What's new

Lord Rama as 'Imam-e-Hind'

Gharib Aadmi

First Class Star
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Runs
4,199
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...hood-muslim-devotees/articleshow/77375354.cms

Do Hindus consider Muslims calling Lord Rama as an Imam as offensive? Or do they view that as something that honors Lord Rama? Or are they indifferent?

As far as i can tell it was first Iqbal who refereed to Lord Rama as Imam e Hind first by saying the following:

Hai Ram ke vajūd pe hindostāñ ko naaz

ahl-e-nazar samajhte haiñ is ko imām-e-hind

(India is proud of the existence of Ram

Spiritual people consider him prelate of India)

https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/theatre/the-enduring-tale-of-imam-e-hind/article29640764.ece
 
Muslims just doing to troll and annoy I’m sure 🙄
 
Most of the Indians under 35 don't really care for religion. Hindiusm is more of a cultural practice for us than the actual religion. It doesn't have the same impact as Islam. Again, being "Hindu" or even what "Hindiusm" varies from state to state, regions to region.
 
Most of the Indians under 35 don't really care for religion. Hindiusm is more of a cultural practice for us than the actual religion. It doesn't have the same impact as Islam. Again, being "Hindu" or even what "Hindiusm" varies from state to state, regions to region.

Thats fine. However for a Hindu who is religious, to hear Lord Rama being described by Muslims as Imam-e-Hind, is that a sign of respect? Or is it offensive? Or they dont care either way?

Also all religions have some people who only view religion as a cultural practice than something they actually believe in. Not just Hindus.
 
Thats fine. However for a Hindu who is religious, to hear Lord Rama being described by Muslims as Imam-e-Hind, is that a sign of respect? Or is it offensive? Or they dont care either way?

Also all religions have some people who only view religion as a cultural practice than something they actually believe in. Not just Hindus.

It is not just offensive but blasphemous. Even if Lord Ram was called Nabi, that would still be insulting, let alone Him being called am imam. Iqbal didn't call him that btw. He said according to some spiritual people he is imam-e-hind (nauzubillah).
 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...hood-muslim-devotees/articleshow/77375354.cms

Do Hindus consider Muslims calling Lord Rama as an Imam as offensive? Or do they view that as something that honors Lord Rama? Or are they indifferent?

As far as i can tell it was first Iqbal who refereed to Lord Rama as Imam e Hind first by saying the following:

Hai Ram ke vajūd pe hindostāñ ko naaz

ahl-e-nazar samajhte haiñ is ko imām-e-hind

(India is proud of the existence of Ram

Spiritual people consider him prelate of India)

https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/theatre/the-enduring-tale-of-imam-e-hind/article29640764.ece

There are many strands of Hinduism. Many Hindus believe in the omnipotent, omniscient Trinity of Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva like Muslims believe in Allah. For those who believe, there are no geographical limitations.
 
It is not just offensive but blasphemous. Even if Lord Ram was called Nabi, that would still be insulting, let alone Him being called am imam. Iqbal didn't call him that btw. He said according to some spiritual people he is imam-e-hind (nauzubillah).

Well i think he would consider himself a spiritual person.
 
There are many strands of Hinduism. Many Hindus believe in the omnipotent, omniscient Trinity of Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva like Muslims believe in Allah. For those who believe, there are no geographical limitations.

Is there any stand where it would be considered offensive? In Islam there are supposed to be prophets sent to every country, and only a few of them are mentioned by name. So i believe that was the intention by those Muslims calling him Imam-e-Hind, that he was also a prophet, so they meant as a sign of respect.

But i was curious if any Hindu would consider it offensive?
 
Is there any stand where it would be considered offensive? In Islam there are supposed to be prophets sent to every country, and only a few of them are mentioned by name. So i believe that was the intention by those Muslims calling him Imam-e-Hind, that he was also a prophet, so they meant as a sign of respect.

But i was curious if any Hindu would consider it offensive?

If the implication is that Ram is confined to India rather than being the Universal God, then his devotees may find it offensive. I think most don't really care about what others think.
 
Am sure you will find lots on Twitter who will take offence , thanks to some lowlife secular Hindu who will twist this and turn it into a insult ...in general most Hindus are fine as long as there is no intent to disrespect .
 
Why would it be a problem? Am I missing something? It just seems like an endearing title unless I am missing some deeper meaning of the word “imam”
 
Why would it be a problem? Am I missing something? It just seems like an endearing title unless I am missing some deeper meaning of the word “imam”

In Islam, an Imam is subservient to Allah so in this example Ram would be subservient to God and kattar Hindus have a problem with that.

Now I don’t know what was the intent behind this title or whether whoever gave it even thought that far ahead but I can see why a kattar hindu would have a problem with that.
 
In Islam, an Imam is subservient to Allah so in this example Ram would be subservient to God and kattar Hindus have a problem with that.

Now I don’t know what was the intent behind this title or whether whoever gave it even thought that far ahead but I can see why a kattar hindu would have a problem with that.

I don’t want to go deep into a religious or philosophical debate but in our religion Lord Ram is considered an “Avatar” of god. The word avatar itself comes from Sanskrit but you know what it means.

All our religious figures are avatars or manifestations of god.

I mean people in a lighter way call Sachin as god or even Dravid once said about Ganguly that on the offside there is god and then there is Ganguly or something like that.

It doesn’t literally mean they are god. Hindu culture believes god is universal, not an entity. So anything and everything can be divine or god like.

Islamic culture believes god as one supreme being.

I am not debating which is correct.

By that account Muslims who believe Allah as one true god calling Ram the representation of Indias divinity is absolutely fine. In fact I salute the Indian Muslim brother who said that. We have a lot of such patriotic at the same time religious muslims like that in our country and we are proud of them.
 
In Islam, an Imam is subservient to Allah so in this example Ram would be subservient to God and kattar Hindus have a problem with that.

Now I don’t know what was the intent behind this title or whether whoever gave it even thought that far ahead but I can see why a kattar hindu would have a problem with that.

Even nabi/rasools are subservient to Almighty. kattar hindus would have problem with that too, but not moderate hindus like me. But Shri Ram Ji not being even called a rasool like prophet isa and prophet musa is not only insulting but blasphemous.

hindus as usual don't understand these things and think that iqbal was trying to give respect.
 
By that account Muslims who believe Allah as one true god calling Ram the representation of Indias divinity is absolutely fine. In fact I salute the Indian Muslim brother who said that. We have a lot of such patriotic at the same time religious muslims like that in our country and we are proud of them.

Ram ji is merely being called leader of indians, not even a divine person. Basically like the imam of jama masjid. You ignorant hindus are the reason our faith and imaan is so weak and people mock us.
 
Ram ji is merely being called leader of indians, not even a divine person. Basically like the imam of jama masjid. You ignorant hindus are the reason our faith and imaan is so weak and people mock us.

Not in the mood to play brother. Look for someone else
 
In Islam, an Imam is subservient to Allah so in this example Ram would be subservient to God and kattar Hindus have a problem with that.

Now I don’t know what was the intent behind this title or whether whoever gave it even thought that far ahead but I can see why a kattar hindu would have a problem with that.

Kattar Hindu?

Which hindu will accept that their god is subservient to another god? Will you accept a similar situation?

Lord Ram is the all pervading god.
 
Kattar Hindu?

Which hindu will accept that their god is subservient to another god? Will you accept a similar situation?

Lord Ram is the all pervading god.

when i say katar Hindu i just mean a practising hindus or ones who care about these things

i know a few people who wouldnt care one bit

dont know if there is any other meaning behind 'kattar' apart from a practising/following one
 
Am sure you will find lots on Twitter who will take offence , thanks to some lowlife secular Hindu who will twist this and turn it into a insult ...in general most Hindus are fine as long as there is no intent to disrespect .

Yep that's why i was asking. I did see some on social media who took offense, to the "Imam-e-Hind" title being given to Lord Ram. But others were fine with the title, including a RSS chief.
 
Kattar Hindu?

Which hindu will accept that their god is subservient to another god? Will you accept a similar situation?

Lord Ram is the all pervading god.

So when Hindus say Bhagwan they mean Lord Ram? I always assumed that Bhagwan was the term that Hindus used for God, like how Muslims use Allah, God, Khuda, interchangeably.
 
Ram ji is merely being called leader of indians, not even a divine person. Basically like the imam of jama masjid. You ignorant hindus are the reason our faith and imaan is so weak and people mock us.

I dont think that was the intention by Iqbal and the Muslims in the article in the OP, to compare him to a regular Imam, like the one in Jama Masjid.

I think the intention was to reference him as the greatest prophet from the subcontinent.
 
So when Hindus say Bhagwan they mean Lord Ram? I always assumed that Bhagwan was the term that Hindus used for God, like how Muslims use Allah, God, Khuda, interchangeably.

Bhagwan Ram is the 7th avatar of Vishnu. Bhagwan Vishnu is the preserver of the universe.

Bhagwan doesn't denote anyone god among the hindus.
 
I dont think that was the intention by Iqbal and the Muslims in the article in the OP, to compare him to a regular Imam, like the one in Jama Masjid.

I think the intention was to reference him as the greatest prophet from the subcontinent.

Why didn't iqbal call our Huzoor and Aaka nabi-e-hind then? he was a poet, he knew exactly what he was saying.
 
There are many strands of Hinduism. Many Hindus believe in the omnipotent, omniscient Trinity of Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva like Muslims believe in Allah. For those who believe, there are no geographical limitations.

Is that right? I have yet to see Hindus outside of India share their religion openly (in all aspects) with those beyond India. Would love a full and in depth discussion of how Hinduism has called to the world to join in an equal and improving journey of betterment.
 
I don’t want to go deep into a religious or philosophical debate but in our religion Lord Ram is considered an “Avatar” of god. The word avatar itself comes from Sanskrit but you know what it means.

All our religious figures are avatars or manifestations of god.

I mean people in a lighter way call Sachin as god or even Dravid once said about Ganguly that on the offside there is god and then there is Ganguly or something like that.

It doesn’t literally mean they are god. Hindu culture believes god is universal, not an entity. So anything and everything can be divine or god like.

Islamic culture believes god as one supreme being.

I am not debating which is correct.

By that account Muslims who believe Allah as one true god calling Ram the representation of Indias divinity is absolutely fine. In fact I salute the Indian Muslim brother who said that. We have a lot of such patriotic at the same time religious muslims like that in our country and we are proud of them.

What if the intent was to describe Lord Ram as a prophet of Islam, as per Islam there were over 100 thousand prophets, who were sent to every country in the world. And as India would have had many prophets, by calling him Imam-e-Hind, implying that he was the greatest prophet of India.

Based on that interpretation is it offensive? Or as a sign of respect?

There are some Muslims who believe that the various Hindu gods, like Shiva, Ganesha, Krishna, etc would be prophets of Islam. And they are intending to show respect, but i was curious about the view of Hindus in regards to that.
 
Is that right? I have yet to see Hindus outside of India share their religion openly (in all aspects) with those beyond India. Would love a full and in depth discussion of how Hinduism has called to the world to join in an equal and improving journey of betterment.

I meant that for the devotees their God is not limited to any geographical area.

Hinduism unfortunately over the millennia developed the caste system which made it exclusionary. There have been reform attempts like Buddhism, the Arya Samaj, the Brahmo Samaj etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya_Samaj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmo_Samaj

As Hinduism is not based on any universally accepted book, it is possible to be a Hindu and reject caste distinctions. Similarly any individual or group can adopt elements of Hinduism and call themselves Hindu with no less validity than others.

One can in fact, go back to the Vedic variety of Hinduism where there was no Trinity, but a family of gods headed by Indra (known in other Indo-European religions by names such as Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Odin etc.) The Trinity (including Ram) is a later development in Hinduism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra
 
Last edited:
What if the intent was to describe Lord Ram as a prophet of Islam, as per Islam there were over 100 thousand prophets, who were sent to every country in the world. And as India would have had many prophets, by calling him Imam-e-Hind, implying that he was the greatest prophet of India.

Based on that interpretation is it offensive? Or as a sign of respect?

There are some Muslims who believe that the various Hindu gods, like Shiva, Ganesha, Krishna, etc would be prophets of Islam. And they are intending to show respect, but i was curious about the view of Hindus in regards to that.

No problem with that either. Look god is subjective anyways. Sorry if it differs from your belief. I am speaking from my perspective.

Most if not all Hindus and some Muslims (not sure if they would qualify as practicing ones because of this) worship Sai Baba who is a great Muslim origin saint. He was technically a prophet/saint but is worshipped as a god.

I understand if there is a cultural disconnect here with you guys.

What is a prophet anyways? A messenger or a personification or representative or symbol of god. My understanding of Allah is it translates to god. So if it translates to symbol of god not sure what is the debate.

I am in fact appreciating this harmless in fact praise and embracing of Indian culture and is a huge positive step by Indian Muslims. Not sure why some of you guys are trying to make this an offensive statement. Trust me have one of your army chiefs/PM minster tweet something like this because Ram has a close connection with Pakistan after all Lahore is named after his son, one such tweet might solve 90% of the issues between both countries on the auspicious week of building the grand temple
 
Is that right? I have yet to see Hindus outside of India share their religion openly (in all aspects) with those beyond India. Would love a full and in depth discussion of how Hinduism has called to the world to join in an equal and improving journey of betterment.

Forget Hinduism or Islam but most normal people keep their religion at home. I don’t mean the dress you wear or beards/turbans that is your culture/beliefs.

A concept too tough to grasp perhaps?
 
Indian Muslims will do anything to survive these times. I have also heard them say the final Prophet of Allah was some Indian guy, astaghfirullah.
 
Indian Muslims will do anything to survive these times. I have also heard them say the final Prophet of Allah was some Indian guy, astaghfirullah.

Every year there is a guy claiming to be "holy" somewhere in the world and every few decades there is a guy claiming to be "the last prophet". Obviously, all of them have economic and/or political motivations. Starting a fake religion is arguably the easiest way to make some serious money without great initial investment.
 
What if the intent was to describe Lord Ram as a prophet of Islam, as per Islam there were over 100 thousand prophets, who were sent to every country in the world. And as India would have had many prophets, by calling him Imam-e-Hind, implying that he was the greatest prophet of India.

Based on that interpretation is it offensive? Or as a sign of respect?

There are some Muslims who believe that the various Hindu gods, like Shiva, Ganesha, Krishna, etc would be prophets of Islam. And they are intending to show respect, but i was curious about the view of Hindus in regards to that.

I think the number is around 124000. (someone correct me please).

I'm inserting a Zakir Naik video here:


No intention to offend anyone. And I deeply recognize my ignorance on the matter in discussion.
 
From the video I posted above:
The Chandogya Upanishad

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/upanishads/chandogya.asp#Pra6
'In the beginning,' my dear, 'there was that only which is, one only, without a second....
The Chandogya Upanishad
Chapter 6
SECOND KHAVDA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quran; Chapter 112 Verse 1
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,

And it goes on like this:
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
https://quran.com/112
 
Last edited:
If the next Shankaracharya came around in India and reformed Hindusim once again. And this time, he included Prophet Muhammad as an avatar of Vishnu along with Buddha, Rama, Krishna.

Would Muslims have a problem with that? Would they be happy?

You have your answer :)
 
Every year there is a guy claiming to be "holy" somewhere in the world and every few decades there is a guy claiming to be "the last prophet". Obviously, all of them have economic and/or political motivations. Starting a fake religion is arguably the easiest way to make some serious money without great initial investment.

Indeed man who do anything to survive such is human nature so we can't blame Indian Muslims for talking rubbish. Now that Quaid Jinnah has been proved right they are even more humiliated. Others may cake new Prophets as well however Indian Muslims do all this out of fear. They know the only way they can survive in a hostile land is trying to be more Indian then the Hindutva gang themselves. They also marry of their ladies to Hindu men out of fear!
 
Why didn't iqbal call our Huzoor and Aaka nabi-e-hind then? he was a poet, he knew exactly what he was saying.

Maybe he thought Imam-e-Hind sounded better than Nabi-e-Hind. Anyway in the Time of India article in the Original Post, the Muslim devotees stated that "Shri Ram is our Paigambar". Paigambar means prophet, so that's why i mentioned prophet was the intent.
 
Indian Muslims will do anything to survive these times. I have also heard them say the final Prophet of Allah was some Indian guy, astaghfirullah.

Iqbal was the one who first called Lord Ram, Imam-e-Hind. So was Iqbal trying to survive?
 
If the next Shankaracharya came around in India and reformed Hindusim once again. And this time, he included Prophet Muhammad as an avatar of Vishnu along with Buddha, Rama, Krishna.

Would Muslims have a problem with that? Would they be happy?

You have your answer :)

So basically it depends on the person then.

As a Muslim, albeit a non religious one, i would not mind at all. I mean its certainly better to have someone show respect to your religious figures then to insult them.

To give an example, Christians view Jesus as God.

So if i was a religious Christian i would think the Muslim view of Jesus as a prophet is more respectful, than someone in essence saying he was a liar.
 
Maybe he thought Imam-e-Hind sounded better than Nabi-e-Hind. Anyway in the Time of India article in the Original Post, the Muslim devotees stated that "Shri Ram is our Paigambar". Paigambar means prophet, so that's why i mentioned prophet was the intent.

What kind of logic is this. The toi(let)ofIndia defines what was the intent of iqbal?

You are kind of insulting iqbal lahori that although he used a certain word, he had a different word in mind.

which meter did he use in the poem that it would be violated by replacing a 2 syllable word with another 2 syllable one?
 
What if the intent was to describe Lord Ram as a prophet of Islam, as per Islam there were over 100 thousand prophets, who were sent to every country in the world. And as India would have had many prophets, by calling him Imam-e-Hind, implying that he was the greatest prophet of India.

Based on that interpretation is it offensive? Or as a sign of respect?

There are some Muslims who believe that the various Hindu gods, like Shiva, Ganesha, Krishna, etc would be prophets of Islam. And they are intending to show respect, but i was curious about the view of Hindus in regards to that.

There is no such proof in Islam, just assuming stuff without proper evidence is very ambiguous.
 
I think the number is around 124000. (someone correct me please).

I'm inserting a Zakir Naik video here:


No intention to offend anyone. And I deeply recognize my ignorance on the matter in discussion.

It is weak hadeeth. What we know is that to every nation a prophet was sent.
 
There is no such proof in Islam, just assuming stuff without proper evidence is very ambiguous.

I didnt say there was any proof. There was a Times of India article in the original post where the Muslim devotees stated that "Shri Ram is our Paigambar". so that's why i mentioned prophet was the intent.

And the ultimate point of the thread was to see if it was offensive to Hindus, to refer to Lord Ram as Imam-e-Hind.
 
If the next Shankaracharya came around in India and reformed Hindusim once again. And this time, he included Prophet Muhammad as an avatar of Vishnu along with Buddha, Rama, Krishna.

Would Muslims have a problem with that? Would they be happy?

You have your answer :)

Yes Muslims will have a problem , because in Islam we worship creator mot the created. Muhammad SAW was a human, NO Muslim worships him , and Allah does not take human form to understand his creation
His knowledge is perfect about everything.
 
I didnt say there was any proof. There was a Times of India article in the original post where the Muslim devotees stated that "Shri Ram is our Paigambar". so that's why i mentioned prophet was the intent.

And the ultimate point of the thread was to see if it was offensive to Hindus, to refer to Lord Ram as Imam-e-Hind.

Imam means a leader, so if you look into literal meaning of the word , Ram was a Leader for hindus , but he was Human.
 
And the ultimate point of the thread was to see if it was offensive to Hindus, to refer to Lord Ram as Imam-e-Hind.

The hindus on PP don't practice their religion. They may hate subcontinental muslims and may support the BJP and politically support hindu causes, but ask them if they have read Vedas, Gita, Upanishads and their answer will be no. Ask them how many times in the last year they went to a temple?

so are you really going to seek answers about hindus from these munafiq hindus?
 
So basically it depends on the person then.

As a Muslim, albeit a non religious one, i would not mind at all. I mean its certainly better to have someone show respect to your religious figures then to insult them.

To give an example, Christians view Jesus as God.

So if i was a religious Christian i would think the Muslim view of Jesus as a prophet is more respectful, than someone in essence saying he was a liar.

Actually Christians do not view Jesus as God, but rather as the Son of God.

There is a difference between God, an Avatar and a Prophet. His devotees believe Ram was an Avatar, not a Prophet.
 
Yes Muslims will have a problem , because in Islam we worship creator mot the created. Muhammad SAW was a human, NO Muslim worships him , and Allah does not take human form to understand his creation
His knowledge is perfect about everything.

So basically it depends on the person then.

As a Muslim, albeit a non religious one, i would not mind at all. I mean its certainly better to have someone show respect to your religious figures then to insult them.

To give an example, Christians view Jesus as God.

So if i was a religious Christian i would think the Muslim view of Jesus as a prophet is more respectful, than someone in essence saying he was a liar.
I believe you wouldn't mind. But as you can see, there are others who will.

There's also another issue that just occurred to me. Avatars tend to get drawn and represented in statues too.
 
To give an example, Christians view Jesus as God.

So if i was a religious Christian i would think the Muslim view of Jesus as a prophet is more respectful, than someone in essence saying he was a liar.
I studied in Christian schools. There were Muslims and Christians too there. Never heard them shake hands on this. I actually learnt about this here on PP. So not sure Christians take it as a compliment. I also don't think they think of him as God. They pray to him I suppose the way Hindus pray to Krishna. There are people on my mother's side who sometimes visit a famous church here in Bengaluru and pray to a baby Jesus. One of them had this theory that Jesus was basically Krishna :smith
 
Actually Christians do not view Jesus as God, but rather as the Son of God.

I am no expert on Christianity, but from my understanding the Christian Trinity of the father (God), son (Jesus), and spirit, is all one person in 3 forms.

There is a difference between God, an Avatar and a Prophet. His devotees believe Ram was an Avatar, not a Prophet.

Yea i was confused, until another poster cleared it up, and i think other Muslims would have been as well.

I always assumed that Bhagwan was the term that Hindus used for God, like how Muslims use Allah, God, Khuda, interchangeably.

I think thats why in the Times of India article in the original post the Muslim devotees stated that "Shri Ram is our Paigambar".

Those people did not mean any offense, and to answer my question in the OP, it basically depends on the person if it is offensive to call Lord Ram as Imam-e-Hind.
 
I believe you wouldn't mind. But as you can see, there are others who will.

There's also another issue that just occurred to me. Avatars tend to get drawn and represented in statues too.

Wrong comparison. If Prophet is compared to an avatar, he is being elevated from human to divine. When Lord Ram is being called Imam, he is from downgraded from divine to ordinary human. Both will be offensive, but the comparison is fundamentally flawed.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=139758]pillionrider[/MENTION] one test if you dare. Tell me where does this concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam comes from. You check wiki or google, but only someone who has read the text will know the real story. go ahead.
 
Most of the Indians under 35 don't really care for religion. Hindiusm is more of a cultural practice for us than the actual religion. It doesn't have the same impact as Islam. Again, being "Hindu" or even what "Hindiusm" varies from state to state, regions to region.

This. The practices, customs varies drastically between different states/region.
 
I agree. but please answer the question. Or do you need time to go through your closet?

I don't know. And it's not something I will be trying to learn about anytime soon. But that wasn't my point though you're trying to make it.

My point was - I know you haven't read them :cobra

I think you're trying to interpret having something in a closet too metaphorically :smith
 
I am no expert on Christianity, but from my understanding the Christian Trinity of the father (God), son (Jesus), and spirit, is all one person in 3 forms.

Christians would not consider any of the three as a person. I have heard Jesus being referred to as “Lord” and “Son of God” but not as “God”.

Yea i was confused, until another poster cleared it up, and i think other Muslims would have been as well.

I always assumed that Bhagwan was the term that Hindus used for God, like how Muslims use Allah, God, Khuda, interchangeably.

I think thats why in the Times of India article in the original post the Muslim devotees stated that "Shri Ram is our Paigambar".

Those people did not mean any offense, and to answer my question in the OP, it basically depends on the person if it is offensive to call Lord Ram as Imam-e-Hind.

“He is 7th avatar of the God Vishnu, one of his most popular incarnations along with Krishna, Parshurama, and Gautama Buddha. Jain Texts also mentioned Rama as the eighth balabhadra among the 63 salakapurusas.[3][4][5] In Rama-centric traditions of Hinduism, he is considered the Supreme Being.[6]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama

“An avatar (Sanskrit: अवतार, IAST: avatāra; Sanskrit pronunciation: [ɐʋɐtaːrɐ]), a concept in Hinduism that means "descent", is the material appearance or incarnation of a deity on earth.[1][2]“
 
I don't know. And it's not something I will be trying to learn about anytime soon. But that wasn't my point though you're trying to make it.

My point was - I know you haven't read them :cobra

I think you're trying to interpret having something in a closet too metaphorically :smith

I was not even debating your point, just got interested that here is someone who has the text which is extremely rare among online hindus. you admitted you haven't read, and that is fine.

Now coming to your point. Do you agree or disagree with my point that the hindus on PP are not well versed with hindu scripture. I think you agree.

Your only other point is minor, that even I am not well versed. Which I will agree with a qualifier that I am still and maybe will always remain a student. But, and is not a compliment, that I think I have read more than entire pp hindu contingent combined.
 
Christians would not consider any of the three as a person. I have heard Jesus being referred to as “Lord” and “Son of God” but not as “God”.



“He is 7th avatar of the God Vishnu, one of his most popular incarnations along with Krishna, Parshurama, and Gautama Buddha. Jain Texts also mentioned Rama as the eighth balabhadra among the 63 salakapurusas.[3][4][5] In Rama-centric traditions of Hinduism, he is considered the Supreme Being.[6]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama

“An avatar (Sanskrit: अवतार, IAST: avatāra; Sanskrit pronunciation: [ɐʋɐtaːrɐ]), a concept in Hinduism that means "descent", is the material appearance or incarnation of a deity on earth.[1][2]“


https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml

The doctrine of the Trinity is the Christian belief that:

There is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Unpacking the doctrine
The idea that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means:

There is exactly one God
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father is not the Son
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Father is not the Holy Spirit
 
Now coming to your point. Do you agree or disagree with my point that the hindus on PP are not well versed with hindu scripture. I think you agree.

I asked [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] once whether he had read the Vedas. I even offered him as solace, my theory that the number of living Indian Hindus who've read all the texts - could be counted on both our hands :babar
 
I asked [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] once whether he had read the Vedas. I even offered him as solace, my theory that the number of living Indian Hindus who've read all the texts - could be counted on both our hands :babar

There are many who have read it and can teach it, but they don't have online presence, especially among the english speaking indians.
 
btw short answer to the next question. The phrase Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is highly misrepresented and taken out of context.
 
I studied in Christian schools. There were Muslims and Christians too there. Never heard them shake hands on this. I actually learnt about this here on PP. So not sure Christians take it as a compliment. I also don't think they think of him as God. They pray to him I suppose the way Hindus pray to Krishna. There are people on my mother's side who sometimes visit a famous church here in Bengaluru and pray to a baby Jesus. One of them had this theory that Jesus was basically Krishna :smith

They dont have to take it as a compliment, but i would hope they are not insulted by it. I mean being called a prophet is more respectful than implying that your religious figures are liars.

Also per this BBC article on Christianity it appears that they do view Jesus as God

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml

A difficult but fundamental concept within Christianity, the Trinity is the belief that God is three separate persons but is still a single God.

There is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
They dont have to take it as a compliment, but i would hope they are not insulted by it. I mean being called a prophet is more respectful than implying that your religious figures are liars.

Calling others religion as false and a lie is better than co-opting their religious figures and make them inferior to your own religious figures.
 
No problem with that either. Look god is subjective anyways. Sorry if it differs from your belief. I am speaking from my perspective.

Most if not all Hindus and some Muslims (not sure if they would qualify as practicing ones because of this) worship Sai Baba who is a great Muslim origin saint. He was technically a prophet/saint but is worshipped as a god.

I understand if there is a cultural disconnect here with you guys.

What is a prophet anyways? A messenger or a personification or representative or symbol of god. My understanding of Allah is it translates to god. So if it translates to symbol of god not sure what is the debate.

In Islam a prophet is a messenger of God. In the Times of India article mentioned in the Original Post, the Muslim devotees stated that "Shri Ram is our Paigambar". Paigambar means prophet, so that's why i mentioned prophet was the intent.

The point of the thread was to see if it was offensive, as i saw mixed reactions on social media, and the answer that i got from this thread is that it basically it depends on the person then.

I am in fact appreciating this harmless in fact praise and embracing of Indian culture and is a huge positive step by Indian Muslims.

Indian Muslims have been doing stuff like this for a long time. Various Sufis have mentioned the same concept.

Indian Muslims participate in Holi and Diwali. You can actually go back to the Nawabs and Mughals they used to participate in this as well.

Not sure why some of you guys are trying to make this an offensive statement.

Well most Pakistanis i dont think have ever heard of the term Imam-e-Hind. I only heard about it by reading it in a few Indian newspapers, and there was mixed opinion on whether this was offensive or a sign of respect.

As far as the Pakistanis on this thread, there is also mixed opinions on whether it is allowed or not.

Trust me have one of your army chiefs/PM minster tweet something like this because Ram has a close connection with Pakistan after all Lahore is named after his son, one such tweet might solve 90% of the issues between both countries on the auspicious week of building the grand temple

This is where Pakistan needs to do a much better job. Our culture has some elements of Persian and Central Asian culture but this is mixed with Indian culture. The Indian portion does not get enough emphasis.

Now for political reasons the Indian elements might have to be called south asian, or subcontinent culture. But there needs to be more emphasis on it.

I dont think its possible right now for a PM to tweet something like Lord Ram is Imam-e-Hind, but the following should happen.

You can have a statue of Lava in Lahore like Athena has in Athens.

You can have the Mahabharata taught in Pakistan. Not as a religious text, but how like the Greeks learn about Greek mythology, Pakistanis can learn about the various Hindu Gods. They can call it Razmnama for political reasons.

Holi and Diwali can be celebrated as cultural holidays. Holi is already done in Sindh, but expand to other provinces.
 
This is where Pakistan needs to do a much better job. Our culture has some elements of Persian and Central Asian culture but this is mixed with Indian culture. The Indian portion does not get enough emphasis.

Now for political reasons the Indian elements might have to be called south asian, or subcontinent culture. But there needs to be more emphasis on it.

I dont think its possible right now for a PM to tweet something like Lord Ram is Imam-e-Hind, but the following should happen.

You can have a statue of Lava in Lahore like Athena has in Athens.

You can have the Mahabharata taught in Pakistan. Not as a religious text, but how like the Greeks learn about Greek mythology, Pakistanis can learn about the various Hindu Gods. They can call it Razmnama for political reasons.

Holi and Diwali can be celebrated as cultural holidays. Holi is already done in Sindh, but expand to other provinces.


Now I know why you call yourself gharib. It has nothing to do with money.
 
Iqbal was the one who first called Lord Ram, Imam-e-Hind. So was Iqbal trying to survive?

Iqbal at the beginning of his philosophy was very pro India. He even wrote "saare jahan se acha" before thinking about Pakistan. To begin with he had no knowledge of Islam at all. Yes he was talking rubbish when saying that.
 
Iqbal changed as his mind as he matured and realized the racism and fascism of Hindutva. Like Quaid Jinnah who was also first very pro India until both began to understand Muslim's will become second rate citizens in Hindutva dominated India. There is nothing wrong in changing your mind at all. A man at fifty years thinks differently to when he was 20. When calling Ram "Imam-e-Hind" Iqbal then was immature who had most likely not even read the Qur'an. Every Muslim knows Ram has no place in the Qur'an or Hadith but Indian Muslim's today need to acknowledge him one way or another so to be accepted, they celebrate Hindu festivals to please the the majority community too. Unlike us Pakistanis they can never say "Ram is not a Prophet of Allah!"
 
Iqbal at the beginning of his philosophy was very pro India. He even wrote "saare jahan se acha" before thinking about Pakistan. To begin with he had no knowledge of Islam at all. Yes he was talking rubbish when saying that.

He didn't support the khilafat movement and supported the house of saud who betrayed the ottomans. after fall of ottomans he supported ataturk. admired mussolini.
 
He didn't support the khilafat movement and supported the house of saud who betrayed the ottomans. after fall of ottomans he supported ataturk. admired mussolini.

We are not talking of Iqbal's relationship within the world Muslim community here. The subject is his views on India then, Ram and how his thinking changed when he started demanding a Pakistan.
 
We are not talking of Iqbal's relationship within the world Muslim community here. The subject is his views on India then, Ram and how his thinking changed when he started demanding a Pakistan.

There is no proof that his views on Lord Ram changed.
 
There is no proof that his views on Lord Ram changed.

The demand for Pakistan proves he wanted a Muslim majority country. This is not to suggest that either Iqbal or Jinnah were Ram or Hindu haters. They just did not trust Hindu politicians.
 
Back
Top