Word on interpretation of the times.
Here are modern-day angels with dozens of wings, btw...
Here are modern-day angels with dozens of wings, btw...
Buy on AliExpress.com
The 4-yr. old Preacher (109 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sheik Yerbouti
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
You need that thing Rami (the older one) use to use to get around those firewalls 
Hmm...I don't think I've heard of the 'batinite' sects. You're not talking about Ismaili's by any chance are you?
The Ahmadiyya sect falls into the Sunni umbrella if anything but even then there are a couple of fundamental differences that set it apart so I can't even say that.
When I say that we believe Krishna, Buddha, and Socrates to be prophets they are just theories. We certainly know that no more than the 25 (was it?) mentioned in the Qur'an can be considered 100% prophets. However, there is a mention of over 100k prophets in the Qur'an (unnamed of course) so some can be theorized to fall among this group.
Take a look at this for instance (sorry for pasting something long but you probably won't be able to access the website.):
Krishna - `I am the Beginning and the End'
Questioner: My question is about Lord Krishna (as). We Hindus treat Lord Krishna (as) as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, 'of all the creations, I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning. Though I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear every millennium in my original transcendental form.' My question is, how far does this religious philosophy conform with the philosophy of Islam?
Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: First of all, I beg to differ with you as far as the interpretation of these lines is concerned. I have been a student of comparative religion. I found that every religion, however idolatrous it may appear to us today, was fundamentally a monotheistic religion because if one does not accept this universal principle then arguments between religions will have no end whatsoever and each religion will be understood to have emanated from a different source, from a different God.
Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ (as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ (as) but also in the Holy Qur'an there is mention of this truth that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (as) is the source and means of people reaching God and when you say Khatemun Nabiyyeen (i.e. the `seal of all the Prophets') then it can be understood as Omega. But in another `Hadith' (tradition of the Holy Prophet (saw)) he claims himself to be the very first, the Alpha and according to all the Muslim sects together, in view of some Qur'anic verses and declarations of the Holy Prophet (saw), he was the first to be born.
Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna (as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna (as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more. For instance, his being called `murli dhar' (flute player). Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings. Now, what do these symbols, or if they are not symbols, the literal facts indicate, that is the question! As you said, he gave us the glad tiding that every one thousand years `I will reappear in my original form'. Is this the original form of God? Is this the space of human stature, with four arms, he can be confined and then disappear somewhere and then begin to rule from there. This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna (as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words. Such misunderstandings do appear in every religion because of the specific religious terminology. Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings'. The Holy Qur'an also uses the word `wings' in relation to angels. But the Holy Qur'an makes it specifically clear that these are not the `wings' used to fly with, only that the `wings' are indicative of attributes. So, if there are `two arms', the attributes are half the number possessed by a person who has four arms. The angels grew in attributes and in this world, according to the Holy Qur'an, they have four wings. But in the hereafter they will have eight 'wings' and these are all metaphorical terms and figures, let's say. For instance, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself is told to lower his 'wing' of mercy over those who believe him. Then the people are told to lower their 'wings' over their parents. So these usages of the same word 'wing' elsewhere in the Qur'an makes it very clear to us that they are just terms which have been misunderstood and misapplied.
In short, according to the Ahmadiyya belief, Hadhrat Krishna (as) was a holy Messenger of Allah. He used a language of symbols to convey to the world of that time some truths and if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.
Now, turn to Zoroastrianism, what Zoroaster says is again the same thing in different terms. He speaks of fire against darkness, and makes fire the symbol of truth which is God and darkness a symbol of falsehood which is the devil. One finds similar symbolic statements in the Bible and in the Holy Qur'an, but there they do not mean that evil had a separate entity in itself and emanated from a God who was independent of the God of goodness.
So, these are symbolic terms and the use of similar terminology is found in every religion. It is our duty not to be confused by them but to come to a reasonable, sensible understanding whereby we could reconcile the world religions as have emanated from the same single source that is God.
I hope this will be sufficient as I don't think it will be very profitable to go much further into a debate on this issue.
-http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000158.html
The italics part is very important imo for so many reasons as mentioned.
Hmm...I don't think I've heard of the 'batinite' sects. You're not talking about Ismaili's by any chance are you?
The Ahmadiyya sect falls into the Sunni umbrella if anything but even then there are a couple of fundamental differences that set it apart so I can't even say that.
When I say that we believe Krishna, Buddha, and Socrates to be prophets they are just theories. We certainly know that no more than the 25 (was it?) mentioned in the Qur'an can be considered 100% prophets. However, there is a mention of over 100k prophets in the Qur'an (unnamed of course) so some can be theorized to fall among this group.
Take a look at this for instance (sorry for pasting something long but you probably won't be able to access the website.):
Krishna - `I am the Beginning and the End'
Questioner: My question is about Lord Krishna (as). We Hindus treat Lord Krishna (as) as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, 'of all the creations, I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning. Though I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear every millennium in my original transcendental form.' My question is, how far does this religious philosophy conform with the philosophy of Islam?
Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad: First of all, I beg to differ with you as far as the interpretation of these lines is concerned. I have been a student of comparative religion. I found that every religion, however idolatrous it may appear to us today, was fundamentally a monotheistic religion because if one does not accept this universal principle then arguments between religions will have no end whatsoever and each religion will be understood to have emanated from a different source, from a different God.
Now, as against the understanding of the Vedas which you have presented to us, you should have remembered also that this is exactly what Jesus Christ (as) said, that I am the Alpha, I am the Omega, and this is not only said by Jesus Christ (as) but also in the Holy Qur'an there is mention of this truth that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (as) is the source and means of people reaching God and when you say Khatemun Nabiyyeen (i.e. the `seal of all the Prophets') then it can be understood as Omega. But in another `Hadith' (tradition of the Holy Prophet (saw)) he claims himself to be the very first, the Alpha and according to all the Muslim sects together, in view of some Qur'anic verses and declarations of the Holy Prophet (saw), he was the first to be born.
Now, the question here is that there are some translations made by yourself or somebody else, which indicate that Krishna (as) claimed that he was never born, that he is eternal. I have read the Bhagawat Geeta myself with deep attention and I have discovered only evidence of the truth and unity of God, and Krishna (as) himself only claimed to be a Messenger, no more. For instance, his being called `murli dhar' (flute player). Apparently, the flute is singing the song or creating the music but there is breath behind it. Then he has more hands than ordinary people and he has a body, a well defined body, but instead of two hands he has four hands and he is also known to have possessed wings. Now, what do these symbols, or if they are not symbols, the literal facts indicate, that is the question! As you said, he gave us the glad tiding that every one thousand years `I will reappear in my original form'. Is this the original form of God? Is this the space of human stature, with four arms, he can be confined and then disappear somewhere and then begin to rule from there. This is a very, very limited understanding of the nature of God which he has created. How could Lord Krishna (as) say that? There has to be some misunderstanding of his message or misinterpretation of his words. Such misunderstandings do appear in every religion because of the specific religious terminology. Take, for instance, the use of the word `wings'. The Holy Qur'an also uses the word `wings' in relation to angels. But the Holy Qur'an makes it specifically clear that these are not the `wings' used to fly with, only that the `wings' are indicative of attributes. So, if there are `two arms', the attributes are half the number possessed by a person who has four arms. The angels grew in attributes and in this world, according to the Holy Qur'an, they have four wings. But in the hereafter they will have eight 'wings' and these are all metaphorical terms and figures, let's say. For instance, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself is told to lower his 'wing' of mercy over those who believe him. Then the people are told to lower their 'wings' over their parents. So these usages of the same word 'wing' elsewhere in the Qur'an makes it very clear to us that they are just terms which have been misunderstood and misapplied.
In short, according to the Ahmadiyya belief, Hadhrat Krishna (as) was a holy Messenger of Allah. He used a language of symbols to convey to the world of that time some truths and if you read the Bhagawat Geeta in detail, it is not just an account of war between two factions. It is, in reality, a masterpiece of description of goodness pitched against evil, or evil pitched against goodness. A battle between darkness and light.
Now, turn to Zoroastrianism, what Zoroaster says is again the same thing in different terms. He speaks of fire against darkness, and makes fire the symbol of truth which is God and darkness a symbol of falsehood which is the devil. One finds similar symbolic statements in the Bible and in the Holy Qur'an, but there they do not mean that evil had a separate entity in itself and emanated from a God who was independent of the God of goodness.
So, these are symbolic terms and the use of similar terminology is found in every religion. It is our duty not to be confused by them but to come to a reasonable, sensible understanding whereby we could reconcile the world religions as have emanated from the same single source that is God.
I hope this will be sufficient as I don't think it will be very profitable to go much further into a debate on this issue.
-http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000158.html
The italics part is very important imo for so many reasons as mentioned.
my only gripe with this is, why do you believe lack of knowledge or ignorance equals faith? There are physicists, scientists, doctors, etc etc who are believers they certainly are not ignorant nor lack any knowledge.
here are some prominent ones, (besides the people i know personally) http://www.reasons.org/
here are some prominent ones, (besides the people i know personally) http://www.reasons.org/
Not at all. You are misinterpreting my words, and I also mentioned in one of my earlier posts how scientists, astronauts etc are religious people. We are all ignorant, as we don't have the answers. Some replace those missing answers with faith, in fact it is very common. We explain it with the supernatural, when really it is all natural.
OP
If you don't understand it, then why term it as 'super'? Cos super is an adjective used in places where we understand the original term we are describing. Like superhuman, supercomputer, supermarket, etc. If you're calling the unknown as supernatural, then it is inherently incorrect. You should rather call it the superunknown, if anything.
- Status