A controversial question paper

Recently in the southern part of the southernmost state of India, Kerala, in the heartland of probably Asia's most powerful Christian community, a Christian Professor's wrist was chopped off by members of a radical Muslim organization because he set a question in a college exam that was offensive to Muslims. The exam paper was for graduate economic students and the subject was the local language Malayalam. The question had asked the students to properly punctuate four lines of a drama sequence. The lines were actually taken from a book of a somewhat acclaimed writer, himself a Muslim. The original question was popped to God by a character simply called madcap. But in the lines set by the Professor, this character was renamed Mohammad. The God-Mohammad dialogue went like this:

Mohammad: Oh Creator, Oh Creator [Malayalee Muslims often call God this way].
God: Yes, you pesky dog? [the actual Malayalam phrase alludes to a *****'s son].
Mohammad: If I cut a fish, how many pieces of fish would I have?
God: You dog, how many times have I told you that you would have three pieces?

When the somewhat well-known Muslim writer who was also a Communist leader wrote the same thing, except he did not call the character Mohammad but simply madcap, there was no controversy at all. But in this instance, there was an instant uproar in the minority Muslim community when the students went home and showed the question paper. The Kerala government (a communist one) acted fast to seek to diffuse the situation by immediately asking the college to suspend the Professor, which they promptly did. The Christian community largely condemned the professor for his insensitive question paper and concluded him to be an idiot. Meanwhile, a particular Muslim organization bayed for the Professor's blood and the Professor went into hiding. Sensing the mood, the police had to arrest the Professor without delay and used the rather immoral technique of picking up the professor's son and torturing him. News of this naturally made the professor surface and surrender before the police. The fellow was in lock-up and the case went to the court. Meanwhile he was given bail and on a Sunday morning was returning from Church with his wife and sister (who was a nun) in a vehicle. The vehicle was waylaid by about 10-15 men in another vehicle, who stepped out and in a macabre display of Shariat resolution, chopped the professor's right wrist, the very one with which he presumably set the question paper. He was rushed to hospital and was in serious condition due to blood loss. They managed to save his life and also sew back his palms. It is now almost a month and he is still in hospital.

This is the first time that such a Taliban like action has been carried out in India. Many here would say that this is a stray incident and it would seem so. But actually this is only the climax, maybe the first of many future climaxes, unless nipped in the bud. The build up and occasional display of Muslim organizational prowess is causing disquiet even among normally politically-correct quarters. Something further on the same lines may trigger a backlash, God forbid.

Non-Muslims, how do you explain the existence of the Quran/sincerity of the Prophet?

Originally Posted by Tyrion
What I want to know is, as nonbelievers, how do you explain Muhammad, and the Quran? If you claim it to be his word, why is that? What motives were there? What about all the signs that point to his sincerity? I’m really interested in your responses, and my intention here really is to learn. I apologize in advance if this question has already been tackled in the past, and I hope my post was clear.

I would place Mohammad in the lineage of spiritual masters who discovered themselves and thereby discovered the ultimate truth or God. I would take his starting point in this quest for self-discovery as his meditations in the mountains of Hira. As he discovered his higher self, he started expressing it when he came out of his meditation. His subsequent meditations and expressions resulted in the Quran over a period of time. To say that the Quran is the word of God is not wrong at all because a man's higher consciousness and its expressions touch the ultimate truths of existence.

"If you have two loaves of bread, sell one to buy hyacinths, for they will feed your soul." Mohammad

Abraham - a man of faith

I don't know if it is appropriate to say this here but I have very negative feelings about Abraham as the man who destroyed the idol that his own father worshipped. Did he have to establish his faith by destroying another's faith?

It seems to be a way in human progress. Looking at Vedanta specifically the Archarya's tend to refute the predecessor in order to assert their own teachings. That subtlety may go unnoticed by many devotees of course as the point is that they are attracted to the new teaching and are reassured that they need not look back to their ancestors (in Abraham's case).

One thing which strikes me, reading the Quran is that the problem with the Pagan Arabs was their lack of understanding, they took the Idol as God rather than seeing it as being a mere reflection or image or form of God which Sananata Dharma is more clear on.

I think it all comes down to having your mind clearly focused, if you are told other's are wrong, you can knuckle down in your choosen faith.

This isn't exactly how the story goes. He didn't destroy the idol that his father personally worshiped; his father was an idol merchant and it was the idols that were for sale that he destroyed. It cost his father in profits, but these idols were worshiped by no one yet. So it was not the direct disrespect to his father that would have occurred if he destroyed his father's personal idol.

Some versions of the story say the idols destroyed were those in a temple whose worshippers had gone for a feast. When they returned and saw all the idols destroyed except the biggest one, Abraham said it was the biggest idol that destroyed all the other idols! The story continues that the worshippers, including Abraham's father, handed over Abraham to the King, who put him into the fire. Abraham came out of the fire unhurt. The intolerance of Abraham still comes through, though, and here I stand corrected, he did not destroy the personal idol that his father worshipped. Since he did not get burnt in the fire, I suppose God pardoned him or maybe God never thought he did anything wrong in the first place. Anyway, I am not grudging the preeminent position of respect Abraham has among the followers of three major religions of the world. Maybe the respect is largely because he relished destroying idols.

The story I just read about this does say Abraham blamed it on the biggest idol in his father's shop but, it also included Hanan, Abraham's oldest brother. When the King learned that the brother knew of Abraham's existence(Abraham was supposed to have been killed in infancy due to prophesy), the brother was thrown in to the fires with Abraham.

The fires were so hot that Hanan burst into flames and Abraham was left to walk through it unharmed. The king commanded Abraham to come out but he refused until the king denounced idol worship.

If I am permitted to say so, I really wonder what it is about God that so disturbs Him about idol worship. It does appear it is all about loyalty. If you notice that it is tin pot dictators who most require loyalty, you would not want to associate such a word with God. Strange that Abraham, who proved that he had the power to survive fire, used the circumstance as blackmail to get the King to denounce idol worship. Please pardon me for my position. I am not using this forum to denigrate the greatness of Abraham in any way. I am simply not able to understand this 'enmity' towards idol worship. If you or anyone else feels offended by my position, I shall delete this post. With best wishes.

Hi K.V

Personal understanding is there is a subtlety easily mistaken. God does not communicate any disturbance of Idol worship, God is not disturbed as such as God is omnisicence. The error is to mistake Him or His creation as an Idol. Taking an Idol as divine is grave error also. When they returned from the feat they were angry at the destruction of the Idols. This anger arises from false understanding because the highest truth is that man has no rights at all over anything, everything that exists, that is taken and is given is by God Himself.

To expect an idol-worshipper not to be angry when his idols are destroyed is simply going against basic human nature. Everybody needs his or her sacred space - how can it be violated? Idol worship occurs, one way or the other, when man is still at the dualistic stage. Only those who have attained the non-dual vision can do away with idol worship. And, ironically, a person of non-dual vision would never need to destroy an idol because when he sees all existence as one, he would see everything, including an idol, as an expression of the oneness. Saying that man has no right over anything is true for the non-dualist for the simple reason that a non-dualist does not suffer any sense of want and therefore he does not require a right over anything. But he also understands that in the absence of the capacity to see all space as sacred, men would require clearly defined sacred spaces if he is to grow to his spiritual potential.

The story I heard was that Abraham's father owned an idol shop, and left him in charge one day. Abraham took a stick and broke all the idols except the biggest one, and put the stick in it's hand. His father came home angry, and Abraham said the big idol did it, and pointed to the stick. His father said: "Don't be ridicilous, idols can't do anything." Abraham replied: "That's right father, idols can't do anything."

Idols can't do anything just as, say, a car or a computer cannot, by itself, do anything. What an idol, car or computer can do depends on how you programme them or, in the case of the idol with its esoteric science, the energy that has been transferred to it. Again, in the case of the car or computer, unless we have the capacity to drive it or operate it, it would be 'dead' for us. Similarly, in the case of those not well-versed with the science of worship of idols (apart from the qualified priests in this case) can only be passive beneficiaries and for those who do not understand idol worship at all, the idol remains a piece of stone - maybe only worth its antique value. Therefore the accusation that idols cannot do anything and thus they have to be destroyed would be the refrain of only those not sufficiently educated to the possibilities of man's genius.

Quran 9:5 - kill the kafirs

I think Dr. Zakir Naik, when seeking to put the text of verse 9:5 in proper context, has not put it in complete context. The verse says forgive only those who “repent and establish regular prayers”. Which is to say, those who follow Islam. So the thrust of the verse is very clear – kill the infidels, kill those who do not follow Islam. No amount of “contexting” will hide this fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7p7IOJHTSM&feature=related

How to become a Muslim

Originally Posted by zainabhaseen
when a person accepts Islam ..its because of the ultimate fact that he has developed a strong belief that there is only one God (Allah)...and that Muhammad S.A.W. is the messenger of Allah...he says ashadu anna because of the fact and because of the belief he has in Allah and his book. the reason why he say shahadah is because he is becoming a witness to his own statement.

Are you saying when a person says the shahadah he is becoming a witness to his own statement, which is based on his belief and not on the basis of his being a witness that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is His messenger? This is confusing, please clarify.

Listen carefully Venugopal:you are twisting my words but i have already told you that a Muslims belief is based on the fact that there is only one God and his messenger MUhammad S.A.W.

You say Muslim belief (religion/faith) is based on the fact that there is only one God and His messenger is Mohammad. My question is, how have you witnessed the fact?

first tell me whats your religion?

Advaita.

and in what do you believe? do u believe in the existence of God?

Please answer my post no. 8. It is concerning the subject of your thread. Meanwhile, I quite do not understand this believe thing. Since God for me is not something that is outside the scope of what I am, I think believing in the existence of God is an unnecessary requirement in my spiritual quest - which is a progressive living in the truth of my being. By spiritual I mean truth as it is, without depending on anything else.

Hinduism - a bunch of contradictory religions?

[quote=themo;2052929] As I said before there are no Hindu sects, there are totally different and contradictory Hindu religions[/quote]

Your observation that "there are no Hindu sects, there are totally different and contradictory Hindu religions" should lead you to wonder how come in spite of having contradictory Hindu religions in its midst (Hinduism means not just the Hindu religions, but also its culture, tradition, heritage, literature etc. that have coalesced into a great inclusive phenomenon called Hinduism in modern times, but earlier on was known as Sanatana Dharma - often referred to as such even now), Hinduism's adherents live peacefully today as an integrated people. Compare this particularly with Islam, which has only one scripture and yet has at least one major schism between the Sunnis and Shias, bloodletting between whom takes place even today. Or compare the avowed hatred that has been maintained between the Jews and Muslims, both of whom claim to belong to one lineage. A dispassionate student of world peace would certainly find in Hinduism an element that has contributed towards its inclusive tendency and I would like to think that element is the vision of Advaita or non-dualism bequeathed by the masters of Hinduism called Rishis. Therefore “contradictory religions” in Hinduism do not add up to wars because all religious expressions have the right to their own sacred space and the recognition of this is the hallmark of Hinduism. So much so that it has been said that whatever is true in Hinduism, its opposite is also true in Hinduism.

"Incarnation of God" according to Allah?

Dear Cordoba, On the face of it, it would appear that Shishya's talking about incarnation of Allah is meaningless. However, I think it is believed by many Muslims that they will see Allah on judgement day (Quran 75:23). If this is true, then it will amount to an incarnation of Allah and Shishya would have a relevant point. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by Cordoba
The rules of the Hereafter are different, as there it is an eternal life

For heaven or hell to be of relevance for humans, the humans need to in some way continue to be themselves in heaven or hell. Otherwise he or she who is enjoying or suffering would not be the same person who lived on earth and deserved the judgement. The rules of heaven/hell may be different but not to the extent that a person is not able to relate the rules of earth and heaven/hell. If he is unable to do so, then who is being rewarded or punished? The Quran clearly tells us the consequences of following/not following Allah's instructions. Therefore certainly a portion of us which makes us aware of ourselves as we were on earth would have to be present in heaven/hell. If we are able to see Allah in heaven, then who has seen Allah but we? Thus, there is no denying the fact that Allah is amenable to incarnate (make Himself seen) at least in heaven. Your contention that the laws of the “hereafter” are different from the laws of “here” should not be an attempt to invalidate logic when considering matters of the “hereafter”.

Also, it cannot be an eternal life in heaven. That which is eternal does not have a beginning or end. The "hereafter" begins only after the "here". So another word has to be coined for that which, though has a beginning, does not have an end!

Apart from the point I made in post no. 16 where I said Allah presenting Himself to be seen by believers in heaven is an example of Allah incarnating, there is also the example of Allah speaking to Moses here on earth. Here too, if Allah has made Himself perceivable by man through man's senses, it also amounts to Allah incarnating Himself. I got a reply that the rules of heaven are different from the rules of earth. Conceded. But can it be denied that both earth and heaven/hell (if they exist) are part of existence? Thus, as I see it, Allah incarnating is a fact that is established in the Quran itself.

If you are still wondering, why would God choose not to appear in this life, i'll mention for you a story which happened long time a go between Allah and the famous prophet of Allah, Moses.

[143] When Musa came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, he said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon Thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); but look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust, and Musa fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (Quran 7:143)

Moses didn't know that God is so great that we can't handle seeing him with our current limited senses.

In this Quranic verse, it is clear that Allah spoke to Moses. Only, Moses was in no position to see Allah. In another time and another place a disciple of God (Krishna) wanted to see Him. It was only after the disciple (Arjuna) was given the boon of 'cosmic vision' that he was able to see Krishna. In the Quran it says that Moses heard Allah on earth and in the hereafter believers can also see Allah. Incarnation is all about Allah/Krishna creating the conditions so that man can perceive Him. Why should Allah be restricted to creating the conditions only in heaven? Does it say in the Quran that Allah would not be able to create the conditions on earth? The Hindu scriptures mention the creation of such conditions on earth itself so that God can be perceived. Since earth and heaven are all part of existence, incarnation is a reality according to both the Quran and Hindu scriptures.

May you explain the meaning of "incarnation" or how do you define incarnation so I may not misunderstand your point.

Incarnation, simply put, is the appearance of God, in whatever form (or formless), in the midst of human activities and involving in human activities. That is, God becomes a participant (not merely an observer) in the drama of human life.

Contradicting to your points, I don't think that seeing God on the day of judgement refer to the incarnation in anyway. It is more likely that God appears to the believers rather than incarnating himself to be seen.

God “appearing” and God “incarnating” are synonyms.

For example, say that you want to meet somebody and he is in the house and you are waiting outside. Suddenly, he came out. would you say that he incarnate himself, or would you say that he appeared or came out. For the second part which is about God's talk to Moses, I don't see how that relate to incarnation. for example, let's say that you make a phone call, would you say that the somebody you called incarnate himself or he just he use his voice to speak to you.

We are used to use the word “incarnate” only vis-à-vis God and therefore it is not said of a person simply coming out of his house or making a phone call.

That's unreasonable stretch to the meaning of incarnation.

I was not unreasonably stretching the meaning of incarnation – I was only implying the possibilities of the word.

Finally, for the part about the heaven, hell and earth. Don't you think that life and death is a part of existence. Even though they have different world and rules.

Yes, everything is a part of existence, including God. If you say God is not part of existence, you are only saying He does not exist!

Islam reject the idea that Jesus, Krishna, etc are God incarnation.

Muslims reject the idea that Jesus, Krishna etc are God's incarnation because Islam teaches that God does not incarnate. Or so it would seem. Actually, Islam clearly says that God has appeared before humans and will appear again in the future. While Islam appears to have underplayed God's appearances, Hinduism has highlighted such appearances and Hindu scriptures have unfolded extensive biographies of God's appearances, calling it incarnation. Quran has mentioned the appearances only in passing. Hindu scriptures have made His appearances their mainstay.