D&D Religion's "Ask About Sikhism" Thread Watch

med_lion
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#521
Report 9 years ago
#521
(Original post by akalisodhi)
For some reasons RS are always being harassed just as namdharis....people just need to relax

I agree with you there, but would you consider the in-ability to understand and contemplate on Gurbani the same as degrading Gurbani?

Because i would have to estimate that the majority of sikhs do not know enough about there own texts or history/traditions to be considered as sikhs....

Labels mean nothing in the court of the eternal lord.

Also do we automatically presume that Punjab is for the sikhs....because I'm pretty sure that the "punjabi's" were there long before the establishment of the Sikh Dharam.

Yes, you are correct in the sense that "labels mean nothing in the True Court", yet it is not about 'harassing' RS and other cults.. It's more or less tryiing to put them on 'track'. I persoanlly agree with your point that many Sikhs themselves do not fully understand Gurbani and therefore go to 'another guru' to help them, which i feel is quite valid.
0
reply
jaysean
Badges: 0
#522
Report 9 years ago
#522
A little off topic, but it is against Sikhi to accept donations? I got into an argument with a chair man of a neighboring gurdwara. I wanted to start a sikh organization which will rely solely on media and publications to show people that Sikhs are not the terrorists/snake charmers they think they are. I am in the preliminary planning stages, and am looking to secure donations. I asked the chairman of a close by gurdwara if he could ask the sangat for donations, and he said that a sikh is not born to beg. This formed into an endless argument where he kept bringing up kirat karna, and I kept bringing up wand kay chakna (which makes less sense to me now, as im writng this... lol). He then said, "Ghal Khai Kuch Hathon Deh, Nanak Rah Pachhanai Soi". But doesnt this tuk say that charity (though our organization is not technically a charity) is necessary? If what that man said is correct, then doesnt that mean that even poor sikhs cant accept donations for their personal use? If they cant support themselves, can't they take money from someone? If they can't doesn't that apply only to Sikhs (only sikhs follow kirat karna, and other two pillars of Sikhi), and wouldn't that directly be saying that Sikhs dont accept donations, this they are better than everyone else who does take donations. May be im reading too much into this, but im really confused :confused: !! Please explain!!
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#523
Report 9 years ago
#523
I was wondering about this concept of karma. It would be nice if somebody could explain to me, in a nutshell exactly what it is and most of all where it comes from, for example, i know that, well at least i think it aims to restore justice, it is a source of good and bad, but it still puzzles me as to what exactly drives it to do this, what originated and don't you think the fact the it is a source of good and bad directly infringe upon God's Supreme power and ultimate control of the Dominions if karma does not originate from God. Any answers appreciated.
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#524
Report 9 years ago
#524
(Original post by slawaccess23)
I was wondering about this concept of karma. It would be nice if somebody could explain to me, in a nutshell exactly what it is and most of all where it comes from, for example, i know that, well at least i think it aims to restore justice, it is a source of good and bad, but it still puzzles me as to what exactly drives it to do this, what originated and don't you think the fact the it is a source of good and bad directly infringe upon God's Supreme power and ultimate control of the Dominions if karma does not originate from God. Any answers appreciated.
Karma is the law of action and reaction. Every bad action, thought, motion, is punished in equal magnitude at some point later in life, or in another life. Same goes for good. Not sure what you mean by what drives it, it's one of Gods laws, if you accept the doctrine of karma.
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#525
Report 9 years ago
#525
(Original post by Charzhino)
Karma is the law of action and reaction. Every bad action, thought, motion, is punished in equal magnitude at some point later in life, or in another life. Same goes for good. Not sure what you mean by what drives it, it's one of Gods laws, if you accept the doctrine of karma.
I see, but what i meant was who is in control over it, so God is in control over it?
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#526
Report 9 years ago
#526
Am i being too simplistic about this?
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#527
Report 9 years ago
#527
(Original post by slawaccess23)
I see, but what i meant was who is in control over it, so God is in control over it?
If God created it , he has control over it like everything. It must be noted that you will justly recieve a punishment for a bad action due to karma, not God as he doesn't punish people for uneccesarry things and neither rewards, contrary to Abrahamic belief that one can be born into extreme suffering and another into relative comfort with riches because God willed it so.

The body is the field of karma in this age; whatever you plant, you shall harvest and By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found. SGGS pg 778
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#528
Report 9 years ago
#528
(Original post by Charzhino)
If God created it , he has control over it like everything. It must be noted that you will justly recieve a punishment for a bad action due to karma, not God as he doesn't punish people for uneccesarry things and neither rewards, contrary to Abrahamic belief that one can be born into extreme suffering and another into relative comfort with riches because God willed it so.

The body is the field of karma in this age; whatever you plant, you shall harvest and By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found. SGGS pg 778
Yh but we don't believe that God ever punishes people unneccessarily either, He is Most Just, but anyway, what i seriously cannot get my head round, is how you can state that God has control over everything and in the same sentence say that punishments are due to karma, it seems to me like they contradict, maybe im too simplistic about this and you know something i don't, but is karma a created object/deity/power/force or something of a separate entity to God which has the power to reward and punish or is it something that happens spontaneously out of God's power. It seems no amount of reading can clarify this for me.
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#529
Report 9 years ago
#529
(Original post by slawaccess23)
Yh but we don't believe that God ever punishes people unneccessarily either, He is Most Just, but anyway, what i seriously cannot get my head round, is how you can state that God has control over everything and in the same sentence say that punishments are due to karma, it seems to me like they contradict, maybe im too simplistic about this and you know something i don't, but is karma a created object/deity/power/force or something of a separate entity to God which has the power to reward and punish or is it something that happens spontaneously out of God's power. It seems no amount of reading can clarify this for me.
I think I understand what your asking. You asking if karma is concious and whether it makes the decisions inspite of God. Well if that is what your asking, then you have to think of Karma as an actual law. Just like gravity. Gravity doesn't require God controlling it, it was created by God, but it obeys its own laws, it cannot change. Just as karma punishes those who do evil deeds, but will not for example reward those who do evil deeds as well.
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#530
Report 9 years ago
#530
(Original post by Charzhino)
I think I understand what your asking. You asking if karma is concious and whether it makes the decisions inspite of God. Well if that is what your asking, then you have to think of Karma as an actual law. Just like gravity. Gravity doesn't require God controlling it, it was created by God, but it obeys its own laws, it cannot change. Just as karma punishes those who do evil deeds, but will not for example reward those who do evil deeds as well.
i see, good analogy with gravity, that was very succinct. it explains it.
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#531
Report 9 years ago
#531
(Original post by Charzhino)
The reason why I find the path of reicarnation and karma more plausible, is that the soul must go through a spiritual journey/evolution of knowledge. Only when it has gained the knowledge to the highest degree and become enlightened through countless reincarnations, does it deserve a place in eternal bliss/heaven to be with the ultimate source of knowledge and wisdom, God. The most-merciful attribute of God out of these 2 afterlife options I believe goes with the one aforementioned. I believe God will not throw someone into everlasting hell just because of mistakes and ignorance of one life, but gives unlimited chances for one to attain heaven, if they are not achieved they are left to suffer on earth, which is the equivalent of hellfire.
Before I comment on this, would you mind if I asked you why you believe Sikhism is the truth, what is inherent in this faith which you find to be the undisputed Divinely-inspired faith with a scripture from God, briefly?
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#532
Report 9 years ago
#532
(Original post by slawaccess23)
Before I comment on this, would you mind if I asked you why you believe Sikhism is the truth, what is inherent in this faith which you find to be the undisputed Divinely-inspired faith with a scripture from God, briefly?
Well firstly, it doesn't explicitly claim to be the true religion and does not advocate that if anyone follows anything apart from Sikhism, they will be punished. Secondley, in the form that Islam is in the line of Abrahamic faiths which have been previosuly revealed by God, Sikhism is a continuance of the Dharma (which means law/rightoues path) from the likes of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. Since these are the oldest religions historically speaking, it's more likely that God had revealed these religions and their doctrine which is the same through the Dharmic religions, such as the concept of rebirth and karma. In addition to that, I also find these concepts more accepting at the moment than the afterlife beliefs of Christanity, Judaism and Islam. Also, all of the Dharmic religions do not claim to cast unbelievers who are not in their religion to a negative afterlife, which I find more accepting.

The reason why Sikhism stands out more to me than the other dharmic faiths, is the strict monothesitic belief in the Oneness of God. Even though that Hinduism also speaks of one God, their message of this has probably been distorted through the immense time period of it's existance, which is expected. When Sikhism was revealed, it restored this Oneness of God and abolished ritualistic acts such as idol worship.

There are other minor points but these are the main ones.
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#533
Report 9 years ago
#533
(Original post by Charzhino)
Well firstly, it doesn't explicitly claim to be the true religion and does not advocate that if anyone follows anything apart from Sikhism, they will be punished. Secondley, in the form that Islam is in the line of Abrahamic faiths which have been previosuly revealed by God, Sikhism is a continuance of the Dharma (which means law/rightoues path) from the likes of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. Since these are the oldest religions historically speaking, it's more likely that God had revealed these religions and their doctrine which is the same through the Dharmic religions, such as the concept of rebirth and karma. In addition to that, I also find these concepts more accepting at the moment than the afterlife beliefs of Christanity, Judaism and Islam. Also, all of the Dharmic religions do not claim to cast unbelievers who are not in their religion to a negative afterlife, which I find more accepting.

The reason why Sikhism stands out more to me than the other dharmic faiths, is the strict monothesitic belief in the Oneness of God. Even though that Hinduism also speaks of one God, their message of this has probably been distorted through the immense time period of it's existance, which is expected. When Sikhism was revealed, it restored this Oneness of God and abolished ritualistic acts such as idol worship.
Thanks for you answer first of all. You have it in for the hereafter we believe in that's for sure, judging by the amount of times you said it's unacceptable! We might carry on discussing and comparing our concepts of the hereafter and other aspects of theology as well from both religions because I believe, like yourself I hope, that if you debunk one aspect of a faith, then ipso facto the entire faith has to go with it. This means essentially that whole of Sikhism has to be perfect as with Islam of course, because there are some facts I find that seems very strange that people might believe in and that's the attributes of God and if I'm not mistaken, the fact the we live in a non-physical world. I'll come to that later though.

What I'm interested first of all, is this claim that dharmic theology has its roots deeper into history than any other religion. I can't really criticise this statement as I have no idea why a person would say this, maybe you could tell me, but I can show the Islamic side of all this after. And also, does your Holy Book claim to be Divine and if so how was it revealed?
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#534
Report 9 years ago
#534
(Original post by slawaccess23)
Thanks for you answer first of all. You have it in for the hereafter we believe in that's for sure, judging by the amount of times you said it's unacceptable! We might carry on discussing and comparing our concepts of the hereafter and other aspects of theology as well from both religions because I believe, like yourself I hope, that if you debunk one aspect of a faith, then ipso facto the entire faith has to go with it. This means essentially that whole of Sikhism has to be perfect as with Islam of course, because there are some facts I find that seems very strange that people might believe in and that's the attributes of God and if I'm not mistaken, the fact the we live in a non-physical world. I'll come to that later though.

What I'm interested first of all, is this claim that dharmic theology has its roots deeper into history than any other religion. I can't really criticise this statement as I have no idea why a person would say this, maybe you could tell me, but I can show the Islamic side of all this after. And also, does your Holy Book claim to be Divine and if so how was it revealed?
I do mention the afterlife alot, because it is one of the main traits in a religion, unlike arguing about little things such as the consumption of pork or the prohibition of music.

I said that out of the 6 main world religions, being buddhism, islam, chrsitanity, judaism, sikhism and hinduism, the oldest historically is hinduism, followed by judaism and buddhism. Since Hinduism is the oldest, it probably means that it was the first revealed religion since it's following is quite strong today. Therefore its basic doctrine and understanding of the universe can be related today. In the same way Judaism is technically the oldest Abrahamic religion, Islam recognizes that it was orginally revealed by God to Moses, whilst keeping their basic concepts of law and prophets mentioned in the old testament, which can be found in the Quran today. Therefore we both see Sikhism and Islam as the ''updated'' version of our original ancestoral faith groups.

The Guru Granth Sahib book claims to be divine in several parts:

As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I deliver it (SGGS pg 722)

"Hail, the Word of the Guru, which is the embodiment of the Formless Lord Himself; there is none other, nothing else to be reckoned equal to it."
(SGGS pg 515)


“O Siblings of Destiny! Know that the Baani, the Word of the True Guru, is true, absolutely true. The Creator Lord Himself causes the Guru to chant it.” (SGGS pg 308)

It was revealed to the first of 10 Guru's, Guru Nanak after he attained enlightment when he disspeared for 3 days. It was revealed directly to him without the need for any intermediatry such as Angels, and was written and compiled by the Guru's themselves.
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#535
Report 9 years ago
#535
(Original post by Charzhino)
I do mention the afterlife alot, because it is one of the main traits in a religion, unlike arguing about little things such as the consumption of pork or the prohibition of music.
:yep: I couldn't agree more.

(Original post by Charzhino)
. I said that out of the 6 main world religions, being buddhism, islam, chrsitanity, judaism, sikhism and hinduism, the oldest historically is hinduism, followed by judaism and buddhism. Since Hinduism is the oldest
But why do you say Hinduism is the oldest?
(Original post by Charzhino)
It was revealed to the first of 10 Guru's, Guru Nanak after he attained enlightment when he disspeared for 3 days. It was revealed directly to him without the need for any intermediatry such as Angels, and was written and compiled by the Guru's themselves.
So God spoke to the first Guru? How/Where did this happen, do you know? That seems quite a statement! Only Moses was given the luxury of speaking directly to God in Islamic theology, and the account of this is quite detailed in the Qur'an.
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#536
Report 9 years ago
#536
(Original post by slawaccess23)
But why do you say Hinduism is the oldest?
Since the Vedas can be historically traced back to 4000 B.C this makes them one of the earliest known pieces of literature to man. Theologically, the Vedas are considered Eternal, having been existed befere the universe began, and uttered by Brahaman, to the first Rishi (prophet). Also, as Islam claims that the first man, Adam, was a Muslim, Hinduism says the first man, Manu, was a Vedantist. As I've said before, the true name for Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, which means Eternal law, having no beginning and no end.

(Original post by slawaccess23)

So God spoke to the first Guru? How/Where did this happen, do you know? That seems quite a statement! Only Moses was given the luxury of speaking directly to God in Islamic theology, and the account of this is quite detailed in the Qur'an.
The story goes that Guru Nanak had gone missing and presumed to have drowned during one of his early morning baths, but suddenly appeared days later proclaiming the message of God. I'm not sure why you think speaking to God directly is a luxury. I could understand why it would be for mere human beings, but for prophets and messengers of God? :o:
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#537
Report 9 years ago
#537
(Original post by Charzhino)
Since the Vedas can be historically traced back to 4000 B.C this makes them one of the earliest known pieces of literature to man. Theologically, the Vedas are considered Eternal, having been existed befere the universe began, and uttered by Brahaman, to the first Rishi (prophet). Also, as Islam claims that the first man, Adam, was a Muslim, Hinduism says the first man, Manu, was a Vedantist. As I've said before, the true name for Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, which means Eternal law, having no beginning and no end.
Well tbh, even if it can be traced back to 4000BC, this is no clear evidence at all that it is the oldest religion, and you yourself know this otherwise you wouldn't have referred to the theology of Hinduism. In Hindu theology, the Vedas is considered to be Eternal (like the Qur'an in Islam) and so also taking into account the definition for Hinduism, it is by definition the oldest faith. If this is the argument then Hinduism has to stand up from theological critique in order to make the claim that it is the oldest.

(Adam was not a Muslim with a capital M if you know what I mean, the religion of Islam as we know it came 1400 years ago but submission (Islam) was taught by all Prophets including Jesus Christ and Moses in their theology, their rules (sharia) was radically different and can't be compared to the actual religion of Islam. It makes it confusing when we say that Adam was a Muslim, it's better to say he was one who submitted to God or a muslim with a non-capital m)

(Original post by Charzhino)
The story goes that Guru Nanak had gone missing and presumed to have drowned during one of his early morning baths, but suddenly appeared days later proclaiming the message of God. I'm not sure why you think speaking to God directly is a luxury. I could understand why it would be for mere human beings, but for prophets and messengers of God? :o:
Don't you think the fact that he went missing raises some questions? It certainly isn't as transparent as Prophets the likes of Muhammad/Jesus etc. The Orientalists would be onto a fact like that like a dog on a bone!
I only meant that directly speaking to God is something huge, something the average person can't envisage. It's like an amazing thing which is why I said luxury, Only Moses was given this in our theology which shows that it isn't something that God does with every Prophet.

Why do you think the concept of prophethood/Messengership is false? Because Muhammad/Jesus Christ/Abraham, these figures have undisputed historical significance, so what makes it unlikely that God chose Prophets to send to His Creation to guide them? What do you think?
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#538
Report 9 years ago
#538
(Original post by slawaccess23)
Well tbh, even if it can be traced back to 4000BC, this is no clear evidence at all that it is the oldest religion, and you yourself know this otherwise you wouldn't have referred to the theology of Hinduism. In Hindu theology, the Vedas is considered to be Eternal (like the Qur'an in Islam) and so also taking into account the definition for Hinduism, it is by definition the oldest faith. If this is the argument then Hinduism has to stand up from theological critique in order to make the claim that it is the oldest.
So what would you accept as evidence that a particular religion is the oldest?

(Original post by slawaccess23)
Don't you think the fact that he went missing raises some questions? It certainly isn't as transparent as Prophets the likes of Muhammad/Jesus etc. The Orientalists would be onto a fact like that like a dog on a bone!
I only meant that directly speaking to God is something huge, something the average person can't envisage. It's like an amazing thing which is why I said luxury, Only Moses was given this in our theology which shows that it isn't something that God does with every Prophet.
I wouldn't think that his disspearance would raise any questions, since people thought he drowned, it would be more miraculous that he came back. Didn't Muhammed go to the isolated caves/mountains to receive his revelations?
(Original post by slawaccess23)
Why do you think the concept of prophethood/Messengership is false? Because Muhammad/Jesus Christ/Abraham, these figures have undisputed historical significance, so what makes it unlikely that God chose Prophets to send to His Creation to guide them? What do you think?
I didn't say the concept of prophethood/messengership is false. I don't deny that Muhammed/Jesus/Abraham where definatley not prophets, but they have no relevance to me, if they preached the word of God sincerely by setting the right example, then I have no problem in not calling them rightouess. But I don't believe that God would suddenly stop sending messengers/prophets, after a certain time period. There is a tremendous amount of time from Muhammed to the end of the world. As it is said in the Gita, when evil increases and morality declines God sends his descendants to restore rightouness and perish evil. If this was the way for the last 4000 years, then why not the next million?
0
reply
noisy06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#539
Report 9 years ago
#539
(Original post by Charzhino)
So what would you accept as evidence that a particular religion is the oldest?
This question stems from which theology/faith a person is inclined to. For example, if a Hindu accepts Islam, they have automatically changed their position from Hinduism being the oldest belief to tawheed (believing that none is worthy of worship except God) being the oldest belief without even bothering to investigate from a historical point of view. In other words, if a person believes Muhammad to be a Prophet of God, they have to accept the complete package he came with including the historical account of religions etc. So naturally, there will always be a biased answer to that question intentionally or unintentionally. There is no hope of anybody providing anything other than a theological answer to the question of which faith is oldest, nobody has an eyewitness account of the first human beings ever.

(Original post by Charzhino)
I wouldn't think that his disspearance would raise any questions, since people thought he drowned, it would be more miraculous that he came back. Didn't Muhammed go to the isolated caves/mountains to receive his revelations?
Muhammad received his revelations both secretly and openly. In fact, there are many eyewitnesses accounts from the companions detailing exactly what they saw when the Gabriel was communicating with Muhammad. The Angel even came to them in the form of a man on one occasion. There was nothing secretive going on with Muhammad, he certainly didn't disappear for three days and this is a source of frustation for those trying to find faults in Islam, because still, to this day there is no answer to the question of where the Qur'an came from if it didn't come from Gabriel. Some Orientalists have even gone to the extent of denying the fact that Muhammad existed just so they can avoid the question of who came up with the Qur'an, and those who affirmed that the Qur'an is a forgery, are unable to say who or where it came from. Their job would have been easier had Muhammad disappeared for days on end, that's for sure.

(Original post by Charzhino)
I didn't say the concept of prophethood/messengership is false. I don't deny that Muhammed/Jesus/Abraham where definatley not prophets, but they have no relevance to me, if they preached the word of God sincerely by setting the right example, then I have no problem in not calling them rightouess. But I don't believe that God would suddenly stop sending messengers/prophets, after a certain time period. There is a tremendous amount of time from Muhammed to the end of the world. As it is said in the Gita, when evil increases and morality declines God sends his descendants to restore rightouness and perish evil. If this was the way for the last 4000 years, then why not the next million?
Don't you think it's a little weak to say that you think Muhammad is a liar in the hope that you would be right- that God wouldn't stop sending messengers? That's an insignificant assumption for a potentially catastrophic conclusion. Of course that's no where near the assumption of atheists, they live their life in the hope of there not being an afterlife, what a hypothesis! Anyway, there are few more assumptions you've made such as there being a "tremendous" amount of time left on earth, might even reach a million years. I certainly don't think there is a tremendous amount of time at all, I think it's a luxury for us to be there next century because the world is rapidly changing, and it certainly didn't escape the prophecies of Muhammad. But the day of judgement- we believe- will come all of a sudden, when human beings think that it will never come and there's plenty of time on earth left. This is Qur'anic and from hadith.

(Surah Yusuf) 107. Do they then feel secure from the coming against them of the covering veil of the Torment of Allah, or of the coming against them of the (Final) Hour, all of a sudden while they perceive not?

(Surah Maarij) 6. Verily! They see it (the torment) afar off,

7. But We see it (quite) near.


But everyone's true day of Judgement is when they die anyway, nobody will be worrying about human civilisation once they have passed away, this a promise from God, people will be worrying about what will happen to them and them alone.

You reiterated the fact that you believe these Messengers have nothing to do with you, despite the Qur'an claiming:

(Surah Nuh) 52. But it is nothing else than a Reminder to all the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).

(There is also a figure in Islam that will come to restore peace and justice on earth well after Muhammad's era. The prophecy goes that he will be a descendent of the Prophet and he will be the first of the major signs of the coming of the Day of Judgement.)

There is one thing I wanted to know, you referred to this world being an illusion previously, and that it hasn't the physical charateristics as described by the so-called Abrahamic faiths. I know why a perosn may be inclined and at peace with believing in that, but isn't there a sense of irrationality in such a concept?
reply
Charzhino
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#540
Report 9 years ago
#540
(Original post by slawaccess23)
This question stems from which theology/faith a person is inclined to. For example, if a Hindu accepts Islam, they have automatically changed their position from Hinduism being the oldest belief to tawheed (believing that none is worthy of worship except God) being the oldest belief without even bothering to investigate from a historical point of view. In other words, if a person believes Muhammad to be a Prophet of God, they have to accept the complete package he came with including the historical account of religions etc. So naturally, there will always be a biased answer to that question intentionally or unintentionally. There is no hope of anybody providing anything other than a theological answer to the question of which faith is oldest, nobody has an eyewitness account of the first human beings ever.
Theologically, that is the case. However, historically speaking, if I wanted to prove that one tree was older than another, even though I may not have any witnessess to when it was first made, I could use radioactive carbon dating to prove it. Similarly, you can use the dating of some ancient literature to proove it is older than another.

(Original post by slawaccess23)
Muhammad received his revelations both secretly and openly. In fact, there are many eyewitnesses accounts from the companions detailing exactly what they saw when the Gabriel was communicating with Muhammad. The Angel even came to them in the form of a man on one occasion. There was nothing secretive going on with Muhammad, he certainly didn't disappear for three days and this is a source of frustation for those trying to find faults in Islam, because still, to this day there is no answer to the question of where the Qur'an came from if it didn't come from Gabriel. Some Orientalists have even gone to the extent of denying the fact that Muhammad existed just so they can avoid the question of who came up with the Qur'an, and those who affirmed that the Qur'an is a forgery, are unable to say who or where it came from. Their job would have been easier had Muhammad disappeared for days on end, that's for sure.
How would that make their job easier?

(Original post by slawaccess23)
Don't you think it's a little weak to say that you think Muhammad is a liar in the hope that you would be right- that God wouldn't stop sending messengers? That's an insignificant assumption for a potentially catastrophic conclusion. Of course that's no where near the assumption of atheists, they live their life in the hope of there not being an afterlife, what a hypothesis! Anyway, there are few more assumptions you've made such as there being a "tremendous" amount of time left on earth, might even reach a million years. I certainly don't think there is a tremendous amount of time at all, I think it's a luxury for us to be there next century because the world is rapidly changing, and it certainly didn't escape the prophecies of Muhammad. But the day of judgement- we believe- will come all of a sudden, when human beings think that it will never come and there's plenty of time on earth left.
But everyone's true day of Judgement is when they die anyway, nobody will be worrying about human civilisation once they have passed away, this a promise from God, people will be worrying about what will happen to them and them alone.
That's what my faith tells me, that God has not sent any ''final'' messengers. In the same way, you also hope that for example Jesus isn't God, and Muhammed is the final prophet.
I agree with you when you say that we don't know when the end times are, certianly most of the Islamic signs of the hour are quite similar to the signs for the end of the Kali Yug era (dark period) in Hindu literature, so we are not guranteed to live for a futhur million years.

(Original post by slawaccess23)
You reiterated the fact that you believe these Messengers have nothing to do with you, despite the Qur'an claiming: (Surah Nuh) 52. But it is nothing else than a Reminder to all the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
That is if I take the Quran as the only word of God. If it is only a reminder, then why do I have to believe in Moses or David? I can learn by their actions, but what else good is believing in them going to do to me here in the present?

(Original post by slawaccess23)
There is one thing I wanted to know, you referred to this world being an illusion previously, and that it hasn't the physical charateristics as described by the so-called Abrahamic faiths. I know why a perosn may be inclined and at peace with believing in that, but isn't there a sense of irrationality in such a concept?
It is not an illusion entirely. The only thing that is true and real is God. Other than God, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. It is believed that the absolute creator is beyond the senses, such as a blind man trying to describe colour, it is impossible. Due to ignorance and the disbelief in God, the material universe appears real. Because God produces this Maya(illusion), it ''hides'' God from ordinary human perception. That is why people get attached to material possesions and get furthur away from truley realising God, because they are caught in this illusion.

However I said that the universe is not entirely false. If a pen is placed in front of a mirror, one can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. But also it cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes.

What do you find irrational about this concept, I would be happy to explain although it can get complex lol
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (368)
37.28%
No - but I will (74)
7.5%
No - I don't want to (69)
6.99%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (476)
48.23%

Watched Threads

View All