Muslims and the Road to Perdition

Re: # 304

I won`t give you the source of the quotation. I have it ... but I won`t.
I will let you stumble upon it ......
it`s happened before with my discussions with other people .......... and nothing gives me more pleasure when that happens.
Please don`t take my few peasures away.

Lord! I see Samir sheikh ji has continued to hold forth on the Buddha and Buddhism, quite in the manner of the missing quotation (invented?) earlier on the board.

We will get to the truth, one step at a time -- if Sheikh sahib shows up again and stays around.

Good question.

{...if ``the concept of God is so vast that it is impossible to define it by any human means possible `` then why should humans bother with it in the first place ?}

Probably because acknowledging it will prevent us from trying to encompass it in our tiny brains? and fighting over each others` ``Gods``, when in fact we are just fighting over the inadequacies of our brains??

Or probably because understanding the way an amoeba functions and the way an egg hatches brings us a bit closer to God and attempting to understand God brings us closer to understanding the amoeba??? (amoeba?? what??? this guy is completely nuts!!!!)

{... it seems to be an exercise in futility and the pursuit of mad men...}

If that`s your definition of a ``mad man``. I proudly declare that I am a ``mad man``!!

Samirfs

I will be at my computer intermittently for the next few hours. I look forward to clearing up the lingering confusion. So could you locate the source of the quotation you attributed to Prophet Muhammad - about knowing oneself if one has to know God? Thanks.

... i don`t want to insert myself into this seemingly profound but obviously silly discussion ............ if ``the concept of God is so vast that it is impossible to define it by any human means possible `` then why should humans bother with it in the first place ? .......... it seems to be an exercise in futility and the pursuit of mad men ............... but please do carry on if you have nothing better to do .................

Re: # 300

``apostles who have brought good news to mankind and admonished them,`` .... can we deny Buddha did that?

I agree that Buddha neither proclaimed the existence of God nor denied it. But those are philosophical differences. And Philosophy is just a critical analysis of fundamental assumptions. The quran encourages us to acknowledge and understand different philosophies that are fundamentally bringing the same messages of love, goodness, integrity, ..... You can be philosophically different but fundamentally similar.

That`s where pluralism comes into Islam.

samirfs #299 ``the concept of God is so vast that it is impossible to define it by any human means possible ``

agreed. as they say in Taoism ``the Tao (god) that can be named is not the true Tao``. something similar is present in mahabharata I believe, and the Quran of course says the same.

So...why then concern oneself with this concept beyond what I just wrote in the previous line? why not come back to earth and focus on what CAN be defined??

tahmed#295:

My post was addressed primarily to samirfs, I added your name because you seemed to endorse his views.

samirfs#299:

I have to confess that I am not ``pahoncha hua`` and my understandings of the words is rather limited. Frankly, I do not recall if Buddha alluded to Supreme Being even if he believed in one. From what I understand of his message, it is independent of the existence or lack thereof of a Supreme Being.

Re: # 292

Dost,

I think tahmed answered a part of the question on my behalf. I would like to add:
Firstly, in Islam, the concept of God is so vast that it is impossible to define it by any human means possible (please refer to my other methaphors in earlier posts for clearer explanations). So, the concept of Allah or God you have in your mind is just a 1000 millionth or even lesser part of what it actually is. Same applies to me or any other human being. So it does not at all make a difference if you or I agree on anyone`s concept of ``God``, it doesn`t even matter if Buddha`s concept of ``supreme being`` was different from what you and I think it is or it ought to be. It`s true Buddha never preached the existence of God the way some other apostles did ............ but does that mean, we completely understand what he actually meant? Or we are just imposing another of our sought after ``LABELS`` of `agnostic`` on him. It`s so sad that we try to brand and label everything ......... agnostic, atheist, muslim, sufi, ..... vedic, ... zen ....It must be awfully easy for referencing and shelving and organizing I am sure ......

- SS

Samirfs

Thanks for making an appearance. Hopefully, we will continue our dialogue later in the day. Cheers.

Re: # 294

Oh! The irrlevent analyses of us men!! It makes me cry!

#293 you may find the answer, if you are really interested in an answer to your rhetorical questions, in #295.

dost mittar: that quote wasnt from me, but from samirfs. I try not to make too many specific inferences (of the kind mentioned in that quote), but to stick with the general direction and spirit of the Quran. That, in my view, is the only sensible way to understand the message of the Quran and what it means in a practical manner when one calls oneself a muslim.

So, regardless of the specifics (whether or not buddha claimed divine revelation, or for that matter whether or not confuciusism or taoism is even concerned with the afterlife rather than simply with social relationships), the basic spirit of the Quran is ``live and let live`` and to respect all faiths and their rituals (the Quran specifically enjoins people not to dispute on matters of religion). and for people of other faiths (or even atheists) who have a similar ``live and let live`` approach on matters of religion - i think they are the true torch-bearers of mankind, not the pea-brains who think the religion the were born into is the only true faith.

Suppose Buddhism had disappeared from India without spreading outside India and
leaving scattered insignificant traces in India long before Isam reached the shores of
India, would Muslims/Islam be saying that Buddha was one of the prophets of Islam and
Buddhism as one of the messages from God?

What is the criterion Islam or Muslim apply to claim someone ``un-named prophet of Islam``
or a message a ``message from God``?

Would Charvak be considered an ``un-named prophet of Islam``?
Does Quran Sharif mention Tripitak as a message from God?
Does Quran identify why a message is a ``Message from God`` or just merely accepts a
triuphant message? What I mean is that triumphant message could have triumphed
over a rival message not because it was better and correct but because of some
other circumstances.

Or it just makes a catch-all statement about ``un-named prophets of Islam`` and
other `Messages from God`` and anybody can add or subtract a prophet or a message
according to its own understanding and can lead to disagreement/strife/conflict!

samirfs, tahmed32:

``Many muslims (and non-muslims) might not acknowledge that the Vedas were a message or that Buddha was one of the apostles, but ironically Islam does.``

It is the opposite of what you state. Many Muslims do acknowledge Buddha to be an apostle but not Islam. You see, every apostle mentioned in the qur`an claimed to have brought a message from God. Buddha did not make any such claim. In fact, he is generally acknowledged to be agnostic even as to the existence of God. So, how could he qualify as one of the un-named prophets of Islam?

Buddha was no more a prophet than was Gandhi. He does not become a prophet just because you or I like his message.