Mohammad, the Guru

In the Hindu parlance, we can say that Mohammad was a Guru. He meditated in the caves, discovered God within himself and expressed that discovery in the imagery of his times. However, he never taught meditation as the path to self-discovery and his imagery got trapped in the Jewish prophetic tradition and hence God became an external phenomenon in Islam also. Only the Sufis sought to discover God within.

Living in our own light

Advaita only says not two. It doesn't exactly say one. Because there is no one at that stage to do any counting. Logically, only one is possible after a negation of two. But the one of Advaita means undifferentiated. Differentiation starts at two. But one also has a shade of differentiation, because it is countable. What is countable (singly or in groups) is an object. Advaita is about the subject. When we reach the state of the subject (as opposed to being among the objects), we have become the totality or Brahman and are no longer fragmented. Which again does not mean annihilation of objects per se, but only to us, who have become Brahman. Henceforth, instead of living on borrowed light, we live in our own light.

=======================

Is it truer to describe Truth as "is-ness" rather than "one-ness"?

Forms and formless are one

What we call God is nothing other than life. The whole of existence is nothing other than life or God in various forms. There is no difference between formless God and God in various forms. The idea of God having created forms is not true in the sense that God is separate from his creation. The formless becomes the forms, changes forms, and becomes formless again.

=======================

Logically understanding that there is no separation between us and all of existence would cause a radical shift in our living and our living, as life is, would become divine. Then praying, devotion, meditating, cultivating the heart, loving etc. would be the very qualities of our being.

=======================

Logical understanding and any mind-based reasoning lead to nothing, especially not to any radical shift. There can be no conviction about any product of the thinking process including unity because thinking process can yield only hypothesises and there is always the other voice in the mind who knows that the opposite of a hypothesis may also be true. You know it very well from your experience.
Stubborn insistence on using the mind or tricky claim that mind is neither good nor bad are covers for addiction to the mind of beginners who are still trapped in the mind. Once they experience for the first time no-mind (manage to overcome their fear of meditation), they taste from a different quality of realization and manage to abandon the reliance on logic. As long as they do not overcome that fear of meditation and no-mind, they are just playing with a useless primitive toy and cannot understand that even if you tell them so hundred times.
Self realization is not the same as any other realization, it is just a confusion of language as we use the same word "realization" in both of them. Self realization has nothing to do with mind and understanding.
This is extremely important! It makes all the basic difference

A brilliant exposition. I congratulate you. But when you say, "Logical understanding and any mind-based reasoning lead to nothing, especially not to any radical shift", the very fact that in communicating we need the logic of language proves that logic leads us and could be used to lead us beyond logic. Otherwise how do we go beyond logic into the realms of intuition?

==========================

Advaita

According to my understanding of Advaita, Advaita is the state of oneness of existence and there is no scope in its philosophy for anything like non-existence. I request the members of this forum to share their thoughts on this subject and tell me if I am right or wrong.

=====================

Can we say if a certain thing is true, its opposite is also true?

=====================

It is possible a person at one time owned a car and later did not. What is ruled out is a person simultaneously owning a car and not owning a car. Simultaneously, at the same time and at the same place, it cannot be both day and night.
Is there a truth that is valid at all places and times - its opposite never existing? Is the proposition that there is only existence such a truth, with its opposite not ever existing? (Existence per se, that is – not the existence or not of a particular thing.)

=====================

Is existence life? Is there anything in existence that is not life or alive? Is death only a change of form and therefore a myth?

=====================

If dying means ceasing existence, can existence ever cease?

=====================

Our perfect condition

Dear Rehan, The title of this thread, "The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam" itself contains a flaw in the sense that Hinduism has more than one concept of God. Polytheism is just one of the concepts that Hindus hold. They also hold the concepts of monotheism, monism etc. Moreover, you started this thread by quoting Dr. Zakir Naik. I took up the thread to point out that Dr. Naik's contention that the Vedas call for believe in One God is misplaced, because the Vedas' acme teaching is Advaita or the oneness of existence.As a Hindu, I have multiple choices as to what to believe or even to not believe anything at all. As far as belief is concerned, no Hindu believes that only one path is correct and all others are wrong. Many Hindus eventually take up one of the great many meditative processes indicated in Hinduism and seek to discover God in the depths of their own consciousness. As far as my personal beliefs are concerned, I believe that we and our circumstances are perfect, have always been perfect and will ever be perfect. This is because we are God. And by God I mean nothing other than Life. Yes, our life is what we are and not the form that our life has taken up. Life takes up forms in a game of hide-and-seek it plays, where it loses itself and tries to re-discover itself. I hope all readers of my comments will note that I am not trying to say that Islam is wrong and Advaita alone is right. I am only trying to point out that there are many paths available to man to believe/realize God and it is his individual choice which path he chooses. All paths eventually would lead to the truth as all rivers eventually lead to the ocean.

===============

Positive thinking is fine. But dividing thoughts into positive and negative would involve suppressing negative thoughts out of the picture and such thoughts, as you said, might lie in our sub-consciousness to lurk when we are off-guard. The japa-technique is based on the sound-silence technique, where though you say only, for example, Rama-Rama-Rama, there is from the beginning an imperceptible pause in the uttering of the Ramas. So it is actually sound-silence-sound-silence. As we go on, they say, the silence takes over and the silent still mind experiences a peace that surpasseth understanding. As Jesus said, "Be still and know that I am God."

================

Very well put. We live in the present and we celebrate life spontaneously.

================

You are right. Labelling would do us in. But if we remember we are not sinners but divine creatures, we are quite there.

================

Wow! I see you are very advanced in your understanding. In short, as you would agree, it would be just watching without any judgement whatsoever. Then what remains is a life of awe! And a life of joy, without our differentiating what we are going through, right?

================

I can see the forcefulness of the point you are making. That life is perfect is plain if we see that one thing leads to another (cause-effect continuum) and if we find a certain situation imperfect, it is only because we have disassociated it from its cause and passed our uni-dimensional judgement upon it. Therefore when we say something is wrong, we are being subjective. Being subjective is undoubtedly a perfect situation, but often our subjectiveness is the cause of our suffering. Suffering of course is not a perfect situation because it is brought about by our isolated judgement upon a situation. Why restrict ourselves to isolated judgements and miss out on the perfection we have inherited?

French President Sarkozy: Burqas "will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

France, which prides itself as the harbinger of modern democracy in Europe and a forerunner to a secular intellectual society has been unable to develop an inclusive culture. Maybe the hangover of some Christian (read Churchian) legacy of intolerance? Burqua might seem an antediluvian Islamic symbol of terrorism, but can’t the French accept it as a modern fashion statement? At least in gay Paris, the fashion capital of the world? Let it learn from India the secret of its inclusive culture. The only way to go after Islamic terrorism is to challenge the Islamic claim that the Quranic way of thinking is the only valid way.

===============

If France is going to have a Muslim population, never mind if only miniscule (still the largest Muslim population in Europe) it might as well allow it its freedom of identity (without breaking French civil laws, of course. And ensuring idiotic French laws like 'no burqas’ are not made). And do you think all truth emits only from the Quran? I am sure you don't. So why not put the record straight and douse the fanatic zeal of the terrorists who imagine fighting to establish Islam on earth is a small mercy to mankind which would get light from nowhere else! Fears of Muslims becoming wild thus challenged and burning embassies is not becoming of any nation, least of all the great French civilization, for whom truth is the ultimate.

===============

Let Muslims practise their religion and maintain their religious identity. The fight is against terrorism and its basic cause. In the case of Islamic terrorism, it is the claim of Islam that its teachings alone constitute the truth. If this claim is invalidated by the sheer force of reasoning by non-Muslims or if Muslims maintain that Islam does not teach that it alone has the truth and teachings to the contrary are un-Islamic, Islamic terrorism will die a natural death.

The concept of God in Hinduism and Islam.

Dr. Zakir Naik in saying that Hindus range from believing in multitudes of gods to just one god is not untrue. But he has failed to inform his audience that there are Hindus who go beyond believing that there is only one God to believing that the whole of existence is one. This goes beyond the duality believed in by many schools of Hinduism and also Islam. The duality being the eternal separation between the creator and the created. While it is sacrilegious in Islam to link Allah and his creation, the Advaita thought, where the creator and the created are one, has a pervasive influence in Hinduism even among the dualists.

======================

Dr. Zakir Naik has been grossly unfair to his audience in not introducing the non-dual concept while speaking of Hinduism. Saying that the Vedas teach, just like the Quran, that there is only one God, is misleading. The Vedas teach the oneness of existence. Some Sufi schools also talk of the oneness of existence. But Dr. Zakir Naik would not be able to talk about the oneness of existence. That would be straying into the ground of Shirk. Therefore I would say, to be fair to yourself, do not quote Dr. Zakir Naik if you wish to understand Hinduism in all its implications. The writings of some Sufis would be a truer reflection of the most sublime teachings of Hinduism.

===================

Hinduism, unlike Islam, is really a conglomeration of religions. It has many scriptures, systems, philosophies, social mores and what not, some of which seem contradictory one to the other. This is not surprising because Hinduism, under whatever name, has been in existence for thousands of years and is considered the oldest religious tradition in the world. However, the greatest accomplishment of the Hindu ethos is its discovery of the Advaitic or non-dual vision. It is this non-dual vision that has once again been picked up in modern times and is both influencing traditional Hinduism as well as religions outside the Hindu fold. Unless the Advaitic vision of Hinduism is considered in any discussion of Hinduism, a failure to understand the dynamics of Hinduism would result.

=====================

In the semantics of language, that there is only one God is believed in by many Hindus. But there is probably not a single Hindu who believes that this one God is separate from him or her. Hinduism is largely seen as an idol-worshipping religion but Hinduism is also probably the only religion that has a teaching wherein idol worshiping has no place and this teaching is called Advaita or the non-dual teaching. When we, the subject, have something that is not "we", than that becomes the object in relation to us. Idol-worshiping is about worshiping the "not-we". That is, idol worshiping is about worshiping objects. In Advaita, there is no separation into "we" and "not we" - both are one. Therefore Advaita is a non-idol-worshiping religion. Dr. Zakir Naik is a great scholar, a good and sincere man. He surely knows this truth about Hinduism. But why has he not told his audience this?

=========================

My Dear Brother Rehan, Advaita or non-duality is part of the Hindu scriptures. Dr. Zakir Naik has only come up to the point that Hindus believe that everything is God, like the trees, rivers, mountains, animals etc, without having explained to his audience that Advaita is not about separate entities, call them whatever, but is about the oneness of all existence. Obviously Dr. Zakir Naik was not revealing everything that he learned about Hinduism. In this he has short-charged his audience.

==================

My Dear Rehan, When you call upon me to check in my scriptures about proofs, you have touched the point I wish to make. The proofs that you have derived from Hindu scriptures are based on your believe in One God. Hindus have gone beyond that and therefore they can see plainly that what their scriptures are talking about is the oneness of all existence. This is different from believing in One God. In counting God and coming up with a number, whether 1 or 330 million, we are only making God an object (idol worship). God can never be reduced to a mere object, except for the purpose of evolution in our understanding of God. God is life itself and therefore all existence. Unless this is understood, Muslims will continue to talk about One God as the ultimate truth, not realising that they are still in the stage of duality, which stage Hinduism has transcended (but not destroyed because Hinduism believes that dualism is a stepping stone to the ultimate non-duality).

=========================

The idea of worshiping a God presupposes that the God is separate from you. The belief that God is separate from us is natural at the beginning of our religious journey. However, all Muslims up to the end of the journey believe that God is separate from them. Many Hindus too not only believe that God is separate from them, but also believe that God takes many forms and hence there are many "Gods" and in various forms. The Advaitic (non-dual) teachings of the Hindus say that all existence is one and the separation is only apparent but not true - that is, the separation is due to ignorance. There is only the "is-ness" of life. So any one who is involved in worship of God, whether of one God or innumerable Gods, is objectifying God and his worship is idol worship. When God becomes the subject, then idol worship ends and we awaken to the truth of our perfection and the perfection of our circumstances. Hinduism does not call man sinner or slave but divine.

=====================

"Hindu gods and their sexual lewdness" is acceptable to a Hindu if his approach to religion is based on faith. His faith leads him to believe that it was all for a purpose, best known only to the gods. Maybe as ironic as Muslims accepting Mohammad as the perfect model for mankind despite Mohammad's many marriages and at least one to a pre-puberty girl. Muslims justify it saying it was all for a larger cause, just as Hindus justify their gods lewdness simply as games the gods play. In fact, Islam and a large part of Hinduism are alike because they worship God as an outsider, whether 1 God or many Gods. What is different is Advaita or non-dualism that posits that all existence is one and therefore we are the God we worship. Thus Advaita is the only religion (teaching) that does not call for idol worship. Islam, which is against idol worship, did not evolve to become free of idol worship. Only the Sufis have attempted a break-through.

=================

What do you mean by God?

==================

I asked the question for the simple reason that in Islam's concept of God the question of believing (and obeying) Him is the be all and end all of religion. In Advaita, the most sublime of Hindu teachings, the call is to discover our true nature, which is one with all existence. It goes beyond believe, which is required only if God is separate from us. Therefore Muslims believe in God, named Allah, and many Hindus also believe in God, named after their idols. In Advaita God has no name - it is simply the "is-ness" of existence.Anyway, I request you to tell me what you mean by God, so that I might try to clarify the matter step by step.

==================

Dear Rehan, The title of this thread, "The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam" itself contains a flaw in the sense that Hinduism has more than one concept of God. Polytheism is just one of the concepts that Hindus hold. They also hold the concepts of monotheism, monism etc. Moreover, you started this thread by quoting Dr. Zakir Naik. I took up the thread to point out that Dr. Naik's contention that the Vedas call for believe in One God is misplaced, because the Vedas' acme teaching is Advaita or the oneness of existence.As a Hindu, I have multiple choices as to what to believe or even to not believe anything at all. As far as belief is concerned, no Hindu believes that only one path is correct and all others are wrong. Many Hindus eventually take up one of the great many meditative processes indicated in Hinduism and seek to discover God in the depths of their own consciousness.

As far as my personal beliefs are concerned, I believe that we and our circumstances are perfect, have always been perfect and will ever be perfect. This is because we are God. And by God I mean nothing other than Life. Yes, our life is what we are and not the form that our life has taken up. Life takes up forms in a game of hide-and-seek it plays, where it loses itself and tries to re-discover itself.

I hope all readers of my comments will note that I am not trying to say that Islam is wrong and Advaita alone is right. I am only trying to point out that there are many paths available to man to believe/realize God and it is his individual choice which path he chooses. All paths eventually would lead to the truth as all rivers eventually lead to the ocean.

====================

I am glad that you will never say that the teachings of Vedas are wrong. I hope one day you will understand that the Vedas go beyond the teaching of one God to the teaching of oneness of existence. You and I may not be now experiencing the oneness because our consciousness is limited within our forms. But as our consciousness becomes more and more subtle through meditation, we shall know that we are the formless and we shall say as a great Sufi said, "Ana al Haque".
--------------------------
Meditation is the art of experiencing silence or stillness of mind. There are many techniques to achieve this. The simplest method prescribed by Hinduism is to utter a word non-stop. Silence is the source of all sound and language. What we learn through language is second-hand. When we reach the realm of silence, we would have direct knowledge of the ultimate and such knowledge would not be subject to the limitations of language. It is in the realms of silence that the knowledge of the oneness of existence arises. It goes beyond believing, expecting, hoping etc.
==========================
Dear Brother, If you are not well-versed with Hinduism, you will be surprised that there are sects within Hinduism that use s e x as a means to attain spiritual goals. And there are temples itself where explicit sexual scenes are shown. Hinduism is not a one-hat-fits-all-heads type of religion. I personally know of an Ashram (place of spiritual activities) where its inmates, men and women, have free s e x. This is a very respectable Ashram set in the midst of a conservative society. On the other hand, there are Gurus (spiritual teachers) who do not look at women, except their family members and they may even marry. And such gurus may have a large number of women devotees. Then, there are sects where its priests do not wear any cloths and go naked in public and yet they are life-long celibates. There are sects whose activities are so bizarre that mainstream Hindus are often shocked to hear of them - but as is the Hindu tradition of live-and-let-live, they shrug it off and continue their own way. One Guru has even authored, many thousands of years ago, what is considered even now as the greatest book on s e x ever written - the Kama Sutra.

It is truly said of Hinduism, "What is held true in Hinduism, the opposite is also held true in Hinduism."
-------------------------

[I think the deletion of my post due to one word is surprising, particularly when the phrase "Hinduism revolves around sexuality" is acceptable. I am posting the post again, blanking out the one word, so that the phrase "Hinduism revolves around sexuality" is put in proper context.]

Dear Brother, If you are not well-versed with Hinduism, you will be surprised that there are sects within Hinduism that use *** as a means to attain spiritual goals. And there are temples itself where explicit sexual scenes are shown. Hinduism is not a one-hat-fits-all-heads type of religion. I personally know of an Ashram (place of spiritual activities) where its inmates, men and women, have free ***. This is a very respectable Ashram set in the midst of a conservative society. On the other hand, there are Gurus (spiritual teachers) who do not look at women, except their family members and they may even marry. And such gurus may have a large number of women devotees. Then, there are sects where its priests do not wear any cloths and go naked in public and yet they are life-long celibates. There are sects whose activities are so bizarre that mainstream Hindus are often shocked to hear of them - but as is the Hindu tradition of live-and-let-live, they shrug it off and continue their own way. One Guru has even authored, many thousands of years ago, what is considered even now as the greatest book on *** ever written - the Kama Sutra. It is truly said of Hinduism, "What is held true in Hinduism, the opposite is also held true in Hinduism."

======================

I think what has misled Dr. Zakir Naik to conclude that the Hindu scriptures state that there is only one God is the usage of the word "He" to describe that which is being described. Muslims know that the usage of the word "He" in the Quran to denote Allah is not tantamount to stating that Allah is a male. The Vedas, which proclaim the oneness of existence, also declare that existence is not an inert substance but life itself. And since that life is nothing other than the life we have but unlimited by form, that formless life which pervades all existence and is existence, is called Brahman in Vedas and it is denoted by "He". The Vedas do not teach that there is only one God, separate from the rest of existence. Such an interpretation is given provisionally by the dualistic schools of Hinduism to sustain idol worship, which is very beneficial in the evolution of a seeker to reach the level of non-dualism and discover himself. However, Dr. Zakir Naik asserts that the Vedas teach there is only one God because Islam does not permit going beyond dualism. I again request you to look into the teachings of great Sufi masters to understand what non-dualism is.

==================

[My post was deleted because I used a certain word. But the same word was used in another form to describe Hinduism. The second time the same post was deleted, though I did not use the word, without so much as a "by-your-leave". I am posting the same post totally omiting the word but using the word in another form, which is apparently allowed. I hope you will publish my post this time.]

Dear Brother, If you are not well-versed with Hinduism, you will be surprised that there are sects within Hinduism that use sexuality as a means to attain spiritual goals. And there are temples itself where explicit sexual scenes are shown. Hinduism is not a one-hat-fits-all-heads type of religion. I personally know of an Ashram (place of spiritual activities) where its inmates, men and women, have free sexuality. This is a very respectable Ashram set in the midst of a conservative society. On the other hand, there are Gurus (spiritual teachers) who do not look at women, except their family members and they may even marry. And such gurus may have a large number of women devotees. Then, there are sects where its priests do not wear any cloths and go naked in public and yet they are life-long celibates. There are sects whose activities are so bizarre that mainstream Hindus are often shocked to hear of them - but as is the Hindu tradition of live-and-let-live, they shrug it off and continue their own way. One Guru has even authored, many thousands of years ago, what is considered even now as the greatest book on sexuality ever written - the Kama Sutra.

=======================

But how do you know that Allah has sealed my heart, ears and eyes? Are you coming to such a conclusion just because I am debating with you?

=======================

Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed. This is Verse from Quran

But why are you quoting the Quran against me? How do you know that Allah would include me in the list of "they" when my only crime is to engage you in a debate? And that too not on Islam but on certain aspects of Hinduism.

====================

I have read scriptures of Hinduism as well as of other religions. What you seem to insist is that only the interpretation of Hindu scriptures given by Dr. Zakir Naik is correct. For example Na Tasya Pratima Asti - No likeness of Him exists – has been interpreted by Dr. Zakir Naik as proof that only one God exists. But the Vedic verse is only reiterating that God is formless, which means that God is not separate from existence. All the other verses quoted by Dr. Zakir Naik and his interpretation are similar in nature and proves that he is unable to go beyond the duality of Islam. And what you are saying is that I also should interpret Vedas from a dualistic view. When the Vedas itself has not insisted on such an interpretation, why should I? God has been made separate and worshipped in Hinduism (idol worship) only as a preparation for the highest truth of non-duality. Islam stops from making the crossing from duality to non-duality. However, the Sufis have done so.

===================

Hinduism cannot be categorized as a single path religion, like Islam. There are many paths in Hinduism towards divinity and monotheism is just one of them.

==================

If Hinduism does not exist, why did you use the term in the title of your thread?

=================vg

What is there to prove? That Hinduism believes in many paths towards divinity is the most obvious thing about Hinduism, just as belief in One God is the most obvious thing about Islam.

=================

Even if the word Hindu does not exist in Hindu scriptures (it actually does and it denotes not a specific religion but the people who live in what is identified as today's India) today the whole world accepts the existence of Hindus and call their religion Hinduism. How can you deny this?

==================

I think Mansoor Al Hillaj, a Sufi, was onto non-duality when he said "Ana Al Haq". Much of Rumi's writings are Advaitic (non-dual) in nature. Wasn't he also a Sufi?

=================

Dear Rehan, I have not misquoted Mansoor Al Hillaj. Your explanation proves that he (Al Hillaj) meant that he and Allah are one with his proclamations ANA AL-HAQQ (I am the Truth), or subhani (Glory to Me!) and ma fi al-jubba illa Allah (there is nothing in this cloak except Allah). This is precisely the non-dual vision that is considered Shirk by the majority of Muslims.

Al Hillaj also wrote:

I am He whom I love, and He whom I love is I:
We are two spirits dwelling in one body.
If thou seest me, thou seest Him, and if thou seest Him, thou seest us both.

Another Sufi, Ibn Arabi, wrote, "Those who worshipped the calf worshipped nothing except Allah”, thereby sanctioning the idol worship so popular among the Hindus. These are not isolated writings of eccentric Sufis. The whole thrust of Sufism is the wahdatul-wujood or oneness of existence approach,(non-dualism) as opposed to the approach which holds that God and his creation are entirely separate (dualism) prescribed by Islam in general.

I am surprised that you criticize the Salafis. After all, they are considered the best generations of Muslims by none other than Mohammad himself.

=================

I am He whom I love, and He whom I love is I: We are two spirits dwelling in one body.If thou seest me, thou seest Him, and if thou seest Him, thou seest us both.

Here the He and Him mentioned is Allah. So isn't Al Hillaj saying, I am Allah - there is no separation? This is a non-dual view.

===================

Dear Rehan, I am surprised at your approach. I wonder why you started a thread to talk of the concept of God in Hinduism? All that you have done is to cut and paste Dr. Zakir Naik's views on Hinduism. I had pointed out that Dr. Zakir Naik's views on Hinduism are grossly flawed. But you seem to be insisting that if I read my scriptures, I will see that Dr. Zakir Naik's views are correct. And why do you say I can't understand Sufis? We might as well say that both of us will not understand the other's religion and bring this debate to an end. But in that case you also have to stop talking about Hinduism because you cannot understand Hinduism, to use your logic.

=====================

Read Rules carefully before posting in

http://allahmuhammad.forums-free.com/the-rules-of-non-muslim-corner-t369.html

[And saying so, Rehan deletes many of my posts, but retains the following post by a Muslim:]

Although I am a Muslim I have my own Bhagawadgita, Ramayan, Bible and Torah and I have read them too honestly speaking I totally don't agree with them cause some of them tastes like "Lord of the Rings". Old Testament however looks a bit authentic but after the 5 chapters (the Law of Moses), it looks flat and watery.

[So we have yet another Islamic site where cowards sit defending their faith.]

=====================

Dear Rehan, You have suddenly pulled the rule-book on me. But in what way have I provoked you to do that? You yourself created a non-Muslims section and even here it appears you insist I accept the view you are comfortable with. Even the Quran has many interpretations, then what to say of Hindu scriptures, which actually encourage a variety of interpretations. Your approach is very disappointing.

======================

I like your answers. Verily has it been said that Muslims are a people of the book. Hinduism does not restrict spiritual understanding only to scriptures (You may have heard of the Guru tradition in Hinduism.)You might not have told me specifically to accept your views, but the thrust of your responses appeared just that. Now how can I prove this to you - you have deleted many of my posts. About differing interpretations of the Quran, you have only to take Sunni and Shia views on some subjects to see that it is a case of differing interpretations of the same holy book.

=======================

REHAN

Brother I Think this forum is Newly Launched even i did not impose Common rules on the other section. Sometime back i have done. And still i say have loads of work to do on this forum. I And on deleting ur posts even i deleted my posts, silkworms, & urs also bcz its was looking like chating. Now the rules have been introduced all have to follow the rules. About differing interpretations of the Quran, you have only to take Sunni and Shia views on some subjects to see that it is a case of differing interpretations of the same holy book.[/quote]Actually Shias are not Muslims. You must note that point. Show me the interpretations.Before posting any msg here i would like to tell u read the rues again as its been updated.And make a request in 'TRUST BOOK' its compulsory.

=====================

SILKWORM

Islam is monotheistic religion, which means there is no god but God ans you cannot associate anybody or anysoul with Allah.Shias hve a different view and they "do" associate Ali with Allah which is according to Islamic principles is a shirk, the biggest heinous crime you can commit.I totally agree with Brother Rehan in calling Shias what he called. On the other hand, Muslims are not narrrow minded and do not discriminate between humans but it is Allah's commandment to abolish Idolatory and Paganism and we are just following that - If the Christians, or Jews have changed their scriptures to hook more fish, it's their fault.Allah has commanded all three Abrahamic faiths to abolish Idolatory and Paganism.

[THIS BEING THEIR POSITION, WOULD IT BE ANY WORTH CONTINUING TO TRY HOLDING A DEBATE WITH THEM?]

Only son of God and all that trash

The Hindu way of seeking God by going within has been influencing Christianity for decades, which upholds that God is someone out there. This will culminate in Christian rejection of Jesus being the only son of God and all that trash. Nevertheless it is important that Hindus are alert to the nefarious activities of Church activists.

Where did Allah come from?

Originally Posted by ummsara1108
Allah just simply is!

I would concur with this answer. Moreover, if we seek to focus in the is-ness, the present, the here and now, we can experience unsurpassed bliss. It is man's experiment with the is-ness of living that has opened up avenues of mysticism that has led men to declare oneness with God/Allah. However, since this realization requires actual efforts at unconditioning our mind, the more comfortable path of ‘believing’ is taken by the masses. Masters come from age to age to prod the masses to go beyond mere believing. When the path of the mystics gains momentum, mankind will be heralded into a golden age yet again.

Indian drama of Mumbai attacks.

The purport of the posts seems to be that the Mumbai carnage was actually the handiwork of Hindus. I wonder who is setting of bombs in mosques across Pakistan. Hindus from India?

------

It was widely circulated news that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, as reported by the doctor who did his post-mortem after he was hanged, was not circumcised. He was hastily circumcised and photographs taken to save the honour of Pakistan. No Pakistani would want that he or she was ruled by a Kafir in disguise!

------------------------

I think partition is a tragedy both to India and Pakistan. Mohd. Ali Jinnah propounded the two-nation theory. A new movement is called for both in India and Pakistan propounding that India and Pakistan is one nation. If we unite, we can keep out the interference in the sub-continent not just of USA but also of China. As a united nation, nothing can stop us from becoming the next super-power. Will religion stand in the way?

Ram Sethu

The bridge being spoken of is the bridge believed to have been constructed thousands of years ago for Rama and his army to cross over from the southern tip of India to Sri Lanka to rescue Rama's wife from the Kingdom of Ravana who had kidnapped her. There is a big controversy in India today over the bridge because the Indian government wants to build a canal across the straits separating India and Sri Lanka to shorten the time required for ships to move from the western coast of India to her eastern coast, but which canal if built many fear would obliterate the remnants of the millenniums old bridge which constitutes the earliest remnants of a man-made object extant in the world today.

Originally Posted by anders
Yes. Not made, but evolving from natural geological processes seems to be the more credible explanation for it.

Could a bridge not have been made upon a natural geological process? That the bridge down the centuries has sunk into the ocean is a fact. But the widespread Hindu belief that there existed a bridge at the same location that has become controversial today is undisputed. And from this belief is born today's consternation among many Hindus that a canal through the Palk Straits would violate the sanctity of the once extant bridge. (Many are opposing the construction of a canal there also for other reasons like environmental, occupation of the fishermen, even destruction of a natural tsunami barrier.) However, what may settle the issue may not be evidence produced that a bridge actually existed, but widespread Hindu belief that it existed. Trampling over beliefs cannot but be a strict no no in so hoary a nation as India - though of late this appears to be happening more and more due to the politics of courting of various 'vote-banks'.

Rituals at Ka'aba

The Ka'aba may well have been a Hindu temple if you go by the rituals that go on there even today during Hajj - rituals done at no other mosque anywhere else in the world at any time but done at all Hindu temples everywhere in the world on all days.

1. The Ka'aba is the sanctum sanctorum within the mosque akin to the sanctum sanctorum within all Hindu temples.

2. The sanctum sanctorum contains a black stone akin to the idol in Hindu temples.

3. The Ka'aba is circumbulated by the Muslims just as the Hindus circumbulate the sanctum sanctorum of their temples - only the Hindus largely circumbulate clockwise whereas the Muslims circumbulate anti-clockwise.

4. There is the zam zam well beside the sanctum sanctorum in Mecca mosque just as there is a well beside the sanctum sanctorum in many Hindu temples.

5. Zam Zam water is distributed in Mecca and is taken home by the pilgrims just as Theertha (water from the well) is given or sprinkled on the pilgrim in Hindu temples.

6. Hindus pray to the idol of God by smashing coconuts whereas Muslims curse the idol of Satan by stoning it with pebbles. One a positive action and the other a negative action.

7. Muslims shave the head during Hajj while Hindus do so in some temples during their pilgrimage.

8. Sparse clothing is mandatory during Hajj. Sparse clothing is common during temple pilgrimages.

9. Muslims offer animal sacrifice during Hajj. In some temples Hindus did the same (this practice is now frowned upon and only in rare temples does it occur).

10. Muslims enter into a period of special discipline before Hajj. The Hindus too have a period of special discipline before pilgrimage to some well-known temples.

In short, going on pilgrimage to the Mecca mosque causes the pilgrim to undergo rituals that rings of rituals that are common in Hinduism. A legacy of Hinduism in Mecca?