Sunday, September 11, 2016

Religions: Disputes with the Philosophical View.

[In this Science and Technological Era, when Human trying to invade Mars and thinks to settle there, most of the people still clinging their forefathers religion without Questioning. And those Questions, most of them have no knowledge of scripture [though they are sometimes highly educated entitled with PhD, Sir, Saint, etc], so they never able to find the Absolute Truth. Thus some became Atheist or changing their religion to another, which they thinks to be a better one. However, when asked some tough question most of them become confused. 

One may astonished, when he going to find the no of religion and their sect still present in this world. But that is not our priority actually, we will discuss here only the major one and those are only a few, viz Polytheism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And the interesting thing is that each of these religion claim its own superiority over the others, claims the only religion that is true. But can we accept that? In general, we can't say anything true or false without logic, or proof. But is there anyone who is going to say Polytheism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all are true?

According to our general knowledge if there is a God, then only one religion is true. The logic behind this is-  "As God is one, so the truth shall be one; it follows that the doctrine is one and the meaning of the doctrine is one; and therefore the faith is one".
Dear reader, in this article, we are not going to find the true religion, but a way how to confused each of them throwing Questions those are tough to answer for average people.]

Religious Assembly
Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great (r. 1556-1605) holds a religious assembly in the Ibadat Khana (House of Worship) in Fatehpur, India. In that  assembly of wise-men a Christian challenged a Muslim and when the Muslim accept the challenge the Christian asked him: “Do you believe in Isa (Jesus)?” 
The Muslim answered: “Certainly; we acknowledge him as a prophet of God; our prophet bore testimony to the divine mission of Jesus.”

The Christian continued: “This prophet Jesus has announced that after him many will appear who will pretend to a prophetic office; yet ‘believe not in them, nor follow them, for they are liars; but remain you steadfast and firm in my faith, until I come again.’ There is no mention of your prophet in the Gospel.” 
The Muslim replied: “Mention of him was in the Pentateuch and in the Gospel, but your principal men obliterated it.”
The Christian asked: “Do you possess that Gospel which is correct?” 
The Muslim avowed: “We do not.”

Then the Christian resumed: “Hence your falsehood is evident; you deny the Gospel; for if you did not, you would preserve it, as we, who are Christians, preserve the Pentateuch, which is the book of Moses; but you keep neither the Pentateuch nor the Gospel, and if there had been mentioned in the Gospel any thing of your prophet, we would without doubt, according to the words of Jesus, adhere to it, because, in con­formity with our faith, our desire is to obey the precepts of Jesus. But now, whence can we know that your prophet is true?”

The Muslim said: “From his miracles, one of which is the dividing of the moon.”
The Christian observed upon this: “If the dividing of the moon has taken place, the inhabitants of the world must have seen it, and the recorders of extraordinary things in all countries, and the historians of all nations would have written it down with the pen of truth. Now none, except Muslims, give any information of it.”

There was an Hindú present; the Christian asked him: “In the Kaliyug, which is the fourth of your ages, has the moon been once divided?” And he addressed the same question to the Persians and Turks there present; all said: “We have not seen any thing like it in our histori­cal accounts.” 
The Muslim remained con­founded.

A Jew presented himself; placed the Christian in opposition. The Jew began: “In the Pentateuch, there is no mention made of Jesus.” 
The Christian replied: “How not? Does not David say: ‘My hands and my feet fall off, and all my bones are counted.’ This is a prediction of the sufferings and of the crucifixion of Jesus.”
The Jew remarked upon this: “What­ever David may have said of himself, and the All-Just have announced by his tongue, should all this be taken for a prediction of Jesus?”

The Christian pursued: “But the conception of a virgin was predicted, and this virgin was Mary.” 
The Jew objected: “Amongst us, the virginity of Mary is not proved, as, according to your belief, before the birth of Jesus, she was married to Joseph the Carpenter, and Jesus is said to be the son of Joseph the carpenter.”
The Christian admitted: “This is true; but,” he added: “Joseph had never touched Mary.”
The Jew opposed: “How is that proved?” And this was the question which the Jew repeated at every thing which the Christian brought forward, so that the latter was reduced to silence.

A learned Philosopher came in front and said to the Jew: “The Divine mission of your prophets has not been proved, for several reasons: the first is, that whatever the prophet says ought to be conformable to reason; the second is, that he ought to be free from crime, and not hurt­ful to other beings. But Moses, according to the opinion of the Jews, was brought up by Pharâoh, and yet he caused him by a stratagem to be drowned in the waters of the Nile, and listened not to his repentance. What they say of the water of the Nile having opened a passage to Moses, is an error. Nor did he attend to the repentance of  Qárún (Korah), but, from covetousness of gold, he caused him to be swal­lowed up by the earth.

Jesus permitted the killing and ill using of animals. And Muhammad himself attacked the forces and caravans of the Quraish; he shed blood, nay, with his own hand put to death Human beings. He besides exceeded all bounds in sexual connexions, and in taking the wives of other men; so that, on account of his gazing, a wife was separated from her husband, and the like are notorious of him. With these perverse qualities, how then shall we recognize a prophet?” 

All concurred in declaring: “By miracles.”
The philosopher asked: “What are the miracles of your prophets?”
The Jew answered: “Thou must have heard of Moses's wand, which became a serpent.”
The Philosopher immediately took up his girdle, breathed upon it, and it became a great serpent, which hissed and turned towards the Jew; but the philosopher stretched out his hand, and took it back, saying: “Lo, the miracle of Moses!” whilst the Jew, from fear, had scarcely any life left in his body, and could not recover his breath again.

Now the Christian said: “The Messiah was born without a father.”
The Philosopher replied: “You yourselves say that Joseph, the carpenter, had taken Mary to wife; how can it be made out that Jesus was not the son of Joseph?” The Christian was reduced to silence.
The Muslim took up the word, and said: “Our prophet brought forth the Qur'án, divided the moon, and ascended to heaven.”

The philosopher observed upon this: “It is stated in your sacred book: “‘
And they say: We will by no means believe on thee, until thou cause a spring of water to gush forth for us out of the earth, or thou have a garden of palm trees and vines, and thou cause rivers to spring forth from the midst of this palm plantation; or that thou throw down upon the earth the heaven torn in pieces; or that thou bring down God Almighty and the angels to vouch for thee; or thou have a house of gold; or thou ascend by a ladder to heaven: neither will we believe thy ascending, until thou cause a book to descend unto us which we may read. The answer is in this way: Say, O Muhammad, pure is God the nourisher, I am but a man-prophet.’

“From this an equitable judge can conclude, he who could not cause a spring of running water to come forth, how could he have shown the miracles which are related of him? when he had not the power of tearing the heaven in pieces, in what manner could he divide the moon?

When he was unable to show the angels, how could he see Jibraíl with his own eyes? and his companions too did not behold him in the shape of an Arab; when he was unable, in the presence of unbelievers, to go to heaven with his body, how did he perform the bodily ascension (ascribed to him in the Qur'an)? As he brought thence no writing, in what way came the Qur'an down from heaven?”

A follower of Zerdusht, who stood in a corner, now interrupted the philosopher, saying: “Main­tain all this, but do not deny miracles in general, for our prophet too ascended to heaven.”
The Philosopher replied: “You admit the existence of Yezdán and Ahrimán, in order that Yezdán may not be said to be the author of evil; but you also assert, that Ahrimán sprung forth from the evil thought of the all-just Lord; therefore he sprung from God, and evil originates from God, the All-Just: you are therefore wrong in the Fundamental Principle, the very root of your religion, and wrong must be every branch which you derive from it.”

Now the Brahman took up the discussion: “Thou deniest the prophetic missions; but our Avatárs rest upon these missions.”
The Philosopher said: “You at first acknowledge one God, and then you say that, having descended from his solitude, he assumed a great body; but God is not clothed with a body, which belongs to contingency and tangible matter. In like manner, you attribute wives to your gods. Vishnu, who according to some represents the second person of the divine triad, according to others, is acknowledged as the supreme God, is said to have descended from his station, and become incarnate at different times, in the forms of a fish, a boar, a tortoise, and of man. When he was in the state of Rama, his wife was ravished from him. He was ignorant, and acquired some knowledge by becoming the disciple of one among the sages of India, until he was freed from his body; in the form of Krishna he was addicted to lust and deceit, of which you yourselves tell many stories. You state, that in this incarnation there was little of the wisdom of a supreme God, and much of the corporeal mat­ter of Krishna: thus you compel mankind, who, capable of justice, are superior to all sorts of ani­mals, to worship a boar or a tortoise!

And you adore the form of the male organ as Mahadev, whom many acknowledge to be God, and the female organ as his wife! You seem not to know that the irrational cannot be the creator of the rational; that the one, uncompounded, is incom­patible with division, and that plurality of the self-existent one is absurd. Finally, by the wor­ship of a mean object, no perfection can accrue to the noble.” By these proofs and arguments he established his theses, and the Brahman remained confounded.

Afterwards the philosopher addressed the assem­bly: “Know for certain that the world has a Creator, all Mighty and all-Wise, who has diffused upon the field of events among the servants, subject to vicissitudes, numerous and various benefits which are worthy of praise and thanksgiving; therefore, according to the lights of our reason, let us investigate the mysteries of his creation, and, according to our knowledge, pour out the praises of his benefits; and as, by the knowledge of the primordial omnipotence, we shall have found the direction to the right way, we shall, in proportion to our grati­tude, be led to the reward of yon exuberant beatitude; if, by denying the unity and disowning the benefits of God we sink into guilt, shall we not be deserving of punishment?

Such being the case, why should we pay obedience to any person who belongs to mankind as ourselves, and who is subject to anger and lust, and avarice and passion, and love of rank and power, even more than our­selves? If this mortal exhorts us to knowledge and gratitude, we may by the concurrence of our own reason obtain this advantage; but if he urges his precepts by what is opposite to reason, then his speech is a proof of deceit; for reason demon­strates that the world has a wise creator, and that he, being wise, prescribes to the creatures a wor­ship which to their reason does not evince itself as an evil; and whatever is proved bad, is not ordered by him. Now the law contains particu­lars which reason accounts as false or bad: such are conversations with God; the descent of incorporeal heavenly beings in human forms or in the shape of a tortoise; the reascension to heaven in an elemental body; the pilgrimage to particu­lar edifices for performance of worship; the cir­cuit (round the Ká'ba), the entrance in it, the fatigue, the throwing of stones; the acquitting one's self of the pilgrimage to Mecca; the kissing of the black stone.

If it be said that, without a visible medium, it is impossible to worship the all-Mighty Creator, and that a place for the sake of connexion is to be fixed, it may be answered, that one who offers praises and thanks to God, has no need of a medium and of a place; and if a fixed place were to be admitted, the forms of the stars above would be preferable. If it be objected, that this cannot be free from the detestable suspicion of paganism, whilst, certainly, a place among others having been fixed, which place, by distinc­tion from them all, presents itself to them as particular, a predilection for it appeared proper.

In like manner, after a computation of dimensions, geometricians and mathematicians determine a place which, with respect to the objects and points of a space, bears the same relation as the centre to a circle; then, without doubt, every portion of the circumference will have its particu­lar relative situation with respect to the point of the centre; certainly, in consequence of this arrangement, all places so determined become refer­able to this particular place, and among the other places, shall be worthy of predilection.”

To this may be answered: “This opinion agrees not with the ideas of many distinguished persons; for a great number confers upon the site of another place the attribute of being the middle, and distin­guish it as such; which is evident from the books of the institutes of Brahma and of others, and by the necessity of pronouncing benedictions there.

This also cannot be free from the suspicion of paganism: because one may suppose that God, the All-Just, is represented in the house, or is a body, on which account people call it ‘the house of God.”

If it be so, or if the Ka'ba be situ­ated in the midst of a country, other prophets may have chosen another place, such as the holy house (of Jerusalem), and the like; but this is but by error; thus it happened—that, at first, the lord Muhammad did not offer his prayers at the Kâba. Since therefore the detestable suspicion of pagan­ism rests upon all the worship of stone, earth, and bodies, then water, fire, and the planets, are objects more proper to be honored; and if a centre be desired, let it be the sun in the midst of the seven heavens. In like manner objectionable is the sacrifice of animals, and the interdiction of what may be proper for the food of men, and the admit­ting thereof by one prophet to be lawful what is forbidden by another.

Thus, if it be not right to eat pork, why was it permitted by Jesus? if it was interdicted on account of pollution in conse­quence of the animal's feeding upon unclean and nasty things, so the cock is objectionable for the same reasons. Similar to these are most other commands, and contrary to the precepts of reason. But the greatest injury comprehended in a pro­phetic mission is the obligation to submit to one like ourselves of the human species, who is sub­ject to the incidental distempers and imperfec­tions of mankind; and who nevertheless controls others with severity, in eating, drinking, and in all their other possessions, and drives them about like brutes, in every direction which he pleases; who declares every follower's wife he desires, legal for himself and forbidden to the husband; who takes to himself nine wives, whilst he allows no more than four to his followers; and even of these wives he takes whichever he pleases for himself; and who grants impunity for shedding blood to whomsoever he chooses.

On account of what excellency, on account of what science, is it necessary to follow that man's command; and what proof is there to establish the legitimacy of his pretensions? If he be a prophet by his simple word, his word, because it is only a word, has no claim of superi­ority over the words of others. Nor is it pos­sible to know which of the sayings be correctly his own, on account of the multiplicity of contra­dictions in the professions of faith. If he be a prophet on the strength of miracles, then the deference to it is very dependent; because a miracle is not firmly established, and rests only upon tradition or a demon's romances: as the house of tradition, from old age, falls in ruins, it deserves no confidence. Besides, by the regulation of divine providence, occult sciences are numerous; and the properties of bodies without end or num­ber. Why should it not happen that such a phe­nomenon, which thou thinkest to be a miracle, be nothing else but one of the properties of several bodies, or a strange effect of the occult art? As with thee, the dividing of the moon, of which thou hast heard, is a miracle, why shouldst thou not admit, as proved, the moon of Káshgar? And if thou namest Moses, ‘the speaker of God,’ why shouldst thou not so much the more give this title to Sámerí, who caused a calf to speak?

“But if it be said that every intellect has not the power of comprehending the sublime precepts, but that the bounty of the all-mighty God created degrees of reason and a particular order of spirits, so that he blessed a few of the number with supe­rior sagacity; and that the merciful light of lights, by diffusion and guidance, exalted the prophets even above these intellects. If it be so, then a prophet is of little service to men; for he gives instruction which they do not understand, or which their reason does not approve. Then the prophet will propagate his doctrine by the sword; he says to the inferiors: ‘My words are above your understanding, and your study will not comprehend them.’ To the intelligent he says: ‘My faith is above the mode of reason.’ Thus, his religion suits neither the ignorant nor the wise. Another evil attending submission to an incomprehensible doctrine is that, whatever the intel­lect possesses and offers by its ingenuity, turns to no instruction and advantage of mankind, whilst the prophet himself has said: ‘God imposes upon a man no more than he can bear.’

“And whatever the understanding does not com­prise within the extent of reason, the truth of this remains hidden; and to assent thereto is silliness; because the doctrine of other wise men may be of a higher value than the tradition or the book of that prophet. Besides, if the maxim were incul­cated that prophets must be right, any body who chose could set up the pretension of being one; as silly men will always be found to follow him, saying: ‘His reason is superior to ours, which is not equal to such things.’ Hence have arisen among the Muslims and other nations so many creeds and doctrines, as well as practices without number.

“Another defect is that, when the religion of one prophet has been adopted “In the sequel it became evident to wise men, that emancipation is to be obtained only by the knowledge of truth conformably with the precepts of the perfect prophet, the perfect lord of fame, ‘the Wise;’ the practices enjoined by him are: renouncing and abandoning the world; refraining from lust, sensuality, entertainment, slaughter of what possesses life; and from appro­priating to one's self the riches of other men; abstaining from women, deceit, false accusation, oppression, intimidation, foolishness, and giving (to others) opprobrious titles. The endeavors for the recompense of the other world, and the forms of the true religion may be comprised in ten vir­tues, namely:

1. Liberality and beneficence;
2. For­bearance from bad actions and repulsion of anger with mildness;
3. Abstinence from worldly desires;
4. Care of freedom from the bonds of the worldly existence and violence, as well as accu­mulating precious stores for the future real and perpetual world;

5. Piety, wisdom, and devo­tion, with frequent meditations on the conse­quences of actions;
6. Strength of dexterous pru­dence in the desire of sublime actions;
7. Soft voice, gentle words, and pleasing speeches for every body;
8. Good society with brothers, so that their will may have the precedence to our own;
9. A perfect alienation from the creatures, and a perfect attachment to the supreme Being;

10. Nurification of the soul by the yearning after God the all-just, and the union with the merciful Lord, in such a manner that, as long as the soul dwells in the body, it may think itself one with him and long to join him, until the hour of separation from the body arrives.

The best men are those who content themselves with the least food, and who sequestrate themselves from this perishable world, and abstain from the enjoyments of eating, drinking, dress, and marriage. The vilest of the people are those who think it right to indulge the desire of generation, the passion for wine, and banquetting with eagerness, as if it were something divine. As the mode which the perfect prophet and apostle, the Wise, has prescribed to his followers, is difficult, certainly the demons excite the spirit of brutish passion against his regula­tions; so that there are prophets who, captivated with lust, anger, pleasures of eating and drinking, costly garments, beautiful women, and engaged in oppression towards the children of one race, whom they call infidels, consider these practices not only as legal, but even as laudable, and tend towards them. So it happens that many learned men and their followers, who, for the sake of the world have chosen to obey these prophets, but in their heart deny them, and are aware of the falsehood of this sect, wait for an opportunity, with prudent regard to circumstances and a favorable hour, to adopt the regulations.”—Nobody in the assembly had an answer to give to the learned philosopher, who, after the effort which he had made, left the hall.

The End.
Not Yet Verified

Source: [Copy from Google Books] Muhsin Fani, The Dabistan-i Mazahib ["School of Religions"] tr. by David Shea and Anthony Troyer, 1843.

NB: All that question asked here are not too tough to answer to us, but we are not producing any answer of them here considering the length of the article. But if people asked us to answer we assured to answer them (if God wills) in a rate one for each, only those related to Muslim and Islam.

No comments:

Post a Comment