Hindu-Muslim Unity: An interesting exchange of letters with a former IB Director

5

images

By  Dr Javed Jamil,

I had an interesting exchange of letters with Mr. D C Nath, IPS (Retd), a former senior official in Intelligence Bureau, following my article, “Let Hindus and Muslims unite against Economics of Vices”, which generated huge response, and a section of Hindus opposed the move on the ground of their perception that Islam is not compatible with other religions. If you have not read the said article, you may click the following link:

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/let-hindus-and-muslims-unite-against-economics-of-vices/

Here is the letter of Mr. Nath, followed by my reply and his reply to my reply:

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

October 30, 2014

Dear Dr Javed Jamil,

Subject: Rebuttal Against Suggestion That Hindus And Muslims In India Unite Against Economics Of Vices

We have read with interest your paper on: “Let Hindus and Muslims (In India) Unite Against Economics Of Vices“.

Well, Sir, you are not only a scholar, it appears from the books you have authored, you are also a theologian on Islam. Since you have thrown up some new idea and the matter is already in the public domain, we felt we should take this up lest some sections of the general public, Muslims or Hindus, get misguided. But, first of all, kudos to you to have the “courage” to speak of a suggestion to take Hindus and Muslims on the same boat. Well, Sir, we are surprised you have not yet attracted a fatwa on you for this act.

To rebut your paper fully (which is required) will be time- consuming and hence we shall take up only a few aspects:

·       You have not spelt out what you meant by economics of vices, on which you suggest Hindus and Muslims inIndia to unite. You have coined a new terminology, “economic fundamentalists” but the full scope of this expression is not clear;

·       You are right that Hindus and Muslims in India share many practices and thoughts in common. The vast majority of Indian Muslims are of Indian origin (as distinguished from those few Muslims in India of foreign descent). The DNAs of Hindus and Indian Muslims are, as you would be knowing, the same. Moreover, the Indian (Hindu) culture is such as assimilates every one from any descent. So, there could be a possibility of Hindus and Muslims in India to unite. But, then comes the question, the main barrier, of Islamic religion. We said the Islamic religion and not Islam.

·       Islam as a religion is not compatible with any other system or way of living. As a Muslim, you cannot accept anything else other than Allah or what is written in the holy Quran. You have no motherland, you have no father, no mother who could be above the prophet. In Hinduism, “Janani janmabhoomischa swargadapi gorioshi”, meaning thereby that your mother is above the motherland and at a pedestal higher than even paradise. In Islam, you will be guilty of apostasy (for which death is the only punishment) if you accept anything else above the prophet.

·       Cutting short the discussion, how can the Hindus and Muslims, not only in not India but anywhere else, unite, when the Muslims ‘religion teaches them to kill all non-believers in Islam? The concept of jihad, a core issue in Islam, enjoins on all Muslims the sacred duty of killing non-believers in Muslim unless they convert to the true faith, that is, Islam on their own or you do that by the means prescribed in Quran.

·       The word secularism (basically separation of temporal head from the religious head) was introduced in Indiamuch after the Constitution was framed. It has been a political move to show or warn the Hindus that anything smacking of religion cannot. or will not be accepted by the government. This is to be understood clearly. Hinduism by itself does not and never needed any such clarification, Basically, the formal introduction of secular concept is an appeasement to the Muslims and to check the spread or induction of Hinduism into the academic and even the administrative dealing.

Be that as it may, non- Islamic experts on Islam all over the world today are of the opinion that the problem is not between the Muslims and others, say, Christians or Hindus. The problem really lay and lies in Islam. They are unanimous that Islam is not a religion at all. It is an expansion of military strategy. The first part of the Quran, revealed in Mecca and generally taught, spoke of peace; the second part of the same book revealed in Medina, is nothing short of what has been described as a “war book”.

Well, Dr, Javed Jamil, we may at this stage draw your attention to the judgement of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi in 1986 (attached), that has categorically endorsed the view that certain ayats in the Quran have the potential to create communal violence. The Muslims who had proceeded against some Hindus for “unduly” blaming the Quran, never went in appeal and so the judgement of 1986 still holds good.

So, will you still believe it will be ever possible for a true Muslim to join hands with any non-believers, any where, including India, to help a country to progress?

Nevertheless and even after saying all that rather bluntly perhaps, your paper makes us believe you are one among the very few forward-looking Muslim scholars who can collectively help change the course of history if you can motivate Islamic theologians to start thinking how to modify the relevant parts (ayats and hadis) of the Quran to make Islam compatible with other religions so that they can co-exist and make the world peaceful, as the first part of the Quran perceives or preaches. We are hopeful a handful amongst you can do this. That is how things happen and have happened in history.

Thanking you, Dr. Jamil, again, and with hopes for better times as spelt out by you and with best regards,

Vandemataram,

D.C.Nath,

(Former Spl Director)

(President, Patriots” Forum)

                                                  

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Dear Mr. Nath

Peace be upon you and everyone!

Thanks for your kind letter.

Normally, I do not like to enter into a debate through internet, as it is futile to debate a subject of extraordinary importance if it is not shared with other people. But as this particular article has attracted wide attention, and many Hindu friends have reacted negatively to it, and now a person of eminence like you has chosen to write a full “rebuttal” of my proposal of unity between Hindus and Muslims, I feel I must give a point to point reply. My comments on the points you have made in the letter are given below .

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Dear Dr Javed Jamil,

Subject: Rebuttal Against Suggestion That Hindus And Muslims In India Unite Against Economics Of Vices

We have read with interest your paper on: “Let Hindus and Muslims (In India) Unite Against Economics Of Vices“.

Well, Sir, you are not only a scholar, it appears from the books you have authored, you are also a theologian on Islam. Since you have thrown up some new idea and the matter is already in the public domain, we felt we should take this up lest some sections of the general public, Muslims or Hindus, get misguided. But, first of all, kudos to you to have the “courage” to speak of a suggestion to take Hindus and Muslims on the same boat. Well, Sir, we are surprised you have not yet attracted a fatwa on you for this act.

To clarify, I am not a degree holder in the subject of Theology, but yes I have done extensive work in the field of Islamic studies, particularly in the field of Applied Islam, and many people regard me an Islamic scholar. As I have written extensively also on the economic, political, medical and social issues, some people confuse me as a scholar of these fields. I must mention here that by profession I am a medical doctor, a product of King George’s Medical College, Lucknow who has practiced for more than 25 years as a Physician, but has lately given up practice to devote to academic pursuits as an independent thinker. I have no formal association with any political or social organization.

As far as the issuing of fatwa against me is concerned, the question does not arise, as I always write within the parameters of Islam, and the overwhelming majority of theologians have the ability to recognize what is right and what is wrong. I do not care for the minority that does not have the guts to face the truth. When in 1995, I authored the booklet, “Islam and Family Planning”, several lakh copies of which were circulated, many people thought I would face the brunt of a fatwa, but I did not face any such thing because most theologians opined that I have taken a balanced stand on the subject of family planning and have nowhere crossed the injunctions of Islam. I am credited with being the first to generate a positive view among Muslims regarding the permissibility of many (not all) aspects of family planning in Islam.

The “courage” is not new. I have been relentlessly arguing in favour of revival of religion as a whole, and coming together of all religions against the real culprit, “Economic Fundamentalism”, which I will explain below. AsIndia is a country of believers (Hindus as well as Muslims) in their respective religions, I find India as the ideal place for the bonding of the religions, and their presenting as a role model for the rest of the world. I am ready to go to any extent to save the mankind from the disastrous policies of the New World Order, based on “Economic Fundamentalism” and hegemony of West over the world. It is these modern atheistic ideologies, which are interested in negating religion, and in maintaining a constant feud between different religions.

To rebut your paper fully (which is required) will be time- consuming and hence we shall take up only a few aspects:

·       You have not spelt out what you meant by economics of vices, on which you suggest Hindus and Muslims in India to unite. You have coined a new terminology, “economic fundamentalists” but the full scope of this expression is not clear;

“Economic Fundamentalism” means supremacy of economics in all affairs of the world at the cost of health, family peace and social order. I will just quote a paragraph on ““Economic Fundamentalism” from my book on the subject, which will suffice to explain what I mean:

“It can be seen that economic fundamentalism is becoming increasingly aggressive with every passing day. What has facilitated its stupendous growth is the outstanding ability of its generals to deal with the hurdles coming in their way. The truth is that they have been marching towards their ultimate destination without facing any appreciable resistance. They studied and recognised all the possible sources of obstruction well in advance and prepared a meticulous plan to thwart them. All possible weapons were and are being employed for this purpose: persuasion, advertising, misinformation, defama­tion, bribing, manoeuvring and use of power. The ballistic missiles of their money-power have proved to be too destructive for the resistant elements to with­stand…… The think-tank of the world of economic fundamentalism has taken innumerable steps to strengthen their hold. They have sacrificed the goddess of justice before the eyes of Statue of Liberty. They have transformed through political institutions the state into their estate. They have incessantly and relentlessly been trying to organise a grand farewell for religion. They have captivated the imagination of the people through the media. They have got the attire of society redesigned so that it looks gorgeous and inviting to their eyes. They have industrialised sex, in which they have discovered the hen that always lays golden eggs. They have relocated the entire educational set-up on the Wall Street.  They have monopolised the tree of economy whose fruits and shadows are only theirs; others can only admire its beauty from a safe distance. They have taken science and technology as their mistresses that are always keen to offer their glorious best to them. They have nipped all the challenges in the buds by masterminding popular movements. They have lynched ‘civilisation’, which has been given a new incarnation; and now Bohemians are called civilised. Last but not the least, they have been busy colonising the good earth in the name of globalisation.”

Economics of Vices means commercialization of human weaknesses including all forms of addiction and sexual misdemeanours including sex outside marriage, prostitution, pornography etc, as well as poverty, inflation and economic disparity.  These all are continuing because the forces of economics (particularly the corporate) have interest in sustaining them.

·       You are right that Hindus and Muslims in India share many practices and thoughts in common. The vast majority of Indian Muslims are of Indian origin (as distinguished from those few Muslims in India of foreign descent). The DNAs of Hindus and Indian Muslims are, as you would be knowing, the same. Moreover, the Indian (Hindu) culture is such as assimilates every one from any descent. So, there could be a possibility of Hindus and Muslims in India to unite. But, then comes the question, the main barrier, of Islamic religion. We said the Islamic religion and not Islam.

Islam is not a religion. It is a full-fledged system involving clear guidelines for individuals, family, society and all kinds of institutions, political and social. It also has clear guidelines for different places depending upon the break-up of population of the area.

·       Islam as a religion is not compatible with any other system or way of living.

Islam is compatible with everything good and not compatible with anything which is bad; and the criterion of “Good” and “Bad” in Islam means good or bad for the health, family system and social order. Anything favouring them is good and anything harming them is bad.

As a Muslim, you cannot accept anything else other than Allah or what is written in the holy Quran.

Yes, as a Muslim, we cannot accept anything other than God, the ONE CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. “Alalh” is mere Arabic equivalent of God, Ishwar or Parmeshwar. God is formless, not having any gender, not bound by specie and time and Just. As He is all-knowing, He alone can decide the best course of action. As we believe that Quran is the word of God and Muhammad the Final (not the first) Ambassador of God, anyone who does not follow them is not on the right path. However, Quran clarifies that God sent hundreds of thousands of Ambassadors to the earth, and they came to all parts of the world, we believe that Krishna, Ram, Jesus, Buddh, Moses, all were His Ambassadors and therefore on the Right Path. Similarly, God sent many scriptures. Many Islamic scholars believe Vedas to be the first God-sent scriptures. Old and New Testaments were too His words. Quran is the Last Word of God and Muhammad is the Last Ambassador of God. So we have to follow them now. But we have to believe in all previous scriptures and Ambassadors as true, even if some parts of these scriptures were later adulterated by later priests. As far as Quran is concerned, there is no possibility of its adulteration but there are always possibilities of misinterpretation.

You have no motherland, you have no father, no mother who could be above the prophet. In Hinduism, “Janani janmabhoomischa swargadapi gorioshi”, meaning thereby that your mother is above the motherland and at a pedestal higher than even paradise. In Islam, you will be guilty of apostasy (for which death is the only punishment) if you accept anything else above the prophet.

We worship NONE BUT GOD NOT EVEN PROPHET, who too was a servant of God. We pray only to God. We differentiate between respect and worship. We respect parents, teachers and motherland but cannot worship them, as they all are the creatures not creator.

·       Cutting short the discussion, how can the Hindus and Muslims, not only in not India but anywhere else, unite, when the Muslims ‘religion teaches them to kill all non-believers in Islam? The concept of jihad, a core issue in Islam, enjoins on all Muslims the sacred duty of killing non-believers in Muslim unless they convert to the true faith, that is, Islam on their own or you do that by the means prescribed in Quran.

“‘Religion teaches them to kill all non-believers in Islam? This is biggest and most blatant lie against Islam and Quran. Quran is all for peace allowing war like any other ideology, religion, or political entity, in certain conditions. I am ready to have  a debate on this subject and will post an article of mine regarding the War Ideology (Jihad) in Quran with quotes from Quran (including the so-called controversial verses) but only after I get an answer to the following:

The anti-Islam propagandists have time and again tried to prove that Quran promotes violence of an extreme kind and asks its followers to “kill all unbelievers”. Before discussing Quran’s position on Jihad these people should first give replies to the following questions in accordance with their respective ideologies, religious or modern, such as Hinduism, Christianity, American constitution and Indian constitution. Only then comparison can be made with Quranic position. These questions are of course related to why and how wars can be or should be fought:

Have armed confrontations any role whatsoever in the world?

  1. If yes, what should be the underlying philosophy and what should be the objectives?
  2. What are the conditions when one can join or start a war?
  3. Once war has started, what are the instructions that will be given to the army? Instructions regarding the opponents and the methodology of fighting?
  4. What will be the likely scenarios when one of the warring parties will like to stop war?
  5. What should be the conditions when war should be stopped?
  6. What will be the status of the fighters killed in the wars in the eyes of the country they represent?

I will request you to answer these questions on the ground of Hindu religion (quotes from Hindu granths including Mahabharat regarding wars) and India’s position.

Here I will only like to quote a paragraph from the article:

Islam is a fully-grown system, which, like every other system of governance, needs to propagate its ideology, safeguard its interests, protect its followers and areas of influence and combat any actions of hostility directed against it. It has the right to self-defence like any other country or organisation has. Jihad means struggle; it denotes earnest efforts to achieve Islamic objective of grand peace and safeguard its ideological, political and geographical sovereignty. Under normal circumstances, Jihad primarily involves intellectual, political and social means; in extraordinary circumstances, it does not shy away from adopting military or militant means. What differentiates Islamic method of armed confrontation however from that in vogue in the current international arena is that in Islam Jihad is not for selfish geographical, political and economic interests of a country or a group of countries. In contrast, it is aimed at ensuring peace, rescuing people in duress and fighting the forces of evil, exploitation and injustice. But Qur’an categorically states that fighting should be restricted only for the stated objectives, namely in the event of aggressive intents or actions of a hostile force, infraction of agreement, widespread chaos, exploitation or oppression and to counter excesses. It also makes clear that while during fighting every effort must be made to strike telling blows to the enemy, Muslims must return to the negotiating table as soon as the enemy appears inclined to cease-fire and lasting peace.

The term “Jihad” in Islam does not mean an armed fight, which at best is only a part of it. Jihad, in fact is an incessant struggle to spread what is good and uproot what is evil. The best Jihad, according to Islam is against one’s self. And when this definition is extended to a social level, it again means struggle against forces that exploit human weaknesses or oppress the weak and poor. Jihad through Qur’an is another important kind of Jihad, which also means an intellectual dialogue with the opponents of Islamic system.

Jihad is meant for protecting the weak against the mighty; for alerting the forces of evil that their sordid adventures will not go unchallenged; for giving the oppressed sections a voice and wrecking the nerve-centres of the tyrants; and for giving the exploiters sleepless nights. Jihad prepares a person to sacrifice his possessions including his life if required for the cause of God. But Mujahids must clearly know that the objective of Jihad is not to bring certain persons to power, nor to bring theocracies to the whole world through sheer use of force. “Deen”, the system of God does not necessarily mean the establishment of a theocratic government through violent means; it means the rule of justice. Fighting is only the last but an open option in Jihad. If conditions are justifiable for fighting, it becomes obligatory; if conditions do not demand fighting, it becomes aggression. If its objectives are for the welfare of the masses it is desirable; if it is an excuse for selfish ends, it is an unparalleled sin.   Jihad through peaceful means must always continue without halt; Jihad through arms must be an aberration.

Islam however does not accept that “all is fair in love and war”. Even in war, all Islamic conditions must be followed in letter and spirit. As soon as the conditions are bright for an honourable settlement, fighting must be stopped without delay; for the ultimate objective is not the subjugation of the enemy but an end to mischief, anarchy, chaos and oppression. The powers that dominate do always try to take the right to fight away from others, so that they can continue to hold reins. They amass massive stocks of deadly weapons, but deny others the right to possess them. They do not hesitate a second to attack or invade the positions of their challengers, but make too much fuss of even the smallest acts of armed resistance. They kill innocents in big numbers and label it as ‘collateral damage’; and lambaste their opponents, through the weapons of words and war, if their actions cause the deaths of even a handful of innocents.

Islam on the other hand respects life. Quran says that “saving the life of a human being is like saving the whole mankind” and that “killing a life is like killing the whole mankind.”

·       The word secularism (basically separation of temporal head from the religious head) was introduced in India much after the Constitution was framed. It has been a political move to show or warn the Hindus that anything smacking of religion cannot. or will not be accepted by the government. This is to be understood clearly. Hinduism by itself does not and never needed any such clarification, Basically, the formal introduction of secular concept is an appeasement to the Muslims and to check the spread or induction of Hinduism into the academic and even the administrative dealing.

“Appeasement” is the word invented by the forces of Hindutva to deny Muslims any benefits in their country, Muslims in India are in fact most neglected, most deprived, most ignored community. This is a different topic. I can discuss it separately, but for now, let us focus on the theological aspect of the debate.

Be that as it may, non- Islamic experts on Islam all over the world today are of the opinion that the problem is not between the Muslims and others, say, Christians or Hindus. The problem really lay and lies in Islam. They are unanimous that Islam is not a religion at all. It is an expansion of military strategy. The first part of the Quran, revealed in Mecca and generally taught, spoke of peace; the second part of the same book revealed in Medina, is nothing short of what has been described as a “war book”.

Today’s method is: If you are a liar, tell all others as liar, if you are corrupt tell all others as corrupt. If you are violent, tell others violent. The Western countries do not count the millions they are killing in wars but count the few killed in violence against them. They are the biggest war mongers, having killed more than 180 million people world wide since 20th century, and do not want any other country to be militarily strong.

Well, Dr, Javed Jamil, we may at this stage draw your attention to the judgement of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi in 1986 (attached), that has categorically endorsed the view that certain ayats in the Quran have the potential to create communal violence. The Muslims who had proceeded against some Hindus for “unduly” blaming the Quran, never went in appeal and so the judgement of 1986 still holds good.

So, will you still believe it will be ever possible for a true Muslim to join hands with any non-believers, any where, including India, to help a country to progress?

Muhammad entered into alliances with non-Muslims. No Muslim can be bigger than him. He started his mission at a place where none believed him, and within 23 years, as many as dozens of the currently existing countries had accepted him as the Last Ambassador of God. True Muslims will always love to have friendly relations with all communities on the basis of equality, justice and mutual trust. India has good relations with almost all Muslim countries except Pakistan and Bangladesh. I believe if Muslims and Hindus can come together,India will be a healthier and more peaceful and more prosperous country.

Nevertheless and even after saying all that rather bluntly perhaps, your paper makes us believe you are one among the very few forward-looking Muslim scholars who can collectively help change the course of history if you can motivate Islamic theologians to start thinking how to modify the relevant parts (ayats and hadis) of the Quran to make Islam compatible with other religions so that they can co-exist and make the world peaceful, as the first part of the Quran perceives or preaches. We are hopeful a handful amongst you can do this. That is how things happen and have happened in history.

I am certainly ready to motivate Muslims for developing good relationships with Hindus, provided Hindus and Muslims respect each other’s right to believe in their respective religions as the best, and they stop spreading misinformation, myths and hatred against each other. Any word against Prophet or Quran will simply not be acceptable though we are always ready to enter into an academic debate on any of the issues involved. I feel that if anyone is trying to demonise any other religion instead of presenting his own religion, it demonstrates his lack of confidence in his own religion.

Thanking you, Dr. Jamil, again, and with hopes for better times as spelt out by you and with best regards,

Vandemataram,

D.C.Nath,

(Former Spl Director)

(President, Patriots” Forum)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-                                                  

Dear Mr Nath, incidentally, the forward of my coming book, “Dynamic Paradigm of Health”, the first volume of “Quranic Paradigms of Sciences & Society” has been written by another Nath, Prof. Lalit M Nath, Former Director, AIIMA< New Delhi.

God alone is worth worshipping!

Regards

Dr. Javed Jamil

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Reply of Mr. Nath

Thank you Dr.Javed Jamil!. I must apologise for not getting back to you earlier than now. ‘Got involved in some routine but unavoidable

piece of work.. Frankly speaking, you have stumped me by your response also. I do not want to enter into any argument what we have brought out individually but I would certainly exchange notes with you to see where we can “meet”.
Are you still based in Lucknow? Would you like to share your contact Nos?
Thanking you and with best rgds,
D C Nath

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

This is in continuation of my last mail on the subject. I regret the delay in sending this response.

The point I wish to highlight from that mail is: “Nevertheless and even after saying all that rather bluntly perhaps, your paper makes us believe you are one among the very few forward-looking Muslim scholars who can collectively help change the course of history if you can motivate Islamic theologians to start thinking how to modify the relevant parts (ayats and hadis) of the Quran to make Islam compatible with other religions so that they can co-exist and make the world peaceful, as the first part of the Quran perceives or preaches. We are hopeful a handful amongst you can do this. That is how things happen and have happened in history.”

So, the best I can do is to share my thoughts from the concluding part of an old paper of mine. Basically, I am a born optimist. The concluding part ran like this

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Quote (.)

Ray of Hope:

           In its chequered history, India had once grown and developed a civilization which has stood the test of time. It suffered foreign incursions, loot, plunder, murder on unprecedented scale. Then, the country suffered foreign rule, both Muslim and British. The 1000- year Muslim rule could not affect the civilisational ethos; may be they were unable to break the Hindu valour and  moral courage.  But, the Britishers (Lord Macaulay leading the way) divined and understood the source of resilience of the Indian culture and hence seriously attacked and changed the basic educational system of the country. It produced both positive and negative results. The positive aspect is often forgotten. The introduction of the western education resulted in the flowering of what is called the “Bengal Renaissance”, the intellectual precursor of the Indian national movement. It produced among others men like Rammohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda. Confining to Swami Vivekananda, the man who changed for ever the religious discourse in the world and put India/Hinduism on the world stage, C. Rajagopalachari had said, ‘Swami Vivekananda saved Hindustan and saved India. But for him, we would have lost our religion and would not have gained our freedom”. In the language of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, “The foundation of the present freedom movement owes its origin to Swamiji’s message. If India is to be free, it cannot be a land of specially of Hinduism or of Islam-it must be one united land of different religious communities inspired by the ideal of nationalism”. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose had also said. Indians must accept whole-heartedly the gospel of harmony of religions which is the gospel of Rama-Krishna-Vivekananda”. That was the catholicity of the Hindu monk, of Hindu civilisation.

Whether this assessment holds or will hold good in today’s environment of total distrust between the two communities is a matter of perception or debate. In fact, the politically-shunned  debate has already started. Referring to a write-up “The Clutches of Communal Frenzy” in The Statesman by one Firoz Bakht Ahmed (September 8, 2013) and a panel discussion organised by The Statesman on September 16, 2013, on Who’s Afraid of a Hindu Rastra”, an informed reader rebutted in the “Letters to the Editor” column, “Communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims is nothing short of a utopian dream given the lack of spiritual insight and vision of both communities to realize the gulf of difference in the two totally distinct religious ideologies of the Upanishad and the Quran”. “How can Hinduism and Islam run on parallel lines socially, according to Ahmed, unless there is a common ground? Islam divides mankind along the lines of mumin (believer) and Kafir (non-believer). Unless there is a humanistic approach, the communal divide (between the Hindus and Muslims) will persist. Quite contrary to the theology of tolerance and peace prescribed in the Upanishads, the Quran believes in one God – the Allah and decimation of all other faiths. The demarcation between monotheism and polytheism is evident, the Hindus belonging to the latter category”.  This conundrum has remained for centuries and perhaps will perhaps remain unresolved.

Be that as it may, we strongly believe Swami Vivekananda, the destiny’s child, still remains the only hope before the beleaguered nation. Much in tune with the Indian civilisational ethos, Swamiji in his final message at Chicago on September 27, 1893, had underlined: ‘Upon the banner of every religion will soon be written, in spite of resistance: Help and Not Fight, Assimilation and not Destruction’, “Harmony and Peace and not Dissension”.

Unquote (.)

It will also be relevant to quote the great jurist and the former of Union Education Minister, Shri M.C. Chagla:

Quote (.)

“I am a Muslim by religion; but by culture and race I am a Hindu. All Muslims of this country are Hindus”-

*MC Chagla, former Union Education Minister*

Unquote (.)

Well, Javed bhai, I think if we start from that base, we can make some positive progress. Incidentally, it would be excellent if it is possible to locate some friends of your bent of mind.

Love and regards,

Nath

(Or, if you would like “Dhaneshda” or simple “Dada”)

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Dada

I am sorry for responding late. I was out of Delhi to deliver a lecture at Allahabad on “Present political scenario and the role of Muslims”.

I would like to say a few things in response to your letter:

 

  1. We can always debate about any other ideology/religion only on the basis of what that ideology accepts and regards its principles and not on what they do not accept and regard as their principles. Unfortunately, most of the Hindu critics of Islam keep criticising Islam for what it does not accept its position or policy or principle. For example if some hater of India in Pakistan keeps blaming India for being a monarchy rather than a democracy, would it carry any sense? If anyone wants to criticise India, he will have to do so on the basis of India’s principled stands on democracy and secularism.

This is common problem of all ideologists that they tend to highlight the differences rather than similarities with other ideologies. Some Muslim scholars do also try to argue that there cannot be any meeting ground between Hinduism and Islam because Islam professes pure monotheism while Hinduism allows even the worship of a mouse or snake, and wherever Hindus find some power, they start worshipping it not realising that the ultimate source of power is ONE SUPREME GOD the creator and sustainer of the whole universe. But the majority of Islamic scholars (taking a clue from Quran) try to focus on the similarities between religions, their common source of origin, their being extension or older version of each other, and try to blame the differences on the ground of the distortions in the original text by the later priests or scholars. This is why Indian Islamic scholars have, instead of rejecting Hinduism on the ground of its being a polytheistic/pantheistic religion, have tried to prove that the original Hindu scriptures in fact preached monotheism, and polytheism was a later distortion. To a Muslim mind, it is absolutely unthinkable how a human being, who is regarded in Quran as only second to God, can worship other creatures of God. Quran’s position is crystal clear. God sent lakhs of Messengers to all parts of the world and sent more than a hundred scriptures. They all established a system according to the needs of their times and regions. Muhammad was the Last Messenger and Quran the last book, where God gave the Final constitutional guidelines for all times to come, giving clear instructions of what is acceptable and what is prohibited. Islam gave a three-dimensional system based on Fundamental rights, Fundamental Duties and Fundamental Prohibitions. So Quran describes all religions as its older versions, which were perfect for their times but were subsequently adulterated by later generations necessitating new messengers and new books.

If Islamic rulers (they were in fact not Islamic but just Muslim rulers, many not following the true principles of peace and love enshrined in Quran) did not try to change Indian cultural traditions it was because they believed that Hinduism too had their origin in God’s messengers, and Islam is only an extension and final version of Hinduism. In one of my recent articles I argued that Dussehra, Diwali and Eidul Adha should be celebrated by Hindus, Muslims as well as Christians because Ram and Abraham (of Bible and Quran), regarded as the ancestor of Muhammad, were the one and the same figure. If you are interested, I can send that6 article to you. Britishers on the other hand were guided not by the religious beliefs of Christianity but by the modern ideologies based on economic fundamentalism and the hegemony of West. While the aims of Muslim rulers was to assimilate as well as get assimilated bringing a common culture into existence, the aims of Britishers was to just establish Western hegemony. Muslims had many positive influences on Hindus. They helped in the revival and/or strengthening of monotheistic trends within Hinduism, and changed many cultural ethos. The present Indian culture is neither a pure Hindu culture nor a pure Muslim culture. It is the mixture of the two including Hindi language which is the mixture of Sanskrit and Persian, dress code and eating habits.

Eulogising people like Karim Chhagla as an ideal Muslim by Hindus is equivalent to eulogising Nehru or Rahul Gandhi or a Shashi tharur or Prakash Karat as the ideal Hindu by Muslims. As I have argued that all true followers should be given the right to strongly believe in their religion as the best, and we should condemn only those who spread hatred or myths against other religions or communities.

Every protagonist of religion or ideology tries to paint itself as the best. But the problem comes when instead of describing its positives, one starts describing others’ negatives, especially because those “negatives” are creations of his own mind. For argument sake, I can quote hundreds of passages from Hindu scriptures and Hindu ideologues that speak of violence. I can argue that Hinduism is the only religion where festivals are dedicated to victories in wars, where all the major bhagwaans are shown carrying weapons and where all the major scriptures have wars as the dominant theme.

There is absolutely no question of making even the slightest change in Quran. Quran is the word of God, and any human being cannot have the audacity to change or demand a change in the word of God.  We are however always ready to give explanations or clarifications if they are sought with good and not hostile intentions. Hostility breeds hostility, but we do not like to be hostile even if provoked.

If you want to study, I can send you through email the manuscript of my book, “A Systematic Study of Quiran”. That will give you an idea of what are the established positions of Islam.

Lastly, I would say that we follow Indian culture, and Indian means bhartiya or Hindi, not Hindu. But if a new authentic definition of “Hindu” is given agreed upon by all Hindu scholars, we can then certainly take a stand on whether we will like to call ourselves Hindus or no more. Most Hindus however do not know that the word “Hindu” was given by Muslims and is nowhere seen in the scriptures of Sanatan dharma.  You will be surprised to know that Muslims have better claim to ask Hindus to start thinking themselves as potential “Muslims”, which is a much more inclusive term.. According to Quran, every new born human being is a Muslim because “Muslim” means “one who finds peace in submission to God, the Lord of all the creatures and laws of the universe” and a newborn child follows only and only the laws of God. He becomes a polytheist or kaafir (rejecter of God’s Laws) when after growing up instead of finding the messages of God, he starts rejecting him and starts worshipping other deities.

I will love to continue dialogue with Hindu organisations if they agree on the principle of not spreading hatred against each other. I again reiterate that Hindus and Muslims together can successfully challenge Westernism, which is seeking to destroy the moral fabric of mankind, family values and equality of all nations.  Muslims and Hindus together constitute about half of the world, and even politically India and Muslim countries with all their wealth can emerge as a formidable force in the world.

Profound Regards

Javed

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Thank you, Javed, for your well studied response!

It is correct the debate on subjects like this cannot be carried out on mails.
Probably, a useful exercise could be to organise an “All Faiths Dialogue” with some very carefully chosen thinkers. The first thing would be to find an able and strong moderator for the job.
Let us think over this and its modalities.
Loving rgds,
Dada

 —————————————————————————————————————————————————

My response

 Dada

 I really appreciate you for your magnanimity in understanding my point of view, and thinking in terms of turning it into an open dialogue with the involvement of the right-thinking elements of both communities. I would really love to see the beginning of such an exercise as soon as possible. My only assertion would be that this inter-faith exercise should not become another exercise in vain like similar dialogues, which instead of looking how to fight the Satanic forces of the world bent upon destroying the Godliness of humans and moral and family values, start attacking and defending each other’s religions.  We must focus on how this world can become cleaner, purer, healthier, more peaceful and more prosperous. And we can begin with our own country trying to make it cleaner, purer, healthier, more peaceful and more prosperous.

 Best Regards

Javed

——————————————————-END————————————————————————————

5 COMMENTS

  1. I pray and thank Allah for showing us this beautiful dialogues of debate and I am reminded of the 125th ayah of Surah Nahl (16),
    “Call them towards the path of your Lord with wisdom and right advice, and debate with them amicably. Surely, your Lord knows very well who has deviated from His path, just as He knows best who are the well guided.”

    Carry the good work doctor, May Allah protect and strengthen you always… Ameen

    Inn-Allaha ma’al muhsineen..

    Siddiq

  2. Respected Dr Javed Jamil, I am surprised to see this wonderful peace of article and astonishing reply to MR. DC Nath.. You are real Servant of Islam, who explain issues with most correct logic.

  3. Dr jamil sahab.
    hats off for wonderful and precise reply.it is true that most of people understand islam not by books.they only hear the propoganda &talk just lie about islam blantly.
    after all we have a chapter of munafiqs.
    Quran is only warning to this last human generation.thats all.
    except or not it ur choice.
    result is very soon coming after death to each human being.

  4. Excellent and mind boggling debate, which kept one glued till the very end. As brother SIDDIQ rightly referred, it has proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that all misconceptions can be cleared by wisdom and clear advice. Great job and please continue with your good work. Hope, this article inspires and motivates many more intelligent and God fearing Muslim youths to come forward and explain the Islamic way of life to all the misguided lot with their wisdom and beautiful speech, Ameen

  5. The ideas of former IB employee & an IPS against Islam just prove the oft repeated truth, the Indian state & its machinery is against Muslims. Just think of the kind of freedom these guys must be having under the new openly fascist regime.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here