An Introduction of the Concept of Tolerance in Indian-Islam:
A Legacy of Theological Thought in Indian-Islam
Thie article is a revision of a public lecture
given by this institute on 24 November 2005.

Shunji Hosaka

Introduction

T

HE destruction of the Bamiyan Cliff Buddhas by the Taliban in
March 2001, followed by the suicide attacks on September 11 ofthat year against the World Trade Center and the United States Department of Defense headquarters (Pentagon) by a group assumed to be
motivated by an Islamic fundamentalist ideology, are symbolic ofincreasing tensions, conflicts and resistance involving Islam. At thesame time, it seems impossible to overlook misapprehensions and misunderstandings of Islam that are growing increasingly prevalent worldwide. Japan, in particular, has historically had few points of contact with
Islamic culture and civilization with the result that the level of understanding and appreciation for Islam in Japan is generally very shallow
and tenuous.1 In light of current conditions, in which the followers ofIslam (Muslims) have been deeply involved in a series of incidents thathave shocked and shaken world opinion, the present level of understanding of Islam among the Japanese cannot be considered adequate or
acceptable.
Most Japanese people rely on the news media as their principal
source of information about Islam, and since most of this media is Western in its orientation, it is impossible to suppress a sense of concern that
there are serious distortions in the formation of Japanese views andimages of Islam.
This paper will attempt to address, from a perspective rather different
from that of the news media—which tends to focus almost exclusively
on the forces of so-called Islamic Fundamentalism—the idea of tolerance in Islam, especially as this relates to coexistence with the adherentsof polytheism. I hope to introduce some of the diversity of the intellectual efforts of Indian-Islam and to explore, from the perspective of these
Islamic intellectual traditions, the possibilities of peaceful coexistence41

42

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

with other cultures and civilizations. This paper is thus an attempt tocontribute to the increased diversity of Japanese perceptions of Islam.

What is Needed for Better Understanding of Islam?
There are a number of specific elements that hamper efforts by Japanesepeople to develop a better understanding of Islam. This is not restricted
to the fact that Islam is a tradition with which Japanese have had little
contact and which is therefore largely unfamiliar; nor the fact that historically there has been only the most limited cultural intercourse
between Japan and the Islamic world. An even more critical factor isfound in the distance between the cultural and ideational patterns underlying Japanese and Islamic cultures, particularly the difference inbetween the natural environment of Japan and that against which Islam
arose. In other words, Japanese culture may be thought of as a typical“monsoon culture,” having developed in a warm, humid climate. It isthus necessary first to appreciate the underlying differences with coreelements of Islam, which arose in arid environment, to analyze and dissect these differences, in order to establish a fundamental perspectivethat will enhance genuine understanding.
While an extensive or in-depth analysis of these issues is beyond thescope of this paper, it is possible to examine a few of the most essential
points.
As is well known, Islam follows in the tradition of stern monotheism
that characterizes the Abrahamic religions. What is often difficult forJapanese people to grasp is that this “one God” is not one deity among
many, but the only God, an exclusive God who denies the existence of
any other gods, forbidding their worship. This idea is prominently visible in the Old Testament injunction: “Thou shalt have no other Gods
before me” (Exodus 20:3). It is spelled out with even greater strictness
in the Qur’an: “And your Allah is One Allah: There is no god but He”(Sura 2:163).
The exclusive, singular nature of God is the necessary precondition
for Islam. While Judaism resembles Islam on this point, they both differ
from the other great Abrahamic religion, Christianity, which, with thedoctrine of the Trinity, has come to embody a less stringent form ofmonotheism. In historic terms, also, the strict monotheistic ideals ofIslam are widely and deeply divided from the religious traditions of
monsoon regions of the world.2
These tensions, however, have been largely ameliorated among thepractitioners of the Islamic mysticism known as Sufism. Further, theTHE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

43

worldview of Islam, based on the assumption that the creation of theworld is a one-time event at the hand of a creator God, is difficult tograsp for Japanese people, who are accustomed to viewing life as “circulatory,” that is, repeating cycles of change and transformation. Likewise, the “paternal” view of an absolute God of stern, strict judgment islargely foreign to Japanese people, who are tend to think of deities inmore maternal, plural and embracing terms.
This is not to say, of course, that understanding is not impossible,
only that it requires persistent, mutual effort toward that end.

Examples of the Idea of Tolerance in Islam
As the above should indicate, in order for Japanese people to gain a correct understanding of Islam, it is first necessary that the essential differences in traditional worldview and approach to religion be made clear
and that efforts to construct knowledge about Islam be based on thisunderstanding. Thus, one of the first tasks of this paper will be to clarify
the differences between the idea of “tolerance” as it has been understoodin Islam, contrasted with how it is presently understood in Japan.
In Japan, the millet system of religious toleration of religious minorities within the Ottoman Empire is frequently cited as an example of religious tolerance within Islam. Clearly, the millet system opened the way
for Christians and Jews to advance within the Ottoman bureaucracy withalmost no discriminatory distinction from Muslims, and historically thiscontributed to the realization of the peace coexistence among these religions. It is also true that the flourishing of the Ottoman Empire was built
on this policy. But the millet system does not offer any concrete way ofunderstanding how Islam could coexist peacefully with people of otherreligions traditions who are, like the Japanese, polytheists (Arabic:
silku) worshiping images of their deities (sanam, wasan).
Those offered protection under the millet system were defined in the
Qur’an as “People of the Book” (Ahl al-kitab), that is, Jews and Christians chosen by God to receive revelatory texts. Further, this tolerance
was concentrated principally on people of exceptional administrative talents and extended only on the assumption of acceptance of the absolute
superiority of Islam. It was not extended in principle, therefore, to theadherents of the kinds of polytheistic faiths (such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Shinto),which are dismissed in the Qur’an.
In other words, the policy of religious toleration under the Ottoman
Turks was not directed toward the adherents of polytheism. At the very
least, there is no specific provision made for people practicing polytheis-44

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

tic faiths. Nor does toleration in this context imply equal treatment or
the full enjoyment of the rights accorded to Muslims. In this sense, theIslamic idea of tolerance as practiced in the Ottoman Empire cannot beapplied to the polytheistic religions based on the worship of sacredimages that prevail in the regions from India and to the east of India.
Thus, for Japanese people, the millet system does not provide a very
convincing example of Islamic tolerance.
In this sense, the syncretic ideas of Hindu-Islam, which developed
within the Islamic cultural spheres of India—ideas that see an essential
equality and oneness between Islam and even polytheistic faiths and yet
which are derived from traditional Islamic theology—point to importantpossibilities within Islamic theology. It is, in other words, possible to see
the potential for the development of a new idea of Islamic tolerance, onethat embraces even polytheists, within this tradition.

The Idea of Tolerance
Before examining particular aspects of the idea of tolerance in Islam, it
is first necessary to give a brief overview of the history of the idea of tolerance. This is because the term tolerance points to content that is atonce of great importance but at the same time to a large degree indeterminate. It is difficult, if not impossible, to discover a generally accepted
understanding of the meaning of the term. Thus, before entering in to an
examination of the concrete modalities of the idea of tolerance in Indian-Islam, we will first discuss the meaning of “tolerance.”
Generally in Japan, the word tolerance is taken to mean: 1) generous,
willing to forgive and accept people; not blaming of finding fault withothers; 2) refraining, based on an awareness of the difficulty of doing
good, from attacking harshly the faults or failings of others; an important virtue in Christianity; 3) recognizing the freedom of those holding
minority (heretical) views to express these, refraining from discriminating against those who hold such views (Kojien Dictionary, Second Edition). The expression for tolerance (kanyo) in Japanese is composed of
two Chinese characters. The first of which (kan) originally referred to
the gentle song and slow dancing prayer style of female shamans or
shrine maidens; it has come to take on a meaning of unhurried,
unpressed, large-hearted and, thus, accepting or embracing of others(Jito Character Dictionary). The second character, yo, means a vessel orcontainer, originally indicating objects used in prayer ritual.
Reviewing the original meaning of the Chinese characters used toexpress this concept, we can say that kanyo indicates accepting, in aTHE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

45

large-hearted spirit, the words and actions of others. It is expressive of
the extent of one’s personal, inner capacity to accept and embrace others. But the size or scale of this capacity can, in fact, be problematic.
That is, this concept points to a relative or comparative personal capacity; when that capacity is exceeded there is nothing that acts as a standard or norm that would restrain one’s reaction. There is thus in myview a limitation hidden within the word that makes this concept fundamentally different from the Buddhist idea of mutual exchangeability or
the spirit of compassion. I will examine this in a later section together
with what I term “warm tolerance.”
It should be noted that kanyo was traditionally not a common idiom
in Japan.3 The word took on the sense in which it is used today originally as a translation of the Western European idea of tolerance in Tetsujiro
Inoue’s 1881 “Dictionary of Philosophy” and elsewhere. If we consider
the roots of the English word “tolerance,” it is found in the Latin tolerantia, meaning to endure, put up with or forgive. This indicates, in otherwords, the act of accepting and “enduring” the acts of others. It is also a
unilateral, rather than mutual, action or relationship.
Tolerance in the sense of enduring, putting up with or forgiving
requires neither mutual understanding nor a sense of the essential equality of oneself and the other person. This kind of tolerance can be realized simply by accepting or putting up with the existence of another in acommon or shared space. Tolerance in this sense can be achieved evenwhen one is entirely indifferent to the other, with no particular understanding or concern. It can function as tolerance or acceptance bestowed
on a person by someone else in a position of superiority.
Thus, mutual recognition of the need for this degree of coexistence
does not necessarily imply, much less require, a relation of coexistencein which there is mutual understanding or appreciation of the equality ofself and other, or a heartfelt sense of acceptance. In other words, thiskind of coexistence can be established even under conditions of mutuallack of interest, recognition or acceptance so long as the independent, oreven isolated, existence of the parties concerned can be maintained. I
refer to this as “cold tolerance.”
There are may terms corresponding to “tolerance” that can be foundin the Qur’an, including affår, to forget; saffåra, to change mood andnot heed something; ghaffår, to hide something away as if nothing had
ever happened; as well as samuh, to be generous.
This kind of tolerance does not go beyond that which is unilaterallyaccorded by one party to the other, in which one party forgives or
accepts the other. The millet system under the Ottoman Empire could be

46

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

understood as a representative example of this kind of tolerance.

The Idea of Tolerance in Ancient India
On the other hand, the form of tolerance that is the central concern of
this paper is that which was pursued and developed in ancient India. It is
a form of tolerance that is based on the assumption of an essential sameness, or equivalence, that underlies differences on the phenomenologicallevel. This can be found in the Vedantic teaching of the oneness ofAtman and Brahman as expressed in this passage:
Verily, this whole world is Brahman, …. Containing all works, containing all desires, containing all odours, containing all tastes, encompassing this whole world, without speech, without concern, this is the self ofmine within the heart; this is Brahman.4

Based on the assumption of this philosophical stance, Gautama Buddha
developed the following philosophy.
883. “What some say is true, real, others say is empty, false. Thus contending, they dispute. Why do ascetics not say one (and the same)thing?”
884. “There is only one truth; there is no second, about which an intelligent man might dispute with an (other) intelligent man. Ascetics themselves proclaim various truths, therefore they do not say one (and thesame) thing.”…
886. “There are not indeed many various truths, (which are) eternal in
the world, except by reason of (mistaken) perception. Devising a speculation in respect of their views, they say there are two things, truth andfalsehood.”…
894. “Standing (firm) in his decision, measuring (others against) himself, he enters into further dispute in the world. (But) the person who
has left all decisions behind does not cause trouble in the world.”5This is, in other words, a spirit or idea of tolerance that starts from thestance of recognizing that there is an underlying, essential sameness thatall people share and that transcends the differences of views, opinions
and faith that we respectively develop in the phenomenal world. Thisidea of tolerance is typically expressed as compassion, maitrI-karuˆå, toTHE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

47

feel the suffering or pain of another as one’s own. In this paper, I willrefer to this as “warm tolerance.”
Within the tradition of Indian philosophy is an important strain that
does not absolutize the self, but relativizes both self and other, placing
the self on the same plane of existence as others. More concretely, thisinvolves the conceptual work of interchanging self and other. This canbe found in the following expression from within Vedanta philosophy.
“Liberation (enlightenment) means becoming like a god (tadbhåvåpatti),
to resemble god in both essence and attributes.”6
Within Indian tradition this is referred to as upåsana (lit. “sittingnear”), which originally indicated a way of thinking rooted in magicalritual and symbolic manipulations as a means of gaining the attention
and favor of a deity; the idea of compassion may be understood as one
means by which this was systematized.
Underlying this way of thinking is a polytheistic worldview that recognizes the sacred nature (Atman) existing within all things. This is infact a reflection of an unique characteristic of Indian thought thatassumes the existence of a singular abstract principle (Brahman) behindand underlying all individual existences. A similar conceptual framework in which the distinctions between self and other are relativized canbe found in the Hellenic idea of epieikeia, usually translated equity. This
word originally means “to exchange places” and suggests a process ofattempting to view and understand things from the perspective of another. Classical Greek society was also a polytheistic society in whichmodes of peaceful coexistence of the various deities was pursued, andthis may have given rise to this word. But it is important to note thatclassical Greek philosophy included an ideational scheme supporting“warm tolerance.”
This is particularly important in the present context as it is wellknown that Hellenic philosophy exerted a shaping influence on the formation of Islamic philosophy. If that is the case, then it should be possible to discover within Islamic philosophy the idea of “exchanging places
with another.”
Such a way of thinking is clearly present in the ideas of Indian-Islam,my particular field of specialty. While the specific origins of this idea
are perhaps impossible to identify, it is clear that there are traditions of
this type to be found among the mystics of Indian-Islam.
Here I would like to turn my attention to the history and record ofideas left by the followers of Islam in India that gave rise to an idea oftolerance that is based on the mutual recognition of difference underlain
by a recognition of human sameness, one that transcends distinctions

48

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

among the followers of Islam, other “People of the Book,” and polytheists.

Prototypes of the Idea of Tolerance in Indian Sufism
Sufism, which teaches the unification of man and God, played an
important role in the development and expansion of Indian-Islam. The
adherents of Sufism softened the orthodox views of Islam, with its exclusionary monotheism, and actively promoted coexistence between Muslims and Hindus. They are known for the contributions in furthering the
spread of Islam into regions where other religions had heretofore
predominated.7 Their role in the spread and establishment of Islam inIndia is particularly well known.8
Among the Sufis, A.M. al-Hallåj (c. C.E. 857–922) played an especially important role in the context of the spread of Islam in India. To
give a brief overview of the life and career of al-Hallåj, he was born in
Tur in southern Persia; his grandfather is said to have been a Zoroastrian.9 Al-Hallåj was educated in Basra. He joined the Sufi movement, thenin its nascent stages, and from early in life was active Sufi.10
Sufism at the time had yet to take definitive form and al-Hallåj played
an important role in its intellectual and doctrinal development. Aftermaking pilgrimages to various sites in Persia he traveled (c. 897–902) toregions, such as India and Turkistan, where non-Muslims were in the
majority, absorbing the religions, ideas, culture and customs of thesepeoples. It is thought that through his travels in regions where Hindu
and Buddhist thinking prevailed, he was influenced in certain ways by
the worldviews of these religions. This influence was perhaps evident in
his famous declaration, Ana ’I-Haqq (“I am the truth” or “I am God”),
which had an immeasurable and shocking impact on both the Islamic
world as well as Islamic thought.11 Within the context of Abrahamic
monotheism, of which Islam is perhaps the most pure form, for a humanbeing, the creation of the exclusive, absolute and transcendent God, todeclare equivalence or equality with that God was considered to be mostoutrageous kind of blasphemy. It was a pronouncement unthinkablefrom the perspective of the orthodoxy.
For a Muslim to declare “I am God” expresses a system of thought
representing the shocking and potentially fundamental denial of Islamic
theology as it had developed to that point. In general it is said that alHallåj was influenced by Gnostic theories in coming to this conclusion.
But at the same time, it is certainly conceivable that he was influenced
by the Upanishads or Vedanta philosophy that teach the oneness of

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

49

Brahman and Atman, or by Buddhist ideas.12
However, al-Hallåj’s idea of the unity of man and God brought persecutions from the adherents of orthodoxy, resulting in his execution andthe extremely unusual measure of cremation—more precisely, the burning and disposal of his body as a means of signifying the depths of hissin.
Nonetheless, his ideas found acceptance among the practitioners of
Sufism. This influence is seen most particularly in Mughal Court inIndia, especially during the reign of the third Emperor Akbar(1542–1605) and his great-grandson Dårå ShikËh (1615–1659).
Also said to have been deeply involved in the development of Sufithought is al-BerËn¥ (c. 973–1050). He accompanied Mahmud ofGhazni on his invasion of India, infamous for its brutality, and ended up
living for an extended period in northwest India. He learned Sanskritand studied Indian philosophy in the original, developing the deep
knowledge for which he became justly renowned. In 1030 he translated
works on Samkhya, as well as the Yoga Sutra, into Arabic. In his work
al-India, al-Ber¥Ën¥ demonstrates the depth of his knowledge and understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism. The author of this paper has yet toencounter materials that clarify the relationship between his reception ofthese religions and his own Islamic faith.
Perhaps due to the fact that he was a member of the highly educatedelite, he voices his view that the worship of idols is a customs that exist
everywhere,13 expressing a degree of understanding toward the customsof the practitioners of other faiths. At the same time, however al-BerËn¥does not criticize Mahmud’s pillaging of Indian territories and it seems
likely that his consciousness of other religions was limited to the passive
tolerance expressed by the term ghaffår. In other words, at this stage,
within Indian-Islam and its environs, the idea of tolerance had not developed to the point of acknowledging the equality of the practitioners ofother religions.

The Development of the Idea of Tolerance in Indian-Islam.
It would not be until around the 12th century that the “warm tolerance”
that is a defining characteristic of Indian-Islam would develop and see
specific application relative to the practitioners of polytheist faiths. Representative of this development was FaridËd-d¥n (1176–1265) a mystic
associated with the Chistiyya School that was one of the two main
schools of Sufism in India during the period of Islam’s initial introduction in India. Farid was born in India to a family originating in

50

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

Afghanistan. His mother was also Indian-born and Farid was fluent inIndian languages. In this sense he was a member of the first generation
to come to intellectual maturity within an Indian cultural and religious
environment.
Farid’s thinking was thus both Islamic as well as Vedantic in that we
find in it the idea of unification with the One of absolute existence—theunification of God and man, in other words—and, based on this, the ideaof transcending the differences of the phenomenal world. Farid’s ideas
share many basic commonalities with those of al-Hallåj introduced earlier. The following passage is illustrative:
Without her Husband Lord, how can the soul-bride ever find peace?
When He becomes merciful, then God unites us with Himself. ||2||
The lonely soul-bride suffers in the pit of the world.
She has no companions, and no friends.
In His Mercy, God has united me with the Saadh Sangat, the Companyof the Holy.
And when I look again, then I find God as my Helper. ||3||
The path upon which I must walk is very depressing.
It is sharper than a two-edged sword, and very narrow.
That is where my path lies.
(Granth Sahib p. 794)14

As this passage indicates, transcendence of the differences and distinctions of the phenomenal world through unification with God lies at theheart of Farid’s teaching. For Farid, the crucial thing was salvation
through unification with God, something achieved through our love for
God.
They alone are true, whose love for God is deep and heart-felt.
Those who have one thing in their heart, and something else in theirmouth, are judged to be false.
Those who are imbued with love for the Lord, are delighted by His
Vision.
Those who forget the Naam, the Name of the Lord, are a burden on theearth.
…
So speak the Truth, in righteousness, and do not speak falsehood.
…
Just so, the transitory human bodies pass away. Reflect upon this inyour mind.

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

51

It takes six months to form the body, but it breaks in an instant.
…
Some have been cremated, and some lie in their graves; their souls are
suffering rebukes.
(Granth Sahib p. 488)

Farid then went on to develop a form of thought that assumes an essential correspondence between Hinduism and Islam transcending the differences in their respective forms. In this we see the development of a
stance that declares the differences in religions insignificant when compared to the importance of our absolute faith in and submission to God,
our yearning for unification with God. This idea might be termed
Vedantic in the Indian context, or an expression of Sufism in the Islamic
context. This way of thinking gained widespread adherence among thefollowers of Islam in India, forming the tradition that I refer to as Indian-Islam.15
Heirs to this tradition include such figures as Kabeer (c. 1425–1498)
and Nanak (1469–c. 1538) active in the 15th and 16th centuries. Kabeer
was an impoverished weaver who exhibited such remarkable religious
gifts that he came to be known among Hindus as a bhakta (one whooffers sacred love to God) and among the Muslims as a Sufi. The factthat he was looked up to as a sage by the adherents of both traditions issymbolic of the atmosphere of religious tolerance that prevailed inmedieval India. Kabeer opposed any dogmatic approach to religion andargued that in true faith directed toward God there is no distinction
between Hinduism and Islam. On this point, he states.
Kabeer, it does make a difference, how you chant the Lord’s Name,'Raam'. This is something to consider.
Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous
Lord. ||190||
Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord.
You must make that distinction.
One ‘Raam’ is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained onlyin himself. ||191||(Granth Sahib p. 1374)

But, he concludes, this singular Raam is one.
When we consider that Kabeer was a Muslim, it becomes clear how
distant he is from the dogmatic interpretations of that faith. And further,
the fact that he made this bold assertions as a Muslim and this was

52

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

accepted not only by Hindus but also by his fellow Muslims, gives anindication of the possibilities for tolerance within Islam.
On the other hand, Nanak represents a case of someone who, while
maintaining an essentially Hindu religious identity, called for fusion
with Islam and unification through submission to the ultimate One. For
Nanak, there is only one God and the various Hindu deities as well as
Islam’s Allah are all but partial expressions of the one true God.
But this truth is not well understood, according to Nanak, either by
the Brahmins or the elites within Islam:
Brahma entered the lotus, and searched the nether regions, but he did
not find the end of it.
He did not accept the Lord's Order - he was deluded by doubt. ||1||…
The Qazis, Shaykhs and Fakeers in religious robes
call themselves great; but through their egotism, their bodies are suffering in pain.
(Granth Sahib p. 227)

Further, the teaching of the one God that is predisposed neither to Hinduism nor Islam is that which can lead people to genuine happiness.
To those whose hearts are filled with the True Name of the Lord,
and who sing the Glories of God, the death cannot touch.
…
Wherever I look, I see the One and Only Lord.
(Granth Sahib p. 227)

In this way, both Kabeer and Naanak grasped Hinduism and Islam interms of a shared sense of a single supreme truth, which may be
expressed in the different terms of Allah and Brahman, but are aspectsof the same One. By thus relativizing both faith traditions, and assuming
the existence of an even higher One, these religionists sought to transcend the differences between the two faiths. This is one form of thefusion of Hinduism and Islam that can be seen in Indian thought.
These teachings proved difficult, however, for both the adherents ofthe more orthodox schools of both Hinduism and Islam to accept. Whilethese figures sought to achieve the amalgamation of the two faiths, inthe end they gave rise to a new faith tradition that was outside of either.
While these intellectual efforts are in themselves noble, the examples,
discussed below, of Akbar (1542–1605) and Dårå ShikËh (1615–1659)

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

53

merit our attention as most meaningful in terms of extending the possibilities of Islam and from the perspective of our contemporary concernof how best to realize the coexistence of different religious traditions.

Akbar’s Philosophy of Religious Reconciliation
Several decades after Kabeer and Nanak, the Third Mughal Emperor
Akbar developed an unique philosophical stance that synthesized theteachings of Hinduism and Islam. Further, he was able to implement thisin the real world as actual political and social policies.
While a detailed examination of their ideas is beyond the scope of thispaper, the following offers a brief introduction of the ideas of Akbar andDårå ShikËh. As mentioned, the tradition of religious mysticism thatseeks to transcend religious differences forms a deep current in India
and this was able to find natural acceptance even within the world of
Muslims. The Mughal Emperor Akbar, who had his own religious experience as a Sufi, was able to implement his religious outlook actively inthe realms of religious, political and cultural policy. As a result, a fusionof religions and cultures that could be called an amalgamate HindiIslamic civilization was realized for the approximately one-hundred year
period from the reign of Akbar to that of Dårå ShikËh. At the heart of
the Indian-Islamic world, a court culture flourished centered on the civilization of Islam and incorporating the Hindi, Christian, Jewish and Persian cultures.
In 1579, Akbar had been moved to modify his early policy of Islamicsupremacy and initiated D¥n-Ilåh¥, “the divine religion” to lead theprocess of unifying various faiths. This grew out of the conclusion
Akbar had arrived at through the ongoing debates among various religions he had had conducted at the House of Faith (Ibådatkhåna) startingin 1575. At the House of Faith, “A noble palace was provided for the
spiritual world, and the pillars of Divine knowledge rose high.”16Here the Sufi Emperor Akbar presided.
The wide capacity and the toleration of the Shadow of God were
unveiled. ›Ëf¥, philosopher, orator, jurist, Sunn¥, Sh¥å, Brahman, Jat¥,
S¥Ërå Cårbåk, Nazarene, Jew, ›åb¥ (Sab¥an), Zoroastrian, and others
enjoyed exquisite pleasure by beholding the calmness of the assembly,
the sitting of the world-lord in the lofty pulpit (mimbar), and the adornment of the pleasant abode of impartiality.17

Various critiques have been directed toward the policy of religious rec-

54

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

onciliation carried out by Akbar.18 But this philosophy of religious
fusion was neither a spur of the moment impulse nor was it something
arrived at for political expediency. The proof of this fact may be soughtin the intellectual activities of Akbar’s great-grandson Dårå ShikËh, who
was heir this tradition. Akbar exercised “warm” tolerance toward various religions; his policies assured the equal treatment of all faiths.
When a minister protested indignantly that Akbar had elevated a practitioner of the Hindu faith to a position of great responsibility, Akbar
turned this around and admonished him. “There are several Hindus
working for you. What is wrong with me having Hindus working forme?”Dārā Shikūh’s Philosophy of Religious Fusion
In Japan, there is even less knowledge about Dåråh ShikËh than about
Akbar. But his achievements are very significant and merit earnest
research efforts from the perspective of comparative civilizations. It is
well known, for example, that the translation of the Upanishad texts hehad made from Sanskrit into Persian (“Oupnekhat”) was later translated
into Latin and thus had an important impact on European intellectuallife.
This project of translating the sacred texts of the Hindu religion was
an expression of Dårå’s philosophical commitment to bringing about a
Hindu-Islamic fusion. He arrived at this point by gaining an in-depth
understanding of the philosophy of mysticism as a Sufi; he also wasinspired by the Hindu sage Babar Rai and in a certain sense could beunderstood to have achieved the status of a bhakta. His most representative work is the “Mingling of Two Oceans” (Majmå al-Ba˙rayn).
As Dårå ShikËh himself describes this process in the introduction to
the work.
… Mu˙ammed Dårå ShikËh, that, after knowing the Truth of truths andascertaining the secrets and subtleties of the true religion of the ›Ëf¥sand having been endowed with this great gift (i.e., ›Ëfistic inspiration),he thirsted to know the tenets of the religion of the Indian monotheists;
and, having had repeated intercourse and (continuous) discussion withthe doctors and perfect divines of this (i.e. Indian) religion who had
attained the highest pitch of perfection in religious exercises, comprehension (of God), intelligence and (religious) insight, he did not findany difference, except verbal, in the way in which they sought and comprehended Truth. Consequently, having collected the views of the twoTHE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

55

parties and having brought together the points—a knowledge of which
is absolutely essential and useful for the seekers of Truth—he (i.e. theauthor) has compiled a tract and entitled it Majma‘-ul-Ba˙rain or “TheMingling of the Two Oceans,” as it is a collection of the truth and wisdom of two Truth-knowing (ﬁak. Shinås) groups.19

This work discloses the commonalities between the Sufi and Vedanta
philosophies, which both assume the underlying unity of all existence.
Rooted in this, Dårå expresses a strong sympathy for the worldview
expressed in the Upanishads, that this world is the manifestation of God,and human beings are the essence of God in microcosm. Dårå and his
followers even taught the practice of breath control and the chanting of
sacred syllable Aum, going so far as to recognize the possibility ofenlightenment during this lifetime, as opposed to salvation after death.
Through these examples, Dårå ShikËh demonstrates his awarenessthat the God of Islam and the God of Hinduism are not separate or different, but the same. In this way, he deepened and developed the ideas ofEmperor Akbar and, while remaining within the framework of Islamic
theology, embraced the diversity of God. From this perspective he cameto see coexistence with polytheism as not only a social or cultural possibility, but as a religious one as well. This achievement may be thoughtof as the apex of Indian-Sufi intellectual efforts to extend the concept oftolerance in Islam to its very fullest dimension. This is a historical factof immense importance in that it demonstrates that this kind of spirit oftolerance can be created from within the theology of Islam.

Concluding Comments
In this way, Dårå ShikËh, while remaining a Muslim, established, basedon his own mystical experiences and from within his self-identity as aSufi, a deep sympathy and understanding of Hinduism. In other words,
he viewed not only coexistence, but even unification with Hinduism—
disdained in dogmatic Islam as polytheistic and idolatrous—as possible.
This is because for him the Hindu and Islamic God were one and thesame, the only difference being the words used to express them. This is
not simply the philosophical viewpoint and religious conviction
achieved by Dårå ShikËh as a mystic philosopher; this is a theologicalextension of Islam from within the theoretical framework of Islam,undertaken by an Islamic scholar.
Dårå ShikËh’s ideas may be understood as the high point of the styleof Islamic tolerance developed by Sufis starting with al-Hållaj. But

56

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

movements in this direction disappeared from within the Mughal Court
when Dårå ShikËh was defeated by his younger brother Aurangzeb(reigned 1658–1707) in a war of imperial succession and killed.
But the tolerant spirit of Islam developed in India has not been extinguished and continues to this day. The possibilities of an Islamic philosophy of tolerance developed by nameless Sufis, by Akbar and DåråShikËh, can provide an important sense of hope, drawn from this history, to the people of the 21st century. Or so, at least, is the author’s belief.
It is important that non-Muslims and Muslims work together to assurethat possibilities for a tolerant Islam become the spirit of Islam in the
21st century.
Notes
During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the United States Embassy was occupied andits staff held hostage for an extended period. This event, which was particularly shocking to the Western countries, is dealt with in detail in Jun Shirai, Iran-Iraku senso (The
Iran-Iraq War) Daisan Shokan, 1990.
2
Regarding the development of Islam in India, its history of conflict, confrontationand harmonization with Buddhism and Hinduism, see my Indo Bukkyo wa naze horondaka (Why Did Indian Buddhism Decline?) Hokuju Shuppan, 2002.
3
There is, for example, no entry for the term “tolerance” in the first English-Japanesedictionary published in 1868.
4
S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upani∑ad, Chåndogya Upani∑ad, George Allen &Unwin, 1953, pp. 391–392.
5
K.R. Norman, trans., The Group of Discourses (Sutta-Nipata) Vol. III, Pali Text
Society, 1995, pp. 101–2.
6
Sengaku Maeda, et al., Indo shisoshi (“Intellectual History of India”), Tokyo
Daigaku Shuppankai, 1990, p. 197.
7
There are various theories regarding the formation of Sufism, but the influence ofIndian thought, especially that of Buddhism and Vedanta philosophy, is said to beimportant. Special emphasis is placed on the role of al-Hallåj (C.E. 857–922) in the earliest stages of Sufism. This is dealt with in L. Massignon, The Passion of al-Hallåj (4vols.), Princeton University Press, 1982. For Sufism in general, A. al-Kalabadhi (tr. A.
Arberry) The Doctrine of the Sufis, Cambridge University Press, 1935. A relatively
recent introduction is found in I. Shah, The Sufis, New York, 1990.
8
For research into the amalgamation philosophy of Sufism in India, see S.A. Rizvi,
A History of Sufism in India (2 vols.), Delhi, 1978–83.
9L. Massignon, op cit., vol. 1, pp. 1–21.
10
Ibid., p. 22.
11
Ibid., pp. 126–134.
12
S.A. Risvi, op. cit., p. 61.
13
Al-BerËn¥ al-India, Delhi, 1975. p. 111.
14
English translations of the Sikh holy book Granth Sahib are available at:
http://www.srigranth.org/ (accessed 4 July 2006).
15
For a detailed discussion, see my “Indo Sufi ni mirareru Isuramu yugo shiso nohikaku shisoteki kenkyu” (Comparative Philosophical Research in the Islamic Amalga1

THE CONCEPT OF TOLERANCE IN INDIAN-ISLAM

57

mation Ideas Seen in Indian Sufism) in Hikaku shiso kenkyu, No. 17, Hikaku Shiso
Gakkai, 1990, pp. 46–53.
16
The Akbar Nåmå of Abu-l-Faz. l, Volume III, RARE BOOKS, 1973, p. 364.
17
Ibid., p. 365.
18
There is no generally accepted historical appraisal of Akbar’s reign. See Yasuaki
Ishida, Mugaru teikoku (Mughal Empire) Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1965. Abu’l-Fazl, The
Akbar Nåmå is considered an essential source for research regarding Akbar.
19
Dala shukoh [Dårå ShikËh], Majmå al-Ba˙rayn, Bengal R.A.C. 1926, p. 80. For
research in the ideas of Dårå ShikËh, see Kazuyo Sakaki, “Futatsu no umi no majiwaru
tokoro” (Where Two Oceans Mingle) Tohogaku, No. 98, Tohogakkai, 1998,
pp. 106–120.