Jump to content


- - -


Photo
- - - - -

Buddha (a Prophet?)


95 replies to this topic

#1 GuestSister

GuestSister

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way Galaxy

Posted 23 June 2004 - 09:33 PM

(salam)

Well, the title is I guess self-explanatory, albeit controversial. Has anyone heard of that before? Any info? Just curious...

Thanks.

Edited by GuestSister, 23 June 2004 - 09:34 PM.


#2 Sarah

Sarah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,516 posts
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 23 June 2004 - 09:37 PM

(salam)

In my view, it is a possibility.

He could be a warner in his time.

Edited by Sarah, 23 June 2004 - 09:40 PM.


#3 River

River

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,119 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 09:42 PM

Buddha (عليه سلام) in the Qur'an

-Isa Adam Naziri


The initial rejection of this notion by the so-called orthodoxy, is that most mainstream Muslimin do not hold Buddha (عليه سلام) as a Nabi, and thus render all narrations, from him and all prophecies of the future from the Buddhist tradition as invalid. However, just because one of the 124,000 Anbiyah (عليهم سلام) might not happened to have been mentioned in the Qur'an, this does not make them any less Prophets of Islam. To ensure that no one would be misled by the relatively short list of Prophets mentioned in the Qur'an, it was affirmed that:

"And, indeed We have sent Rusul (Messengers) before you; of some of them We have related to you their story; and of some We have not related to you their story, and it was not given to any Rasul (Messenger) that he should bring a sign except by the Leave of Allah. So, when comes the Commandment of Allah, the matter will be decided with Truth, and the followers of falsehood will then be lost." Qur'an, Sura 40:78
وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلًا مِّن قَبْلِكَ مِنْهُم مَّن قَصَصْنَا عَلَيْكَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن لَّمْ نَقْصُصْ عَلَيْكَ وَمَا كَانَ لِرَسُولٍ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ بِآيَةٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ فَإِذَا جَاء أَمْرُ اللَّهِ قُضِيَ بِالْحَقِّ وَخَسِرَ هُنَالِكَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ

“And Rusul (Messengers) We have mentioned to you before, and Rusul (Messengers) We have not mentioned to you - and to Musa (Moses) Allah spoke directly” Qur'an, Sura 4:164

وَرُسُلاً قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلاً لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى تَكْلِيمًا

Nonetheless, Buddha (عليه سلام) IS a Nabi, and one mentioned in the Qur'an at that.

"And Ismail, and Idris, and Zhu-l-Kifl. All were of the steadfast." Qur'an, Sura 21:85

وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِدْرِيسَ وَذَا الْكِفْلِ كُلٌّ مِّنَ الصَّابِرِينَ

Zhu-l-Kifl an-Nabi (عليه سلام), meaning "the one from Kifl," is mentioned by name twice in the Qur'an; here as well as in Sura 38:48. This title, "Zhu-l-Kifl" (rather than a name), refers to Shakyamuni Buddha. The name "Kifl" is the `Arabic form of "Kapila," an often used form of "Kapila Vastu."

The Yusuf `Ali Commentary on 21:85 says:

"Dhul-Kifl literally means 'possessor of, or giving, a double requital or portion.' It is said that probably Dhul-Kifl is an Arabicized form of Ezekiel."

The latter part of this tafsir is unacceptable. Ezekiel is an anglicized version of the Hebrew "Yechezqial" (יְחֶזְקֵאל) which is "Heziqiyal" (حزقيال), in `Arabic.

When i say that "Zhu'l-Kifl" means "the One from Kifl" it is an attempt to translate the meaning, the approximation, into English. The mid-twentieth century Urdu scholar Abu'l-Kalam Azad, in his Quranic commentary Tafsir Sura Fatiha, was the first that i have seen to go on record that the Prophet Zhu'l-Kifl, meant "the one from Kifl," and that this figure, mentioned twice in the Quran (21:85 and 38,48) as patient and good, referred to Gautama Siddharttha (عليه سلام). Although most scholars identify Zhu'l-Kifl (عليه سلام) with the Prophet Ezekiel, Azad explained that "Kifl" is the Arabicized form of Kapila, short for Kapila Vastu.

This is not hard to see, since there is no "p" in the `Arabic letters, and words that would normally get a "p" like "Palestine" or "Persia" are given an "Fa." So with that in mind you have the same core consonantal letters of "KFL" for the name of this location. Compare this to the popular notion that "Zhu'l-Kifl" is an `Arabicized form of "Yechezqial." The core consonants are totally different. There is no "qaf" there is an extra "lam" there is a "kaf" instead of a "qaf." There is absolutely no reason to imagine that this is the `Arabic form of Ezekiel.

Nonetheless, the first part that renders the name as meaning the "possessor of kifl" is correct, since Gautama Siddharttha's father was in fact the ruler of Kapila, and the profound thing about the Buddha was in fact that he was offered anything his heart desired, but he rejected the illusions of the Dunya in pursuit of the enlightenment that he found beneath the Fig Tree.

To be sure, there will be many who out rightly attack this position. They will extol their familiarity with `Arabic as their native language. They will attack myself for not being a product of `Arab or Persian culture. There is not a single word of this text that is concerned with such individuals. As the Qur'an says:

"As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe." Al-Qur'an, Sura 2:6

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ

Such individuals wish to hold some exclusivity on Islamic culture. To such individuals `Arab culture is Islamic culture, and Islamic culture is `Arab culture. They cannot separate the two in their minds, and accordingly their efforts at "dawah" become nothing more than an attempt at imposing cultural assimilation on those who come into the fold of Islam.

To such individuals non-Semitic anbiyah (عليهم سلام) are a major threat. Even though the Qur'an tells us clearly that such individuals were sent to ALL nations and peoples, the status quo of the corrupt `ulama will try to explain away those who do not fit their cultural interpretation. Nevertheless, Muhammad (صل الله عليه واله وسلام) said clearly: "There was a prophet of Allah in India who was dark in color and his name was Kahan."

كان في الهند نبّيا اشود اللون اسمه كاهنا

Notes: "Taarikh-i-Hamdaan Dailami" Baab-ul-Kaaf. See Pocket book p: 854 by Malik Abdur Rehman Khadim 6th edition Published in 1952.

To the status quo that cannot even accept the myriad of ahadith about the Nubian mother of the 12th Imam (عجل الله تعالي فرج الشريف), such notions would definitely be unpopular to say the least.

Who was the Buddha (عليه سلام)?

Gautama Buddha was the founder of Buddhism. His original name was Siddharth (meaning one who has accomplished). He was also called Sakyamuni, i.e. the sage of the tribe of Sakya. He was born in the year 563 B.C.E. in the village of Lumbini near Kapila Vastu, within the present borders of Nepal.

Moreover, allusion is made in the Ayaat of the fig tree (Ayaat 95:1-5) to the fig as a source of Enlightenment. Buddha (عليه سلام) is said to have attained enlightenment at the foot of this fig tree. This is a subtle and batini reference to be sure, but it is clear that the Qur'an is referring to the fig as something on par - in terms of Wahy and Ilham - with Mount Sinin (Sinai) which is mentioned in the second Ayah.

Of course this is known by Shaiyatin such as the so-called "Mulla" Umar. This is why he was so zealous in destroying the Buddhist statues that are permitted to remain as national artifacts under Shariah al-Islami.

Buddha (عليه سلام) never claimed to be Allah nor did he ask or instruct that he should be worshipped in any way or form. According to the Dhammapada: "The Jathagatas are only Preachers." He came with the same Risalah that all Anbiyah (عليهم سلام) came with, that there is no god, no deity to be worshiped, there is only Allah. This is the essence of Islam taught by the Buddha, the great Nabi al-Islam, Zhu-l-Kifl (عليه سلام).

"And they broke their religion (into sects) between them: to Us shall all come back." Al-Qur'an, Sura 21:93

وَتَقَطَّعُوا أَمْرَهُم بَيْنَهُمْ كُلٌّ إِلَيْنَا رَاجِعُونَ

Some might wonder then why there are all of these "different" religions. Why is there "Buddhism" why "Christianity?" Yet did "Christ" ever utter the word "Christianity?" Did Buddha ever call people to bow before idols of him, or to seek after any state other than "Nirvana" or "Fana?" No, this Ayah clarifies that it was mankind who broke off, diverting in many directions from the original teachings of the Anbiyah (عليهم سلام). These were not the teachings of the Anbiyah (عليهم سلام), but rather the sectarianism of man, and the Fitnat'ud-Dajjal.

#4 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:06 PM

Yeah but people here don't like the author much :rolleyes:

And they say that it's copy paste from a Ahmadi site..

Although i do agree with the fact that Dhul Kifl is infact Buddha (as)

#5 dyaus

dyaus

    Member

  • Banned
  • 241 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:21 PM

The name "Kifl" is the `Arabic form of "Kapila," an often used form of "Kapila Vastu


umm how exactly does kifle equate Kapila?

and the message of Buddha was nothing like that of Mohhomads, not even similar.

#6 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:32 PM

umm how exactly does kifle equate Kapila?

and the message of Buddha was nothing like that of Mohhomads, not even similar.


You are a hindu, you are gonna try to differentiate their teachings. You are the ones who deified Buddha in the first place. You are the ones who corrupted Budhhists as well.

#7 SadrasStudent

SadrasStudent

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:37 PM

The name "Kifl" is the `Arabic form of "Kapila," an often used form of "Kapila Vastu


umm how exactly does kifle equate Kapila?

and the message of Buddha was nothing like that of Mohhomads, not even similar.

You are making the unwarranted assumption that Buddha's original message is the same as what Buddhists teach today. We recognize the prophesy of Isa, yet if we are to judge by the current teachings of Judaism and Christianity then Christianity was a major step backward theologically. Similarly, if we are to judge by the present teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism then Buddhism was likewise a major theological step backward. Yet I am not willing to grant this reasoning. Notice this is all a matter of if-then statements. I accept that the then would indeed follow from the if, yet I reject the if in the first place and as such I do not feel compelled to accept the then. If we were to judge religious figures on the basis of the teachings of present day religions claiming to follow these figures, then we would have to reject Isa, too - in which case we wouldn't be Muslims.

#8 tahasyed

tahasyed

    slave of Allah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,444 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Eating, sleeping, thinking, reading, religion, surfing the net, calligraphy, drawing, painting.. <br /><br /><br />..did I mention sleeping?

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:41 PM

I don't believe there is solid PROOF that he WAS a Prophet.
But it is a possibility.

#9 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:43 PM

if we are to judge by the present teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism then Buddhism was likewise backward step


Wrong. It's opposite.

#10 GuestSister

GuestSister

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way Galaxy

Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:45 PM

The name "Kifl" is the `Arabic form of "Kapila," an often used form of "Kapila Vastu


umm how exactly does kifle equate Kapila?

and the message of Buddha was nothing like that of Mohhomads, not even similar.

You are making the unwarranted assumption that Buddha's original message is the same as what Buddhists teach today. We recognize the prophesy of Isa, yet if we are to judge by the current teachings of Judaism and Christianity then Christianity was a major step backward theologically. Similarly, if we are to judge by the present teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism then Buddhism was likewise a major theological step backward. Yet I am not willing to grant this reasoning. Notice this is all a matter of if-then statements. I accept that the then would indeed follow from the if, yet I reject the if in the first place and as such I do not feel compelled to accept the then. If we were to judge religious figures on the basis of the teachings of present day religions claiming to follow these figures, then we would have to reject Isa, too - in which case we wouldn't be Muslims.

Thanks for the responses...

So brother SadrasStudent, if we were to proceed on the assumption that he was indeed considered a Prophet, is there any info on him that's "trustworthy" so to speak? Or is our only option to attempt to sift through the info on him from the modern-day Buddhist perspective?

#11 SadrasStudent

SadrasStudent

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:04 PM

The name "Kifl" is the `Arabic form of "Kapila," an often used form of "Kapila Vastu


umm how exactly does kifle equate Kapila?

and the message of Buddha was nothing like that of Mohhomads, not even similar.

You are making the unwarranted assumption that Buddha's original message is the same as what Buddhists teach today. We recognize the prophesy of Isa, yet if we are to judge by the current teachings of Judaism and Christianity then Christianity was a major step backward theologically. Similarly, if we are to judge by the present teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism then Buddhism was likewise a major theological step backward. Yet I am not willing to grant this reasoning. Notice this is all a matter of if-then statements. I accept that the then would indeed follow from the if, yet I reject the if in the first place and as such I do not feel compelled to accept the then. If we were to judge religious figures on the basis of the teachings of present day religions claiming to follow these figures, then we would have to reject Isa, too - in which case we wouldn't be Muslims.

Thanks for the responses...

So brother SadrasStudent, if we were to proceed on the assumption that he was indeed considered a Prophet, is there any info on him that's "trustworthy" so to speak? Or is our only option to attempt to sift through the info on him from the modern-day Buddhist perspective?

I am unaware of any such "trustworthy" sources - they may perhaps exist, but I am unaware of them. I am not convinced of his being a prophet in the first place, but I oppose denying the possibility on the basis of fallacious reasoning.

#12 rahat

rahat

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,964 posts
  • Location:Shiaville

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:25 PM

I would like to believe he was a prophet (as that would be cool), however none of our respected ulema have given any scholarly argument for it, and frankly, it was I who accused the article of being qadiani. As I saw it on the qadiani homepage.

#13 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:35 PM

Hmm.. paste the link please..

#14 aasaria

aasaria
  • Advanced Members
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:40 PM

bismillah,
peace,

forgive me for going off topic but this talk about buddha being a prophet reminds me of an interesting buddhist text i once read that reminded me of islam's own teachings about the way we can never repay our mothers (and parents).

it was from the the filial piety sutra

some interesting quotations that reminded me of quotations from the prophet and/or from the quran were:

The Buddha told Ananda, "Listen well, and I will explain it for you in detail. The fetus grows in its mother's womb for ten lunar months. What bitterness she goes though while it dwells there! In the first month of pregnancy, the life of the fetus is as precarious as a dewdrop on grass: how likely that it will not last from morning to evening but will evaporate by midday!"

"During the second lunar month, the embryo congeals like curds. In the third month it is like coagulated blood. ...  In the sixth lunar month of pregnancy, the child begins to develop the essences of the six sense faculties: the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind.


...

Once the child is born, she saves what is sweet for him and swallows what is bitter herself. She carries the child and nourishes it, washing away its filth. There is no toil or difficulty that she does not willingly undertake for the sake of her child. She endures both cold and heat and never even mentions what she has gone through. She gives the dry place to her child and sleeps in the damp herself. For three years she nourishes the baby with milk, which is transformed from the blood of her own body."


...

"The virtue of one's parents' kindness is boundless and limitless. If one has made the mistake of being unfilial, how difficult it is to repay that kindness!"


...

"If there were a person who carries his father on his left shoulder and his mother on his right shoulder until his bones were ground to powder by their weight as they bore through to the marrow, and if that person were to circumambulate Mount Sumeru for a hundred thousand kalpas until the blood that flowed out covered his ankles, that person would still not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents."

"If there were a person who, during the period of a kalpa fraught with famine and starvation, sliced the flesh off his own body to feed his parents and did this as many times as there are dust motes as he passed through hundreds of thousand of kalpas, that person still would not have repaid the deep kindness of his parents."

"If there were a person who, ...

At that time, upon hearing the Buddha speak about the kindness and virtue of parents, everyone in the Great Assembly wept silent tears and felt searing pain in their hearts. They reflected deeply, simultaneously brought forth shame and said to the Buddha, "World Honoured One, how can we repay the deep kindness of our parents?"

The Buddha replied, "Disciples of the Buddha, if you wish to repay your parents' kindness, write out this Sutra on their behalf. Recite this Sutra on their behalf. Repent of transgressions and offenses on their behalf. ... For the sake of your parents, practise giving and cultivate blessings. If you are able to do these things, you are being a filial child. If you do not do these things, you are a person destined for the hells."


i don't mean this to be a proof of the validity of buddhism or the buddha, but it is interesting, no?

#15 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 23 June 2004 - 11:45 PM

Omm shing wing sawaha.. Buddha's the man..

#16 River

River

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,119 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 12:37 AM

(salam)

Well, the title is I guess self-explanatory, albeit controversial. Has anyone heard of that before? Any info? Just curious...

Thanks.

References to Buddha in Qur'an

http://www.berzinarc...lamic_view.html


The mid-twentieth century Urdu scholar Abu'l Kalam Azad, in his Quranic commentary Tafsir Sura Fatiha, postulates that the Prophet Dhu'l-Kifl, meaning "the one from Kifl," mentioned twice in the Quran (21.85 and 38,48) as patient and good, refers to Shakyamuni Buddha. Although most scholars identify Dhu'l-Kifl with the Prophet Ezekiel, Azad explains that "Kifl" is the Arabicized form of Kapila, short for Kapilavastu. He also proposes that the Qur'anic mention of the fig tree (95.1-5) refers to Buddha as well, since he attained to enlightenment at the foot of one. Some scholars accept this theory and, as support for this position, point out that the eleventh-century Muslim historian of India, al-Biruni, referred to Buddha as a Prophet. Others dismiss this last piece of evidence and explain that al-Biruni was merely describing that people in India regarded Buddha as a prophet.

Some scholars associate the prophesied future Buddha Maitreya, the Loving or Merciful One, with the Prophet Mohammed as the servant of the Merciful One. Although the truths that Buddha realized under the fig tree are not described as revelation, later great Buddhist masters have received revelations of sacred texts, such as Asanga in fourth century India directly from Maitreya in Tu[Edited Out]a, the Heaven Filled with Joy







----River

#17 dyaus

dyaus

    Member

  • Banned
  • 241 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 01:03 AM

You are a hindu, you are gonna try to differentiate their teachings. You are the ones who deified Buddha in the first place. You are the ones who corrupted Budhhists as well.


you are confused Buddy, I didnt do anything to Buddha. :blink:

If anything, Buddha defied Hinduism,... not that I have a problem with that.

We didnt do anything to Buddhists.

Its funny, you guys consider everything corrupt except Islam, when it seems that Muslims and the "Muslim ummah" are in the greatest identity crisis and crisis in general of recent memory.

You are making the unwarranted assumption that Buddha's original message is the same as what Buddhists teach today. We recognize the prophesy of Isa, yet if we are to judge by the current teachings of Judaism and Christianity then Christianity was a major step backward theologically. Similarly, if we are to judge by the present teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism then Buddhism was likewise a major theological step backward. Yet I am not willing to grant this reasoning. Notice this is all a matter of if-then statements. I accept that the then would indeed follow from the if, yet I reject the if in the first place and as such I do not feel compelled to accept the then. If we were to judge religious figures on the basis of the teachings of present day religions claiming to follow these figures, then we would have to reject Isa, too - in which case we wouldn't be Muslims.


I didnt say that.

Even Buddha's *original* message as you put it is nothing like that of Mohhomed's.

Edited by dyaus, 24 June 2004 - 01:08 AM.


#18 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 01:05 AM

LoL.. Buddhism in its purest form is Islam.. :)

Hinduism in its purest form, however, is polytheism ;)

#19 dyaus

dyaus

    Member

  • Banned
  • 241 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 01:09 AM

LoL.. Buddhism in its purest form is Islam.. :)

Hinduism in its purest form, however, is polytheism ;)

riight........

shows how much you know.

Instead of babbling liek a 4 year old, provide some hard facts.

Buddhism is nothing at all like Islam, at all.

ITs a religion of peace and centered around the self, there is no heavan, no hell, no man-like God (Allah) that has "wrath" etc....

Edited by dyaus, 24 June 2004 - 01:10 AM.


#20 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 01:10 AM

Subjective babbling from your side, nothing else. Just temme what are you, theist or a polytheist? Answer this first..

#21 dyaus

dyaus

    Member

  • Banned
  • 241 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 01:11 AM

Subjective babbling from your side, nothing else. Just temme what are you, theist or a polytheist? Answer this first..

dont answer a question with a question....

#22 Abal

Abal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 120 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 01:12 AM

You never posed one. And yeah, you answer this question posed by me a day ago, which i am repeating. :)

#23 MajiC

MajiC

    Transcendent Be Thy Name

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,828 posts
  • Location:London . UK
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Futurology, Mahdiism, Philosophy, Engineering, Forex, Politics, Swimming, Weights

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:51 AM

(bismillah)
(salam)


It is quite obvious from the Holy Quran that God sent Prophets to 'every nation',

"And certainly We raised in every nation a messenger, saying: Serve Allah and shun the devil." (16:36)

Today we have many religions, which include the major religions Hinduism and Judaism as well as the smaller denominations. The Quran makes clear that 124,000 prophets have appeared. We also know that there have been false claims of prophethood. In my opinion it would not be unwise to consider the possibility that the ancient founders of these other religions too would have been Prophets and messengers of God. As Muslims we are agreed that Islam exists due to the failure and disintegration of the previous religion. It may even be the case that some of these religion, which we consider blasphemous and heretical, even polytheistic, were authentic revelations of monotheism and sense at their inceptions. Although theoretical, the implications we have from such suppositions would suggest that, although religion X is heretical today, its founders may have indeed been prophets of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì.

As a matter of fact, wherever there are people following a sacred scripture older than the Quran, it might be possible that their religious founders mentioned in those Books are true prophets of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. It has been suggested that Buddha is mentioned in the Holy Quran by the name Dhul­Kifl, meaning man of Kifl, where Kifl is the arabic form of the name of his birth-place Kapilvestu(?)...although others speculate that DhulKifl is an arabicized form of 'Ezekiel'.

It's possible though, why not? I mean is it reasonable to believe that only "3/124,000" of Allah's ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì prophets religions exist visibly in one form or another today, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Nonetheless, I think there are only theories on this matter at the moment...

Thanks,
Wassalaam.

#24 Renaissance_Man

Renaissance_Man

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,507 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 11:40 AM

(bismillah)

(salam)

There is not much evidense to support Buddha being an Islamic prophet. In corrupted religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, there are usually remnants of basic Islamic teachings such as monotheism, prophethood, and qiyamat which suggest it may have Islamic roots. But in the case of Buddha, we do not even know if he believed in Allah or not...there are hardly any Islamic elements in the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. History tells us that Buddism was an offshoot of Hinduism and there is no evidense of his prophethood from eeither the Qur'an nor the traditions of Ahl al-Bayt (as).

#25 MajiC

MajiC

    Transcendent Be Thy Name

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,828 posts
  • Location:London . UK
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Futurology, Mahdiism, Philosophy, Engineering, Forex, Politics, Swimming, Weights

Posted 24 June 2004 - 12:29 PM

(salam) Br. Ali

I agree, Buddhism in its current form does not have a great deal in common with Islam and is supposedly a non-theistic religion, although there seem to be some disputes about this. The idea that Buddhism posseses some commonalities with other religions makes me wonder if perhaps it was a revealed (inc. monotheistic) religion in its purest form 2500 years ago.

You also mentioned that there does not appear any evidence from either the Quran or the Traditions. But as we know, there is a huge number of prophets, is it necessary that they appear in the Quran or the Traditions in order that we identify them or accept them at all? As such, is it sufficient to dismiss them on this basis? It seems quite far-fetched.

Thanks,
Wassalaam.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users