HVK Archives: Tuning a harmony of differences (and response)
Tuning a harmony of differences (and response) - The Times of India
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
()
December 7, 1998
Title: Tuning a harmony of differences (and response)
Author: Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Publication: The Times of India
Date: December 7, 1998
The world's religious systems fall into two broad categories: those
which uphold the concept of the multiplicity of reality and those which
believe in the oneness of reality. To the first category belong the
Aryan religions; to the second belong the Semitic.
The Islamic viewpoint in this matter is that conviction is the bedrock
of religion. This is called iman, faith. If a man has no firm faith in
his religion, he cannot put his heart and soul into its practice. He
cannot fully involve himself in it. And when the truth is taken to be
many, religion can only be an outer shell. It cannot assume the form
which the Koran calls a faith that has penetrated the heart. (1:14)
This concept of Islam does not in any way preclude dialogue. The
difference in the concept of dialogue is only in respect of methodology
and not in respect of the philosophy of the dialogue. To those
religious systems which believe in the multiplicity of truth, or in the
multiplicity of paths to reach the truth, the basis of dialogue is
mutual recognition; to Islam the basis of dialogue is mutual respect.
In any dialogue between the adherent of an Aryan. religion and a Semitic
one, two assumptions will always be central. One will be that, while the
former believe themselves to be in possession of the truth, they also
concede that others may make a similar claim. The second will be that
the latter, holding their position of being sole possessor of the truth,
will present their viewpoint with all seriousness and expect the other
party to do likewise. On the basis of this mutual understanding, each
side will listen with an open mind to the other's point of view.
Three forms of dialogue are possible. One could be that there is total
agreement between the two parties, in which case the need to hold a
dialogue does not arise. Or everyone remains doubtful about his
viewpoint. In the absence of true conviction, deliberation between these
groups cannot technically be termed a dialogue, but is rather in the
nature of a discussion. Or then, clear differences exist between the
participants, and a real dialogue between them ensues.
It is not proper to think that if someone believes that only his
religion is true, he will not show respect for the adherents of other
traditions. Such apprehension results from underestimating the capacity
of human beings. A man, while respecting his mother, shows due regard at
the same time for other people's mothers. Regarding one woman as his own
mother does not render him incapable of such respect for other people's
mothers.
A devotee's belief that only his religion is true demands that he convey
this reality to others. But such action has nothing to do with
conversion. It is only what is called iblagh, communication, in the
Koran - the communication of the divine message to others. Addressing
the Prophet of Islam, the Koran has this to say: "You are not at all a
warder over them." (88:22)
According to Islam, when the truth is discovered, a man's humanity
itself gives him a great urge to communicate it to others. The discovery
of truth and the communication of this discovery are inseparable. Islam
aims, not so much at conversion, as at making people aware of its
message. So far as forced conversion is concerned, that is totally
unlawful in Islam.
Some extremist Muslims indulging in violence in our times have led
people to conclude that Islam is an intolerant religion. But this is not
true. The only difference between Islam and other religions is that
while to some religions, tolerance is based on mutual recognition, to
Islam tolerance is based on mutual respect. On this matter the Islamic
viewpoint can be summed up as: "Follow one and respect all."
Bringing harmony to human society is undoubtedly a noble goal. But
harmony relates to social behaviour rather than to the adoption of a
theoretical position. If we want to encourage a brotherly relationship
to develop between two people, this will not come about by insisting on
uniformity. The establishment of harmony between the two is possible
only by their admitting the difference between them, and showing a
proper respect for each other's rights.
A harmonious society is formed by tolerating rather than by bulldozing
various viewpoints. The right way to engender tolerance is to bring
about the kind of intellectual awakening which will make people realise
that, whatever the circumstances, they have to live in this world
through accommodation.
RESPONSE
Bhalchandrarao C Patwardhan
Pune
December 8, 1998
Letters
C/o The Resident Editor
Times of India
Dr.D.N.Road
MUMBAI - 400 001
Sir
There are two possible explanations I in my ignorance could glean for
most of the celebrated Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's averments in his
'Tuning a Harmony of Differences' (TOI - The Speaking Tree - 7.12.98).
Either he assumes that his potential readers are extremely gullible and
credulous, or he does not really mean all he says.
His sweeping and a trifle simplistic division of the world's religions
into the 'Aryan' and the 'Semitic' seems incapable of addressing
fundamental differences in the inspiration that dictates the normative
behaviour of their adherents. It might perhaps be more purposeful to
divide them into the 'polytheist' (or pagan) and the 'monotheist' (or
Biblical), for three of the major monotheistic religions that have had
so much to do in altering the course of history are Bible-inspired -
viz. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Firstly, the pagan Indian tradition scarcely recognises that which the
West knows as 'religion'. The word for that branch of human endeavour
dealing with the spiritual as distinct from the mundane is 'darshan',
having perhaps no equivalent in English to precisely describe either
the concept or its scope. The nearest that can be proffered is
'spiritualism'. A reason for calling it darshan perhaps is that one is
able to 'see' only so much of the truth as one's ability permits, a
principal object of spiritual and related yogic practices being the
enhancement of this ability. Although faith has its place in the
Eastern tradition, by no stretch of the imagination is it considered
the 'be-all and end-all' of spiritualism. On the contrary, as the
sayings of 'pagan' teachers will bear out, it is even denied its
'Western' role as the foolproof solution to baffling esoteric
questions. In the Biblical tradition on the other hand, as rightly
stated by Wahiduddin Khan, it is around faith, and faith alone, that
the whole gamut of 'religion' revolves. There appears to be no
consideration for or even recognition of 'human reason' - perhaps the
most striking characteristic that differentiates human beings from
creatures not as evolved.
Secondly, in pagan traditions, a belief that one is in possession of the
truth is considered an impediment to enlightenment, being oftentimes
even regarded as arrogance. Every creature, even the atheist, is
potentially capable of attaining to it. None is barred. For the Maulana
to say that the adherents of Aryan religions 'believe themselves to be
in possession of the truth', therefore, is incorrect. Such a belief is
admitted only in the "believer Vs non-believer" mindset that would seem
to be unique to Biblical faiths.
Thirdly, the exhortation for an unquestioned faith in what has been
stated as the immutable truth for all times and climes in the
scripture, combined with scripturally prescribed views about the
presumed worthlessness of those who do not "believe", may well render a
dialogue meaningless, if not impossible! "O ye who believe! The
idolators only are unclean.." (Holy Qur'an 9:28), or "Lo! Those who
disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolators, will
abide in the fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings." (HQ
98:6) are some of the several statements that hardly seem to inspire
for other traditions that respect upon which the Maulana has dwelt so
lingeringly!
The Maulana states that iblagh or 'communication' of the divine message
to those who do not believe is not prosecuted through forced
conversion, but again this is difficult to believe. The HQ (9:29) asks
the believers to "Fight against such of those who have been given the
Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that
which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the
religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought
low."
What he states in the concluding two paragraphs, notwithstanding all he
has said elsewhere in the article, is something that must be borne in
mind by all who lay exclusive claim to the truth. The average Muslim or
Hindu generally aspires always to a peaceful co-existence with his
neighbour. It cannot be otherwise. It is only when he falls prey to the
machinations of an organised self- seeking clergy that socio-religious
tensions rear their ugly heads. It ought therefore to become the
responsibility of each individual to decide on how important a part the
clergy will be allowed to play in one's social relations.
Since he seems to concede that brotherly relations cannot be developed
by 'insisting on uniformity', it might be interesting to find out what
are his views on the Tablighi movement which reportedly seeks to do
precisely that!
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
Bhalchandrarao C Patwardhan
Back
Top
|
