Lord Rama as 'Imam-e-Hind'

[CricketCartoons]

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.

Does not prove that Iqbal changed his views on Lord Ram. He died in 1938. Pakistan resolution was passed by Muslim League in 1940.

 

[Justcrazy]

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

Bible does not speak about Trinity, neither says Jesus was divine , it is what the church says.

 

[PakLFC]

Does not prove that Iqbal changed his views on Lord Ram. He died in 1938. Pakistan resolution was passed by Muslim League in 1940.

Did you expect Iqbal to abuse Ram? That he wanted a Pakistan in the name of Islam tells us where his priorities were. He was initially a believer in a united India then afterwards changed his mind.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Did you expect Iqbal to abuse Ram? That he wanted a Pakistan in the name of Islam tells us where his priorities were. He was initially a believer in a united India then afterwards changed his mind.

That he kept changing his mind on various things is not evidence that he changed his mind on this imam-e-hind sobriquet.

 

[PakLFC]

That he kept changing his mind on various things is not evidence that he changed his mind on this imam-e-hind sobriquet.

Imam-e-Hind does not mean Muslim by default. Most likely the great man meant Ram was like an Imam to Hindu's.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Bible does not speak about Trinity, neither says Jesus was divine , it is what the church says.

Yea i was simply giving the Christian view point. Not saying they were correct

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Now I know why you call yourself gharib. It has nothing to do with money.

Whats the reason?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Did you expect Iqbal to abuse Ram? That he wanted a Pakistan in the name of Islam tells us where his priorities were. He was initially a believer in a united India then afterwards changed his mind.

Right, but so did Jinnah and Sir Syed. It was about power sharing, the maximum that Hindus were willing to give was less than the minimum that the Muslims wanted.

Even the liberal ones made the cultural symbols of India reflective of its pre Islamic heritage. There is almost nothing of the Muslim heritage in any of India's cultural symbols. That alone makes the demand of Iqbal justified.

However he might still have believed Lord Ram to be some prophet. We cant really tell for sure.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Imam-e-Hind does not mean Muslim by default. Most likely the great man meant Ram was like an Imam to Hindu's.

Of course. So no evidence that he changed his mind (although he had a history of changing his mind with the times).

 

[CricketCartoons]

Right, but so did Jinnah and Sir Syed. It was about power sharing, the maximum that Hindus were willing to give was less than the minimum that the Muslims wanted.

Even the liberal ones made the cultural symbols of India reflective of its pre Islamic heritage. There is almost nothing of the Muslim heritage in any of India's cultural symbols. That alone makes the demand of Iqbal justified.

However he might still have believed Lord Ram to be some prophet. We cant really tell for sure.

In 1937 Muslim League did poorly even in the seats which were reserved for muslims. Independent muslim candidates won, but Muslim League did not have mass appeal among the muslims till 1937. From zero to winning a new country and making both the british and the mighty congress bow down within 10 years has to be most spectacular rags to riches story.

 

[PakLFC]

Right, but so did Jinnah and Sir Syed. It was about power sharing, the maximum that Hindus were willing to give was less than the minimum that the Muslims wanted.

Even the liberal ones made the cultural symbols of India reflective of its pre Islamic heritage. There is almost nothing of the Muslim heritage in any of India's cultural symbols. That alone makes the demand of Iqbal justified.

However he might still have believed Lord Ram to be some prophet. We cant really tell for sure.

Jinnah and Syed what? Thing was that pro Pak politicians did not trust Hindu's to be fair. This is not to be seen as being haters of the Hindu religion.

I am confused, are you pro or against Iqbal here? The Qur'an tells us Allah sent every nation Prophets so Ram could be the one sent to India. As he has not been specifically mentioned in Islamic tradition we are not compelled to honour him like we do other genuine Prophets of Allah. Same with Nanak and the Sikh Guru's.

 

[PakLFC]

Of course. So no evidence that he changed his mind (although he had a history of changing his mind with the times).

Nothing wrong with changing your mind. First he was pro India before he reconsidered his own views. It is wise to change your mind according to the circumstances and how one feels.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

In 1937 Muslim League did poorly even in the seats which were reserved for muslims. Independent muslim candidates won, but Muslim League did not have mass appeal among the muslims till 1937. From zero to winning a new country and making both the british and the mighty congress bow down within 10 years has to be most spectacular rags to riches story.

It is. i love these two quotes:

"Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.”


"Islam gave the Muslims of India a sense of identity; dynasties like the Mughals gave them territory; poets like Allama Iqbal gave them a sense of destiny. Jinnah's towering stature derives from the fact that, by leading the Pakistan movement and creating the state of Pakistan, he gave them all three"

 

[CricketCartoons]

Nothing wrong with changing your mind. First he was pro India before he reconsidered his own views. It is wise to change your mind according to the circumstances and how one feels.

I never said it is wrong. It should change as you get new knowledge. So we agree that there is nothing which says he changed his mind regarding that imam-e-hind thing, which you asserted earlier.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Jinnah and Syed what? Thing was that pro Pak politicians did not trust Hindu's to be fair. This is not to be seen as being haters of the Hindu religion.

I am confused, are you pro or against Iqbal here? The Qur'an tells us Allah sent every nation Prophets so Ram could be the one sent to India. As he has not been specifically mentioned in Islamic tradition we are not compelled to honour him like we do other genuine Prophets of Allah. Same with Nanak and the Sikh Guru's.

Neither. On a few Indian newspapers I saw articles that some Indian Muslims are calling Lord Ram Imam-e-Hind, and they called him a "paigambar". I then did some research and noted that Iqbal was the first one to use that term.

I also on social media noted that some Hindus found it offensive, and others did not care, while others viewed it as a sign of respect.

So i just created this thread to see what the Hindu posters here thought of Lord Ram being called Imam-e-Hind.

And the answer is it depends on the person.

 

[PakLFC]

Neither. On a few Indian newspapers I saw articles that some Indian Muslims are calling Lord Ram Imam-e-Hind, and they called him a "paigambar". I then did some research and noted that Iqbal was the first one to use that term.

I also on social media noted that some Hindus found it offensive, and others did not care, while others viewed it as a sign of respect.

So i just created this thread to see what the Hindu posters here thought of Lord Ram being called Imam-e-Hind.

And the answer is it depends on the person.

I think they are okay with it as "Imam" is an honorable title. There will be some who are offended and I can understand that too. If some Hindu called the Prophet of Allah "pandit" that would be plain weird as well.

 

[pillionrider]

There are many who have read it and can teach it, but they don't have online presence, especially among the english speaking indians.

You sure about that?

ALL the texts?

My mother takes some self-indulgent Vedanta classes from a specialist in the Upanishads. He is true to his cause and literally lives on alms. Not associated with any temple. So lives in a shack and eats one meal a day. The students take turns arranging for that meal. On days when organisation skills have been lacking or someone messed up, he starves. Anyway, doesn't seem a fraud. My point is - he is well famous for his knowledge and he is restricted to just one thing and has even said he hasn't read the Puranas or whatever and other stuff I don't recall.

 

[Realromeo]

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.

I'm a Hindu from Tami Nadu, most people in Tamil Nadu don't worship Ram. Everyone heard of Ramayan and watch Ramayan tv series but they don't really mean anything to us much. I'm assuming other South Indian states are similar ? I can't speak for all. Like I said, even "Hinduism" varies from place to place. Same goes with Muslims, 2 of my muslim friends growing up have even come to temples with us. It was never a big deal to us or them. Ive also went to church many times and to mosque several times. I know in Gujarat things are different, like vastly different. So it varies.