Hinduism VS Islam

[K.Venugopal]

… it is an improved and polished version. Unspoiled by man it remains in it's true glory. So it's upto you whether you want to follow a conconcted out of date version or the revised upto date original version.

I would hardly say that Islam is an improvement over the non-dual schools of thought of Hinduism, which pre-existed the Islam of Mohammad - of which Sufis have also been practitioners. With Alalh’s warning-a-page of dire consequences unless He is followed, I would hardly consider it as polished when compared to the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus. Talking of being out of date, Islam is destined to be out of date as it is stuck in the mindset of the middle ages.

 

[K.Venugopal]

I see proof of Allah's existence all around me.

Can you give me a single proof of Allah's existence, apart from those within the ken of your belief?

 

[Karl]

It certainly had it's roots with the Aryan (a word with several different uses that should not be confused)

Yes I agree that the word "Aryan" has been ridiculously confused over the last century or so. Actually the "Aryan" definition the Nazis had was completely erroneous. The Germanics of Northern Europe were NOT Aryans at all. They were actually Western barbarian tribes (comprising of the Teutonics, Saxons, Goths, Berzerks, Vikings, Celts, Angles, Norse, etc). But the REAL Aryans were Eastern warrior tribes not connected to the Germanics. The word Aryan derives from "Ariana" (the old name of Iran). The Aryans were actually originally called the "Hyksos" but when they settled in North India they became known as "Aryans". The Aryans are quite big, hard set and fair skinned so hence probably one reason why they were easy confused with the Germanics. But yes the Germanics have no link to the true Aryans.

 

[أحمد]

The existence of something does not necessarily mean the existence of God.

There's a huge difference between the existence of something and existence of God. Your statement merely suggests the idea that its possibly anything, which makes your argument fail before it starts. We aren't discussing existence of the common materialistic reality you're aware of.

Let's look at the universe; how it came to be, how its sustained and how far its possibility goes without God.

Atheistic argument: Quantum particles caused a chain reaction, which eventually lead to the big bang.

Time relativity: Time is relative to motion, not an absolute.

Until recently, the atheistic argument was known to hold water. More recent advances in science have rendered it obsolete.

This doesn't mean atheists will give up their battle based on assumptions to fight against the truth.

God is absolute. He is NOT limited to time (time isn't absolute, as stated by Einstein and modern science). Atheistic Quantum argument is based on the idea of an absolute time, which allowed an almost autocausative motion. Science has taken a U-turn out of there.

If this is understood; we can move onto analysing the evidence further.

:wa:

 

[K.Venugopal]

It is possible that in Hinduism, belief and fact cannot go hand in hand. In Islam however, they do.

I do not understand how belief and fact can go together as one or are interchangeable in usage. At best both can live together side by side. Either we believe in a thing but are unable to prove it as an objective fact or we know it to be a fact. If we know something to be a fact and if that fact is universally verifiable without any subjective condition, then that remains a fact. Belief I don’t think can be passed off as fact.

Allah is your Lord and Creator, and the Creator of the Sun and Moon, and that is a fact. Whether you choose to accept that fact or not makes no difference to the truth of the fact.

Allah is the Lord and Creator only of and for the believers. Please do not try to pass off belief as fact. You quotation of Quranic verses to prove your point proves the point only for believers.

 

[أحمد]

I do not understand how belief and fact can go together as one or are interchangeable in usage. At best both can live together side by side. Either we believe in a thing but are unable to prove it as an objective fact or we know it to be a fact. If we know something to be a fact and if that fact is universally verifiable without any subjective condition, then that remains a fact. Belief I don’t think can be passed off as fact.

Allah is the Lord and Creator only of and for the believers. Please do not try to pass off belief as fact. You quotation of Quranic verses to prove your point proves the point only for believers.

Belief and faith are different, otherwise even Iblees believes in the existence of God.

:wa:

 

[K.Venugopal]

There's a huge difference between the existence of something and existence of God. Your statement merely suggests the idea that its possibly anything, which makes your argument fail before it starts. We aren't discussing existence of the common materialistic reality you're aware of.

What I meant was that just because the world exists, it does not mean that a creator exists, as was suggested in a post earlier.

Atheistic argument: Quantum particles caused a chain reaction, which eventually lead to the big bang.

What do you make of this?

Time relativity: Time is relative to motion, not an absolute.

Let alone time being absolute, times does not exist at all except as a measurement of man.

Until recently, the atheistic argument was known to hold water. More recent advances in science have rendered it obsolete.

Which atheistic argument?

This doesn't mean atheists will give up their battle based on assumptions to fight against the truth.

Why do you assume atheists want to fight against truth? Can’t they be trying to discover truth in their own way?

God is absolute.

If there is something absolute, we may call it God.

He is NOT limited to time (time isn't absolute, as stated by Einstein and modern science).

That which is eternal, if there is something like that, even as a concept in our mind, let us call that thing or understanding as God.

Atheistic Quantum argument is based on the idea of an absolute time, which allowed an almost autocausative motion. Science has taken a U-turn out of there.

I would be unable to talk to you on this because I am not knowledgeable about Quantum physics. But I like the term autocausative, which I am hearing for the first time through you. I think the word implies a cause that is implicit in itself - that there need not be an external agency to act as the causal. Am I right?

 

[K.Venugopal]

Belief and faith are different, otherwise even Iblees believes in the existence of God.

Belief, not being a fact, is a supposition. Faith is a quality that is born in us that gives us the assurance that we can rely on a particular person, thing, understanding, expectation or whatever. Iblees knew God, so a belief was not required for him – God was a fact for Iblees. You are right. He did not have faith in God.

 

[أحمد]

What I meant was that just because the world exists, it does not mean that a creator exists, as was suggested in a post earlier.

What do you make of this?

Let alone time being absolute, times does not exist at all except as a measurement of man.

Which atheistic argument?

Why do you assume atheists want to fight against truth? Can’t they be trying to discover truth in their own way?

If there is something absolute, we may call it God.

That which is eternal, if there is something like that, even as a concept in our mind, let us call that thing or understanding as God.

I would be unable to talk to you on this because I am not knowledgeable about Quantum physics. But I like the term autocausative, which I am hearing for the first time through you. I think the word implies a cause that is implicit in itself - that there need not be an external agency to act as the causal. Am I right?

Autocausative means to be a cause of itself, as the atheistic argument suggests.

The rest show's how the atheistic argument fall's apart under an update of its own theory base.

Time isn't a measurement of man, but time can be measured; its measurements (units) are man-made, time itself isn't man-made. Time is the interval of motion (see motion physics).

Belief, not being a fact, is a supposition. Faith is a quality that is born in us that gives us the assurance that we can rely on a particular person, thing, understanding, expectation or whatever. Iblees knew God, so a belief was not required for him – God was a fact for Iblees. You are right. He did not have faith in God.

Believe is an opinion, while faith is trust.

:wa:

 

[K.Venugopal]

I cant understand how the hell could a perverted man like Krishna ever qualify to be an avatar , Prophet or an idol of God ? Krishna has done a despicable thing. The bhagwad mentions that while a group of young women known as gopis are bathing naked in the river yamuna, krishna runs away with their clothes and thus forces them to come out of the river nude. When the gopis emerge from the water bashfully hiding their sexual organs with their hands, krishna tells them that since they have offended the water god by bathing naked, they should ask for his forgiveness with their hands raised in salutation to him, and then they can take back their clothes. In this context the bhagwad says that krishna deceitfully made them expose their sexual organs to him, and that he was very pleased to see them in their virgin state. Is this the kind of example he wants to set as a God ?

Of Krishna, everything is said. The entire depiction of Krishna is a masterly teaching that the root cause of man’s problem is that man’s mind is divided between his like-dislike dichotomies. When this dichotomy is overcome with the vision of total acceptance, man will inherit his true wholesome mind and everything will be seen in a new light – in the light of the oneness of existence.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Autocausative means to be a cause of itself, as the atheistic argument suggests.

Thanks for that. And why can’t it be right – that everything has a power inherent to be its own cause?

Time isn't a measurement of man, but time can be measured; its measurements (units) are man-made, time itself isn't man-made. Time is the interval of motion (see motion physics).

I maintain there is no such thing as time except as a measurement of man.

Believe is an opinion, while faith is trust.

You are right, absolutely.

 

[أحمد]

Thanks for that. And why can’t it be right – that everything has a power inherent to be its own cause?

I maintain there is no such thing as time except as a measurement of man.

You are right, absolutely.

Anything which contradicts its own theory can't be right. Their argument is based on the idea of time being absolute, while its own theory states that time isn't an absolute.

Years, Months, Weeks, Hours, Minutes, Seconds ARE all examples of units of measuring time. Time is measured, the units are man-made; time itself isn't man-made.

:wa:

 

[K.Venugopal]

the Quraan is not destroyed when someone burns it rather the book is, but it is quite insulting to followers that such events take place in this case it is insulting to the Muslims. If your holy book was burnt, would you not feel angry and insulted?

I agree with you.

You made the Idol and you worship the idol, meaning you created God as you worship the idol in the form of your God. I quote you "Just as the Quran in book form" what do you mean by this statement ,

What is meant is that the word of God, which would be intangible for man, was made in book form for man’s comprehension. Similarly, with idols. You may not be worshipping the Quran. But the fact remains that for worshipping Allah you need many aids, including the Quran. Hindus use the aid of idols to worship God. They may seem to be worshipping the idols exclusively, but their worship is not restricted to the idols. In worshipping the idols they seek to reach God.

we do not worship the book rather we follow the teachings of the book , as its a revelation we muslims believe is from God and not written by man.

As I said, you need the aid of the Quran to reach God.

We muslims face in the directin of Mecca as its a form of Unity, so every Muslim around the whole of this earth and creatures face in that direction during prayer, its called Unity. We are united and all One Ummah!.

Obviously this has not been enough to bring unity to the Ummah. Would you deny there is internecine warfare among Muslim communities, whatever the reasons?

Nope its not due to limitations, its just the direction we are commanded to face which is one direction for the whole Muslim nation.

Why did God need to receive worship in such a limited way?

Idols are worshipped in the form of God. God is everywhere, why do you need idols?

How can we conceive of that which is without form?

what part of accepting your prayer will the rock do?

If I talk to a rock do you think God will not hear me? Hasn’t Allah been described as all-hearing?

You are giving God forms of different animals, human etc.

Why not? In giving form to the formless, why should one form be considered less than another?

The Islamic belief is there is only one God,

By saying there is only one God Islam has reduced God to a countable object.

and he does not need to be worshipped in forms on different images,

He might not need it, but what about our needs?

God is our Lord allmighty and i am sure you believe that also.

Yes, I believe that Allah is your God.

why do you need rocks to worship God? When Rock is itself a creation of God?

Why do you need a name (Allah) to worship God when Allah is only God’s name?

I quote you "What are we to say of that?" Well we are to say that rock/stone is a creation of God, and God is allmighty we dont need to give him forms of idol worship of creatures etc.etc.

God, according to Hinduism, has given us the freedom to worship Him any which way, except ways that will cause disharmony in society.

Allaah says in the Quraan:"Lakum deenukum waliya deeni " -"For you (is) your religion, and for me (is) my religion."

Yes. But unfortunately elsewhere He says that your religion is wrong and only my religion is right.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Anything which contradicts its own theory can't be right. Their argument is based on the idea of time being absolute, while its own theory states that time isn't an absolute. Years, Months, Weeks, Hours, Minutes, Seconds ARE all examples of units of measuring time. Time is measured, the units are man-made; time itself isn't man-made.

Time is man's idea. It has no existence outside man's mind or his formulations. You could say that time in a belief, not a fact.

 

[أحمد]

Time is man's idea. It has no existence outside man's mind or his formulations. You could say that time in a belief, not a fact.

Scientifically its a fact, philosophically its an idea. Philosophy is based on opinions, not facts.

:wa:

 

[Insaanah]

I find some of the arguments being used here very strange. Because we use Allah's name to call him (as anybody in this world uses a name to call anyone), that to you is a means of reaching him and according to you thus is an idol in the way Hindus use idols to "reach God".

A name is a linguistic word, it is not an idol.

It may comfort you to think that everybody else is worshipping idols too, but this "concept" of yours is showing desperation and is completely far-fetched.

Peace.

 

[Trumble]

Scientifically its a fact, philosophically its an idea. Philosophy is based on opinions, not facts.

At best, time can be a scientific theory not a 'fact'. And all such theories have no independent existence outside of our minds; they are what our minds use to interpret a reality we cannot generally or conventionally directly perceive. Time, of course, is a little different from your run-of-the-mill theory in that its conception is so fundamental to the way we live, but that doesn't alter the fact that a mental construct is all it is. Just like gravity.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Yes I can prove for someone who never saw the moon that the moon exists : I'll go out with him at night an show him the moon, that's the proof. Yes I can give a proof outside my mind, but the problem is : will he accept my proof ? Imagine I'm showing the moon to a blind person : he won't understand/accept my proof. However for others (who can see) it's a sufficient proof

The moon’s existence is not dependent of your proving it exists. It exists irrespective of your proof or others accepting your proof. This is because the moon is an objective phenomenon to man’s subjective reality. In the case of Allah, believe is a priori sine-qua non for establishing His existence. Where there is no believe, there is no existence of Allah. The existence of Allah is not based on knowledge but believe or faith. According to some schools of thought in Hinduism, God is a fact because God is not just a subjective truth but because God is the subject. That we exist is a fact, not merely a belief. Therefore, according to these schools, because we are God, God is also a fact and not a belief. Whether someone accepts an objective reality or not, the object exists independent of our mind. Whether someone accepts a subjective reality or not, the subject and its experiences and understanding are not available for verification outside the subject. It has so far not been proved objectively that Allah is an object outside man's mind.

The same way, I can give you many proofs that Allah exists. But some people will not see it as a proof, however many others will accept it as a proof : look at the big number of people entering in Islam, do you think they just read the mind of one muslim calling them to islam, or they saw proofs out of his mind and accepted them ?

Please give me a proof that Allah exists.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Scientifically its a fact, philosophically its an idea. Philosophy is based on opinions, not facts.

You have check-mated me on this. Good going.

 

[K.Venugopal]

I find some of the arguments being used here very strange. Because we use Allah's name to call him (as anybody in this world uses a name to call anyone), that to you is a means of reaching him and according to you thus is an idol in the way Hindus use idols to "reach God". A name is a linguistic word, it is not an idol.It may comfort you to think that everybody else is worshipping idols too, but this "concept" of yours is showing desperation and is completely far-fetched.

First, please tell me whether Allah is God or is a word (name) used to call or denote Allah?