From my NDTV blogs

Sunday, September 3, 2006
Dear Ruzan - on Muslims doing pooja and all that
My dear Ruzan,
You ask, if a Muslim does pooja, what does he do - is it not to pray to someone (other than God) as a God and in a different way (a way not prescribed by God)? How can you, as a devote Muslim, frame such questions? To whom can Man pray but to God? No Hindu offers prayers to anyone else other than God. Just because his way of offering prayers to God is different from a Muslim’s, does it mean that the prayer is per-se different? If man has so many ways to communicate with one another, that is, many languages, why wouldn’t he have many ways to communicate with God? Does Allah say in the Quran, “You shall pray to me in this way and no other?”
If Islam says there is only one God, than how can a Muslim believe that it is possible for anyone to pray to a God that Islam says is not there? Hinduism does not say there are many Gods - but it does say that the one God is expressed variously. (It means both – that the one God expresses Himself variously – which Islam somewhat accepts when it says that messengers were sent before Mohammad too – and that the devotees express their divine experience variously). This is probably the big difference between the Islamic vision and the Hindu vision – the Hindus have been given the freedom to express their religious experience variously whereas the Muslims are to express themselves only in the officially prescribed manner!

My friend Ruzan, one day I would like to tread into new territory with you and open up the subject of spirituality. When I start talking about spirituality, then actually it will be a talk from an individual to an individual. Religion has today come to mean religious identity. You identify yourself as a Hindu or a Muslim. The truth is that all religions are teachings seeking to take man to his core - his soul – and awakening him to his spiritual nature, thereby awakening him to freedom. But most of us seem to have missed it. Religion has come to be our identity tag, one more badge upon our chest of ego.

Meanwhile, let me continue in response to your blog. You say Islam forbids idolatry. I had earlier pointed out that using the word Allah in worship is itself idolatry but you said you do not think so. Well, lets agree to disagree on this.

You say you can’t be a Muslim by force. But this is not true in application. All Muslim or Hindu children are brought up as Muslims or Hindus. However, the Hindu is allowed the freedom to choose his religion when he grows up whereas there is no such choice granted by Islam. Death is the punishment if you leave Islam. (The law of apostasy.) Can you deny this?

When you say you can’t accept Islam in part but have to take it as a whole faith, it implies that once you enter, there are to be no more questionings. The consequence is not spiritual growth but blind faith.

Quran, you say, says faith (Imaan) is a must to be a Muslim. Well, the Bhagwad Gita too talks about faith (Shradha). But in the Hindus’ case faith is only the beginning of a journey that ends in Self-realisation – that you are God. (It is a long journey, over many lifetimes.) Am I right in saying that for the Muslims, faith remains just that - that for obedient behaviour God will reward you on the day of the Judgement?

Dear Ruzan, you appear to have made a very un-Islamic statement when you said, “A believer is free to do whatever he thinks right.” I am afraid Islam does not permit such liberty to the Muslims. If in any Muslim country a Muslim is caught performing Ganesh pooja, he would be tried for apostasy and in all probability executed - it is not left to Allah for deciding his fate on the day of the Last Judgement!

You ask what good a pooja would do to a Muslim who would have no faith in it? Why, it will only fortify his faith in Allah, showing him in what wonderful ways he can approach Allah. You would of course ask, “But how can any Muslim do anything that Allah has prohibited him to do?” Well, this is the crux of the Muslim dilemma – being trapped in a narrow interpretation of the Quran – it is time at least Indian Muslims sought to see Islam in the light of the Sufis. (I think your statement that Sufis are not Muslims would be contested by the vast majority of Muslims in India who throng to Sufi shrines like that in Ajmer.)

You say Muslims are not scared of fellow humans but only of Allah. I say, don’t be afraid of Allah either – why do you fear that which you actually are?

Love,
Venu
6:39:38 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (4) Politics


Saturday, September 2, 2006
Let there be a flashpoint on 7th September!
No, I do not mean of the violent kind. First, let’s see clearly that this ‘compulsory’ business of singing Vande Mataram is restricted only to educational institutions. Let us also understand that educational institutions wouldn’t be educational institutions if there is not an overwhelming aspect of compulsoriness in its affairs, right from seeking admission within a specified time, to attending classes punctually up to home work, sitting for exams and all that. Actually, this compulsory stuff at schools leads to discipline. And this discipline it is that leads us to true freedom. Without discipline freedom is only licentiousness.
Insha’llah, this generation of ‘forced’ September 7th Vande Mataram singers would sing it voluntarily when they leave schools. Then, patriotism in-bred, we need not even talk about it – it would simply be a natural phenomenon for all Indians. Let thus 7th September be a flashpoint of patriotism. OM TAT SAT!
Insha’llah, this generation of ‘forced’ September 7th Vande Mataram singers would sing it voluntarily when they leave schools. Then, patriotism in-bred, we need not even talk about it – it would simply be a natural phenomenon for all Indians. Let thus 7th September be a flashpoint of patriotism. OM TAT SAT!

9:49:47 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Politics


Friday, September 1, 2006
Muslims doing pooja, much less reciting Vande Mataram, is not un-Islamic.
Muslims' justification in refusing to sing Vande Mataram is that Islam does not allow worship of any other than Allah and by bowing to the Motherland they would be breaking the Quranic injunction.
This is illogical because the Quran has prescribed the ritual of worship of Allah and any other form is not recognised by Islam as worship of Allah. Therefore even if a Muslim goes to a temple and performs puja, since it is not worship of Allah in the prescribed way, it is, according to Islam, no worship at all. Then where is the problem? He is asked to worship in the prescribed manner 5 times a day and only if he fails to do this is he breaking any injunction. If this be so, then reciting Vande Mataram would not make a Muslim any less a Muslim.

7:00:58 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (11) Politics


Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Ruzan Shah - Venugopal Hindu-Muslim dialogue continues
Dear Ruzan Shah,
Unless we define the word ‘idol’, we are getting nowhere. In our context, discussing religion and all that, including Hinduism, idol simply means a reflection or representation of the divine or God. Allah, the word as uttered by man, represents Allah who is the creator and who is beyond our grasp. Therefore, Allah the word for man is an idol, in the form of sound and language. The Ka’aba, the Quran and Mohammad (with some special prayers after his name every time you utter his name) are all idols because they represent the divinity of Allah. You might be worshiping only Allah, but since you cannot worship Allah without the aid of Kabaa (for direction), the Quran (for the words of prayers) and Mohammad (for without him would you have known Allah?), they are all idols you worship in Islam, without you conceding it, because it is said in the Quran “Thou shall not worship idols.” Hindus too are only worshiping the creator or the ultimate or whatever they choose to call him through various idols. Therefore, I say, the Hindu and the Muslim, both being human beings, have no escape from being an idol worshipper.
That Islamic culture is intolerant is easily proved by the fact that in most Muslim countries, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. And Islam itself is intolerant is proved by the fact that Islam teaches that it alone is the true religion and that all other religions are of lesser value and its followers are Kafirs.

You say Shariat is there to show all the people how to live a peaceful civilized life. Saudi Arabia, which is being run on the basis of shariat, as was the Taliban regime, are hardly the epitomes of peaceful or civilized societies. Saudi Arabia is more a police state than a peaceful state. And the Taliban was hardly a civilized entity, its greatest triumph having been the blowing up of Buddha idols in Bamian.

I agree the Shariat has been intact in its original pure form, but it is an obscurantism in the modern world. Instead of adjusting the Shariat to cope with the modern world (which you can’t, as it is part of Quran and not a world can be altered), Muslims are attempting to change the world according to the laws of Shariat! It is simply unfeasible because the Shariat has not taken into account the progress the world has made since the middle ages. On the other hand, the Shariat portion of the Hindu religions, called Smriti, is not a collection of dead laws being sought to be imposed on the world. The Hindu culture allows new elements to be incorporated in its ever living Smiriti, so much so that we have now come from Manusmirti to Ambedkar smirti, as we could call the Indian constitution. I would go the extent of saying that the greatest failing of Islam is that it is stuck with the Shariat. Islam without being stuck with the Shariat would be more like Sufism.

If you say the Shariat says that “idols can’t even help themselves because they are dead stones and have no life” and thereby proof that idols are useless, I ask you, isn’t the Quran also a dead thing without life. Would you thereby consider the Quran as a useless thing?

You say Allah ordered stones to recite the Quranic verses and sure enough it did so. This is a logical fallacy. Allah you say has no shape or size or anything of that sort. So who saw or heard Allah ask the stones to obey His command. Actually, Allah spoke only to Mohammad. Did anyone else hear even the Quranic verses that Allah spoke to Mohammad. Even Mohammad cannot claim that he saw Allah. (Or can he calim so, having flown up on a flying horse to heaven to meet Allah?) He at best only heard Allah. So please tell me how this story of stones reciting Quran arose.

Henceforth I think you should say “Mohammad said, as was recorded in the Quran”, and not “Allah said”, because nobody else has heard Allah speak except Mohammad, and we have only Mohammad’s word for it. Am I right?
It is quaint that you say of anything that the Quran does not explain, like as to why Mohammad was the last prophet or why Allah sent the last message to the Arabs, with the words “that’s Allah’s wish, nobody can question that”. At least you are modest.
You talk of the contradictions in Hinduism, failing to understand that the so-called contradictions are only the One Truth being expressed variously. Islam, the One Truth being expressed in a single way, is actually full of contradictions. I of course came to know about it from some Internet sites. If you wish to know which Internet sites are saying so, I shall inform you.

There are many ways to God and each way is a particular religion. Hinduism is the culture that endorses the various ways to God. Hinduism is not just one religion. It is a culture of many religions.
Love,
Venu

10:12:49 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (5) Politics


Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Vande Mataram - do not recite, but at least stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest
I must congratulate one of our bloggers Mr. Ashram Prasad for raising the point that Muslims have no compunction about reciting the Azan 5 times a day, 365 days a year, thereby forcing the Hindus also to compulsorily hear it. But they are not willing even for once to stand in line with the Hindus while Vande Mataram is being recited.
Indeed, if singing the Vande Matram is tantamount to worshiping another instead of Allah, is listening to it being sung as bad?
I think Muslim school children ought to at least be instructed by their elders to attend to the function and stand with the others while the song is being sung, even if not actually reciting it themselves. This way Muslim children will eventually come to appreciate Vande Mataram.
Is this asking too much of the Muslims of India?

11:48:07 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (4) Politics


Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Ruzan Shah correspondence - Hindu-Muslim dialogue - Part VI

Dear Ruzan Shah,

You missed my question. My question was, can you think of Allah without using the word Allah? Of course you cannot. Thereby, you cannot deny that you are also onto idol worship. If the Hindus worship an idol made of stone, you worship an idol made of sound. I did not say Allah is sound, just as no Hindu would say that the stone is God. It is just made of stone so that we can conceive God by the sense of our sight; likewise there are the names of God made out of sound so that we can conceive of God by our ears. So partner, we are all idol worshippers.

For your information (because you seem to be forgetting these things) you have the granite idol of Aswath placed in the giant cubic idol of Kaaba. You say you do not worship the Kaaba or the Aswath. Unless we define the word ‘worship’, we are going nowhere. But I know that it is obligatory at the Haj pilgrimage to kiss the Aswath. Because of the crowds, it would be good enough to touch the person in front of you who would be touching the person in front of him upto someone touching the person who is actually kissing the Aswath! As a matter of fact, the entire pilgrimage of Hajj is made up of rituals that we Hindus perform in our temple 365 days a year but which Muslims perform in Mecca only, and not in any other mosque in the world, in the few days of the Hajj.

Please quote me the Agni Rahasya or tell me the site I can go to to learn about it. If I cannot understand, I shall ask for your guidance.

You say we are discussing religion and not culture. What is there to discuss about religions? If you have known one religion, you have known all religions. The so-called differences are only in external ornamentation and not in the spirit. We have indeed to be talking about cultures – the Islamic culture of intolerance of other religions and the Hindu culture that believes that there are many ways to God.

By religion is meant teachings of a particular way to God. As there are many ways to God, there are bound to be many religions.

I used the term ‘systems’ to mean the various laws that societies have had to live under in different ages. Like the laws of Manu in an earlier age, for instance, which eventually rigidified the caste system. Or the laws of the Shariat under which Muslims are bound to live, but is today a cause of conflict with other civilisations.

We both agree that God sent messages to all peoples and in all languages. My question is, why has God suddenly decided to stop doing it and sent the last message to the Arab people through Mohammad?

There is nothing like an original version or later version of Hinduism. You are alluding to such things only because you continue to hold that Hinduism is just one single religion. Hinduism is the collective of all the divine experiences of man and his spiritual expressions. It is not just the expression of a single man named Mohammed, which is what Islam is.

Love,
Venu


10:30:41 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (1) Politics


Saturday, August 26, 2006
The Ruzan Shah correspondence - A Hindu-Muslim dialogue - Part V

Dear Ruzan Shah,

Muslims quote the Quran to say that Allah has no family. But I think Muslims have by and large chosen to read the Quran literarily. The Sufis appear to have got more into the spirit of the Quran and they would certainly say that Allah has a family and we, his creation, are his family.

If you believe that the Vedas prophesied the birth of Mohammad thousands of years before his birth, I have no problem. Do tell me, what exactly did they say about Mohammad? That he would be the final messenger of Allah? Muslims are really stretching their imagination on this one!

When you say God has no pratimas or pictures, what you are saying is that Islam prohibits man from having pratimas or pictures of his concept of God or the divinity. Hindu culture does not restrict anyone from expressing his religious or spiritual experiences. Thus, Hinduism - the colourful culture.

You say that Allah has spoken not just to the Arabs but to peoples of all races and ages. He would have certainly spoken to the Hindus too, largely in Sanskrit though. And since God is unlikely to have contradicted himself and yet we see so much differences of approach to God, we have to conclude that religions are more about Man’s hearing than God’s speaking. This must surely be so, particularly since Muslims have only one Quran - of which not a comma has changed since the prophet first uttered it - and yet so many sects and sub-sects are flourishing. If Hindus have manifoldly more sects and sub-sects, it is only because their religions are older.

Praying to man’s expressions of his divine experience is just another way of praying to God. I challenge you to pray to the creator or the ultimate without using the word Allah. If you can’t, you are also in the idol worshiping category. If you can, then get rid of the idol made of sound called Allah. You will then come to the Hindu concept of Nirguna Bhraman.

Let me make it clear. When I say Hindu culture, I mean the general atmosphere of acceptance of many ways to God and by religion I mean the special way you choose for yourself to reach God. Hindu culture has nurtured and nourished innumerable religions down through the ages.

Love,
Venu


12:29:20 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (1) Politics


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 (2) Politics


Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Again, to Ruzan Shah

Dear Ruzan Shah,

You are pretty fast in your replies. It means you are ready with facts on your fingertips. Congratulations. Excuse me if I am slower, but I shall definitely strive to keep our conversation going. I can see that you are a very sincere person.

1. I said that you ought to judge a religion by the best of its followers, not the worst. You have only to compare Maulana Mawdoodi and Ramakrishna Paramahans to know the difference between the best of Islam and the best of Hinduism. The former was intolerant of differing religious views while the later was an epitome of accommodating all sorts of religious views.

2. I would say that Umma is a community of not just any good people, but those who believe in Islam. Umma means universal brotherhood of the believers, i.e. Muslims, only.

3. Caliphate was simply and purely a political entity. Where is the Caliphate today?

4. Translation by Mr. Picthall is the very one I read. I have always admired the brilliance of his language – comparable to the King James’s version of the Bible.

5... You say that if you want to understand the Quran perfectly you have to read it in its Arabic original. This might be so. But what of us poor folks who are not Arabic or did not have the opportunity to learn Arabic? Can we never know the Quran perfectly? Do we have to take the word of an Arab to know its meaning? No wonder someone talked about Arabic Imperialism in Islam.

6... Of course there are no words like Shia or Sunni in the Quran. This is because these phenomena appeared after the appearance of the Quran. Sunnis and Shias are really the consequence of the battle for Mohammad’s throne after his demise. Nothing religious about it. Purely political in the name of religion. (We have a lesson here vis-à-vis the terrorists of today. There are a purely political phenomena in the name of religion.)
7.. I said Hinduism is a culture – a culture of religions and spirituality. Systems are what could come under the term Smriti – the changeable, like Manusmriti. Shruti is that vision which is eternal as of the Vedas. A parallel could be the Shariat and the Quran. (Though Muslims say that both are one and the same, they will sooner than later realize the difference between both, what with all the Talaq, Talaq, Talaq debates going on.)

8. If you say your God gave His final word to you, that is OK. But you have no right to say that God gave the final word. God is so many things to so many people. What it is to you is only your own little faith, wholly valid for you as others’ faith are wholly valid for them.

9. Look, I think you are missing the whole point of spirituality when you speak of final authorities. Krishna, Rama, Budhha, Jesus, Mohammad etc. are only people who have had a high level of spiritual experiences and they have expressed it variously and they have been celebrated by the followers each in their own way and culture. No Hindu expects all Hindus to take any of them as the final authority. That is upto the individual Hindu’s experience and preference. Still, if asked to say what has been the Hindu culture’s final authority, I would say that throughout the ages it has been the Vedas(with its ultimate message to man – thou art perfect!). But even here, those who have rejected the Vedas have also been accepted as Hindus.

10. Muslims keep saying that there is only one God. I think the Hindus go one step better by saying that everything is God, or there is only God. (I have always felt that the famous verse of Quran – La illah illa-Allah actually means this - that there is only God - and not that there is only one God.)

11. Islam is not the refinement of all religions. The refinement of all religions is spirituality and spirituality is better represented by Sufism than Islam, certainly.

12. When you talk of the last prophet, what you mean to say is that the clock stopped in the middle ages with Mohammed.

13. Quran is not the updated final version for all mankind, as you say. It might be so for the Muslims - for within the Muslim world you disallow the coming up of any new religions. There is a blanket ban on any other religions, actually. But outside the Muslim world, many spiritual savants have come after Mohammad. What about the founder of the Bahai faith, of the Sikh faith, of the Sai faith etc? Why, Sai Baba claims he is an Avatar (a whole lot more than a messenger) or even God, and his followers believe so.

14. I must confess I do not know what is the Agni Rahasya of Vedas or that “Vedas was there in Vedas 5000 years ago”. You might want to enlighten me, if you may please.

15. You talk about Sufism taking on Islam. Why would anyone want to take on Islam. It is quite possible that Sufism pre-dates Islam and they wanted nothing but the freedom to express themselves, which Islam did not allow. However, to the greatness of Sufis, they never confronted Islam but instead sought to merge into Islam, and spread their radiance from within.

16. If Quran was there from the beginning, then why did Allah have to dictate the whole thing again to Mohammad? Does it mean that the Quran we have at present will be lost once more and Allah will have to find a new Mohammad to dictate it to again?

Please do write.

Love,
Venu

11:13:26 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (3) Politics


Tuesday, August 22, 2006
To Ruzan Shah again
Dear Ruzan Shah,

Thank you for your response.

1. You say you cannot judge a religion from its followers. But how else can a religion be judged except by its effect on at least the best of its followers, that is, the most ardent of its followers? It is, unfortunately, a general phenomenon that the most ardent of Muslims are the folks who gang up to create a Taliban, Hizabolah, the Wahaibi movement, the Jamait-e-Islami and suchlike institutions, who tolerate no divergence of views.

2. You also say that you cannot judge a religion by the policies of a Muslim. You are missing the point. Creation of a universal Islamic State is very important in the scheme of things of Islam. If not, why was Mohammad trying to create a state? Or what about the Caliphate? Most of all, what about the concept of Umma in Islam?

3. Further, you say that you can’t understand Allah’s words in translation. Does it mean that Allah’s words are not universal but meant solely for the Arabic speaking folks?

4. About the non-translatability of the Quran, does it mean that many Muslims, not knowing Arabic, are not able to understand the real meaning of Quranic verses? Could it also be the reason why the leadership of Islam is generally seen to be with the Arabs?

5. You say that the words of the Quran should not be changed. This I agree because this is logical. If you create anything new, it would be different from the old. We cannot have something else and pass it off as Islam. But my question is, even with an unchanged Quran, why the difference between Sunnis and Shias?

6. I did say "over a period of time all systems get corrupted”. Remember, I said systems. The Hindus would identify as systems all that is born of ‘smriti’, that is, laws like Manusmriti etc., or like our Indian constitution, which has been amended many times. That which is eternal is called ‘shruti’, which is the basic vision or spirit, like the Vedas and Upanishads, not merely the words. In the case of the Muslims, I would say that the Quran is ‘shruti’ whereas that which goes by the term Shariat is smriti. But Muslims do not differentiate this and mistake the letter for the spirit, which is why Muslims say that the Shariat is also inviolable.

7. The Quran says, "La kum di nakum wal ya din" - for you your religion and for others theirs, do yours and let them do theirs. Isn’t this, you ask, equality and even respect for all? I say it would have been equality if the Quran had accepted all religions as true. The Bhagawad Geeta does so, with Krishna saying that whichever way we choose it leads to Him.

8. You say Sufism is not Islam and it has nothing to do with Islam. By saying so, you are proving that you are also an ardent Muslim, like those I mentioned above and therefore you are also likely to be intolerant. (I say this as a principle, not to attack you personally.)

9. You say Islam is the only religion which talks again and again about Logic. But I must say that Quran itself is being illogical in saying that Islam is the only way to God. If it was so, the Quran would have been there since the beginning of history. But it came into being only after Mohammad. If you say that it was there even before Mohammad, then why did it perish? Would this Quran also in the course of time perish?

10. You ask if someone can convert to be a Brahmin. But Brahmin is not a religion so how can you convert to it? In any case because you are a Muslim, Allah has prohibited you any conversion.

11. Of course, as Islam says, you are superior by good virtues. But the point is, if you are of real good virtue, you would not consider yourself any superior to anyone else. All are equal to you.

12. Some Caliphs were considered out of sync with Islam. Were they not the reasons for many wars between Muslims?

13. As an Indian you don’t have to accept my culture but to accept your own culture, which is Hindu, just as mine. As Muslims of India, you did not come from abroad. Once your forefathers were Hindus. Therefore by culture you are a Hindu, which you cannot change, like you cannot change your father.

14. Hindu does not denote any religion but the culture of this land. And it is the culture of this land that made so many religions flourish, unlike Arabia after Mohammad, which became a wasteland as far as religious plurality was concerned.

15. Vedanta is just one of the many ways of understanding and taking to the spiritual path that India has produced. This culture of India, which we today call Hindu, was always known as Sanaatana Dharma.

Regards
Venu

11:07:54 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Politics


Monday, August 21, 2006
Reply to Mr. Ruzan Shah

Dear Ruzan Shah,

You say Islam gives even and equal rights to all the religions. It does not. In the Quran 3:85 it says: “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.”

Also you say Islam gives you the choice of following it if you like it or following another path if you don’t. If it really did, it would not have the concept of apostasy in its teachings, i.e., if you leave Islam you will be put to death.

Is Saudi Arabia an Islamic state? Anyone who has been there will testify to the fact that Saudi Arabia does not allow Churches or Temples to be put up in public places, while every nook and corner has a mosque.

While the BJP is a political party functioning well within the constitutional parameters of our country, VHP is an organisation working to instil Hindu consciousness among Hindus, who are by and large a disunited lot. RSS, on the other hand, is not a religious organisation. Its aim is to arouse patriotism in the hearts of all Indians so that we will not fail to identify the traitors amongst us who work for foreign agents trying to dismember the nation.
Godhra, as per the sequence of events reported alike in all the media across the globe, began after Hindus were burnt alive by Muslims. When the majority reacts against the minority, naturally the effects will be monstrous, whether there is a Modi or not.

About the caste system, over a period of time all systems get corrupted. Likewise, the caste system too got corrupted. In the modern times, the best of Hindu savants have always called for Hindu unity not on the basis of caste, but on the teachings of spirituality.
As you said, not all Hindus are bad and not all Muslims are bad. It is the bad folks amongst us who cause all the trouble. In fact, both Hindus and Muslims and Christians and Jews and Chinese and Americans and who have you are all basically alike because we are all human beings. Even all the scriptures of the world are only for the good of man, if properly interpreted. The problem is with people who interpret the scriptures narrow-mindedly. It is the broad-minded interpreters of Hinduism who have left the deepest influence on Hindus (like the teachers of Vedanta) and therefore today we have the legacy of a broad minded Hindu culture, whereas it appears that it is the narrow-minded Muslims who have had the deepest influence among the Muslims (like the Wahaibies instead of the Sufies) and therefore the Islamic culture today has become a narrow-minded one. The Hindu culture is very broad minded and democratic, accepting many ways to God and expression, whereas the Islamic culture is very narrow minded and undemocratic, saying that Islam is the only truth.

So you see, my friend, it is a matter of culture. I respect your being a Muslim, but that is only your religion. As an Indian, you ought to accept the Hindu culture and teach all Muslims to be broad-minded.

I am ready for any more discussion on this subject. My e-mail id is venu1005@hotmail.com.

With best wishes,
Venu
9:58:09 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (1) Politics


Saturday, August 19, 2006
Was Vavar a Muslim?
Will any of my fellow-bloggers in the know please enlighten me as to when Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala was born? It is said that Vavar was a Muslim. Was Islam extant at the time of Ayyappa?

2:58:47 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (2) Politics


Thursday, August 10, 2006
Intolerant Mohammad?
When Mohammad founded his religion, one of his first acts was to cleanse Mecca of idols. Was he not being intolerant of the religious beliefs of idol worshipers? Can Muslims' justify Mohammad's act by saying that Allah is against idol worship and therefore it was his duty to destroy idols? At best, Muslims can avoid idol worship (which they really don’t,), but what right have they to destroy idols of non-Muslims? This act of Mohammed was surely the inspiration for renowned idol smashers like Babar who destroyed Rama's temple at Ayodhya.

Muslims, if they are to come into the fold of tolerant practitioners of religion, must disown this act of Mohammad and accept the multiplicity of paths to God. Otherwise their intolerant psyche will only breed more and more terrorists in their community and tar the entire community as terrorists (this is what is happening in the world today)..
6:45:08 PM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (8) Politics

Comments
JudgementDay Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:15:30 PM
Mr. Venu,Kindly read the Hindu religious scriptures like the vedas (all four), Upanishads, Puranas etc. Idol worship is forbidden in hindu religion. The rig veda says that God does not have any images or there is no one like him or God does not have parents. All these are there in various religious scriuptures of hinduism. Kindly read the translated versions done by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan if u don't understand sanskrit. What the Prophet did was correct as all religions whether Hinduism,Islam, Christianity, Jewism, Sikhism, Zorastrarism etc talk of ONE GOD and not of multiple hand made idols and only ONE GOD to be worshipped and no idol worship.If u need more details about the quotations and details about all the religious scriptures kindly let me know ur email id, I'll gladly mail it to u :)

shyam Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:11:51 PM

The same holds good for all christians who say that only Jesus can offer salvation.Anyone subscribing to this view Publicy should be hanged to death.Same with preachers of other communities who say the same thing.For islam to survive they must stop interpreting their holy book and also stop saying that only Islam provides solution to all problems and all non believers are infidels.Secondly they need to control the Popuation and ensure thta all children study well in Schools which do not preach hatred.

JudgementDay Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:37:29 PM
Mr.ShrikkanthThe concept of judgement day is correct...then how can u justify the punishment of evildoers? People like Dawood, Osama, Bush, Blair, Saddam, Modi, Advani etc who do all kinds of evil and mischief on this earth and get away. There has to be a place for final judgement of one's deeds. Every soul shall have a taste of death and his deeds whether good or bad will be judged. There is God to judge what all the people did on earth and the good have to be seperated from evil..otherwise all the life on this earth is meaningless.

shrikkanth Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:38:48 PM

Judgement day .Queer anyway the concept of judgement Day LIKE Fathers DAY MOTHERS DAY VALENTINES DAY is a rubbish concept.So the sould will wait till it gets salvation and it will eb prmanetly hell or heaven is it ?Well hindus belive in idol worship not because of foolish reason.It gives them concentration (if they do it right)and it is from known to unknow my dear .How can u belive in a unknown entityy which i scolurless oudor less unseen unperishable.Moreover GOD IS ALL PERVADING .So why turn west and say hello to allaha ? Can u answer that ?

JudgementDay Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:22:43 PM
Hi brother amused,the symbol of 786 & moon star...no muslim treats it as God..according to shariah it has no meaning..only some deviated muslims who are influenced by the idol worship culture of hindus do it...it came into being since the time of mughal emperor Akbar whose wife was a rajput...hence many hindu cultures are imbibed into muslim culture in India...I didn't call anybody terrorists...I mentioned people who do wrong or mischief on earth leading to loss of life and property....There should be a point when they are questioned for their actions..not in this life but atleast in hereafter otherwise people will continue doing evil...same applies to any muslim terrorist or hindu terrorist or any wrongdoer...they must be punished for their actions and similarly rewarded for goodness....Out of a billion muslim population hardly a fraction of a decimal are terrorists and killers....blaming the billion muslims is not wise or sane.... and I agree that eyes closed in a still posture leads to concentration but no where the hindu scriptures say "concentrate in front of idols"...the point is idol worship - is prohibited in hindu scriptures like rig veda, yajur veda, upanishads and manusmritis. vedas are supreme books of hindus and they must follow its intructions otherwise they will be going against its teachings....peace.

JudgementDay Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:22:07 PM
mr. Shrikkanth,No muslim worships the kaaba (black stone). It is the direction for unity. People in the west turn to east and people in the east turn to west. kaaba is the centre of earth (according to geographers). All muslims turn towrds the kaaba..its a direction.When ur religious scriptures says that idol worship is forbidden and God has no images and u still follow it...then sorry to say u r going against ur religious scriptures.And moreover by praying without idols, the muslims have a higher level of concentration.No human being has seen the creator..so how can a man made idol be God? In south India we have temples and idols of filmstars..do u mean to say they r Gods? A few centuries from now no one will know who was NTR, Khusboo or Rajinikanth and the idols will be treated as Gods.

stdrgy Saturday, August 12, 2006 10:38:59 AM
Judgement Day..what is the problem with u? as per u one has to follow the religous book strictly to consider oneself religous person..why is it so? why can't an individual decide, whome he would pray in any form? i have every right to worship my God the way I want..not like some morons who wants to follow one book which was written in seventh century..every religion has to evolve with time otherwise how they would remain compatible with time? u r so proud of your religion and u feel that Islam is the only religion who follows Quran strictly..so how it benefits Islam? don't u feel that focusing on the narrowest interpretation of Quran has led muslim youth towards the path of terrorism? and for the same reason..everwhere in the world muslims are under suspicion..and you can't blame people whodon't trust you..because the whole world is facing the problem of Islamic terrorism..Islam don't want to introspect..why terrorists are getting martyr status? when everyone starts pointing fingers toward Islam..then there must something which Islam has to rectify to restore the sanity..otherwise how long one would tolerate killing of innocent people in the name of Islam?


Saturday, August 5, 2006

Political Islam

05.08.06
The biggest threat facing the world today is Islamic terrorism. It is flourishing because the world at large is not ready to face the truth that Islam, alone among all the religions of the world, is political in nature. The Islamic enterprise is incomplete till it has subjugated the whole world to the rule of the ‘QAUM’, that is, till the whole world comes to be ruled by an Islamic government, with the Shariat as the constitution.
A concerted educational effort should get underway to educate the world to the danger of Islam taking cover of a religion to fulfil its political ambition. This is the same education that Christianity went through to separate the political Church from Christianity proper, giving rise to the concept of secularism.

Instead of undertaking this basic venture to secularise Islam, mere bombarding of Muslims in the name of terrorism will only be hitting at the branches. Islamic terrorism will not be uprooted till project secularism to expose Islam’s political ambition is underway.

05.08.06

In the light of growing ‘Islamic terrorism’ world-wide, there is anguish amongst Muslims that terrorism involving Muslims are labelled as Islamic terrorism, thereby suggesting that such terrorism is religious in nature. They can see clearly that all terrorisms extant in the world today are political in nature, due to some group or the other carrying notions of being given a raw deal by the powers-that-be. The Muslims are right here. Actually, blaming Muslims for behaving the way they do is unfair because they are human and they only behave the way all humans are wont to do. Why, are’t LTTE, Naxalites, ULFA, Khalistanis all called terrorist groupings and aren't they non-Muslim? The Naxalites or ULFA, for instance, are all Hindus. Can they therefore be said to be indulging in Hindu terrorism?

Having said that Muslims are just like the others, we ought to also consider the Quran. The Quran, like other scriptures, is a document of dead letters till it is brought to life by its adherents suitably interpreting it. We must realise that there is no end to the interpretations we can have of any scripture. Why, aren’t there many schools in Islam and why so? Because each school chooses to interpret at least some aspects of the Quran in its own way.

Thus, we come to the question -where lies the blame for Islam, particularly, being associated with terrorism? The answer, of course, lies in the way the Quran is chosen to be interpreted by recoginised leaders who interpret it. For instance, while Jehad is interpreted as something about fighting wars within our own selves to overcome the debilitating weaknesses in us, many Mullahs and Maulanas interpret it as a political duty to reek vengence upon their political enemies and so on and so forth.

Therefore the solution to wriggling off the tag of terrorism attached to Islam is to have a fresh breed of Mullahs and Maulanas who interpret the Quran spiritually and not politically. Then Islam will be seen in the Sufi light and its teachings will truly bring peace upon the world at large.

10:57:53 AM
Posted By VenuGopal Comment (0) Politics