The following corrospondence took place in a faith group;
Dear Kalyan and friends of faiths,
I am glad I could see the note from Kalyan, and am pleased to respond to it. My role as a Muslim and a Pluralist is to mitigate conflicts and nurture good will amongst people of different affiliations. Most of the conflicts emanate from miscommunication or misunderstanding.
The statement "So unless one is committed to the falsification of both the history of Islam and the core tenets embedded in the Koran - you cannot make the case that Islam was ever pluralistic." This statement could use a healthy dose of revision to encourage discussion. It sounds like that famous line "You are either with us ..."
History of Islam indeed has been falsified by the Medieval European Kings and it is time to seek the truth, many of the falsities of Islam are recycled continuously and no one had the time to fix them. We have started the work now and some of it is at: http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/ .
Finding the truth is one's own responsibility. What has been dished out by the early European Kings who paid the guys to deliberately mis-translate the Qur'aan and called it a Mohammedan Cult to rouse their subjects against the invading Arab Kings. A religious label to either group would not make sense, the kings of medieval times simply raided and annexed next door lands - that was the case with Kings every where with a few exceptions, those kings were no angels. Selectively naming them kings as Muslims is propaganda to malign a group to make their own good. They had no other business than robbing the next land, either they were insecure or simply greedy. Much of the "paid" mistranslation is documented extensively -some of it is at http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/
I pray that you consider finding the back up for this sentence "history of Islam and the core tenets embedded in the Koran". Let the truth flow from your personal research and understanding rather than what is passed on for a millennium.
No religion teaches any to hate others. I am blessed to see the goodness embedded in each faith, and I have taken an oath to defend every faith for their divinity. I am one of the biggest non-Hindu defenders of Hinduism, non-Jewish defenders of Judaism, non-Atheist defender of Atheism. We have to find the truth on our own, and not work from dished out material.
Every act mentioned below goes against the very grain of Islam. Religion came into being to bring a balance in any given society to an individual and what surrounds him. (My speech if you have the time: http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2009/04/mike-ghouse-honored-by-rcc.html ) Whenever or wherever there is adharma (un-righteousness) Lord Krishna in Bhagvad Gita says, I will appear and bring the righteousness back. God in the Qur'aan says that to every nation, every community and every tribe, I have sent a spiritual master to bring justice and balance to that society. There is a presumption in every faith, in this case Hinduism and Islam that "Adharma" keep creeping in and some one has to come and fix it. The Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews or whatever faith it is, most people get it and some don't.
We cannot draw conclusions on the basis of those who don't get it. Islam is as pluralistic (http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.html ) as every faith, yet we see obvious flaws in the practitioners of Islam as in "every", yes "every" faith with no exceptions. Our judgments should be based on truth and must be open to open ended discussions.
Thank you.
Mike Ghouse presides the World Muslim Congress a think tank with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world and vice-Versa. His message reaches to over 12,000 Muslims across the world.
In a message dated 4/20/2009 9:28:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time, kalyanxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Sxxxxa,
One can argue for one's personal belief in Pluralism while being a Muslim - But it would be somewhat far fetched to argue for Pluralism in Islam.
Islam has from its very genesis been the very anti-thesis of Pluralism. Even the basic Kalima 'La Ilaha Il Allah Muhammad Ur Rasool Ullah' to my knowledge is a claim of the exclusivity of Allah and Muhammad.
If you look at the history of Islam, central to its expansion is the systematic annihilation of other religions - whether the Parsi religion of Persia (Zoroastrian) or the original Egyptian religions or Buddhist, Hindu in Afghanistan / Pakistan etc.
So unless one is committed to the falsification of both the history of Islam and the core tenets embedded in the Koran - you cannot make the case that Islam was ever pluralistic.
Sorry about my bluntness, on this matter. My sympathies are with the Muslims who are born into the Islamic faith and are therefore constrained to defend it. But it would be far more honest to say that Islam has never been pluraslitic - nor will it ever be.
Kalyan
Dear Mike
ReplyDeleteI am commenting upon a few of the mails I received from you, which cover different issues. Four in all as briefly as I can.
1- “History of Islam indeed has been falsified by the Medieval European Kings and…….†And, I might add our own historians too, presenting us with a contrary picture to what Quran stipulates about the first momins- believers.
The early Muslims, that is the first string of companions (Sahaba) of Prophet Muhammad are depicted by historians as being engaged in fierce battles amongst themselves for supremacy of power where thousands if not hundreds of thousands were supposed to have been killed! Examples such as the battles of Siffin and Jamal.
The Quran states in verse…but they were compassionate amongst each other 48-29. Add to it 6-159 , 30-32 , 5-35, 3-102 etc for good measure.
If we believe in Qura’n we have to believe in this statement. Besides how was it possible that within less than half (a) century (a)-there were so many Muslims around to be killed and (b)- then despite this Muslims were able to spread so far and wide??
2- “you don't start out denigrating other's faith or claiming yours is superior, that would simply turn the other person off and no dialogue takes placeâ€.
This advice is Quranic—Revile not those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God. 6-108 and 22-40. Simple!
3- “One can argue for one's personal belief in Pluralism while being a Muslim - But it would be somewhat far fetched to argue for Pluralism in Islamâ€.
This statement clearly contradicts Quran-- and to discuss the issues with them in beautiful manner 16-125. Here the issue is of intellectual engagement and not of “religious’ enmity which is a separate subject and would come under ‘intolerance’.
In the situation of hostility, overtly or covertly, Muslims are expected to defend themselves and be on guard. Complacency is not part of Quran, neither is turning the other cheek.
4- “Islam has from its very genesis been the very anti-thesis of Pluralism. Even the basic Kalima 'La Ilaha Il Allah Muhammad Ur Rasool Ullah' to my knowledge is a claim of the exclusivity of Allah and Muhammadâ€
Here I have to sympathise with Kalyan and expect to get in troubled waters. Never the less I give my reasons as follows, common references abound in Quran:-
God had sent Messengers in all nations prior to Muhammad and as such my belief in their messenger-ship is a prerequisite to being a momin.
They all brought the same message, and God dose not differentiate between any of them. Hence they are all equal in status and the in requirement of my belief.
Some are named in Quran but many are not, it says.
Muhammad as God’s prophet -Rasool- is referred in the Quran four times, but never even once joined to the sentence laillahaa illallah. Had it been so, it would be an inherent contradiction, of which I am convinced .there are none.
Hence as a Momin- believer- it is not correct that I differentiate and single out one out of many to establish my creed. Not only this is a contradiction but is clearly akin to personality cult which is not allowed in the Book.
The only specialty of Muhammad is that he is the ‘seal of prophets’. If the kalimah were to include this aspect of Muhammad, it could not be disputed in the context of the Book and the purpose of the title could be discussed intelligently.
Therefore “the exclusivity†is a religious tenet, not Islamic.
The insistence of Muslims lately, to use the Arabic word ‘Allah’ when talking in other language, eg English, is also a sign of that religious exclusivity and no wonder it scares away others from accepting the universality of the one creator of all--God and hence the universal code!
Rashid
Kalyan and Mike,
ReplyDeleteIt depends how you define Puluralism, there could be multiple meaning of pluralism,
a) Promoting coexistence.
In case "a" Islam is the only religion which can coexist with all the other religions, the greatest example of all time is our Porphet Mohammed peace be upon him had never forced anyone to accept Islam during the time when Muslims conquered Mekkah. I myself am a strong believer that Islam brings peace and protection to all living beings.
b) A term used to describe the acceptance of all religious paths as equally valid.
In case "b" Islam describes all is falsehood either people have self generated religions or they have made ammendmants to the earlier messages, Islam is the only pure religion of God, there is no compromise.
Islam is the final and complete religion, wether you like it or not, we Muslims have a job to spread the word of Allah, you will be accountable for your own path. No PRACTICAL Muslim will force Islam on to others, Sura Al-Kafiroon clearly defines case "a" that there is no compulsion in Islam
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Say (O Muhammad (SAW) to these Mushrikûn and Kâfirûn): "O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar)! (1) "I worship not that which you worship, (2) "Nor will you worship that which I worship. (3) "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. (4) "Nor will you worship that which I worship. (5) "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)." (6)
It clearly says to leave them as they are, spread the message let them be the judge to choose what is right and wrong, in the end they will be accountable.
-Ovais