| 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   | 
Islam Is A Faith Like Any Other Religion17 Jul 2007, 0017 hrs IST,Tahir Mahmood
 
 Believing in the existence of One Supreme and Omnipresent God,
 one tends to respect the spirituality of all religious faiths as the
 common heritage of mankind. If there is a God, it has to be One:
 there cannot be one God for Muslims and another for followers of
 other religions. If He is merciful and compassionate as the Qur'an
 says, He cannot reserve Heaven for one chosen community and commit
 all others to Hell.
 
 In accordance with the Qur'anic exhortation that God sent His
 messengers to all parts of the globe only some of whom the Holy Book
 names, include among them Moses and Christ, Buddha and Mahavir, Ram
 and Krishna, and give them equal respect. The Holy Vedas and the
 Bhagavad Gita are, like the Torah and the Bible, covered by the
 Qur'anic concept of suhif-il-oula or earlier scriptures.
 
 Believing in the symbolic and metaphorical nature of teachings
 of the Qur'an and all other holy books, i do not always take them
 literally and hardly adhere to any rites and rituals. I have a firm
 faith in the divinity of the Holy Qur'an, but find no sense in
 reading it ritually without understanding its meaning and message.
 Prophet Muhammad was a great social reformer whose revolutionary
 teachings were much ahead of his time. His authentic saying 'verily i
 am a human being so obey me in religious matters but not necessarily
 in worldly affairs' is the guiding principle of my life.
 
 Whatever Prophet Muhammad did in his personal life is not
 Sunnat to be blindly followed by all for all times to come.
 
 There is nothing wrong in adopting innocuous local customs.
 Everything Arab is not necessarily Islamic, too. No religion can
 claim to have a monopoly on truth. If religion has to be retained in
 society it has to be as a cementing force, not a dividing element. If
 religions create rift between people we would be happy without any.
 
 Followers of various religions claim the existence of
 rudiments, or even complete formulations, of human rights in their
 scriptures and other holy books. Cons-picuous violations of human
 rights should not take place in the name of religion. Religions are
 not ends in themselves but means to achieve justice, fairplay and
 humane solutions to all our societal and individual problems. Rigid
 rules of religion should be ignored where this ensures a more humane
 behaviour.
 
 The following is a translation of my Urdu poem: "What comes out
 of the core of my heart do i state/ Humanity is suffering, and a cure
 may i suggest i may not be keeping fast on a hot summer day/ To the
 hungry but a piece of bread i must give away/ Obligatory religious
 tax i might be failing to pay/ But a crying child i should make smile
 on my way/ ...A helping hand to cross the road i offer to the blind/
 Rather than offering to a shrine a devotional cover/ Offering a
 garment to the poorly clad do i prefer/ Flowers for worship i don't
 pick every morning/ But those thorns on the road i keep on removing/
 Ram's name i do not keep on ritually uttering/ But a promise made to
 anyone i must be fulfilling/ These values of humanism as my religion
 i cherish/ Everyone else's religion too these values be, i wish".
 
 The writer is member, Law Commission of India.
 
 
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Islam_Is_A_Faith_Like_Any_O
 ther_Religion/articleshow/2208595.cms
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Mirza Faisal Beg
<faisal_mirza@...> wrote:
 
 I believe Tahir Mahmood has his own convictions and writing or
 calling him wont change anything.
 
 As far as I can see the only error that he did was in speaking with
 conviction about including some people as the Messengers. I dont
 think he is mentioning that Quran says so but he is mentioning that
 in the Quranic spirit include them as Messengers.
 
 I will put it the other way rather. Can we say Ram, Krishna and
 Buddha were not Messengers? We cannot say so. If we cannot say so
 then does it mean they are Messengers? Again we cant be sure about
 that. So what does it mean? It just gives one option and that is to
 respect them. I remember when I was a kid I heard Ali Miyan in a
 speach (the renowned scholar from Nadwa) mention that we dont know
 whether Shree Ram (sic) or Shree Krishna (sic) were Messengers but
 they could have been and hence we should respectfully take their
 names.
 
 What is the possibility? It is actually huge. Quran says 'to every
 nation Messengers were sent', 'speaking the language of the
 people', 'some have been mentioned and some not'. The Prophet's
 Hadees is that there were around 1,20,000 Messengers sent over the
 course of history. But the Quran mentions only 25! And all those 25
 are from the area of middle east. What about those other 1,19,975!!
 We dont know.
 
 Now considering the above how many could probably have been in the
 Indian subcontinent? As a rough estimate the Indian subcontinent had
 always had around one fifth of the mankind living in this area (it is
 today and it was so even 2000 years back and logically speaking even
 earlier). So should there be 25,000 Messengers in the subcontinent?
 Too much? Okay what about 1000? :) Now who are they? How will we
 know? Definitely they cant be speaking Arabic because Quran itself
 says 'speaking in the language of the people to whom they were sent'.
 Which means they should be speaking Sanskrit, Pali, Bahmi, Tamil,
 Telugu and so on.
 
 Could these be Ram and Krishna? They could definitely be. Actually
 for Krishna there is even bigger possibility. The Prophet said there
 are three characteristics of Messengers, 'they marry, they are
 shepherds and they like perfume'. Krishna did marry, was a shepherd
 and I dont know if he liked perfume. On top of that there is a book
 Gita that is linked to him. Still can we be convinced he was a
 Messenger? We cant be. But there is a HUGE possibility. So let us
 respect them all whether we believe they were Messengers or not.
 Because if we dont, and in case they were, we violate this Quranic
 verse 'we believe in all the Messengers and we do not differentiate
 among them'.
 
 That would become one of the cornerstones of our good relations with
 Hindus and a position which is SOLIDLY rooted in the Quran and
 Hadees. So what if Hindus worship them? Even the Christians worship
 Jesus Christ, does it mean we will not respect him?
 
 And definitely there would have been Messengers to the aborigines of
 Australia, to the jungles of Africa, to the eskimos of Alaska, to the
 Mayan people and to the Incatha people and definitely thousands in
 China who would have spoken Chinese, and to Japan and to Korea who
 would have spoken Japanese or Korean. And there would have definitely
 had been Messengers to the Red Indians in America and to the ancient
 Romans.
 
 Khuda Hafiz
 Faisal
 Source: www.worldmuslimcongress.com
     |