Krishna

[munir rana]

Dear Joseph

Salam.

Recently I read your article titled

'ALLAH' IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE NAME FOR GOD
http://quransmessage.com/articles/allah%20is%20not%20an%20exclusive%20name%20for%20god%20FM3.htm

It is very useful. But in a place you said that -

`Whether we call Him Rab, Lord, God, Almighty, Krishna, Khuda, Yahweh, Elohim, Adi Purush (Timeless being); Para Brahman (The absolute Truth) , El, Eli, Eloi, Jehovah,  or whichever beautiful name we call Him, it is with respect, humility and grace that we take His name with the sole intention that He is One and Only One that we serve.'

Here you mention Krishna as a supreme power, actualy who is a deity, worshiped across many traditions of Hinduism in a variety of different perspectives. Krishna is generally recognized as an avatar of Lord Vishnu. Many muslim scholars also think that Krishna might be a Prophet of his time. Some say, he is an important historical figure. So, is it ok to include his name in the status of TIMELESS BEING? Is there any scope to respect him as One and Only One like Param Brahman (The absolute Truth) or Bhagavan who also represent the concept of abstract God to many Hindus who are religious but do not worship a specific deity.

Best Wishes.

Munir Rana 

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Munir,

As-salamu alaykum

Imagine for a moment when the Quran was being revealed to the 'Mushrikeen'. They believed 'Allah' to be a part of other gods in association, but reigning supreme as the 'high God'.

039.038
“If indeed you ask them who is it that created the Heavens and the Earth, they would be sure to say, "Allah". Say: "Then do you see what you invoke besides Allah? Can they, if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty? Or if He wills some grace for me, can they keep back his grace?" Say: "Sufficient is Allah for me! In Him do the trusting put their trust"”

Thus, the Quran's guidance was to 'correct' their beliefs and installing 'Allah' as the only God without any other association. 

This is why I mentioned in the article:

"Whether we call Him Rab, Lord, God, Almighty, Krishna, Khuda, Yahweh, Elohim, Adi Purush (Timeless being); Para Brahman (The absolute Truth) , El, Eli, Eloi, Jehovah,  or whichever beautiful name we call Him, it is with respect, humility and grace that we take His name with the sole intention that He is One and Only One that we serve. That He is alone in His majesty, that He created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in it and to Him is our final return.  He cannot be represented by an idol or a statue and is the only One truly worthy of worship."

Therefore, one approach with those who adhere to Hindu theology would be to present them with the notion that God is One, without partners, without any association, earthly or through material representations. This is what the God of the Universe is (whether they call him 'Krishna' or otherwise).

God is an entity, an evident reality and not restricted to a name. We are told to call God by beautiful names (whatever best the human language can muster) and to shun any distortions or profanity in His name. (17:110; 7:180). It is this concept that needs to be cleared. As I mentioned in the article, 'Allah' is simply an Arabic name for God.

I hope that clarifies, God willing
Joseph

[Sardar Miyan]

Bro Joseph I beg to differ in calling Allah with some particular names attributed to other religions. In Hindu Mythology there were Three gods called
Trimurthy just like Paul's Trinity
by name Vishnu, Brahma & Shiva. As we can not call Jesus
son of God and Paul's God as
our God likewise we can not call
Krishna as God because of their
belief. I don't know about Vishnu,
Brahma & Shiva but Krishna was
a person who helped the Kings to conquer.Therefore we have to keep the concept of one's God whenever we try to equate or
call our God. I have no objection
to call Allah by any name if the
people of that faith believe in
one God without associating any
one. The other ancient religion
of India Budhism has got a person Buddha , man who preached ahimsa & we can not call our God as Buddha
Likewise Zorashrastrism they also have concept of three gods
as such we can not call Yazdan
as God. Therefore we can not & should not call any other religion's god as our God

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Sardar,

As-salamu alaykum

I understand that the root of our difference of opinion may be sourced in the sentiment that I see God as primarily an 'entity' and not exclusively as a 'name' of a particular language.  You may see this differently. However, I humbly request that you at least attempt to see my wider point.

I have respectfully argued with the assistance of Quranic references that it is the correct concept of God which is fundamental and not what beautiful name you call Him by.

It is noteworthy that when the Quran was revealed to a largely pagan Arab audience, their 'high God' who they understood was in partnership with other gods, such as Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat (53:19-20) was called 'Allah’. Just because the ‘mushrikeen’ (idolaters) called their high God 'Allah', it did not prevent the Lord to refer to Himself as 'Allah'. It was the concept of God that the Quran corrected and deemed as important and not the name.

I am also not advocating that one calls Allah ‘Krishna’. However, if I were to approach a Hindu who considered ‘Krishna / Vishnu’ as part of a ‘Trimurti’ and a Supreme God in His own right (just like the Arab mushrikeens considered Allah as a ‘supreme God’), my approach would be to ‘correct’ the concept of God first rather than focus on names.

I believe I would take the approach of the Quran to say that their Supreme God was One, without partners, or any need of assistance. He is the same God of all of humanity and One. My approach I feel would be no different from the approach the Quran took with the mushrikeens of yore during the Prophetic ministry, presenting them clear concepts of a One, All Powerful God.
 
I trust that clarifies, God willing

With respect and regards,
Joseph