How can Buddhist Books that are Written 400 Years after Buddha be Authentic

Zakir Naik

Date:

Channel: Zakir Naik

File Size: 4.78MB

Share Page

Related

AI: Summary © The speakers discuss the issue of Easter versus Islam in relation to the scripture. They argue that while Easter may be authentic, it is not possible to guarantee its accuracy. They also discuss the scientific method used in the scripture and how it differs from the current church's approach.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:01--> 00:00:36

Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa Salam billbergia. Doctors, Noni Booth was occupied with Bankia. Danone gota K. Buddha J. K, intercom K char, so salva in Sasaki marketability Ke Ke taka Hartog search for something a bit unique that was set up now Allah dia que vamos a la la slinky patient we submit key to your bad customers even a ketchup on canticle cakes are so such a bad joke is a really key guy who can attack such walls of the building to get started how Allah dia que como sinners Lemke patient wake up

00:00:38--> 00:00:42

will have to question that while talking about Buddhism, but the shape

00:00:43--> 00:00:49

he mentioned that the books on Buddhism have been written 400 to find a year later.

00:00:51--> 00:01:07

And after that, in the scriptures of Buddhism, there is mentioned Mohamed Salah Salem. So he says that it's confusion that how could scripture it in 400 years back authentic? And if it's not authentic, how could the name of musasa come in? So if the authentic answer was a name come it carries weight?

00:01:08--> 00:01:16

Because it didn't 400 years later, it's logically it cannot be authentic. Why? Number one? That's the main argument. And if it's not authentic, how can the moments Russell mentioned?

00:01:17--> 00:01:58

The point we know dear, dear brother, that I do agree with you that if something is written on the spot after Revelation, the chances of it being authentic is more. But to say that if a book is written 300 or 400 years later on, it cannot be authentic. Isn't 100% True? Because our hadith of Islam, they say no the Prophet, most of them were written 100 230 years afterwards. So if we use this logical argument for Buddhism, that Buddhism is wrong, then you have to agree all of Hadees is wrong. But the difference between Buddhism and Islam is that the role of different In Islam we have taken care of verifying whether the person have narrated the Hadith the same as the Prophet, they

00:01:58--> 00:02:00

have been verified, which has not been done in Buddhism

00:02:01--> 00:02:43

and Islam. Whenever we say that a hadith sahih we check the narrator's who heard it from masala Salam, who did he say to who was abuzz? When it comes to taba in Cabot Arbaeen then we check the authenticity of each narrator and the memory of it Narrator So the science of maintaining the Islamic hadith is very superior and defend Diffic unlike other religions, that is the reason we today in Islam can differentiate a say Hadith from Jose for the animal, the Hadith, which is not the case in the other religion and in Buddhism. So Buddhism what we have today, we agree that everything on the Buddha scripture is not authentic, then the Hulk was authentic, but there may be some parts

00:02:43--> 00:02:44

which are authentic.

00:02:45--> 00:03:23

So what we assume that even though we agree that the whole Buddhist scripture may not be authentic, we say that but the Buddhists they say the word of God or it's authentic, so what we say okay, if you agree everything authentic in it is mentioned the thing the formulas are, what we say that whatever matches with the Quran, or when they say Hadith V Muslim, they have no objection in accepting it to be true. Similarly, when we compare Quran and Islam with the other scriptures, because he compared that does not we are testifying that the completely the Scripture is authentic per se. What we are saying that we agree part of it is correct part is wrong. The opposite party

00:03:23--> 00:03:57

they are saying everything is correct. So what we say even if we assume everything is correct, why don't you follow what is coming based on the verse of the Quran, Australian brand, chapter three, verse number 64, which says, to Allah, Allah can within our environment, come to common terms as we ascend you, which is the first time Allah Allah, Allah, Allah, Allah, that devotion numbered Allah. So what I have to share data to tell you that the whole scripture per se of Buddhism may not be authentic. Because these, if you analyze how was the Buddha scriptures compiled, it's not in a scientific manner, there was a council and one of his disciples, and on the history we're taking, so

00:03:57--> 00:04:17

it differs, all the thing differs. So they don't have a scientific method as we have in the region of Assam, that there isn't the same that the Buddhist scriptures historian they say, everything authentic, which cannot be said of the Hadith. But the argument that because it was written 400 years back is wrong. The chances of it being false is high.

00:04:18--> 00:04:19

So therefore, whenever

00:04:20--> 00:04:30

we take out a faulty another religion, be careful that we don't rip ourself. If you put this as a trump card, that became a digital founded by the authentic then all of these we have to discard,

00:04:32--> 00:04:53

which you don't agree with. But the argument is that we have taken care in preserving what is right what is wrong. But yet the Quran carry the highest rate, because the moment it was revealed to Prophet Nazzaro Salam, he dictated it to his companions who wrote it down and was preserved. But the Hadith preservation is also scientific Alhamdulillah but it has a different level altogether as compared to the current ordinance the question