Bhakta Abdula article on Sampradaya Sun

August 27, 2006

Has anybody read the article on the Sampradaya Sun by "Bhakta Abdula"?

The article entitled "Steven Rosen, Just What Are You Saying?" is must reading for all devotees interested in the impact of terrorism on the world.

I have to say that I think the article is very telling and something that needs to be said and understood by everyone outside of Islamic society.

copy and paste this link into your browser.

harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/08-06/editorials618.htm

Pankaja_Dasa · August 27, 2006

ouch. interesting. He was right I feel. Srila Prabhupada never directly said what He really felt about Mohammed, but Prabhupada did say He was a Saktevesha Avatara. I find it disturbing how they allowed killing of Christians and Jews though. Then again, nothing surpizes me. All the Relatives of Krishna killed each other under unbelievable circumstances. So maybe according to Mohammed the killings were justified, but even more then this, they believe in ISA (Jesus), so on what grounds did they kill the Christians?

August 27, 2006

ouch. interesting. He was right I feel. Srila Prabhupada never directly said what He really felt about Mohammed, but Prabhupada did say He was a Saktevesha Avatara. I find it disturbing how they allowed killing of Christians and Jews though. Then again, nothing surpizes me. All the Relatives of Krishna killed each other under unbelievable circumstances. So maybe according to Mohammed the killings were justified, but even more then this, they believe in ISA (Jesus), so on what grounds did they kill the Christians?

does anybody have the quote of Srila Prabhupada saying Mohammed was shaktyavesha avatar?

he also referred to Hilter and Alexander the Great as specially empowered living entities.

then again, Hiranyaksa and Hiranyakasipu were specially empowered also.

Personally, I doubt that Srila Prabhupada ever referred to Mohammed as a shaktyavesha avatar, though he might have referred to him as especially empowered by god for a certain task.

If Mohammed is an incarnation of God, then I think I just became an atheist.

gHari · August 27, 2006

PrabhupAda: Buddha is zaktyAveza-avatAra. We accept Lord Jesus Christ also, zaktyAveza-avatAra; Mohammed, zaktyAveza-avatAra. SaktyAveza-avatAra means a living entity especially empowered and he preaches the philosophy on behalf... That is called zaktyAveza-avatAra. There are different types of avatAras. GuNAvatAra, manvantarAvatAra, yugAvatAra, lIlAvatAra, zaktyAvezAvatAra, like that. They are described in the Caitanya-caritAmRta. About avatAras. You find out Teachings of Lord Caitanya, avatAras. Innumerable avatAras. Come here. Find out this chapter. AvatAra saGkhyeyaH. It is compared, just like in the river, the waves are flowing. You cannot count, or in the... What is that? AvatAra. Read, read that chapter.

Devotee (1): PrabhupAda, has there been an incarnation of KRSNa outside India, somewhere else in another part of the world? Or does He always comes in India?

PrabhupAda: Yes. SaktyAveSa avatAra, somebody empowered by Him, not KRSNa Himself. Just like Christ. Christ is also empowered incarnation. SaktyAveSa avatAra. Mohammed is also. Anyone who is preaching about God is empowered incarnation. KRSNa-zakti vinA nAhi kRSNa nAma-pracAra. That is there in the Caitanya-caritAmRta. [break]

Morning Walk

--

Tehran, March 15, 1975

750315mw.teh

PrabhupAda: Fools, they assemble together and people are unhappy. Democracy. Eh? Communists.

Devotee: But they have some sort of democracy themselves.

PrabhupAda: They are dictators. Stalin's dictatorship was going on.

Devotee: It's all dictatorship.

PrabhupAda: Eh?

Devotee: Democracy is also dictatorship. Just by elections. They elect a fool…

PrabhupAda: (laughs)

Devotee: …and then he can do whatever he wants.

Devotee: (indistinct)

PrabhupAda: The sacrifice means the animal slaughter has to be done in the mosque, is it not?

Devotee: Yes.

PrabhupAda: Eh?

Devotee: It has to be made under special conditions. [break]

PrabhupAda: …later on they turned into VaiSNavas. [break] Young preachers, hopeless [break] …real thing and people follow then everything is possible.

Devotee: Yes, then you can rule the world.

PrabhupAda: Yes. [break]…combined together it is very pleasing. [break] Eh?

Devotee: Tehran used to be very beautiful before there were so many cars. Very clean, very clear. The land, and when I was a child the land was very cheap here. So, now it is very, very expensive and very polluted with cars.

PrabhupAda: Due to the cars?

Devotee: Yes.

Devotee: Everyone was a farmer, now everyone is a factory worker.

Devotee: Yes. It was very nice, very clear and very nice.

PrabhupAda: Again, let them become farmers. [break]

Devotee: The mornings were very cool, very cool and during the day it was hot. The mornings were always very clear and cool. (devotees chanting japa in background)

[break]

PrabhupAda: (indistinct)

Devotee: (indistinct)

PrabhupAda: In India, Tirupati, I that Deity is richer than many kings in the world. Daily, 100,000 rupees, not (indistinct), daily. [break] Which king who has got so much money? If you organize, you can take the whole income for cause of KRSNa consciousness, if you are really organized. That is possible.

Devotee: Where is this temple?

PrabhupAda: In South India.

Devotee: South India.

Devotee: (indistinct) (barely audible) …industrialists they are making life very difficult.

PrabhupAda: Where, where?

Devotee: In India.

PrabhupAda: In India. Oh.

Devotee: One industrialist friend, (indistinct), who has come to Tehran, I visited him. Very, very rich industrialist, he built a temple, very nice temple, (indistinct), and the government was not pleased that he has built a temple and they came in and searched his house and they gave him 20,000,000 rupees penalty.

PrabhupAda: For constructing a temple?

Devotee: No, for taxes and but their real reason was they were not happy that he was spending his money constructing a temple. (indistinct)

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Devotee: Juhu Beach temple?

PrabhupAda: Hm.

Devotee: (indistinct)

PrabhupAda: Don't mind. All the work is going on. It doesn't matter. [break] …prayer, five times?

Guest: Well, it's the Islamic prayer five times a day but she is compressing it to three times. It's the same prayer.

PrabhupAda: Why?

Guest: Because they are permitted to say two of the prayers at noon and two of the prayers in the evening at one time, rather than spreading them through the afternoon and …

PrabhupAda: Why are they disobeying the order of Mohammed?

Guest: Yes, they follow. It's essentially the same practice as the majority.

PrabhupAda: Yes, you cannot amend on the words of Mohammed if you are a true Muslim.

Guest: I don't think they have meant to amend it, its just that…

PrabhupAda: Now why? There was five now they have made three. (indistinct) You cannot do that.

Guest: They maintain that, that Ali, that this was the practice of Ali. That Ali prayed at noon in the afternoon.

Guest: Ali is a representative of Mohammed.

Guest: He's the brother, brother-in-law, the son-in-law.

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: Ali.

PrabhupAda: Ali, Ali.

Guest: He was…

PrabhupAda: Ali Hussein.

Guest: Hussein is his son. Ali is the cousin and the son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed. But can they feel the grace of KRSNa within this framework?

PrabhupAda: Hm?

Guest: Within the framework of their dietary laws and their ah, in opening up the experience of KRSNa to them?

PrabhupAda: No. If one wants to follow Koran, let him follow strictly that. No halfway (indistinct).

Guest: Then preaching in Iran should be essentially to people who have fallen away from their traditional path.

PrabhupAda: Yes. Everyone is fallen. They are simply amending, concoction. That is not good. Why they should amend? Mohammed presented himself in what relationship with God?

Guest: With God? He presented himself as the last expression of the divine revelation in the West.

PrabhupAda: No, what was his relationship? Just like Christ, he presented himself as the son of God. So what is the position of Mohammed?

Guest: He presented himself as a man, was considered by Muslims to be the perfect man.

PrabhupAda: Yes.

Guest: And ah, he was the perfect expression of the divine manifestation in human terms. He was not a divine figure as Christ or KRSNa. He was a, ah, simply a man, and ah, he was the mouthpiece of the ah, divine word.

PrabhupAda: What is the meaning of Allah?

Guest: It means God, the greatest.

PrabhupAda: Greatest.

Guest: Yes, God as being the superlative of (indistinct).

PrabhupAda: Eh? Mohammed is the greatest? No, he's subordinate?

Guest: No. In fact, Muslims object to their religion being called Mohammedanism because it implies that they worship Mohammed. Whereas in fact they feel that they go straight to God, to Allah, which Mohammed is simply a messenger.

PrabhupAda: That's good.

Guest: And they call their religion Islam, which means submission.

PrabhupAda: That's very good.

Guest: The Muslim is he who submits.

PrabhupAda: Then God is the greatest and we are infinite, finite, limited, we are not greatest.

Guest: Yes.

PrabhupAda: And our business is to serve Him. What is that?

Guest: Our business is to serve Him? Precisely it was said last night…

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: Our business is to satisfy. There is a tradition, there is a body of forty traditions, which are called the sacred traditions. One of which says, these are the words of God as enunciated through Mohammed, one of them saying that the more you strive towards Me…

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: …the more you love Me, the closer I come to you.

PrabhupAda: Then the ultimate goal is how to love God.

Guest: Yes.

PrabhupAda: That is our philosophy. sa vai puMsAM paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokSaje [sB 1.2.6]. PremA pumartho mahAn. This is the highest goal of life, how one has developed his love for God. And BhAgavata says that is first-class religion which trains the followers how to love God and serve Him. That is first-class religion. Then Islam is Vaisnalam in crude form, like the Christians (indistinct) if they are sane man. I suggested that there are many churches vacant, if they give us these churches, we shall install Deity, Gaurasundara, NitAi-Gaura and PaJca-tattva, and along with them we can worship Jesus Christ. Similarly, we can do Mohammed. But they are against this Deity worship. Yes?

Guest: Yes.

PrabhupAda: Mohammedans?

Guest: Yes, with that sort of expression.

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: And yet amongst the Sufi poets there is…

PrabhupAda: (indistinct) is also expression, form is also expression.

Guest: Yes.

PrabhupAda: But they do not understand.

Guest: But the Sufi's do because the Sufi poets…

PrabhupAda: They have got form, worship, the Sufis?

Guest: They don't worship form as such, but they ah, they speak of it in the poetry. They say ah…in one point (indistinct) There is a meeting between (indistinct) and his spiritual master. And he asked the spiritual master (unknown language). I asked, He asked what was this current, this chain of idols that we must worship? And he replied, "So that my heart might, might mourn, lament, the dark night."

PrabhupAda: The dark night?

Guest: The dark night of ignorance…

PrabhupAda: Oh, darkness.

Guest: …of separation from God. So that they use the form of expression, worship…

PrabhupAda: Separation, how it is possible? Separation is expressed when there is separation between man to man, man to woman. First, otherwise what is the meaning of separation?

Guest: Separation from his divine…

PrabhupAda: Yes, then it must be person. They do not believe in the Personality of Godhead?

Guest: They believe, the Sufis, see the personality of Ali.

PrabhupAda: No, I am not talking of the Sufis, I am talking of the original Islam.

Guest: The Sufis claim to be the original process.

PrabhupAda: Do they, all the Muslims accept them?

Devotee 2: There are about 780 different schools of Islam, different ideas they have.

PrabhupAda: You have to take the original, otherwise mislead.

Guest: I think the original path must be found in Sufism, it can be because that is the essence…

PrabhupAda: If the original path is followed, why it is named Sufism?

Guest: Because there were those who had fallen away from it.

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: There are those who had fallen away from it. Just as in the Hindu…

PrabhupAda: Who has fallen, Islam or the Sufis?

Guest: I think the formalists have fallen away like the jJAnIs in Hinduism. Just as there is a dispute between the Saivites and the VaiSNavites.

PrabhupAda: Who has fallen? The original Islam or the Sufis?

Guest: The Sufis are the original Muslims.

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: The Sufis are the original Muslims.

PrabhupAda: Sufis or (indistinct).

Devotee: Sufis are the original ah…

PrabhupAda: They are original cult?

Devotee: Yes, the Sufis.

PrabhupAda: Before Mohammed?

Guest: No, springing from Mohammed.

PrabhupAda: Then how you can say it is original.

Guest: Yes, it is original. All the schools of law they develop…

PrabhupAda: If it is original, why it is named different?

Guest: Because there are those that have fallen away from it and they are the ones who use this name. The Sufis don't use this name for themselves, it's used by others who wish to condemn them.

PrabhupAda: What is the meaning of Sufism, literal meaning?

Guest: Well, Sufism in a sense is ah, what bhaktism is in the Hindu context.

PrabhupAda: Bhakti means to offer service to God. Does it mean?

Guest: Oh, absolutely!

PrabhupAda: Then if God is to be served, then He must be a person, otherwise where is the question of serving?

Guest: Well, the Sufis do see that, the personal aspect of the Lord.

PrabhupAda: Unless one is person, how can I serve him? I cannot serve the air or the sky. I must serve a person. Love does not exist in the sky or in the air. There must be a person, man or woman, it doesn't matter. Otherwise, where there is love? Whom to love?

Guest: The Sufis find love in these figures. For example, the Sufis in (indistinct) through the face of a beautiful woman.

PrabhupAda: Face of beautiful woman, then the materialists also find.

Guest: It's a material aspect, actually.

PrabhupAda: Therefore, Islam religion, (indistinct) reject it (indistinct). As soon as they think of form, they think of this material form, beautiful face of woman. That is degradation. Therefore, we are strict not to conceive material form. That is Vedic conception. ApAni-pAdo javano grahitA. "He has no legs, no hands." This is denying the form. Next he says, Vedas says, javana grahitA. "He can accept whatever you offer to Him." That means He has, God has, no material form, but He has form, otherwise how He can accept it? How I can understand by love? So, therefore the original Islam the form is not accepted. That is Vedic description, form and formless. Formless means no material form and form means spiritual form, simultaneous. Just like I am, you are, I am within the body, but I am not this body. This form, I am not I am, but what from the form of the body has come into existence? Because I have got form. The sweater has got hand, because I have got hand. The sweater is the covering. If I haven't got form, then how the sweater has got hand, the pant has got leg? But the pant practically is not the leg, the real leg is within the pant. Similarly, this is not my form, this is like pant, leg of the pant or hand of the coat. Real form is within. Asmin dehe. That is not material form. If the real form I could see, you could see, then there would be no controversy, but they cannot see. Therefore, they say "formless". If it is formless then how the outward form comes about? How it can be? The tailor makes the coat because the man has got form. As the coat has got hand, so it is concluded that the man for whom the coat is made he has got form. How you can say without form? The difficulty is that we can see the form of the coat but we cannot see the form of the man. That is my defect in the eyes, not that the God is formless. God is not formless.

Guest: God is seen in the form of the saints.

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: God is seen in the form of the saints.

PrabhupAda: That is another, that is second maybe, but God has got form. That is the conclusion, but we cannot see with the present eyes. That is described, ataH zrI-kRSNa-nAmAdi na bhaved grAhyam indriyaiH [brs. 1.2.234]. By your, these blunt senses…. Same thing, just like I see you, but I see your body. You see me, my body, and…. But the body is there, and the soul is not there then it is lump of matter and you kick it out, nobody will protest. If a dead body is smashed with your legs or boots, nobody will say (indistinct). But so long the soul is there, if somebody is smashed like that, immediately they will protest. (indistinct). So people have no knowledge about the real form, therefore they say formless.

Devotee: When the body changes, SrIla PrabhupAda, does that mean that also that the real form changes?

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Devotee: Because the body…

PrabhupAda: No, body changes but the spiritual form is the same.

Devotee: He is always the same. How is it that when our coat, size of the coat, changes because the body grows bigger the size of the coat is bigger?

PrabhupAda: That is spiritual form. You can take…. It can become bigger, smaller, like that.

Devotee: But the form is the same.

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Devotee: What is filling the body is consciousness. The consciousness…

PrabhupAda: You may have a big coat or small coat, overcoat, the form is the same. But for convenience (indistinct) or small coat. This has been, body has been, described as the dress so the form of the dress cannot be there unless there is form of the person who puts on the dress. How can I deny it? Because the dress has got form, the person who puts on the dress must have form. How can I deny this argument? You cannot say formless. Maybe you cannot see, that is the way, but the person must be form. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gItA. KRSNa says, "Arjuna, you and Me and all these persons who are here, they are existing like that in the past, they are now existing, and (indistinct), they will always be (indistinct)."

Guest: Is KRSNa…. Can one say that KRSNa is the form that presents itself, of Godhead that presents itself to man and BhagavAn is the essential aspect?

PrabhupAda: BhagavAn, yes, the original.

Devotee: The same as KRSNa.

PrabhupAda: Just like the sun. The sunshine is very big, but the sun globe is not so big. But which is the form, the sunshine or the sun globe?

Guest: But its the glow which reaches man because…

PrabhupAda: No, these are examples.

Guest: He can't really touch the globe because he would be consumed.

PrabhupAda: That is another thing, qualitative change. But if, there are five elements. It is made of fire, that's all. As your body is made of earth, that sun globe or sun god's body is made of fire. There are other planets also, the body is made of air. Because you do not find more than these five elements--earth, water, air, fire, sky--gross and subtle--mind, intelligence. So, subtle, the same gross, somewhere fire is prominent, somewhere water is prominent, air is prominent, somewhere earth is prominent. So here in this world, in this planet, the earth is prominent.

Guest: So, there is a distinction between permanent and the eternal?

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Devotee: Prominent.

Guest: Oh, prominent, ah ha.

Devotee: The earth is prominent.

Guest: Ah ha. It's the prominent form in this material world.

Devotee: On this earth, on this planet…

Guest: On this planet.

Devotee: …earth is prominent amongst the five elements.

PrabhupAda: Whole world, whole universe, they are made of these five elements.

Devotee: (indistinct) of the five elements.

Guest: What is the fifth besides earth, air, fire and water?

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: What is the fifth element after earth, air, fire and water?

PrabhupAda: Ether.

Guest: Ether. How does ether distinguish…?

PrabhupAda: Sky. Ether is, presence of ether, by sound.

Guest: How is ether distinct from air?

PrabhupAda: Huh?

Guest: How is ether distinct from air?

PrabhupAda: Ether you cannot feel touch, (in) air you can feel touch.

Devotee 2: Different sense perceptions. On this planet the bodies are made of earth. But there are other places on the planets, where the physical body is composed of different combinations. Say one is predominately air, another can be fire, another watery.

Guest: But is ether a gross element as well?

Devotee: Space.

PrabhupAda: Yes, space.

Devotee 2: It is space.

Guest: So, in that sense it's a gross element.

PrabhupAda: Yeah.

Devotee 2: It's perceivable by the senses as sound.

Guest: As sound.

PrabhupAda: Ether is perceived by sound. Air is perceived by touch. Then? Ether, air….

Devotee: Fire and water.

PrabhupAda: Then fire…

Devotee: You can see.

PrabhupAda: You can see by vision. Then next?

Devotee: Water.

PrabhupAda: Water, you can taste and the earth you can smell. Five senses to appreciate these five (indistinct) Alright.

Devotees: All glories to SrIla PrabhupAda. (end)

gHari · August 27, 2006

GaNeza: Some people say that in our philosophy, if we do not wish to slaughter the animals, what about the trees? We are killing the plants. They are also living entities.

PrabhupAda: If you compare the animals and the trees as the same, then why not kill yourself, your brother? Why do you distinguish? Why don't you slaughter your own son? Why do you distinguish?

GaNeza: He's a relative.

PrabhupAda: You discriminate. If you are slaughtering animals and you are comparing that killing of the vegetables and the killing of the animals is the same, then killing your son and killing an animal is also the same. Why do you discriminate? Just kill your own son and eat.

ParamahaMsa: He's a human being, though.

PrabhupAda: Ah, therefore there is discrimination. Discrimination is the better part of valor. Whom should we kill? It is all right. JIvo jIvasya jIvanam. But there is important. If you eat vegetables there is no crisis, you can go on. It is a fact that an animal is eating another animal. It may be vegetables or animals, but they are disturbing. Therefore it is said, "As it is allotted." You should eat such and such. Not that indiscriminately you can eat everything. If you think killing of an animal and killing a vegetable is the same, then killing of your son and killing of animals or vegetable is the same. Why do you discriminate? What is your answer?

GaNeza: So if we discriminate between the animals and the plants, well what about the discrimination between the human beings and the animals? Is it not all right to kill animals and not human beings?

PrabhupAda: No. You discriminate actually. You do not kill human beings, but you kill animals. Similarly you discriminate: instead of killing animals, kill vegetables. Importance. Just like this grass. There is enough supply of grass, but you cannot have enough supply of cows. Therefore discrimination is that it is better to live on grass than on animals. Now, still they are eating seventy-five percent other than animals. They are not eating only animals. Why not twenty-five percent more? In the market they are not eating animal. When the animal-eaters I see, they have got a little flesh, surrounded by salad and these peas and so many other things. Why don't you eat only meat?

SrutakIrti: Because we require a balanced diet.

PrabhupAda: No, you cannot supply. If everyone eats meat only, then one day all animals will be finished.

ParamahaMsa: But we want to have a balanced diet with meat, and vegetables and fruit.

PrabhupAda: That balance of diet can be done by grains and vegetables. Why should we kill animals? We know that, the balance can be done. You learn from us that balanced food can be done.

Amogha: But in the Bible it says that God gave animals to the man.

PrabhupAda: For protection. Not for eating. Rascals. Bible does not say that you kill animals. Then Jesus Christ is a hypocrite. His commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill." If he allows killing, then why does he say, "Thou shalt not kill"? Then you prove that Jesus Christ is a hypocrite. Are you following a hypocrite? Nonsense.

ParamahaMsa: So we understand. We will stop eating meat, but we can still eat fish and eggs. Because there are plenty of fish and plenty of eggs.

PrabhupAda: That is also better than killing animals.

Amogha: Jesus also gave fish to the people in one part of the Bible.

PrabhupAda: When there is no other food, you have to take anything. That is another thing. But when there are other foods, grains and vegetables, why should you eat anything? You have to eat and live. So if you can eat and live innocently, why should you kill? Then, Christ says "Thou shall not kill." Was he a fool, rascal, that he advised "Thou shall not kill"? He had no idea?

SrutakIrti: But he meant kill other people.

PrabhupAda: No. That is your interpretation, rascal's interpretation.

Amogha: All the priests say that.

PrabhupAda: He says clearly, "Thou shall not kill." And when I cut grass, it is not called killing. You should know dictionary. Because you are uneducated, you do not know the meaning of the dictionary.

SrutakIrti: But I'm just a common Christian. I'm following my authority. They say it's all right. The Pope.

ParamahaMsa: He's the supreme authority. The Pope is eating meat.

PrabhupAda: That means from the supreme down to the rascal everyone is rascal. That proves it, that all of you are a set of rascaldom.

ParamahaMsa: But the government doesn't charge anyone with crime for killing an animal.

PrabhupAda: Government means they are full of rascals. Government by the people. So you are all rascals, the government is also rascal. Your democracy means government by the people for the people. So all the people are rascals, beginning from the Pope down to the common man. Therefore the government is rascal.

ParamahaMsa: But not all of us are Christians. Some of us are Muslims, and in the Koran Mohammed says that eating meat is all right. In fact it is required to be a good Muslim, to eat meat.

PrabhupAda: They spoke in the desert. What will they eat? But you are not in the desert. Meat-eating is a crude form of eating when people are uncivilized. When there is no other food, you cannot produce. But when you are civilized, when you learn how to produce other foods, why would you eat meat? How are you civilized?

Amogha: SrIla PrabhupAda, in Sikhism there was Guru Nanak and Guru Granth Sahib. Is that actually a real scripture, and was Guru Nanak actually a devotee? Or is that not correct?

PrabhupAda: They created a system of religion which can include Hindus and Muslim. That was at the time needed. But that is not a good system of religion.

ParamahaMsa: You mean a compromise between the two.

PrabhupAda: Compromise, yes. There was too much strain between Hindus and Muslims, so he wanted to make a compromise. Actually there was only Vedic culture all over the world. As the things deteriorated, new systems of religion came in. Either the Sikh religion or the Christian or this religion, Muslim religion. They are, what is called, deformed type of religion. Religion is that sarva-dharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM [bg. 18.66]. That is religion. These are later on deformed.

GaNeza: So is that according to time, place and circumstance we must discriminate in our eating?

PrabhupAda: What?

GaNeza: According to time, place and circumstance we must discriminate whether to eat meat, whether to eat the vegetables?

PrabhupAda: Yes, you must eat. But when good things are available, why should you eat bad things? You must be pacified.

Amogha: Was there a story? The Hindus always tell this story about I think VizvAmitra RSi eating a dog or something?

PrabhupAda: Sometimes. There was no food.

Amogha: They like that story. What about in the Buddhist philosophy; we understand that...

PrabhupAda: No killing.

ParamahaMsa: ...in the higher stage...

PrabhupAda: No killing.

Amogha: Yes, but the Buddhist monks, when they beg, they simply accept whatever alms they receive, and if they receive meat then they'll eat that, and if they receive some raw grains then they eat that. Actually that is a higher state of renunciation.

ParamahaMsa: And if they receive some cigarettes they'll smoke them.

Amogha: Yes, and if they receive--they'll take anything, they are so renounced. So isn't that more spiritual?

PrabhupAda: They have no idea what is spiritual. Buddhist religion is not a spiritual. It is material. If you kill me then I feel pain; therefore I shall not kill you. This is.

Dr. Copeland: Mohammed says...

PrabhupAda: Anyone. Mohammed says something. You have to say, "Mohammed says this." You cannot say, "What Mohammed says, it is not right. What I say it is right." You cannot say that. That is dishonest. You say in your own words. Why should you bring Mohammed or KRSNa or Christ to say your words? Did they come to support your views?

Dr. Copeland: No, I don't do that.

PrabhupAda: No, you do not do that. You do not do that. You will see Dr. Radhakrishnan says. When this, he is making comment on it, he said, "It is not to KRSNa." KRSNa says, man-manA bhava mad-bhakto mAM namaskuru, and Dr. Radha..., he says "not to KRSNa." How he is misleading people! He is a great scholar, and he says "It is not to KRSNa, to the person." Just see. This dishonesty is going on. What right he has got to say like that? Did He, did He, KRSNa, left His Bhagavad-gItA to be interpreted by a rascal, "Not to KRSNa"? This is rascaldom. You cannot say. You must say what KRSNa says, if you take Bhagavad-gItA. But if you have got a different views, then you write your own book. Present, as many others philosophers are doing. I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. That's all right. NAsau munir yasya mataM na bhinnam. You cannot become a big philosopher unless you have got a different views. That is the way. If I don't defy you, then I am not a big philosopher.

That is the way. It is going on. So nAsau munir yasya... So if I take the opinion of one muni and another muni, another muni, then where is the real view? Therefore it is said mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH [Cc. Madhya 17.186]. Big personalities, what they have done, we have to follow that. So our principle is that, that we are following Caitanya MahAprabhu, mahAjana, a great personality. Or the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. MahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH. You follow some mahAjana, great personality. Don't take opinion, this man, that man, this man, this man. Then you will be bewildered. Dharmasya tattvaM nihitaM guhAyAM mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH. So you have to follow one great personality, AcArya. That is also recommended in the BhA... AcAryopAsanam, following the AcArya. So we have got recognized AcArya, just like you said, RAmAnujAcArya, MadhvAcArya, NimbArka, ViSNusvAmI, Caitanya MahAprabhu. Or SaGkarAcArya even. You follow one AcArya, like Christians, they follow Christ, AcArya. The Mohammedans, they follow AcArya, Mohammed. That is good. You must follow some AcArya. But don't give your opinion. That is our process. EvaM paramparA-prAptam.

PrabhupAda: It is... Very simple answer is: when the mother certifies, "He is your father," that's all. You don't have to make research. That is futile. By research, you cannot understand who is your real father. You can understand your real father only by the certificate of your mother. That's all. Therefore our Vedic mantra says that religion and God cannot be manufactured by speculation. AcintyAH khalu ye bhAvA na tAMs tarkena yojayet. Just like this example, father. Father was existing before my birth. So after my birth, with limited knowledge I make research who is my father--you will never find your father. But if you take the certificate of your mother, that is there. Similarly, acintyAH khalu ye bhAvA, things which are beyond our conception, that cannot be established simply by argument, logic, so-called science and philosophy, that is not possible. The same example: by argument, logic, science, philosophy you cannot ascertain who is your father. The only simple method and authorized method is to ask mother, and if she says, "Yes, he is your father..." Similarly, things which are beyond our conception, simply argument will be useless. AcintyAH khalu ye bhAvA na tAMs tarkena yo... Tarka means arguments. In another place it is said, tarka, argument, is futile. TarkaH apratiSThaH: "By argument, you cannot come to the right conclusion." You can argue in a way; I can argue a better way, he can argue in better way. That is not the system. That will not help. Tarko apratiSThaH zrutayo vibhinnAH. If you study scriptures, so in the world there are many varieties of scriptures. There is Bible, there is Bhagavad-gItA, there is Koran, there is so on, so on. So which one is correct? That also you cannot decide. Srutayo vibhinnAH, and nAsau munir yasya mataM na bhinnam. And if you consult philosophers or scientists, every scientist, every philosopher, differs from the other. Otherwise he cannot become a big scientist. He must give a different view; then he is big scientist. So nAsau munir yasya mataM na bhinnam. Then where is the way to understand? The conclusion is mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH: [Cc. Madhya 17.186] "MahAjana, great personalities, recognized AcArya, what they say, you follow." That is the best system. So anyone who is speaking about God with authority--take for example Jesus Christ; he is speaking in the western world--you accept him. We Indians, we accept Caitanya or RAmAnujAcArya, MadhvAcArya. That is the way. That is the way because these AcAryas, these authorities, they are speaking about God. None of them speaking that "You become happy here," no, none of them. Either Christ or Caitanya or Mohammed, nobody has said. So according to the time, circumstances, position, either you follow any one of them as it suits you or, if you can make a comparative study, you follow the best one. So therefore, our conclusion is KRSNa is the best. He is God. Christ is son of God. So we don't differ son of God and God. That is all right. But when the father is speaking personally, he is speaking what the son has spoken plus something because he is more experienced. So take the father and follow him. That's all. Mohammed says he is servant of God. Christ says he is son of God. And KRSNa says, "I am God." So where is the difference? The son will say the same thing, the servant will say the same thing, and the father also will say the same thing. So theology means to know God and abide by His order. That is my understanding. And theology does not mean to make research who is God. That is theosophy. So if you are theologicians, then you must know what is God and abide by His order. What do you think, Dr. Judah?

Dr. Judah: Pardon?

PrabhupAda: What do you think this proposition?

Dr. Judah: Yes, well, I think you're quite right. I think that it is... Certainly, in our day and age many of us don't really know God.

PrabhupAda: Then he is not theologician. He is theosophist.

Dr. Judah: We know about God, but we do not know God. I would agree.

PrabhupAda: Then that is theosophist. Theosophists, they are thinking there is something superior. But who is that superior, they are searching out. The same thing: a boy, he knows, "I have a father," but "Who is my father? That I do not know." Oh, that, you have to ask your mother. That's all." Alone he cannot understand. So our proposition is that if you do not know God and here is God, KRSNa, why don't you accept Him? You do not know first of all. And if I present, "Here is God," then why don't you accept? What is the answer? We are presenting God, "Here is God." And big, big AcAryas have accepted. RAmAnujAcArya, MadhvAcArya, ViSNusvAmI, Lord Caitanya, in our disciplic succession my Guru MahArAja, and I am preaching, "This is God." I am not presenting a God whimsically. I am presenting a God who is recognized. So why don't you accept? What is the difficulty?

Dr. Judah: I suppose one of the difficulties for certainly many in the older generation is that we follow certain patterns of life and the... It is difficult to change. This is the great problem.

PrabhupAda: Then you are not serious about God. Then you are not serious. Therefore KRSNa said, sarva-dharmAn parityaja mAm ekaM zaraNaM: "You have to give up."

Dr. Patel:ut I think the Christianity is nothing but bhAgavata-dharma. It has been preached in a different way.

PrabhupAda: They inquire, "What is your opinion of Jesus Christ?" And "He is our guru."

Dr. Patel: It's a fact.

PrabhupAda: Yes.

Dr. Patel: I mean, that is what it is, what what we take, in fact...

PrabhupAda: We do not...

Dr. Patel: The Christians don't know that we take it like that.

PrabhupAda: Even if we say "Mohammed," why not? Anyone who has preached KRSNa consciousness, maybe little differently according to time, circumstances, but anyone who has tried to preach the God consciousness, he is guru. Yei kRSNa tattva vettA, sei guru haya [Cc. Madhya 8.128]. That is Caitanya MahAprabhu's version. Anyone who preaches about the Supreme Lord, he is guru. Maybe in a different way, according to time, circumstances. The Mohammed also said Allah akbar.

Dr. Patel: Only the difference is that Mohammed is trying to worship niraJjana, nirAkAra, and we...

PrabhupAda: No, no, not nirAkAra. That is not...

Dr. Patel: Even Christianity considers His AkAra--"God has form."

PrabhupAda: No, Mohammed also has got... Caitanya MahAprabhu argued in Koran. He proved there is kRSNa-bhakti. He proved with the Pathans. Yes.

Dr. Patel: Otherwise the Christianity is just our way, I mean, absolutely Vaisnavism. It has been wrongly preached and wrongly initiated in India. That is why it has fallen to disrepute. Otherwise Christianity is just VaiSNava-dharma. Nothing else, to my mind, the way I have studied, I mean the New Testament and all the Christian, all the things. Now, the sermon of Christ is nothing but the preaching of Bhagavad-gItA.

PrabhupAda: I never criticized. I simply said that positive side, God consciousness.

Dr. Patel: Christ himself was drunk with God consciousness totally.

Question #5: What has Hasur Mohammed Sahib said about 14th Century and why?

Answer: I have not sufficient information about the instruction of Hazur Mohammed Sahib, but if you mean Mohammed, the inaugurator of Islam religion, I accept him as empowered servant of God because he preached God consciousness in those parts of the world and induced them to accept the authority of God. He is accepted as the servant of God and we have all respect for him. I do not know what he has said about the 14th Century, therefore, I cannot answer this point. You are mentioning the Holy Names of Nanak, Krishna, Kabir, Christ, Mohammed, etc. Out of all of these names we accept Krishna as the Lord and all others representative servant of God, Krishna. In the English dictionary, it is said God is the Supreme Being, and when Krishna appeared on this earth He proved to be the Supreme Being in all respects. We are spreading this Krishna Consciousness Movement all over the world and if all the leaders would accept this philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, then I am sure that the world would be fortunate to follow one type of religion, and accept one God without any faulty conviction.

August 27, 2006

Muhammed killed offenders, not christ lovers. Muhammed comes from a tradition that acepts Jesus as the son of God. Muhammed comes from a tradition that acepts their line from abraham. It is not christians or sons of solomon that are the infidels, it is those who in the name of religion try to obliterate those truely serving the Will of the Supreme Being.

As far as Prabhupadas comments concerning Muhammed, I do think he was referred to as "saktivesa". He was sent to give people who had no concept of God a consciousness of a Supreme Personality of Godhead, Allah, which means the most compassionate Lord (ironically). Only fools will think that he is not empowered by God. Normal people are not remembered, even by family members, after death. Even renowned preachers like Bishop Pike, Padre Pio, Damien, Albert Sweitzer, etc, are soon forgotten (who reading this even remember any of these?) Bhagavad Gita affirms that all remarkable things are directly from God. Muhammed is a remarkable entity, actually followed by a much greater margin than jews and christians combined. However, there is certain conspiracy which makes their sheer number a non-factor as far as global political science goes. With the fall of the ottomans and the loss of influence enjoyed during suliman, Islam is regarded as a lesser religion. The conspiracy of balfour and other carefully designed plans to keep muslims subserviant for two centuries is largely responsible for the rise of this humble religious process into a very real threat. This judaic christian conspiracy is merely called that, but it is not zionism, like the writer adeptly pointed out on the other topic. It is the perverted anti-christiaN DOCTRINE of manifest destiny that has practiced genocide as a weapon of control of the masses.

The conspirators have lost their edge, however, in the modern world. Terorism has countered their genocide, sort of fight fire with fire. The bombs of the genocidaL MANIACS kill only the innocent while creating great number of troops of islamists everywhere, who also target innocents.

The concept of jihad, holy war, is muhhamed's way, but it is not foreign to vaisnavas, whose traditions spring from such a jihad called kuruksetra. We can criticize muhhammed for his war against crusaders and such, but we shouldnt pretend and deny that Drona was a holy Brahmana who was murdered by deception by the pandava armies.

Great people are empowered, their greatness comes from God. Prabhupada even called mich jagger a demigod. Me and you cannot become mick jagger. Me and you cannot possibly kill 150,000 jews. There is no possibility for me and you to become president of the USA without God's empowerment. Buffy Saint Marie, in her universal soldier, notes gods hand in the demise of humans during war. We note gods hands in hurricane and volcano damage, we even call these things an act of god. And war is just another natural phenomena, another act ofr god, a result from LIES.

You know how we become empowered by God. It is actually theoretically simple, we just refrain from Lying, and speak only absolute truth. Sing Harinam which is only the True, unadulterated and sublime, the empoweremnt by god comes from Him as he dances on our tongues.

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

August 27, 2006

You do such excellent research. I just spout from memory, and hope it comes out as Truth, but scholars with good references are very necessary. Thanx for your careful presentations on these forums. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

PS, when is canada gonna come rescue us?

theist · August 27, 2006

Bhakta Abdul makes some persuasive arguments. I could only disagree with his characterizations of Christians thinking Jews are of a religion that worships the devil. Actually they consider the Jews to be the chosen people of God who are unfortunately still trying to live the laws of the Old Testament instead of accepting His grace in the person of Lords Jesus Christ. But anyway that is a minor point in the context of the article.

The fact that Muslims pray regularily 5 times a day is wonderful and instructive to me. Other than that I can't think of one spiritual reason why it should even exist today. There is just too much barbarism in it and practically no transcendental knowledge. That is not a good trade off.

I have even come to the opinion that there should be no more Mosques allowed in the US. Under our constitution that would be impossible but it's on my wish list and to come to such an opinion was not easy for me but these Jihad freaks are demon's of the worst order.

I didn't read the article in question by Satyaraja but Bhakta Abdul is right on when he fingers PC appeasement talk as dangerous naive. Unfortunately the whole world seems to be stupified by the "Islam means peace" rhetoric of the limp-wrist crowd. What is really needed is a "Jihad" against the jihadis of equal fervor to the one they have declared on the rest of us.

gHari · August 27, 2006

We tried to save ya'll, Max, but y'all hated us for it. It was just the true north State against the rest, and the Texas heehaws won. Yeehaw! Keep pushing them cars at 70 up them big monstrous hills!

August 27, 2006

Dear respected Vaisnavas and devotees of the Lord,

Not all Hindu sects accept the validity of the three revealed scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedism.

All three accept the old testament as a revealed scripture. But that scripture starts off with "God" supposedly testing his disciple "Abraham" by asking him to kill his child. In some Hindu sects this is not something that God would be asking people to do, therefore some Hindus do not accept these three religions as having revealed scriptures.

Also, in the Old Testament "God" gets ticked off by people worshipping a golden calf. Well, in some sects of Hinduism people worship the cow, Go-Puja.

So for "God" to be bummed out about cow worship would not be part and parcel of a revealed scripture according to some Hindu sects. In fact it would be considered adharma.

Also in the New Testament "God" asks "His people" to kill women and children, as well as rape the women of the cities they conquer. Nowhere even in Bhagavad Gita, which some Hindus view as a book of carnage, is such a thing ever proposed at all. It makes the alleged violence in the Battle fo Kuruksetra in the Bhagavad Gita look like an innocent little Sunday School picnic.

The "crazy talk" like this that permeates the New Testament, the scripture that all three Abrahamic faiths are based upon, therefore demonstrates that all three are adharmic religions.

In fact most people I know who are Christians and Jews and Muslims are very embarrassed about the New Testament and either cite Jesus [who went to India and studied yoga] or Kaballah [mystical tradition], or study the Sufi/ Sihk versions of Islam [combines elements of Hinduism and/or mysticism].

Therefore some Hindu sects are very careful to distinguish between the Hindu religions and all of the religions which sprang as reform movements to it, from those of the Abrahamic faiths. Some Hindu faiths do not accept as revealed scriptures those of the Abrahamic faiths AT all.

In fact you look at the word: A-braham. This means going against Brahman.

gHari · August 27, 2006

" In fact you look at the word: A-braham. This means going against Brahman."

Surely we aren't so stupid? I don't remember any calls for rape in the New Testament.

August 27, 2006

It appears to me that sometimes Srila Prabhupada was saying things about shaktyavesha avatars and pure devotees simply to get a point across.

Example:

From Srila Prabhupada Siksamrta

p. 2026

SPL to Tusta Krsna, 14 December 1972

"..You speak of pure devotee, that he is shaktyavesh avatar, that we should obey him only -- these things are the wrong ideas...All of my disciples are

pure devotees..."

August 27, 2006

nobody can ever convince me with any number of quotes from Srila Prabhupada that Mohammed was an actual empowered incarnation.

I know, Srila Prabhupada said that a number of times.

To me, it was just Srila Prabhupada being very wise to preach in a way as not offend people of other religions no matter how ignorant or bigoted the are.

If Mohammed was an empowered incarnation then isn't Swami Narayana or Sai Baba or any number of big name yogis who preach about God.

Why is Mohammed acceptable and Swami Narayana isn't?

Why are devotees of Krishna like the Godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada so maligned by him yet Mohammed was shaktyavesha avatar?

There is something about this conflict that just doesn't jive with me.

gHari · August 27, 2006

From http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html

Misconception 7

Islam tolerates the killing of innocents because:

- Muslims can be terrorists
- Muslims engage in `holy wars' (jihad)
- Islam spread by the sword
- it has a harsh and cruel judicial system

This misconception is one of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam today. And yet in the Qur'an, the Creator unambiguously states (translation),

[17:33] Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)

Based on this verse, it is Islamically unlawful to murder anyone who is innocent of certain crimes. It is well to remember at this point the distinction made above between Qur'an and Sunnah, and the Muslims: only the Qur'an and Sunnah are guaranteed to be in accordance with what the Creator desires, whereas the Muslims may possibly deviate. Hence, if any Muslim kills an innocent person, that Muslim has committed a grave sin, and certainly the action cannot be claimed to have been done "in the name of Islam."

It should be clear, then, that "Muslim terrorist" is almost an oxymoron: by killing innocent people, a Muslim is commiting an awesome sin, and Allah is Justice personified. This phrase is offensive and demeaning of Islam, and it should be avoided. It is hoped that as the general level of public awareness and understanding of Islam increases, people will keep "terrorism" and "Islam" separate from each other, not to be used in the same phrase.

Another reason advanced in support of the misconception is that the Creator has imposed `jihad' on us. The term "holy war" is from the time of the Crusades and originated in Europe as a rallying cry against the Muslims in Jerusalem. Jihad is an Arabic word meaning struggle, but in the context of many verses in the Qur'an, it carries the meaning of military struggle, or war. Allah gradually introduced the obligation of military struggle to the Muslim community at the time of the Messenger (saas). The first verse ever revealed in that connection is as follows (translation),

[22:39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;

This verse lays down the precondition for all war in Islam: there must exist certain oppressive conditions on the people. The Creator unequivocally orders us to fight oppression and persecution, even at the expense of bloodshed as the following verse shows (translation),

[2:190-192] And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

As one might imagine, the method of military struggle has been clearly and extensively defined in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Since this subject is a huge one, we simply summarize part of it by noting that it is unlawful to kill women, children, the infirm, the old, and the innocent. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[4:52:257] Narrated 'Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

A related misconception to jihad is often propagated by Muslims who say that "Jihad is only for self-defense of physical borders." The Qur'an and Sunnah refute this notion categorically. As the verses cited above show, jihad is obligatory wherever there is injustice, and Muslims need not acknowledge imaginary lines around the earth when it comes to upholding this obligation. The Messenger of Allah (saas) has also commented on this extensively in the Sunnah. From the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find that,

[4:52:65] Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

Hence, the Creator obligates us to fight wherever people are being grossly deprived of freely hearing or practicing the Message of Allah as contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Sayyed Qutb, a famous Muslim scholar eloquently discusses the notion of jihad and self-defense in his book Milestones,

"If we insist on calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word `defense' and mean by it `defense of man' against all those elements which limit his freedom. These elements take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as of political systems, based on economic, racial, or class distinction."

A third reason often cited for the misconception about Islam which says that this way of life tolerates the killing of innocents is that the judicial system of Islam is unnecessarily harsh. This reason is weak in two respects. First, it presupposes that human beings are more just and more merciful than the Creator, and therefore we can change the law. Second, it is often based on gross oversimplifications of Islamic law, such as saying "all thieves get their hands cut off."

The Qur'an and Sunnah make it clear that the law of retaliation (or equality) governs us for murder and physical injury, but forgiveness is better as the following verses from the Qur'an show (translation),

[2:178] O you who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.

[42:40-43] The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loves not those who do wrong. But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a grievous penalty. And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage.

The Creator ordained the law of retaliation on us knowing full well that we might question it. In many non-Muslim societies today, there are ongoing debates about the death penalty. In Islam, this discussion is moot: the Creator has decided the matter for us. He has however given us an interesting verse in the Qur'an which advises to consider the matter carefully if we want to understand it (translation follows),

[2:179] And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O people of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.

Most people are also unaware of the stringent conditions which must be met for the law of retaliation to be applicable. The Sunnah is full of examples of the Messenger of Allah showing us when the law's preconditions were fulfilled. For example, a thief is only liable to lose his or her hand if the item stolen exceeds a certain value, and if it is proven that the item was taken from its normal resting place. Stealing food is not punishable by the loss of one's hand, and other items are exempt as well. This is just an example of how gingerly the law is applied in Islam.

Finally, another reason advanced for this prevalent misconception is that Islam `spread by the sword'. It should be clear by now that we must always distinguish between the Qur'an and Sunnah and the Muslims when it comes to determining what the Creator has asked of us. Allah has stated clearly in the Qur'an (translation),

[2:256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever rejects Satan (and what he calls to) and believes in Allah, he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handhold, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

Hence, it is impossible to accept Islam under duress. Even if misguided Muslims were to try to `force' Islam somehow on others, it would not be accepted by the Creator based on this verse.

Historical arguments that try to demonstrate that Muslims did not `convert others by force' are actually secondary to the argument given above. However, it is worth noting that historically, Islam did spread by peaceful means. The Message of the Creator was conveyed to Africa and to southeast Asia by trading Muslims, and today the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. The military expeditions that led to the conquest of large swathes of territory in Europe and central Asia were all marked by tolerance of other creeds and faith.

Again, it is important to remember that Allah declares it IMPOSSIBLE that Islam can be forced on a person, hence Muslims find it useless to try!

Sign In

Bhakta Abdula article on Sampradaya Sun

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads