Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

An unanswerable question to fanatics of Islam/Hindu/Christian etc

If you argue that the human incarnation of your religion alone is correct, you will face the following powerful question:

Your human incarnation appeared in a particular region in a particular time only and gave the correct message to the people of that particular region only. After that, several generations passed before that particular message reaches the other regions of the world. All these generations missed that message and went to hell after death. If your message reached all the regions of the world in the beginning itself, at least some of the passed generations might have benefited. If your God alone created this entire earth and all this humanity is His issue, there should be no partiality in giving the message to one region only and allow other regions to be deprived of such fortune. This concludes that your God is partial to one region without reason or that your God did not create this entire humanity.

You have no answer for this question but we have the answer. Your God is impartial to all humanity and is the creator of this entire humanity. Even though the absolute God gave a particular message to a particular region through a particular human form, the same absolute God gave the same message in different human forms to other regions also. The language of the message may differ but the message is one and the same. The form, culture, dress etc., of the human incarnations in different regions may be different but the absolute God in these human incarnations is one and the same and hence His message is also one and the same delivered to all regions in the same time impartially.

Therefore, all the human beings are the children of the same God and hence there must be brotherly hood between all the human beings.

JOHN 3:16 is your ultimate answer.

From Islam's perspective, the question asked is far from 'unanswerable'.

Islam is unique (to my knowledge) in that its scripture acknowledges previous religions and prophets as being true.

"For We assuredly sent amongst every People an apostle, (with the Command), "Serve God, and eschew Evil": of the People were some whom God guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth). (The Noble Quran, 16:36)"

Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed. And only those unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had come unto them, through hatred one of another. And Allah by His Will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path. S. 2:213 Pickthall

Previous prophets spoke to their people in their language (and their messages were both limited in geography and time):

And We have sent NO Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might make all clear to them; then God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise. S. 14:4

Therefore, Islam was 'merely' the culmination of the religious evolution that followed the social evolution of man. It was only with the revelation of Islam that God announced the final and universal religion (according to the Quran).

Islam acknowledges that Krishna, for example, was a prophet of God - sent to Indian people with a message for them - as the Quran says that Indians were sent prophets and logic tells us that records of their existence should still exist (and elevating prophets to Gods is not uncommon - eg it happened with Jesus). Similarly, Buddha, Confucious, Zoroaster are all compatible with being prophets with earlier localised messages for mankind.


Thanks for bringing up an interesting point of discussion vis-a-vis how religions view the founders of other religions. Do you agree with me that Islam is unique it that it acknowledges the veracity of these other founders?

Cheers,
Shafique

bump for Dattaswami

shafique wrote:From Islam's perspective, the question asked is far from 'unanswerable'.

Islam is unique (to my knowledge) in that its scripture acknowledges previous religions and prophets as being true.

"For We assuredly sent amongst every People an apostle, (with the Command), "Serve God, and eschew Evil": of the People were some whom God guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth). (The Noble Quran, 16:36)"

Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed. And only those unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had come unto them, through hatred one of another. And Allah by His Will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path. S. 2:213 Pickthall

Previous prophets spoke to their people in their language (and their messages were both limited in geography and time):

And We have sent NO Messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he might make all clear to them; then God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides whomsoever He will; and He is the All-mighty, the All-wise. S. 14:4

Therefore, Islam was 'merely' the culmination of the religious evolution that followed the social evolution of man. It was only with the revelation of Islam that God announced the final and universal religion (according to the Quran).

Islam acknowledges that Krishna, for example, was a prophet of God - sent to Indian people with a message for them - as the Quran says that Indians were sent prophets and logic tells us that records of their existence should still exist (and elevating prophets to Gods is not uncommon - eg it happened with Jesus). Similarly, Buddha, Confucious, Zoroaster are all compatible with being prophets with earlier localised messages for mankind.


Thanks for bringing up an interesting point of discussion vis-a-vis how religions view the founders of other religions. Do you agree with me that Islam is unique it that it acknowledges the veracity of these other founders?

Cheers,
Shafique

When God enters the soul and body of His most beloved devotee (son of God), such devotee is called as the human incarnation. In the human incarnation, we find both God and Son of God mixed with each other in a perfect homogeneous state so that both are inseparable like the wire and the current in the live wire. The wire is the Son of God and current is God. The live wire is the human incarnation. The live wire must be treated as the current and there is no alternative way to experience the existence of current.

In this context, the misunderstanding arises. The live wire says that it is moving the fan. In fact, the current is speaking this through the wire. People misunderstand that the bloody wire is boasting about itself as itself moving the fan. The live wire looks like any other wire as far as the properties of the wire (metallic nature, leanness, etc.,) are concerned. This makes other wires to think that the live wire is also an ordinary wire without current, which is boasting about itself. This confusion lead to the crucifixion of Jesus by the public.

When Jesus claimed that He is the truth, the light and the Father of the heaven, this claim was not from the Son of God, but it was from God Himself. But, the observers have misunderstood this statement as that of Jesus. When the speaker is invisible, the mike looks as if it is speaking by itself. Here, at any time the speaker is not converted into mike or the current is not converted into wire. The two units exist separately even during the time of the human incarnation in which, both are homogeneously mixed to form a single phase. If this point is realized, Jesus might have escaped the crucifixion. It is this point, which is stressed by Mohammed. He said that God would never become human being or the vice-versa. This does not mean that the Son of God should not be treated as God in the human incarnation by the devotees.

If you deny this assumption of treating the Son of God as God, the devotees become dissatisfied because they prayed God for the experience of God and service to God. Then the very purpose of the human incarnation is lost. Mohammed clarified this concept to avoid the danger. But, His followers misunderstood that He denied the very concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha and Mohammed should be taken as the preachers who warned about the reality of the concept to avoid the danger of loosing the highest fruit and punishing the human incarnation respectively. The followers have extrapolated the preaching and as a result, Buddhists thought that God does not exist and Muslims thought that the human incarnation does not exist.

The concept of human incarnation is introduced and explained well by Krishna in the Gita and Jesus in the Bible. Krishna says that God enters the human being and Jesus says that God is in flesh. This clearly means that God is neither the human being nor the flesh at any time. Buddha and Mohammed clarified the misunderstandings of the human beings about this concept. Buddha indicated God as unimaginable through silence and Mohammed indicated God as invisible. The desire to become God comes generally, when God is seen by eyes in human form. Generally, the concept of human incarnation is avoided only to avoid the birth of this desire to become God. When God is invisible, generally the human tendency is to get some benefit from the invisible God and not to become God. But, Alas! The Advaitin has not left even the invisible God! He wants to become even that invisible God! Why becoming God? He claims that he is already God. For this, he proposed that God is the invisible awareness (soul), which exists in his body mixed with qualities, which is called as the individual soul (jeeva). He proposed that simple filtration of qualities from the soul will yield the absolute God because according to him God is pure awareness without qualities. The Advaitin gave his own false concept of God and also his own false way to become God.

shafique wrote:From Islam's perspective, the question asked is far from 'unanswerable'.



Islam acknowledges that Krishna, for example, was a prophet of God - sent to Indian people with a message for them - as the Quran says that Indians were sent prophets and logic tells us that records of their existence should still exist (and elevating prophets to Gods is not uncommon - eg it happened with Jesus). Similarly, Buddha, Confucious, Zoroaster are all compatible with being prophets with earlier localised messages for mankind.


Thanks for bringing up an interesting point of discussion vis-a-vis how religions view the founders of other religions. Do you agree with me that Islam is unique it that it acknowledges the veracity of these other founders?

Cheers,
Shafique

Q’ran says that a Muslim should protect even the enemy belonging to other religion. It says that a Muslim can speak about the preaching of Allah to the enemy and then leave the enemy in protected place. It never says that the religion should be spread by violence. It speaks about the war for justice, which is not the war for propagation of religion. For that matter, Gita arose only from the state of war, which was fought for establishing justice. Even Bible says that the rigid fools who do not realize should be thrown to the liquid fire, which is violence. Therefore, violence is not wrong. But the cause of violence should be perfectly justified. When Mohammad came, there were three hundred religions, which were quarelling among themselves with lot of violence. He tried His best by preaching the concept of one God. There was no alternative way to subside the violence between them.

Actually after Jesus, the concept of human incarnation was fully realized but this concept was exploited by cheaters. Every fellow became a prophet and declared himself as the human incarnation. The followers started preaching that particular form is only the one God. You can imagine easily the situation at the time. When violence is justified, it is called as punishment given by God. If the violence is not justified, it becomes Chaos due to egoism of a demon, which can be subsided only by divine punishment. Actually at the end, Hinduism speaks about the incarnation of Kalki and Christianity speaks about the final punishment given by God. Both these situations are of terrible violence only.

The last sort of God is only punishment, which can alone bring peace at least temporally for some time when the world is filled with brutal conservative fools, who are the wild beasts in the human form. The Lord says in Bible “Revenge is mine” which means the Lord punishes the unjust people. The Lord said in Gita that He will destroy the evil person (Vinasaya cha….). God is double-edged knife. Not only He protects the justice but also He punishes the injustice. A rich weak human being may protect the justice but may not be able to punish the injustice. A poor strong fellow may punish the injustice but not protect the justice by giving compensation. Thus, the human beings have limitations but the Lord is strong as well as rich and therefore is capable in both sides.

This is the meaning when Jesus mentioned about the divine kingdom on the earth. He means that one may escape the king on this earth but can never escape God. When you are affected by injustice, pray for compensation only (“Ask that shall be given”-Bible) and not for the punishment of enemy. You will be compensated. When you do not pray for the punishment of enemy, you will see the punishment of your enemy soon from God. You may react to your enemy with equal or double force. But God will react with million times of force. Draupadi was pestering Krishna for the destruction of her enemies. The Lord fulfilled her wish but all her sons were killed by enemies and Lord did not protect them. Some times God punishes your enemy through your self. Arjuna killed the enemies, forced by the Lord. But Arjuna was not having the intention to kill the enemies and was against the war. Since he was forced by the Lord, he fought the war for justice.

When Muslims followed Mohammad in His war for unifying the religions, it was justified because there was clear divine instruction. Since Mohammad was the last divine preacher, now the war for justice need not be carried on because in the absence of divine preacher there is every possibility of misunderstanding of every situation as requirement for war of justice. Therefore, the instruction of Mohammad was limited to that time because He was capable of deciding the correct requirement for war for justice. Mohammad removed the concept of human incarnation because the effects of exploitation were severe in that time. Muslims should realize that human incarnation means that God entered in the human body and not that God modified as human body. Mohammad objected only modification of God in to human body. This is not condemning the concept of human incarnation. God only enters the human body and Mohammad himself was the human incarnation because God entered in to Mohammad and gave Q’ran. Gita clearly says that God entered the human body (Manusheem Tanu Asritam..) and that God is not modified in to human body(Avyaktam Vyakti Mapannam…). Bible also says that God is in flesh and does not say that God has become flesh. Thus, there is no difference between three religions.

Thanks for your long posts - bravo if you typed them out, fewer brownie points if you are just cutting and pasting.

I'd just like to commend you for concluding that Hinduism, Christianity and Islam are actually one religion - I personally would not go so far, but have pointed out above the Islamic concept that the founders were prophets of God.

You also seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding of God becoming incarnate in the form of Muhammad, pbuh, when he entered him to give him the Quran, as you say. A cursory examination of Islam would have revealed that the Quran was actually revealed by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, pbuh. The words of the Quran are God's - for sure - but there is no concept of God entering Muhammad, pbuh, to deliver the Quran as you say:

dattaswami wrote:... Mohammad removed the concept of human incarnation because the effects of exploitation were severe in that time. Muslims should realize that human incarnation means that God entered in the human body and not that God modified as human body. Mohammad objected only modification of God in to human body. This is not condemning the concept of human incarnation. God only enters the human body and Mohammad himself was the human incarnation because God entered in to Mohammad and gave Q’ran.
... Thus, there is no difference between three religions.

I'd be interested in hearing your comments on this specific point, and also whether you agree that the question you posed in the title is not 'unanswerable' by Islam.

Cheers,
Shafique