Re: Eeshwar Allah tero naam
"God" is used in a monotheistic sense. "Brahman" does not even make that basic qualification.
There is a cut-off line. Muslims will share the name of God with the people who's meanings of whatever the term they use for their own deity are close to the meaning of Allah. Like I said, God in Christian and in Jewish tradition is a monotheistic one. Only recently is the Christian meaning of God being questioned as monotheistic. Nevertheless, Jews still use the term, so its okay - no problem. And its the same God technically because the Bible and Torah are accepted as actual revelation from Alllah, only twisted.
The vedas on the other hand - there is just a theory that it could be revelation from Allah - there is nothing to guarantee it. So to say that the Brahman referred to in these books is identical to Allah is just a theory and nothing more. Unless further research is done and someone finds further clues that Ram and Krishna, etc were Prophets and over time turned into gods.
You still haven't answered my question - where does the tradition of all these other gods that I listed come from?
Code-Red, have you read the Vedas and all the religious text of the hindus? If I say, lets analyze the Quran without Hadith, since Hadith are man-made, you people are all up in arms. But then you ask for the Vedas to be taken in isolation? Why not look at their other scriptures? Also, is rvikz taking some isolated descriptions of Brahman and showing us just those?
Again I ask the hindus where these other gods come from, if they believe in one god?
And a god that takes on other forms is not the a characteristic that Allah has told us in our revelations that He uses. So to call my God "Bhagwan", I am bringing in those characteristics into the picture that God has not made me aware of thru the Quran, and therefore, it would be folly for me to say that God does certain things when he may not do them.
I prefer to be a bit more respectful and admit that I do not know exactly how God works. That's not to say we shouldn't do research and try to gain more knowledge. But just as I said in the thread on women being created from a man's rib, its folly to say that God does something when He does not. This doesn't mean he doesn't have the power to, but why should any human describe God's history, when God hasn't revealed it?