Islam, how much do you really know about it?

[A-ManESL]

Even if I would want to suppose that Islam is a perfect body of teachings noble in spirit, what I wish to understand is why do Muslims tend to think that other religions are wrong? For example, do you believe that Hinduism (or Christianity) is as noble as Islam? Would you account for what you feel are differences between Islam and other religions as merely differences in expression from a different point of view and not inherently untrue? I feel you would be unable to accept this proposition. Would I therefore be wrong in saying that in the end this is what Islam teaches - that it is the only true religion and all other religions are trash?

You have a misunderstanding. Islam does not teach that other religions are false. The word Islam in the context of the Quran refers to surrender or inner piety and should not be confused with the whole religion. In a certain sense, it is like the "dharma". Anyway, here are some quotes from the Quran regarding other faiths.

Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians and Sabeans,
[in fact] anyone who believes in God and the Last Day, and acts
honorably will receive their earnings from their Lord: no fear will lie
upon them nor need they feel saddened.-2:62

[But] they are not all alike: among the followers of earlier revelation there are upright people, who recite God's messages throughout the night, and prostrate themselves [before Him]. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous.-3:113-114

Nonetheless, those who believe in- the prophets who dated for back in the past and those who profess Judaism and the various sects of the Sabeites and of the Sabaeans and the Christians and those who fall in line with the prophet Muhammad; whoever believes in Allah, and acknowledges the truth of Resurrection and Judgement and imprints his deeds with wisdom and piety, shall Heaven reward them for their homage thereto, and no fear nor dread shall fall upon them nor shall they come to grief.-5:69

Regarding faiths not mentioned in the Quran:

1. "Further he (the scholar Shariati quoting Hazrat Ali RA, the cousin and son in law of the Prophet) makes a mention that Prophet of Islam (i.e. Prophet Muhammad pbuh) allowed to take Jaziah from the Zoroastrian and treated them as people of the book." From the book: Sociology of religions: perspectives of Ali Shariati By Mir Mohammed Ibrahim.

2."...once the Moslems had grasped that Hinduism was not equivalent to the paganism of the Arabs; Hindus were then assimilated to the "people of the book", that is to the monotheists of the Western Semitic traditions." From the book: Understanding Islam By Frithjof Schuon.

3. "Not only have some of the most authoritative Muslim scholars during the Mughal period called the Hindus Ahl-e-Kitab, belonging to the chain of prophets preceding Islam and begining with Adam, but also some of the Muslim Indian commentators have considered the prophet Dhu'l-i-Kifl mentioned in the Quran to be the Buddha of Kifl (Kapilavastu) and the Fig tree of Surah 95 to be the Bodhi tree under which the Buddha recieved his illumination."- From the book: Sufi essays by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. SUNY Press, 1972. Pg 132

In essence, it is not a question of which religion is better then which. (Thats a silly question anyway, I feel). If you are a righteous person who is doing good and living in peace and harmony with God, in a certain sense you are already following the path, call it dharma or Islam.

Tell them, "It is all the same whether you call Him God or the Beneficent. All the good names belong to Him." ~Quran 17:110

Regards

 

[K.Venugopal]

Dear A-ManESL, Unlike Hinduism, where it is quite a tradition to interpret as we deem fit and come up with our own understanding of Hinduism and claim legitimacy for it as valid as any other, Islam does not permit that freedom. When Allah says that no other religion except Islam is accepted from anyone, that kind-of seals the debate. Even in verses where it appears that a multiplicity of approaches is permitted, it is clear that they are conditional to accepting the basic premises of Islam. The Sufis are quite liberal in their interpretation and their writings validate multiplicity of approaches to truth. But Sufis are on the fringes of Islam, if I may say so. Therefore Islam is destined to be identified for its narrow dogmatic views. This is of course not to deny the sincerity of Muslims in seeking the truth but I feel Islam is more a barrier than a prompt.

 

[A-ManESL]

Dear A-ManESL, Unlike Hinduism, where it is quite a tradition to interpret as we deem fit and come up with our own understanding of Hinduism and claim legitimacy for it as valid as any other, Islam does not permit that freedom. When Allah says that no other religion except Islam is accepted from anyone, that kind-of seals the debate. Even in verses where it appears that a multiplicity of approaches is permitted, it is clear that they are conditional to accepting the basic premises of Islam. The Sufis are quite liberal in their interpretation and their writings validate multiplicity of approaches to truth. But Sufis are on the fringes of Islam, if I may say so. Therefore Islam is destined to be identified for its narrow dogmatic views. This is of course not to deny the sincerity of Muslims in seeking the truth but I feel Islam is more a barrier than a prompt.

Perhaps you have not understood the basic premise of Islam, and the confusion lies in you treating it exactly as it a system of beliefs and traditions and not as it was thought during the time of the Prophet. The interpretation of Islam as a religion is different from the universal meaning of Islam in the Quran. The universal meaning implies living in surrender and harmony to the Unity(wahdat). In that sense it may be the Muslims are not the only people following Islam.

And Sufis are on the fringes of Islam is something no true Sufi will admit to. All these ideas are popularized by people who have little understanding of Islam or Sufism. On the contrary Sufi is just a label for a person who is following Islam totally, both internally and externally. This has been the standard position of the greatest Sufi masters throughout centuries.

I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life.
I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen one.
If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings,
I am quit of him and outraged by these words.

... Rumi

You must have heard of Hz Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer. He and his disciples, Hz Bakhtiyar Kaki, Baba Farid, Hz Nizamuddin Awliya are famous Sufis of the Indian subcontinent. Here is what he had to say regarding Islamic shariat.

: “For the seekers the first way is the shariat (Islamic laws). When the seekers on the way are devoted followers of the shariat and carry out the commands of the shariat and do not even diverse to the amount of a particle of dust from the way, then they reach tariqat (the path of Sufism). When they are consistent in that degree and follow the way of the people who have done this before them and do not for a moment transgress, then they reach the degree of ma’refat (gnosis, inner knowledge of God) and when they recognise and understand the importance of this place then light will be generated in them. If they are consistent in this degree then they go over to the fourth degree, that is the degree of haqiqat (the realisation of the Truth). After having reached this degree, whatever they ask they will receive it”.

Regards

 

[nawab]

Well, since a every person who believes in Islam becomes a representative, not that what he does is a part of the religion

On the shariah level, he is not inferior to any Muslim, but is just a common feeling if you feel that your religion is true and is given by God al mighty you would be naturally be inclined to beleive that your religion is the best,

Now regarding the other faiths, we do beleive they could be inspired at a time and now they are corrupted, e.g. i saw a National Geographic Program about the rat temple in Ragasthan where there are bout 20,000 Rats in a temple. now as a muslim point of view i can never accept a religion who permits the worship of rats, eating with them in the same utensils, letting them crawl all over you

 

[K.Venugopal]

...but is just a common feeling if you feel that your religion is true and is given by God al mighty you would be naturally be inclined to beleive that your religion is the best,

To authentically declare that one religion is better than another is to have studied both in depth. But understanding religion is not merely about studying but a lifetime of living it. From this point, it is impossible for anyone to live in two religions simultaneously as far as culture and external trappings of the religions are concerned, though a person living thoroughly in one religion may well be living in all religions. So it would be presumptions for anyone to say that one religion is better than another except that one is satisfied with the religion one is following and wishes to pursue it. This is sufficient for one to declare that one’s religion is good enough for one and ditto another’s religion for another.

Now regarding the other faiths, we do beleive they could be inspired at a time and now they are corrupted, e.g. i saw a National Geographic Program about the rat temple in Ragasthan where there are bout 20,000 Rats in a temple. now as a muslim point of view i can never accept a religion who permits the worship of rats, eating with them in the same utensils, letting them crawl all over you

This is a good example of the varieties of religious experiences extant in the world. It is quite probable that the rat temple brings forth an understanding of a different kind – that even a supposed dirty creature is part of existence and we owe it to our higher understanding to cherish its existence. Maybe such “abnormal” temples are examples by which the masters choose to teach profound truths to the common man. They may not be “corrupted” temples after all.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Perhaps you have not understood the basic premise of Islam, and the confusion lies in you treating it exactly as it a system of beliefs and traditions and not as it was thought during the time of the Prophet. The interpretation of Islam as a religion is different from the universal meaning of Islam in the Quran. The universal meaning implies living in surrender and harmony to the Unity(wahdat). In that sense it may be the Muslims are not the only people following Islam.

What you are saying is that beliefs and traditions may not often match the pristine teachings of the Quran. Beliefs and traditions can always be understood because the human element enters them and we know the human nature only too well. What is often not understood is what is in the Quran, which is said to be authored by God. How can God say that only Islam is acceptable? It is not as if by Islam God means something generic like “goodness”. God means a precise religion with precise modes of worship etc. I think God as depicted in the Quran does not measure up to human intelligence when he propositions such things.

You must have heard of Hz Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer. He and his disciples, Hz Bakhtiyar Kaki, Baba Farid, Hz Nizamuddin Awliya are famous Sufis of the Indian subcontinent. Here is what he had to say regarding Islamic shariat.

The best of Sufis glistened with the wisest of sayings but I think they had to couch their higher teachings in traditional imagery so as not to meet the fate of Al Hillaj Mansoor.

 

[A-ManESL]

What you are saying is that beliefs and traditions may not often match the pristine teachings of the Quran. Beliefs and traditions can always be understood because the human element enters them and we know the human nature only too well. What is often not understood is what is in the Quran, which is said to be authored by God. How can God say that only Islam is acceptable? It is not as if by Islam God means something generic like “goodness”. God means a precise religion with precise modes of worship etc. I think God as depicted in the Quran does not measure up to human intelligence when he propositions such things.

My friend, you have only an opinion about what God means when he says that Islam is acceptable only. I contend that this opinion is false. I can show you translations in which the relevant verse (which I think you are referring to is 3:85) is translated as follows:

And whoever follows other than surrender as a system, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers

or

And whoever seeks a way of life other than submission and surrender to God's Will, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

I have seen a Quran which translates the word Islam as peace in the verse also, (which is another meaning of Islam, often in Arabic a word has many literal meanings)

Also, regarding the word religion, it is my contention that this word is a totally European construct of comparatively recent origin, and was not present, nor implied in the modern sense, in the time of the Prophet. In the book, The meaning and end of religion, written by, Wilfred Cantwell Smith it is argued that the prophet Muhammad would have been, above all others perhaps, profoundly alarmed at any suggestion that he was starting a new religion. Smith points out that the Arabic language does not even have a word for religion, strictly speaking: he details how the word din, customarily translated as such, differs in significant important respects from the European concept.

Perhaps you would like to acquaint yourself with these ideas before you jump to evaluate other faiths. As you say, understanding religion is not merely about studying but a lifetime of living it. ...So it would be presumptions for anyone to say that one religion is better than another except that one is satisfied with the religion one is following and wishes to pursue it. This is sufficient for one to declare that one’s religion is good enough for one and ditto another’s religion for another.

Regards

 

[A-ManESL]

The best of Sufis glistened with the wisest of sayings but I think they had to couch their higher teachings in traditional imagery so as not to meet the fate of Al Hillaj Mansoor.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I am personally acquainted with Sufis and this is simply not true. They entirely believe in what they say, the genuine ones do...for they understand Islam inside out, living it externally and internally. To say what you are saying is a big insult to them. No doubt, you have percieved Islam from the outside and do not understand its full meaning.

Hallaj Mansoor's fate is but one example. There have been thousands of persecutions of thousands of people for thousands of causes. You just can't pick on one isolated case and base over 1100 years of history following it on that. To say that it dramatically affected the course of Sufism is to be ignorant of the history and development of Sufism altogether.

Many many years after Hallaj the "great turn" in Sufism came about with the works of Imam Ghazali, who gave Sufism the basic foundation, (dealing a death blow to the pursuit of Islamic philosophy in the process from which it never actually recovered). Imam Ghazali's efforts brought a change in emphasis in Islam, the magnitude of which wasn't just there before, by making people inclined towards Sufism, as opposed to theology or Philosophy. Slowly the emphasis waned over hundreds of years, but the effect remains. His influence may be gauged from the following: In 2005, political heads of virtually all Muslim states, religious heads of Muslim bodies signed a declaration called the Amman declaration, clearly accepting the validity of Sufism as shown by Imam Ghazali. I dont know what further acceptance you want for Sufism to be a part of Islam.

 

[naikaidiver]

I apologize for my ignorance since I have only recently began reading the Quran in a meager attempt to understand more. I was hoping that you could clarify a couple of verses that I found fairly disturbing in a sense that (the way that I read them from the "outside" as you say) they foster immediate suspicion of Jews and Christians. Here some particular verses I'm sorry I neglected to highlight the verse number.

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

"From those, too who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgement. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done."

As an Athiest, I bear no preference to any faith but as with any pursuit of understanding, its difficult at times to not succomb to assumption and prejudice.

Scott

 

[K.Venugopal]

Imam Ghazali's efforts brought a change in emphasis in Islam, the magnitude of which wasn't just there before, by making people inclined towards Sufism, as opposed to theology or Philosophy. Slowly the emphasis waned over hundreds of years, but the effect remains.

Your words here indicate at least that the great Sufi initiated a change of emphasis in Islam. And also that it did not quite catch on over the centuries though it is still recognized. In the context of Hinduism where everything eventually becomes an admixture of everything else, it could well be said that Sufism and Islam are one and the same thing. And Sufis, having somewhat of the spirit of Hinduism might themselves say it is one and the same thing. But you cannot deny that the vast majority of Muslims see them as heretics and if they are tolerated and unharmed today it is only because they seem to be of no consequence to Islam. Still, we hear of bombings of Sufi shrines in Pakistan and wonder.

 

[kaisersose]

You have a misunderstanding. Islam does not teach that other religions are false. The word Islam in the context of the Quran refers to surrender or inner piety and should not be confused with the whole religion. In a certain sense, it is like the "dharma". Anyway, here are some quotes from the Quran regarding other faiths.

What is your opinion on the actions of the following Kings in History?

Timur -> When he invaded Delhi, he lined up Hindus on streets, decapitated them, and made mounds of severed heads on each street. The reason was they were idol worshippers. He then looted the place (a common thief?) and carried back the spoils to his home country.

Aurangzeb -> He destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on those sites.

Taliban -> Using canons, etc., they kocked out the 2500 hundred year old Buddha face carved on the side of a mountain because it was against the Quran.

All of them were devout Moslems and believed they were following the word of Allah.

 

[Bismillah]

Both were devout Moslems and believed they were following the word of Allah.

A devout Muslim who murders and sacks Muslim cities such as Baghdad and Damascus and attacks the Ottoman Empire? Hardly.

 

[nameless]

"Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians and Sabeans,
[in fact] anyone who believes in God and the Last Day, and acts
honorably will receive their earnings from their Lord: no fear will lie
upon them nor need they feel saddened."-2:62
Regards

A-ManESL,

i found an another translation,

"Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve."
source - quran.com

in here it is 'allah' instead of god,

""For We assuredly sent amongst every people a prophet, (with the command) worship me and avoid false gods ".

im not sure, but in this verse it says out of all gods only allah is to be worshiped. In the verse you mentioned, if it means 'allah' then islam has no guarantee for people belonging to other faiths. Another idea i found in the verse is that, one should be a believer to receive reward for his good deeds.

so which translation is more correct?

and i have no idea about what it means by 'the last day' (anyone who believes in God and the Last Day), kindly share the idea...

regards...

 

[kaisersose]

A devout Muslim who murders and sacks Muslim cities such as Baghdad and Damascus and attacks the Ottoman Empire? Hardly.

In his own memoirs he has written that the destruction of Delhi was Allah's will. The people he massacred were idolators and foes of Islam. He writes about how the Hindu men not wanting their families to become slaves of Timur, had to burn up their women and children in their homes and then fight to death with his soldiers.

He did not pay his soldiers. Their income was all the loot they could pick up.

He is considered a great king in Uzbekistan with statues erected for him, etc.

 

[A-ManESL]

What is your opinion on the actions of the following Kings in History?

Timur -> When he invaded Delhi, he lined up Hindus on streets, decapitated them, and made mounds of severed heads on each street. The reason was they were idol worshippers. He then looted the place (a common thief?) and carried back the spoils to his home country.

Aurangzeb -> He destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on those sites.

Taliban -> Using canons, etc., they kocked out the 2500 hundred year old Buddha face carved on the side of a mountain because it was against the Quran.

All of them were devout Moslems and believed they were following the word of Allah.

Their actions, if so, are contrary to true Islam and the Quran. This is my opinion. And if they held the opinion that they are following Quran in doing so, I object and claim that it is not so.

 

[A-ManESL]

A-ManESL,

i found an another translation,

"Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve."
source - quran.com

in here it is 'allah' instead of god,

""For We assuredly sent amongst every people a prophet, (with the command) worship me and avoid false gods ".

im not sure, but in this verse it says out of all gods only allah is to be worshiped. In the verse you mentioned, if it means 'allah' then islam has no guarantee for people belonging to other faiths. Another idea i found in the verse is that, one should be a believer to receive reward for his good deeds.

so which translation is more correct?

and i have no idea about what it means by 'the last day' (anyone who believes in God and the Last Day), kindly share the idea...

regards...

Dear nameless,

One answer to your question can be simply that Allah is the Arabic name for God and that Arabic Christians and Jews also used the term Allah to denote God. There is also a verse 29:46 which specifically says that God of the People of the Book and of Muslims is all One.

But this answer I feel is really very incomplete. The word Allah, or God are mere labels. What is really referred to by that label is the fundamental metaphysical Reality towards which all faiths gravitate.

Tell them, "It is all the same whether you call Him God or the Beneficent. All the good names belong to Him." -Quran 17:110

Ideas have to be understood in the context of the people to which they were addressed directly. The underlying message is addressed to all, but it is cloaked within the constraints of the human words developed and used in that society. The Quran says that God's message was spread in every nation on earth and always in the language and culture of the people living there. "We never send a messenger save the language of his folk.-14:4"

To the Arabs the idea of a last day or judgement day held a specific meaning and it conveyed the intent that everyone has to ultimately face up to the consequences of his or her actions in life. It is a simple idea but dont forget the Arabs were a semi-barbaric people for whom even this had to be conveyed. To them the idea of a final judgement day one day, was not entirely unknown since they were surrounded by Jews and Christians within which faiths these ideas already existed. So it was convenient to use that terminology to convey the intent.

Regards

 

[A-ManESL]

But you cannot deny that the vast majority of Muslims see them as heretics and if they are tolerated and unharmed today it is only because they seem to be of no consequence to Islam.

Certainly I deny this...lol. Did I not mention Amman declaration. It has been endorsed universally throughout the Muslim world. It explicitly, among other things, mentions and accepts the validity of Sufism. I think that conclusively shows that only a minuscule minority of Muslims can at most oppose Sufism. Even this is not clear as to what and who these people are. Certainly no learned Muslim body has launched a campaign against Sufism as far as I know.

Even in India majority Indian Muslims are either linked to Deobandi or Barelvi movements which are both pro-Sufi movements, their founders were Sufis. But I guess you can believe what you want.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

What is the difference between Allah and the Christian God?

 

[K.Venugopal]

Tell them, "It is all the same whether you call Him God or the Beneficent. All the good names belong to Him." -Quran 17:110

Is Krishna a good name belonging to Him?

 

[A-ManESL]

The important question is what is a good name in your view?

KV I believe our faiths our based on our perception of the reality we know. While it is a fact that many Sufis considered SriRam and SriKrishna as messengers of God, but regarding ordinary people like us it is a certainly through what is written and said about them that we form our opinion about them. Hence the important thing is what an individual person percieves about these personalities. If you talk about Quran or Islam, it is silent on them, for the obvious reason that they were not known personalities to the Arabs of that period.

Certainly, speaking for myself I believe that both were carriers of spiritual wisdom. In what form were they so, it does not interest me personally. I have a specific path outlined to me by my heritage, and as such feel obliged to follow that. This certainly doesnt mean that I consider that they are irrelevant as individuals. Their actions and quotes (or of all great personalities) teach us a lot of things. In particular, I like this particular bit of the Gita: In the 18th chapter, after dwelling on with great length on the various modes and ways of living life properly and attaining God, (Karma Yog, Jnana Yog, Bhakti Yog), Krishna concludes thus to Arjuna:

You are surely loved by me;
therefore I shall speak for your benefit.
Become mentally me, devoted to me, sacrificing to me;
revere me, and you will come to me truly;
I promise you; you are my beloved.
Giving up all duties, take shelter in me alone.

Essentially speaking, after enumerating all paths and modes to God, Krishna confides to Arjun, that the best way among all is to entirely surrender yourself to me and to forget everything else.

Without getting theological, the surrendering your will to God directly, as opposed to via a circuituios path, is what SriKrishna is talking about. How can I not accept that!

This is a poem, written by Muhammad Iqbal, the famous Muslim poet, titled Ram. It was written in Urdu, so much of the beauty has been lost in translation.

Brimful with the wine of Truth is the cup of Indian thought
Western thinkers feel enraptured when they drink this spiritual drought.

Thanks to the flights transcendent of the Indian of the Indian mind,
Far above the heavens high shines the Indian star.

This country has given birth to many men of angelic worth,
Who have glorified this land with their deeds and thoughts.

India is mighty proud of Rama's sacred name,
Discerning minds respect his word as the voice of God.

The Indian evening outshines the morning of the other climes,
What a great miracle this beacon light has wrought!

Rama was a warrior great, uniquely brave at heart,
A reservoir of love abounding, pure in word and thought.

This obviously shows his own perception of SriRam, (the term he uses in Urdu for SriRam is "Imaam-e-Hind", if you know Urdu). Regarding, SriKrishna, perhaps he was of the view that he was a messenger of God (I have found a somewhat questionable source on the internet attesting to this), at any rate he considered him a great personality is evident from his writing in his Persian work "Asrar-e-Khudi" (The secret of the self)

In the intellectual history of humanity, the name of Shri Krishna will always be taken with courtesy and respect — that this great man, in an extremely captivating way, criticized his land and people’s philosophical traditions, and made the truth apparent that the renunciation of action is not the renunciation of everything. Because action is a requirement of nature, and through it arises life’s stability. Rather, by renunciation of action is meant that there should be absolutely no attachment of the heart to action and its results.

The general theme under discussion is different here, but the reverence is clear.

Similarly Hasrat Mohani's poems represent an open adulation of SriKrishna. (source).

Regards