PDA

View Full Version : CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM



Skillganon
25 August 2006, 10:24 AM
CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM

The Most Concise Definition of God:
The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:


"Say: He is Allah,

The One and Only.



"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.

"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]




The word ‘Assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means ‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (swt), all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah (swt) is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependant on Him.




Surah Ikhlas - the touchstone of theology:


Surah Ikhlas (Chapter 112) of the Glorious Qur’an, is the touchstone of theology. ‘Theo’ in Greek means God and ‘logy’ means study. Thus Theology means study of God and to Muslims this four line definition of Almighty God serves as the touchstone of the study of God. Any candidate to divinity must be subjected to this ‘acid test’. Since the attributes of Allah given in this chapter are unique, false gods and pretenders to divinity can be easily dismissed using these verses.


Thus, the ‘acid test’ cannot be passed by anyone except the One True God.
The following verse of the Glorious Qur’an conveys a similar message:


"No vision can grasp Him




But His grasp is over

All vision: He is
Above all comprehension,
Yet is acquainted with all things."
[Al-Qur’an 6:103]




By what name do we call God?


The Muslims prefer calling the Supreme Creator, Allah, instead of by the English word ‘God’. The Arabic word, ‘Allah’, is pure and unique, unlike the English word ‘God’, which can be played around with.


If you add ‘s’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Gods’, that is the plural of God. Allah is one and singular, there is no plural of Allah. If you add ‘dess’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Goddess’ that is a female God. There is nothing like male Allah or female Allah. Allah has no gender. If you add the word ‘father’ to ‘God’ it becomes ‘God-father’. God-father means someone who is a guardian. There is no word like ‘Allah-Abba’ or ‘Allah-father’. If you add the word ‘mother’ to ‘God’, it becomes ‘God-mother’. There is nothing like ‘Allah-Ammi’, or ‘Allah-mother’ in Islam. Allah is a unique word. If you prefix tin before the word God, it becomes tin-God i.e., fake God. Allah is a unique word, which does not conjure up any mental picture nor can it be played around with. Therefore the Muslims prefer using the Arabic word ‘Allah’ for the Almighty. Sometimes, however, while speaking to the non-Muslims we may have to use the inappropriate word God, for Allah. Since the intended audience of this article is general in nature, consisting of both Muslims as well as non-Muslims, I have used the word God instead of Allah in several places in this article.


God does not become a human being:
God does not take human form:


Some may argue that God does not become a human being but only takes a human form. If God only takes a human form but does not become a human being, He should not possess any human qualities. We know that all the ‘God-men’, have human qualities and failings. They have all the human needs such as the need to eat, sleep, etc.


The worship of God in human form is therefore a logical fallacy and should be abhorred in all its forms and manifestations.
That is the reason why the Qur’an speaks against all forms of anthropomorphism. The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:


"There is nothing whatever like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 42:11]



God does not perform ungodly acts:


The attributes of Almighty God preclude any evil since God is the source of justice, mercy and truth. God can never be thought of as doing an ungodly act. Hence we cannot imagine God telling a lie, being unjust, making a mistake, forgetting things, or having any such human failings. Similarly God can do injustice if He chooses to, but He will never do it because being unjust is an ungodly act.


The Qur’an says:
"Allah is never unjust In the least degree."
[Al-Qur’an 4:40]




God can be unjust if He chooses to be so, but the moment God does injustice, He ceases to be God.


God does not forget



God can forget if He wants to. But God does not forget anything because forgetting is an ungodly act, which reeks of human limitations and failings.


The Qur’an says:


"…my Lord never errs, nor forgets."
[Al-Qur’an 20:52]


God only performs Godly acts:


The Islamic concept of God is that God has power over all things. The Qur’an says in several places (Al -Qur’an 2:106; 2:109; 2:284; 3:29; 16:77; and 35:1):


"For verily Allah has power over all things"


Further, the Glorious Qur’an says:


"Allah is the doer of all that He intends."



[CENTER][Al-Qur’an 85:16]


We must keep in mind that Allah intends only Godly acts and not ungodly acts.


I think that is good enough for now.

Thanks


Skill.

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 10:45 AM
The One and Only
- Correct

Allah, the Eternal, Absolute
- Correct

He begets not, nor is He begotten
-He begets the universe, no?

And there is none like unto Him.
-Might say there is none like unto "IT".

No vision can grasp Him
- Correct

But His grasp is over All vision
-- Allright

Above all comprehension
--Correct

Yet is acquainted with all things
--OK

God does not become a human being.
-- True, but nothing prevents God from becoming anything. He can be a human being - why not?

God does not take human form:
--Disagree, God can take any form as he is omnipotent. Being formless is his essential nature though. Even when he takes a human form, he is eternally situated in the universal consciousness. He can take such a form because there is no one to object or create an obstacle to his wishes.

God does not perform ungodly acts:
-- What is meant by "ungodly"? Evil and good are purely relative, and in a system where God is immanent, evil is even more relative.

God does not forget
--The law of Karma, eh? Yeah, your deeds are never forgotten.

Skillganon
25 August 2006, 11:17 AM
God does not become a human being.
-- True, but nothing prevents God from becoming anything. He can be a human being - why not?

Why does he need too?



God does not take human form:
--Disagree, God can take any form as he is omnipotent. Being formless is his essential nature though. Even when he takes a human form, he is eternally situated in the universal consciousness. He can take such a form because there is no one to object or create an obstacle to his wishes.

Again why does he need too?

Second, God does not take a form or come down to earth because he does not need to. And Secondly it invalidates the these

Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]

I give you an example.
""What does Islam say about ‘god-men’?
India is often called the land of ‘god-men’. This is due to the abundance of so-called spiritual masters in India. Many of these ‘babas’ and ‘saints’ have a large following in many countries. Islam abhors deification of any human being. To understand the Islamic stand towards such pretenders to divinity, let us analyze one such ‘god-man’, Osho Rajneesh.


Peace.

Skill

large portions of this post were deleted by me for breaking site rules...the 'god-men' may not mean anything to others but they mean something to dharma adherents.
satay

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 12:09 PM
Namaste.


Why does he need too?


But why shouldn't he? He had interest in creation, and it is natural to assume that he would want to mingle with it. We dont beleive in some God somewhere in the sky and watching us here.




Again why does he need too?

Second, God does not take a form or come down to earth because he does not need to. And Secondly it invalidates the these

Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]



Firstly, God does take human forms to establish righteousness in the world. Secondlly, he had not need to create either. If he created, then there is no reason why he should not come here. Thirdly, the quoted Sura is invalidated by our scripture Bhagavad Gita where in God promises to take birth here whenever there is decline of rightheousness. Why would a Hindu beleive otherwise?




""What does Islam say about ‘god-men’?
India is often called the land of ‘god-men’. This is due to the abundance of so-called spiritual masters in India. Many of these ‘babas’ and ‘saints’ have a large following in many countries. Islam abhors deification of any human being. To understand the Islamic stand towards such pretenders to divinity, let us analyze one such ‘god-man’, Osho Rajneesh.


Means nothing to Dharma followers. Rajneesh would be an exceptionally poor choice.



Let us put this candidate, ‘Bhagwan’ Rajneesh, to the test of Surah Ikhlas, the touchstone of theology:

The first criterion is "Say, He is Allah, one and only". Is Rajneesh one and only? No! Rajneesh was one among the multitude of ‘spiritual teachers’ produced by India. Some disciples of Rajneesh might still hold that Rajneesh is one and only.


All self realised sages have the same consciousness, so they are indeed only one.



The second criterion is, ‘Allah is absolute and eternal’. We know from Rajneesh’s biography that he was suffering from diabetes, asthma, and chronic backache. He alleged that the U.S. Government gave him slow poison in prison. Imagine Almighty God being poisoned! Rajneesh was thus, neither absolute nor eternal.


Rajneeh, as indicated earlier is not a contender. When God incarnates here, nobody can touch him without his will. There have been many people here in India like that. Want proof? First prove that this absolute eternal Allah exists first, then I will show proof.




The third criterion is ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten’. We know that Rajneesh was born in Jabalpur in India and had a mother as well as a father who later became his disciples.
In May 1981 he went to U.S.A. and established a town called ‘Rajneeshpuram’. He later fell foul of the West and was finally arrested and asked to leave the country. He came back to India and started a commune in Pune which is now known as the ‘Osho’ commune. He died in 1990. The followers of Osho Rajneesh believe that he is Almighty God.


That Sura means nothing to Dharma followers. God is not begotten, but if he decides to take birth, he could be born with parents, or born without them. He is omnipotent.




At the ‘Osho commune’ in Pune one can find the following epitaph on his tombstone:
"Osho – never born, never died; only visited the planet Earth between 11th December 1931 to 19th January 1990."
They forget to mention that he was not granted visa for 21 countries of the world. Can a person ever imagine ‘God’ visiting the earth, and requiring a visa to enter a country! The Archbishop of Greece said that if Rajneesh had not been deported, they would have burnt his house and those of his disciples.


God would need no visas, as he is omnipresent. There is no reason why he will violate all the laws in the world. So he could still go to the consulate and get the visas if he wants.



The fourth test, which is the most stringent is, "There is none like unto Him". The moment you can imagine or compare ‘God’ to anything, then he (the candidate to divinity) is not God. It is not possible to conjure up a mental picture of the One True God. We know that Rajneesh was a human being, having two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth and a white flowing beard. Photographs and posters of Rajneesh are available in plenty. The moment you can imagine or draw a mental picture of an entity, then that entity is not God.


Are you thinking that God(in incarnation) or a God realized sage is the physical body? So the logic does not hold water. One situated in God consciousness is no longer the physical body he is associated with.

satay
25 August 2006, 02:11 PM
Admin Note
namaste,
new members on this thread are requested to familiarize themselves with the site rules.

You are not allowed to promote 'other' religions especially the religions that we consider adharmic this includes christianity and islam.

This is nothing personal and we ask that you don't take this personally. The site rules apply to all members equally.

Insulting, belittling other members or 'god-men' of india or elsewhere is not allowed and neither is 'my dad can beat up your dad' kind of attitude.

Thanks,

satay
25 August 2006, 06:15 PM
The Archbishop of Greece said that if Rajneesh had not been deported, they would have burnt his house and those of his disciples.


and the Archbishop is supposed to be a holy-man?
perhaps the archbishop of greece who wanted to murder rajneesh and his followers was a holeee man instead...:cool1:

sarabhanga
25 August 2006, 06:36 PM
Namaste Satay,

There seems to be some confusion about the idea of “promotion”. Surely there can be no objection to the positive presentation of ANY spiritual path.

There is no reason, however, for the promotion of one path to necessarily involve the denigration of any other path!

And Dharma is a very personal matter. What is Dharma for one may be Adharma for another. Brahmacari Dharma is quite distinct from Grihasti Dharma, and Vaishnava Dharma is different from Shaiva Dharma, for example.

In one breath we say that Jesus Christ was a veritable Vedantic Yogin, and yet “we” consider that Christianity is by definition “Adharmic”. :confused:

satay
25 August 2006, 07:02 PM
Namaste Satay,



In one breath we say that Jesus Christ was a veritable Vedantic Yogin, and yet “we” consider that Christianity is by definition “Adharmic”. :confused:

namaste,
I see your point. However, in my humble opinion, 'christianity' is not Jesus Christ!

sarabhanga
25 August 2006, 09:24 PM
Namaste Satay,

Christianity is not Christ, but it is supposed to be the path that Jesus himself followed. If some misguided followers have departed from the true path of their Guru, that does not have any bearing on the path of Christ himself, which is true Christianity.

If some Hindus have similarly strayed from the true paths that have been well marked by our Rishis and Munis, would we also say that Hinduism is Adharmic?

Skillganon
25 August 2006, 09:55 PM
Hinduism.


But why shouldn't he? He had interest in creation, and it is natural to assume that he would want to mingle with it. We dont beleive in some God somewhere in the sky and watching us here.



Firstly, God does take human forms to establish righteousness in the world. Secondlly, he had not need to create either. If he created, then there is no reason why he should not come here. Thirdly, the quoted Sura is invalidated by our scripture Bhagavad Gita where in God promises to take birth here whenever there is decline of rightheousness. Why would a Hindu beleive otherwise?
“The almighty God does not have to take a form and come down. Many religion at some point believe in the philosophy of anthromorphism. (God becoming a Human).
The contention is that almighty God is so pure and holy that he is unaware of the hardships, shortcoming, feeling of the human beings. In order to set rules for human being he needs to come down to earth as a human.
Why does he need to come down, if God wanted he can make you come up?
“To him it is the return.”
Next importantly, FIrst there is one God, Next God is not begotten.

Remember God is unborn. It is mentioned in the Yajurved.
Meaning he is not born.
Soon as one say he is born in any sense. One is going again one’s scriptures.



Means nothing to Dharma followers. Rajneesh would be an exceptionally poor choice.
This is a fallacy. People think they have a choice who God is. So they choose their God according to their whim and desire , meaning they attribute to God of their own choosing. One can’t choose a man to be God, even if they claim themselves of it.


All self realised sages have the same consciousness, so they are indeed only one.
I doubt it.
How so? If they have the same conciouseness than they should be all-knowing. This is clearly not so, when it comes to any creation claiming themselves as God.


When God incarnates here, nobody can touch him without his will. There have been many people here in India like that. Want proof? First prove that this absolute eternal Allah exists first, then I will show proof.
Are you saying the creator of the universe is not absolute and eternal?
What does hindu scripture say?
Since you already accept “the creator” I do not need to make you believe Allah exist.


That Sura means nothing to Dharma followers. God is not begotten, but if he decides to take birth, he could be born with parents, or born without them. He is omnipotent.
but remember God is unborn, neither he has parents.
Check one’s own scriptures.


God would need no visas, as he is omnipresent. There is no reason why he will violate all the laws in the world. So he could still go to the consulate and get the visas if he wants.
but he is God, he does not need to. He can get a Visa without violating the Law, there is nothing beyond his reach because he’s god. He wanted to go to that country but was refused. He has no power.


Are you thinking that God(in incarnation) or a God realized sage is the physical body? So the logic does not hold water. One situated in God consciousness is no longer the physical body he is associated with.
but he is subject to the need of that physical body, where ever his conciouseness one think is.
Secondly there is “non-like unto him”, if one that makes a claim they have or in someway has God conciouseness than they are not God.

Peace

Skill.

TruthSeeker
26 August 2006, 02:54 AM
Namaste SkillGanon,


Hinduism.


“The almighty God does not have to take a form and come down. Many religion at some point believe in the philosophy of anthromorphism. (God becoming a Human).
The contention is that almighty God is so pure and holy that he is unaware of the hardships, shortcoming, feeling of the human beings. In order to set rules for human being he needs to come down to earth as a human.
Why does he need to come down, if God wanted he can make you come up?
“To him it is the return.”
Next importantly, FIrst there is one God, Next God is not begotten.

Remember God is unborn. It is mentioned in the Yajurved.
Meaning he is not born.
Soon as one say he is born in any sense. One is going again one’s scriptures.


I dont think we have a common platform to discuss this issue. Is there a logical way to prove that God can or cannot incarnate on earth? Hindu Dharma says that every man is an incarnation of various degrees, so why there cannot be a full incarnation? Obviously we differ here, and I respect your own views and freedom to beleive otherwise. God would come on earth, only if you want to. Else you can go and see him in heaven.






This is a fallacy. People think they have a choice who God is. So they choose their God according to their whim and desire , meaning they attribute to God of their own choosing. One can’t choose a man to be God, even if they claim themselves of it.


Have you seen Allah? Has anyone on earth ever have? Then why beleive in the existance of this God? No use in making statements like no one has seen because Allah is incomprehnsible. There is no use with such a concept. There has to be a comprehensible form of God to do anything with it, else it is not any different from voidism. When you think of God, something comes to your mind, no? Or do you just think of blankness? So there has to be some object or model everyone assigns to God to be of any meaning. Hindus usually imagine their beloved dieites when you mention the name God. That is not the true form of God, but that is what is possible until the time you know what or who God is.

Our scriptures say that God exists everywhere, and hence his existance should be verifiable right here on earth.( no need of going to heaven) Until you know God, I dont see any problems in assuming God to be of specific characteristics that you like. This is the standard dogma that has caused all religeous strife in the world - by claiming only one model of God is valid.









I doubt it.
How so? If they have the same conciouseness than they should be all-knowing. This is clearly not so, when it comes to any creation claiming themselves as God.


Are you saying the creator of the universe is not absolute and eternal?
What does hindu scripture say?
Since you already accept “the creator” I do not need to make you believe Allah exist.


but remember God is unborn, neither he has parents.
Check one’s own scriptures.


God is both absolute and eternal, and is also immanent in creation. What did God create everthing from - NOTHING? That is shunyavada only. Regarding our scriputues, the absolute Allah was certainly born as Sri Krishna, so no need to check further.






Secondly there is “non-like unto him”, if one that makes a claim they have or in someway has God conciouseness than they are not God.


Really? So all your religion talks of God is, without verifying anything, eh? Here our sages have verified the existance of God and always immersed in that consciousness -- you can also do too - no superstitions.

Znanna
26 August 2006, 06:52 AM
It is my understanding that ALLAH requires submission.

Everything else is just a prescription for getting *that*.



Namaste,
ZN

saidevo
26 August 2006, 08:12 AM
Namaste Skill,

I liked your explanation of the term Allah for the One God that most religions talk of. The equivalent of Allah in Hinduism is Brahman with identical connotations.

Hindu Upanishads describe Brahman as:



Brahman is the indescribable, inexhaustible, omniscient, omnipresent, original, first, eternal and absolute principle who is without a beginning, without an end, who is hidden in all and who is the cause, source, material and effect of all creation known, unknown and yet to happen in the entire universe.

He is the incomprehensible, unapproachable radiant being whom the ordinary senses and ordinary intellect cannot fathom, grasp or able to describe even with partial success. He is the mysterious Being totally out of the reach of all sensory activity, rationale effort and mere intellectual, decorative and pompous endeavor.

Source: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/brahman.asp


Now, let us discuss the aspects you have given from Qur'an, of this One God:



"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute."


In the same way that Brahman is Eternal, Absolute. So, only the name differs, not the concept, and the point is, there is no such thing as one name is superior to the other for the One God. After all, who is giving such names? We, the mortal humans, with our own idiosyncracies. Allah is not sore because he can also be called Brahman, and vice versa, so why should we be?



"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]


'nor is He begotten' is true in the absolute sense, as Vedanta says. If 'He begets not', what about the universe? How did it originate, who created it? If God did not create the universe, it would mean that He has limitations.



But His grasp is over
All vision: He is
Above all comprehension,
Yet is acquainted with all things."
[Al-Qur’an 6:103]


His acquaintence with all things points to the aspect of omniscience. Sure, He is above all comprehension, and much more.



"There is nothing whatever like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 42:11]


Yes, Ekam evadvitiyam brahma - Brahman is one, without a second.



The Qur’an says:
"Allah is never unjust In the least degree."
[Al-Qur’an 4:40]

"…my Lord never errs, nor forgets."
[Al-Qur’an 20:52]


These may be interpreted as pointing to the Law of Karma, similar to the words of Jesus who said, "As you sow so you will reap." Since I think Islam has the concepts of eternal heaven or eternal hell, (with no reincarnation for the souls), these words are meant to prompt humans to do only good or else be damned.

However, in reality, good and bad are both inherent in humans, so none deserves an eternal heaven or an eternal hell. What happens to these ordinary humans after death?



The Islamic concept of God is that God has power over all things. The Qur’an says in several places (Al -Qur’an 2:106; 2:109; 2:284; 3:29; 16:77; and 35:1): "For verily Allah has power over all things"

Further, the Glorious Qur’an says:
"Allah is the doer of all that He intends."


God is almighty, and no one can question His actions. This again is a warning to humans to avoid doing evil things.

Concepts and interpretations of God is a product of the Culture and Civilization in which they are formed. The depth and universality of such concepts and inquiries into the One Absolute Truth is intertwined with the freedom of individual inquiry and realization, and the willingness to admit multiplicity of paths to the same source. No other religion except Sanatana Dharma has this freedom, which accounts for the profoundness, loftiness and universality of its philosophy.

At least most religions agree that the Truth is One. And dharmic religions have the maturity to admit that the paths are many.

ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti -- Rg Veda I.164.46
Truth is One, the Wise call It by many names.

Skillganon
26 August 2006, 05:04 PM
Namaste SkillGanon,
Wassalam TruthSeeker.



I dont think we have a common platform to discuss this issue.
I respect that it comes to that point among many people.



Is there a logical way to prove that God can or cannot incarnate on earth? Hindu Dharma says that every man is an incarnation of various degrees, so why there cannot be a full incarnation?


Here again, God is not a human being. One cannot attribute of God that is attributed to Human or anthing of his creation.
Why can't God incarnate, is because he does not need to. To him is the return.

Anyway “There is no likeness of him”. (“Na tasya pratima asti” [upinishad Chapter. 4]

Soon as you say he God incarnate to “this form” than “this incarnation” is not God.

For the simple reason God is one without a second, and the simple reason I stated earlier.



Obviously we differ here, and I respect your own views and freedom to beleive otherwise. God would come on earth, only if you want to. Else you can go and see him in heaven.

God does not need to come to earth, one comes to him, because to him is the return.




Have you seen Allah? Has anyone on earth ever have? Then why beleive in the existance of this God? No use in making statements like no one has seen because Allah is incomprehnsible. There is no use with such a concept. There has to be a comprehensible form of God to do anything with it, else it is not any different from voidism. When you think of God, something comes to your mind, no? Or do you just think of blankness? So there has to be some object or model everyone assigns to God to be of any meaning. Hindus usually imagine their beloved dieites when you mention the name God.



God is not in his creation, and he has no likeness. Once people realise that, the rest of the thing is materialistic.

“nainam urdhvam na tiryancam na madhye na parijagrabhat na tasya pratima asti yasya nama mahad yasah”

people imagining their God as deity, while there is no likeness of God is a problem, but not mine.
Who and What God is, is still mentioned in ones scriptures, I am sure.


That is not the true form of God,
but that is what is possible until the time you know what or who God is.

And one will realise this



Say: "Say: He is Allah,


The One and Only

"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.

"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]










Our scriptures say that God exists everywhere, and hence his existance should be verifiable right here on earth.( no need of going to heaven)
Until you know God, I dont see any problems in assuming God to be of specific characteristics that you like. This is the standard dogma that has caused all religeous strife in the world - by claiming only one model of God is valid.

And there is no likeness of him. He is not his creation. So one can’t.

God’s sight is everywhere.
“No vision can grasp him. But his grasp is over all vision: he is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things”.




God is both absolute and eternal, and is also immanent in creation. What did God create everthing from - NOTHING? That is shunyavada only.


'nor is He begotten' is true in the absolute sense, as Vedanta says. If 'He begets not', what about the universe? How did it originate, who created it? If God did not create the universe, it would mean that He has limitations.

Creator of the heavens and the earth from nothingness, He has only to say when He wills a thing: “Be,” and it is] (Al-Baqarah 2:117) and, [That is how God creates what He wills, when He decrees a thing, He says “Be,” and it is] (Aal `Imran 3:47).


Regarding our scriputues, the absolute Allah was certainly born as Sri Krishna, so no need to check further.

There is one God.
God is not born.

Yajurveda, Chapter 32, Verse 3, which says,
“Na tasya pratima asti”

Does he qualify?
I don’t think so. So he is not God. Unless if it nothing but a name just a name.

[One God is known by many name]



Really? So all your religion talks of God is, without verifying anything, eh? Here our sages have verified the existance of God and always immersed in that consciousness -- you can also do too - no superstitions.
What sages? I am not clear on what you mean.

Peace

SKill.

Skillganon
26 August 2006, 05:33 PM
Namaste Skill,

I liked your explanation of the term Allah for the One God that most religions talk of. The equivalent of Allah in Hinduism is Brahman with identical connotations.
Hindu Upanishads describe Brahman as:


Wassalam.
Thanks, and thanks for the link.



In the same way that Brahman is Eternal, Absolute. So, only the name differs, not the concept, and the point is, there is no such thing as one name is superior to the other for the One God. After all, who is giving such names? We, the mortal humans, with our own idiosyncracies. Allah is not sore because he can also be called Brahman, and vice versa, so why should we be?
I see no problem.


Say: "Call upon God, or call upon The All-Compassionate: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Neither speak thy Prayer aloud, nor speak it in a low tone, but seek a middle course between". (Quran 17:110)

What does brahman mean?



Yes, Ekam evadvitiyam brahma - Brahman is one, without a second.
Similar to what is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112, Verse 1, “Say he is Allah one and only"

I think one missed.

and "There is nothing whatever like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 42:11]

“Na tasya pratima asti” “There is no likeness of him”.[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]



However, in reality, good and bad are both inherent in humans, so none deserves an eternal heaven or an eternal hell. What happens to these ordinary humans after death?
We can discuss this in another thread later.



God is almighty, and no one can question His actions. This again is a warning to humans to avoid doing evil things.
I agree.



Concepts and interpretations of God is a product of the Culture and Civilization in which they are formed. The depth and universality of such concepts and inquiries into the One Absolute Truth is intertwined with the freedom of individual inquiry and realization, and the willingness to admit multiplicity of paths to the same source.
Not really but we can discuss this many path to God in another thread.


ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti -- Rg Veda I.164.46
Truth is One, the Wise call It by many names.
I agree.

Peace.

Skill.

Skillganon
26 August 2006, 09:31 PM
Salam All.

First Allah has no gender, and next the name "Allah" cannot be played with.

"The Muslims prefer calling the Supreme Creator, Allah, instead of by the English word God. The Arabic word, Allah, is pure and unique, unlike the English word God, which can be played around with.

If you add s to the word God, it becomes Gods, that is the plural of God. Allah is one and singular, there is no plural of Allah. If you add 'dess' to the word God, it becomes Goddess that is a female God. There is nothing like male Allah or female Allah. Allah has no gender. If you add the word father to God it becomes God-father. God-father means someone who is a guardian. There is no word like Allah-Abba or Allah-father. If you add the word mother to God, it becomes God-mother. There is nothing like Allah-Ammi, or Allah-mother in Islam. Allah is a unique word. If you prefix tin before the word God, it becomes tin-God i.e., fake God. Allah is a unique word, which does not conjure up any mental picture nor can it be played around with. Therefore the Muslims prefer using the Arabic word Allah for the Almighty. "[1]

Peace.

[1]Islamic Research Foundation.

TruthSeeker
27 August 2006, 01:15 AM
people imagining their God as deity, while there is no likeness of God is a problem, but not mine.
Who and What God is, is still mentioned in ones scriptures, I am sure.


You still did not get my point. When you are praying five times a day, what is it that you hold in your mind? It is said that one should generate the feeling of love when one thinks of God, so it requires such a "loving" object to be held in the mind field?

I am guessing muslims think of 'nothing' while praying in fear of getting punished by their diety?;)

This holding of "nothing" in the mind referred to as nirvitarka and nirvicara are quite advanced topics, but I see little relevance of it with the Islamic means of worship. It looks as if bits and pieces of Hindu Dharma ( like Nirguna Brahman and worshipping "void") were blended with bits and pieces of Judaism and Christianity.





And there is no likeness of him. He is not his creation. So one can’t.

God’s sight is everywhere.
“No vision can grasp him. But his grasp is over all vision: he is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things”.


I believe your scriptures mention that God created man out of clay? How was clay created then? What is the fundamental building block of the universe and creation, if God alone existed in the beginning, as one without the second. To be more precise, atoms are the fundamental building blocks of the visible universe. The atoms consists of sub atomic particles, and so on. What is the ultimate basis of the universe(note that this includes heaven too) ? If God is not present in creation, then what was it created from?


Not answered rest of yours, as they are mere repetitions, and we have no logical grounds to examine them.

sarabhanga
27 August 2006, 10:32 PM
The androgynous ardhanArIshvara has no particular gender ~ being shiva (masc.) and shakti (fem.) in perfect yoga.

iDA or iLA is only umA (i.e. shakti), and iDa or iLa is only agni or soma (i.e. shiva).

iDA (fem.) + iDa (masc.) = iDeDa (neut.) => iDDa.

The singular nominative of iDDa is iDDaH and the plural vocative is iDDAH.

Or, in Sanskrit:
इडा + इड = इडेड => इड्ड => इड्डः
iḍā + iḍa = iḍeḍa => iḍḍa => iḍḍaḥ

and
इळा + इळ = इळेळ => इळ => इळः
iḻā + iḻa = iḻeḻa => iḻa => iḻaḥ

and
इला + इल = इलेल => इल्ल => इल्लः
ilā + ila = ilela => illa => illaḥ

and
इल्लः <=> अल्लः
illaḥ <=> allaḥ

:cool1:

sarabhanga
28 August 2006, 12:42 AM
The original devotees of Ilā and Ila (i.e. Illāḥ ~ and later, Allāḥ) were the Ailās or Aiḍās. And the Ailās are descended from Purūravas, the son of Budha and Iḻā, and the father of Āyus.

Purūravas means “loudly or much crying”, and he instituted the three sacrificial fires. He dwells in the heart of the universe, and He is known as the Vishvadeva.

Although the demon Pururāvan also invokes “much howling”, and his zealous followers are always ailabakāra (“making a noise or roaring” ~ which is said of Rudra’s dogs).

:rolleyes:

TruthSeeker
28 August 2006, 04:21 AM
इल्लः <=> अल्लः
illaḥ <=> allaḥ

:cool1:

LA ILAHA ILLALLAH
:rolleyes:

sarabhanga
28 August 2006, 04:39 AM
LA ILAHA ILLALLAH

I rest my case :coffee:

sarabhanga
30 August 2006, 04:47 AM
iDa indicates “fire” or agni in the yajus.

iLA indicates “vital spirit” or atman in the Rk.

And iDA or ilA indicates “immortal draught” or “sacred word” (i.e. gaÑgA or sarasvatI) throughout the veda.

In most later texts, ilA simply indicates either “the heavens” or “the earth”.

iDA or iLA is the daughter of manu (i.e. “man thinking on and worshipping the Gods”), and the consort of budha (i.e. “wisdom”) and the mother of purUravas (i.e. the progenitor of Ayu, and all of the sons of yayAti ~ including yadu and druhyu and turvasu and pUru and anu, along with bharata and kuru and dhRtarAshTra and pANDu).

The expression of iLA-iLa-iLA-iLa-iLA is a very ancient formula for salvation.

This ancient five-fold Sanskrit mulamantra has simply evolved into the most fundamental salvational mantra of Islam, which all Muslims are expected to have on their lips at the moment of extremity, and which is thought to guarantee immortality in Heaven.

Allah is identical with iLA; and la ilah illallah is only iLA-iLa-iLA-iLa-iLA, which appears as iLeLeLeLeLA after sandhi.

इळेळेळेळेळाः ~ i.e. iḻeḻeḻeḻeḻāḥ ~ is the original form of the mantra ~ in pure Rgvedic Sanskrit!

sm78
30 August 2006, 05:07 AM
What is the relationship between Rg vedic sanskrit and Arabic?

sarabhanga
30 August 2006, 06:04 AM
Namaste,

There are five principle ideas that I have been striving to present to the world; and, if Sarabhanga Giri has any personal agenda or manifesto, it is clearly stated in this five-pointed elixir for mortal suffering ~ Prescription for World Peace (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=4363&postcount=1).

The apparently impossible task of saving humanity from itself is the only reason that I am still active on the internet. :rolleyes:

sm78
30 August 2006, 06:54 AM
I was just wondering why a muslim will listen to your analysis.

If this prescription is only for the Hindu mind, then it is of little, if not negative utility.IMHO.

sarabhanga
30 August 2006, 07:22 AM
What is the relationship between Rg vedic sanskrit and Arabic?

Please see 60.

sarabhanga
30 August 2006, 07:30 AM
I was just wondering why a muslim will listen to your analysis.

If this prescription is only for the Hindu mind, then it is of little, if not negative utility.IMHO.
I wonder why anyone would NOT listen to my analysis.

And the prescription is intended for ALL humanity!

TruthSeeker
30 August 2006, 07:31 AM
I was just wondering why a muslim will listen to your analysis.

If this prescription is only for the Hindu mind, then it is of little, if not negative utility.IMHO.

Namaste,

I think you are entirely missing the point in showing intolerance towards other faiths. I admit that Islam is quite intolerant, but that does not rule out its path for its followers. It is easy to swallow some jun.k on the internet and start bashing others - the other way round, that is, the way of understanding others is harder, and Islam is a prime example. Sanatana Dharma adherents cannot behave like "adharmic" traditions but are in a position to understand others better, and better yet, even to preach others the true teaching embedded in their philosophy.(does not mind if it is taken seriously)

Islam is founded on Mahabaratha, on the process of iDa nADi method as shown by Sarabhanga, which is technically an element of Karma Yoga. Mahabartha prescribes other ways as in the lineage of Yadu, the Astika Parva and so on. The iDa nADi method is a popular technique amongst Yogis whenever the control on the suShumna is lost. iLa and iDa are synonymous terms.

The means they have adopted is their five prayers a day with the repeated chanting of specific mantras, that is aimed at the purification of the nADis which is the ultimate goal to be achiieved irrespective of the spiritual practice.They also perform the Nimaz, which is actually the standard Hatha Yoga posture similar to Vajrasan, which is a good mudra capable of awakening the Kundalini. And Islam's main goal is submission to God, which is also an important requirement of Karma Yoga. ( apprently some muslims demand submission of others to themselves in addition to Allah, but that is a different topic)

It is too easy to be fooled by the actions of some Islamic followers and dubb the entire religion as a fake, but are you really impartially judging a religion or from hate sites like faith freedom? You must get to the core of the teachings of every religion, and you will find that they fall either in Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga or Jnana Yoga, or Saranagati Yoga - there are no religions outside these Yogas however unorthodox they may appear to be. As I mentioned earlier, it is not necessary for a relgion to teach the circuitry and the inner details of how certain spiritual practices work, and occasionally this can lead to followers getting dogmatic and superstitious.

Are you too afraid that Dharma can be threatened by "Adharmic" forces? Truth can never die, and is verifiable for everybody else. All religions may come and go, but when somebody realizes the truth, it will be the truth alone. The heaven and hell talk, reward and punishment must be understood as catalysts for the followers and not literally.

sm78
30 August 2006, 08:04 AM
Namaste,

I think you are entirely missing the point in showing intolerance towards other faiths.

My intolerance is ONLY against Islam and some branches of orthodox christianity.

I don't understand this clean sweep of other.


I admit that Islam is quite intolerant, but that does not rule out its path for its followers.

No one would bother if it is path for it's followers. You are missing the point here.


It is easy to swallow some jun.k on the internet and start bashing others

I have lived my life in India. No need to swallow from the internet. Please pay a visit to any of the bordering districts and stay for sometime.

Btw, the city you (and I) live in is getting flooded with bangladeshi illegal immigrants...in a few decades we may start seeing the problems.



Islam is founded on Mahabaratha, on the process of iDa nADi method as shown by Sarabhanga, which is technically an element of Karma Yoga. Mahabartha prescribes other ways as in the lineage of Yadu, the Astika Parva and so on. The iDa nADi method is a popular technique amongst Yogis whenever the control on the suShumna is lost. iLa and iDa are synonymous terms.

The means they have adopted is their five prayers a day with the repeated chanting of specific mantras, that is aimed at the purification of the nADis which is the ultimate goal to be achiieved irrespective of the spiritual practice.They also perform the Nimaz, which is actually the standard Hatha Yoga posture similar to Vajrasan, which is a good mudra capable of awakening the Kundalini. And Islam's main goal is submission to God, which is also an important requirement of Karma Yoga. ( apprently some muslims demand submission of others to themselves in addition to Allah, but that is a different topic)

Can you please try putting these arguments to likes of Zakir Naik. I have heard he regularly entertains guests from other religions and proves Islam is the root of other religions.

As a Hindu, why at all I should be bothered with "underlying" meaning of Islam and start analysing their words with Sanskrit??? I'm quite happy in my faith and believe it can provide for all answers I seek. What is the need???

The only need to look at Islam arises because they frequently spill over their faith onto others to the level of physical manslaughter. To understand this behaviour it only makes any common human sense to look at Islam as it is practiced and tought by mullahs and muhammad.

I'm pretty sure analysing the sanskrit roots we can make out profound meanings out of a hindi comic book.

Their Namaj may have its actual roots (prior to Muhammad) in 5 vedic + tantrik sandhya upasanas we do. So What??? Does namaz now look anything like a Upasana??? Standing up and sitting down again standing up again bending. It's is sheer gymnastics where mind cannot be made stable at any rate. Since when asanas and shouting become yoga???


Are you too afraid that Dharma can be threatened by "Adharmic" forces? Truth can never die, and is verifiable for everybody else. All religions may come and go, but when somebody realizes the truth, it will be the truth alone. The heaven and hell talk, reward and punishment must be understood as catalysts for the followers and not literally.
Adharmic forces can threaten mankind. I'm quite cool with Maha Pralay if the world is taken over by this twisted religion, it makes no difference.

My only concern is trying to educate some hindu minds about their duty, so that the ill fate of being born in a mleccha religion doesn't destroy their future evolution. Yes this is the only fear I have for hindu's(myself included). Nature plays very fair. If I think Islam has spirituality and start proclaiming it to others, I may be tasting that in my next life.jeers.

sarabhanga
30 August 2006, 08:58 AM
My intolerance is ONLY against Islam.

Since this thread is particularly concerned with the CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM, can you please keep your posts on topic and your general intolerance of Muslims under control.

There are many other forums for posting about "why I hate Muslims" ~ perhaps you could try http://p068.ezboard.com/bsrivaishnavism ?

TruthSeeker
30 August 2006, 11:49 AM
My intolerance is ONLY against Islam and some branches of orthodox christianity.


I have lived my life in India. No need to swallow from the internet. Please pay a visit to any of the bordering districts and stay for sometime.


So what? We have all lived in India only. We have never seen Adharmic forces ever win permanently over Dharmic forces. What as a single person can you achieve? Or even if you raise a few Hindus in your cause? The result will only be total disaster for everybody. Is that what you want?

Secondly, intolerance can be shown even towards Hinduism because it has illtreated many people in the past in the name of caste system, when you are not able to give a proper reasoning, are you?

So your intolerance means nothing and is purely relative in nature.





Can you please try putting these arguments to likes of Zakir Naik. I have heard he regularly entertains guests from other religions and proves Islam is the root of other religions.


How could a religion founded in the seventh century be the root of religions before it? The entire logic is flawed.



As a Hindu, why at all I should be bothered with "underlying" meaning of Islam and start analysing their words with Sanskrit??? I'm quite happy in my faith and believe it can provide for all answers I seek. What is the need???


We have muslims on one side, with a 10% disgruntled, and 90% quite content with the state of affairs and not desiring for anything other than personal and communal safety. On the Hindu side we have a 5% disgruntled lot, and trying to grow in numbers. The only happy union could be by mutually understanding each other. The other approach will only have terrible consequences. "War" looks nice on paper only.



The only need to look at Islam arises because they frequently spill over their faith onto others to the level of physical manslaughter. To understand this behaviour it only makes any common human sense to look at Islam as it is practiced and tought by mullahs and muhammad.

I'm pretty sure analysing the sanskrit roots we can make out profound meanings out of a hindi comic book.


Why are you bothering about a few mullahs? Do you really think they can do whatever they want?




Their Namaj may have its actual roots (prior to Muhammad) in 5 vedic + tantrik sandhya upasanas we do. So What??? Does namaz now look anything like a Upasana??? Standing up and sitting down again standing up again bending. It's is sheer gymnastics where mind cannot be made stable at any rate. Since when asanas and shouting become yoga???


Perhaps you dont understand that everything is done only in stages? What are average Hindus doing anything more spiritual than an average muslim? Each has his own idea based on name, form and concept. The common Hindu and muslim are nearly about the same - this is true of all religions. The goal is only building a platform. How many Hindus are practising real Yoga?





Adharmic forces can threaten mankind. I'm quite cool with Maha Pralay if the world is taken over by this twisted religion, it makes no difference.


When did you become an atheist? There is nothing that can happen here without the will of God. Adharmic forces threaten mankind? Then what is the role of Isvara? His mere wish will turn this world into a paradise, you beleive it or not? When did you subscribe to that Adharmic philosophy where God gets defeated by some forces external to him. There are many paramahamsas who still walk the face of this earth, and they have much more power than you think. Ever wonder why they have not cared to address the dangers to mankind? The world has its cause, its prupose, and is completely under the control of the one Lord -- those who do not grasp this simple point are the one's who are completely under the sway of Maya. Do get out of it.

Whether Adharma temporarily prevails or not, true Dharma followers will never get afflicted. The growth in numbers of Adharmic religions is only because of the number of souls that are increasingly loosing the privilege of being born in conditions favourable for spiritual development - this kind of intolerance and hatred towards others developed by people calling themselves as Brahmins is the main cause of the rise of Adharma in the world.



My only concern is trying to educate some hindu minds about their duty, so that the ill fate of being born in a mleccha religion doesn't destroy their future evolution. Yes this is the only fear I have for hindu's(myself included). Nature plays very fair. If I think Islam has spirituality and start proclaiming it to others, I may be tasting that in my next life.jeers.

As human beings, we have the right only to preach the message of peace, , love and forgiveness. The message of force or violence is the exclusive privilege of incarnations or those people who have been instructed to do so by God. This world does not need any human intervention against extinction whatsoever, except for those who disbeleive in God. Those who are righteous and dharmic are always protected irrespective of what you see externally around you. Would you care to look around you and find out how God even reaches out to people personally in deserving cases? Or you think there is none?

Your first duty is to know yourself, and religion could never be a factor for this. Teaching others of their duty is something you can do after you complete your duty. It is just like blind leading the blind.

There is nothing like mleccha religion. You could be Dharmic even when born in such a religion, and yet be a mleccha as a Hindu. So no use praying for such things.

satay
30 August 2006, 02:06 PM
So what? We have all lived in India only. We have never seen Adharmic forces ever win permanently over Dharmic forces. What as a single person can you achieve? Or even if you raise a few Hindus in your cause? The result will only be total disaster for everybody. Is that what you want?


Our time demands that we stand up and answer back with intellectual debates.

To use your terminology, the new 'war' is on paper. Anyway, I wouldn't say it's a war...I just think that it is time for us young hindu minds to stop and correct someone who calls us 'idoltars', looks down on us as some tribal idoits who are feeding milk to idols and don't understand science.

Isn't it time to wake up and be proud of who are you and share with the world our dharma or at least correct those that due to their own tribal, ignorant ways don't understand the higher standards set by our rishis?

Pen (or keyboard in this case) has always been more powerful than the sword! No one here is talking about slaughtering the malecchas...we are only talking about correcting them when they come and hit us on the head with our own vedas.

satay
30 August 2006, 02:48 PM
I wonder why anyone would NOT listen to my analysis.

And the prescription is intended for ALL humanity!

namaste!

With all due respect, I think that singhi has valid points. Though your analysis is for ALL humanity I do not see why a muslim will believe in this analysis. To support my point I attach this conversation between a muslim and naik in QA of his debate with ravi shankar...

Please read Question 2 and the answer by naik. What can we offer naik that Ravi didn't?

Znanna
30 August 2006, 09:29 PM
Isn't "concept" a human thing, which doesn't define "God" but rather, our relationship with the sacred?

The notion that a Muslim God is different from a Hindu God or a Christian God ... well, it seems to me that thinking moves one away from the experience of GOD.

But hey, I'm just a girl :)


Namaste,
ZN

sarabhanga
30 August 2006, 09:30 PM
What can we offer that Ravi Shankar did not?

The second question in the attached transcript is vague and requires a subjective answer, and Ravi Shankar offered nothing in his own defense!

“My question to you is this: what is your overall impression of the book ‘Hinduism and Islam - the common thread’ by Sri Ravi Shankar, in the light of sacred scriptures? I want to know, what is your overall impression? I find this book confusing. What does he want to say?”

What is Dr Naik’s impression of Sri Ravi Shankar’s publication on the close relationship of Hinduism and Islam? And what is Dr Naik’s impression of what it is that Ravi Shankar was trying to communicate?

Dr Naik complains that Ravi Shankar is wrong in his interpretation of Hajr-e-Aswad as being derived from similar Sanskrit words meaning “non-white stone”. And Dr Naik provides the true Arabic meaning, which is “black stone”. :rolleyes:

When Dr Naik states that Ravi Shankar is not correct in saying that the Hajr-e-Aswad is like a Shiva linga, it is clear that he has no idea of what a Shiva linga actually is!

I am not sure what you are asking me to do with this impossible dialogue; but Ravi was wanting to say that Muslims and Hindus have always been closely related, and Dr Naik agrees!

sarabhanga
30 August 2006, 11:10 PM
Dr Naik claims that Ravi Shankar is wrong in suggesting that the Islamic worship is named from the Sanskrit namas, because namaaz is a Persian word and the proper Islamic word is salaah.

“Islamic” is simply old Arabic, which is surely a Persian language, so the reason for Dr Naik’s denial is entirely false.

In Sanskrit, namasaana indicates “worshipping”.

namas means “bowing in adoration”, and zaalaa means “house”.

zala is an aid to swift transportation; zaala or saala indicates the hallowed hall; and zaalaara is a stairway to heaven.

The namas-zaalaa is the prayer hall, or “the house of submission to God”.

After sandhi, the compound becomes namazzaalaa, or simply namazaalaa.

So the devout Muslim goes to namazaalaah (understood as “namaaz alaah”) five times a day, and the practice became known simply as zalaah or salaah.

satay
30 August 2006, 11:15 PM
“Islamic” is simply old Arabic, which is surely a Persian language, so the reason for Dr Naik’s denial is entirely false.

Indeed! I get the feeling that ravi shankar didn't prepare for the debate properly as if you read the full dialogue he answers no questions to anyone's satisfaction. Oh well...:rolleyes:

I am sure there are other scholars willing to provide naik a good response.

sarabhanga
31 August 2006, 02:19 AM
What kind of Doctor is Dr Naik, and who gave him the title ?

And who is the Guru of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar® ?

And why should any learned person be at all concerned about their futile debate ?

:confused:

sarabhanga
31 August 2006, 06:27 AM
Sharabhanga ~ Why should any learned person be at all concerned about their futile debate?



Dr Naik ~ If a person who has no knowledge reads it, he will start believing it.

:rolleyes:

satay
31 August 2006, 09:20 AM
What kind of Doctor is Dr Naik, and who gave him the title ?

he is a medical doctor.



And who is the Guru of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar® ?

I am not sure who...



And why should any learned person be at all concerned about their futile debate ?

:confused:
regardless of this debate, shouldn't every hindu be concerend when the scirptures get twisted?

sarabhanga
31 August 2006, 08:40 PM
This should straighten out a few twisted notions!

Dr Naik claims that Muhammad is prophesized in many places in the Rk and Yajus as Narasamsa.

narAsaMsa means “He who is Praised” (the same meaning as “Muhammad”), although the name Narasamsa is always used in praise of Agni.

So, it is clear that Dr Naik must be considering Muhammad as an incarnation of Agni!

Narasamsa is a name for Agni, especially Agni personified as the sacred Fire at which men offer praise to the Gods.

So that Muhammad (as an actual human) must have been a vedic sacrificial priest.

The priest of the Soma sacrifice was commonly known as a Kavi (“sage or prophet”), which name is especially connected with Angiras and Ushanas.

And the Sanskrit word Kav or Kab means “to praise”.

The Kavis were known as the sons of Bhrigu, and the devotees of Shukra (regent of the planet Venus and preceptor of the demons), and the sacred day of Venus has always been Friday!

It should now be quite clear that ALL of the essential elements of Islam are derived exactly from vedic traditions and sanskrit language!

sarabhanga
31 August 2006, 09:22 PM
“There is no Illa without Illaa, and Agni is Her Prophet.”

sm78
01 September 2006, 03:38 AM
And who is the Guru of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar® ?


He is the founder of http://www.artofliving.org/ (The Art of Living). I think the worganization has millions if not more devotees accross the world, mostly in India.



And why should any learned person be at all concerned about their futile debate ?

Their futile debate is just one in a series of debates that Zakir Naik does regularly in his centre of islamic research. The idea is to show by any means that Islam is the real religion. The materials are then used for conversion of not so learned heathens.

I don't know what learned people should do...but I have an idea what Zakir Naik does.

sm78
01 September 2006, 04:36 AM
So what? We have all lived in India only. We have never seen Adharmic forces ever win permanently over Dharmic forces. What as a single person can you achieve? Or even if you raise a few Hindus in your cause? The result will only be total disaster for everybody. Is that what you want?

We have muslims on one side, with a 10% disgruntled, and 90% quite content with the state of affairs and not desiring for anything other than personal and communal safety. On the Hindu side we have a 5% disgruntled lot, and trying to grow in numbers. The only happy union could be by mutually understanding each other. The other approach will only have terrible consequences. "War" looks nice on paper only.

Why are you bothering about a few mullahs? Do you really think they can do whatever they want?
All the above paragraphs suggests your perception of reality is different from mine. There can be much argument after that.

Only thing to note is that what you suggest below is contradictory to your histeria above.

Below you say Ishwara will never let humanity destroy, dharmic persons have nothing to fear etc etc, Above you are alarmed that one or a few hindu's think that they should fight back at Adharmic forces which will then lead to complete disaster!!! Not to mention that you completely ignore the fact that Adharmic forces are already fighting the war in multiple corners of this country.

I cannot help but draw exacly similar reaction from Indian psuedo secularist when they try to hush up a muslim inflected riot. And the moment hindu's get ready for some sort revenge, everybody starts crying how evil it is. It is the biggest Adharmic drama I have been witnessing my entire life. This is far greater Adharma than mlecchas breaking idols. You are right in your conclusion below that there are mlecchas among hindus.


When did you become an atheist? There is nothing that can happen here without the will of God. Adharmic forces threaten mankind? Then what is the role of Isvara? His mere wish will turn this world into a paradise, you beleive it or not? When did you subscribe to that Adharmic philosophy where God gets defeated by some forces external to him.
Ishwara can not do anything only when his subjects are not willing to their part. Would their be Gita and Kurkshetra without Arjuna getting ready to listen to krishna ?? Btw, I'm not saying that asurik forces will destroy the world. I was saying those who think they are God's children yet remain oblivious to the suffering of their brothers and are more eager to tie a friendship knot with Adharmics will leave God with little other options.


There are many paramahamsas who still walk the face of this earth, and they have much more power than you think. Ever wonder why they have not cared to address the dangers to mankind? The world has its cause, its prupose, and is completely under the control of the one Lord -- those who do not grasp this simple point are the one's who are completely under the sway of Maya. Do get out of it.
I look at an issue in hand determine what is the right thing to do. It is a totally futile exercise to wonder why things happen in world the way they do in totality.


Whether Adharma temporarily prevails or not, true Dharma followers will never get afflicted. The growth in numbers of Adharmic religions is only because of the number of souls that are increasingly loosing the privilege of being born in conditions favourable for spiritual development - this kind of intolerance and hatred towards others developed by people calling themselves as Brahmins is the main cause of the rise of Adharma in the world.
True. Brahmanism was an Asurik Mentality and Islam was a reply from nature.


As human beings, we have the right only to preach the message of peace, , love and forgiveness. The message of force or violence is the exclusive privilege of incarnations or those people who have been instructed to do so by God. This world does not need any human intervention against extinction whatsoever, except for those who disbeleive in God. Those who are righteous and dharmic are always protected irrespective of what you see externally around you. Would you care to look around you and find out how God even reaches out to people personally in deserving cases? Or you think there is none?
Your first duty is to know yourself, and religion could never be a factor for this. Teaching others of their duty is something you can do after you complete your duty. It is just like blind leading the blind.

There is nothing like mleccha religion. You could be Dharmic even when born in such a religion, and yet be a mleccha as a Hindu. So no use praying for such things.

All this your idea of dharma, and lets say I disagree with it.

TruthSeeker
01 September 2006, 03:50 PM
All the above paragraphs suggests your perception of reality is different from mine. There can be much argument after that.

Only thing to note is that what you suggest below is contradictory to your histeria above.

Below you say Ishwara will never let humanity destroy, dharmic persons have nothing to fear etc etc, Above you are alarmed that one or a few hindu's think that they should fight back at Adharmic forces which will then lead to complete disaster!!! Not to mention that you completely ignore the fact that Adharmic forces are already fighting the war in multiple corners of this country.

I cannot help but draw exacly similar reaction from Indian psuedo secularist when they try to hush up a muslim inflected riot. And the moment hindu's get ready for some sort revenge, everybody starts crying how evil it is. It is the biggest Adharmic drama I have been witnessing my entire life. This is far greater Adharma than mlecchas breaking idols. You are right in your conclusion below that there are mlecchas among hindus.


Ishwara can not do anything only when his subjects are not willing to their part. Would their be Gita and Kurkshetra without Arjuna getting ready to listen to krishna ?? Btw, I'm not saying that asurik forces will destroy the world. I was saying those who think they are God's children yet remain oblivious to the suffering of their brothers and are more eager to tie a friendship knot with Adharmics will leave God with little other options.


I look at an issue in hand determine what is the right thing to do. It is a totally futile exercise to wonder why things happen in world the way they do in totality.


True. Brahmanism was an Asurik Mentality and Islam was a reply from nature.



All this your idea of dharma, and lets say I disagree with it.

:D

I think these posts are more suited for a political forum, rather than a religeous forum. I dont understand why politics and religion are mixed so often. If you have concerns with Islam and terrorism, the right place is a political forum.

You should possibly consider this forum more as a mandir where a number of devotees come everyday. Is this what you discuss in a temple - about destroying adharmic forces?

sarabhanga
01 September 2006, 06:18 PM
Namaste,

Sri Ravi Shankar has a degree in Modern Physics, and Dr Naik has a degree in Medicine. And both have become renowned as scholars of Hinduism and Islam respectively.

I mean no offense, but it is clear from the transcript that neither one was properly equipped for the debate. With the added difficulty that Ravi Shankar is “an unassuming humanitarian” and Dr Naik is decidedly sectarian with a great deal of bluster and assumption!

Sri Ravi Shankar’s only intention was to impress exactly the same point that I have often stated as:

I. Hindus and Muslims should remember that they are similar partners in Sanatana Dharma.

Perhaps not all of his suggested examples were exactly correct, but Dr Naik’s refutations were generally way off the mark!

It is clear that right from the beginning of the debate, Sri Ravi Shankar was unwilling to argue about who is right and who is wrong, which left the stage open for Dr Naik to tell everyone that he (and thus Islam) is right and Ravi (and thus Hinduism) is wrong, but always somehow agreeing that, yes, we are all brothers in Dharma.

saidevo
01 September 2006, 08:55 PM
Namaste.

What was supposed to be a discussion on unity between Hindus and Muslims was made into a debate between the two religions by Dr. Naik. Having stressed the point of unity, having proved the essential truth that Islam originated from Sanatana Dharma, the common Hindu feels that Sri Sri should have taken up defending his religion with more conviction because that is what the opponent was clamouring for.

I don't mean to offend the sancitity of our gurus, but the problem with some of them such as Sri Sri, Srila Prabhu Padha, and some others is that they give an impression that they are above the religion that fostered them. In the process of projecting the greatness of human soul beyond all religions, they let down the religion! I wonder what Swami Dayananda Sarasvati would have done in a similar circumstance.

Sri Sri says that idol worship and puja rituals are there in India for thousands of years and hence need to be accommodated (and tolerated). This bland statement gives an impression that he is not for idol worship and that he considers it as an inferior path. Yet we have seen Guruji performing puja and abishekam to Lord Shiva on Sivaratri nights. He also suggests nama japa as the most suitable for kali yuga and himself sings namavalis in his bhajans.

The common Hindu is rather disappointed with Guruji's answers in the discussion/debate and feels that the shortcomings he has let creep in to them have given an edge to the bluster of Dr. Naik.

Skillganon
01 September 2006, 10:09 PM
Hello Guyz. These discussion has been interesting, but it will be nice if one created a different thread on Dr Zakir Naik and Sri Ravi Shankar, where one can discuss amongts yourself. Politics leave it for Politics and it is due section in the forum, created for thus purpose, or you can creat your own thread here.

Sorry I am not here for a while, but I am doing some study on the bible, especially the OT. It is interesting study.

Peace.

Skill

saidevo
01 September 2006, 10:58 PM
Hello Guyz. These discussion has been interesting, but it will be nice if one created a different thread on Dr Zakir Naik and Sri Ravi Shankar, where one can discuss amongts yourself. Politics leave it for Politics and it is due section in the forum, created for thus purpose, or you can creat your own thread here.

Sorry I am not here for a while, but I am doing some study on the bible, especially the OT. It is interesting study.

Peace.

Skill

Namaste Skill,

Do you mean to say that the discussions between Dr. Naik and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar were nothing but politics? Then why do you use Dr. Naik's arguments to prove your points? Or else you must a better scholar of Vedas and other Hindu scriptures than Dr. Naik.

All said and done, as Sri Sarabhanga has been establishing repeatedly and as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has elaborated, the tradition of Islam does not just start with its prophet. Rather its origins are in the Vedic culture and hence Muslims should consider themselves as brothers of Hindus. There is no point in arguments such as Islam is the mother/father of all religions, everyone is born a Muslim at birth, etc., etc. because these arguments, as those who profess them are well aware of, cannot be proved convincingly.

Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti

sarabhanga
02 September 2006, 01:47 AM
“There is no Illa without Illaa, and Agni is Her Prophet.”

iLA is feminine and iLa is masculine (or neuter).

iLAH does not indicate any gender, but it is surely plural.

iLA is “heavenly water” (particularly as a Goddess), and iLAH is simply translated as “the Waters” (the essence of Heaven ~ i.e. God, who is beyond any gender).

iLA only appears in the most ancient Rgveda, becoming iDA in most later texts.

iDA is well known as gaÑgA, and She has two eternal companions: shiva, upon high; and the makara, down below.

makaravAhana (“having the Makara vehicle”) is a name of varuNa (the dark ocean of the night sky ~ i.e. “the wine-dark sea”). And makAra indicates the pañca-makAra of traditional Shakta devotion.

And hence the Kab is praised at Makara (i.e. Mekka).

Another name for makara is mInara, and if any Hindu Avatara corresponds with Muhammad (the first prophet of Islam) it must be mIna (as mInanAtha or mAtsya).

matsya is exactly equivalent with maccha and matsa, which originally derives from the root mad, which itself means to exult or rejoice, or to be drunk.

And thus, mahAmada indicates great (divine) intoxication and great praise (but also great pride).

In Sanatana Dharma, “Allah” is ancient Varuna, the brother of Agni, in the feminine guise of Shri Ganga. And “Muhammad” is Agni, personified as the first priest of Man (i.e. Manu, the first son of Illah).

sarabhanga
02 September 2006, 03:16 AM
Just as there is no smoke without fire, there can be no spark or flame (i.e. Indu or Jiva) without the eternal Fire (i.e. Sindhu, “the ocean of Light”, the Atman or Brahman) ~ that Fire which always burns, hidden in the dark Waters, and surrounded by rays or arrows or reeds or rushes, the son of man and of God, just waiting to be found and nurtured by the select group of true “mothers” who will surely raise Him to the Glory that was always his rightful destiny.

All of these religious or philosophical themes are enormously ancient, and much of the legend of man (across many disparate cultures and many millennia of time) arises directly from such conceptions. For the destiny of human civilization was long ago determined by the true knowledge and sacred praise of the Fire.

I certainly have no wish to extinguish the light of Islam, for it is founded from the self-same traditions of vedic Hinduism (just as Judaism surely arose from a similar source).

Judaic and Islamic traditions both arose from the family of Yayati (and most likely some errant branch of the Yadava clan).

“There is surely no Indu without the Sindhu, and the Kavi is truly illuminated with the Dawn” :)

sm78
02 September 2006, 05:23 AM
:D

I think these posts are more suited for a political forum, rather than a religeous forum. I dont understand why politics and religion are mixed so often. If you have concerns with Islam and terrorism, the right place is a political forum.

You should possibly consider this forum more as a mandir where a number of devotees come everyday. Is this what you discuss in a temple - about destroying adharmic forces?

Why politics and religion should be seperated??
Religion is not just devotion to God but also guidance to life. Politics is the highest level of social life. This has been my question for a long time.

I get that the seperation of church and state is a western concept. Where did sanatana scriptures give such seperation rules ?

Ofcourse I have to respect the rules set up by mandir trustees :D ~ that's another issue.

Skillganon
02 September 2006, 08:46 AM
assalamu alaikum saidevo,

Namaste Skill,

Do you mean to say that the discussions between Dr. Naik and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar were nothing but politics? Then why do you use Dr. Naik's arguments to prove your points? Or else you must a better scholar of Vedas and other Hindu scriptures than Dr. Naik.
I did not mean their discussion was political, I was refering to other members here and theri political statement on this thread.
I used Dr Zakir Naik, as a reference for my OP, and alway's has been doing it to bring the most concise definition and understanding of concept of Allah according to Islam.



All said and done, as Sri Sarabhanga has been establishing repeatedly and as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has elaborated, the tradition of Islam does not just start with its prophet. Rather its origins are in the Vedic culture and hence Muslims should consider themselves as brothers of Hindus. There is no point in arguments such as Islam is the mother/father of all religions, everyone is born a Muslim at birth, etc., etc. because these arguments, as those who profess them are well aware of, cannot be proved convincingly.
Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti
I do not believe and that Islamic origin is in vedic culture, it is a flawed argument, anyway I do not wan't this thread to move away fromt the topic of the OP.
We can consider ourselve as brother's in humanity.
It also will be prudent to look up the correct definition of the term "Islam".

Salam

Skill

atanu
02 September 2006, 10:57 AM
CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM

The Most Concise Definition of God:
The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:


"Say: He is Allah,

The One and Only.



"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.

"He begets not, nor is He begotten.

And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]







The word ‘Assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means ‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (swt), all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah (swt) is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependant on Him.





Surah Ikhlas - the touchstone of theology:


Surah Ikhlas (Chapter 112) of the Glorious Qur’an, is the touchstone of theology. ‘Theo’ in Greek means God and ‘logy’ means study. Thus Theology means study of God and to Muslims this four line definition of Almighty God serves as the touchstone of the study of God. Any candidate to divinity must be subjected to this ‘acid test’. Since the attributes of Allah given in this chapter are unique, false gods and pretenders to divinity can be easily dismissed using these verses.


Thus, the ‘acid test’ cannot be passed by anyone except the One True God.
The following verse of the Glorious Qur’an conveys a similar message:


"No vision can grasp Him






But His grasp is over

All vision: He is

Above all comprehension,
Yet is acquainted with all things."
[Al-Qur’an 6:103]







By what name do we call God?


The Muslims prefer calling the Supreme Creator, Allah, instead of by the English word ‘God’. The Arabic word, ‘Allah’, is pure and unique, unlike the English word ‘God’, which can be played around with.


If you add ‘s’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Gods’, that is the plural of God. Allah is one and singular, there is no plural of Allah. If you add ‘dess’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Goddess’ that is a female God. There is nothing like male Allah or female Allah. Allah has no gender. If you add the word ‘father’ to ‘God’ it becomes ‘God-father’. God-father means someone who is a guardian. There is no word like ‘Allah-Abba’ or ‘Allah-father’. If you add the word ‘mother’ to ‘God’, it becomes ‘God-mother’. There is nothing like ‘Allah-Ammi’, or ‘Allah-mother’ in Islam. Allah is a unique word. If you prefix tin before the word God, it becomes tin-God i.e., fake God. Allah is a unique word, which does not conjure up any mental picture nor can it be played around with. Therefore the Muslims prefer using the Arabic word ‘Allah’ for the Almighty. Sometimes, however, while speaking to the non-Muslims we may have to use the inappropriate word God, for Allah. Since the intended audience of this article is general in nature, consisting of both Muslims as well as non-Muslims, I have used the word God instead of Allah in several places in this article.


God does not become a human being:
God does not take human form:


Some may argue that God does not become a human being but only takes a human form. If God only takes a human form but does not become a human being, He should not possess any human qualities. We know that all the ‘God-men’, have human qualities and failings. They have all the human needs such as the need to eat, sleep, etc.


The worship of God in human form is therefore a logical fallacy and should be abhorred in all its forms and manifestations.
That is the reason why the Qur’an speaks against all forms of anthropomorphism. The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:


"There is nothing whatever like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 42:11]





God does not perform ungodly acts:



The attributes of Almighty God preclude any evil since God is the source of justice, mercy and truth. God can never be thought of as doing an ungodly act. Hence we cannot imagine God telling a lie, being unjust, making a mistake, forgetting things, or having any such human failings. Similarly God can do injustice if He chooses to, but He will never do it because being unjust is an ungodly act.


The Qur’an says:
"Allah is never unjust In the least degree."
[Al-Qur’an 4:40]




God can be unjust if He chooses to be so, but the moment God does injustice, He ceases to be God.


God does not forget



God can forget if He wants to. But God does not forget anything because forgetting is an ungodly act, which reeks of human limitations and failings.


The Qur’an says:


"…my Lord never errs, nor forgets."
[Al-Qur’an 20:52]


God only performs Godly acts:


The Islamic concept of God is that God has power over all things. The Qur’an says in several places (Al -Qur’an 2:106; 2:109; 2:284; 3:29; 16:77; and 35:1):


"For verily Allah has power over all things"


Further, the Glorious Qur’an says:


"Allah is the doer of all that He intends."






[Al-Qur’an 85:16]



[CENTER]We must keep in mind that Allah intends only Godly acts and not ungodly acts.



I think that is good enough for now.

Thanks



Skill.


Namaste Skill,

I have reproduced your post in full. Though you are correct in some aspects, u are mistaken in whole.

I am not going into details but I will point out the ultimate similarity and then put a few queries for u to ponder upon. Islam means surrender (am I correct?). And the highest dictum of Hindu Dharma is also Surrender. Sufis have highlighted all these. The differences and subsequent strifes exist in your ego mind and God who is beyond mind but who is also the creator of the mind is pure, ONE and faultless.

Keep the ultimate ONE in perspective please.

You have said that Allah is the Supreme creator, He is only ONE and does no ungodly acts. I request you to please contemplate if there are ungodly acts in the creation of the One and Only Allah then who is responsible? Why these perceived ungodly acts are allowed at all?

Reasonable thinking will lead you to know by yourself that your understanding of Islam is half baked and ungodly, since such a thinking is only finding Godliness in one place (that is in your concept of Islam) and ungodliness in all others. And this leads to killing of man by man. It is ungodly -- taking up a God-like role.

Sorry for the apparent harsh words but I assure u my words are not harsh. I possibly understand Islam in whole which u do not, since U see the world in terms of me and others.

Where are u following the dictum that God is One, beyond perception, perfect and supreme creator? There cannot be anything ungodly in His creation either. Ungodly is your thought that God exists separately somewhere away from you. Ponder genuinely what is the intelligent principle in You? Did you create this intelligence, surely not? Where from this awareness? And if this awareness only sees ungodly acts then who is the culprit?


Regards

Skillganon
02 September 2006, 01:09 PM
Namaste Skill,
Salam



I am not going into details but I will point out the ultimate similarity and then put a few queries for u to ponder upon. Islam means surrender (am I correct?).
More correctly Submission to allah


The differences and subsequent strifes exist in your ego mind and God who is beyond mind but who is also the creator of the mind is pure, ONE and faultless.
My ego mind? OK, maybe you can clarify.



Keep the ultimate ONE in perspective please.
ok

You have said that Allah is the Supreme creator, He is only ONE and does no ungodly acts.
We all know God does not go to the loo. :D


I request you to please contemplate if there are ungodly acts in the creation of the One and Only Allah then who is responsible?
I surmise the people who are commiting it.


Why these perceived ungodly acts are allowed at all?
Because you have been given freewill.:cool1:



Reasonable thinking will lead you to know by yourself that your understanding of Islam is half baked and ungodly,
Reasonable person will not make such a statement with half-baked understanding.



since such a thinking is only finding Godliness in one place (that is in your concept of Islam) and ungodliness in all others. And this leads to killing of man by man. It is ungodly -- taking up a God-like role.
So my thinking leads to killing of man by man? Woah, you must reached the superstate of conciousness to know what is in my mind. Are you claiming to be God by any chance?



Sorry for the apparent harsh words but I assure u my words are not harsh.

Non-Taken


I possibly understand Islam in whole which u do not, since U see the world in terms of me and others.
Woah, are you telepathic? :doh:


Where are u following the dictum that God is One, beyond perception, perfect and supreme creator? There cannot be anything ungodly in His creation either.
I do not follow your logic. Creation is not the creator.



Ungodly is your thought that God exists separately somewhere away from you. Well his not his creation for sure.



Ponder genuinely what is the intelligent principle in You? Did you create this intelligence, surely not? Where from this awareness? And if this awareness only sees ungodly acts then who is the culprit?
I do not see your logic. Can you clarify please.

Peace

Skill

sarabhanga
02 September 2006, 07:23 PM
I do not believe that Islamic origin is in Vedic culture, it is a flawed argument.

Do you consider the argument flawed purely because of your dogmatic belief that Islam cannot have arisen from ANY pre-existent traditions?

Or do you not believe the argument BECAUSE it is actually flawed?

If the first, then there is little more that may be usefully added to this discussion.

If the latter, then please provide some indication of the logical or factual errors that you have found.


If some misguided followers have departed from the true path of their Guru, that unfortunate fact has no bearing on the path of the Guru himself, which remains always true Dharma.

Allah has exactly the same meaning as Brahman or Ardhanarishvara or Naranarayana.

Allah is EXACTLY the same as Illah.

Illah was originally worshipped by the Ailas.

And Illah’s greatest devotees were called Ailabakara.

La Ilah Illallah is simply derived (with exactly the same intention) from Ila Ilaa Illellaa.

Namaz is Namas, and Salah is Salaa ~ and the “house of submission to God” is a Namashalaa.

According to Dr Naik, Muhammad certainly appears in the Vedas, as Narasamsa.

Narasamsa has exactly the same meaning as Muhammad, and Narasamsa has ALWAYS been a synonym for Agni personified as the sacrificial Fire.

The leader of praise at the ancient sacrifice was commonly known as a Kavi, and his devotion is directed to Kav or Kab (i.e. “to praise”).

The ancient Kavis are well known to have been followers of the Dawn, and often the “Morning Star” Venus, and (in the latter case) their principle day of devotion was long ago determined as Friday.

Mekka is just the same as Makara, the motive power of Illah.

And Muhammad is identical with Mahamada.


These are some of the important facts that have already been provided in support of the idea that Islam MUST be derived from an important (but now neglected) strand of Vedic philosophical and ritual tradition.

The Rgveda was definitely completed by 1,000 BC (and most of its content is much older) and all four of the Vedas were finalized soon after, so the only rational explanation for this list of “coincidental” correspondences between the Vedas and Islam (which mysteriously “appeared” in Medina in the 7th century AD) is that “Islamic” Dharma is only a late Arabic version of an ancient branch of Hinduism (the truly Sanatana Dharma).

TruthSeeker
03 September 2006, 03:06 AM
Why politics and religion should be seperated??


You want to mix them or what?;)
Then you must already be a muslim.;)

TruthSeeker
03 September 2006, 03:18 AM
We all know God does not go to the loo. :D


What is so ungodly about the loo? If it think it is ungodly please refrain from that here afterwards.;)




I surmise the people who are commiting it.


Why do you think the acts of people are ungodly? There are many disasters that take place in the world - an earthquake, a flood, a volcano...the earth could be hit by an asteroid that could kill everyone. Who is doing all these other than God?

If God could do ungodly acts through natural forces, why cant he do so through human beings? You falsely accuse others of freewill when you observe that God is abusing his freewill - he does not stop floods, cure diseases or anything here. Who gave your God this right to toy with people here?

atanu
03 September 2006, 10:10 AM
Namaskar and Salam,




Salam


More correctly Submission to allah




See the flaw here, dear Skill? As if there was no absolute, eternal being before the Allah name was revealed (or came into the consciousness of some people)?

You are submitting to your ego concepts and nothing else, missing out the absolute eternal.




My ego mind? OK, maybe you can clarify.



If you find the person who wants to prove that the concept of God as per Skill is the best then you will know. Only you can find that being who wants to prove things to others.




We all know God does not go to the loo. :D

I surmise the people who are commiting it.

Because you have been given freewill.:cool1:



Not so easy Skill. The One and Only Allah, the Supreme creator (who does no ungodly acts) has created this loo going humankind (an ungodly act as per you) for what purpose?

If going to loo is ungodly then why do you go there? And as You have free will please do not visit loo again since it is ungodly.





So my thinking leads to killing of man by man?




I did not say that skill's thinking leads to killing of man by man. Read again.


But thinking and preaching that Christ is the only way or Allah is the only way is sectarian and definitely such thinking and preaching leads to unthinking acts.





Woah, are you telepathic? :doh:




Better cut out the cynicism. It does not require telepathy to see through the ego act when instead of surrendering, one takes on criticising the faith of others, citing personal examples such as of Osho etc.






I do not follow your logic. Creation is not the creator.

Well his not his creation for sure.


I do not see your logic. Can you clarify please.

Peace

Ski

ll


Dear Skill, you need not understand me. Understand youself.


Allah being 'eternal One and Only', can the creation predate Him or can it be separate from Him? Being one and only one, with what material He created? Did He create out of nothing or did He create out of Himself? Did he change or did he not change due to the act of creation?



And I repeat my main question again:

What is the intelligent principle in You? Since Skill is not the creator of this awareness, who else but God could create this intelligence? And if this awareness only sees ungodly acts everywhere then who is the culprit?


Only self examination will lead to clarity.


Regards,

Skillganon
03 September 2006, 12:02 PM
Namaskar and Salam,[/quote
wasalam.

[quote]
See the flaw here, dear Skill? As if there was no absolute, eternal being before the Allah name was revealed (or came into the consciousness of some people)?

I suggest one read it this:

"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."




You are submitting to your ego concepts and nothing else, missing out the absolute eternal.
I am submitting my ego to concepts but missing out the absolute eternal?:doh:



Not so easy Skill. The One and Only Allah, the Supreme creator (who does no ungodly acts) has created this loo going humankind (an ungodly act as per you) for what purpose?

Human being do ungodly things, like eating. drinking, sleeping, going to the loo. God does not do such things.



If going to loo is ungodly then why do you go there? And as You have free will please do not visit loo again since it is ungodly.
Because I am not God.




But thinking and preaching that Christ is the only way or Allah is the only way is sectarian and definitely such thinking and preaching leads to unthinking acts.
Their is one God, and their is one path.



Better cut out the cynicism. It does not require telepathy to see through the ego act when instead of surrendering, one takes on criticising the faith of others, citing personal examples such as of Osho etc.
Who's Osho?



Dear Skill, you need not understand me. Understand youself.
I am trying to.



Allah being 'eternal One and Only', can the creation predate Him or can it be separate from Him? Being one and only one, with what material He created? Did He create out of nothing or did He create out of Himself? Did he change or did he not change due to the act of creation?
Creation does not predate him.
It is his creation.
He can create things out of nothingness.
He is eternal and absolute. Unchanging.



And I repeat my main question again:

What is the intelligent principle in You? Since Skill is not the creator of this awareness, who else but God could create this intelligence? And if this awareness only sees ungodly acts everywhere then who is the culprit?


God gave you the intelligence and awareness. People choos to do what they do, e.g. either you obey your parents or disobey.



Only self examination will lead to clarity.

Regards,

Thanks.

Best wishes

Skill.

atanu
05 September 2006, 04:07 AM
Namaskar and salam

You asked :



Who's Osho?


To remind you I am quoting a part from your first post in the thread.


I give you an example.
""What does Islam say about ‘god-men’?
India is often called the land of ‘god-men’. This is due to the abundance of so-called spiritual masters in India. Many of these ‘babas’ and ‘saints’ have a large following in many countries. Islam abhors deification of any human being. To understand the Islamic stand towards such pretenders to divinity, let us analyze one such ‘god-man’, Osho Rajneesh.


See? Better you start self analysis.






I suggest one read it this:

"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."



I am submitting my ego to concepts but missing out the absolute eternal?:doh:


When was this verse written? Was there no Absolute eternal prior to its revelation?


Who are you to submit your ego? You are the ego.




Human being do ungodly things, like eating. drinking, sleeping, going to the loo. God does not do such things.


We differ. Who digests your food?. Who thinks? Who cognises? Who understands? Who sees?

Skill, there is no Skill without the indwelling Shiva, indwelling Allah.

When you are saying "Because I am not God", who is saying it? Where in Skill is that apparatus which knows the infinite God and limited ungodly Skill? Will God be known without that knowledge apparatus? And Who are You?





Because I am not God.



Oh. I forgot. But you said You have free will. Why do you desist from using that free will to stop doing all ungodly acts such as eating, sleeping, and going to the loo?




Their is one God, and their is one path.



That is good. Nice. Salam. Namaskar.






Creation does not predate him.
It is his creation.
He can create things out of nothingness.
He is eternal and absolute. Unchanging.



So creation (includiong Skill) is truly nothingness. Untruth can never become the truth. Either Skill is nothingness or Skill has some truth. Which is it? Of what material you are made? What is the truth in you -- The hard bones or the subtle awareness of the Self?




God gave you the intelligence and awareness. People choos to do what they do, e.g. either you obey your parents or disobey.



Skill, Who is this 'you' you are referring to? Suppose God gave you intelligence etc.. That means You existed prior to a time when God gave you a dose of intelligence? Did God give you intelligence at some point of time?

Who were You who was given intelligence (apparently at some point of time)? What were you prior to obtaining this intelligence? And who are you now?

Why do you avoid these questions?


Best wishes. I repeat.



Their is one God, and their is one path.



That is good. Nice. Salam. Namaskar.

The path is the Self. The goal is the Self. Shiva -- the Self, is one's very own, intimate, ever experienced directly as the awareness "I am". Without this Shiva knowing things -- nothing external (including an external God) can be known.

Atanu

atanu
06 September 2006, 02:33 AM
Namaskar and salam

The path is the Self. The goal is the Self. Shiva -- the Self, is one's very own, intimate, ever experienced directly as the awareness "I am". Without this Shiva knowing things -- nothing external (including an external God) can be known.

Atanu

Salam Skill,

We must build on the agreements and resolve the differences.

We have agreed that Islam means surrender to Allah. Every religion teaches this. I suppose that it means surrendering oneself to God.

But What will you surrender and to whom, if you do not know the self?

You may surrender all your possessions, activities and their fruits and thoughts to Lord. But have you surrendered?


It is necessary to know the self even to surrender fully. And Lord is the Self. He has said: I am the Self, oh, Arjuna.

Regards.


Om Namah Shivayya

Skillganon
06 September 2006, 06:44 PM
Namaskar and salam
Namaste, I will give a brief answer, since I am not too well.



When was this verse written? Was there no Absolute eternal prior to its revelation?
Allah (Creator) is absolute and eternal. You can surmise the rest.



Who are you to submit your ego? You are the ego.
I submit my self to the will of Allah.




We differ. Who digests your food?. Who thinks? Who cognises? Who understands? Who sees?
Everyone digest thier own food.



When you are saying "Because I am not God", who is saying it? Where in Skill is that apparatus which knows the infinite God and limited ungodly Skill? Will God be known without that knowledge apparatus? And Who are You?
When I said "I am not God" hence I am "not the creator"




Oh. I forgot. But you said You have free will. Why do you desist from using that free will to stop doing all ungodly acts such as eating, sleeping, and going to the loo?
I heard of people starve themselve.


That is good. Nice. Salam. Namaskar.
Thanks :D



So creation (includiong Skill) is truly nothingness.
If one read my Post, I was saying God can create out of nothingness.


Untruth can never become the truth.
Ok. :headscratch:


Either Skill is nothingness or Skill has some truth.
Absence of truth does not mean I don't exist.


Which is it? Of what material you are made?
One can pick up a Good biology book.


What is the truth in you -- The hard bones or the subtle awareness of the Self?
I don't know where one leading, but I guess both.



Skill, Who is this 'you' you are referring to? Suppose God gave you intelligence etc..
God gave the faculty of Intelligence.


That means You existed prior to a time when God gave you a dose of intelligence?Did God give you intelligence at some point of time?

Who were You who was given intelligence (apparently at some point of time)?
What were you prior to obtaining this intelligence? And who are you now?

I apologise. I am not sure what you mean, if one is more direct, I will be better to acertain what one is talking about, but I think it will be going off topic, maybe later I can open a new thread up, when I can ascertain what ones leading at.



That is good. Nice. Salam. Namaskar.
our welcome.



The path is the Self. The goal is the Self. Shiva -- the Self, is one's very own, intimate, ever experienced directly as the awareness "I am". Without this Shiva knowing things -- nothing external (including an external God) can be known.
Atanu

I don't know, about shiva stuff and Self. No offense meant (padon my ignorance), but we can talk about this in another thread.

Maybe one is refering to "taqwa".

atanu
09 September 2006, 04:42 PM
Namaste, I will give a brief answer, since I am not too well.



Allah (Creator) is absolute and eternal. You can surmise the rest.


I submit my self to the will of Allah.



That is OK. But what is your self?




Everyone digest thier own food.


What you have done to digest your food?





If one read my Post, I was saying God can create out of nothingness.



True. Such creation can also be made into nothingness.






Absence of truth does not mean I don't exist.

I don't know where one leading, but I guess both.

God gave the faculty of Intelligence.


I apologise. I am not sure what you mean, if one is more direct, I will be better to acertain what one is talking about, but I think it will be going off topic, maybe later I can open a new thread up, when I can ascertain what ones leading at.


I don't know, about -- Self. No offense meant (padon my ignorance), but we can talk about this in another thread.

Maybe one is refering to "taqwa".


You do not know self? You do not know yourself? And above you said: Absence of truth does not mean I don't exist.


If there is absence of truth then your assertion of existence is false. The absence of truth cannot become the truth ever. Or, if your existence is truth then you are the truth.


Dear Skill, this is as direct as can be.

Sudarshan
09 September 2006, 05:06 PM
I do not believe and that Islamic origin is in vedic culture, it is a flawed argument, anyway I do not wan't this thread to move away fromt the topic of the OP.
We can consider ourselve as brother's in humanity.
It also will be prudent to look up the correct definition of the term "Islam".


Islam = Judaism + Christianity + paganism of arabia( which is supposedly a vedic culture as shown by others)

From Judaism, monotheism and other prophets was taken.
From Christianity, Jesus, Mary etc were borrowed
From paganism, moon god Allah was taken and elevated.

Islam is the 'corrupted' amalgam of many religions. Mix many religions, and stir the pot and lo, we have Islam.

Skillganon
21 September 2006, 07:13 PM
Islam = Judaism + Christianity + paganism of arabia( which is supposedly a vedic culture as shown by others)

From Judaism, monotheism and other prophets was taken.
From Christianity, Jesus, Mary etc were borrowed
From paganism, moon god Allah was taken and elevated.

Islam is the 'corrupted' amalgam of many religions. Mix many religions, and stir the pot and lo, we have Islam.

Well, I don't know what You on about with paganism, I mean that is Hinduism, and Islam and Hinduism(Paganism) is miles apart.

We believe in the all the prophets mentioned in the Quran, adam, abraham, Jesus e.t.c.(pbut)

I can forgive your Ignorance not knowing we preach what abraham preached i.e. Islam, and that is submission to the will of Allah. Not enjoining partners with him, Idols e.t.c.

So anyone can be part of this way of life, the door is fully open.

Skillganon
21 September 2006, 07:25 PM
That is OK. But what is your self?
Can you be more specific. Are you going all philosophical on me?




What you have done to digest your food?
Firstly you eat some food. Without Food you can't digest Food. I let my body handle the rest. Come on you can find this in a biology book.




True. Such creation can also be made into nothingness.

:Cool:




You do not know self? You do not know yourself? And above you said: Absence of truth does not mean I don't exist.

Well, how does a person exist when he does'nt know he is following falsehood?




If there is absence of truth then your assertion of existence is false. The absence of truth cannot become the truth ever. Or, if your existence is truth then you are the truth.
Well let me literate it better, their is truth, but it may be

1. Absent from the person life's.

2. He knowing reject it.

Absence of truth does not negate that something(Material) Exist.





Dear Skill, this is as direct as can be.

atanu
23 September 2006, 03:04 AM
Can you be more specific. Are you going all philosophical on me?


Firstly you eat some food. Without Food you can't digest Food. I let my body handle the rest. Come on you can find this in a biology book.



Namaskar and Salam,


Does a biology book tell why a dead body does not digest anything? Have you shut your intellect?

This whole discussion is to remind you that Allah, whom you believe to be the creator and controller, situated at some far-off place, is actually everywhere and especially in you as the intelligence that RUNS YOU.

Your concept of absolute formless god is good. But we are taught the following:

Isavasya Upanishad


6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.
7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?
8. That (Self) is all-pervading, radiant, bodiless, soreless, without sinews, pure, untainted by sin, the all-seer, the lord of the mind, transcendent and self-existent. That (Self) did allot in proper order to the eternal Prajapatis known as samvalsara (year) their duties.
9. Those who worship untruth go to pitch darkness, but to a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to truth alone.
10. Different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by truth and different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by untruth. Thus have we heard from the wise who had explained it to us.
11. He who knows both truth and untruth together, transcends mortality through untruth and reaches immortality through truth.
12. To pitch darkness they go who worship the Unmanifested (Prakriti). To a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to the Manifested (Hiranyagarbha).
13. Different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Manifested and different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Unmanifested. Thus have we heard from the wise who had explained it to us.
14. He who knows both the Unmanifested and the destructible (Hiranyagarbha) together, transcends death by the (worship of) the destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the Unmanifested.


I hope Skill, that you will not denigrate the above teaching in a careless manner. What I wanted to emphasize with this citation is:

The Universe itself is the form of the absolute. Both together should be known as God.



Absence of truth does not negate that something(Material) Exist.



Well. This is beyond me but I will try. Why do you think that there is absence of truth in "material"?

atanu
23 September 2006, 03:12 AM
Can you be more specific. Are you going all philosophical on me?


That will depend on what you mean by philosophy. If knowing the truth of oneself is mere philosophy to you, then what else can you know?

Self in us knows everything. But do we know the Self?


I hope that this discussion can remain pure and pristine without any value judgements. Is it a very tall order, Om?

Sudarshan
23 September 2006, 05:26 AM
Well, I don't know what You on about with paganism, I mean that is Hinduism, and Islam and Hinduism(Paganism) is miles apart.

We believe in the all the prophets mentioned in the Quran, adam, abraham, Jesus e.t.c.(pbut)

I can forgive your Ignorance not knowing we preach what abraham preached i.e. Islam, and that is submission to the will of Allah. Not enjoining partners with him, Idols e.t.c.

So anyone can be part of this way of life, the door is fully open.

The funny part is you believe in all the prophets but not their teachings. Otherwise why should you disallow the preaching of Judaism and Christianity to muslims?

The associating of partners is the most silly thing I found in Islam, with quran saying that barring the sin of associating of partners to Allah, all sins are forgiven. Why is a partner not allowed?

1. Is it because other Gods dont exist? In that case why should Allah be afraid and jealous of this? There is not proof for Allah to the common man, and no proof for any other Gods too.

2. Is it because other Gods are not equal to Allah? In this case, there is some justification, but why would this be a big sin? If a person associates partners to Allah, Allah should approach the person and advise him not to do that. Where has Allah done that? Now you would say that he sent some VIP named Muhammed to teach this. But why should people beleive in Muhammed when there have been many other prophets who said different things?


Idolatory is a different topic--Hindu view is different. Be happy with your own views . The Kabbah idol is the proof of Muslim idolatory. Muhammed himself is another big idol(sunnah). What do you think are mosques - they are big idols that make you remember God. Then we have the moon symbol that muslims use - another big idolatory. Dont think Islam is free of idols.

saidevo
23 September 2006, 08:15 AM
What about the Sufi people who saw God in all his creations? Are they not Muslims? Is it not a fact that there are different versions of Quran, one for the Shia, one for the Sunni and one for the Sufi?

Here are some lofty Sufi perceptions of the One Truth that permeates the many:



Kabîr:
"Listen to me, my Friend!
My beloved Lord is within."

There is a Secret One inside us;
the planets in all the galaxies
pass through his hands like beads.

Lalla Ded:
When my mind was cleansed of impurities,
like a mirror of its dust and dirt,
I recognized the Self in me:
When I saw Him dwelling in me,
I realized that He was the Everything
and I was nothing.

I saw and found I am in everything
I saw God effulgent in everything.
After hearing and pausing see Siva
The House is His alone; Who am I, Lalla.

Shiv chuy thali thali rozan;
Mo zan Hindu to Musalman.
Truk ay chuk pan panun parzanav,
Soy chay Sahivas sati zaniy zan.

Siva pervades every place and thing;
Do not differentiate between Hindu and Musalman.
you art intelligent recognise thine own self;
That is the true acquaintance with God.

Siva is with a fine net spread out
He permeath the mortal coils
If thou whilst living canst not see
Him, how canst thou when dead
Take out Self from Self after pondering over it

Other Poets:
You fancy this world is permanent of itself
And endures because of its own nature,
But really it is a ray of light from the Truth
And within it the Truth is concealed.
-- Sa'D Al-din Mahmud Shabistari (c1250 - 1320) The Secret Rose Garden

Sources:
http://www.poetseers.org/spiritual_and_devotional_poets/sufi/lalla/
http://www.kashmirherald.com/peopleandplaces/people/lalded.html

saidevo
23 September 2006, 08:56 AM
History of the Name Allah



Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is derived from al (the) ilah (deity). It was formerly the name of the chief god among the numerous idols (360) in the Kaaba in Mecca before Mohammed made them into monotheists. Today a Muslim is one who submits to the God Allah.

Islam means submission to (Allah), but originally it meant that strength which characterized a desert warrior who, even when faced with impossible odds, would fight to the death for his tribe. (Dr. M. Baravmann, The Spiritual Background of Early Islam, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1972)

Many believe the word “Allah” was derived from the mid- eastern word “el” which in Ugaritic, Caananite and Hebrew can mean a true or false God. This is not the case, “The source of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning “God” (or a “god”), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity.” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. Hastings), I:326.)

According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, Allah corresponded to the Babylonian god Baal, and Arabs knew of him long before Mohammed worshipped him as the supreme God. Before Islam the Arabs recognized many gods and goddesses, each tribe had their own deity. There were also nature deities. Allah was the god of the local Quarish tribe, which was Mohammed's tribe before he invented Islam to lead his people out of their polytheism. Allah was then known as the Moon God, who had 3 daughters who were viewed as intercessors for the people into Allah. Their names were Al-at, Al-uzza, and Al-Manat, which were three goddesses; the first two daughters of Allah had names which were feminine forms of Allah. Hubal was the chief God of the Kaaba among the other 360 deities. Hubal was the chief God of the Kaaba among the other 360 deities. Hubal was a statue likeness of a man whose body was made of red precious stones whose arms were made of gold. (Reference Islam George Braswell Jr.)

“Historians like Vaqqidi have said Allah was actually the chief of the 360 gods being worshipped in Arabia at the time Mohammed rose to prominence. Ibn Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic deities...Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka'ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Mohammed came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this.” (G. J. O. Moshay, Who Is This Allah? (Dorchester House, Bucks, UK, 1994), pg. 138).

History has shown Mecca and the holy stone al-Kaaba were holy sites for pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. The Kaaba in Mecca was formerly named Beit-Allah meaning House of Allah. We are told it was first built in heaven. This is in contradistinction to what Moses was instructed to build, something overlooked by the Muslims in their reading of the Bible.

The Koran tells us that Mohammed drove the other idols away; he made one God now the only god and he was its messenger. He kept the Kaaba as a holy, sacred place and confirmed that the black stone had the power to take away man's sins. He obligated every believer to make a pilgrimage to the stone at least once in his lifetime. (Sura 22:26-37) No Old Testament saint ever had a pilgrimage to the Kaaba and kissed its black stone despite stories that Abraham and Ishmael restored it.

Mohammed used the name Allah which was formerly the name of a specific idol without ever distinguishing it from the idol the Meccan’s were already worshipping. This was a modification of their former worship but never a complete break. He never did say for the people to stop their worship of the wrong Allah, for the right one. It can still be monotheism and not be the God of the Bible.

Al-Lat which is a T at the end of the name of Allah, was represented by a square stone whose major sanctuary was in the city of Taif. In the sanctuary was a black stone in the town of Qudayd between Mecca and Medina. She was the goddess of fate, a female counterpart of Allah. Al-uzza was the goddess of east Mecca. It has been said there were human sacrifices made to her and Islamic tradition tells of a story of Mohammed’s grandfather almost sacrificing his son the father of Mohammed to her. What prevented this was his seeking counsel from a fortune teller which told him to ransom his son with one hundred camels. Muslims look to this as the will of Allah to bring Mohammed into existence. (Reference Muhammad husain haykal, Hayat mohammed)

“The name Allah, as the Qur'an itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Africa.” (Arthur Jeffrey, ed., Islam: Muhammad and His Religion (1958), p. 85.)

The literal name of Mohammed's father in Arabic is Abd Allah. His uncle's name Obred Allah. These names show the devotion of Mohammed's families pagan roots, and also prove that Allah was part of a polytheistic system of worship before Allah was made the supreme and only god from the other God's. This should be proof to the pre- Islamic root of the name of Allah to the Muslim. Remember they were pagans who used this name. He kept his family name above all the other names. Mohammad had good intentions in removing the people from their polytheistic worship however he did not go far enough in his reform.

Mecca was the place where the idol Allah was located, so the people would face in that direction when they prayed. Prior to Islam the people would pray 5 times a day facing Mecca (The Encyclopedia of Islam p.303) Prior to Islam's beginning each Arab tribe used Allah to refer to its own particular high god. This is why Hubal, the Moon god, (known by other names) was the central focus of prayer at the Kaabah and people prayed to Hubal and they used the name Allah. The crescent moon was the symbol of the moon God Allah (Hubal) and is still used as a symbol of Islam today (although they have changed the meaning to be -from Mecca to the moon Islam will spread). Today there is hardly a Muslim that knows its ancient origin. History records it as an ancient pagan fertility symbol that is found throughout the Middle East. Mohammed smashed all the idols that led the people into idolatry but the black stone was kept which Muslims continue to kiss today. This was another practice that preceded Mohammad.
...

In Islam some state that if one memorizes the 99 names of Allah and repeats them he will get into paradise because they give the believer power, making them conscious of God. Neither the Koran nor the Hadith speak of these names in such a way. The Suras in the Koran begin with “In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful. Yet in practice Islam's god is portrayed as stern, harsh, having compassion on those who do right and deals severely with those who do not.
...
Source: http://www.letusreason.org/Islam6.htm

saidevo
24 September 2006, 10:21 AM
World Wide Vedas (wwv)
The Kaaba Stone



As in the headquarters of Christianity (namely the Vatican in Rome) at the headquarters of Islam too (namely in the Kaaba temple in Mecca city of Saudi Arabia) the ancient Hindu Shiva Linga may still be seen. This cylindrical stone, rendered immovable for security by being fixed in the outer corner of a wall, is the object of reverence of all Muslims. Here Muslims still continue the seven perambulations in the age old Hindu style except that they move anti-clockwise. White silver foil shrouds the stone. The oval uncovered central portion gives the pilgrims an idea of how the stone looks. Syrians had once carried away the stone as a war trophy and kept it for 22 years.

Source: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/art_photo_one.htm


Stephen Knapp presents "The Photographic Evidence of the Vedic Influence Found in the Red Fort and Other Buildings in Delhi and India, as well as in Drawings and Art from Elsewhere in the World" in his Website: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/photographic_evidence_of_vedic_influence.htm

Skillganon
24 September 2006, 10:07 PM
History of the Name Allah

Ha, Ha,. That is the most rediculous polemic I ever heard.

Skillganon
24 September 2006, 10:21 PM
History of the Name Allah

Refutation of such nonsense.

Is Hubal The Same As Allah? (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html#1)

saidevo
25 September 2006, 12:41 AM
Namaste Skill,


Refutation of such nonsense.

Is Hubal The Same As Allah? (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html#1)

Getting head on with missionary Christianity? Good.
Do you have a similar Website against Sanatana Dharma?

saidevo
25 September 2006, 02:12 AM
Now about the prevalence of Sanatana Dharma and Vedic culture in Arabia during King Vikramaditya's reign (102 BCE to 15 CE). This was the origin of the Islam, their culture and Kaaba.



Kaaba a Hindu Temple?

[Note: A recent archeological find in Kuwait unearthed a gold-plated statue of the Hindu deity Ganesh. A Muslim resident of Kuwait requested historical research material that can help explain the connection between Hindu civilisation and Arabia.]

Was the Kaaba Originally a Hindu Temple?
By P.N. Oak (Historian)

Glancing through some research material recently, I was pleasantly surprised to come across a reference to a king Vikramaditya inscription found in the Kaaba in Mecca proving beyond doubt that the Arabian Peninsula formed a part of his Indian Empire.

The text of the crucial Vikramaditya inscription, found inscribed on a gold dish hung inside the Kaaba shrine in Mecca, is found recorded on page 315 of a volume known as ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ treasured in the Makhtab-e-Sultania library in Istanbul, Turkey. Rendered in free English the inscription says:

"Fortunate are those who were born (and lived) during king Vikram’s reign. He was a noble, generous dutiful ruler, devoted to the welfare of his subjects. But at that time we Arabs, oblivious of God, were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting and torture were rampant. The darkness of ignorance had enveloped our country. Like the lamb struggling for her life in the cruel paws of a wolf we Arabs were caught up in ignorance. The entire country was enveloped in a darkness so intense as on a new moon night. But the present dawn and pleasant sunshine of education is the result of the favour of the noble king Vikramaditya whose benevolent supervision did not lose sight of us- foreigners as we were. He spread his sacred religion amongst us and sent scholars whose brilliance shone like that of the sun from his country to ours. These scholars and preceptors through whose benevolence we were once again made cognisant of the presence of God, introduced to His sacred existence and put on the road of Truth, had come to our country to preach their religion and impart education at king Vikramaditya’s behest."
...
(Page 315 Sayar-ul-okul).
[Note: The title ‘Saya-ul-okul’ signifies memorable words.]

A careful analysis of the above inscription enables us to draw the following conclusions:

1. That the ancient Indian empires may have extended up to the eastern boundaries of Arabia until Vikramaditya and that it was he who for the first time conquered Arabia. Because the inscription says that king Vikram who dispelled the darkness of ignorance from Arabia.

2. That, whatever their earlier faith, King Vikrama’s preachers had succeeded in spreading the Vedic (based on the Vedas, the Hindu sacred scriptures)) way of life in Arabia.

3. That the knowledge of Indian arts and sciences was imparted by Indians to the Arabs directly by founding schools, academies and cultural centres. The belief, therefore, that visiting Arabs conveyed that knowledge to their own lands through their own indefatigable efforts and scholarship is unfounded.

An ancillary conclusion could be that the so-called Kutub Minar (in Delhi, India) could well be king Vikramadiya’s tower commemorating his conquest of Arabia. This conclusion is strengthened by two pointers. Firstly, the inscription on the iron pillar near the so-called Kutub Minar refers to the marriage of the victorious king Vikramaditya to the princess of Balhika. This Balhika is none other than the Balkh region in West Asia. It could be that Arabia was wrestled by king Vikramaditya from the ruler of Balkh who concluded a treaty by giving his daughter in marriage to the victor. Secondly, the township adjoining the so called Kutub Minar is named Mehrauli after Mihira who was the renowned astronomer-mathematician of king Vikram’s court. Mehrauli is the corrupt form of Sanskrit ‘Mihira-Awali’ signifying a row of houses raised for Mihira and his helpers and assistants working on astronomical observations made from the tower.
...

This discovery changes the entire complexion of the history of ancient India. Firstly we may have to revise our concepts about the king who had the largest empire in history. It could be that the expanse of king Vikramaditya’s empire was greater than that of all others.

Secondly, the idea that the Indian empire spread only to the east and not in the west beyond say, Afghanisthan may have to be abandoned.

Thirdly the effeminate and pathetic belief that India, unlike any other country in the world could by some age spread her benign and beatific cultural influence, language, customs, manners and education over distant lands without militarily conquering them is baseless. India did conquer all those countries physically wherever traces of its culture and language are still extant and the region extended from Bali island in the south Pacific to the Baltic in Northern Europe and from Korea to Kaaba. The only difference was that while Indian rulers identified themselves with the local population and established welfare states, Moghuls and others who ruled conquered lands perpetuated untold atrocities over the vanquished.
...

‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ tells us that a pan-Arabic poetic symposium used to be held in Mecca at the annual Okaj fair in pre-Islamic times. All leading poets used to participate in it.

Poems considered best were awarded prizes. The best-engraved on gold plate were hung inside the temple. Others etched on camel or goatskin were hung outside. Thus for thousands of years the Kaaba was the treasure house of the best Arabian poetic thought inspired by the Indian Vedic tradition.

That tradition being of immemorial antiquity many poetic compositions were engraved and hung inside and outside on the walls of the Kaaba. But most of the poems got lost and destroyed during the storming of the Kaaba by Prophet Mohammad’s troops. The Prophet’s court poet, Hassan-bin-Sawik, who was among the invaders, captured some of the treasured poems and dumped the gold plate on which they were inscribed in his own home. Sawik’s grandson, hoping to earn a reward carried those gold plates to Khalif’s court where he met the well-known Arab scholar Abu Amir Asamai. The latter received from the bearer five gold plates and 16 leather sheets with the prize-winning poems engraved on them. The bearer was sent away happy bestowed with a good reward.

On the five gold plates were inscribed verses by ancient Arab poets like Labi Baynay, Akhatab-bin-Turfa and Jarrham Bintoi. That discovery made Harun-al-Rashid order Abu Amir to compile a collection of all earlier compositions. One of the compositions in the collection is a tribute in verse paid by Jarrham Bintoi, a renowned Arab poet, to king Vikramaditya. Bintoi who lived 165 years before Prophet Mohammad had received the highest award for the best poetic compositions for three years in succession in the pan-Arabic symposiums held in Mecca every year. All those three poems of Bintoi adjudged best were hung inside the Kaaba temple, inscribed on gold plates. One of these constituted an unreserved tribute to King Vikramaditya for his paternal and filial rule over Arabia. That has already been quoted above.

Pre-Islamic Arabian poet Bintoi’s tribute to king Vikramaditya is a decisive evidence that it was king Vikramaditya who first conquered the Arabian Peninsula and made it a part of the Indian Empire. This explains why starting from India towards the west we have all Sanskrit names like Afghanisthan (now Afghanistan), Baluchisthan, Kurdisthan, Tajikiathan, Uzbekisthan, Iran, Sivisthan, Iraq, Arvasthan, Turkesthan (Turkmenisthan) etc.

Historians have blundered in not giving due weight to the evidence provided by Sanskrit names pervading over the entire west Asian region. Let us take a contemporary instance. Why did a part of India get named Nagaland even after the end of British rule over India? After all historical traces are wiped out of human memory, will a future age historian be wrong if he concludes from the name Nagaland that the British or some English speaking power must have ruled over India? Why is Portuguese spoken in Goa (part of India), and French in Pondichery (part of India), and both French and English in Canada? Is it not because those people ruled over the territories where their languages are spoken? Can we not then justly conclude that wherever traces of Sanskrit names and traditions exist Indians once held sway? It is unfortunate that this important piece of decisive evidence has been ignored all these centuries.

Another question which should have presented itself to historians for consideration is how could it be that Indian empires could extend in the east as far as Korea and Japan, while not being able to make headway beyond Afghanisthan? In fact land campaigns are much easier to conduct than by sea. It was the Indians who ruled the entire West Asian region from Karachi to Hedjaz and who gave Sanskrit names to those lands and the towns therein, introduce their pantheon of the fire-worship, imparted education and established law and order
...

Incidentally this also explains why king Vikramaditya is so famous in history. Apart from the nobility and truthfulness of heart and his impartial filial affection for all his subjects, whether Indian or Arab, as testified by Bintoi, king Vikramaditya has been permanently enshrined in the pages of history because he was the world’s greatest ruler having the largest empire. It should be remembered that only a monarch with a vast empire gets famous in world history. Vikram Samvat (calendar still widely in use in India today) which he initiated over 2000 years ago may well mark his victory over Arabia, and the so called Kutub Minar (Kutub Tower in Delhi), a pillar commemorating that victory and the consequential marriage with the Vaihika (Balkh) princess as testified by the nearby iron pillar inscription.

A great many puzzles of ancient world history get automatically solved by a proper understanding of these great conquests of king Vikramaditya. As recorded by the Arab poet Bintoi, Indian scholars, preachers and social workers spread the fire-worship ceremony, preached the Vedic way of life, manned schools, set up Ayurvedic (healing) centres, trained the local people in irrigation and agriculture and established in those regions a democratic, orderly, peaceful, enlightened and religious way of life. That was of course, a Vedic Hindu way of life.

It is from such ancient times that Indian Kshtriya royal families, like the Pahalvis and Barmaks, have held sway over Iran and Iraq. It is those conquests, which made the Parsees Agnihotris i.e., fire-worshippers. It is therefore that we find the Kurds of Kurdisthan speaking a Sanskritised dialect, fire temples existing thousands of miles away from India, and scores of sites of ancient Indian cultural centres like Navbahar in West Asia and the numerous viharas in Soviet Russia spread throughout the world. Ever since so many viharas are often dug up in Soviet Russia, ancient Indian sculptures are also found in excavations in Central Asia. The same goes for West Asia.

[Note: Ancient Indian sculptures include metal statues of the Hindu deity Ganesh (the elephant headed god); the most recent find being in Kuwait].

Unfortunately these chapters of world history have been almost obliterated from public memory. They need to be carefully deciphered and rewritten. When these chapters are rewritten they might change the entire concept and orientation of ancient history.

In view of the overwhelming evidence led above, historians, scholars, students of history and lay men alike should take note that they had better revise their text books of ancient world history. The existence of Hindu customs, shrines, Sanskrit names of whole regions, countries and towns and the Vikramaditya inscriptions reproduced at the beginning are a thumping proof that Indian Kshatriyas once ruled over the vast region from Bali to Baltic and Korea to Kaaba in Mecca, Arabia at the very least.

Source: http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm


Why is the number 786 sacred in Islam?

Because it is the mirror image of the letter Aum in Arabic!



Links to similar topics

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/
byauthor/aditichaturvedi/vpopia2.html

The following explanation is reproduced from the Sword of Truth archives.

All Arabic copies of the Koran have the mysterious figure 786 imprinted on them. No Arabic scholar has been able to determine the choice of this particular number as divine. It is an established fact that Muhammad was illiterate therefore it is obvious that he would not be able to differentiate numbers from letters. This "magical" number is none other than the Vedic holy letter "OM" written in Sanskrit (Refer to figure 2). Anyone who knows Sanskrit can try reading the symbol for "OM" backwards in the Arabic way and magically the numbers 786 will appear! Muslims in their ignorance simply do not realise that this special number is nothing more than the holiest of Vedic symbols misread.

127

Source: http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

saidevo
25 September 2006, 03:08 AM
Islam and Sanatana Dharma: Cultural and Religious Similarities

As pointed out by P.N. Oak (Historian) in his article Was the Kaaba Originally a Hindu Temple?



The first modern edition of ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ was printed and published in Berlin in 1864. A subsequent edition is the one published in Beirut in 1932.

The collection is regarded as the most important and authoritative anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It throws considerable light on the social life, customs, manners and entertainment modes of ancient Arabia. The book also contains an elaborate description of the ancient shrine of Mecca, the town and the annual fair known as OKAJ which used to be held every year around the Kaaba temple in Mecca. This should convince readers that the annual haj of the Muslims to the Kaaba is of earlier pre-Islamic congregation.

But the OKAJ fair was far from a carnival. It provided a forum for the elite and the learned to discuss the social, religious, political, literary and other aspects of the Vedic culture then pervading Arabia. ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ asserts that the conclusion reached at those discussions were widely respected throughout Arabia. Mecca, therefore, followed the Varanasi tradition (of India) of providing a venue for important discussions among the learned while the masses congregated there for spiritual bliss. The principal shrines at both Varanasi in India and at Mecca in Arvasthan (Arabia) were Siva temples. Even to this day ancient Mahadev (Siva) emblems can be seen. It is the Shankara (Siva) stone that Muslim pilgrims reverently touch and kiss in the Kaaba.

Arabic tradition has lost trace of the founding of the Kaaba temple. The discovery of the Vikramaditya inscription affords a clue. King Vikramaditya is known for his great devotion to Lord Mahadev (Siva). At Ujjain (India), the capital of Vikramaditya, exists the famous shrine of Mahankal, i.e., of Lord Shankara (Siva) associated with Vikramaditya. Since according to the Vikramaditya inscription he spread the Vedic religion, who else but he could have founded the Kaaba temple in Mecca?
...

1. The Haj Pilgrim (Numbers/captions are mine)
As the pilgrim proceeds towards Mecca he is asked to shave his head and beard and to don special sacred attire that consists of two seamless sheets of white cloth. One is to be worn round the waist and the other over the shoulders. Both these rites are remnants of the old Vedic practice of entering Hindu temples clean- and with holy seamless white sheets.

2. Siva in Kaaba
The main shrine in Mecca, which houses the Siva emblem, is known as the Kaaba. It is clothed in a black shroud. That custom also originates from the days when it was thought necessary to discourage its recapture by camouflaging it.

3. Navagraha in Kaaba?
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Kaaba has 360 images. Traditional accounts mention that one of the deities among the 360 destroyed when the place was stormed, was that of Saturn; another was of the Moon and yet another was one called Allah. That shows that in the Kaaba the Arabs worshipped the nine planets in pre-Islamic days. In India the practice of ‘Navagraha’ puja, that is worship of the nine planets, is still in vogue. Two of these nine are Saturn and Moon.

In India the crescent moon is always painted across the forehead of the Siva symbol. Since that symbol was associated with the Siva emblem in Kaaba it came to be grafted on the flag of Islam.

4. Ganga near Kaaba
Another Hindu tradition associated with the Kaaba is that of the sacred stream Ganga (sacred waters of the Ganges river). According to the Hindu tradition Ganga is also inseparable from the Shiva emblem as the crescent moon. Wherever there is a Siva emblem, Ganga must co-exist. True to that association a sacred fount exists near the Kaaba. Its water is held sacred because it has been traditionally regarded as Ganga since pre-Islamic times (Zam-Zam water).

[Note: Even today, Muslim pilgrims who go to the Kaaba for Haj regard this Zam-Zam water with reverence and take some bottled water with them as sacred water.]

5. Kaaba (a)pradhakshinam
Muslim pilgrims visiting the Kaaba temple go around it seven times. In no other mosque does the circumambulation prevail. Hindus invariably circumambulate around their deities. This is yet another proof that the Kaaba shrine is a pre-Islamic Indian Shiva temple where the Hindu practice of circumambulation is still meticulously observed.

6. Seven steps denote Fire Worship
The practice of taking seven steps- known as Saptapadi in Sanskrit- is associated with Hindu marriage ceremony and fire worship. The culminating rite in a Hindu marriage enjoins upon the bride and groom to go round the sacred fire four times (but misunderstood by many as seven times). Since "Makha" means fire, the seven circumambulations also prove that Mecca was the seat of Indian fire-worship in the West Asia.

7. Allah from Sanskrit
It might come as a stunning revelation to many that the word ‘ALLAH’ itself is Sanskrit. In Sanskrit language Allah, Akka and Amba are synonyms. They signify a goddess or mother. The term ‘ALLAH’ forms part of Sanskrit chants invoking goddess Durga, also known as Bhavani, Chandi and Mahishasurmardini. The Islamic word for God is., therefore, not an innovation but the ancient Sanskrit appellation retained and continued by Islam. Allah means mother or goddess and mother goddess.

8. Koran from Vedas
One Koranic verse is an exact translation of a stanza in the Yajurveda. This was pointed out by the great research scholar Pandit Satavlekar of Pardi in one of his articles.

[Note: Another scholar points out that the following teaching from the Koran is exactly similar to the teaching of the Kena Upanishad (1.7).

The Koran:

"Sight perceives Him not. But He perceives men's sights; for He is the knower of secrets, the Aware."

Kena Upanishad:

"That which cannot be seen by the eye but through which the eye itself sees, know That to be Brahman (God) and not what people worship here (in the manifested world)."

A simplified meaning of both the above verses reads:

God is one and that He is beyond man's sensory experience.]

9. Healing Systems
The identity of Unani and Ayurvedic systems shows that Unani is just the Arabic term for the Ayurvedic system of healing taught to them and administered in Arabia when Arabia formed part of the Indian empire.

10. Islamic Calendar
It will now be easy to comprehend the various Hindu customs still prevailing in West Asian countries even after the existence of Islam during the last 1300 years. Let us review some Hindu traditions which exist as the core of Islamic practice.

The Hindus have a pantheon of 33 gods. People in Asia Minor too worshipped 33 gods before the spread of Islam. The lunar calendar was introduced in West Asia during the Indian rule. The Muslim month ‘Safar’ signifying the ‘extra’ month (Adhik Maas) in the Hindu calendar. The Muslim month Rabi is the corrupt form of Ravi meaning the sun because Sanskrit ‘V’ changes into Prakrit ‘B’ (Prakrit being the popular version of Sanskrit language). The Muslim sanctity for Gyrahwi Sharif is nothing but the Hindu Ekadashi (Gyrah = elevan or Gyaarah). Both are identical in meaning.

11. Bakari Eed
The Islamic practice of Bakari Eed derives from the Go-Medh and Ashva-Medh Yagnas or sacrifices of Vedic times. Eed in Sanskrit means worship. The Islamic word Eed for festive days, signifying days of worship, is therefore a pure Sanskrit word. The word MESH in the Hindu zodiac signifies a lamb. Since in ancient times the year used to begin with the entry of the sun in Aries, the occasion was celebrated with mutton feasting. That is the origin of the Bakari Eed festival.

[Note: The word Bakari is an Indian language word for a goat.]

12. Namaz
Since Eed means worship and Griha means ‘house’, the Islamic word Idgah signifies a ‘House of worship’ which is the exact Sanskrit connotation of the term. Similarly the word ‘Namaz’ derives from two Sanskrit roots ‘Nama’ and ‘Yajna’ (NAMa yAJna) meaning bowing and worshipping.

Vedic descriptions about the moon, the different stellar constellations and the creation of the universe have been incorporated from the Vedas in Koran part 1 chapter 2, stanza 113, 114, 115, and 158, 189, chapter 9, stanza 37 and chapter 10, stanzas 4 to 7.

13. Five Times
Recital of the Namaz five times a day owes its origin to the Vedic injunction of Panchmahayagna (five daily worship- Panch-Maha-Yagna) which is part of the daily Vedic ritual prescribed for all individuals.

Muslims are enjoined cleanliness of five parts of the body before commencing prayers. This derives from the Vedic injuction ‘Shareer Shydhyartham Panchanga Nyasah’.

14. Four Months
Four months of the year are regarded as very sacred in Islamic custom. The devout are enjoined to abstain from plunder and other evil deeds during that period. This originates in the Chaturmasa i.e., the four-month period of special vows and austerities in Hindu tradition. Shabibarat is the corrupt form of Shiva Vrat and Shiva Ratra. Since the Kaaba has been an important centre of Shiva (Siva) worship from times immemorial, the Shivaratri festival used to be celebrated there with great gusto. It is that festival which is signified by the Islamic word Shabibarat.

15. Gita in Kaaba walls?
Encyclopaedias tell us that there are inscriptions on the side of the Kaaba walls. What they are, no body has been allowed to study, according to the correspondence I had with an American scholar of Arabic. But according to hearsay at least some of those inscriptions are in Sanskrit, and some of them are stanzas from the Bhagavad Gita.

16. The Jat and the Ginger!
It is mentioned in the Abadis i.e., the authentic traditions of Prophet Mohammad compiled by Imam Bukhari that the Indian tribe of Jats had settled in Arabia before Prophet Mohammad’s times. Once when Hazrat Ayesha, wife of the Prophet, was taken ill, her nephew sent for a Jat physician for her treatment. This proves that Indians enjoyed a high and esteemed status in Arabia. Such a status could not be theirs unless they were the rulers. Bukhari also tells us that an Indian Raja (king) sent a jar of ginger pickles to the Prophet. This shows that the Indian Jat Raja ruled an adjacent area so as to be in a position to send such an insignificant present as ginger pickles. The Prophet is said to have so highly relished it as to have told his colleagues also to partake of it. These references show that even during Prophet Mohammad’s times Indians retained their influential role in Arabia, which was a dwindling legacy from Vikramaditya’s times.

17. Worship of Forefathers (Pitru Vandanam)
The Islamic term ‘Eed-ul-Fitr’ derives from the ‘Eed of Piters’ that is worship of forefathers in Sanskrit tradition. In India, Hindus commemorate their ancestors during the Pitr-Paksha that is the fortnight reserved for their remembrance. The very same is the significance of ‘Eed-ul-Fitr’ (worship of forefathers).

18. Moon sight to break fast
The Islamic practice of observing the moon rise before deciding on celebrating the occasion derives from the Hindu custom of breaking fast on Sankranti and Vinayaki Chaturthi only after sighting the moon.

19. Barah and Chayal
Barah Vafat, the Muslim festival for commemorating those dead in battle or by weapons, derives from a similar Sanskrit tradition because in Sanskrit ‘Phiphaut’ is ‘death’. Hindus observe Chayal Chaturdashi in memory of those who have died in battle.

20. Arabia itself...
The word Arabia is itself the abbreviation of a Sanskrit word. The original word is ‘Arabasthan’. Since Prakrit ‘B’ is Sanskrit ‘V’ the original Sanskrit name of the land is ‘Arvasthan’. ‘Arva’ in Sanskrit means a horse. Arvasthan signifies a land of horses., and as well all know, Arabia is famous for its horses.

Source: http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm


Here is a picture of a pilgrim going round the Kaaba stone (notice his attire).
130

With such overwhelming revelations, I feel that:
Hindus should feel Hindu Muslim bhai bhai! and
Muslims should feel Hum Hindustani!

Isvar Allah tere naam, sab ko sanmati de Bhagvan!

Sudarshan
25 September 2006, 04:36 AM
This is how 786 works.

sarabhanga
25 September 2006, 05:44 AM
This is how 786 works.



७ ८६


7 + 8 = 15, and 1 + 5 = 6, and 6 indicates the Sun.
8 + 6 = 14, and 1 + 4 = 5, and 5 indicates the Moon.



In addition, 5 + 6 = 11, and 11 is the number of Rudra.

And 786 (just as AUM, and the grace of Rudra ~ i.e. Shiva) surely holds the power to unite (and thus destroy) all opposition !

saidevo
25 September 2006, 07:12 AM
The Hindu history of the Arabs:

Further evidences (numbers mine):


1. Page 197 of this anthology ('Sayar-ul-Okul') contains a poem praising the Vedas composed by a poet named Labi bin Akhtab bin Turfa, who lived 2300 years before Mohammed, that is, about 4000 years ago.

2. Much later, yet five centuries before Mohammed, there was a poet named Jarkham bin Tai, who wrote a beautiful poem on Lord Krishna.

3. Then there was another pre-Islamic Arab poet by name Noman bin Adi, who has written a poem in praise of the great ancient Hindu king Vikramaditya. An article in the commemoration issue of a journal of Ujjain published on the occasion of the 2000th anniversary of the Vikram Era contains a description of Vikramaditya’s rule over Arabia. Seven such poems of pre-Islamic times are still extant, says Bharatiya Sanskriti Kosh.

4. Coming down to Mohammed’s own time, a poem by Umar bin Hashsham eulogises Lord Shiva, specifically mentioning him by the name ‘Mahadeva’. This poem appears on page 265 of the Se’-arul Oqul anthology. Hashsham was also known as Abul Haqam, which was his family name. He was Mohammed’s uncle, but there were sharp religious differences between the two. Because of this hostility Mohammed’s followers changed his name from Abul Haqam, which means ‘father of knowledge’ to Abul Jahal, which means ‘father of fools’. Hashsham refused to become a Muslim, and was finally killed in a battle with Muslims.

5. This Literary evidence is strengthened by social evidence in the form of a prosperous trading community called Sabaeans that lived in the South of Arabia. These Sabaeans practised “an ancient natural religion”, in which “the sun, the moon and the planets” figured prominently. They “believed in the migration of the soul and in great world periods.....” (Encyclopedia Americana.) Rebirth and Yugas are both prominent Hindu tenets.

Even the First Encyclopedia of Islam attests to the high standard the Sabaean civilisation had achieved. It says archaeology has uncovered “sculptures and remains of colonnades, palaces, temples, city walls, public works, specially water works etc., which confirm the brilliant picture of Sabaean culture”. (Vol. VII.)

6. Whether dating from Sabaean times (800 b.c. onwards) or even earlier, there are pink or saffron-coloured stone structures and remains of deserted cities of pre-Islamic times scattered in the desert wastes of Arabia. In his book With Lawrence of Arabia Lowell Thomas gives a graphic account of one such city called Petra, where “several hundred thousand people must once have lived...”. He describes a magnificent temple near the city, which looked like “a delicate and limpid rose”, and “was carved from the cliff almost 2000 years ago”.

7. And this leads one to the question of questions: was Kaba, the present holy of Islamic holies, a former Shiva temple? In his well-researched book Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them Sita Ram Goel has dealt with this subject in some detail. He begins by saying that initially he had rejected the claim, but some facts that he came to know later had compelled him to revise his opinions, and, although still unsure about the Shiva temple, he “cannot resist the conclusion that it was a hallowed place of Hindu pilgrimage”.

The tradition of Kaba being a Shiva temple was very much alive in the times of Guru Nanak, and is preserved in the Makke-Madine di Goshati (ed. Dr. Kulwant Singh, Patiala, 1988). During his travels in the Middle East Guru Nanak visited Mecca, where he had religious discussions with Islamic theologians, and he reportedly told them, “Mecca is an ancient place of pilgrimage, and there is a Linga of Lord Mahadeva here”.

8. Famous Chinese traveller Huen Tsang has also written that during the glorious reign of King Harsha India’s influence, culture and religion had extended upto Mecca, where Shiva’s black Linga was revered by the Arabs. The late Dr S.B. Varnekar, a reputed Sanskritist, had written to this writer that he had heard the term ‘Meccashwar’, though not seen it used.

9. ‘Hind’ was a popular name among pre-Islamic Arabs. Many years ago Arabic Scholar Dr Jeelany had written in this journal that many Arab women had this name. One of Mohammed’s wives, as well as one of his aunts, were named Hind. The original name of Laila of the well-known Laila-Majnu love story was also Hind.

10. Finally, the Hindu history of Arabia far pre-dates the comparatively recent times when most of the Arab peninsula became Saudi Arabia, while a small stretch of the southern coastal region became a group of small states known as United Arab Emerates (UAE). This needs to be stated because Bahrain in the UAE was clearly an outpost of the Vedic civilisation. Scholars surmise that Bahrain was called Dilmun in ancient times. In his book In search of the Cradle of Civilisation David Frawley speculates that Dilmun was probably “a colony of the Indus-Saraswati civilisation”.

11. Actually the early Arab Muslims were eager learners, and they did not hide their admiration of the Hindus, from whom they sought to learn as many things as the Hindus could teach them. This admiration is amply evident in the accounts of contemporary travellers, chroniclers and historians, such as Sulaiman the Merchant, Abu Zaid Saifi, Abu Dulf bin Muhalhil, Burzurg bin Shahriyar, Masudi, Istakhari, Ibn-i-Hauqal Muqaddasi, al-Biruni, and Ibn-i-Battuta. Their records reveal the admiration the Arabs had for Indian/Hindu arts and sciences, and their influence on Arab civilisation—even after the advent of Islam. Equipped by their Hindu mentors, they became a conduit for the transmission of Hindu knowledge to the West. How well they learnt from the Hindus what they taught to the West is demonstrated by a tiny but tell-tale detail—the Hindu numerals they taught the Westerners became known in the West as Arabic numerals.

Source: The Hindu history of the Arabs By Sudhakar Raje
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=87&page=31

saidevo
25 September 2006, 11:21 PM
Poems from Sair-Ul-Okul
Mohammad's Uncle Sings the Praise of Mahadeva

The fact that the Shivling remains to this day in the Kaaba is solely due to the fact that it happened to be the Qurayshi tribe's faceless Family Deity. As I mentioned before Muhammad's name itself came from Mahadeva, which is another cognate for Lord Shiva. Muhammad's own uncle, Umar-Bin-E-Hassham was a staunch Hindu and fervent devotee of Lord Shiva. He was a renowned poet and wrote many verses in praise of Shiva. One of these has survived on page 235 of Sair-Ul-Okul and reads as follows:

Kafavomal fikra min ulumin Tab asayru
Kaluwan amataul Hawa was Tajakhru
We Tajakhayroba udan Kalalwade-E Liboawa
Walukayanay jatally, hay Yauma Tab asayru
Wa Abalolha ajabu armeeman MAHADEVA
Manojail ilamuddin minhum wa sayattaru
Wa Sahabi Kay-yam feema-Kamil MINDAY Yauman
Wa Yakulum no latabahan foeennak Tawjjaru
Massayaray akhalakan hasanan Kullahum
Najumum aja- at Summa gabul HINDU

which translates as:

The man who may spend his life in sin
and irreligion or waste it in lechery and wrath
If at least he relent and return to
righteousness can he be saved?
If but once he worship Mahadeva with a pure
heart, he will attain the ultimate in spirituality.
Oh Lord Shiva exchange my entire life for but
a day's sojourn in India where one attains salvation.
But one pilgrimage there secures for one all
merit and company of the truly great.

On Vedas and Hindustan

Some people wrongly believe that Arabs used the word Hindu as a term of contemptuous abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people of pre-Islamic Arabia held Hinduism in great esteem as evidenced from the fact that they would endearingly call their most attractive and favourite daughters as Hinda and Saifi Hindi. The fact that Arabs regarded India as their spiritual and cultural motherland long before the damaging influence of Islam is corroborated by the following poem which mentions each one of the four Vedas by name: (Note The English translation)

Aya muwarekal araj yushaiya noha minar HIND-e Wa aradakallaha manyonaifail jikaratun

-- Oh the divine land of HIND (India) (how) very blessed art thou! Because thou art the chosen of God blessed with knowledge.

Wahalatijali Yatun ainana sahabi akha-atun jikra Wahajayhi yonajjalur -rasu minal HINDATUN

-- That celestial knowledge which like four lighthouses shone in such brilliance - through the (utterances of) Indian sages in fourfold abundance.

Yakuloonallaha ya ahal araf alameen kullahum Fattabe-u jikaratul VEDA bukkun malam yonajjaylatun

-- God enjoins on all humans, follow with hands down The path the Vedas with his divine precept lay down.

Wahowa alamus SAMA wal YAJUR minallahay Tanajeelan Fa-e-noma ya akhigo mutiabay-an Yobassheriyona jatun

-- Bursting with (Divine) knowledge are SAMA & YAJUR bestowed on creation, Hence brothers respect and follow the Vedas, guides to salvation.

Wa-isa nain huma RIG ATHAR nasayhin Ka-a-Khuwatun Wa asant Ala-udan wabowa masha -e-ratun

-- Two others, the Rig and Athar teach us fraternity, Sheltering under their lustre dispels darkness till eternity.

This poem was written by Labi-Bin-E- Akhtab-Bin-E-Turfa who lived in Arabia around 1850 B.C. That was 2300 years before Mohammed! This verse can be found in Sair-Ul-Okul which is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry. It was compiled in 1742 AD under order of the Turkish Sultan Salim.

That the Vedas were the religious scriptures to which the Arabs owed allegiance as early as 1800 B.C. proves not only the antiquity of the Vedas but also the existence of Indian rule over the entire region from the Indus to the Mediterranean, because it is a fact of history that the religion of the ruler is practised by his subjects.

On King Vikramaditya

Again let's refer to the Sair-Ul-Okul. The following poem was written by Jirrham Bintoi who lived 165 years before the prophet Muhammed. It is in praise of India's great King Vikramaditya who had lived 500 years before Bintoi.

Itrasshaphai Santul Bikramatul phehalameen Karimun Bihillahaya Samiminela Motakabbenaran Bihillaha Yubee qaid min howa Yaphakharu phajgal asari nahans Osirim Bayjayholeen Yaha sabdunya Kanateph natephi bijihalin Atadari Bilala masaurateen phakef Tasabahu. Kaunni eja majakaralhada walhada Achimiman, burukan, Kad, Toluho watastaru Bihillaha yakajibainana baleykulle amarena Phaheya jaunabil amaray Bikramatoon - (Sair-ul-Okul, Page 315)

"Fortunate are those who were born during King Vikram's reign, he was a noble generous, dutiful ruler devoted to the welfare of his subjects. But at that time, We Arabs oblivious of divinity were lost in sensual pleasures. Plotting and torture were rampant. The darkness of ignorance had enveloped our country.

"Like the lamb struggling for its life in the cruel jaws of a wolf, we Arabs were gripped by ignorance. The whole country was enveloped in a darkness as intense as on a New moon night. But the present dawn & pleasant sunshine of education is the result of the favor of that noble king Vikram whose benevolence did not lose sight of us foreigners as we were. He spread his sacred culture amongst us and sent scholars from his own land whose brilliance shone like that of the sun in our country. These scholars & preceptors through whose benevolence we were once again made aware of the presence of god, introduced to his secret knowledge & put on the road to truth, had come to our country to initiate us in that culture & impart education."

Thus we can see that Vedic religion and culture were present in Pre-Islamic Arabia as early as 1850 B.C., and definitely present at the time of Mohammed's birth.

Sources:
http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0001/ET25-5336.html
http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0001/ET25-5336.html

saidevo
26 September 2006, 06:12 AM
Hindu Evidences in the Kaaba Temple and its Precincts

Muhammad's uncle was one of the resident priests of the Shiv temple known as "Kaaba". This sacred sanctum was decorated in an extremely rich and beautiful fashion. The Kaaba was astronomically oriented to face the winds. The minor axis of the rectangular base of the Kaaba was solistically aligned towards summer sunrise and winter sunset. It contained 360 statues of Vedic deities and was a shrine primarily associated with sun worship. The temple was an architectural representation of an interlocking set of theories covering virtually all creation and comprehending chemistry, physics, cosmology, meteorology and medicine. Each wall or corner of the Kaaba was associated with a specific region of the world. Thus this glorious Hindu temple was made to symbolically represent a microcosm of the universe. The Arabs would face east when praying. This representation of a microcosm demonstrated by the eight directional structure was derived from the Tantric pattern (Refer to Figure 1) of Hinduism. Right at the centre of the Kaaba was the octogonal pedestal of Bramha the creator. Today this very pedestal is called Maqam-E-Ibrahim by the Muslims.

Figure: A tantric pattern which defines the structure of Kaaba
132

Rama and Somia

In addition, in the inscriptions from Hajja and its neighborhood was found a votive vessel dedicated by members of two tribes called Rama and Somia. Rama and Soma are Vedic deities, Rama is of the Solar dynasty and Soma is of the Lunar Dynasty. The moon god was called by various names in pre-Islamic times, one of them was Allah. Allah had 3 children, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. Al-Lat and Al-Uzza were both feminine deities. Alla is another name for the Hindu goddess Durga. It is obvious that the goddess Al-Lat was Alla (Durga) and Al-Uzza was Oorja (energy or life force also known as Shakti). Manat was none other than Somnath which is another name for Lord Shiva. One significant point to note that Soma in Sanskrit means Moon and Nath means Lord. Thus the Kaba itself was dedicated to the Moon God Somnath alias Shiv and the word Somnath was corrupted to Manat. The famous Black Stone is none other than the ShivLing of Makkeshwar alias Mecca. Lord Shiva is always shown with a crescent Moon on his head and every Shiva temple is supposed to have a sacred water spring representing the Ganges. The Crescent Moon pinnacle of the Kaba and the Zamzam spring (actually Zamza from Ganga) are irrefutable testaments to the Vedic origins of the Kaba.

Pedestal of Brahma

Maqam-E-Ibrahim or more appropriately the pedestal of Brahma. Muslims from all over the world pay homage to this shrine. This shrine is actually the pedestal of Brahma. Notice that the word, Ibrahim is actually a corruption of the word, Brahma. The octogonal grill which is a Vedic design, protects the holy footprints which represent the start of the creation nearly 2000 million years ago.

VAmana's Footprint in Kaaba!

The Kaba temple which was misappropriated and captured by Muslims was originally an International Vedic Shrine. The ancient Vedic scripture Harihareswar Mahatmya mentions that Lord Vishnu's footprints are consecrated in Mecca. An important clue to this fact is that Muslims call this holy precint Haram which is a deviation of the Sanskrit term Hariyam, i.e. the precint of Lord Hari alias Lord Vishnu. The relevant stanza reads:

Ekam Padam Gayayantu MAKKAYAANTU Dwitiyakam Tritiyam Sthapitam Divyam Muktyai Shuklasya Sannidhau

The allusion is to the Vamana incarnation of Lord Vishnu whose blessed feet were consecrated at three holy sites, namely Gaya, Mecca and Shukla Teertha. Worshipping such carved, holy foot impressions is a holy Vedic custom which convert Muslims are inadvertently perpetuating. But in doing this they delude themselves and mislead others that these foot-impressions which are on reverential display in several mosques and tombs around the world are in fact Muhammad's own. There are several snags in this argument. Firstly worshipping a foot -impression amounts to idolatry and should therefore be taboo for a true Muslim. Secondly Muhhamad disclaimed having performed any miracles. Therefore there can be no foot-impression of his on stone. Thirdly foot-impressions must always be in pairs like shoes. Yet in most of these shrines, it is usually a single footprint which suggests that Muhammad walked on only one foot. Another question that crops up is whether the foot-impression is of the same size and foot in all the shrines. The fact appears to be that when the Vedic Kaba shrine in Mecca was invaded by Muhammad, the pairs of foot impressions of Vedic deities there were plundered and later traded to the gullible and devout as Muhammad's own footprints for some favour, reward or personal gain by unscrupulous clergy. That is why they are single and not in pairs.

The Kaaba Black Stone

The Black Stone which is the Shiv Emblem (also known as Sange Aswad which is a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word Sanghey Ashweta--meaning non-white stone) still survives in the Kaba as the central object of Islamic veneration.

The Shiv Ling at The Kaba. It was broken in seven places and now is held together by a silver band.

All other Vedic Idols could be found buried in the precincts or trampled underfoot in labyrinthine subterranean corridors if archaeological excavations are undertaken. The Black Stone has been badly mutilated, its carved base has disappeared and the stone itself is broken at seven places. It's parts are now held together by a silver band studded with silver nails. It lies half buried in the South Eastern portion of the Kaba Wall. The term Kaba itself is a corruption of the Sanskrit word Gabha (Garbha + Graha) which means Sanctum.

Kaaba an International Shrine

Before it was captured by the Muslims Kaaba was an international shrine of the Vedic trinity.

In fact the names of the holiest of Muslim cities Mecca and Medina come from the Sanskrit words Makha-Medini which means the land of Fire-Worship. Even the most ancient names of these 2 cities were Mahcorava- which came from Mahadeva (Lord Shiva) and Yathrabn - which came from Yatra-Sthan (place of pilgrimage).

Islam came into being about 1372 years ago. It is well known that over 7500 years ago, at the time of the Mahabharat War, Kurus ruled the world. The scions of that family administered the different regions.

Prophet Muhammed himself and his family were adherents of Vedic culture.

The Encyclopedia Islamia admits as much when it says: "Muhammed's grandfather and uncles were hereditary priests of the Kaba temple which housed 360 idols!"

The Name Mohammad

According to Arab traditions, Muhammad is a title. We do not know what name his parents had given him. We do however know that the central object of worship which survives at the Kaba today is a Shivling. That was allowed to remain there because that was the faceless family deity of Muhammad's family. One of the original names of Lord Shiv is Mahadev (The Great God) therefore it is entirely possible Muhammad came from Mahadev. This appears fairly certain because the Arabs still have a Mahadevi sect. Moreover the title Mehdi of a Muslim chief is also a malpronounciation of the term Mahadeva. According to Sanskrit etymology the term Muhammad implies 'a person of great inspiration' - Mahan Madah yasya assau Muhammadah. In a hostile sense it also implies 'a person of a proud and haughty temperament'.

The Qurayshi tribe into which Mohammed was born was particularly devoted to Allah and and the three children of the Moon God. Therefore when Muhammad decided to spread his own Divine religion, he took innumerable aspects of the daily Vedic culture that surrounded him and applied them to suit the temperment of his era.

Gods Worshipped in Kaaba

In his book Origines, Volumes 3 & 4", Sir W. Drummond adds "Tsabaism was the universal language of mankind when Abraham received his call, their doctrines were probably extended all over the civilized nations of Earth."

Tsabaism is merely the corruption of the word Shaivism which is Vedic religion. On page 439 of this book, Sir Drummond mentions some of gods of pre-Islamic Arabs, all of which were included in the 360 idols that were consecrated in the Kaba shrine before it was raided and destroyed by Muhammad and his followers. Here are some of the Vedic deities and their original Sanskrit names:

Arabic -- Sanskrit -- English
Al-Dsaizan -- Shani -- Saturn
Al-Ozi or Ozza, -- Oorja -- Divine energy
Al-Sharak -- Shukra -- Venus
Auds,Uddhav-Bag -- Bhagwan -- God
Bajar -- Vajra -- Indra's thunderbolt
Dar -- Indra -- King of gods
Dua Shara -- Deveshwar -- Lord of the gods
Habal -- Bahubali -- Lord of strength
Kabar -- Kuber -- God of wealth
Madan -- Madan -- God of love
Manaph -- Manu --First Man
Manat -- Somnath -- Lord Shiv
Obodes -- Bhoodev -- Earth
Razeah -- Rajesh -- King of kings
Saad -- Siddhi -- God of Luck
Sair -- Shree --Goddess of wealth
Sakiah,Shakrah -- Indra --
Sawara -- Shiva-Eshwar -- God Shiva
Wad -- Budh -- Mercury
Yauk -- Yaksha -- Divine being

Sanskrit and Arabic

Several Arabic words have their origin in Sanskrit terms. Some examples:

Sanskrit -- Arabic -- English
Aapati -- Aafat -- Unfortunate
Anusari -- Ansari -- Follower
Arvasthan -- Arabistan -- Arabid (the land of horses)
Karpas -- Kaifas -- Cotton
Karpur -- Kafur -- Camphor
Maleen -- Malaun -- Dirty, soiled, malevolent
Mrityu -- Mout -- Mortal
Naranga -- Aranja -- Orange
Pra-Ga-ambar -- Paigambar -- One from heaven
Pramukh -- Barmak -- Prominent Chief
Sagwan -- Saj -- Teakwood
Shishya -- Sheikh -- Disciple
Smritic -- -- Semitic (Arabs followed Manu-Smriti and other Vedic smritis
Vish -- Besh -- Poison

Sources:
http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0001/ET25-5336.html
http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0001/ET25-5336.html

sarabhanga
26 September 2006, 06:26 AM
Muhammad's name itself came from Mahadeva




The Kab is praised at Mecca ~ i.e. makara or maccha.

Another name for makara is mInara, and if any Hindu Avatara corresponds with Muhammad it must be mIna (as mInanAtha or mAtsya).

matsya is exactly equivalent with maccha and matsa, which originally derives from the root mad, which itself means to exult or rejoice, or to be drunk.

And thus, mahAmada indicates great (divine) intoxication and great praise (but also great pride).

The "identity" of Mahadeva and Mahamad is just like the perfect twin of Rudra and Keshin.

sarabhanga
26 September 2006, 08:31 PM
Hindu Evidences in the Kaaba Temple and its Precincts

Shiva is primarily associated with the Moon, so how could the site be both a Shiva Mandir and also primarily dedicated to the Sun?

How do we know that the site contained 360 particularly vedic deities? And the number 360 would actually be just as likely (if not more likely) an indication of some mesopotamian origin!

The general description of the old Kab precinct sounds exactly like any traditional holy site, so what makes any of this particularly “vedic”?

Both the Sun and the Moon (and indeed all of the Celestials) arise in the East, and travel West, so the fact that the devotees faced east to worship only shows that their Deity is among those travelers in the Heavens.

The “tantric pattern” is actually a Shri (i.e. Lakshmi) Ganesha Yantra ~ for Prosperity and Success. But only the outer square and the outer 8-petal lotus have been related to the structure of the Kab. And why should an octagonal structure have any particular connexion with Brahma?



Rama and Somia

Rama is NOT a vedic Deity; and in the Vedas, rAma (“causing rest”, from ram) generally means “dark or black”.

rAma is “the dark one” ~ “the darkness or stillness of night”.

And allA simply indicates “mother”.



It is obvious that the goddess Al-Lat was Alla (Durga) and Al-Uzza was Oorja (energy or life force also known as Shakti). Manat was none other than Somnath which is another name for Lord Shiva.

How is any of this obvious?



Makkeshwar alias Mecca

Macchanda (or Matsyendra or Mina) Natha seems more likely than Soma Natha.

sarabhanga
26 September 2006, 09:22 PM
alla iLAH (alleLAH or alleDAH) is the vocative ~ “O Mother (of the) Waters”.

And alla ilAH (allelAH) is particularly addressed to “the flow (of speech or praise)”.

Surely, this (technically feminine plural, but practically without any gender) ancient al-LAH is identical with sarasvatI !

Skillganon
26 September 2006, 09:53 PM
Can you Guyz atleast keep to the topic. The OP is "Concept of God in Islam" So I will appreciate it if you will remove the thread not related to the OP, and open a New thread. Where I will be happy to discuss it.

I will appreciate MOD help here.

Sudarshan
26 September 2006, 10:54 PM
Can you Guyz atleast keep to the topic. The OP is "Concept of God in Islam" So I will appreciate it if you will remove the thread not related to the OP, and open a New thread. Where I will be happy to discuss it.

I will appreciate MOD help here.

The posts are on topic only. Didn't you read here how Allah is connected to the vedas?;)

sarabhanga
26 September 2006, 10:59 PM
Vaamana's Footprint in Kaaba !

hAram means “seizing or destroying”, hariyam is “a horse of a reddish or bay color”, and haryam indicates “seizure” or “being stolen”. And there is no reason to assume that the term is in any way “deviated” or “corrupted” from “the precinct of Hari” !



Foot-impressions must always be in pairs like shoes.

Why is this? Does Vamana hop from world to world like a kangaroo? Or does he take measured steps, just like Aja Ekapad or Dakshinamurti?

Imagine the Ganapatha Kavi in full flight, and imagine the impression that this great Guru (cf. gravity, ‘the all-attracting’; and grave, ‘the all-consuming’) would leave. Only a confirmed Dvaitin would insist that two foot-prints are always required! And the forced insertion of a two-footed Hari into this discussion sounds like an ISKCON “deviation” to me.



Muhammad walked on only one foot.

The fact appears to be that when the Vedic Kaba shrine in Mecca was invaded by Muhammad, the pairs of foot impressions of Vedic deities there were plundered and later traded to the gullible and devout as Muhammad's own footprints for some favour, reward or personal gain by unscrupulous clergy. That is why they are single and not in pairs.

And this is all unfounded gossip that shows remarkable ignorance of the Mahadeva Rudra-Shiva, and of Agni (the source of both the Vedas and Islam), and of the immortal Guru Dakshinamurti !

sarabhanga
26 September 2006, 11:17 PM
Namaste Skill,

Do you really want to insist that Islam is absolutely NOT Sanatana Dharma (i.e. Eternal Law)?

Does Islam truly claim to be only temporary, a passing fashion or fad that (by definition) cannot last forever?

Does Islam truly claim to be untouched by Sarasvati (i.e. the eternal flow of true Knowledge and eternal Life)?

sarabhanga
27 September 2006, 12:16 AM
Mahamada indicates (in the best way) the intoxication or madness of a rutting bull or elephant, and the foremost praising poet or Kavi (i.e. the Ailabakara, as a veritable Keshin Vyasa) would naturally have attracted this title.



Imagine the Ganapatha Kavi in full flight, and imagine the impression that this great Guru (cf. gravity, ‘the all-attracting’; and grave, ‘the all-consuming’) would leave.

And here is the original Kavi Mahamada Ganapathi Ganesha on his Brahmana pedestal (commonly figured as an eight-petalled lotus) ~ 118

sarabhanga
27 September 2006, 01:14 AM
The title Mehdi of a Muslim chief is also a malpronounciation of the term Mahadeva.

meDhI, medhI, or methI, names a pillar or post, and especially a pillar in the middle of a threshing-floor to which oxen are bound, but also any central point or centre. And medhI or methI indicates the “cow-shed” or gotra ~ which is once again naturally applied to the leader of a tribe or clan !



Prophet Muhammed himself and his family were adherents of Vedic culture.

The Encyclopedia Islamia admits as much when it says: "Muhammed's grandfather and uncles were hereditary priests of the Kaba temple which housed 360 idols!"

Is vedic culture alone synonymous with multiple idolatry? Does the Encyclopedia Islamia ever suggest that these 360 idols were of vedic origin?

sarabhanga
27 September 2006, 01:50 AM
Since Sanskrit and Arabic come from the same pre-vedic roots, it would be a simple task to find similar Sanskrit equivalents for almost EVERY Arabic word ~ but I really don't see the point.

It is very easy to cut & paste from dubious sources, but cleaning up the mess of misinformation that remains is more time-consuming!

There is much good information in this thread, but most of the posted selection from VNN seems either unnecessary repetition or plainly misleading.

saidevo
27 September 2006, 04:14 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga and other members.

My post from the VNN source titled "Hindu Evidences in the Kaaba Temple and its Precincts" (post #83) is just to present a Hindu view of the Kaaba temple vis-a-vis the Christian view. The main idea was to collect all major related material in one place, so everyone can view and discuss the merits and shortcomings.

I have not simply cut and pasted the material, but have rearranged it with section headers -- all this to just highlight the possibility that the Kaaba gods might be related to our Vedic gods. Of course, we do not have direct evidences in the form of inscriptions or literatry works or excavated articles to show unequivocally that Kaaba was a Hindu temple. The major inference as yet rests on the Vikramaditya inscription on the gold plate hung in Kaaba and the Sair-Ul-Okul poems.

Because of the timeless antiquity of Vedas and Sanatana Dharma, we tend to evalutate every culture in every part of the world in terms of our scriptures and dharma. I am aware of the shortcomings and the possibility of misinformation this tendency would throw up. After the prima facie view from the Hindu perspective, my next step should be to analyze the facts and impressions and try to sift the corn from the chaff. I shall attempt an objective correlation of the VNN material to the extent I can, and present my impressions shortly. I also invite our more enlightened members to do the same (like Sarabhanga is doing), so we can have a professional document of the Hindu perspective of Kaaba and pre-Islamic Arabia.

All of us are aware that Islam was born and baptised in blood bath that was perpetrated by none other than its founder. And it has been proved by Hindus and Christians that Islam's only God Allah is not a unique name or concept. What remains to be done is to set the records of the pre-Islamic Arabia straight, but this is the work of impartial scholars. What we can do best is to hunt and collect any work that has already been done in this area.

sarabhanga
27 September 2006, 05:09 AM
Namaste Saidevo,

Even without the final nail of the Vikramaditya inscription, I fail to see what archaeological evidence is required to support the (as yet unrefuted) identification of original Islam with a branch of the long preexistent Hindu Dharma.


The name and nature of the God ~ explained from Hindu sources.

The name and nature of the Prophet ~ explained from Hindu sources.

The naming and arrangement of the most Sacred Site and its most Holy Relics ~ explained from Hindu sources.

The most Sacred Verse ~ explained from Hindu sources.

The most Sacred Number ~ explained from Hindu sources.

The most Sacred Signs ~ explained from Hindu sources.

The most Sacred Day ~ explained from Hindu sources.

The manner of Worship ~ explained from Hindu sources.

Sudarshan
27 September 2006, 07:28 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga and other members.

My post from the VNN source titled "Hindu Evidences in the Kaaba Temple and its Precincts" (post #83) is just to present a Hindu view of the Kaaba temple vis-a-vis the Christian view. The main idea was to collect all major related material in one place, so everyone can view and discuss the merits and shortcomings.

I have not simply cut and pasted the material, but have rearranged it with section headers -- all this to just highlight the possibility that the Kaaba gods might be related to our Vedic gods. Of course, we do not have direct evidences in the form of inscriptions or literatry works or excavated articles to show unequivocally that Kaaba was a Hindu temple. The major inference as yet rests on the Vikramaditya inscription on the gold plate hung in Kaaba and the Sair-Ul-Okul poems.

Because of the timeless antiquity of Vedas and Sanatana Dharma, we tend to evalutate every culture in every part of the world in terms of our scriptures and dharma. I am aware of the shortcomings and the possibility of misinformation this tendency would throw up. After the prima facie view from the Hindu perspective, my next step should be to analyze the facts and impressions and try to sift the corn from the chaff. I shall attempt an objective correlation of the VNN material to the extent I can, and present my impressions shortly. I also invite our more enlightened members to do the same (like Sarabhanga is doing), so we can have a professional document of the Hindu perspective of Kaaba and pre-Islamic Arabia.

All of us are aware that Islam was born and baptised in blood bath that was perpetrated by none other than its founder. And it has been proved by Hindus and Christians that Islam's only God Allah is not a unique name or concept. What remains to be done is to set the records of the pre-Islamic Arabia straight, but this is the work of impartial scholars. What we can do best is to hunt and collect any work that has already been done in this area.

Namaste Sai,

You are doing an excellent job. It is well known that both Christianity and Islam had strong pagan roots and their stories are corrupted reproductions from a mixture of other scriptures. Both of them did not leave much evidence, as they silenced everyone who tried to do that. Deadmen leave no witnesses, and the only good witness is a dead man.

No pagan in Arabia ever survived to tell the tale - he was either forcibly converted to Islam or put to the sword. In rare cases they fled and survived. The RCC did similar things in Christianity - both of them destroyed any evidence of pre-existing traditions.

So historic evidence cannot be supplied to the satisfaction of all, and they can be challenged. Both of them have to be exposed only through their associations with other scriptures. Muslims thus enjoy the luxury of hiding behind unverifiable past. There is not a single pagan who was allowed to survive though people of the book were subdued and left alive. Muslim will proudly lie that pagans willingly acepted Islam wherever they invaded and they did not have to kill. We again know this to be a bold lie. Islam was rejected in totality by Hindu pagans, and the muslims in India are only descendents of Hindus converted by force.(by the likes of Aurangazeb). You can visualize how old time Arabia was - you just need to look at the plight of Hindus in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. If this is the plight in the 21st century whe the whole world knows and watches, how much it must have been in the past?

saidevo
27 September 2006, 08:25 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Thanks for your kind and practical words. For a graphic account of how Mohammad perpetrated the bloodbath to found his bloody religion, please read this link:

from http://www.vedicempire.com/vedicarabtext3.htm
to http://www.vedicempire.com/vedicarabtext8.htm

compiled by Aditi Chaturvedi. This link has been quoted in the HareKrishna Website
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz under the title 'Religious Fanaticism'.

Sudarshan
27 September 2006, 09:33 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Thanks for your kind and practical words. For a graphic account of how Mohammad perpetrated the bloodbath to found his bloody religion, please read this link:

from http://www.vedicempire.com/vedicarabtext3.htm
to http://www.vedicempire.com/vedicarabtext8.htm

compiled by Aditi Chaturvedi. This link has been quoted in the HareKrishna Website
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz under the title 'Religious Fanaticism'.

I have come across many sites like these, but the problem is many of the allegations are uprovable and just conjectures. Are these recorded historically? By whom? We get some idea of Islam's atrocities from the quran and the major hadiths, and a "prophet" who led many expeditions of exapanding religion could hardly fit the profile of a god-man. The reason is simple- a godman supported by God can do much better than killing others. Sages in India have been able to convert people by their mere wish. But what is the non Islamic sources of the events in Arabia? Which historian has recorded that during Muhammed's times?

The activities of latter day muslim rulers are easily proved, and Arabian chronicles proudly record the rolling of the heads of Indians, and the destruction of temples. But it is not very easy to prove that Muhammed set the trend for all these. Sufficient proof to convince muslims cannot be provided because pagans never lived to record their miserable experiences.(this is only a guess, but there is sufficient proof of Islam being a violent religion from its own testimony, quran and hadith - muslims can at best argue that these violences were not initiated by Muhammed)

Hindus must not blindly beleive that Muhammed was evil, and quran was founded in provoked violence. At the same time, we cannot beleive that Islam stands for peace, because no evidence has ever been found in history. The Islamic history of India is one of the bloodiest ones in history, with estimated 100 million Hindus killed between 700 A.D-1700 A.D. Muslims cannot even deny this because their own chronicles gleefully record the slaughtering of Hindus. Whether these atrocities were commited by true muslims or deviant muslims is the puzzle to solve! Digging more and more about Muhammed will help settle this issue beyond any controversy, but it must be based on facts and not conjectures.

The Tajmahal was built by destroying a temple, and now bypassed as a "wonder of India"!! How foolish can a Hindu become? It was published in the sixties, but the govt of India banned the book fearing public outcry. Every tomb in India was a Hindu temple.

http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/tajmahal.html

Znanna
27 September 2006, 06:09 PM
My understanding is that "peace" and "surrender" are recombinations of the same root Word in the arabic language.

It is the work of the propogandanistas -on both sides of the aisle- which refers to Islam as "the religion of peace" in my opinion, to the detriment of the root expression's meaning.



ZN

sarabhanga
28 September 2006, 11:47 PM
Mohammad perpetrated the bloodbath to found his bloody religion

The cited pages (by Aditi Chaturvedi) are a perfect example of the dangers of religious fanaticism!

The deliberate distortions are obvious when one simply reads the actual passages from the Koran that have been selectively plundered to find support for this hysterical anti-Islamic propaganda.


In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[68.1] Noon. I swear by the pen and what the angels write,
[68.2] By the grace of your Lord you are not mad.
[68.3] And most surely you shall have a reward never to be cut off.
[68.4] And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.
[68.5] So you shall see, and they (too) shall see,
[68.6] Which of you is afflicted with madness.
[68.7] Surely your Lord best knows him who errs from His way, and He best knows the followers of the right course.
[68.8] So do not yield to the rejecters.
[68.9] They wish that you should be pliant so they (too) would be pliant.
[68.10] And yield not to any mean swearer
[68.11] Defamer, going about with slander
[68.12] Forbidder of good, outstepping the limits, sinful,
[68.13] Ignoble, besides all that, base-born;
[68.14] Because he possesses wealth and sons.
[68.15] When Our communications are recited to him, he says: Stories of those of yore.
[68.16] We will brand him on the nose.
[68.17] Surely We will try them as We tried the owners of the garden, when they swore that they would certainly cut off the produce in the morning,
[68.18] And were not willing to set aside a portion (for the poor).

[6.59] And with Him are the keys of the unseen treasures-- none knows them but He; and He knows what is in the land and the sea, and there falls not a leaf but He knows it, nor a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything green nor dry but (it is all) in a clear book.
[6.60] And He it is Who takes your souls at night (in sleep), and He knows what you acquire in the day, then He raises you up therein that an appointed term may be fulfilled; then to Him is your return, then He will inform you of what you were doing.
[6.61] And He is the Supreme, above His servants, and He sends keepers over you; until when death comes to one of you, Our messengers cause him to die, and they are not remiss.
[6.62] Then are they sent back to Allah, their Master, the True one; now surely His is the judgment and He is swiftest in taking account.
[6.63] Say: Who is it that delivers you from the dangers of the land and the sea (when) you call upon Him (openly) humiliating yourselves, and in secret: If He delivers us from this, we should certainly be of the grateful ones.
[6.64] Say: Allah delivers you from them and from every distress, but again you set up others (with Him).
[6.65] Say: He has the power that He should send on you a chastisement from above you or from beneath your feet, or that He should throw you into confusion, (making you) of different parties; and make some of you taste the fighting of others. See how We repeat the communications that they may understand.
[6.66] And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: I am not placed in charge of you.
[6.67] For every prophecy is a term, and you will come to know (it).
[6.68] And when you see those who enter into false discourses about Our communications, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse, and if the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit after recollection with the unjust people.
[6.69] And nought of the reckoning of their (deeds) shall be against those who guard (against evil), but (theirs) is only to remind, haply they may guard.
[6.70] And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it; these are they who shall be given up to destruction for what they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a painful chastisement because they disbelieved.

[50.1] Qaf. I swear by the glorious Quran (that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.)
[50.2] Nay! they wonder that there has come to them a warner from among themselves, so the unbelievers say: This is a wonderful thing:
[50.3] What! when we are dead and have become dust? That is afar (from probable) return.
[50.4] We know indeed what the earth diminishes of them, and with Us is a writing that preserves.
[50.5] Nay, they rejected the truth when it came to them, so they are (now) in a state of confusion.

[75.1] Nay! I swear by the day of resurrection.
[75.2] Nay! I swear by the self-accusing soul.
[75.3] Does man think that We shall not gather his bones?
[75.4] Yea! We are able to make complete his very fingertips
[75.5] Nay! man desires to give the lie to what is before him.
[75.6] He asks: When is the day of resurrection?
[75.7] So when the sight becomes dazed,
[75.8] And the moon becomes dark,
[75.9] And the sun and the moon are brought together,
[75.10] Man shall say on that day: Whither to fly to?
[75.11] By no means! there shall be no place of refuge!
[75.12] With your Lord alone shall on that.day be the place of rest.
[75.13] Man shall on that day be informed of what he sent before and (what he) put off.
[75.14] Nay! man is evidence against himself,
[75.15] Though he puts forth his excuses.
[75.16] Do not move your tongue with it to make haste with it,
[75.17] : Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it.
[75.18] Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation.
[75.19] Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it.
[75.20] Nay! But you love the present life,
[75.21] And neglect the hereafter.
[75.22] (Some) faces on that day shall be bright,
[75.23] Looking to their Lord.
[75.24] And (other) faces on that day shall be gloomy,
[75.25] Knowing that there will be made to befall them some great calamity.
[75.26] Nay! When it comes up to the throat,
[75.27] And it is said: Who will be a magician?
[75.28] And he is sure that it is the (hour of) parting
[75.29] And affliction is combined with affliction;
[75.30] To your Lord on that day shall be the driving.
[75.31] So he did not accept the truth, nor did he pray,
[75.32] But called the truth a lie and turned back,
[75.33] Then he went to his followers, walking away in haughtiness.
[75.34] Nearer to you (is destruction) and nearer,
[75.35] Again (consider how) nearer to you and nearer.
[75.36] Does man think that he is to be left to wander without an aim?
[75.37] Was he not a small seed in the seminal elements,
[75.38] Then he was a clot of blood, so He created (him) then made (him) perfect.
[75.39] Then He made of him two kinds, the male and the female.
[75.40] Is not He able to give life to the dead?

[79.1] I swear by the angels who violently pull out the souls of the wicked,
[79.2] And by those who gently draw out the souls of the blessed,
[79.3] And by those who float in space,
[79.4] Then those who are foremost going ahead,
[79.5] Then those who regulate the affair.
[79.6] The day on which the quaking one shall quake,
[79.7] What must happen afterwards shall follow it.
[79.8] Hearts on that day shall palpitate,
[79.9] Their eyes cast down.
[79.10] They say: Shall we indeed be restored to (our) first state?
[79.11] What! when we are rotten bones?

[56.45] Surely they were before that made to live in ease and plenty.
[56.46] And they persisted in the great violation.
[56.47] And they used to say: What! when we die and have become dust and bones, shall we then indeed be raised?
[56.48] Or our fathers of yore?
[56.49] Say: The first and the last, SO. Shall most surely be gathered together for the appointed hour of a known day.
[56.51] Then shall you, O you who err and call it a lie!
[56.52] Most surely eat of a tree of Zaqqoom,
[56.53] And fill (your) bellies with it;
[56.54] Then drink over it of boiling water;
[56.55] And drink as drinks the thirsty camel.
[56.56] This is their entertainment on the day of requital.
[56.57] We have created you, why do you not then assent?
[56.58] Have you considered the seed?
[56.59] Is it you that create it or are We the creators?
[56.60] We have ordained death among you and We are not to be overcome,
[56.61] In order that We may bring in your place the likes of you and make you grow into what you know not.
[56.62] And certainly you know the first growth, why do you not then mind?
[56.63] Have you considered what you sow?
[56.64] Is it you that cause it to grow, or are We the causers of growth?

[53.18] Certainly he saw of the greatest signs of his Lord.
[53.19] Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza,
[53.20] And Manat, the third, the last?
[53.21] What! for you the males and for Him the females!
[53.22] This indeed is an unjust division!
[53.23] They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent for them any authority. They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their) souls incline to; and certainly the guidance has come to them from their Lord.
[53.24] Or shall man have what he wishes?
[53.25] Nay! for Allah is the hereafter and the former (life).
[53.26] And how many an angel is there in the heavens whose intercession does not avail at all except after Allah has given permission to whom He pleases and chooses.
[53.27] Most surely they who do not believe in the hereafter name the angels with female names.
[53.28] And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.
[53.29] Therefore turn aside from him who turns his back upon Our reminder and does not desire anything but this world's life.
[53.30] That is their goal of knowledge; surely your Lord knows best him who goes astray from His path and He knows best him who follows the right direction.
[53.31] And Allah's is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth, that He may reward those who do evil according to what they do, and (that) He may reward those who do good with goodness.

atanu
03 October 2006, 11:01 AM
The cited pages (by Aditi Chaturvedi) are a perfect example of the dangers of religious fanaticism!

The deliberate distortions are obvious when one simply reads the actual passages from the Koran that have been selectively plundered to find support for this hysterical anti-Islamic propaganda

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful..


------

Going through this thread some may feel that God is helpless. Or, I will forget that God has the master plan and he alone executes the plan. Certain things have been written in poor taste. I genuinely feel that let Skill have his say about His faith, in a peaceful way. Let us first hear him and then pounce on Him (if there is a need at all).

Sabka Malik Ek.

saidevo
03 October 2006, 12:11 PM
------

Going through this thread some may feel that God is helpless. Or, I will forget that God has the master plan and he alone executes the plan. Certain things have been written in poor taste. I genuinely feel that let Skill have his say about His faith, in a peaceful way. Let us first hear him and then pounce on Him (if there is a need at all).

Sabka Malik Ek.

Namaste Atanu,

It was never my/our intention to slight Islam or Allah or pounce on Skill. The debates cropped up only after Skill argued that Allah was the only God who superseded the God of every other faith; that Allah was not the same as Brahman in the sense he is not inherent in everything; that Mohammed was the last messenger of God and there will be no other after him; and that according to Dr. Zakir Nair, Quaran is essentially the oldest scripture that even precedes the Vedas.

The crux of the problem is the idea that God can also manifest as Personal Deities who may be worshipped through idols. Skill and Islam would never reconcile to this idea. The very idea of idols is blasphemy, people who do it are kafirs, they need to be converted or killed, their idols destroyed. To whatever extent Quran enforces it, this is the typical track record of Islam in the history of Bharat, our holy land.

Christianity seems to be doing better in the requirement of peaceful co-existence. While they still insist on their God and coversion as the only way for people of other faiths, they do not venture with open violence in the form of terrorism. What they do, they do it cunningly and subtly, starting with wrecking Hindu families and communities. The Hindu defence would need to be different for such people. But unlike a Muslim, a Christian has the independence to look outside his religion, while still being in it.

It is not a question of winning or losing debates. It is a question of empathy and keeping an open mind. As an educated and thinking person, I should be able to look beyond the teachings of my religion and appreciate other paths to Truth. After all every human, irrespective of his/her religion, has the same physical body and soul, the same God and the same world to live in, so why fight for supremacy and dominance?

Skill is welcome to speak about the good points about his religion, dropping his tone of sarcasm.

Znanna
03 October 2006, 07:59 PM
Um, not for nothing, but defining "God" seems, well, a bit uppity to me.


ZN

atanu
04 October 2006, 12:15 AM
Namaste Atanu,

-----
It is not a question of winning or losing debates. It is a question of empathy and keeping an open mind. As an educated and thinking person, I should be able to look beyond the teachings of my religion and appreciate other paths to Truth. After all every human, irrespective of his/her religion, has the same physical body and soul, the same God and the same world to live in, so why fight for supremacy and dominance?

Skill is welcome to speak about the good points about his religion, dropping his tone of sarcasm.


Yes sir. I accept this wholeheartedly and I expect Skill to accept this too.

atanu
04 October 2006, 06:18 AM
Um, not for nothing, but defining "God" seems, well, a bit uppity to me.


ZN


Uppity it is. But that speaks the truth. It is a concept and not the truth that skill is placing before us. So, Skill is honest, assuming that he knows it the way I am supposing he knows.

hehe.

Znanna
04 October 2006, 06:02 PM
Uppity it is. But that speaks the truth. It is a concept and not the truth that skill is placing before us. So, Skill is honest, assuming that he knows it the way I am supposing he knows.

hehe.

Hey, Atanu, I'm glad you've adopted my sense of humor :P

I mean, really, this whole meatsack thing is kind of funny, eh? Everyone postures to placate the rational desire of uniqueness, specialness, ego ... and forgets why they choose to do so?

I lived with a Turk for some years. Now, Turks aren't your regular folks, they're Turks. I did learn a lot some of which I still apply on a daily basis, not the least of that is isn't a good idea to roast a goat in a small fireplace in a NY City apartment over charcoal, hehe.

What was fascinating to me was the layers of politeness embedded in the Turkik language and how that was reflected in the societal mores; it reminded me much of Japanese Samaurai. The conclusion I drew was that the structure of the language allowed for or reflected the viewpoint of the society which hosted it ... and that is why I'm scratching the surface of Sanskrit, now, too. Language is the representation of world view or philosophy, I think.

God/z cannot be perceived, as rational brain will not process. Inspired writings, Scriptures, can show the bridge of the gap. But to me, only relaxed, defenseless participation, nonlinear communion ... submission in other words ... without prejudice (to my experience, anyways) allows the taking in of the Holy.

YMMV (your mileage may vary)


Namaste,
ZN

atanu
04 October 2006, 11:14 PM
Hey, Atanu, I'm glad you've adopted my sense of humor :P

I mean, really, this whole meatsack thing is kind of funny, eh? Everyone postures to placate the rational desire of uniqueness, specialness, ego ... and forgets why they choose to do so?

I lived with a Turk for some years. Now, Turks aren't your regular folks, they're Turks. I did learn a lot some of which I still apply on a daily basis, not the least of that is isn't a good idea to roast a goat in a small fireplace in a NY City apartment over charcoal, hehe.

What was fascinating to me was the layers of politeness embedded in the Turkik language and how that was reflected in the societal mores; it reminded me much of Japanese Samaurai. The conclusion I drew was that the structure of the language allowed for or reflected the viewpoint of the society which hosted it ... and that is why I'm scratching the surface of Sanskrit, now, too. Language is the representation of world view or philosophy, I think.

God/z cannot be perceived, as rational brain will not process. Inspired writings, Scriptures, can show the bridge of the gap. But to me, only relaxed, defenseless participation, nonlinear communion ... submission in other words ... without prejudice (to my experience, anyways) allows the taking in of the Holy.

YMMV (your mileage may vary)


Namaste,
ZN



You are all correct. YMMV is also correct.

There was a guru. Lot of people meditated in front of him. When a man was nicely near attaining samadhi, an attendant started a transistor. The failed man complained to guru who in turn chided the failed man only "Why you are bothered?" Then after a pause the guru said: "There seems to be a man inside that transistor but no one is there. Same is here."

About Vak (Gauri) all religions have one opinion. Word was with the God. Word was God. The irony is that in silence only one can realise this.


Regards.

Sudarshan
06 October 2006, 01:03 PM
------

Going through this thread some may feel that God is helpless. Or, I will forget that God has the master plan and he alone executes the plan. Certain things have been written in poor taste. I genuinely feel that let Skill have his say about His faith, in a peaceful way. Let us first hear him and then pounce on Him (if there is a need at all).

Sabka Malik Ek.

Namaste Atanu,

If our differences were solely with respect to difference of opinions, it can be settled by a discussion or by ignoring. However, if the state law requires that you cannot practice religion in the way you want, that could no longer be considered a legitimate freedom of opinion. (anti democratic)

Islam is bound by theocracy, and Saidevo is correct in his judgement. Religion and Politics are intertwined in Islam, and if you were ever to live in an Islamic state, you could not even talk openly of your religion. Such things have been expressedly prohibited by the Islamic law.

I am least surprised to see Skillganon's views in this regard. When I asked him if could go to Arabia and distribute copies of Gita, he mentioned that it cannot be allowed in a sacred place. You might best wish to connect different religions by various threads, but you cannot connect unless both people want it. We can always try from our side, but theoratic religions wipe out any probability that may exist.

Znanna
06 October 2006, 07:34 PM
You are all correct. YMMV is also correct.

There was a guru. Lot of people meditated in front of him. When a man was nicely near attaining samadhi, an attendant started a transistor. The failed man complained to guru who in turn chided the failed man only "Why you are bothered?" Then after a pause the guru said: "There seems to be a man inside that transistor but no one is there. Same is here."

About Vak (Gauri) all religions have one opinion. Word was with the God. Word was God. The irony is that in silence only one can realise this.


Regards.

I knew I could meditate when ...

During the commute I used to do, 2 hours on the train, I could find equilibrium with attorneys debating their stategy for the day in the seats directly behind me.

Nothing matters, really. Depends on U how much U wish to listen to, and when, was my decision.


ZN

sarabhanga
06 October 2006, 11:17 PM
If the state law requires that you cannot practice religion in the way you want, that could no longer be considered a legitimate freedom of opinion (anti-democratic).

The traditional practice of Christianity requires the ritual consumption of spirituous liquor, brewed or distilled from some source of intense sweetness (e.g. grape-wine, honey-mead, etc.). And Islamic law prohibits alcohol primarily for this reason (i.e. to criminalize and abolish the Christian Communion.

Likewise, the Christian preoccupation with criminalizing and denouncing Cannabis and those whose spiritual practice involves the ritual consumption of gañja or bhaÑga (or whatever soma their land provides) is based in their own sectarian desire to extinguish those ancient shaiva religious traditions.

Religion and politics are equally intertwined in both Islam and Christianity!

Could a naked beggar (with religious intent) establish a sacred fire and ritually smoke gañja or drink bhaÑga without being arrested for contravening numerous state laws in any non-Hindu society??

And in most situations in India today such things are also expressly prohibited by modern democratic (i.e. fundamentally European Christian) law. :(



Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, 1893-94

To the Hindu the hemp plant is holy.

A guardian lives in the Bhang leaf...

To meet someone carrying Bhang is a sure omen of success...

To see in a dream the leaves, plant, or water of Bhang is lucky; it brings the goddess of wealth into the dreamer's power...

A longing for Bhang foretells happiness...

No good thing can come to the man who treads underfoot the holy Bhang leaf.

Yogis take deep draughts of Bhang that they may center their thoughts on the Eternal...

By help of Bhang, ascetics pass days without food or drink.

Besides being a cure for fever, Bhang has many medicinal virtues...

It cures dysentery and sunstroke, clears phlegm, quickens digestion, sharpens appetite, makes the tongue of the lisper plain, freshens the intellect, and gives alertness to the body and gaiety to the mind. Such are the useful and needful ends for which in his goodness the Almighty made Bhang...

It is inevitable that temperaments should be found to whom the quickening spirit of Bhang is the spirit of freedom and knowledge.

In the ecstasy of Bhang the spark of the Eternal in man turns into light the murkiness of matter...

Bhang is the Joygiver, the Skyflier, the Heavenly Guide, the Poor Man's Heaven, the Soother of Grief...

No god or man is as good as the religious drinker of Bhang. The students of scriptures at Benares are given Bhang before they sit to study. At Benares, Ujjain and other holy places, Yogis, Bairagis and Sanyasis take deep draughts of Bhang that they may center their thoughts on the Eternal...

The supporting power of Bhang has brought many a Hindu family safe through the miseries of famine.

These beliefs the Musalman devotee shares to the full. Like his Hindu brother, the Musalman fakir reveres Bhang as the lengthener of life, the freer from the bonds of self. Bhang brings union with the Divine Spirit.

To forbid or even seriously to restrict the use of so holy and gracious an herb as the hemp would cause widespread suffering and annoyance and to large bands of worshipped ascetics, deep-seated anger. It would rob the people of a solace in discomfort, of a cure in sickness, of a guardian whose gracious protection saves them from the attacks of evil influences...

So grand a result, so tiny a sin!


[ Repeated from Bhang (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/bhang.html) ]

See also: Soma and the Keshins (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/keshin.html).

atanu
07 October 2006, 01:01 AM
I knew I could meditate when ...

During the commute I used to do, 2 hours on the train, I could find equilibrium with attorneys debating their stategy for the day in the seats directly behind me.

Nothing matters, really. Depends on U how much U wish to listen to, and when, was my decision.


ZN


You are something. I know what you mean. But it does not come easy to me yet.

Skillganon
08 October 2006, 06:46 PM
Namaste Skill,

Do you really want to insist that Islam is absolutely NOT Sanatana Dharma (i.e. Eternal Law)?

Does Islam truly claim to be only temporary, a passing fashion or fad that (by definition) cannot last forever?

Does Islam truly claim to be untouched by Sarasvati (i.e. the eternal flow of true Knowledge and eternal Life)?

Islam is the last way of life your are suppose to follow until the end. I do mantian it.

Next, Guyz it is so funny that you are trying to connect paganism with arab during pre-islamic time, since we already know that. Which was a pointless exercise.:coffee:

Oyeah, some of those number theories gave me a good laugh.:Roll:

Anyway I am busy during rhamadan to certain extent, hear from you soon.

Salam.

Skill

sarabhanga
08 October 2006, 10:01 PM
It is so funny that you are trying to connect paganism with arab during pre-islamic time, since we already know that. Which was a pointless exercise.

Perhaps not so funny when Islam is proved to have developed from Hindu traditions and Sanskrit knowlege, and that Mahamad was surely an Indu from the very same Sindhu whose immortal flow was long before praised by Hindus in India as Illah (i.e. the hidden Sarasvati) which is well known today as Ida or Ganga!