From: dwright@metz.une.edu.au (Denis Wright)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Islam and other religions
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:52:18 GMT

[Apologies for renaming this, but the file is in a buffer and
I can't recall the back-header.  Bad historical practice, I know!]

...and it's also a bit long - apologies for this too, but it was
necessary to retain a lot of the previous commentary to make sense.

November 18, 1992                  7:56 AM


>In article <2439@grivel.une.edu.au>, dwright@metz.une.edu.au (Denis
>Wright) writes:
>
>> [and Shakil responds:]
>
>> >This is confusing.  You appear to be equating Hinduism with some form
>> >of Indian nationalism.  What are "Indian values?"  Are they not
>> >dependent to some extent on the faith which a person practices?  If
>>
>> ... deletions ...

>> Not a Hindu, but someone who has been reading and writing about
>> Indian culture for a long time.  I guess the simplest
>> definition of a Hindu is one who believes s/he is one.  From
>> the philosophical point of view, the Hindu might even say that
>> we are all Hindus, except that some of us don't recognise the
>> fact!  Christianity and Islam, e.g., are from the Hindu
>> philosophical standpoint, bhakti yogas.  From the standpoint of
>> philosophy, Hinduism does not depend on the social structure
>> which was created along with it.
>
>So you are disagreeing with the original poster, then, i.e. you don't
>think that Hinduism stands for some form of Indian nationalism?  As

         Hinduism may stand for a form of Indian nationalism.
         It may stand for a social system.  It may stand for a
         philosophical notion and it may be theologies which
         include polytheism and monotheism.  Unless the context
         is defined, it is impossible to say whether I agree
         with the original poster or not. (But see below....)

>for what you say about Hindus stating that we are *all* Hindus, that
>leads to an obvious paradox.  If we are, then all Muslims are Hindus
>too, and yet their beliefs contradict the above statement that
>everyone is a Hindu.

         There is a paradox only if your assumption about
         Hinduism being equated with Indian nationalism is what
         I was talking about.  I wasn't.  You will note that I
         said specifically "From the philosophical point of
         view..."  At the highest level, Hindu philosophy, in
         the form of Vedanta, is not culture-bound.

[Deletions]

>Clearly, if Indian nationalism is some form of prerequisite for
>Hinduism, then this constitutes a rather exclusive view of things.  A
>non-exclusive view on religion automatically results in paradoxes of
>the nature I mention above.

         Your logic is correct, but as mentioned above, your
         premise is not.  Nationalism is not a pre-requisite of
         Hinduism *as a philosophy.*

>I don't particularly see a problem with what you consider the
>"exclusive" view of religion.  Islam, for example, is considered to be
>the full truth by Muslims, and that includes the Qur'an's famous line:
>
>        There is no compulsion in religion.
>
>So this means that a Muslim believes that he/she follows the truth,
>but everyone else can follow whatever they want.  How does this lead
>to any more problems that a "non-exclusive" view of religion which
>inevitably leads to paradoxes?  It is one thing to say that *none* of
>the religions are the truth.  But trying to find an all-encompassing
>truth repeatedly leads to paradoxes.

         You are right when you say that the Qur'an allows
         others to practise their own beliefs freely, and I
         know that you personally stand for this enlightened
         principle.  But look at your statement above: that a
         Muslim believes that he/she follows the truth but that
         everyone else can follow whatever they want.  The
         logic suggests that they follow untruth, because they
         are not Muslims.  (I may be slandering you here!)
         This implies superiority at the very least, which you
         may well be claiming on the grounds that the holy
         Qur'an says that it is so.  Others who are not Muslims
         obviously will measure truth using a different
         yardstick.  (I haven't the slightest interest in
         arguing about that yardstick, because when it comes to
         a question of faith, there can be no argument.)

         Still, this doesn't create a problem if, as you say,
         Islam allows followers of other faiths to practise
         their religion freely.  The historical record shows
         that Islam has been more tolerant than Christianity in
         this respect.  In theory, Hindus and Muslims have this
         element of tolerance built in to both religions.  In
         practice, members of *all* faiths have been fairly
         intolerant about each other's beliefs at different
         times and in differing societies.  That's the
         fundamental gap between ideal and reality that
         humanity always has to live with.

         The paradoxes you mention are nothing more than the
         result of the limitations and imperfections of human
         intellect.

         [Deletions]

>> face of these questions, if he can.  The fact is that all
>> religions change with time and on interaction with new
>> cultures, even if their essential truths do not.  In Islam, as
>> long as the principle of consensus (ijma) exists and there are
>> contemporary interpreters of Islamic law, there will be
>> varieties of Islamic religious expression in various parts of
>> the world, based on the same original truths.
>
>I've said this in the past, and can only repeat it.  If a religion is
>believed to be the word of God, then there is no concept of "change
>with time."  There cannot be.  Who are we to change what we believe is
>the word of God?

         Yes, but you're ignoring one problem here, and it's
         the one that causes all the trouble.  Whether you like
         it or not, words are limited in their meaning, whether
         they're Arabic, English or Chinese.  You may say that
         the holy Qur'an is the word of God, therefore perfect
         and timeless.  The human mind is not, and that is why
         there are divisions within every religious tradition,
         be it Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or whatever.  Islam
         is neither more nor less immune to this than any other
         religion.  What I said in the line above your comment
         is not incompatible with your response.

         One general problem in debating this issue is that
         both of us (and others) tend to weave between the
         ideal and the reality.  That creates confusion.

>It is true that some people may deviate with imaginative
>interpretations and still consider themselves a part of the original
>religion.  But I don't see how that is peculiar to Islam.  Are there
>not arguments amongst Hindus about what Hinduism actually constitutes?
>Haven't we seen different Hindus disagree over this very thread?
>Aren't there big fights and debates over the issue of castes?
>Christianity has a very large number of different sects, and very few
>Bible editions are alike.  Why single Islam out in this respect?  And
>more importantly, what does he mean by stating that Islam is in
>turmoil?

         I agree that Islam shouldn't be singled out, as you
         see above.  I really don't know what he meant about
         Islam being in turmoil, but I suspect he is talking
         about conflicts between states in which Muslims are
         the majority.  That doesn't mean Islam is in turmoil;
         it means that their political (and economic and
         military) structures have come into collision.  To
         that extent it's not a problem of Islam per se, but of
         present-day nation states.


         'bye from Oz,


         Denis.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:5946 soc.culture.indian:37147 soc.culture.pakistan:16732