Muslims; is Lord Krishna a prophet of God?

[Slaedi7324]

Thank you, but I suppose I have already made my mind up. Krishna was not a prophet, Buddha was a prophet. Lyndon is right, it's no evidence.

Buddha taught Transmigration and it in no way is incompatible with Islam. An article on Wikipedia about reincarnation says:

"The idea of reincarnation is accepted by a few Muslim sects, particularly of the Ghulat,[137] and by other sects in the Muslim world such as Druzes.[138] Historically, South Asian Isma'ilis performed chantas yearly, one of which is for sins committed in past lives.[139] (Aga Khan IV) Sinan ibn Salman ibn Muhammad, also known as Rashid al-Din Sinan, (r. 1162–1192) subscribed to the transmigration of souls as a tenet of the Alawi,[140] who are thought to have been influenced by Isma'ilism.

Reincarnation was also accepted by some streams of Sufism. Modern Sufis who embrace the idea include Bawa Muhaiyadeen.[141]"

 

[Chakra]

While I have no problems with Muslims accepting one of Hinduism's dearest Gods as one of their prophets. But I strongly discourage my fellow Hindus from wasting their time to actually prove that Lord Krishna was a prophet of Islam (which he wasn't).

Many of these claims by the Muslims here are just based on a incorrect (or simply flat out ridiculous) interpretations of the Bhagavatam. Consider one Muslim's post:

I respect your belief, but Krishna was no God, no more than Jesus Christ. He was a human being and he called himself for a god to live a luxurious life full of sex with women, alcohol, wealth and power. Which he had to maintain by going in war against enemies that could forsake him this fame. He was a king, he was a warlord.

Slaedi fails to realize a couple of things here:

• Lord Sri Krishna divided himself into 16100 different bodies in order to marry all the woman that he had saved from Narakasura. So it was one man marrying one woman. Now please tell me if there is anything wrong with this.
• This incident actually proves Lord Krishna's divinity and compassion. Firstly, he made exact copies of himself, who were fully Krishna himself. No human can do this. Secondly, it was mere compassion that Krishna accepted the maidens. The families of the maidens would not accept them because they assumed that the maidens had lost their chastity. In fact, no one in the society would dare marry them. But since the maidens had fully surrendered to Lord Krishna, he accepted them all.
• The only reason why Lord Krishna had 10 kids with each wife was in order for them to have company with their kids since Lord Krishna would be busy AND that they had lost all connection with their families.
• Krishna PROVED himself as God. Now if you don't accept this, that's fine. But your claim that he just called himself God and people just blindly accepted him is utterly wrong.
• If you fail to notice, Lord Krishna NEVER started a war. He would simply defend his kingdom from the mlecchas who were envious of him. He was not "power-hungry".
• Lord Krishna, everyday, would donate 100,000 cows and a huge stack of money from his treasury to the Brahmins and others.

Those attributions of Krishna may be the qualities of Hindu gods that are known to be humane and imperfect. These are no way the criteria of a true God, a merciful and omnipotent, omniscient God.

Lord Vishnu is merciful, omnipotent, and omniscient.

Lord Krishna could have easily destroyed the universe during his leela if he felt like it. He was the strongest warrior in the Mahabharata (and his enemies had weapons that are equivalent to the modern armies today).

It seems that you, like most Muslims, lack a sense of Bhagavad anubhavam (experiences of the divine).

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah, I think you pretty well just PROVED that Krishna wasn't a prophet of God!!

 

[Chakra]

Yeah, I think you pretty well just PROVED that Krishna wasn't a prophet of God!!

I could care less of what you made out from my post. I just wanted to say that Slaedi's remarks on Krishna are unfounded and wrong.

 

[Lyndon]

Here's the Wikepedia link for Brahman.

Brahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

There is no denying the fact that the Holy Quran makes it incumbent on every Muslim not only to believe in all the prophets, but it also clearly informs us that in every region of the world and in every age, God did raise messengers and prophets."

Therefore, the Hadith speaks about Krishna as a prophet. But is the Hadith authentic and from where is the source? It has taken me many months to find out, the source of the Hadith is from a book called "Taarikh-i-Hamdaan Dailami" Baab-ul-Kaaf. See Pocket book p: 854 by Malik Abdur Rehman Khadim 6th edition Published in 1952.

But is it authentic? It seems to be weak.

Either way, thanks for the help.

Wouldn't a prophet refer to himself as one bearing the message of Allah/Christ etc? Krishna, on the contrary identified Himself as God, not a messenger/prophet. Either those that authored hadith intentionally wanted to mislead its followers or had absolutely no idea of Krishna or His philosophy.

Can you explain me these verses? Here they are:

Rg Veda 3:24:1. AGNI, subdue opposing bands, and drive our enemies away.Invincible,slay godless foes: give splendour to the worshipper


Atharva Veda 12:5:67 Strike off the shoulders and the head.
68.Snatch thou the hair from off his head, and from his body strip the skin:
69.Tear out his sinews, cause his flesh to fall in pieces from his frame.
70.Crush thou his bones together, strike and beat the marrow out of him.
71.Dislocate all his limbs and joints


Atharva Veda 4:31:3 O Manyu, overcome those who assail us. On! breaking, slaying crushing down the foemen.They have not hindered thine impetuous vigour: mighty! sole born! reduce them to subjection.


Rig Veda 1:CLXXVI:4 Slay everyone who pours no gift, who, hard to reach, delights thee not.Bestow on us what wealth he hath: this even the worshipper awaits


Rg.Veda1:CXXXXII:1. HELPED, Indra Maghavan, by thee in war of old, may we subdue in fight the men who strive with us, conquer the men who war with us.This day that now is close at hand bless him who pours the Soma juice.In this our sacrifice may we divide the spoil, showing our strength, the spoil of war.


RV 6.025.02 With these discomfit hosts that fight against us, and check the opponent’s wrath, thyself uninjured. With these chase all our foes to every quarter: subdue the tribes of Dasas to the Arya.

At best these are poor translations of the actual sanskrit verses, perhaps by the likes of Max Muellers/Griffith. These verses were intuited by seers who mostly remained unattached to the mundane and worldly routines, so by necessity have to be interpreted in that context. Most of these verses deal with the internal strife within between good and evil and solicit divine intervention in overcoming those that are enemies of liberation from the cycle of birth and death.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Slaedi7324]

While I have no problems with Muslims accepting one of Hinduism's dearest Gods as one of their prophets. But I strongly discourage my fellow Hindus from wasting their time to actually prove that Lord Krishna was a prophet of Islam (which he wasn't).

Many of these claims by the Muslims here are just based on a incorrect (or simply flat out ridiculous) interpretations of the Bhagavatam. Consider one Muslim's post:


Slaedi fails to realize a couple of things here:

• Lord Sri Krishna divided himself into 16100 different bodies in order to marry all the woman that he had saved from Narakasura. So it was one man marrying one woman. Now please tell me if there is anything wrong with this.
• This incident actually proves Lord Krishna's divinity and compassion. Firstly, he made exact copies of himself, who were fully Krishna himself. No human can do this. Secondly, it was mere compassion that Krishna accepted the maidens. The families of the maidens would not accept them because they assumed that the maidens had lost their chastity. In fact, no one in the society would dare marry them. But since the maidens had fully surrendered to Lord Krishna, he accepted them all.
• The only reason why Lord Krishna had 10 kids with each wife was in order for them to have company with their kids since Lord Krishna would be busy AND that they had lost all connection with their families.
• Krishna PROVED himself as God. Now if you don't accept this, that's fine. But your claim that he just called himself God and people just blindly accepted him is utterly wrong.
• If you fail to notice, Lord Krishna NEVER started a war. He would simply defend his kingdom from the mlecchas who were envious of him. He was not "power-hungry".
• Lord Krishna, everyday, would donate 100,000 cows and a huge stack of money from his treasury to the Brahmins and others.

• None of what you have stated here are facts, but your religious beliefs. Historic facts proves Krishna to have existed and participated in wars. It also do not proves his miracles. Krishna is a man that has now died.
  

  Lord Vishnu is merciful, omnipotent, and omniscient.
  
  Lord Krishna could have easily destroyed the universe during his leela if he felt like it. He was the strongest warrior in the Mahabharata (and his enemies had weapons that are equivalent to the modern armies today).
  
  It seems that you, like most Muslims, lack a sense of Bhagavad anubhavam (experiences of the divine).

  Krishna is dead and what he is now is just some bones or maybe ashes if he were cremated. I have already showed that he was a flawed human being, such as stealing butter. These aren't attributions of a God.

  Wouldn't a prophet refer to himself as one bearing the message of Allah/Christ etc? Krishna, on the contrary identified Himself as God, not a messenger/prophet. Either those that authored hadith intentionally wanted to mislead its followers or had absolutely no idea of Krishna or His philosophy.

  I suppose that is true. The Hadith is from Ahmadiyya, they are the ones that believe Krishna to be a prophet for some vague reasons.

  At best these are poor translations of the actual sanskrit verses, perhaps by the likes of Max Muellers/Griffith. These verses were intuited by seers who mostly remained unattached to the mundane and worldly routines, so by necessity have to be interpreted in that context. Most of these verses deal with the internal strife within between good and evil and solicit divine intervention in overcoming those that are enemies of liberation from the cycle of birth and death.
  श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

  I see. Thanks for help.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Lyndon]

Maybe Krishna was a jin?? He sounds more like a jin(genie) than a man, seriously the guy had blue skin!!

 

[Slaedi7324]

That was funny. But seriously speaking, the blue skin is just symbolism, he had dark skin like most other Indians and he was a human who existed on Earth once before he died.

 

[Chakra]

• None of what you have stated here are facts, but your religious beliefs. Historic facts proves Krishna to have existed and participated in wars. It also do not proves his miracles. Krishna is a man that has now died.

I suppose some Muslims will continue to act like this.
You or your Koran is not an authority on Krishna's life or miracles. I have simply presented the information from the Bhagavata Purana (the accepted source for Krishna's life history), but it seems to me that people like you are just reluctant to accept facts.

Also, can you give a link or a citation to these "historical" facts that you have been using?

Krishna is dead and what he is now is just some bones or maybe ashes if he were cremated. I have already showed that he was a flawed human being, such as stealing butter.

Lol...stealing butter is evidence of being a flawed human being?
It's called bhagavad anubhavam, and Muslims are really bad at understanding it.

Don't forget that Lord Krishna, after he died, ascended to Vaikuntha, his auspicious abode. Lord Krishna was one of the billions of incarnations Lord Narayana has taken.

With all things considered, Lord Krishna is probably more merciful than Allah.

 

[Lyndon]

That was funny. But seriously speaking, the blue skin is just symbolism, he had dark skin like most other Indians and he was a human who existed on Earth once before he died.

You don't believe in Jins, they CAN have blue skin.

 

[Slaedi7324]

I suppose some Muslims will continue to act like this.
You or your Koran is not an authority on Krishna's life or miracles. I have simply presented the information from the Bhagavata Purana (the accepted source for Krishna's life history), but it seems to me that people like you are just reluctant to accept facts.

I didn't claim it is. I claimed historical facts does. I didn't bring my religion up to it, I just said some true facts that we know of about Krishna. You've used Hindu traditions, I have used archaeologists' and academics' statements.

Also, can you give a link or a citation to these "historical" facts that you have been using?

Proof that Krishna existed from this documentary:

Lol...stealing butter is evidence of being a flawed human being?

Of course it is. It shows a man that is in need to eat. A true God do not need to eat. This man has sexual urges and temptations to his own creations! A true God wouldn't have these, it's blasphemous. And even if he had, wouldn't an all-powerful God be able to resist from sinning? What he steals is not the main point, it's that he steals, a God shouldn't sin and steal food from others. These are flaws in human beings, not in our Lord.

I understand gods in Hindu tradition are mythological animals that are no different than humans. But then to claim he is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God is ludicrous! He is historically just a human being.

and Muslims are really bad at understanding it.

What a generalization! Every single of the 1.600 billion Muslims, surely some are Hindu academics, do not understand a concept in Hinduism?

Don't forget that Lord Krishna, after he died, ascended to Vaikuntha, his auspicious abode. Lord Krishna was one of the billions of incarnations Lord Narayana has taken.

And you may feel free to believe that, but understand to differentiate reality and fairytales. Historically speaking, Krishna died and never came back.

With all things considered, Lord Krishna is probably more merciful than Allah.

What a joke! A flawed man who went to war to preserve his women and sex is more merciful to God himself? I showed some verses in Vedas from your "Merciful God. "



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dalNJ4luBws

 

[Slaedi7324]

You don't believe in Jins, they CAN have blue skin.

I know, but historically speaking Krishna was a human with dark skin. He did not have blue skin!

 

[Chakra]

I didn't claim it is. I claimed historical facts does. I didn't bring my religion up to it, I just said some true facts that we know of about Krishna. You've used Hindu traditions, I have used archaeologists' and academics' statements.
Proof that Krishna existed from this documentary:

But archaeologists are sometimes wrong. Consider the Aryan Invasion Theory.
I mean, if you are fine with the words of some scholars that Muhammad was a barbaric warlord who was unmerciful to the people he defeated in combat, then no problem. I suggest you start following them then.

Of course it is. It shows a man that is in need to eat. A true God do not need to eat.

But that is the point of the Avatara. He simply acts like a human being and conceals his divinity from people. Only realized people can realize the greatness of the Avatara.

A true God wouldn't have these, it's blasphemous. And even if he had, wouldn't an all-powerful God be able to resist from sinning? What he steals is not the main point, it's that he steals, a God shouldn't sin and steal food from others.

But this is for play. Lord Krishna is fun, accessible, and loving to ALL CREATURES. Completely the opposite of Allah.

But then to claim he is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God is ludicrous! He is historically just a human being.

Then you have failed to understand the real identity of Lord Krishna, my friend. You are one of the foolish and unintelligent that Krishna speaks about in the Gita. But fortunately, Lord Krishna will not throw you into hell or discriminate against you. Lord Krishna is beyond the idea of Muslim or Hindu and loves all his creations dearly.
Will Allah continue to love me even though I strive to help his creations everyday?

What a generalization! Every single of the 1.600 billion Muslims, surely some are Hindu academics, do not understand a concept in Hinduism?

I don't see it plausible. Understanding and relishing are not the same. Is it possible for you to talk to Allah, play with him, serve him? Please tell me some of the pastimes of Allah (and if he does not have any, why not?)

What a joke! A flawed man who went to war to preserve his women and sex is more merciful to God himself?

Okay, does Allah love those people who do not believe in him? Did he ever cry due to compassion when an animal died trying to serve him?

No more of that nonsense about Lord Krishna and woman and sex.

The virtuous character of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna cannot be maligned.

I showed some verses in Vedas from your "Merciful God. "

Sanskrit is a very complex language and thus mistranslations are common. Unless you think that you are a sanskrit scholar, some verses may not mean what you think they are.

Of course, even I could quote the Koran to show the amount of hate Allah has for non-believers, woman, etc.

Now, unless you have something new to say, I'm not going to be responding to this. Simply put, you are a krishna dveshi. No point of talking to people like you. You are not going to change your views, and the nonsense that comes out of your mouth is just aparadha. Will probably take 5 chantings of the Vishnu Sahasranama to remove the apraradha that I have heard.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

I understand gods in Hindu tradition are mythological animals that are no different than humans. But then to claim he is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God is ludicrous! He is historically just a human being.

You undermine the Omnipotency of God by claiming he can't take Avatars. God can take any form he wishes, he's not confined to a single religious book.

What a generalization! Every single of the 1.600 billion Muslims, surely some are Hindu academics, do not understand a concept in Hinduism?

I'm unsure about 1.6 Billion, but till this very day, all the muslims i've met and even the so-called scholar of Comparative Religions (zakir naik) have been making strawman interpretation of Hindu texts and especially the Bhakti Tradition.

I showed some verses in Vedas from your "Merciful God. "

You are displaying your crow mentality, by trying to malign Lord Krishna and taking violent verses out of context from Vedas.
"Where the crows take enjoyment? In the filthy place. And the swans, the white swans, they take pleasure in clear water."

 

[Poeticus]

The OP's level of absurdity, though unsurprising, is representative of the atrophy of the mind. To continue replying, therefore, would be to risk one's own sanity since it would entail a never ending game of Pigeon Chess where deserved retractions will never see the light of day.

 

[Slaedi7324]

But archaeologists are sometimes wrong. Consider the Aryan Invasion Theory.
I mean, if you are fine with the words of some scholars that Muhammad was a barbaric warlord who was unmerciful to the people he defeated in combat, then no problem. I suggest you start following them then.

Not comparable. A person needs substantial evidence, that you just say "they are wrong," is a denial, what proof do you have to dismiss such a fact?

But that is the point of the Avatara. He simply acts like a human being and conceals his divinity from people. Only realized people can realize the greatness of the Avatara.

That seems like nothing more but an excuse for his ungodliness.

But this is for play. Lord Krishna is fun, accessible, and loving to ALL CREATURES. Completely the opposite of Allah.

This is uninspiring; unexceptional. Anyone can make these claims.

God love all his creatures, too. Except for the wrongdoers. God is accessible through submission. And "fun" has a variety of definitions, and most important of all, is subjective, Krishna should have known better, not everyone laughs at thief.

Then you have failed to understand the real identity of Lord Krishna, my friend. You are one of the foolish and unintelligent that Krishna speaks about in the Gita. But fortunately, Lord Krishna will not throw you into hell or discriminate against you. Lord Krishna is beyond the idea of Muslim or Hindu and loves all his creations dearly.
Will Allah continue to love me even though I strive to help his creations everyday?

Yes, God loves you unless you're a wrongdoer. This "foolish and unintelligent" claim is a gateway argument.

I don't see it plausible. Understanding and relishing are not the same. Is it possible for you to talk to Allah, play with him, serve him? Please tell me some of the pastimes of Allah (and if he does not have any, why not?)

Are you claiming to have met and played with a God for 2500 years ago? You need serious help then.

Okay, does Allah love those people who do not believe in him? Did he ever cry due to compassion when an animal died trying to serve him?

Yes, God loves those who do not believe in him. That's the definition of all-loving. He just does not love the wrongdoers. Sadness is a humane feature, not Godly.

Sanskrit is a very complex language and thus mistranslations are common. Unless you think that you are a sanskrit scholar, some verses may not mean what you think they are.

Of course, even I could quote the Koran to show the amount of hate Allah has for non-believers, woman, etc.

Now, unless you have something new to say, I'm not going to be responding to this. Simply put, you are a krishna dveshi. No point of talking to people like you. You are not going to change your views, and the nonsense that comes out of your mouth is just aparadha. Will probably take 5 chantings of the Vishnu Sahasranama to remove the apraradha that I have heard.

Fine, but I don't understand your post when you spout some nonsense out ether, Apraradha? Sahasranama? Krishna dveshi? Avatara? Speak in English, please.

Also, if you claim these verses are out of context, could you please contextualize them for me?

 

[Slaedi7324]

I'm unsure about 1.6 Billion, but till this very day, all the muslims i've met and even the so-called scholar of Comparative Religions (zakir naik) have been making strawman interpretation of Hindu texts and especially the Bhakti Tradition.

Dr. Zakir Naik isn't a scholar, he is a medical doctor.

You are displaying your crow mentality, by trying to malign Lord Krishna and taking violent verses out of context from Vedas.
"Where the crows take enjoyment? In the filthy place. And the swans, the white swans, they take pleasure in clear water."

Contextualize them, then.

The OP's level of absurdity, though unsurprising, is representative of the atrophy of the mind. To continue replying, therefore, would be to risk one's own sanity since it would entail a never ending game of Pigeon Chess where deserved retractions will never see the light of day.

Though, you're not fooling anyone here. Read what you had to say, you have avoided to discuss any of your points against my historic facts. I pity you. Unsurprising and, of course, absurd.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Did Buddha really teach this? Or is this your speculation?

Pretty sure he's talking about the Maitreya, which is a teaching found in Therevada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc. His referring to the Maitreya as a Messiah might not be the best word choice, since Messiah means "Anointed of God"... but the story of the future Buddha Maitreya showing up when the world has strayed far from dharma is something that is established canon in most Buddhist sects, which is why Abrahamic folks might call Maitreya a "Messiah".

 

[Salek Atesh]

Also, Buddha already went to India, why did we need Krishna?

Still reading and catching up, but just wanted to point out: Abraham already went to the Hebrews, why did God need Moses??