from the Gita: "Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." [Bhagavad Gita 7:20]

Salam o Alikum!

Indeed after the brother has posted detailed concept of Hinduism as narrated by Zakir Naik, it would be inappropriate to add anything because neither I am as learned as him nor I possess adequate knowledge about Hinduism. However what ever knowledge is available with me I would like to respond to Mr. Fuhad.

Salvation:   All the human beings were created from one pair. Even if this is not given in the Hinduism however common sense indicates that in the beginning there would certainly be one pair, irrespective of the fact that we believe in Theory of evolution or creation. So this means that in the beginning there was one religion. This is the reason that all the major religions have similar teachings, like what is good and what is bad. No religion according to my knowledge teach to kill innocents or to steal or to rob etc. So the social teachings are almost similar. What has changed is the concept of God, the religious rituals and the religious philosophy (life after death, equality etc).

Now the question is that if there is salvation then who has to offer it?  Definitely God. So is it possible that anyone who defies God will be rewarded in Heaven? Can anyone live in a house if he says to his father that, neither I accept you as my father nor I will obey any of your orders. Certainly that father will kick his son out of the house (if he is not dependent on his son). Now if Hinduism says that, according to Fuhad �everyone and anyone has the truth and anyone can achieve Salvation� this is not logical at all. How can both the statements be accepted as true, �THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD� and �EVERYTHING IS GOD or THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE GOD�. So if Hinduism says that everyone can achieve the salvation, sorry its only a deceptive statement.

Respect for Human Being:   Hinduism in one of the few religions which has very little respect for the human beings because the Hinduism has a unique caste system. By which Hindus themselves can�t become equal to other Hindus. A Brahman is the most sacred of the caste followed by Kashtari, Vaish and Shuder or the untouchables. There can�t be transgression in the caste system a Shudar can never qualify for the Vaish, a Vaish can never qualify for Kashtari and a Kashtari can never qualify as a Brahman. They born in the same caste and die in the same. The Brahmans are the most privileged caste amongst the all and the Shudars are the most subjugated with almost no human respect.

Whereas, Islam says that all human beings are equal and bonded by universal brotherhood with Muslims being brothers in faith. There is no room for sect or caste system in Islam. As said in Sura Al-Imran -3, Verse 105, �And be not like those who have divided themselves into sects after clear orders had come to them, and that these are the people for whom there is grievous chastisement� and in Sura Inaam - 6, verse 159, �Surely they, who split their religion into bits and pieces and divided themselves into sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did.�

Similarly we are told not to fight with the followers of other religions unnecessarily, �And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say to them: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit.� Sura Ankaboot-29, verse 46.

Conversion:   There is no concept of conversion in Hinduism because anyone who converts to Hinduism has to live in subjugation as a lowest caste Shudar or untouchable. So no one will like to convert if he has to live like an animal in a newly adopted religion whereas he enjoys a respectable place in other religion.  And for women, she is supposed to be burnt alive along with his husband if he dies and the practice is known as Satti. I don�t know why the Hindus are not practicing this �noble and sacred� ritual so that the world could come to know what is the place for women in Hindu society and any conversions which are taking place in the west should also double. Whereas in Islam any new convert is given equal and full rights which he may not be getting in other religions. That is the reason Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

Concept of Eternal Hell. Is it Logical:   As said by Mr Fuhad Islam offers the concept of eternal hell. This statement is half true as Islam also offers the concept of eternal heaven. Well it is very simple, this complete universe is run according to a system and set of rules, this world is governed by the set of terrestrial rules, all the societies and nations are run according to a set of system in this world like Islamic system, western democracy, secularism and communism etc. Once someone breach the laws set by that society he is penalised according to the law, and if he commits the highest unwanted crime like murder or anti-state rebellion he is given the maximum punishment that is death. So if in this world if someone commits the biggest crime that is associating partners with Allah, he is given the highest punishment in the hereafter that is eternal hell. All those who commit crimes of less intensity will be kept for a specified period of time which is surely only known to Allah.

There is no concept of hell or heaven in Hinduism and Hindus believe in the �Cycle of Rebirth.� The common word used for the Doctrine of Rebirth is �Punarjanam�. In Sanskrit Punar or Puna means �next time� or �again� and Janam means �life�. Therefore Punarjanam means next life or the life here after. It does not mean coming to life again and again.  Most of the reference for Punarjanam in the other Hindu Scriptures besides the Vedas if read keeping life hereafter in mind including the quotation of Bhagavad Gita and Upanishad it give us a concept of next life or life again but not life again and again.  This concept of Rebirth again and again was developed later on after the vedic period to rationalize the indifferences found in different individuals at birth and different surrounding in which people live. Since the creator Almighty can not be unjust.

Hindus are generally and mostly unaware regarding their religious scripture and the actual teachings of Hinduism. Therefore Hinduism is not even practiced according to its revelations. That is why a person remains a Hindu if he worships one God or 3 gods or even 330 million gods. This is perhaps the only religion where even this has yet to be ascertained that how many gods should be worshipped. And yet if someone says that I believe that Hinduism is a divine religion, I can only salute his wisdom and weep on his fate.

Misconceptions:     Almost all of the human beings who follow a religion which give the concept of hell and heaven assume that they will be rewarded in Heavens regardless of their deeds. Unfortunately this misconception also prevails amongst Muslims as well. But Quran has to say something different on the issue. Sura Asar � 103, verses 1- 4, �Swearing by the time of age o Definitely mankind is in loss o Except for those who believe and have righteous deeds and orated each other about truth, and counselled each other for patienceo�. So it is evident that first we must believe in :

(1)   Allah (that there is none else to be worshipped), His all the Messengers and revelations, all his angels, in the life after death and the Day of Judgement, and that Allah has the command over all matters (Taqdeer).

(2)    Should have righteous deeds like offering prayers, helping poor with charity and zakat, do not un-necessarily harm someone, obey parents, refrain from what Allah has forbidden (haraam), fasting in Ramdan and perform Hajj once in life time etc.

(3)    Should propagate the divine and truthful message with all available resources.

(4)   And finally, should show patience and forbearance in difficult times and should consult Allah with advising same to others.

So these are the 4 conditions to enter heaven and if anyone fails in anyone he is not to enter except for if Allah decides the other way.

Hope this satisfies Mr. Fuhad

Shams Zaman  Pakistan

mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]  

    [Note from Moderator: Guidelines for posts:Rule#3. Use of upper case and bold (font) is not permissible for the whole of the message body, however it may be used to add emphasis to words or phrases contained within your message.]

bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Raheem

Salam alaikum

Please read,

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=4240 - http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&To pic=4240

The disease of comparative religion has entered the hearts of those who are not well grounded in the deen. Hence they mislead others and go astray themselves.

If you can't guide others then don't mislead them at least.

May Allah have mercy on the Muslim Ummah. Disappearance of knowledge is rampant.

wsps wrote: http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&To pic=4240 - http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&To pic=4240 The disease of comparative religion has entered the hearts of those who are not well grounded in the deen. Hence they mislead others and go astray themselves.

The most favorite passtime of salafis is to issue fatwas of having gone astray against the Ulema of as sunnah wal jama'.

Only those names which are respected on the salafi websites are on the right path, rest all have gone astray.

Congratulations!

btw, what percentage of muslim population is salafi? Less than 2.

So what they say is the voice of less than 2% of the total muslims - still keep up the work of attacking the muslims of As-sunnah wal jama'

All the best!

bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Raheem

As Salam alaikum

I don't have time to argue but let's come back to the point.

Do you call/invoke Allah Ta'ala by names such as Brahma, Vishnu etc.?

Do you hold this Aqeedah? Do you say, 'O Brahma! O Vishnu! while in your Prayer or making dua to Allah Tabarak wa Ta'ala?

Or do you think this is permissible? If yes, its your choice but could you give proof from the Quraan and Sunnah or from anyone amongst

AS-Sunnah wal Jama'?

Don't be emotional, just speak with substance...Inshallah. That will help.

The problem with us is that we can't see anyone preaching in a different style than of ours. It looks like that the learned writer had neither listened to Dr. Zakir naik and neither must have read him. What he says that All the beautiful names belong to Allah. So if by vishnu or Ram you mean One Allah who has no assosiates you can call Him by this name. But Hindus know who is vishnu or ram with four hands etc surely you can't call Allah with these names. Don't we call Allah as God so is it Kufar? We all know what God with capital "G" means. The One God or Allah so what is the harm?? Don't be naive. We in Pakistan call Allah as Khuda so is it wrong surely we mean The Allah by saying Khuda in urdu. Why common sense is the most uncommon thing these days?

Shams Zaman  

Salams

Its pleasant to read such varied response on this topic.

Here is another article on this issue which I like to share:

The writer is associated with Al-Harmony: Journal on Islamic Thought and Ethics, Kochi, Kerala, and can be reached at mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]

To Shamz Zaman

Yes you are probably right that some Hindus sincerely believe in the caste system and all other mentioned practices but there are different sects of Hinduism much like you have Sunis and Shia Muslims. Not all Hindus believe in the caste system and to say that Hindus have no respect for human beings alots a huge portion of error to those who pay respect for all living creatures great or small.

Now we can make a huge list of right and wrongs from all religions but the next time you look into another faith pause and think about the good and peaceful doctrines exemplified in that faith. Most importantly try not to attempt to critize other faiths attempt to seek the truth or a better understanding of that faith. To criticize another faith you bring criticism on your own. There maybe some scriptures or doctrines that might help you be a better Muslim as well as a good person.

I hope I haven't in any way insulted your religion by my posting anyway Cheers for now.

To Sanjiv   Dear Brother Sanjiv

I am indeed encouraged by your views and am extremely thankful to you. Indeed by this way I would certainly become more wise on Hinduism. And moreover I would also like to add certain of my views and questions. First of all let me clear some of the misconceptions which not only exist among non-muslims but muslims as well. First of all there is no room for any sects in Islam. As said in Quran:

 "And be not like those who became divided and disagreed after clear orders had come to them, and these are the one who will have a grievous chastisement." (3 : 105)

"Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did." (6 : 159)

So all those who says them as Sunni or Shias or whatever else they are grossaly mistaken and a true believer (Muslim) has nothing to with them. So the teachings are absolutely clear but people are not adharing to it. Therefore I would certainly ask a few questions:

(1) Can we say that: actually Hinduism does not believe in caste system and only people do? or is it the way that Hinduism does establish a caste system but most Hindus doesn't believe in it?

(2) Is Satti (setting up a widow in fire) a religious ritual or is it only that few people carryout this practice and it has nothing to do with Hinduism teachings?

(4) Anyone who convert to Hinduism is given full rights and equal status as of the top caste or he is treated as untouchable or the lowest caste Hindu?  

(3) Is is true that one who worship one God is a Hindu and one who worship more than 3 million is also a Hindu?

Well if all the answers to these questions are that actually Hinduism doesnot teaches anything like this I would take my words back that Hinduism has no respect for human life. But if all the answers to these questions are that actually Hinduism preaches this but some Hindus doesn't believe in it I would stand by my words. I hope you would certainly like to remove some of the misconceptions in my mind. And if I had hurt your religious sentiments in my previous mail I would apologise for it. 

Your brother   Shams Zaman.

No you definitely didn't hurt my beliefs. I will try to answer your questions as soon as possible. Just for now consider these few pointers.

To gain a better understanding or to have a mutual respect for other faiths one must attempt to reflect on the nature of that religion  the way the practitioners treat others such as respect for one another regardless of faith, race or sex. On the flip side one cannot deny the facts such as (killing unwanted newborn females) which is certainly not part of Hinduistic teaching. So to gain a understanding pretend to be a part of that faith what would you tell a Hindu if they were to set a unwanted wido on fire despite all the suffering she will have to go through even certain death. He obviously dosn't understand that females are living creatures.

My perceptions of Islam having met and seen the way they practice I can say they are truly pure to heart the majority at least. But one cannot deny the reality, while there are Muslims who give to charity respect people of other faiths there are those who view other faiths as their enemy and treat women as second class citizens. Of course from my understanding of Islam I would tell a Muslim (God made everyone equal so therefore women have equal status, respect others of different faiths God loves everyone alike).

My posting is not a attempt to demote Islam  in anyway or to promote Hinduism rather to remove barriers between different creeds and cultures.

Yes I would agree to this partially. Because what I know so far Hinduism is not a religion in its classical sense rather its a collection of myths and theories since centuries. The original books of Abraham or Moses, which some researchers claim to be Brought by the lost tribe of Jews in India later formed the basis of Hinduism. Later not only these scriptures were altered but new myths were added too.

Shams Zaman

Pakistan

We can note the similarities. Hindu worship cow so did the Israelites once they crossed over the sea, and Moses burnt that Gold cow so does the Hindu burn their dead. The one Samri who made this cow developed a disease and used to say Don't touch me, so do Hindus think that anyone who touches them makes them unclean.

Shams Zaman

Pakistan

Shams Zaman wrote: To Sanjiv   Dear Brother Sanjiv I am indeed encouraged by your views and am extremely thankful to you. Indeed by this way I would certainly become more wise on Hinduism. And moreover I would also like to add certain of my views and questions. First of all let me clear some of the misconceptions which not only exist among non-muslims but muslims as well. First of all there is no room for any sects in Islam. As said in Quran:  "And be not like those who became divided and disagreed after clear orders had come to them, and these are the one who will have a grievous chastisement." (3 : 105) "Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did." (6 : 159) So all those who says them as Sunni or Shias or whatever else they are grossaly mistaken and a true believer (Muslim) has nothing to with them. So the teachings are absolutely clear but people are not adharing to it. Therefore I would certainly ask a few questions: (1) Can we say that: actually Hinduism does not believe in caste system and only people do? or is it the way that Hinduism does establish a caste system but most Hindus doesn't believe in it? (2) Is Satti (setting up a widow in fire) a religious ritual or is it only that few people carryout this practice and it has nothing to do with Hinduism teachings? (4) Anyone who convert to Hinduism is given full rights and equal status as of the top caste or he is treated as untouchable or the lowest caste Hindu?   (3) Is is true that one who worship one God is a Hindu and one who worship more than 3 million is also a Hindu? Well if all the answers to these questions are that actually Hinduism doesnot teaches anything like this I would take my words back that Hinduism has no respect for human life. But if all the answers to these questions are that actually Hinduism preaches this but some Hindus doesn't believe in it I would stand by my words. I hope you would certainly like to remove some of the misconceptions in my mind. And if I had hurt your religious sentiments in my previous mail I would apologise for it.  Your brother   Shams Zaman.

Dear Shamz Zaman

Hope this helps. Sorry bout the lateness got tangled up in uni work.

The caste system was not prevelant but was around in ancient India and even to a lesser extent today especially amongst the wealthy elite and those Brahmins who believed they had a right of say in politics and society to establish their own power. This is not a Hindu teaching or be preached. Simalarities can be drawn on old colonial practices. Those in the upper class looked  down on ordinary peasants and treated people even in their own country as second class citizens.

The story about Satti if you like is just a myth a bit like how the Earth was covered in a vast flood in the old testament. This is certainly not practised or preached in Hinduism.

Whether you're a convert or not everyone and everything (whether living or non-living) is to respected and treated the same as the way you would like to treated and respected. So a new convert is not a untouchable rather a beginner or learner.

Whether a Hindu worships no god, one god or many Gods he is still considered Hindu or bounded by the laws of nature.

I hope this answers your questions. I believe this website is sufficient to answer most of your questions. I have attached a weblog below if you like to engage in discussions. Thanks for your patience.

http://www.hindunet.com/forum - http://www.hindunet.com/forum

http://www.himalayanacademy.com - http://www.himalayanacademy.com

DavidC wrote: Sanjeev, May say Hinduism is not *a* religion but rather *many* religions grouped together by ignorant British. How well do you think this generalization fits? DavidC

Gooday Dave before I babble on some more one thing lay of the British otherwise I'll�.�. I�ll have to think of something only kidding.

Well you pretty much nailed it Hinduism is a collection of texts but not by ignorant British. Its beginnings are really difficult to trace as there is no written records. However Indo-Aryans tribes men who told stories and through song eventually wrote down their thoughts which is now in a collection of texts known as the Gita since it is foundation of the Vedas or simply Vedas.

If like you here�s a silly analogy Hinduism is like the base of a tree trunk Buddhism and Jainism being like the branches of that trunk and Sikhism being like a new sampling from that tree since it has both Islamic beliefs and Hinduistic beliefs. I�ll introduce them to you briefly.

Buddhism: Buddhism shares similar key beliefs to Hinduism such as the moral and natural laws of cause and effect (for every action there is a reaction) or simply Karma. Here�s another wacky analogy if you drink too much wine you get drunk simple as that. It is pretty much atheistic there is no mention or claims of Gods, spirits or anything beyond nature�s logic like reincarnation a popular stereotype that people think lay Buddhists and monks must believe in. Whether reincarnation exists or not it is immaterial to the teachings the Buddhist teaching states put into practice that which is good and provides for the happiness and well being of society and the environment. Whether you believe in the teachings or not, you are not condemned to another brutal existence.

Jainism: Again a direct result of both Hinduistic and Buddhist principles except they believe in reincarnation and observe strictly the non-killing of all life that in fact some people will cover their mouth with a cloth to stop swallowing flies.

Sikhism: Displays both influences of Islam and Hinduism since they believe only in one God and that it�s disrespectful to worship other Gods. Guru Nanak was the founder or if you like the prophet of Sikhism. They also believe in Karma a Hindu belief.

Again I belief the mentioned webblog above and website may answer you�re questions more deeply I�m a bit rusty on Jainism and Sikhism.

Suleyman wrote: Fuhad wrote: Salam To: All 1- Hinduism offers no eternal Hell whereas in Islam non-believer will abide     in Hell for eternity. 2-  Islam claims it only has the Ultimate Truth and Slavtion is achieved only     through it unique adherence while Hinduism acknowledges that         everyone  and anyone has the truth and  anyone can achieve Salvation. With reference to the above two points, it seems Hindusim is a more tolerant, pluralistic faith as a whole. However Islam seems to be violent, lacks pluralism. It will better to restrict the discussion within the context of comparative religious studies. Arguments against Hindusim based on riots in Gujrat or their right wing issues will not help us understand both these religions teaching ( i.e their doctrines, dogmas etc). Hinduism is gaining a significant number of converts in West and suprisingly muslims tend to brush it aside. When answering try not to be emotional from an Islamic perspective or dont use the Salafi or Wahabi ( ultra conservative approach) which rejects every notion of other Truths. Regards Welcome to islamicity webboard,feel free to join and share... Fuhad,first of all which religion do you believe,your words seem like you are in an intermediate area...  Fuhad,please  take care this book,i think you don't know so much about Hinduism; we also see that you also don't know so much about Islam;please take a look at that book, http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/index.html - http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/index.html

The book which you have given has nothing about so called 'Hinduism'.  There may be hindu terrorists, but they haven't done anything sinister.

Definitely, the book has been written by a perverted mind.

Of course, everyone can have his own opinion, but the Truth remains the Truth.

Look at Bin Laden and Saddam Hussain and whole lot of other terrorists who are muslims and declare 'jihad' on every non-muslim.  Even a kid knows this truth.

Nausheen wrote: Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir rajeem, Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim, Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullah, Fuhad, Islam is the religion sent by Allah to mankind, while Hunduism is a man-made religion. This is a sharp contrast between the two faiths. Any comparison beyond this point will be redundant. Influence of men on others, in matters  lacking divine authoritiship or sanction is very common in the west, it should not surprise the muslims. If you are to argue that the Puranas and the Vedas were divine revelations, there is no proof to it. Bhagwat Geeta containts sayings of Krishna ... who is thought to be an incarnation of God, a concept strongly rejected in Islam. Maa salaama, Nausheen

Peace be to everyone.

Hey Nousheen, how do you know that hinduism is a man-made religion?

Myself being a hardcore 'hindu', didn't know that.  But thanx for telling me that hinduism is a man-made religion.

peace and love,

Bharatiya

Rehmat Brother,

Thanks for quoting the Upanishads.

Does Mr. Zakir know Sanskrit?

Mr. Zakir would have got everything from a tertiary source.  Ask him to learn Sanskrit thoroughly and then read 'hindu' sacred books and then try to translate them.

Suleyman has given a book, which was written by a perverted mind.  So I need not bother.

There are many people all around the world both muslim and christian who dont like 'hinduism'. 

"But what is Religion?"---"Its a choice made to return to whence you have come."

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. Secondly he quotes from the translations of Hindu translators. So if the translation is wrong then the whole Hindu community who doesn't understand Sansikrit is getting the message wrong. But please let me know how many of Hindus living in the world today can speak or understand sansikrit? I am sure not more than a few thousand or maximum a few hundred thousand? So once most Hindus don't know what is contained in Hinduism how can they really know what Hinduism is?

If you could explain to me as:

Who is a true Hindu, he who worship one God or he who worship three hundred gods or he who worship three hundred thousand gods?

Does Hinduism believes in caste system? One says its a Hindu tradition and other says its part of Hinduism? Whst is told in Hindu scriptures?

What religious ststus is given to Satti (burning alive of a widow) in Hinduism? Is it a ritual or a tradition of ignorant/

And what are essentials to be a Hindu? What all he has to believe in?

Does Hinduism permit to draw pictures of Hindu gods and if yes who has seen them?

What status is given to a convert in Hinduism and can he become an upper caste Hindu the Brahman?

I would certainly like to know the answers and lets see what all is common in Hinduism and Islam.

Shams Zaman   Pakistan

mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]

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. Secondly he quotes from the translations of Hindu translators. So if the translation is wrong then the whole Hindu community who doesn't understand Sansikrit is getting the message wrong. But please let me know how many of Hindus living in the world today can speak or understand sansikrit? I am sure not more than a few thousand or maximum a few hundred thousand? So once most Hindus don't know what is contained in Hinduism how can they really know what Hinduism is? If you could explain to me as: Who is a true Hindu, he who worship one God or he who worship three hundred gods or he who worship three hundred thousand gods? Does Hinduism believes in caste system? One says its a Hindu tradition and other says its part of Hinduism? Whst is told in Hindu scriptures? What religious ststus is given to Satti (burning alive of a widow) in Hinduism? Is it a ritual or a tradition of ignorant/ And what are essentials to be a Hindu? What all he has to believe in? Does Hinduism permit to draw pictures of Hindu gods and if yes who has seen them? What status is given to a convert in Hinduism and can he become an upper caste Hindu the Brahman? I would certainly like to know the answers and lets see what all is common in Hinduism and Islam. Shams Zaman   Pakistan mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]

My most dear Zaman Brother,

I dont mean any bad thing towards Islam.  I love Islam(which means peace) as much as i love 'hinduism' or any other religion in the world.

You are right that very few know Sanskrit.  And you are also right that 'hinduism' is being wrongly propagated(someone was even saying that Islam was an offshoot of 'hinduism' and Christ was buried in Kashmir).

And most of the 'hindus' are blind believers.

I have a question, why does Zakir Naik speak about 'hinduism'?

Let me answer your question.

1. There is nothing or no one as a true 'hindu'.

2. 'hinduism' used to follow a caste system according to one's work or duty but does not believe in a caste system as it is propagated now. There is no one less or more.  Everyone is equal. 

3. In ancient times when a widow wanted to be with her husband even after death was burnt alive at her own will.  This is called 'Sati'.  No woman was forced to do it and most of the time women were not allowed to do it.  And in modern Bharat it is a crime and it is banned by law.

4. Nothing is essential to be a 'hindu' because 'hinduism' is a way of life and not a religion.  'hindu' is not an Indian word(even a hindu doesn't know what hindu means).  Our 'religion' doesn't have any name as it is so old that no religion existed for it to be differentiated.  And of course, in ancient times, foreigners used to recognised by their place, not religion.

5. Most important, the term 'god' is misinterpreted.  In Indian languages there is no equivalent word for 'god'.  'God' is an English word.  You were saying about some thousands of 'gods'.  You may say that they are 'gods' or 'angels'.  It doesn't make any difference.  Even the Prophet Muhammad has seen an angel.  And there were many like the Prophet Muhammad in ancient India(you may take this as an offence, but its the truth).  So artists used to just follow what those prophets say and 'draw' them.

The main thing is, 'hindus' do not call the Supreme 'he' or 'she'.  We call it 'It' or 'That'.  The Supreme is known to be a principle which has no gender according to 'hinduism'.

6. As I have told you, there are no divisions as upper caste or lower caste in 'hinduism', the division is according to the work we do.  They were categorised by the successive governments in India from the time of the british.  And some centuries ago, Brahmins(priests) used to have an upper hand as every caste has to go to the Brahmins for anything to be done.  So they used to feel themselves to be of higher caste.  The same thing has taken many forms and untouchability came into existence.  Because of caste system, Buddhism came into existence.

But now, as in ancient India, few follow it.  So a convert is a 'hindu'.  No caste is attached to him.

My dear brother, most of Indian history was written by the british who know nothing of its culture.   The pity is, even now the same thing is followed.

I have heard people say that ancient 'hindus' are plunderers, pirates and wanted to expand thier religion and empire through wars.  I dont know from where do they get these weird stories.

If I am not clear in anything, please ask me.  I will be happy to answer.

Dear bharatiya

Thanks for enlightening me something on hinduism otherwise all I had about hinduism uptill now was from classical indian movies. The great medivial fights between Sir Ram chander jee and Rakhasth (I forgot his actual name). I thought these films were kind of preaching hindu darham and probably showing as the origins of Hindutava. Kindly let me know what is myth and what is actual hinduism that you believe to be contradictory to these films. I thought that one of the holy book 'Gita' is a compilation of songs of Sita (wife of sir Ram chander Jee) as the film tried to portray it. Hope to hear some good information other than sterotypes from Indian media. Cheers!

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 : http://www.islamicity.com/forum/www.irf.net/irf/main.htm - 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.

Arrogance is the cause of all evil on earth. Arrogance is what led the expulsion of satan from heaven. Satan entices us from everywhere and we tend to absorb that arrogance which makes us turn away from the truth. If we kill arrogance and become humble we will see the truth. There is no point in defending ones position simply in order to prevail as a winner, as we are not here forever, our motto or goal should be to seek the truth. Our ability to think is limited to what God has granted us. Our knowledge is limited, we knew nothing when we were born, as we grew our faculty of thinking grew to a limit and as we grow old it will fade. The knowledge we have is less than a drop in the ocean ie all humanity put together! We are extremely fortunate to have the word of GOD which is the Quran, not anything man has written with his miniscule knowledge.

My sincere advice to everyone is pray all the time "God, guide me to the right path, the path of those whom you have blessed, not those who have gone astray." God willing, you will find the right path. It may take years or only a short while, but be sincere in your prayer for HIS Guidance and patiently perservere.

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 http://www.katha.org/Academics/Advaita-PT-I.html - 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.

Dear Kumar

Hope you must be fine. Well let me first of all update you that Godhare inquiry which was initiated in the congress government said that the train was set on fire from inside (means an accidental fire) and there are now lot of international magzines including Time and Newsweek which has written that how systematically this carnage was planned by Modi and his associates. You call also listen to his emotions which he had expressed in Gujrat while on an election campaign. BBC had also telecast these emotions of his in their documentry HINDU INDIA. You can eaisly listen to the state of mind of some learned civil servents as to what they have to say on this massacre.

So its some of the neutrals who does not buy this fire story anymore. In this era its not possible to hide facts. You can also read the story of Ihsan Gaffrey as to how he and his family got burnt alive and how he was refused by the police to be rescued. All these stories were not published in Pakistani media I am quoting these from some of reialiable names of International media.

And by your answers I have reached to the conclusions that for Hindus even the Hindu scriptures are useless and they have no regards for them. They are neither ready to read and understand or to follow them. Well done this is how you treat your own scriptures. Well surely that upto you and my task is to present you with some logic. Its upto you to listen to it or refute it. We all are responsible for our deeds and surely we can understand that once a man gets the permit to amend the scriptures what they can become.

So take care and Bye bye.

For sure there is no compulsion in the religion, Truth stands out from falsehood, now its up to you to pick among falsehood and truth. Quran Ch-2

Shams Zaman

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

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.

Shams Zaman wrote: Dear Kumar Hope you must be fine. Well let me first of all update you that Godhare inquiry which was initiated in the congress government said that the train was set on fire from inside (means an accidental fire) and there are now lot of international magzines including Time and Newsweek which has written that how systematically this carnage was planned by Modi and his associates. You call also listen to his emotions which he had expressed in Gujrat while on an election campaign. BBC had also telecast these emotions of his in their documentry HINDU INDIA. You can eaisly listen to the state of mind of some learned civil servents as to what they have to say on this massacre. So its some of the neutrals who does not buy this fire story anymore. In this era its not possible to hide facts. You can also read the story of Ihsan Gaffrey as to how he and his family got burnt alive and how he was refused by the police to be rescued. All these stories were not published in Pakistani media I am quoting these from some of reialiable names of International media.

Well, you are right.  Truth shall never hide itself.

And by your answers I have reached to the conclusions that for Hindus even the Hindu scriptures are useless and they have no regards for them. They are neither ready to read and understand or to follow them. Well done this is how you treat your own scriptures. Well surely that upto you and my task is to present you with some logic. Its upto you to listen to it or refute it. We all are responsible for our deeds and surely we can understand that once a man gets the permit to amend the scriptures what they can become.

What ever you think buddy...

Now I don't want to defend my religion or my people.  I find it pointless to discuss about 'hinduism' in this forum.

I am here to know more about Islam.  I am not here to convert to Islam.  You see, your clothes do not fit me.

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).

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.

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 http://www.katha.org/Academics/Advaita-PT-I.html - 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).  .....

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...)

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.

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. 

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

Gayatri prayer for all of us. Also for muslims who are not aware of this

'Tat savitur varenyam bhargo devasya dhimahi dhiyo yo nah parcodayat' Rigveda iii 62,10

English- 'Let us meditate ( or we meditate) on that excellent glory of the divine Vivifier. May he enlighten ( or stimulate) our understanding'

Salam To: Bharatiya

Its interesting to read your and Ahmed is dialogue. Hope this continues in good spirit.

In your post you said many time regarding mis-interpretation of scriptures. I also feel a lot of things have been dsicussed regarding Hindusim but we need to be bit more structured. This has led me to ask you,

- Which School of Thought within Hinduism due you adhere to ? Also can you state the other six which form the basis or main body of Hindu Philosophy. ( this will benefit other muslims who are not aware of them)

- In your post on 26 April 05, you had stated certain points in the style of 'Nyaya' proper. Are those propositions ( i.e doctrines of Absolute, Time and Space,transmigration of soul etc) explicitly "Sruti" i.e from literal Vedic text or derived ( or speculated on the premise " Ekam eva advitiyam" by the great minds of Indian subcontinent)

- You might be aware that the implications of the doctrine of Advaita as propunded by Sankar has some self-annihilating traits and therefor Ramunja differed with him on this issue. So whats your opnion?

- Also it will be interseting to know your "Gotra" as well.

More later

Regards

Fuhad

Thanks for your elaborted reply, and shall try hard to digest as much as possible. If not, certainly like your help to understand more about it.

bharatiya wrote: Dear Ahmed Joyia, .....I suppose according to Islam, Allah created Man, and Man created disharmony and Allah is different from Man as Allah is pure.  But for us the sum total of everything is Brahman.....

2. For us, everything we percieve is 'Mithya'.  Which roughly translated to English, means "Illusion".(it needs a very lengthy explanation for this)

 There is no concept of illusion in Islam, however, because of temporary nature of this life, some people may call this life (metaphorically) to be the illusioin and real life begins when the result of the test on the day of judgement is decided as who goes where depending upon his deeds on this earth.

3. According to our Philosophy, Brahman has within himself what is called Maya.  Whatever exists, exists within Maya.  The minds and bodies of living things and lot other non-living things.  Maya consists of past, the present and the future.

But you said Brahma is the creator. Isn't it? How could a projected being (creation) can be the creator of himself?

We consider Brahma and others for ritual purposes and for material progress.  Brahma and others are just like us.

why do you find it necessary to pray to Brahma? and why not to the Brahman who is the absolute where as you say Brahma is just like you? Why intermediaries are required that too you yourself say are bounded and limited?

They are just knowledgeable souls.  They know what the Truth is.  But they are still bounded souls.

So how could a "finite" being know about "infinite" more than any other "finite" beings that too, on such a large order of magnitude that finite being becomes the worthy of human worship? 

They help us to know the Truth.

 We, the muslims only ask help directly from the Brahman or Allah only. No intermediaries. Prophets came to humans for only and only this purpose. They never themselves were worthy of worship. Yes, they helped us to know about  Allah, but categorically told to pray only and only to Allah alone as He is the all listener and all hearer. he is closer to everyone more than anything else. Only one has to approach Him to ask for help and He listens to it, always.

It is said that if a person who is seeking the Truth dies without knowing It, the person goes to Brahma who in turn explains the person about the Truth.

So everyone out of them and getting born again (according to your philosophy) should have been the ultimate knowledgeable about truth in his rest of the lives. Yet we see almost 90% of ignorable population. By the way, who is "It is said" usually refered to in your statements? I am not clear on this and like you to reply. Anyhow, according to our belief, all dead are dead till the time they are resurrected on the day of Judgement. Before that day, since their examination on this earth is complete, they are awaiting result in their graves. Their souls return to Allah, and I personally don't know what happens to them and can't extrapolate with my limited human mind.

Most of our ancestors have promised to help us even after they die.  As you well know that death is only for the body.

Dr. Hineman once said, "The dead don't die. They look on and help." Remember that, John.

and who is this Dr. hineman and how do you believe him (or how is he  considered to be qualified to) to say what he says about the life hereafter? Do you regard him a prophet, an angel or what?

And Brahma is the most old of our ancestors.  Thats why it is said that the Vedas etc were given to us by Brahma.

Oh, no? What do you mean by this? I thought you implied Brahma was an angel......So, do you mean Brahma was a human being who lived on this very earth as any other human lived on and who, after death, became one of the helpers of humans on this earth like angels or etc? If that be the case then who decides who can help and who can't help the humans after their death. I mean, who regulates the mangement of this large pool of ancestoral helpers?

You may call Brahma by another name(I think you call him Khaaliq).  Thats the difference I see.

5. Our philosophy is very old, we have Four major divisions of time called as Yugas.  Satya, Dvapara, Treta and Kali.  Kali Yuga, the last of four Yugas, started in the year 3101 BC.  In our calendars this year is written "Kaliyuga satabhdam 5106".  So you can see how old our civilization is.  Hinduism did not start around 3200 BC.  It started a lot more millennia ago.  And exploitation of 'caste' system started around 3000 years ago.  Being so old a civilazation, 3000 years is very short time.

I see that... However, how do you substantiate your guess that it only started in Kali Yuga and not before? Also, I reserve my comments regarding the millinia history for some other occasion. But just for minor correction, 3200 BC means around 5000 years from now and not 3000 years, but ofcourse, as you said is very small as compared with millinnia history. However, as far modern history and its dating is concerned this is about the total history that historians in the world know of. From this perspective this exploitation is right from the origin of their historical knowledge. So you can't blame them who are ignorant of your millinnia history claim.

6. Krishna is not the brother of Rama, but is considered to be the reincarnation of Rama.  Krishna died in the year 3101 BC which coincides with the start of Kali Yuga.

But the movie that I saw, showed both of them at the same time togather (assuming that you are referring the same Kirshna and Rama who went to fight against lankan king). Anyhow, I definitely believe you more than my flimsy understanding from an entertainment movie. But how is he considered to be reincarnation of Rama and what are its implications for such beliefs? and all the more what is the concept of reincarnation? I didn't find it in the web site that you referred me or I may be missing it some how.

7. ......  .  We say "Mukkoti Devatalu" meaning "Three Crore Angels" or "30 Million Angels".

These angels know the Truth.

Yes, but how much of Truth? we muslims don't know of it. As we never try to extrapolate from our limited knowledge to explain "infinity" with the help of "finite" creatures. 

You may say they are good souls helping us.

Hinduism is called a polytheistic religion as we pray to many angels.

Vedas put our dieties at the same level as any other human being.  But we still use the word 'gods' all the time as it is widely accepted.

8. I had been saying the Truth quite a number of times.  The Truth is about the Absolute.

Let me tell you an incident which happened very long ago.

Brother, is it an incident or a story, a folk lure story? If its an actual incident then I have a lot of question about it. About its authenticity, its nature and origin and all the more about its scientific validation. However if its a kind of moral story people usually narrate to make people understand a concept rather than its circumstantial details then I have no more questions and I can llisten to it without any reservations about it. But I then don't expect these kind of stuff in your Vedas. Kindly do provide your brief explanation on it. Also, kindly do fill in the blanks for "--" in your story.  

I think this discussion has stretched too much. So finally I would add:

Hinduism remains to be a unique and strange way of living where people are authorise to do whatever they want to do with their religion. They can give verdict to burn a widow and yet take it back; they can disgrace other people to be called as untouchables for over 3000 years and make them to live like animals, they can choose to worship animals or even decline to worship altogether and yet remain a Hindu. It seems that Hindu gods gets instructions from people rather to give them the instructions. Many claim (even without reading Vedas or any other religious scripture) that all this modern science is covered in Vedas and yet they have to look towards west for the technology. I don�t know why they didn�t benefit from Vedas, by this way they could have caused the   Americans and the rest of the world to sit on their feet.

I would say that these are the illusions which the Satan has made very attractive. They don�t follow or read their own gospels and yet think that, whatever they are doing is correct even if it goes against their religious books.

Unfortunately many Muslims are also living in illusions specially in Indo-Pakistan where they have also assumed that by going to graves and tombs of dead Sufis/ saints all their problems will be solved. They seek help from those dead and interestingly many Hindus also visit these tombs as well. Unfortunately their illusions will never come true because dead even can�t hear them what to talk of helping them. Similarly most devtas of Hindus were human beings and later given the status of god. We all will have to find the truth through efforts, research and by reading all religions. Truth will certainly not come walking by itself towards us.

Perhaps �Achariya Mahant, Dr. Shari Shakti Saroopjee Maharaj Adasin Dharmchariya Odai Shakti, Ph.D (Orientalism), Doctor of Divinity�, can put better light on Islam who was a prominent Hindu priest and religious scholar, and was given the honorary citizenship of Vatican City by the Pope Paul VI. Mr. Saroopjee in 1986 converted or reverted to Islam in Bhopal. He was born on 3 February 1936 in Brindaban, Mathura, U.P. So he had studied all the Hindu scriptures and for several years he remained involved in preaching Hinduism in Ban Khand Ashram in Brindaban in Mathura and an under ground Ashram in Wawanas and he known over 12 languages including Sanskrit, Greek, Hindi, Arabic and Gurmaukhi. Now his name is Dr. Islam-ul-Haq and this is what he says, �While studying major religions of the world I noticed that, with an exception of Buddhism and Jainism all religious literature contained the name of Allah and Muhammad or Ahmed. These names are very clear in Vedas. The word �Ala� occurs in chapter 1 of Rig Veda, which is the first of the four. Later on this name takes the name of Allah. Similarly the word �Muhammad� and �Ahmed� occur for Muhammad and Ahmed respectively and the word �Kurdha-noo� had been used for Quran. In the Old Testament this word occurs in �The song of Solomon, Ch-5, verse-16� as �Muhammaddim� which was translated later as the most sweet and altogether lovely.�

Surely by writing all this I don�t say that everyone should convert to Islam. I only mean to say that we must find out what really the purpose of life is? And what really the truth is? We can do it by only studying various religions and whichever religion we study, the basis of study should be the religious scriptures and not what people do. Secondly, we must study it with a neutral mind; surely we will be then guided to the Truth by the will of God. The life is only for once and we won�t be given a second chance.

It was an interesting and beneficial interaction with brother Kumar and by no means I had intended to disregard Hinduism. I only wanted to provoke few questions for Hindus and required a few answers for myself. The summary remains to be:

Question: What is Hinduism?

Answer: It�s a way of living.

Q: Do Hindus Follow their scriptures?

A: No. Most even don�t know what�s inside them.

Q: How do you then know that who is right in a so diverse Hindu society?

A: All are right.

Q: What�s the logic for all to be right? And what is a criterion to judge who is right? Is it the Vedas or the Upanishads?

A: There is nothing as a true Hindu and there is no criterion for a Hindu to be right. All are right even if they are not following the religious scriptures. We all are blind believers.

Q: What do you believe in? And who told you that all are right even someone follows the scriptures or not?

A: We believe in whatever we elect to believe, for a Hindu it is not must to believe in One God or more. He can be an atheist and yet to be a Hindu and my elders told me that we are right.

Q: What if your elders were wrong and what�s the logic for them to be right? And this speaks that there is no religious dimension in Hinduism because it�s all up to you whether to choose it or reject it, there is no compulsion and no mandatory religious rituals?

A: The only logic and proof for our ancestors to be right is that they can�t be wrong and that�s why they were right. And there is indeed a religious dimension but its all up to us whether to adhere to it or not. (Indeed it�s a strange dimension)

Kumar says that Vedas contains all the modern day science. How would he support his claim once you and most of his fellow Hindus do not even study Vedas? If we today just start writing briefly all the scientific facts and ascertained theories about all the sciences, it will require a few hundred books. How Vedas contain all this, I have failed to understand.      

With best wishes.

Shams Zaman.   mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]         

bharatiya wrote: Yeah, you may say I am defending 'hinduism'.

But from whom? Anyhow, for me it  makes little difference what you call hinduism beside that most of the time you yourself slip into using words like "hindu relegion" etc. 

.....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.

Of course you mean to say this only about Brahmins who diverted the right path from actual hindu literature by keeping the other totally ignorant about it from last 5000 years. It were only they, the Brahmins, who remained custodians (forcefully) of the scriptures generations after generations since 3200 BC.

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

Then how do you confirm the authenticity of your scriptures? Any good moral writtings from billions of years what to say just millions of years, would not make a difference untill or unless it is authenticated from its original sources. Even in our daily day to day correspondance within literary circles it is the references that can make distinction between original and the gossips. Otherwise, these is no way to distinguish between the truth the historical books carry from the myth being added to it generation by generation slowly and gradually. Who knows how much??

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

I think I have already replied to this misconception about God in Islam in my previous post. We also believe that everything is from God, good or bad. No difference uptill here.

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.

Therefore Brahmins of older time, from 3200 bc to this time are responsible for subjugating there own people. So when you tell this to present day Brahmins, what's there reaction to it? Shouldn't they offer a public apology for this atrocity. World knew atrocities of Hitler (for let us say 15 to 20 years) or saddam's atrocities for say 20 years, what should they say about the atrocities of Brahmins of 5000 years? For the last 5000 years, they successfully been able to hide these scriptures from the laity, but how? Weren't the kings there who could have provided the needed justice to them? Not only one such king arose in a 5000 years of history which included many non hindu (such as muslims etc) kings as well?  Either its a biggest joke I am hearing from my friend or it is indeed the new discovery of the truth. I think you are on the right track and you are indeed showing in a new era, a new begining of hindu history. What do you plan to name it? I mean any name after kali yagv etc.  

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

Yap!. That is one very important question and one should not let it go away. Without references, faith doesn't become full. It always haunts us back till we get satisfied that all we read is genuine and authentic. Especially, with the kind of exploitation of 5000 years, who knows what else might have been deliberately been corrupted in the process of transmissions after all no one knows where the original has gone.

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.

What do you mean by "some believe this and some believe that"? Shouldn't the scripture provides the name all by itself? I have read that there are volumes of volumes of near thousands of books comprise these scriptures but you imply that none carry this small but the most important information. Why people should make conjectures about it?

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?

Good example, my brother, indeed Quran is a good examples for all those who has wisdom and knowldge to understand it. Quran is a revealed guidance (word of God) from Allah to our beloved Prophet Mohammad. It was revealed over a period of about 23 years and gradually brought in by angel Gaberial to Prophet Mohammad. Since  God chose Prophet Mohammad as a messanger for all mankind, therefore this message is for all humans and not just for muslims. So we exactly know the author of Quran and who brought it to humans and from among the humans. There is no doubt or conjectures about it. Its protection from any adulteration or changes are assured by Allah Himself and the verses are there within the scripture that we read it. We don't need any other revelation from Allah to provide us clues about it as this Quran itself testify the completion of relegion by Allah for all times to come i.e. till the day of judgement. May Allah forgive me if you find me boasting about Quran, but brother, I found this to be true and this is from where I found strength in my faith.

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.

I hope you would like to distinguish between "assumed" and "known" through logical evdience and not based on heresy despite several scriptural variations you have already alluded in your past postings. Again, the writtings of an anonymous writter can't provide any authenticity to them what to talk about single handed compilation by someone.   

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

Of course, yes, you should ask, and not only to my great great great great grandfather but much beyond where the first human being was created by Allah. Prophet Adam is my first ancestor sent down to this earth. The Quran tells us. No ambiguity and no conjecture. However, I do notice your line of reasoning for this question. In this regard, suffice is to say that during the time of its revelation, it was not only being memorised by the followers of Prophet Mohammad but was also written down as well right then and there. There is no ambiguity and no conjectures about it. Even now, not only me, anyone can verify its preservation, word by word, in its original language i.e. Arabic. Certainly you would not find a difference between any two copies of it, may they are from any part of the world. It is this preservation that I am talking about. It is this authenticity that strengthens my faith in Islam.

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

What if a person had no children? Also I have heard that (I am not very sure) that early hindu Sadduos don't used to get married. If this is true then whole story of verbal transmission falls apart as then from where their children would come? So where did that part of scripture might have gone? Lost for ever?? who knows and how to confirm? No body knows how many pages or books that scripture should have from the original then how would anyone know how many were deficient in it. Of course you would have thousands of answers to this question, but I would simple ask for the evidence since this methodology of perservation is not flawless.  

Islam is not a herediatary relegion. It is for all those who needs to find truth. No particular caste, creed or color is responsible to take care of it. Only Allah has taken this responsibility. My observation can be my own personal one, but since I assume Quran may not be very far off from your reach, you can also verify the same at any time at your own convinence. The verses in the very first chapter testify its originality and authenticity.

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.

But question arises who is right and who is wrong? The scripture should provide the answer as these were supposed to be the source of guidance. As there is only one who is absolute then there must be only one absolute truth about praying to Him as well. Not all can be true at the same time otherwise there conflicting personality may clash and some times even contradict with each other resulting into fierce battles even among the gods. Also, due to long (5000 years) of exploitation by Brahmins, how did people living in these times used to find the truth? Of course only what the Brahmins (the exploiters) used to tell them what to believe and what not to believe. Isn't it? So, the story of hundred gods doesn't seem to fit the beautiful philosophy of only one absolute, the Brahman or Allah.

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, I may like to correct you after our this long discussion that the correct term here would be "Brahmins" and not "the pseudo-scularists". 

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".

Probably now I don't need to explain "how I say that this could be from "present modern day enlightment" " since we already discussed this part that for the last 5000 years it was the exploitation of the Brahmins that didn't let the laities come near there own scriptures. However, once these people got their freedom and knowlegde couldn't be preserved any more through traditional way, the society needed to correct itself for its own existance. No one from the outside world wants to make business with them (the exploiters) where, just for an example, the widow was dramatized to burn herself with her dead husband. Also, the human rights people played their role as well. It is then, that they are now realizing to open up their scriptures only to find what has been done in the past with them. I am not trying to be sarcastic over here about hinduism, but trying to make an over view of this changing environment. At this moment, I would rather suggest you, who is indeed a truth seeker, to be very carefull in adopting any position on basis of the puddle of scriptures that had been kept secret from others for all long 5000 years. Authenticity is the key to survive and arrive at a logically correct position.

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

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.

I believe you brother. Now atleast I have reference for this knowledge though it be through a psuedu name.

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.

 Of course by now we would be able to distinguish between myths associated with certain objects through medivial stories and historically sound evidences. I don't intend to negate any of your examples, and leave it to your own judgement how you take them. The myths can easily be turned into history through verbal transmissions and of course is extremely difficult to validate. Secondly, the historical evidences may still be existance, however, need to validate is the story attributed to them and these objects all by themselves. For example, if I tell some one that this bridge on this river was built by such an such emperor only and only for his beloved wife. Then you can validate my statement, as a first level, if this bridge is really that old? If yes, then on the second level, did that emperor really rule over during that period of time over that place. These are the material evidences that can be validated,  however, this doesn't mean that my whole statement is true. I have yet to provide the evidence that the emperor, in fact, built that bridge only and only for his beloved wife and not for any other imaginably possible purpose. It is this evidence that we should look from these writings.

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....

Big assumptions, my brother really big ones. Don't get into their trap. Think logically from your own general observation and not through the monocule of a Brahmin. The lesson which these Brahmins wanted people to learn and learn all through their generations. Now, at least we know this is not true. Any shudra has equal brain as any Brahmin. Any shudra can be taught to fight and fight well as compared to any other person in the other castes.  

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.

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

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.

 Of course I don't understand what amendments are you talking about and in which doctrine or scripture you are suggesting these amendments. Need you to elaborate a bit on it if its not too difficult to make me understand.

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

Brother here is the link for the 99 names of Allah (the attributes) http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm

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

I wish you would have quoted something that Brahman has mentioned himself rather than ancestrol quotes.

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.

Your philosophy, from the your quoted website, says that everything is created by the Brahman. Then how do you say karma is not a law enacted by Brahman (you say that God is not considered to be the punisher)? Then from where the mercy comes in if action reaction is the only outcome? and similarly what about the concept of repentance to Brahman? You think He would never forgive even if you sincerely beg pardon?

.....  I don't say that we don't pray to different dieties.  I say that though we pray to multiplicity, we believe in One.

....  Muslims believe that animals can see or hear the dead.

Oh, really? But I never heard that and from where they got this information? It is simply a superstition and has no basis from Islam. Need references....As I said, the dead are dead in their graves. They don't move an inch from here or there untill the day of judgement. Their souls goes back to Allah and they don't wander here and there on this earth. Secondly there is no evidence of (atleast not in my knowldge) that any animal has seen these souls. Even if they do, how would these animal tell us what they have seen? All extrapolational theories and nothing else.

Similarly, humans can go from one dimension to another to contact the dead ones through meditation.

Oh, I see what you meant by amendments etc? Hmm.. So this is your divine source. Isn't it or its something other than this also. So you mean to say that there are, in present day as well as in the past, certain hindu meditators who can get the divine truth by visiting these places in their meditation. I need more info from you. Kindly explain this phenomenan or refer me to some website for this.

Its thru meditation that Prophet meet the Angel.

Well, if you are refereing to Prophet Mohammad, then no that is not true. Though, Prophet Mohammad did have his first encounter with angel Gabrial once he went to a cave for meditation (you call it), but not there after. The revelations for Quran used to come to Prophet Mohammad through angel Gabrial even when he used to be in his normal routine of work. These were never limited by the meditation only. Islam doesn't encourge a "saintly" life, yet it emphasizes to remember Allah in all our day to day life events and especially in our lone hours in the night. This doesn't mean to attract or gain any supernatural powers out of it but to strengthen our faith in Him and Him alone. Some people (like sufism in Islam) does stretch this particular aspect of Islam beyond its context and I always take it as an extrapolative philosophy. 

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.

Very ambitious plans though I pray to Allah that He shall provide guidance to everyone of us. Amen.

I am amazed that this thread is still continuing. In an earlier post headed "PEACE"  and probably here too Bharatiya has made it clear that the religious books of the Hindus were written by man. As the Quran is the the word of God surely there is no comparison. After all everything is Allah's creation, including the man or men who have written the vedas, the upanishad's etc. But Allah has granted every one of His creation only a limited intellect so, we cannot compare the word of God which is the Quran with anything that is in the Hindu texts which have been written by man, consequently the comparison of Hinduism with Islam would be futile.

Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand. 002.164

Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah, as equal (with Allah): They love them as they should love Allah. But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah. If only the unrighteous could see, behold, they would see the penalty: that to Allah belongs all power, and Allah will strongly enforce the penalty.

002.165

Then would those who are followed clear themselves of those who follow (them) : They would see the penalty, and all relations between them would be cut off. 002.166

And those who followed would say: "If only We had one more chance, We would clear ourselves of them, as they have cleared themselves of us." Thus will Allah show them (The fruits of) their deeds as (nothing but) regrets. Nor will there be a way for them out of the Fire. 002.167

When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance? 002.170

The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom. 002.171

Fuhad wrote: - Which School of Thought within Hinduism due you adhere to ?

Also can you state the other six which form the basis or main body of Hindu Philosophy. ( this will benefit other muslims who are not aware of them)

- In your post on 26 April 05, you had stated certain points in the style of 'Nyaya' proper. Are those propositions ( i.e doctrines of Absolute, Time and Space,transmigration of soul etc) explicitly "Sruti" i.e from literal Vedic text or derived ( or speculated on the premise " Ekam eva advitiyam" by the great minds of Indian subcontinent)

Ah!  Quite interesting.  I quote from everywhere relevantly.  And I did not quote anything from Nyaya.

- You might be aware that the implications of the doctrine of Advaita as propunded by Sankar has some self-annihilating traits and therefor Ramunja differed with him on this issue. So whats your opnion?

Buddy, Advaita propounded by Sankaracharya is perfect. 

"self-annihilating traits" ........cooooooooooooooooooooool.............
Can you please refer some of them to me?

And who said that Ramanuja differed with him?

- Also it will be interseting to know your "Gotra" as well.

My Gotram is Ravirbhava Maharshi.

Love and Peace.

AhmadJoyia wrote: However, He also created the "Free Will" among some of His creatures. Like humans or jinns etc to choose from right or wrong.

"Free Will" is a wonderful concept.  We will get back to that afterwards.

Similarly, He permitted Satan to do whatever he likes to spread mischief on this earthly life but for a specific and limited time only called the day of judgement.

We don't have a concept of satan.  We don't have the a concept like a 'judgement day'.  We have a concept of Pralaya.  But then God or anyone do not judge us.  Pralaya is a different concept.

On this day every living being who got died shall be raised again to account for his/her deeds.

For us Brahman does not take care of our deeds(I will explain it later).  It is the work of Karma(Law of Causality).

However, Allah sent His guidance to the mankind through His Prophets to guide them to identify the satan and not to get deviated through his traps of lurement.

I would try to explain about why Prophets descend.  If you can understand the concept of Brahman, it will be easy to understand everything else.

He simply said "be" and everything got created on this command. That is it.

I cannot buy this idea.  There is a purpose for everything.  How could a perfect being create an unperfect world?

Considering this, I find the concept of Brahman more subtle.

In my view, no philosophical explanations are required as they all correspond to human conjectures which would ultimately remain conjectures and who would like to put his whole life on conjectures?

Damn right.  But you are negating what you said by this sentence "I beleive in reality and facts define my life, there is very little room for conjectures so we always try to avoid conjectures that are based on absolutely no knowledge other than human extrapolational philosophies.

I too believe in reality and facts.  When I was a little boy, I was an agnostic.  Then in my teens I was a perfect atheist.  I never believed in the existence of God or any higher being whatsoever.  I was as far away to 'hinduism' as I was to Islam or Christianity.  I seldom go to a temple.  And even if I happen to go, I go for peace.

But then, I started intropection.  I found out the facts(not the scientific facts kind of things, because science is filled with assumptions and opinions).  I found out that the difference between me and others is just appearance.  But deep down we are all one.  I have done that through meditation.  And found out that I was a 'hindu' not because of my birth, but because I follow the Philosophy.  It suits me the best. 
Its best for my psyche.

Can I ask you one question?(please don't be offended).

You don't definitely know that Prophet was contacted by Allah.  You base this 'fact' on Quran.  And you definitely cannot prove that Quran is the work of God(or Allah).  Quran, for that matter, any other Scripture exists only as a book.  You believe Quran because you believe Quran.  But its for us to discover everything.  Isn't it?  People see a thing the way they want to see it.  Cogito ergo sum. 

This is what 'hinduism' is.  Discovering everything ourselves.  All the ills in 'hinduism' are superficial.

But you said Brahma is the creator. Isn't it? How could a projected being (creation) can be the creator of himself?

Thats what I say, if you understand Brahman, it will be easy to understand why we call Brahma creator.  For the time being, assume that Brahman created Brahma with special powers to create everything.(though its just an allusion, I will explain it afterwards)

why do you find it necessary to pray to Brahma? and why not to the Brahman who is the absolute where as you say Brahma is just like you? Why intermediaries are required that too you yourself say are bounded and limited?

 Because as I have said, it is not easy to discover ourselves or God.  We consider him as Guru(preceptor) who guides us.

So how could a "finite" being know about "infinite" more than any other "finite" beings that too, on such a large order of magnitude that finite being becomes the worthy of human worship?

To be frank, the difference I find among the Prophet, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha etc. is nothing.  You may say that the Prophet was sent by Allah.  What is the proof?  Its the matter of faith, its not the matter of fact.  Right?

You will now blast me saying that, I am blah blah blah.

And the only difference I find between Krishna and me is higher level of energy in Krishna(you definitely cannot understand this).  He can do miracles.  But I need time to get to that level.

You may ask 'what is this higher level of energy?', well I cannot bear when I am burried alive or when I am immolated.  But people with higher levels of energy, can do this.  Swami Vivekananda was buried alive.  It is called Jiva Samadhi.  Its just like Sati.  I definitely cannot imagine doing such a thing.  You may say that this is suicide.  If you say that this is suicide, then I cannot say anything else about it.

We, the muslims only ask help directly from the Brahman or Allah only. No intermediaries. Prophets came to humans for only and only this purpose. They never themselves were worthy of worship. Yes, they helped us to know about  Allah, but categorically told to pray only and only to Allah alone as He is the all listener and all hearer. he is closer to everyone more than anything else. Only one has to approach Him to ask for help and He listens to it, always.

Without explaining the concept of Brahman,  I cannot prove anything else.

So everyone out of them and getting born again (according to your philosophy) should have been the ultimate knowledgeable about truth in his rest of the lives. Yet we see almost 90% of ignorable population.

By the way, who is "It is said" usually refered to in your statements? I am not clear on this and like you to reply.

Anyhow, according to our belief, all dead are dead till the time they are resurrected on the day of Judgement. Before that day, since their examination on this earth is complete, they are awaiting result in their graves.

So why need angels for help if the ancestors are there to do the same?

Actually, angels are ancestors and vice versa.

Yes, I do know death is only for the body, however, its only this body which is considered alive in this world. In this world, no one calls souls to be alive either. Death is a transformation (in Islam its only for one time for all living beings) from this present world to the life hereafter.

Yes, what we see is the body.  Thats why feel we are finite.  Actually we are infinite beings in finite bodies.  Didn't you hear about Lance Armstrong?  He had cancer, yet he is the fastest cyclist.  Didn't you hear about magicians like David Copperfield and David Blaine?  What about Edison, Einstien etc.  Its all in what we believe dear.  If we believe we can do anything, we can do anything.  You may say that this is the work of Allah.  Remember, whatever you say is right for you.

Everything is possible.

and who is this Dr. hineman and how do you believe him (or how is he  considered to be qualified to) to say what he says about the life hereafter? Do you regard him a prophet, an angel or what?

Dr. Hineman is the one who did extensive work in Parapsychology.  Its not that I believe in him, it is as if saying that I believe in myself, believe in what my ancestors said.

The question is reflexive.  How do you believe in the Prophet?  You did not meet him(did you?).

I don't consider him a prophet.  But as I have already said, no difference between anyone.

Oh, no? What do you mean by this? I thought you implied Brahma was an angel......So, do you mean Brahma was a human being who lived on this very earth as any other human lived on and who, after death, became one of the helpers of humans on this earth like angels or etc?

First of all, by angel I mean a good soul
And I say he is our ancestor because from him some other ancestors are born.

If that be the case then who decides who can help and who can't help the humans after their death. I mean, who regulates the mangement of this large pool of ancestoral helpers?

We ourselves.  Consider them just like Mother Teresa etc.

I see that... However, how do you substantiate your guess that it only started in Kali Yuga and not before?

But just for minor correction, 3200 BC means around 5000 years from now and not 3000 years, but ofcourse, as you said is very small as compared with millinnia history.

However, as far modern history and its dating is concerned this is about the total history that historians in the world know of. From this perspective this exploitation is right from the origin of their historical knowledge. So you can't blame them who are ignorant of your millinnia history claim.

But the movie that I saw, showed both of them at the same time togather (assuming that you are referring the same Kirshna and Rama who went to fight against lankan king). Anyhow, I definitely believe you more than my flimsy understanding from an entertainment movie.

Lets keep the movies aside.  Krishna's brother is not Rama but Balarama.  And please, Krishna was born a long time after Rama and Krishna has no link with Lanka.

They are Itihasas(history) and cannot be changed.

I am curious to know where did you see that movie.  Are you Indian?

But how is he considered to be reincarnation of Rama and what are its implications for such beliefs?

I don't want to explain why Krishna is considered reincarnation of Rama.  I will explain it, may be later.

and all the more what is the concept of reincarnation? I didn't find it in the web site that you referred me or I may be missing it some how.

We take many births until we get perfection.  This aspect is clearly explained in the website i referred.  Just go thru(if you want).

Yes, but how much of Truth? we muslims don't know of it.

The truth that everything is Brahman(or Allah).  Its easy to say that everything is Brahman.  But its not easy to believe it.  Some people think that they believe.  If they believe they would not find anything to be problem.(it takes time to understand)

As we never try to extrapolate from our limited knowledge to explain "infinity" with the help of "finite" creatures.

Why do you consider yourself to be finite?

Helping us in what sense? We muslims don't consider that they respond to our prayers or worship other than what Allah commands them to do for us. So all our prayers are from Allah and Allah alone and not to these creatures. By themselves they they have no power what so ever.

Helping us to know the Truth.

You mean people deliberately nagate their scriptures and yet they think it is worth it? This is indeed a strange logic.

Who said people negate their scriptures?

Yes, I saw that but I wished you would have implored this "absolute' in your quotes more than from any humanistic traditions. Do you have any thing in the Vedas a direct quotes from this "absolute" or they are all full of human philosophies?

Direct quote from the "absolute".LOL.  I am now convinced that the concept of Allah is different from Brahman.

But one question, is it real that Allah said or wrote Quran?  Or do you believe Allah did it?  Can you prove your point?

Brother, is it an incident or a story, a folk lure story? If its an actual incident then I have a lot of question about it. About its authenticity, its nature and origin and all the more about its scientific validation. However if its a kind of moral story people usually narrate to make people understand a concept rather than its circumstantial details then I have no more questions and I can llisten to it without any reservations about it. But I then don't expect these kind of stuff in your Vedas. Kindly do provide your brief explanation on it. Also, kindly do fill in the blanks for "--" in your story.

Its an actual incident my friend.  It is not written in Vedas.  It is Itihasa(history).  And "--" signifies a pause.  As I have said science is just opinion.  And the question is reflexive.  'authenticity, nature, origin.............'

Peace and Love

bharatiya wrote: Hello Ahmad!!! For time being lets forget about the concept of Brahman.  Its a very difficult concept to explain and I was not able to explain it correctly.  Thats why you were saying that we are finite.  Its just like a loop.  We have to look inwards. I would post a whole post only on Brahman.  I would try to explain in the best way I can.

I think, whole premise of my postings was based on this concept of "infinite" Brahman. However, I shall appreciate your post on the concept of Brahman from your perspective as well.

.......  But I think you hold prejudices against Jews and 'hindus'(this may be one of the reasons you find it difficult to understand 'hinduism').

No, I don't think you can call it "prejudices" against 'hindus' at all especially once we are having frank discussions without any baisness attached to it. However, I , like any non hindu, may have problems in understanding hinduism in this short period of time, especially once the very concept of "infinite" Brahman is not easy to comprehend from your stand point of view. All the time I was comparing the concept of "infinite" God that I have in my mind to what "infinite" Brahman philosophy I found on the website you referred to me. However, once you say there is more to it, then ofcourse, I have nothing more to say except let you present what you have to say about it.

I would like to first know the authenticity of Quran.  How can you say that Mohammad is the Prophet sent by God?  Dont say that it is written in Quran.  What is the proof that Quran is the word of God? Someone said it so we are following, is a lame excuse.  Isn't it? The thing is, it is the matter of faith or belief, not a matter of fact.  Right? Now the moderators may blast me, but these are similar to the questions I encounter. If you can answer my questions, then I will be most pleased.   Only good people understand it is a lame answer.

I see this type of your questions throughout your current posting. So I shall try to respond to it right now, in the begining, rather than delaying it to later part in your response; and over there I shall just refer you to this place where I am planning to respond it now. 

I am not offended at all with your question. This is the most logical question that I asked myself in the very begining of my quest for the search of truth. In this quest, I made some presumptions, and you may argue about them, but for me, to start with, these are where I would say that my personal liking or disliking or similar influences might affect. I presumed the existance of some supreme deity. All powerfull and ever lasting and of course infinite in its capacity etc. Meaning thereby, I am not a athiest by my innerself. With this background, I prayed to this deity, whatever you call Him, to show me the truth, the truth which should be of my understanding and the truth to my logical deduction. With this prayer, I earnestly (to my own innerself) started reading and learning about other religions (and I am still in it). In the meanwhile, I also was fully involved in my scientific professional knowledge enhancement studies (Graduate studies in the field of engineering). My sceintific studies taught me to rely only on that info that is backed by proper references (relating to the original sources). It is this teaching that helped me alot in avoiding many heresies that anyone could come across in such a quest for truth. I may not like to reveal all those relegions by name that I read about, as I don't want to let others of that faith feel offended, but certainly hinduism wasn't in them. Obviously, I have already told you my ignorance about this aspect of hinduism, so naturally it wasn't on my priority list. During this study, I came across the same question that you have pointed out. How do anyone should believe on Mohammad that he was the prophet and messanger from the absolute infinite diety. Similarly, the claims of other people with regard to other relegions that I came across. My foremost tool for analysis of any faith related study remained the proper references which these relegions provide for their claims. Not the circular references that you have already pointed out but the absolute references. I found out, during this study, that there is no way that any physical being (scientifically defined physical being that has a 'mass' and occupies 'space' and governed by 'time') can come across an infinite being who is beyond these dimensions. Then how should I expect guidance for my quest? Then my quest itself is a useless and futile exercise. It is in this regard that I realised that I must have to base my trust onto someone who is trust worthy, who can show me and guide me about that infinite diety and I should rest assure for the rest of my life that I am not being cheated upon. But then, that human being may also be in the confines of this physical world. As I said, through my initial presumption, that I prayed to that unseen deity to show me the right path, therefore, in my humble and most earnest but yet through logical approach to my understanding (and not through any complicated philosophy for which in the end I had to say that I am not very clear), I expected to find that path. I see people laughing at me during my conversations with them, mostly calling me atheist and some even called me to be too simplistic about my approach. However, from the inner core of my heart, I never got dishearted from their remarks or attitude simply because I had put my all trust to that absolute diety who I presumed to exist (On the contrary, if that diety doesn't exit even then atleast I am not losing any thing in any way. Isn't it?). It is in this quest through open mind (yet fully convinced to submit to infinite diety), that I came across Mohammad through proper references. The idea of human messanger of God (the infinite diety) was not new in his case and nor in any other two monotheistic relegions. Nor it was opposed by any other human intellects other than atheists. So, now the question came how or why did I believe him more than any others. That means, I have already accepted an element of uncertainity based upon the truthfullness or untruthfullness of another human being but what remained to answer was how much uncertainity as compared with other relegion? However, a simple comparative religion study can clearly answer this question without much ado. Foremost being the original message, preserved in original form and in orginal language from my 'inifinte diety' to whom I now call Allah, made my choice much easier than I thought. I always say Alhamdollilha (thanks to my Allah) who has shown me the right path not only for this life but for the eternal life hereafter. Simiply put to your question, yes, there is certain element of uncertainity attached to my decision, however, to my knowledge till this time, it is far less than the one you could find with any other faith based relegion. By believeing in Prophet Mohammad, I am simply relying on one person's testimony, however, what you are trying to present is that one has to rely on complete chain (that too unbroken) of ancestrol traditions to reach to the concepts that you have suggested. Its not difficult to imagine the huge element of uncertainity attached to this methodology to put faith. Especially with anonymous origin and possibly with many numerous broken chains of traditions, I would always remain skeptical if we would ever recover the lost messages of the infinite absolute. On the other hand Quran is the true word (by beliving in Prophet Mohammad) of Allah and Prophet Mohammad was his last messanger on earth. After this trust is put in, rest every phyical phenomenon attached to the faith can be understood without any further hypothesis or theories, since then Quran would speak all for its own self. For our rituals or even for our day to day life issues, the perfect example of life of prophet Mohammad provides us the guidance. By believing in him, I found myself even closer to other prophets like Moses and Jesus than the claimants of these relegions. There is no "back door" opening for any further divine revelations that could change or annul the last word of God.

Now coming to the last part of your question that how can I validate that Quran is the true word of God. Not that I believe in prophet Mohammad that I would blindly accept whatever is purported to be said by him. Though I may not be able to prove it directly, however circumstanial evidence does show its authenticity beyond my human baisness to believe it. Anyone can easily find this evidence by different circumstanial tests that can be applied to it to prove or disprove its authenticity. These tests are not new. Right from its day of first revelation till this time, there have been numourous tests under which it went through and is still being passed, not only by individuals like me but through very organised intellecutals of all fields. It is this kind of absoluteness that I would expect 'word' of God (the infinite one) to posses and hence increases my faith more than ever. The element of 'uncertainity' that I talked about diffinitely starts to decrease the more I read it. I think that is it all that I can say at this time about my faith and belief on Prophet Mohammad and the Quran. Continuing to your rest of the passage, I shall quickly go through it, only remarking where I would feel there is a need to it. However, I still need your help for making me understand your concept about absolute Brahman as you promised it.

....  We don't have the a concept like a 'judgement day'.  We have a concept of Pralaya.  But then God or anyone do not judge us.  Pralaya is a different concept.

Definitely love to hear more about this concept of Pralaya.

For us Brahman does not take care of our deeds(I will explain it later).  It is the work of Karma(Law of Causality).

But then who enacted this law of Karma other than Brahman? Where would our deeds, our efforts to behave good or bad goes? You said its effects are reflected on individual's life in other dimensions of the same world but in this regard the world should have been much polarized than the one we experience at any instant of time? Isn't it?

I would try to explain about why Prophets descend.  If you can understand the concept of Brahman, it will be easy to understand everything else.

Looking forward to this as well.

I cannot buy this idea.  There is a purpose for everything.  How could a perfect being create an unperfect world? Considering this, I find the concept of Brahman more subtle.

Well, I didn't present the philosophy of reasons here instead as How He (Allah) does it. BTW why do you call this to be unperfect world? Because of various calamities taking place or because of human atrocities or for what? May be I can throw some light on it from my perspective.

Damn right.  But you are negating what you said by this sentence "I beleive in reality and facts define my life, there is very little room for conjectures so we always try to avoid conjectures that are based on absolutely no knowledge other than human extrapolational philosophies.

I think I negate anything. Kindly let me know if you have come across anything especially after my response above especially with regard to "The element of uncertainty" that I talked about.

I too believe in reality and facts.  When I was a little boy, I was an agnostic.  Then in my teens I was a perfect atheist.  I never believed in the existence of God or any higher being whatsoever.  I was as far away to 'hinduism' as I was to Islam or Christianity.  I seldom go to a temple.  And even if I happen to go, I go for peace.

Word "salam" literally means peace and "Islam" may also be regarded as a derived term from this word. Had you been visiting to Mosques than the temples, I can guess your views would have been different.

But then, I started intropection.  I found out the facts(not the scientific facts kind of things, because science is filled with assumptions and opinions).

I am not sure that I agree with you over here regarding the scientific facts here. Science is any knowledge (or facts) that is observable, measureable and then repeatable. Other than that I don't know which facts (assumptions and opinions) are you talking about?

I found out that the difference between me and others is just appearance.  But deep down we are all one.  I have done that through meditation. ......

This could also be shown through my definition of science as well as through my faith (Islam). One don't have to go into deep meditation to bring out this knowledge which is totally based upon your own testimony (which I suppose, has nothing to do with kind of science that the modern world knows of).

It suits me the best.  Its best for my psyche.

Good for you brother. Keep it up. However, may have to think more logically in retrospection than merely introspection.

Can I ask you one question?(please don't be offended). You don't definitely know that Prophet was contacted by Allah.  You base this 'fact' on Quran.  And you definitely cannot prove that Quran is the work of God(or Allah).  Quran, for that matter, any other Scripture exists only as a book.  You believe Quran because you believe Quran.  But its for us to discover everything.  Isn't it?  People see a thing the way they want to see it.  Cogito ergo sum.  [/unquote]  I have already provided the answer above. Regarding discovering everything by ourselves require sound methodology based on common definition of science (observable, measureable and repeatable) and not yours. [quoe] This is what 'hinduism' is.  Discovering everything ourselves.

 Ofcourse yes, but not rediscovering hinduism by reframing (through meditational amendments etc) it all by yourself.

All the ills in 'hinduism' are superficial.

This is kind of a sweeping statement. Isn't it? "Ills" is a relative term depending upon whom you ask to.

Thats what I say, if you understand Brahman, it will be easy to understand why we call Brahma creator.  For the time being, assume that Brahman created Brahma with special powers to create everything.(though its just an allusion, I will explain it afterwards)

Yap!, I am ready to assume what ever you say, but sooner or later need to come back to understand beyond this assumption.

Because as I have said, it is not easy to discover ourselves or God.

Oh, but I think, you just said we should discover everything all by ourselves. Here is your own quote [quoe] This is what 'hinduism' is.  Discovering everything ourselves. [/quote]

"We consider him as Guru(preceptor) who guides us."

To be frank, the difference I find among the Prophet, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha etc. is nothing.  You may say that the Prophet was sent by Allah.  What is the proof?  Its the matter of faith, its not the matter of fact.  Right? You will now blast me saying that, I am blah blah blah.

Though I have already answered this question above, however, this reply of yours doesn't seem to answer my question with regard to Brahma and not regard to Kirshna etc. Here it is pasted again,

"So how could a "finite" being know about "infinite" more than any other "finite" beings that too, on such a large order of magnitude that finite being becomes the worthy of human worship?"

And the only difference I find between Krishna and me is higher level of energy in Krishna(you definitely cannot understand this).  He can do miracles.  But I need time to get to that level.

I can wait as long as you want me to wait, however, my question was specifically with regard to difference between Brahman and Brahma and not Kirshna.

You may ask 'what is this higher level of energy?', well I cannot bear when I am burried alive or when I am immolated.  But people with higher levels of energy, can do this.  Swami Vivekananda was buried alive.  It is called Jiva Samadhi.  Its just like Sati.  I definitely cannot imagine doing such a thing.  You may say that this is suicide.  If you say that this is suicide, then I cannot say anything else about it.

I do believe in miracles but only associated with prophets of Allah. Other than that I also believe that magic and jinns also exist in this world and reasoned them to be the source of all these kinds of super-natural activities. However, Islam denounce them to adopt and plainly ask believers to worship Allah and Allah alone as none else is worthy of worship.

The knowledgeable ones are not always born.  I cannot prove this now.

 Who decides who goes where and when? If they are not always born then where do they go? What about the worst ignorants? I mean what is the destination of the extreme opposites of knowldgeables? Do they keep circulating within the human world or what?  

"90% of ignorable population", its offensive.  Did Allah give you the right to say a person 'ka***'? A non-believer is as much a human as we are.  The only difference being we believe.  In future a non-believer will also believe.  So its the matter of time.  And we know that time does not exist for Allah.

Our ancestors.  I don't know their names.

Big problem for anonymous ancestoral traditions. Got to check for certificate of authenticity before start believing them.

Why should they be examined?  Its like, I write a C program, I myself find the mistakes in it and clear all the bugs and then discard the program.

This is indeed a strange analogy. Whats the motivation to write such a program? And then why to remove the bugs and why not let them remain and why to bother if at all there are bugs in them. who cares? Oh, then after all this hectic program writing and debugging, discard it altogather? This is confusing..

One the 99 attributes of Allah is "Al-Munsif", that is all provider of justice. It is with this regard that everything we do here on earth is accountable. Those who are born rich or became rich, are in more trouble as they have to be more accountable for all their wealth and its spendings (need to prserve ones bills to account for the taxes paid).

"  

So you say that one man is born rich and another poor, one man is born healthy and another handicapped only because Allah wants them to be so?"

Remember everything is from Allah and everything must return to Allah. However, everything is responsible for everything that is given to him. Justice shall take care of any apperant advantages seen in this world as explained above.

Actually, angels are ancestors and vice versa.

Probably you need a better word to describe this phenomena especially with my concept about angels. You may get furious instead and rather ask me to correct my term for use of word 'angel', but fact remains you haven't identified them as a seperate entity as yet. So its confusing.

Yes, what we see is the body.  Thats why feel we are finite.  Actually we are infinite beings in finite bodies.

Need evidence to assert this position. Definition of finite and infinite comes from our perception of space and time as explained through the laws of physics etc.

Didn't you hear about Lance Armstrong?  He had cancer, yet he is the fastest cyclist.  Didn't you hear about magicians like David Copperfield and David Blaine?  What about Edison, Einstien etc.  Its all in what we believe dear.  If we believe we can do anything, we can do anything.  You may say that this is the work of Allah.  Remember, whatever you say is right for you. Everything is possible.

But yet they don't claim infinity nor anyone else call them such. Isn't it? Everything is possible doesn't logically imply infinity.

Dr. Hineman is the one who did extensive work in Parapsychology.

Not a sufficient quality to assert anything about life after death. He needs to taste death before he could be considered to have any relevant personal experience in this field of life after death.

I don't consider him a prophet.  But as I have already said, no difference between anyone.

Difference comes from the methodology one applies to obtain that knowlegdge. Same question of authenticity etc. Also, I have not excluded the possiblity of other creatures on this earth other than humans, animals etc (that we encounter them in our daily lives) as I have explained earlier in my current post, but then I don't put my faith in such a mysterious source of info.

First of all, by angel I mean a good soul And I say he is our ancestor because from him some other ancestors are born.

It looks like that you have an excellant grammer, atleast better than me. Then why would you use tense like "are born" and not "were born"? Is there any clue here that I am missing?

We ourselves.  Consider them just like Mother Teresa etc.

I have already proved by saying about Krishna, Valmiki etc.  Consider Karna, he was raised by a chariot rider but made was King by his friend Duryodhana.  Though Karna is a cousin of Duryodhana, no one knows about it when he is given the throne(even Karna himself doesn't know it).  Well, there are so many other examples.

Of course by now you would be able to distinguish between mythical stories and historical events. Are all these stories that you quote  part of your vedas or what? What is the source?

I rightly said around 3000 years.  The 'exploitation' did not start the day when the Kali Yuga started.  As you can see, the firt opposition over the exploitation came from Buddha who lived around 500 BC.  And the opposition came from a Kshatriya who is consider higher 'caste'.

You mean to say Buddha practiced hinduism before he brought his doctrine? Secondly, use of words like "higher caste" doesn't suit well with your own understanding of your scriptures. Why would you describe kshatriya as a 'higher' caste?  Even so, then what happened? Do you intend to say the Brahmin still won in their endevour to subjugate the masses under their influence against their will? In this case question remains as how they did it? Untill or unless these Brahmins didn't bring some changes to their scriptures, and you also seem to corroborate on the same language as they intended to let people speak, they instituted the amendments by rewriting the scriptures with the doctrine of caste system. Other than this, I don't feel at ease as how they still prevailed over the rest of the hindu masses against their own will. Its these scriptural amendments that quenched the resistances of the masses to accept their fate as a divine wrath or whatever you call it, and don't resist.   

Lets keep the movies aside.

Of course. But you just quoted me to another movie (3 parts)...Whats its name... I don't recall exactly. Anyhow no need to go further on it..

They are Itihasas(history) and cannot be changed.

Need to differentiate between authentic history and the mythical history.

I am curious to know where did you see that movie.  Are you Indian?

Well, I am not a Indian, otherwise I should have known about hinduism much earlier than I am now coming across. These movies are quite common everywhere now a days even in this part of the world as well, and much for entertainment than for any other purpose. But as I said, they projected a negative image, at least to me, with regard to polytheistic beliefs in hinduism.

We take many births until we get perfection.  This aspect is clearly explained in the website i referred.  Just go thru(if you want).

So what is the ultimate destination or fate (if you say discard the program). Also what happens to the group of other extreme when they get perfect imperfection? Where would they land or they keep circulating into the loop.

Yes, but how much of Truth? we muslims don't know of it.

Why do you consider yourself to be finite?

Because that is observable, measureable, and repeatable. I don't know how would you assert the opposite of this?

Helping us to know the Truth.

So would that logically imply that all helpers would be worthy of worship? It is this place that we keep the absolute for all our praises and worships. All others helpers or whatever you can call them do not come into our worship at all.

Who said people negate their scriptures?

I refered to the exploitation of Brahmins towards other castes. Wasn't it a negation of their own scriptures? Similarly, any amendment proposals contrary to the sciptures.

Direct quote from the "absolute".LOL.  I am now convinced that the concept of Allah is different from Brahman.

Why? whats so funny? Really whats so strange in it. Wouldn't you expect the absolute, the ultimate God to have any regard towards His creation? At least I would. That is why I submitted to Islam. Quran is the true word of God. He speaks to us in this book. Is there any book equal to it. No, certainly not. Yet its just a book, we don't worship the book and only try to adhere to it what it asks us to do to recognise Allah obey.

But one question, is it real that Allah said or wrote Quran?  Or do you believe Allah did it?  Can you prove your point?

I have just answered this question.

Its an actual incident my friend.  It is not written in Vedas.  It is Itihasa(history). ...

Its not in Vedas??? Oh, then what is the source of this metaphorical history? I mean, do you really call it human history where these kind of events happen here on this world? Probably I need to find this child to have the address of the angel of death other than presuming he would not refer me to a suesidal trip. With this definition, kindly excuse me for being rude, but I can't help being critical about your source of information. All this long you have been quoting me this kind of history???? I am totally confused. Kindly help me differenntiate between human history and angelic or metaphorical history through your own language. So you said its Itihasa (history), then what is human history (observed or could be observed by people other than the objects in the story of the history). Hmmm.. Needs more to digest than I imagined, nevertheless, hopefully it would all be easy and smooth in the end. With this I end here hoping that you would reply on my previous as well as this posting togather or in a same sequence. That I leave it up to you. Regards

Peace and Love

Dear Bro Bharatiya,

Your questions are most welcome, however, due to my own personal committments, I would take some time to respond to your questions. As for now, you can surf this forum especially the areas of basics of Islam, and hopefully you may get a lot of info. In the meantime I also expect my other brothers and sisters to help me in responding to your above mentioned questions. I also intend to introduce to you some of the literature concerning Quran and one such source of a good info is at http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Books/B0039P0000.aspx - http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Books/B0039P00 00.aspx

where you can have some basic understanding about Quran. May Allah guide us all to the path of truth. Amen.

Hello Friends!!!

Its waste of talking about Hinduism, without considering the core of it.  The core of Hinduism is the concept of the Absolute, Brahman. 
I am posting this post for those who want to understand Hinduism.

Brahman is one of the most important concepts in Hinduism, signifying ultimate reality. Brahman is absolute, eternal ineffable and impersonal. Literally, the term means "the ever growing."

It is also identified with atman, and so is frequently referred to as Brahman-Atman - the soul of the entire universe. Frequently, all Hindu gods are assimilated into Brahman-Atman and regarded simply as personal manifestations of an impersonal force.

Within the Brahman Hindus have identified a sort of "trinity" of forces or aspects: Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. Brahma is the creative force, Shiva is the destructive force and Vishnu is the protective force.

The Concept of Brahman

Let us look at what Hinduism holds to be the Absolute. The ultimate goal and Absolute of Hinduism is termed "Brahman" in Sanskrit. The word comes from the Sanskrit verb root brh, meaning "to grow". Etymologically, the term means "that which grows" (brhati) and "which causes to grow" (brhmayati).

Brahman is not "God"
Brahman, as understood by the scriptures of Hinduism, as well as by the 'acharyas'(preceptors) of the Vedanta school, is a very specific conception of the Absolute. This unique conception has not been replicated by any other religion on earth, and is exclusive to Hinduism. Thus to even call this conception of Brahman "God" is, in a sense, somewhat imprecise. This is the case because Brahman does not refer to the anthropomorphic concept of God of the Abrahamic religions. When we speak of Brahman, we are referring neither to the "old man in the sky" concept, nor to the idea of the Absolute as even capable of being vengeful, fearful or engaging in choosing a favorite people from among His creatures. For that matter, Brahman is not a "He" at all, but rather transcends all empirically discernable categories, limitations and dualities.

What is Brahman?
In the 'Taittariya Upanishad' II.1, Brahman is described in the following manner: "satyam jnanam anantam brahman", "Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity." Infinite positive qualities and states have their existence secured solely by virtue of Brahman's very reality. Brahman is a necessary reality, eternal (i.e., beyond the purview of temporality), fully independent, non-contingent, and the source and ground of all things. Brahman is both immanently present in the realm of materiality, interpenetrating the whole of reality as the sustaining essence that gives it structure, meaning and existential being, yet Brahman is simultaneously the transcendent origin of all things (thus, panentheistic).

The Nature of Brahman
As the primary causal substance of material reality (jagatkarana), Brahman does not arbitrarily will the coming into being of the non-Brahman metaphysical principles of matter and jivas (individuated consciousness), but rather they are manifest into being as a natural result of the overflowing of Brahman's grandeur, beauty, bliss and love. Brahman cannot but create abundant good in a similar manner to how Brahman cannot but exist. Both existence and overflowing abundance are as much necessary properties of Brahman as love and nurturing are necessary qualities of any virtuous and loving mother.

Brahman is the Source
One can say that Brahman Itself (Him/Herself) constitutes the essential building material of all reality, being the antecedent primeval ontological substance from whence all things proceed. There is no ex nihilo creation in Hinduism. Brahman does not create from nothing, but from the reality of Its own being. Thus Brahman is, in Aristotelian terms, both the Material Cause as well as the Efficient Cause of creation.

The Final Goal & the Final Cause
As the source of Dharma, the metaphysical ordering principles inherent in the design of the cosmos, Brahman can be viewed as the Formal Cause. And as the final goal of all reality, Brahman is also the Final Cause. Being the ontological source of all reality, Brahman is the only substantial real that truly exists, all other metaphysical categories being either a) contingent transformations of Brahman, having their very being subsisting in attributive dependence upon Brahman, or else b) illusory in nature. These views about the nature of Brahman are in general keeping with the theological teachings of both the Advaita and the Vishishta-Advaita schools of Hinduism.

Brahman is the Ultimate Reality
All reality has its source in Brahman. All reality has its grounding sustenance in Brahman. It is in Brahman that all reality has its ultimate repose. Hinduism, specifically, is consciously and exclusively aiming toward this reality termed Brahman.

Thus, Brahman is the signifying name given to the concept of the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that is the Divine Ground of all being.

Let me quote one of our Upanishads,

"Om. That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. Then through knowledge, realizing the infinitude of the infinite, it remains as infinite alone." --- Mandukya Upanishad

This is a very beautiful verse.  It contains everything.  Its very complex yet very simple.

Another verse from one of our Vedas,

bharatiya wrote: Hello Ahmad!!! First of all...Let me ask you some questions.  I am not satisfied with your answer as you yourself have said that you assumed regarding Prophet.

My assumption is not unusual as I have explained it in my response and it is this degree of uncertainity that I have been talking about which keeps decreasing day by day as I keep observing the circumstainial evidences for the truth that prophet Mohammad brought to us. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, this uncertainity (based upon only one person) is far and far less than what any other religions of the world are presenting through their doctrines. Just take Hinduism for an example. Isn't it. After going through the website that you referred it to me, I am amazed to find the state of scriptures that you have with you. Here are the estimated facts from your own website.  "The major part of the original Vedic literature has been lost by disuse and destruction during invasions. According to tradition Vedanta literature originally consisted of 1180 Upanishads. What are extant are 108 or so. " Though you must have heard that old is gold, however, I would extend it to say only if the gold could be preserved and not lost and staled. So whatever we have in hinduism is only 10% (estimated) that too with, assumably, adulteration by the Brahmins to suit their purpose. One such classical example has already been discussed between us with regard to the intoduction of the caste system.

I want to know some things for the sake of authenticity because I cannot believe that Quran is the word of God.

Though I am happy to respond to your questions, but these questions have nothing to provide any authenticity. They are mostly faith related and require philosophical arguments and deductions. This is not my area of interest and may not be able to provide you the prefect response as the questions merit it. So what ever I would say, it must be realized that it is indeed from my own understanding which of course can never be perfect.   

The questions are, 1. Why did Allah create everything?

Here the word "everything" is a relative term. However, assuming you mean "everything" that we observe as human beings, then, Allah created everthing for human beings to think and ponder over them (discover and invent) and then recognise Allah that no one else can create such a thing (with perfect balance and harmony) except Him. He created laws of nature to let humans use their knowledge to explore and recognize Him. Quran is replete with verses where Allah is refering humans to use their mind and knowledge to understand the creations of Allah in order to recognise Him.

A second view of this question could also be looked at through the purpose of humans on earth. Allah created humans superior to all others of his creations even superior than the angels. This is evident through Quran, when Allah ordered all angels to bow down in front of Adam, the first human. This superiority is only and only because of his knowledge that Allah gave him. Hence the same knowledge is asked in the Quran to use it to recognise Him and then obey Him to avoid the temptations of Satan who is an open enemy to humans. So this life is a sort of examination center whose result shall be announced on the day of judgment. Those who succeeded in recognising Allah and then obeying Him to avoid the temptations of Satan, shall live an eternal life in the gardens of Jannah. Those who disobeyed Allah, after recognizing Him, shall be sent to Jahanum along with satan where they will be punished.

2. When did He create everything?  I mean how many years ago.  I am asking such questions because everything should be authentical.

Though this question has nothing to do with faith nor verifying authenticity, however  since you specifically asked it therefore I shall respond to it.

We don't know. Quran doesn't specify any particular time of the creation of everything with respect to human time frame. I do see some people guessing over it, but I always consider such things as conjectures based upon extremely limited knowledge. Hence don't delve into such discussions.

3. What is our position with respect to Allah?

Probably, I have already provided you the answer to it especially looking at the 99 attributes of Allah. Allah is infinite in all those attributes.

4. Why is one man born rich and another poor according to Islam?

How can I tell you what and why Allah plans to do? What I mean here is that again this question is related to philosophical reasonings. Different people shall have different views. I already reasoned that whatever the state of a person remained in this earth, he would be judged accordingly. No unjustice shall be done. Those born rich or got rich, shall have more to justify its use and be accountable for it than a poor person. I think you would also agree with me that happiness in this world is not from the richness but from internal state of satisfaction.  Anyone who recognise Allah and then obeys Him shall be more satisfied than anyone else, may he be poor or rich. 

5. What happens to us when we die?

As I have already explained that this earth is just a temporary state during which we are being tested. When we die, our test is over and just awaiting the result that would come on the day of judgement. Our body shall remain dead till that time when it shall be resurrected and every organ will then be called upon to testify against or for us. Our soul, after we die, shall go back to Allah till this day of Judgement.

6. If I assume that we all came from Adam and Eve, at which place did Adam and Eve take birth?

We don't know. Again, though people do make conjectures, but I always stay away from them. I think Quran do not specify the exact location.

7. How can I prove a man that Quran is authentical?

Many ways but I shall mention just the two of them breifly.

 1) Through Circumstantial evidence.  Through the life history of Prophet Mohammad himself. He was a trusted fellow among his people before he proclaimed Islam. People used to call him Al-amin (the honest) simply because he never told lies and was extremely honest in his dealings. Secondly, we know prophet Mohammad was an iliterate man. He never attended any formal schooling of his time and most of his childhood was spent as shepherd. His adulthood is seen mostly as a trader businessman. No one can expect a book like Quran to be authord by him especially given the circumstances of 1400 years ago. In arabic, the Quran was such a big challange (for its lingustic style, rich vocabulary and rythmic flow of verses and yet easy to understand) for the pagan arabs of that time who claimed to be the champions of their own language, that they couldn't resist but to agree that this couldn't be from Mohammad whom they knew very well that he never composed a simple poem what to talk about a book like Quran. I would say, for them it was simply an extraordinary, if not a miracle. 

 2) The protection of Quran is directly from Allah himself and not through any particular human group. It is for this very reason you would not find any single letter variation from any two copies of the Quran. As I have already suggested that it can be done by anyone whom you can trust and knows Arabic.

If you can answer these questions.  I would be a very happy man. I am first confused about Islam as you always point out Islam when I say about 'hinduism' and mostly point to authenticity.   And I would also like from which country you are from(I am curious to know where our Indian movies are being shown). Thanking you, Peace and Love.

Brother, presently I am living in USA but my home is Pakistan where my parents live. I have seen the indian movies (the one I talked about) back in my country Pakistan as "DurDarshan" tv channel was not very far from my home (lahore), but they can be found here as well (through some indian stores). I hope authenticity shall ever remain our foremost tool to believe in any thing before we can put our trust into it. With the given percentage of lost scripture (about 90%), as I said, I would always remain skeptical that whatever we have now in hinduism is the whole truth especially given the known fact that this relegion has been exploited for atleast 3000 years by the Brahmins.

I hope I have answered all your questions. However, if you still have others, kindly don't hestitate to ask. Regards

AhmadJoyia.

Salam To: Bharatiya

I would like to chip in and provide some explanation to point 3 of yours. Hope this will open more doors of understanding between us.

3. What is our position with respect to Allah?

• Islam is monotheistic. The overwhelming message of Islam is that there is one and only one god, that this god is single and unified (tawhid). This thesis is represented in the first half of the Muslim testament of faith: "there is no god but god." The primary duty of humanity is to remember that there is only one god in all one's thoughts, words, and actions; this remembrance, which is the cornerstone of Islam, is called dhikr. Islam, however, does not reject other religions. Fundamental to the Islamic message is that all religions are based on the singularity and unity of God; some religions, however, have fallen away from this message (such as Christianity which divides God into Father and Son), but the essential message of all religions is this unity of God.

• Islam is creationist. The universe in Islam is a creation of God and is separate from God. The relationship of the world (including humanity) to God is the relationship between created and creator. While God is not present in the world (immanentalism), still the world reflects the nature and guidance of God.

• Islam is transcendentalist. Although God created the universe, God is still absolutely separate from creation�to postulate that God was part of the changeable world would be to contradict the unity, singularity, and unchangeableness of God. Transcendentalism, however, postulates more than just an absolute separation. It also describes a relationship between the creator god and creation. In a transcendental relationship, the transcendent term (God) is absolutely independent of the non-transcendent term (creation); however, the non-transcendent term (creation) only has existence, meaning, or value in relationship to the transcendent term (God). To say that God is transcendent in Islam is to say that God is separate, distinct, and independent from the created universe, but that the created universe, though entirely separate from God, is nonetheless dependent on God for its existence and value.

Hopefully I will elaborate more on the concept of 'Tawhid'. This Arabic word 'Tawhid' is difficult to translate in English because the encompasses all the aspects of 'Davita and Adviata' as well. 

From 'Tawhid's perspective there is 'Unity in diversity' 

Probably you can see now that Islam expounds 'Concrete Monotheism' as compared to ' Absolute Monism' expounded from Vedas and Upanishads.

Regards

Fuhad

AhmadJoyia wrote: I think it is this interpretation of "Gods who have sprung out of Brahman" that makes it polytheistic oriented. Isn't it? And hence forth all your definitions starts to change especially once trying to define Brahma against Brahman.

Well, if you want to call it a polytheistic religion, so be it.

And concept of Brahma is a complete different one.  The concept of Brahma does not come immediately after we study the concept of Brahman.  It is, sometimes, not considered at all.

You have simply provided all the paras of theo-philosophy to explain Brahman, what about Brahma? and how do you say "the Hindu Creator God"? What philosophy, what reasons, etc???

It needs a thorough understanding of Brahman, to understand Brahma.

Yes, I could see the line of reasoning where, Brahman, Brahma, and Brahmin so closely resembles to each other especially in their hierarchy and sequence of order they appear to influence people.

What hierarchy do you mean?  I numbered them as points, not as a hierarchy.

Meaning thereby, that no one can or should not approach Brahman as it (he/she) is way too far from human understanding (yet we have seen so much about it, philosophically say).

LOL...Who said that?  What a conclusion to make!

However, we should only look at the Gods (who sprung out of Brahman) through Brahmin only???

Oh my God!  Hope you are not a scientist.  Meaningless assumptions give rise to meaningless conclusions.

What a wonderfull hypothesis by the people with specific agenda of ruling over the masses (remember exploitation)?

The hypothesis are being made by you my dear.  
There was no 'exploitation'  the way you think.

It is here that we must ask for authenticity of the derived doctrine of Hinduism.

No, not again.

AhmadJoyia wrote: So whatever we have in hinduism is only 10% (estimated)

Thats why Bagavad Gita is considered our primary holy book.

We have every word of Bagavad Gita intact just like Quran.

that too with, assumably, adulteration by the Brahmins to suit their purpose. One such classical example has already been discussed between us with regard to the intoduction of the caste system.

Its your assumption that Brahmins adultered our scriptures.

I haven't talked much about caste system except in my last post.  As I said, I just burst into laughter when anyone says about caste system.

Though I am happy to respond to your questions, but these questions have nothing to provide any authenticity.

Why not, if you consider that Adam is your first prophet then there should be a solid proof from where he prophesised and what he prophesised.  Isn't it?

They are mostly faith related and require philosophical arguments and deductions.

What is faith?  You say everything you believe should have proof, authentication etc. and then you suddenly jump to faith.  Isn't birth of Adam an event in time? Or isn't Creation an event in time.  If it is not an event in time, then it requires philosophical arguments.

This is not my area of interest and may not be able to provide you the prefect response as the questions merit it. So what ever I would say, it must be realized that it is indeed from my own understanding which of course can never be perfect.

Cool, fine.  Thats why I thought of asking your version of Islam.

A second view of this question could also be looked at through the purpose of humans on earth.

What is the purpose of Creation as a whole?

So this life is a sort of examination center whose result shall be announced on the day of judgment.

Remember?  This is what I was talking about, the C programme.  I write it, debug it, discard it. ... LOL...

Those who succeeded in recognising Allah and then obeying Him to avoid the temptations of Satan, shall live an eternal life in the gardens of Jannah. Those who disobeyed Allah, after recognizing Him, shall be sent to Jahanum along with satan where they will be punished.

Why isn't satan sent to hell now itself?  Then there will be no need for Allah to take pains and judging us.

How can I tell you what and why Allah plans to do?

I didn't ask you what Allah plans to do.

I already reasoned that whatever the state of a person remained in this earth, he would be judged accordingly. No unjustice shall be done. Those born rich or got rich, shall have more to justify its use and be accountable for it than a poor person. I think you would also agree with me that happiness in this world is not from the richness but from internal state of satisfaction.  Anyone who recognise Allah and then obeys Him shall be more satisfied than anyone else, may he be poor or rich.

Very good line of reasoning.  I love it.

1) Through Circumstantial evidence.  Through the life history of Prophet Mohammad himself. He was a trusted fellow among his people before he proclaimed Islam. People used to call him Al-amin (the honest) simply because he never told lies and was extremely honest in his dealings.

But buddy, this cannot be taken as a source of proof.  Who knows, he himself would have thought that he was telling the truth and was telling just what he was thinking.  This cannot be a taken as a solid proof.  Its just a matter of belief.  Isn't it?

Secondly, we know prophet Mohammad was an iliterate man. He never attended any formal schooling of his time and most of his childhood was spent as shepherd. His adulthood is seen mostly as a trader businessman.

Illiteracy has different meanings for different people.  A person cannot read and write does not mean that he cannot tell the truth.

No one can expect a book like Quran to be authord by him especially given the circumstances of 1400 years ago.

What were the circumstances like around 1400 years ago?

In arabic, the Quran was such a big challange (for its lingustic style, rich vocabulary and rythmic flow of verses and yet easy to understand) for the pagan arabs of that time who claimed to be the champions of their own language, that they couldn't resist but to agree that this couldn't be from Mohammad whom they knew very well that he never composed a simple poem what to talk about a book like Quran. I would say, for them it was simply an extraordinary, if not a miracle.

Their(champions of Arabic) belief cannot be taken as the truth. 

2) The protection of Quran is directly from Allah himself and not through any particular human group.

This I have been hearing since the beginning.

It is for this very reason you would not find any single letter variation from any two copies of the Quran. As I have already suggested that it can be done by anyone whom you can trust and knows Arabic.

But you said that arabic is a very difficult language?

I hope authenticity shall ever remain our foremost tool to believe in any thing before we can put our trust into it.

Yes, I believe it.

With the given percentage of lost scripture (about 90%), as I said, I would always remain skeptical that whatever we have now in hinduism is the whole truth especially given the known fact that this relegion has been exploited for atleast 3000 years by the Brahmins.

I have told you about Bagavad Gita and the 'exploitation'.

I hope I have answered all your questions. However, if you still have others, kindly don't hestitate to ask. Regards

Yes buddy, you have answered my questions very promptly.  Really thank you.

Salaam To: Bharatiya

Its accepted to read 'Francois Gautier', and quote him since he is pointing main issues to be tackled within Hinduism and provide a response.

However, I hope you are aware of Mr Gautire's Intelletuall leaning towards a certain group of people in India, of which you may be aware of, from this stand point Mr Gautier writings does not concentrate on assessing the objectivity, especially his writings on Islam.

I hope you will not loose sight when redaing his books or articles.

More Later

Regards

Fuhad

bharatiya wrote: Hello Friends!! ....... And another thing, I wanted to answer you the answer to the so called 'exploitation'.  I always start laughing when people talk about caste system.  As Francois Gautier points out,"Caste system is the favourite whipping boy of Hinduism".

Oh, you mean the exploitation of Brahmins for the last 3000 yrs was not in caste system only. Then in what else did they exploit? and if I am not wrong the very word "exploitation" was used by you and not by me. I didn't refer to it at all till you suggested such a suit followed in the history of hinduism but then, of course I remember you saying that it was very small as compared to the millinia history of hinduism. Its you who hinted on it and then you are blaming me to use it. Kindly correct your record simply because at least our previous conversations have not yet been lost. Here is your own quote "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 then again its you who suggested and I quote "And exploitation of 'caste' system started around 3000 years ago.  Being so old a civilazation, 3000 years is very short time." 

No one knows what it is, but everyone talks about it.  Once a little girl asks her father what caste means, the father answers that she will understand it when she grows up.  She grows up and asks the same question again, then her father scolds her saying that she has grown up and should understand it by now. ........

Hopefully, we all be enjoying your jokes especially like this. Isn't it? However, if its your kind of Itiahas, then I must apologize for being rude. But then its you who don't let us understand what is the difference between human history and the mythical history (Itihas) that you quoted earlier for an example about a child and the angel of death.

Now, coming to brahmins, they just considered others to be untouchables.  But not all brahmins considered so.

As you say my brother, I don't want to argue other than what you tell us to look at. Now here you are giving us another dimension of the caste system and that is "untouchables" other than merely keeping the scriptures in their possession and not letting others to handle it. Now if I start probing into this "untouchability", you may again start accusing me of making slander remarks. But my purpose is to understand and understand from a logical point of view rather than mythological point of view. So what is this "untouchability"? How is it a necessary condition under an "exploited" caste system. I mean I do see why and then how the Brahmins (you say few) kept the whole of the other castes away from their own scriptures but what is the point in declaring "untouchability" on the lower castes? Moreover, how they did it to prevail all over the masses and not on just few isloated places. They must had some sort of scriptural support otherwise I just don't know what else could be the means to prevail wholesomely.

Only a few used to think that they were superior(just like muslims now think that theirs the only true religion).  Thats why we say that they are a minority.

Your example to compare the exploiters like Brahmins (let them be few) and the muslims is quite strange. I would leave it to you how you look at this exploitation of Brahmins for the last 3000 yrs as I have no interest to make insult of anyone, however, I do like to respond concerning the views of muslims about their relegion. Yes, we (atleast I) do think that Islam is the true way to recognise Allah. However, it may not be the only way. Quran is replete with verses asking people of the book (both Jews and Christians) to recognise Allah and Allah alone through their own scriptures (doesn't compel them), if they believe in them. However, Quran also tells that since their scriptures have not been left pure, so, they have all the more reason to find Allah through Quran (that is, but encourage them). Similarly, we also know that there were about a tenth of a million of prophets and messangers of Allah came to guide the mankind to the right path of reconginising Allah. What happened to them or their nations, we simply don't know and I don't want to go into the conjectures. So, I can't rule out the possibility of others recognising Allah through their own scriptural teachings. However, given the course of history usually does to these scriptures, this possiblity is quite rare. But again, the possibilty is still there. This may also be the reason, that we do regard very high of great people of all relegions e.g. Buddah and etc. However, since Quran doesn't tell us anything about them, so its futile to make conjectures. Some where in your post you also seem to highlight the question as to why atleast Bhuddha is not mentioned in Quran? Simply because Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad who was in the land of arab. The most immediate audiences for the Quran were the arabs, therefore logically speaking, most of the examples in the Quran are of those who these audiences well knew off about. You ask for Budha only, but as I said, there were almost a tenth of a million of them who came to this earth and only few (not more than 30-40) are mentioned in Quran.

But they didn't force their feeling on others.  They didn't kill a single soul. They didn't use their scriptures to 'exploit' them.  Its just a feeling. So as you can see, its a moral thing than a legal.

How do you say this? The history of caste system (untouchability) as per your own statement is as old as around 3000 years. Why would you make such a sweeping statement despite you very well know the ups and downs of the history and especially once you also know that it wasn't an isolated phenomena but a very well spread all over the area. Now if the situation is changing, though it is encouraging, but you can't change the past history.  

Though I feel untouchability is a sin, I can't go on against them.  What we can do is appeal to them.

Yes, you can appeal to them only if you have any evidence against their practices through your scriptures. However, if they had muddled with these scriptures, as you also seem to suggest that caste system is in the scriptures, then you would really have a hard time convining them merely on the basis of these scriptures. What's happening now in India, I don't think is because of this realization of their past errors but because of the other social forces. It is in this regard that I always request to look beyond these ideas that have been developed in the later generations to subjugate the others. Your concept of Brahman is beautiful, and I think that is sufficient for us to recognise that monotheism used to be the prime doctrine of hinduism. However, I have yet to understand if that doctrine still prevalant or is considered far beyond human understanding and other gods have been called in to undestand Brahman.

Most of the Muslims(even Indian Muslims) consider Hindus "Kafi**".  Its your feeling.  We can't change it.  Should we ask all of them to apologize?

Brother, though theoretical considerations (by non hindus) is very different than physically abusing them (by higher castes of hinduism), yet I think everyone (who it may be) should apologize for their wrong doings to other human beings. All human beings are equal whatever their caste, creed or colour maybe. Also, all humans are superior to all the creations of Allah, therefore none is worthy of human worship except Allah and Allah alone.

There had been many Kings and their fellow brahmins who asked them to discard such a feeling as it was not a good idea.

Idea? not a good idea? Who proposed it was an idea? It was right in your own scripture. You confessed that, however, with modification that it was exploited. I, on the other hand, even challanged that very concept of caste system based on your logic of admissiablity in hindu scriptures. But alas, I didn't get any response on it. Nevertheless, I still feel, any idea (I repeat any idea) of a caste system in your scriptures is a valid proof of adulteration in your scriptures especially given that the same very scriptures carry such a beatuiful philosophy about Brahman.

But everyone I encounter ask the same question about caste system.

Brother, is it a point to laugh at or a point to think about? I may forego discussing exploitation of caste system, but how would you justify the very existance of any caste system that you also agree that it does exist but not valid for now a days.

Well, if you want to call it a polytheistic religion, so be it.

I just don't want to call it any thing. However can't resist when you yourself say "gods" and not just "God". 

And concept of Brahma is a complete different one.  The concept of Brahma does not come immediately after we study the concept of Brahman.  It is, sometimes, not considered at all.

Well, here I thought you would rather provide some detailed explanation or philosophy about Brahma. Alas, I have yet to wait (maybe forever) for your response. 

It needs a thorough understanding of Brahman, to understand Brahma.

Can we move on from here or just seems to be stuck here.

What hierarchy do you mean?  I numbered them as points, not as a hierarchy.

Cool down, man! It is the hierarchy that I could understand uptill now from your postings. You said Brahman is infinite, and I agreed to it. Then you say hindus worship Brahma and other similar gods. Then you said that Brahmin were the people who were asked to be the custodian of the holy scriptures. Its only they who know what is written in them and the proof you presented that 90% of population is ignorant of their true beliefs. Therefore whatever Brahmin tells them they have to believe it, whatever it may be. Hence they all believed to Brahma because of Brahmin and not to the Brahman as they should have.

Oh my God!  Hope you are not a scientist.  Meaningless assumptions give rise to meaningless conclusions.

Probably it was too hard on you. Nevertheless, I never claimed to be scientist and not even closer to it. However, I think I have provided the meanings to what you presented uptill now (you say meaningless assumptions) and provided one possible conclusions (you say meaningless conclusions). Can you provide other meanings and other possible conclusions so that I can understand better other than you keep repeating the same arguments again and again?

The hypothesis are being made by you my dear.   There was no 'exploitation'  the way you think.

Again, it were you who provided the word "exploitation" so why are you blaming me to logically connect them all togather in one fabric of common understanding. However, I am still open to listen and understand anyother way this exploitation could be looked at.

No, not again. Not even a single word has been changed in the Vedas etc.  They are as much intact as Quran is.

Even, despite the fact that 90% of vedas have been lost? and despite your own acknowledgement that Brahmin exploited the caste system and didn't let others (you say from lower castes) come near to it, and it were their generation to generation transmission of this knowledge to their own children? Yet you think such a system for the preservation of scriptures is error free? Where is your logical mind? Where is your analytical reasoning in this case? You simply base it because of your faith. Is that enough? I don't think so.

It is easy to explain when the situation is compared with Quran. In the other post titled "Need translations..." you pointed out that they were politically motivated translations.  Similarly, some of the verses in the Vedas were translated by someone who doesn't know how to translate them.

I do see the Brahmin's exploitation parallel with the misinterpretation of Quran, however, this is not the issue under discussion. How could you compare two different things? You got to compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples. There is no question about the authenticity of Quran in any of its misinterpretations by different people. Not even in Shias, sunnis, or any other sect. Everyone believes it is the true word of God revealed to Prophet Mohammad. However, the differences come in various interpretations depending upon an individual's motive. I don't want to go into defining those motives, however, suffice is to say everyone out of them agree that Quran is the revealed word of Allah through Prophet Mohammad. Whereas your own website states in its own statement that most of the Vedas literature have been lost. Then they also provide an estimate of this loss to be around 90%. It is this comparison that is significantly visible. Kindly do note that I am not being sarcastic about your scripture, but only to state the facts from your own source. Had this fact known from my source or any other non-hindu source, your possible argument of baisness in this fact would have been difficult to ignore. But its not; the evidence is from no one else but your own source. How can you challange it?

If Quran is translated correctly and it is true that Quran preaches 'equality' then why are women not given equal rights?

I think you have already been responded on it by no one else but a woman in Islam.

Why are there so many divisions like Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis etc.?

I have already provided the relpy that it is different interpretations and different sources. Yet everyone acknowledges it to be true word of Allah sent to us through Prophet Mohammad.

Why were Bangladeshis not considered true muslims?

Brother, what are you talking about? I think we need more discussion about Islam than Hinduism as I see you grossly wrong in your impression about Islam. I don't blame you because of general condition of Muslims at this time, but fact remain, for academic purposes, we don't quote examples from the people but from their scriptures and doctrines. Yet I never heard that people of Bangladesh are not considered muslims. If your allusion is towards seperation of east and west Pakistan, then it must be noted that the conflict between the two was highly political. People of the east Pakistan felt being deprived of their rights (personally I also don't oppose to their claim) so they struggled for their independance. I also don't want to go into the role that India played to add fuel to the fire, but fact remains that the whole issue was totally political and nothing at all to do with Islam.

(these are only few, there are many more to point) When I point such things, you people say that my mindset is a Kafi*** mindset.LOL

Did I say that? And why should I say such things to you to whom I now know is not very knowledgable about Islam. All you know about Islam is through your observations how muslim behave. Yes it is this behaviour that I blame all muslims (including myself) that we don't live up to the expectations of Quran. But that doesn't mean that Quran is not authentic, its a totally a different issue. Hope one may not try to confuse between the two.

I have been reading bits and pieces from the Mahabharata that is emerging on this thread and I have just read Bharatiya's post saying "

"But I don't understand about your misunderstanding about hinduism"

Has anyone heard of this book "Why I am not a Hindu" by Ramendra Nath? Well, if you haven't here's a little bit of introduction to the book.

"Ramendra's book is one of the first of its kind in English, a critical and skeptical look at the major principles of Hinduism. The author was born a Hindu, but after an intellectual inquiry into his own faith realised its inherent contradictions. The book has been denounced by some Brahmins, since he exposes flaws in Vedic doctrines, and has virtually declared himself to be a `nastik'. However, instead of indulging in insults, he has concentrated on rigorous intellectual arguments, backed up by copious textual references from the Vedas, the Manusmrti, Indian researchers and Western scholars. Thoughtful Brahmanists and astik Hindus, one hopes, will welcome the challenge to reply to the demanding questions posed by the devastating skepticism of Ramendra Nath."

"The thrust of Ramendra Nath's argument is boldly stated : the problem is not just Hindu fundamentalism, but Hinduism itself. Not only the Pseudo-Secular Indian media, but even Western intellectuals have been spineless when it comes to honest criticism of Hinduism and its tenets. The Babri Masjid demolition served as the eye-opener for many observers, exposing the real face of Vedic fanaticism. The apologists of Hinduism dishonestly tried to play down the casteism and racism of the group they themselves insist on calling `Hindu fundamentalists' by insisting that the latter had nothing to do with real Hinduism - "Hinduism is tolerant" they claimed, "Hinduism is all-encompassing, etc." How hollow these claims are come only from an analysis of Hindu scriptures."

"R. Nath brilliantly refutes all these bogus claims. He convincingly exposes the casteism and racism that is inherent in Hinduism. The incredible oppression of the Sudroids, the Black Untouchable Dalits, the Dravidians, the Christians and the Muslims follow logically from the principles enshrined in the Vedas and the Manu-smrti, the supreme law-book for all Hindus."

If I have sparked your interest you can read this book free online on this website http://www.dalitstan.org/store/bkrev/r_nath.html - http://www.dalitstan.org/store/bkrev/r_nath.html

I find it amusing how you delude yourself Bharatiya! Why do you defend yoursef when there are no defences? You are only fooling yourself and nobody else. This book is written by a Hindu and you blame it on Pakistan! And I am a Pakistani Intelligence Agent? And what does the ISI literally stand for? And why are the Indian hackers trying to bring it down? Is it because Ramendra Nath is telling the truth?

You obviously love this website (judging from your long posts) and yet you doubt everything Muslims say about Islam.

"Do what ever ye can: We shall do our part; And wait ye! We too shall wait."

Quran is such a great book, and you use it for your evil purposes.

The first part is absolutely correct and I refute the second part of your statement. If you regard the conveying of the message of God as evil, good luck to you. I am doing my duty which is encumbent upon me as a Muslim.

There are hordes of books about evils of Islam.  Shall I list them?

Yes, I am aware of that and I am sure Muslims can answer with conviction if there is anything that is not true or wrong in it. 

And please do be careful when you refer to the holy Prophet (PBUH). I have never referred him (PBUH) in my posts and do not draw his name so losely when you are trying to denigrate another soul!

When you hate Muslims I do not know why you are talking to Muslims here. GOOD BYE

Tasneem wrote: The first part is absolutely correct and I refute the second part of your statement. If you regard the conveying of the message of God as evil, good luck to you. I am doing my duty which is encumbent upon me as a Muslim.

What is incumbent upon Muslims?  Killing people of other religions?

...I am sure Muslims can answer with conviction if there is anything that is not true or wrong in it.

Same here, we can also answer with conviction

And if you are so confident that Hinduism is not good, then why do you live in a Hindu majority country?

When you hate Muslims I do not know why you are talking to Muslims here. GOOD BYE

As you can see, I am not 'talking' with the Muslims, but I am cursing them.LOL

Peace and Love.

bharatiya wrote: Killing people of other religions?

I'm muslim & our family didn't kill our next door Hindu neighbour. uncle Ganesan always sing everyday. i played with their daughter Gayathri, we played barbie dolls & Thundercats together as kids. they're veges, so her mom always reminded her to be careful at what she eats. I know how they live as Hindus, they know how we live as Muslims. yet we're happy...

bharatiya wrote: I am not 'talking' with the Muslims, but I am cursing them.

That's so tolerant of you...

Dear Bharatiya,

I think, its of no use to return replies after replies and not focusing on the main theme of learning about Hinduism. So, instead of replying you through sentence by sentence, I would simply focus on few of the questions that some how or the other I couldn't understand from your previous posts. They are:

1. What is the concept of Brahma or other similar gods or dieties in hinduism and what is their source of orgin in your scriptures?

2. Why do you think Varna (caste system as you explained in your earlier postings) was valid in those times? How do you abolish it (I mean how would you bring a social change among people if it is still in your scriptures? I think, one can argue that since 90% population already don't know about their scripture, so it would be relatively easy to push the varna system out of society. But then what about the opposing forces (forget about exploitation but Varna system itself) who would like to let it prevail? won't they bring in these scriptures to resist against these social changes? If you thing they would not, then why not?

3. Why have you left all your vedas aside and just picked up Gita as the only reference for all your doctrines? Does Gita also provide the philosopy about Brahman the way you have shown us? I don't think it was referenced from this book. So aren't you limiting your doctrine only from one book and for what reasons? Due to their contents or due their authenticity or what?

4. How do you differentiate between the human history (I mean humanly observable by those other than the objects of the history themselves) and the kind of history (Itihasa) you narrated with regard to a boy and the angel of death? Is there any seperate terms that you use to identify or what? I am asking this so that in our future discussions, we should be specific in our use of terminolgy and not confuse one with the other and thus avoid wasting of long explanations to understand the actual phenomena.

I think for now, we should remain focus on these issues only. Anyhow if you want to add or delete anything, you may go ahead.

bharatiya wrote: Dear Ahmad, Hope you are doing well. Let me tell you some basic things. 1. We believe in transmigration of Soul.  .............

Can you provide me the reference of the scripture from where this concept of transmigration is being quoted?

2. Coming to Soul, it is Brahman itself.  When we talk about a person, we call it Atman(Soul) and when we talk taking everyone into account, then we call Brahman.  This means that deep inside we all are one.  What makes us differnt are our minds(not Souls).  This is hard to understand and digest.

I think this description of yours about Brahman (i.e. soul is Brahman) is in contradiction with what the vedas talks about Brahman. Here is a quote from your website "�It (Brahman) is beyond argumentation.� � This wisdom�..is not to be attained through argumentation.� Kenopanishad I.3, I.4 and I.6 � �The eyes do not go there, nor speech nor mind. We do not know Brahman to be such and such.� � That (Brahnan) is surely different from the known and again It is above the unknown.� � That which man does not comprehend with the mind�. Faith � i. e., the wholehearted belief that what it teaches is true � is essential."

.......  I have said what we believe and I believe it to be true(I have my own beliefs, I believe my late grandpa is always with me).

I need to know the source of your belief. Can you provide the reference of your scripture from where you got this idea. Is it in Gita or where?

3. We believe that everything is possible.  We can even separate our body and mind.

If its a matter of your faith alone, I may not argue except in asking for the source of this belief. I mean the book where this is to be found. However, if it comes through scientific possibility then ofcourse need you to provide any reference to such a study. 

When you control your mind, coincidences seem to multiply, miracles seem to be a daily affair.

Can you provide any reference to any scientific study done to investigate such phenomenon? or is it a mere faith baised opinion? 

Vedas contain practices which are for material gains.  They also contain secular pursuits like science(physics, chemistry, metallurgy, astronomy etc.), mathematics, medicine etc.  They also contain practices relating to our religion.  They contain a few verses about Brahman, but mostly contain secular pursuits. Most of the knowledge relating to knowing the Truth is in the Upanishads.  Upanishads contain questions and answers.  The questions are asked by the pupils and answered by their masters.  The names of the teachers and the pupils are also given.  They were afterwards compiled by Vyasa.  What we don't know is who wrote and preserved them until Vyas.  And thats not a big issue anyway.  We can find it without much effort.

But as I read from your website, it says that Upanishads are just the part of Vedas which deals with the philosophical aspects of hinduism. Here is the quote from that website "The latter portions of the Vedas, called Vedanta or Upanishads or Jnana Kanda are the philosophical portions."

However, those parts of Vedas that deal with rituals etc are known as Karma kanda and here the quote from the same website "Karma Kanda deals with rituals and sacrifices, worship of deities, prayers, duties, values of life, and conduct of life in harmony with the welfare of others, including other living beings, with the requirements of society and with the structure of the universe (called karma) " 

On the other hand Bagavad Gita is a part (sixth book) of Mahabharata known as an epic of hinduism. From where the divine origin comes to this epic, I really don't know. Can you through some light on it. Though, at this time, for a time being, I am not even questioning the historicity of such an epic, but really don't know how such a book (that too a sub part of a whole) can become an independant book of divine origin. I mean social or moral values can be obtained from any book, but how to consider such a book from a divine source (same as Quran you said) is what we are looking at. 

Coming to Bagavad Gita,  it was said in the year 3137 BC by Sri Krishna who was 89 years old then.  It was said to his friend(brother-in-law) Arjuna.

So do you intend to say Sri Krishna (a human being) was the divine source of this book? And who is Sri Krishna, if at all he is considered divine? Is it another name of Brahman or Brahma or what?

And Bagavad Gita was also written down by Vyasa.

But I thought, it was reported by Sanjaya through some mystical powers granted to him by Vyasa. Isn't it (I am not yet looking at the mode of transformation of knowledge amoung humans, however)?

Whatever is written in the Upanishads(and some parts of Vedas) was said by Sri Krishna to Arjuna.  The difference being, Upanishads are in more detail and are structured.

I think, we should rather look at the differences between the Vedas (both Karma kanda and Upanishads) and the epics (Mahabharatta and Ramayana) rather than vedas and upanishads. Shouldn't we?

As you know, we do not have all of the Upanishads.  But we have the whole of Bagavad Gita.

So here is my question. Why should we prefer epics over the Vedas? Just because epics are more easy to understand or what? Is this a sensible criteria? That too, just sub part of the whole epic?

Gita provides a lot more and easy to understand philosophy about Brahman.  Why do you think that Brahman is not referenced in the Gita?  You haven't read the Gita(even if you read, I know you will not understand it:)).

Once you refute, I would expect you to quote some examples to support your point of view. Kindly provide reference to any part of Gita where you think this philosophy is mentioned/described.

And I am not at all limiting our doctrine whatsoever.

By this I meant that the importance of Vedas are being undermined by relegating them under the epics. Probably you could provide better argument than mere simpilicity of the book itself.

Whatever is left with us is authentic.  So their is no question of authenticity.

We haven't yet looked at this topic, so I shall not comment on it at this time.

I refered Gita because it contains everything which is in the Upanishads and it even contains a lot more.

Need some examples to substantiate your point.

But what are categorized as Itihasas come under history(whether you believe it or not).

History has little to do with faith (observable) especially once it is dealing with human creatures. However, strangely, its only through hindu faith that Itihasas (history) is called upon to look at. How do we authenticate it other than faith? It is this uncertainity (the term I used to explain for my faith) which, I suppose, is a big number and not a small one, in understanding Hinduism. Isn't it? Simply because you say everything is possible (outside the domain of science) through faith. Ofcoure then if someone believe in such a doctrine, then he has to leave his scientific mind aside. Then rationality or irrationality doesn't become an issue and everything is faith based. Probably, then transmigration is easy to understand rather I should say easy to follow than understanding it.  

About the Varna system, I have explained it a lot of times and I will do this time in detail. We believe that everyone(everything) is born for a purpose.  That purpose is known as swadharma.  A unit has its swadharma, a society has its swadharma, a state has its swadharma and a country has its swadharma(the swadharma of Bharat is Spirituality).  When a baby is born, according to its time of birth, its swadharma is given by the priests according to the position of planets at the time of birth(you may not understand this and may feel that this is a superstition).  That used to be right a long time ago as the priests were exact in their predictions.

I see what your concept is about Varna system. Can you provide the scriptural reference where I can read more about Varna system and its relation with swadharma based upon time of birth? Secondly, why this system in considered obsolete now? Is it because hindu's have lost that knowledge of accurate predictions or what?

As I have said earlier, answer to this question is toooooooooooo lengthy to explain here. Everything has its source in Brahman so thats the only thing everyone is interested in.  We don't believe that Brahman created everything at a point of time(actually we ourselves are Brahman, remember Soul, Atman?).  Time itself does not exist for Brahman.

My question about scriptural reference about this beleif of angels/ dieties remained un-answered. Can you provide some of them? Are they mentioned in the Gita or what? Secondly, when you discussed Atman (soul) it was only discussed about either humans or Brahman, then from where the other creatures have come in? Also, in view of the definition of Brahman that I have pasted from your website, the idea of "ourselves are Brahman" seems to be far fetched. What do you say about it?

Suffice that they are angels(and we too can become angels). Peace and Love.

Definitely needs scriptural references on this concept as well.

Dear Bharattiya

 What can you tell us about the historicity of "Law of Manu" in hinduism? Though I have tried to go over through some of its chapters, but again, they were so much confusing that I thought to sought your help in understanding them. Here are some of the main points from an english translation of the book of "Laws of Manu" that has confused me. Can you explain the difficulties (hope the lines from the book shall present the difficulty itself) that I see in it or its just a baised translation. This is from Chapter 3 of this book

"

15. Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

16. According to Atri and to (Gautama) the son of Utathya, he who weds a Sudra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sudra female, alone).

17. A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

18. The manes and the gods will not eat the (offerings) of that man who performs the rites in honour of the gods, of the manes, and of guests chiefly with a (Sudra wife's) assistance, and such (a man) will not go to heaven.

19. For him who drinks the moisture of a Sudra's lips, who is tainted by her breath, and who begets a son on her, no expiation is prescribed."

Here is the reference for the source of this information.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu03.htm - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu03.htm

Kindly let me also know if you think tht this is not an authentic source for the translation of this book and why would you think so?

Similarly once I went on to read few chapters of this book I got amazingly confused with the kind of science described in it. For example here is another statement from the same chapter 3 of this book.

Is that the same kind of science that you were refering to in some of your posts about hindu scriptures? Its really strange that you, with your own open mind and rationale thinking, still believe in this kind of stuff? I hope you would not question my sincerety of understanding your scriptures from a baised website with vested interests. I am open to your replies and need you to guide us to any translation of this book of "Laws of Manu" that could bring translation other than presented above.

Ofcourse, the book is not over yet and I can't conclude anything out of these few verses. Maybe some further reading into the book may provide better understanding of these few troublesome statements. Till then, I hope to hear something from you or from any one who know the truth other than what has been presented here.  

Salam to: Bharatiya and Ahmed Joyia

Bro Bharatiya we are looking forward to hear more from you.

Regards

Fuhad

Salaam To: All

Its been a while since this thread of mine has been picked. Recently, realising the nature of discussion between brothers AhmadJoyia and The One ( from Bharat), I would like to share my thougths on This topic again. 

It seems whenever muslims enter into a dialogue with Indian friends i.e followers of 'Sanatan Dharama' ( meaning, the eternal 'religion' or way of life) sometimes get into a circular arguments.

Since India has a rich tradition of Philosophy, The Indians friends tends to switch quickly between, Speculative Thought ( propounded from Vedas. & Upanishads.), Textual Traditions  and of Course Free Thinking.

We must understand and clarify the bases of our discussion with our Indian friends. It is not enough accept, when some says 'I am a follower of Vedanta'

What is so elitist about Vedanta?

Vedanta today as expounded by some Modern educated hindu reformers is a way of life to spirituality without giving due credibility dogmas and doctrines within the hindu pantheon some what similar to Sufism without Islam. ( i.e the New Age spirituality of 21st century.

For Hindus not matter how educated ( except for the branch of Athesim )they are 'Vedas' are Axiomatic and similarly the Unpanishads are Axiomatically Transcedental. Just like Quran is Axiomatic for Muslims.

In the Hindu world Vedanta is consiederd as one of the important philosophy, which constitutes one of the most popular rationalizations for the act of religious renunciation.

The Vedanta philosophy represented by Shankara and Ramanuja is a textual tradition. What this means specifically is that Vedanta philosopers - though they insist that final proof of anything must be experience- they rely heavily on scriptures such as the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, which they take as authoritave ( Even Ramakrishna Maths and Swami Vivekanda wouldn't deny that as reliable source of truth.) hence Vedanta is a Religious philosophy.

Moreover, the whole foundation of Vedanta philosophy rests on the Transcendental claims of the Upanishads, represented by the concept of 'brahman' ( notice the small 'b' and not big 'B'.) the whole language ( i.e Sanskrit) used by Vedantist theologians and philosophers is replete with confusion of Synonyms. Thats the reason, why so many people say we believe in the theory of 'projection' rather than 'creation'. ( Remember it is one thing to read commentaries of Shankara & Ramanuja and other is to let the Vedic text speak for itself)

So for Vedantist when conversing in my humble opnion should get there Epistemology Right because the very claim of being a Vedantist Pesupposes individual's adherence to the Vedic Axiology and  its textual Interpretation. So the Vedas and the Upansihads and the Purans, Gita and all the thinking of the Rishis, Gurus is open to analytical and propostional, Historical  examination just like the Quran and the authencity of Quran and Vedas and Gita must be compared to reach a sound understanding.

 If this post fires interest in people then hopefully we will have more of this later.

Regards

Fahad

In Islam, belief in One God is the most important belief. Allah in arabic refers to the One God. In Islam, all humans are created equal.

Hinduism has many deities. This is much like ancient Greek and Roman religions.Hinduism has a caste system, with four major castes.

Dharma and deen (both meaning ways of life), and an emphatic assertion of the oneness of God (Ekam sat: la illaha illlallah), Islam and Hinduism share the vision of a moral order prevailing in the universe.

These include respect, kindness, honesty, tolerance, self-restraint, patience, forgiveness and compassion. Such virtues apply between parents and children, spouses, business partners, neighbors and friends, regardless of gender.

The following Quran verses illustrate these ideals:


And as for the believers, both men and women, they are close unto one another: they [all] enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and are constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues, and pay heed unto God and His apostle. (9:71)

Ma Salama

Afshan

As salam u Alaikum

Swarg=Heaven

Narak=Hell

Many hindu arnot even aware that there is a concept of swarg and narak in there religion.But it is mentioned in vedas, the most holy book of Hindus.

However, most hidus believe inpuna janam or rebirth.It is mentioned somewhere in Gita.

It, asa matter of fact suffer frm a flaw.The theory of reincarnation or rebirthis that if a human do bad deeds he will be born as animal or insects.While if a animal do good deed in tis life then it will born in the body of higher level.And the most highest level is Man.

Now let me ask u something, today the crime is increeasing or decreasing?Increasing, unaminous decision.And waht about human population?It is also increasing!Flaw!According to the treory of puna janam the population should decrease!!

was salam