A Hindu Muslim dialogue - Part IV

Friday, August 25, 2006
The Ruzan Shah correspondence - A Hindu-Muslim dialogue - Part IV
Dear Ruzan Shah,

Please do not pressurize yourself to reply urgently. Please get to my correspondence only when you are free. Otherwise, before long you would consider me a pest for writing on and on.

You repeat that Islam was there since day one. Was the Quran also there since day one? Now please don’t tell me that Mohammad was also there since day one! Allah of course was there since day one. If you say that all the four were there since day one, then you are talking in Advaitic (non-dual) language – that there is no separation between God the creator and his creation – both are one and the same, just like the ocean and the waves. If all the four entities came at different times, then you would be talking about Dvaita (duality). From the Vedantic (Vedic) point of view, Islam is a dvaitic teaching and the ultimate teaching is the advaitic teaching. Mark, I have said ‘the ultimate’, not ‘the only’. To reach the ultimate you have to travel through ‘lesser than ultimate’ teachings. So the Hindu would never say that Islam is a false religion or anything like that. He would only say that it is not the ultimate, just as he would say that idol worship is not the ultimate. And this travelling to the ultimate is not a happening of just one lifetime. It is a passage through many lifetimes. (Remember, the Hindus believe in reincarnation.)

About everything being there in the Quran, the Hindus also believe that everything is there in the Vedas. The Christians too say the same about the Bible. So what’s new?
That difference of “ ‘s ” between Islam and Hinduism is a difference between the penultimate and the ultimate. Beyond the Islamic thought that God is different from you lies the ultimate knowledge that you are God – ‘Aham Bhramasmi’ or ‘Ana Al Haque’. (The great Mansoor Al Hallaj lost his head for saying this, thanks to Islamic intolerance!)
Sri Sri Ravishankar is absolutely right in saying that there is only one God and no other. But the Vedas also say that that this God is expressed variously by the brightest of men. In Islam all expressions of God other than that authorized by the Quran is prohibited.
If the Vedas forbid idolatry, that is fine for the Hindus, because the Hindus have the choice of taking up a religion or scripture that exults in idol worship.

It is this freedom given by the Hindu culture that has produced the 33 crore Gods and more. The issue is not whether there is one God or innumerable Gods, whether God is masculine or feminine, or neither, as in the case of Allah. The point is, how can man realize the truth about himself. This is the entire striving of the Hindu culture and its spiritual teachings.

Of course Allah is there in the Vedas because the Vedas do nothing but glorify God. For the Hindu Allah is simply Arabic language for God. And God is simply English language for Ishwar. But Mohammad would certainly not be there in the Vedas. How can a man born in the 7th century AD be there in the Vedas which was written much earlier? (Was Mohammad born when Ganapati was taking his dictation from Vyasa?) Unless it was prophesying, which is actually reading what we want to read in a so-called prophecy?

You make it sound sad when you say that God has nobody! Of course, God, defined as the Absolute, can have no one else quite like him. But God being God, you never know. He may well be having a world all of his own where he has family, friends, neighbors etc. Quite like Shiva and his family or Vishnu and his family!

I would not be uncharitable to call Islam an ideology. I would like to think Islam is an endeavour towards spiritually. (Spirituality = a state when man no longer depends on anything for his survival. A state quite like God’s)

It is possible to be on the straight path with clear mind and vision in ways not spelt out by the Quran.

If by Hindu Hriday Samrat you mean Bal Thackray, I must say that I admire him because he is perhaps the only politician in India who has the guts to call a spade a bloody spade, whatever the consequences. However, I feel there is no need to bring him in in a talk about religion and spirituality. However, as a Muslim you might be prone to do so because, as I said earlier, Islam is not just a religion, but it has political ambitions.

Whatever Brahmins may have preached about killing whoever, it is not valid today. Today we live under the Indian constitution and no killing is allowed. Muslims are stuck with the Shariat and would wish to live under the Shariat and not under the Indian constitution if given a choice. Hindus have no such problems because they have separated Smriti from Shruti, but the Muslims are limited to an anti-Indian-constitution Shariat.
Talking about temples being desecrated merely by the entrance of a dalit, Hindus do not follow the Manusmiriti now. As a proof, the foundation stone for the Ramjanmabhoomi Temple was laid by a Brahmin. This again is an example of the Hindu genius in distinguishing between Smriti and Shruti.

I understand, when you say that the Caliphate is part of your faith. This is the main difference between Sufism and Islam. Islam has a political goal, unlike Sufism. This political goal has been the undoing of Islam. It is this political goal that is breeding terrorists. All Muslims say that Islam is the religion of peace. It truly would be, minus its political element. Then what else would Islam be, but Sufism? If Islam has produced terrorists, Sufism has produced the most spiritual savants in the history of the world’s religions.
I know Shariat is part of the Quran. And that’s the problem. You don’t make a distinction between Shariat, which deals with temporal matters and the Quran, which deals in spirituality, which is eternal, like Hindus make the distinction between Smriti and Shruti.

I am not a scholar and therefore I do not want to be provided any reference about what you say. As long as you say it, it is good enough for me.
Bridging the gap for peace between the Hindus and Muslims, or with anyone else for that matter, would succeed only if we cease identifying ourselves as Muslims or Hindus or Christians. Spirituality is the very anathema of identity. In the Indian context, we can easily become united if we base our basic identity as Indians. This is nationalism and this is what the RSS actually strives to do. In the universal and ultimate context, man must learn to identify himself with Ram or Rahim or whatever he calls God, with the understanding that Ram and Rahim are one. Any lesser identification will not bring peace.

About dalits not being allowed to perform pujas, it is interesting to note that even in the worst periods of caste discrimination, the lower castes were never exterminated by the upper castes. They were at worst kept at arm’s length. That is why the dalits still have their own temples and rituals. Where are the people in Arabia who worshipped idols? They were not shunned - like the Hinuds, maybe, did the Dalits. When Mohammad destroyed the idols, it was the signal to his followers to destroy the idol worshippers too.
Ram is as important to Hinduism and Mohammed is to Islam. (Though in Islam there is only one Mohammad, whereas in Hinduism there are many Rams.) As the Hindus are also idol worshippers, the Ram Temple in Ayodhya is most important to them. There would have been no fuss if Baber, the founder of the Mughal Empire, had chosen not to destroy it, like Mohammad destroyed the idols in Mecca.

Ekalavya should not have been denied entry to the school. (Note, today the RSS names its schools Ekalavya Vidyalayas). Nevertheless, Ekalavya turned out to be a better pupil than Arjuna, learning from the idol of Dronacharya. This story is from the Mahabharatha. By cutting off his thumb to give his guru, Ekalavya becomes one of the greatest characters of Mahabharatha. The presentation of such incredible characters is what makes Mahabharata an immortal classic. There was no whitewashing of any events to make the book ‘politically correct’.

If you say Sufism is not Islam, you take away whatever spirituality there is in Islam away from Islam.
If you disapprove everything that is not approved by Islam, then you will see that only Muslims would be acceptable to you. No wonder you are always at war with non-Muslims!
The Nobel Laureate Sir Vaidya Naipaul, for one, wrote about Arabian Imperialism dominating Islam.
Islam may be the fastest growing religion in the world now, but there is no saying which religion will overtake which religion tomorrow. Communism at one time was the fastest growing phenomenon, but where is it today?
It is to the eternal glory of the Quran and Mohammad for having said, “Killing a single human being is like killing the whole humanity.” I must tell my fellow Hindus to paste this verse in all Hindu temples to indicate that this is the Islam that the Hindus look forward to. But the Quran in its entirety would not be acceptable because there are many verses therein that call for the non-believers to be killed.

About Godhra and post-Godhra, it is a case of action and reaction. Majority reactions are always horrendous. What’s the need for justifying it, facts are facts.

Buddhism never died in India, because it is also a product of the Hindu culture.

Buddha taught the higher teachings. Buddha-idols in no way stopped, for example, the Dalai Lama from attaining great spiritual heights.

Your analogy of food to children would also be a good analogy of the Hindu scheme of things, where the culture permits so many religions and religions at so many levels - from the child-like idol worship to the ultimate formless meditation.

You said about gradual revelation of the Quran. This has happened in India too under the influence of the syncretism Hindu culture. In Arabia, however, nothing today exists except the Quran. All the earlier revelations have been destroyed by Islam after Mohammad.

If Quran is the full and final set of divine revelation, it must mean, according to your theory of gradual unfolding of teachings from Allah, that man has reached the pinnacle of his growth. But many thinkers do not think so. Aurobindo Maharshi spoke of higher dimensions of living yet to come for man and of man evolving further.

You ask why Shankara is different from other Gods. Whatever the reason, what does it matter, except to symbolize some philosophy? Our approach to religion and all its symbols should be for our attainment of higher and higher spiritual states of unfolding and insights. Does it matter whether God is called Allah or Krishna? Anyway, to answer your question about Shankara and Vishnu being so different in appearances – it only indicates that the ultimate can be achieved regardless of the external appearances.

Looking forward to hearing from you, Ruzan.

Love,
Venu
12:36:40 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (4) Politics