[I wrote the following in reply to a Muslim who wrote on "Enemies of Islam".]
You classify Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists among the enemies of Islam. While I might classify myself as a Hindu, I am not a Hindu fundamentalist and I do not see the possibility of any Hindu being a fundamentalist because Hinduism does not restrict itself to any fundamentals of belief. In fact, belief itself is not sine-qua-non in Hinduism. Of course, this does not mean that there are no Hindus who hate Muslims or Islam. To love and hate is human nature and there is no saying who at what time and for how long would be in the grip of one or the other of the love-hate dichotomy, whatever may be the reason or circumstance.
However, your classifying Indian nationalists among the enemies of Islam is an erroneous classification because there are innumerable pious Muslims in India who would consider themselves Indian nationalists and be ready to give their lives for India over and above anything. Therefore I think your thesis is flawed in its classifications.
Islam, as it has come to be in history, is one of mankind's most pervasive, enduring and colourful phenomena. A Muslim has no reason to be perturbed about their "enemies". As the Arabic saying goes, "Let the dogs bark, the caravan goes on." Nevertheless, nothing can remain static except pieces in museums. Therefore Islam, a living, dynamic religion hardly heading for the museums, will also change in the course of time - not change by editing of the Quran, but change by the priorities of its followers in the wax and wane of history - as with the followers of all religions. For example, war is slowly but surely becoming redundant and the world, as it is evolving, is headed for a more harmonious living together. Muslims, as all others, will stress those aspects of the Quran or other scriptures which stress on harmonious living of all peoples and any call to war mentioned in the Quran or other scriptures would be explained away as only pertaining to certain conditions which may not be existing any longer and therefore not a priority in the age of harmony. Can it be otherwise?
However, your classifying Indian nationalists among the enemies of Islam is an erroneous classification because there are innumerable pious Muslims in India who would consider themselves Indian nationalists and be ready to give their lives for India over and above anything. Therefore I think your thesis is flawed in its classifications.
Islam, as it has come to be in history, is one of mankind's most pervasive, enduring and colourful phenomena. A Muslim has no reason to be perturbed about their "enemies". As the Arabic saying goes, "Let the dogs bark, the caravan goes on." Nevertheless, nothing can remain static except pieces in museums. Therefore Islam, a living, dynamic religion hardly heading for the museums, will also change in the course of time - not change by editing of the Quran, but change by the priorities of its followers in the wax and wane of history - as with the followers of all religions. For example, war is slowly but surely becoming redundant and the world, as it is evolving, is headed for a more harmonious living together. Muslims, as all others, will stress those aspects of the Quran or other scriptures which stress on harmonious living of all peoples and any call to war mentioned in the Quran or other scriptures would be explained away as only pertaining to certain conditions which may not be existing any longer and therefore not a priority in the age of harmony. Can it be otherwise?
