Is Occult Recognized in Islam?

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

One only has to see the different people, cultures and civilistions that accepted Islam and made it their own to demonstrate its vitality and ability to deal with time without losing grasp of the original message.<<

Well Taliban and Saudi Arabia claim to interpret as it should be and what have you got?
I think the whole point here is wheather one should get the spirit of the message or the text of the message.
A further point is wheather one should change those customs (Like bigamy etc.,) that conflict with modern ideas.
I feel Christians, Jews and HIndus have done that. To some extent Muslims have too, though it seems to me they go for 'Closet' modernism!!

22

[quote]
Originally posted by Andhra:
*.....
I feel Christians, Jews and HIndus have done that. To some extent Muslims have too, though it seems to me they go for 'Closet' modernism!! *
[/quote]

"non-Orthodox" Jews/Christians have changed a lot, however Orthodox Jews/Christian have changed a little (far less from others).

Similarly, in practice, Muslim masses have changed too, but they don't make it part of religion (most of the time). Muslims resist any change in BELEIF/Faith. Thats how Islam's fundamentals have survived for such long time and this time of the life all of the world is forcing Muslims to change Islam.

May Allah SWT guide us all towards right and help us follow the right

23

Point about Orthodox Jews and Christians is noted.

and this time of the life all of the world is forcing Muslims to change Islam.
<<
How?

24

Ibrahim says; Greetings of Peace to one and all

Dear Andhra, I doubt you will be glad, it will make you so miserable you might start posting endless smilies in your replies : )
But what the hack, I will have to give you answers or else you will do your hindu hat trick on us with multiple handles and endless postings, you remind me of kumarakn.

You see my friend, scriptures were revealed to the first MAN and his children at the location they were FIRST sent, meaning the First man landed in the middle east region , thus all scriptures are revealed in the tongue of those people in that region. Any other scripture we may find today being based on different tongues and different regions other than the Middle East, are all translations of the originals which were delivered in the middle east.

Meaning take the Gospel , it was delivered the middle east to a Jew but today its so called original is only available in GREEK , because it is a translation of the original that was spoken in Aramaic and Hebrew, similarly the Veda is available in Sanskrit because it is a translation .

Now this will be automatically be rejected by Hindus, no doubt, so how do we prove this?
We try and find out who wrote the Veda and when we do that, we end up noting “Veda Vayasa” merely heard it from the “sages” and wrote it down in Sanskrit. Thus the revelation was not revealed to veda vayasa and neither was it revealed to the sages in the forest. The sages merely transported it to India and Vead Vayasa recorded it in the Sanskrit language.

Now this is flimsy evidence at best so we need to find out more accurately so we look at the translation more carefully.
What does Adam mean , It is name for sure but does it have a meaning? You will finally agree it means “man” in English . So now we translate man into Sanskrit and we will end up with “manu”

Walla! there we have it, so in Sanskrit we must look for “manu” and sure enough there is whole lot of manu’s found in hindu scriptures , 14 of them to be exact ( details of 14 Prophets) . Not only that a whole lot of traditions ( prophetic teachings ) are known as the Manusmrti” which is the most important path for a Brahmin to follow.

This is same scenario in the Bible too, in order to find Mohammed you need to look for praiseworthy, wonderful, counselor ( meanings that can be derived from the word Mohammed/Machmud etc) This is due to the translators not knowing that it was a name translated them into its meanings at certain places whilst keeping them in other places. ( where they thought it alluded to a person)
Thus we can prove the Veda is a translation of revelations revealed in the middle east which reached India through migrating sages by understanding its contents.

Now I suggest you visit my earlier posting on this subject for more details on such matters http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum13/HTML/002978.html http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum13/HTML/003320.html http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum13/HTML/003371.html http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum13/HTML/003212.html http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum13/HTML/002468-2.html http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum13/HTML/003813.html

Ibrahim says; This is because you are in this time frame and you were taught that incest means (sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden ** by law** to marry) but in the time of the FIRST creations, such things were not considered incest and the law given by God at that time frame was different, so do not use the same yard stick, without knowing what was approved at various stages in man’s development. But did you know Krishna and Brahma ( hindu gods ) are recorded as committing incest in the hindu scriptures, yet Hindus worship them?

Ibrahim says : Actually I am just paraphrasing and simplifying what was conveyed by Indian Presidents and intellects ( No offence intended)

Let me show you what I mean from what they (this wise people Hindus believe they are) had said :-

Dr. Radhakrishnan, ex-President of India and an eminent interpreter of Hinduism, as quoted in India: An Introduction by Khushwant Singh, New Delhi, 1990.

[Hinduism is] “…** a name without any content…** Its content, if any, has altered from age to age, from community to community. It meant one thing in the Vedic period, another in the Brahmanical, a third in the Buddhist [1] - one to Saivite, another to Vaishnavite and Sakta.”

(Dr. Radhakrishnan was the second President of independent India).

Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi, 1983, p.75.

** “Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word.** In its present form, and even in the past, it embraces many beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often opposed to or contradicting each other.”

(Pandit Nehru was the first Prime Minister of independent India during 1947-64).

M.K Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, New Delhi, 1991, p. 120.

“Hinduism does not rest on the authority of one book or one prophet, ** nor does it possess a common creed – like the Kalma [sic.] of Islam - acceptable to all. That renders a common definition of Hinduism a bit difficult.”**

(Mahatma Gandhi is known as the Father of the Nation, India).

So I hope that clear my statements about Hinduism being an “empty vessel” which is actually a second hand statement.

Now I am sure my above explanation and links would have answered your questions, But feel free to seek and IF God so willed you will be enlightened further , that does not mean you have to accept them.

Regards
Ibrahim

** Life is so delicate we are hanging on a breath **

25

ibrahim how come arabs with same religen
and language cnat come under one god under one nation? dont you think that is kind of idolatory ? i know you intrepret idolatory
literly.

26

Ibrahim,
Everyone mightnot agree with your interpetation of "empty vessel" using those quotes. If I go in details of same quotes it makes me think that Hinduism has great absorbity for all the relegion and all the culture,It has expanded its arms to every one,its very tolerant ...etc etc

So it depends how u look at the quotes and whethere u look at the quote in the context it was said or not.

Brother, U dont need to bring Other relegion down to show Your relegion's greatness.

Infect this has been problem with US muslims that we hate other relegions so much that we tend to be blind to the goods that they offer.There are lots of good thing in that "empty vassel" as we have in our own vessel.

Choose the Middle Path !!!!

Jiyo Aur Jeene Do!!!

[This message has been edited by andha_qanoon (edited February 07, 2002).]

27

[quote]
rvikz ibrahim how come arabs with same religen and language cnat come under one god under one nation? dont you think that is kind of idolatory ? i know you intrepret idolatory literly.
[/quote]

Ibrahim says; Greetings of peace to one and all.

Rvikz, try and stay on the topic, you spew your few sentences (posts) all around the board without head or tail.

[quote]
Ibrahim, Everyone mightnot agree with your interpetation of "empty vessel" using those quotes. If I go in details of same quotes it makes me think that Hinduism has great absorbity for all the relegion and all the culture,It has expanded its arms to every one,its very tolerant ...etc etc

[/quote]

Ibrahim says : that is why you are you and I am I, we all will have different perspectives based on the level of knowledge one has and the ability to digest such knowledge. Your views are typically what Hindus would like it to be but to me that is absurd because Hinduism did not originate from Hinduism but from Islam.

[quote]
Brother, U dont need to bring Other relegion down to show Your relegion's greatness.
[/quote]

Ibrahim says And how would that be when I am proving that what is Hinduism today originated from Islam? You mean I am trying to put down my own religion?

[quote]
Infect thsi has been problem with US muslims that we hate other relegions so much that we tend to be blind to the goods that they offer.There are lots of good thing in that "empty vassel" as we have in out own vessel. choose the Middle Path !!!!
[/quote]

Ibrahim says: that MUST be your problem, due to lack of knowledge or being spoon fed to understand it as such, in my case I evaluate what I read and absorb only what is backed by evidence and true and discard what is untrue or wishful thinking. Now if you have something sound to say feel free to advise ( I listen to everyone including children) but unsound statements are normally unacceptable to me.

Regards
Ibrahim

** Directions is more important than speed. Look at the milestone, not just the speedometer **

28

Ibrahim: I was kind of hoping for some "hard nosed" study or research like Linguistics Analysis that would stand up in academia environment. The reference you have posted are gupshup interactions that are interesting but cannot be treated as real evidence. What you say makes sense, and it would be nice if there is some hard evidence to back it up. Please if you know of any research or study...

29

) The supreme Self (Brahman) is beyond name and form, Beyond the
senses, inexhaustible, Without begining, without end, Beyond time and
space, and casualty, Eternal, immutable.
The Upanishads
(2) Brahman our eyes cannot see, nor words express; Brahman cannot be
grasped even by the mind. We do not know, we cannot understand, Because
Brahman is different from the known And Brahman is different from the
unknown. Thus we have heard from the illumined ones.
The Upanishads (
much of the world's theological wisdom derives
ultimately from the various philosophies that originate in India. All
of the following I have said before. Regardless, with the above verses
from the Upanishads, we see that the concept of Brahman as put forth
therein is actually more pure in its Monotheism than anything you find
in Islam.

there is strong evidence that Islam has
vedic roots
the Jews and Christians brought their mythology to the
polytheist Arabs, and these Arabs could relate, because much of the
stories resembled their own folklore. The story of Jesus' birth as
found in the Bible and Qur'an, like certain stories of Buddha's birth,
are obvious plays on the story of Kunti as found in the Mahabharata. In
the Christo-Islamico version, Mary, a virgin, is met by a celestial
being (in this case, the angel Gabriel), and he brings her news of a
son she is about to give birth to. She replies that this is impossible,
being that no man has touched her, to which the celestial being informs
her that such things are easy for God. There are variant traditions of
this miraculous event in the Qur'an, which can be found at Al-Imran
3:45-50 and Maryam 19:16-21. The story of Kunti, in the Mahabharata,
which predates the Christo-Islamic folklore, has Kunti the virgin being
visited by a celestial being, in this case the sun god Surya, and the
exchange is nearly identical to the stuff found in the Qur'an:

"Kunti had been amazed, then horrified when he [Surya] told her that he
could not leave without giving her a child. 'I am yet a maiden,' she
protested. 'What will everyone say?' Surya smiled. By his power she
would conceive a son and still remain a maiden."

ibrahim says

Your views are typically what Hindus would like it to be but to me that is absurd because Hinduism did not originate from Hinduism but from Islam.

30

Ibrahim starting premise is: "I am afraid your understanding is based on what you learnt as a Christian whilst failing to realize that there was only ONE SINGLE human creation by God, hence, When Adam (pbuh) was created as a MUSLIM, the history of Islam began?" That is, Islam was the religion for Man and all men are descendents of that Man. If I am not mistaken this statement is in the Quran, which we Muslims take to be the direct word of Allah. So it necessarily follows that all other religions must have been distortions of Islam.
Now you may disagree with the initial premise and try to find support from all kinds of scientific evidence. In that event, what is left is that scientific method wins out and there is very little faith left. Ask the Fundamentalist Christians and they will tell you all about creationism and darwanism, etc. etc. Similarly, linguists have very methodically demonstrated that the Torah as it exists today is not the work of a single person, but a compilation of many over an extended period of time. If I am not mistaken, hinduism has its own hands full dealing with scientific inquiry about its claims.
So the real issue is that if we keep the discussion between faiths then there really is no way to proceed because I believe this and you believe what you do and there cannot be an external yardstick to make any comparisons. If we invoke any scientific measure then we are forced into invoking it for all situations and matters of faith and not only for selected few. That is we are no longer at liberty to cite look where my faith is consistent with scientific method and ignore where it is not. Under those conditions the faithless scientific method wins out by creating doubts where none existed.

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 07, 2002).]

31

[quote]
OldLahori : Ibrahim: I was kind of hoping for some "hard nosed" study or research like Linguistics Analysis that would stand up in academia environment. The reference you have posted are gupshup interactions that are interesting but cannot be treated as real evidence.

[/quote]

Ibrahim says: Old lahori, why would hindu ** scriptures ** not be hard/real evidence?

** the most scientific man plunges beneath the material surface of things and finds the spiritual cause **

[quote]
rvikz : there is strong evidence that Islam has vedic roots the Jews and Christians brought their mythology to the polytheist Arabs, and these Arabs could relate, because much of the stories resembled their own folklore.
[/quote]

Ibrahim says: Bravo! rvikz, now explain to me where you got your other idols from, if Brahman cannot be seen ?

After that explain why the House that Brahma built ended up in Makkah

32

Ibrahim: Here is a URL that is a web site for the history of Englis Language.
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/hel/

here is another one about proto semitic language. http://www.bartleby.com/61/10.html

Essentially states that the Indo-european languages are related and are genetically unrealted to the semitic languages.

It is accepted by most academicians these days that there was a proto Indo-European Language. Sankskrit, Latin, and Greek are related. It turns out that Sanskrit is considered a little older than the other two.

"Now this is flimsy evidence at best so we need to find out more accurately so we look at the translation more carefully.
What does Adam mean , It is name for sure but does it have a meaning? You will finally agree it means “man” in English . So now we translate man into Sanskrit and we will end up with “manu”

Walla! there we have it, so in Sanskrit we must look for “manu” and sure enough there is whole lot of manu’s found in hindu scriptures , 14 of them to be exact ( details of 14 Prophets) ."

For example the above statement of yours is hard to reconcile with the accepted knowledge of languages. It is the english ‘man’ that comes from sanskrit manu. Although Adam or Adham is generally translated as man (probably better as human-kind), there is no evidence that it is related to the english man. While the hindu Manu, I think comes from the derivation of Mind or Manas. Man in sanskrit is listed as ‘virah’ and I think ‘vir’ comes from that. Again I am not an authority. I am merely looking things up in a dictionary. You might have drawn a linguistic connection after the importing of Adham and Manu into english and not before. The roots are different and since the Semitic languages are quite different from the Indo european there is no evidence or principle that I know of that exists that takes Adham into Manu. Anyway the language analysis of Hindu scriptures has probably been done somewhere.
I was hoping you had a ready reference for it.

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 07, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 08, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 08, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 08, 2002).]

33

[quote]
Originally posted by OldLahori: Essentially states that the Indo-european languages are related and are genetically unrealted to the semitic languages.

[/quote]

Ibrahim says: LOL! I think you are brainwashing yourself If you talk about history as conveyed by man.

To make it simple for you, you need WISDOM and that is not found on web sites or in history books or sold in the supermarket.

** Wisdom is an essence, it is not a thought not even an idea **

To obtain it you need to be sinscere and fear and obey your gaurdian Lord.

your problem is you may be stuck on science and what others said whilst not knowing what your Creator said

[quote]
It is accepted by most academicians these days that there was a proto Indo-European Language. Sankskrit, Latin, and Greek are related. It turns out that Sanskrit is considered a little older than the other two.
[/quote]

Ibrahim says: All languages are related, Do you not understand there was only ONE man created by God and from him evolved all that you see today? So what language do you think he spoke and why would language not be related to each other, when all of mankind are related to each other?

[quote]
For example the above statement of yours is hard to reconcile with the accepted knowledge of languages.
[/quote]

Ibrahim says : LOL accepted knowledge??? you mean the knowledge with holes or the knowledge that man tries to deny according to his whims and fancies or the one you are stuck with?

[quote]
Anyway the language analysis of Hindu scriptures has probably been done somewhere.
[/quote]

Ibrahim says: Yes! go and find a Sanskrit lexicon and find out what manu means and then go ask a Jew what Adam translates to

I guess you need to be spoon fed, so here ( according to Sanskrit lexicon)

** Manu ** : mfn. thinking , wise , intelligent VS. S3Br. ; m. " the thinking creature(?) "' , ** man ** , mankind RV. VS. AitBr. TA1r. (also as opp. to evil spirits RV. i , 130 , 8 ; viii , 98 , 6 &c. ; the Ribhus are called %{manor@napAtaH} , ** the sons of man** , iii , 60 , 3) ; the Man par excellence or the representative man and** father of the human race (regarded in the RV.** as the first to have instituted sacrifices and religious ceremonies , and associated with the Rishis Kanva and Atri ; in the AitBr. described as dividing his possessions among some of his sons to the exclusion of one called Na1bha1-nedishtha q.v. ; called Samvarana as author of RV. ix , 101 , 10-12 ; A1psava as author of ib. 106 , 7-9 ; in Naigh. v , 6 he is numbered among the 31 divine beings of the upper sphere , and VS. xi , 66** as father of men even identified with Prajs-pati** ; but ** the name Manu is esp. applied to 14 successive mythical progenitors and sovereigns of the earth ** , described Mn. i , 63 and in later wks. as creating and supporting this world through successive Antaras or long periods of time see %{manv-antara} below ; the first is called Svayambhuva as sprung from %{svayam-bhU} , the Self-existent , and described in Mn. 12 , 34 as a sort of secondary creator , who commenced his work by producing 10 Prajapatis or Maharshis , of whom the first was %{marIci} , Light ; to this Manu is ascribed the celebrated" code of Manu "' see %{manu-saMhitA} , and two ancient Sutra works on Kalpa and Grihya i.e. sacrificial and domestic rites ; he is also called Hairanyagarbha as son of Hiranya-garbha , and Pracetasa , as son of Pra-cetas ; the next 5 Manus are called Svarocisha , Auttami , Ta1masa , Raivata , Ca1kshusha cf. IW. 208 n. 1 ; the 7th Manu , called %{vaivasvata} ,** Sun-born , or from his piety , %{satya-vrata} , is regarded as the progenitor of the present race of living beings , and said , like the Noah of the Old Testament , to have been preserved from a great flood by Vishnu or Brahma in the form of a fish:** he is also variously described as one of the 12 Adityas , as the author of RV. viii , 27-31 , as the brother of Yama , who as a son of he Sun is also called Vaivasvata , as the founder and first king of Ayodhya , and as father of Ila who married Budha , son of the Moon , the two great solar and lunar races being thus nearly related to each other see IW. 344 ; 373 ; ** the 8th Manu or first of the future Manus ** accord. to VP. iii , 2 , will be Sa1varni ; the 9th Daksha-sa1varni ; the 12th Rudra-sñsavarni ; the 13th Raucya or Deva-sñsa1varn2i ; the 14th Bhautya or Indra-sñsa1varni) ; thought (= %{manas}) TS. Br. ; a sacred text , prayer , incantation , spell (= %{mantra}) RamatUp. Pancar. Prata1p. ; N. of an Agni MBh. ; of a Rudra Pur. ; of Krisasva BhP. ; of an astronomer Cat. ; (pl.) the mental Powers BhP. ; N. of the number `" fourteen "' (on account of the 14 Manus) Suryas. [784,3] ; f. Manu's wife (= %{manAvI}) L. ; Trigonella Corniculata L. [Cf. Goth. {manna} ; Germ. {Mannus} , son of {Tuisto} [TM] , mentioned by Tacitus , in his wk. {Germania} ,** the mythical ancestor of the West-Germans , {mann} , {man} ; Angl. Sax. {man} ; Eng. {man}.]**

34

Ibrahim says: Bravo! rvikz, now explain to me where you got your other idols from, if Brahman cannot be seen ?

ibrahim why muslim pray towards one specific
direction if god cant be seen?

may be due to symbolism?

every nation has their flag and they salute
the flag after all it is a peice of cloth.

35

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by rvikz: / QUOTE]

rvikz my dear, I asked you two simple questions based on what you quoted. I believed you had some common sense , but I guessed wrong.

Now will you ever be able to answer these questions?

1) where you got your other idols from, if Brahman cannot be seen ? which simply means which hindu is worshipping Brahman?

2) why the House that Brahma built ended up in Makkah? Which means Brahma did not live in India but in Arabia.

Now If you cannot give simple straight forward answers to my questions , just hide your face in shame .

Regards
Ibrahim

36

ibrahim if somebody wants to pray to idols
that is his choice. if you go around kabba
7 times anticlockwise and hidus go around
7 times around clockwise it is their choice.

quran tells slaay idolators wherever you find them can we follow that edict?

ibrahim you take rligen too seriouly .

37

Ibrahim, I advise you to join the nearest Asylum and get your head examined

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

Now this will be automatically be rejected by Hindus, no doubt, so how do we prove this?
We try and find out who wrote the Veda and when we do that, we end up noting “Veda Vayasa” merely heard it from the “sages” and wrote it down in Sanskrit. Thus the revelation was not revealed to veda vayasa and neither was it revealed to the sages in the forest. The sages merely transported it to India and Vead Vayasa recorded it in the Sanskrit language.<<

For your information, Veda Vyasa has nothing to do with Vedas. Veda Vyasa is a sage credited with wrting Mahabharata. It is a family history as far as he is concerned.
The Vedas are a compendium of sayings by Rishis or sages. They consist of a series of Hymns composed by sages reputedly on the Banks of Indus river. The hymns deal with such things as concept of creation, debate on incest, how Aryans destroyed the Indus valley civilization etc.,
Also for your information the average Hindu doesn’t know Vedas and couldn’t care less. What he follows are the Hindu Gods, who replaced the VEdic Gods.
The Vedic Gods are similar to the Gods mentioned in Iranian ‘Avesta’.
You seem to be entranced by the concept of God reveling holy words to prophets you know.
Vedas are more of an intelluctual speculation at some levels. At one point the sage doubts that the Gods being venerated by his people really know anything about creation!!

Now this is flimsy evidence at best so we need to find out more accurately so we look at the translation more carefully.
What does Adam mean , It is name for sure but does it have a meaning? You will finally agree it means “man” in English . So now we translate man into Sanskrit and we will end up with “manu”<<

Man → Manu!!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/confused.gif

English didn’t exist at the time. It is doubtful if even Latin existed at the time of composing Cedas.
Anyway ‘Manu’ I think came later than Vedas.

Now for your ‘incest’ lame defense.

This is because you are in this time frame and you were taught that incest means (sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry) but in the time of the FIRST creations, such things were not considered incest and the law given by God at that time frame was different<<
Well if the yard stick is different, Adam obviously is not a Human being if those living at present are human being

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

Anyway what evidence do you have to prove the Yard Stiuck was different?
All Humanity Springs from One Man + his thigh Bone —> All Humanity sprang from his childern → incest obviously!!

But did you know Krishna and Brahma ( hindu gods ) are recorded as committing incest in the hindu scriptures, yet Hindus worship them?<<

Man I didn’t know this

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

Anyway did you know that Hinduism is one of the few religions that discusses incest and tells you why it is wrong?
Refer to authentic Veda Web Sites and find out about Yama-Yami debate in Rig Veda.
They are brother and isster and when Yami proposes, Yama declines and the verses are about why such a union is wrong!!
By the way in future if you want to back up your posts, come up with something better than Other Posts on GupShup!!
You seem averse to the sensible advice by given by andha_qanoon bhai here and seek the middle path and learn from other religions and cultures.
So in future if you do want to prove that VEda Vyasa wrote the Vedas or Adam,Moses and Mohammed are actually Hindu Prophets, come up with more solid evidence!!!

38

I will repeat myself from above:

"Ibrahim starting premise is: "I am afraid your understanding is based on what you learnt as a Christian whilst failing to realize that there was only ONE SINGLE human creation by God, hence, When Adam (pbuh) was created as a MUSLIM, the history of Islam began?" That is, Islam was the religion for Man and all men are descendents of that Man. If I am not mistaken this statement is in the Quran, which we Muslims take to be the direct word of Allah. So it necessarily follows that all other religions must have been distortions of Islam.
Now you may disagree with the initial premise and try to find support from all kinds of scientific evidence. In that event, what is left is that scientific method wins out and there is very little faith left. Ask the Fundamentalist Christians and they will tell you all about creationism and darwanism, etc. etc. Similarly, linguists have very methodically demonstrated that the Torah as it exists today is not the work of a single person, but a compilation of many over an extended period of time. If I am not mistaken, hinduism has its own hands full dealing with scientific inquiry about its claims.
So the real issue is that if we keep the discussion between faiths then there really is no way to proceed because I believe this and you believe what you do and there cannot be an external yardstick to make any comparisons. If we invoke any scientific measure then we are forced into invoking it for all situations and matters of faith and not only for selected few. That is we are no longer at liberty to cite look where my faith is consistent with scientific method and ignore where it is not. Under those conditions the faithless scientific method wins out by creating doubts where none existed."

Ibrahim, in today's world it is not an option but to tangle with science. The argument you give above is one of firm faith. I admire that you have such firm faith. Most people these days consider such blind faith dangerous since it ignores the reason of science, and unfortunately it is science that really rules the roost. Keep up the good work.

39

OldLahori, I have no objection if Ibrahim says Adam being the first human is a matter of faith.
However he not only seems to believe it is a FACt not FAITH, but he goes on to claim that Hinduism also accepts that.
As I already stated all 3 billion odd human beings born to one man is unacceptable. It has implications that are contrary to Hindu Beliefs

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/eek.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/eek.gif

Even then, if you want to believe Adam or whatever else you want to believe go ahead, but please don’t claim that Hinduism is some kind of misguided Islam!!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/eek.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/eek.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/eek.gif

40

Andhra, try to grasp the fact that for some the Word of God is more real than anything else. Forget " I think therefore I am " and try to understand real faith. I am sorry what the implications are for your beliefs. Anyway, your beliefs ought not to be so flimsy that they are affected by the "subjective" avowal of someone elses faith.
The entire Creationism versus Darwinism debate in the west hinges upon the "fact" that Ibrahim accepts; that is the human race began with Adam (pbuh) and Eve. It has been raging for a long time and as you well know it is still going on. It is central to the core of the 3 Big Religions (As Tomasso phrased it somewhere) and that is why the debate is raises passions. Unfortunately for some science is relentlessly marching on.
So take it easy.