Loading...
Menu

Frank Speak with Hindu Brothers

Frank Speak With Hindu Brothers

Dr. Javed Jamil

On behalf of Muslim Community

Table of Contents

Preface

Like every country, India wants to be a nation of peace, tolerance and prosperity. Like all nations, India wants to prove that it has always been a tolerant and peace-loving nation. And like every nation on the earth, its history can at the most be described chequered with long periods of wars and internal struggles along with abundant examples of peaceful existence in various parts of the country and in various periods. Like all the communities of the world again, all the communities of the country – Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and atheists, boast of being inherently tolerant, and the truth on the other hand is that individuals and groups belonging to almost all of them have had their share in violence and oppression of one kind or the other. The tendency to indulge in violence is almost always more in the groups that hold the reins of the power. The weak too often indulges in violence in retaliation to widespread oppression or discrimination. The amount of the violence caused by the weak is almost always much less compared to the violence against them, but the powerful tends to highlight it so disproportionately that they appear to be the culprit rather than the victim.

Since Partition, there has always been a group in the new India, what we normally call Hindutva lobby represented by organisations like RSS, VHP and BJP, which has been trying to consolidate its hold through all possible means, fair and unfair, on the economic and political resources of the country. One of the most unfair means is the politics of communalism, which involves spreading hatred against other communities, Muslims being the biggest target followed by Christians.

The problem with BJP (and its allies) is that its definition of Hindutva, in practice if not in theory, is based on its aversion of Muslims and everything that is or can be made to look linked to them. They are not interested in introducing the Hindu vision to the constitution but in demolishing Muslim personal laws. They are not too much fond of building temples; they are more concerned about demolishing mosques. They love singing Vande Mataram and chanting “Bharat Mata ki Jay” not because of their inherent beauty but because they irk Muslims who find it hard to eulogise the land instead of the Creator of the land. Even if they do not read their scriptures with any regularity, they would want to impose them on Muslim students. They are not concerned about saving Hindu lives from fellow Hindus; they derive some sort of pleasure if Muslims are killed. They are not campaigning for bringing comforts to their fellow religionists; they are more interested in teasing and harassing Muslim populace. Even their hatred towards Pakistan is based not on nationalism but on hatred because Pakistan is a Muslim country and in their distorted thinking they believe Indian Muslims to be a kind of the extension of that country. They count only the Hindu dead or displaced. The Muslim counts hardly bother them.

While they are always busy in pursuing their “goals” with “utmost sincerity”, when the BJP comes into power, the forces of Hindutva start believing it is the right opportunity to spread their tentacles and to achieve their long cherished aims. This seems to have been specifically true for the current BJP rule in the country. Narendra Modi came to power on the corporate-communal agenda, and is pursuing both with vigour and devotion. While the major forces of economics, namely the Corporate, Banking and Finance Sector, are being appeased without much of noise, the noise on the communal front is being used to distract the attention from what is happening on the economic front.

While I have serious concerns with the impact of the Hindutva on future India, I still believe that they have some inherent positives, which if brought to the fore can turn the things for the better. If they start focusing on religious morality rather than communalism and combine with other religious communities including Muslims on the issues of morality, equality and justice, India can truly emerge as a role model for the rest of the world. It is with this aim that the present work has been done. While I have countered the Hindutva designs of communal divide with the contempt it deserves, I have made every possible effort to make Hindus and Muslims realise about the commonness of their moral, family and social values. If instead of hating each other, they combine supporting each other, both will benefit with immense benefit to the nation as a whole. If we succeed, it is then that our claims of being a tolerant nation will be accepted by the whole world.

The book includes my articles on various issues that have emerged during last few years and a dialogue with a Hindutva protagonist. It is hoped that the work will ultimately help in bringing sanity back to India.

Part 1: Frank Speak between Hindus and Muslims

First Exchange: Frank Speak to Indian Muslims about Islamic Positions

Letter No. 1

Recently, I had an interesting exchange of letters with Mr. D C Nath, IPS (Retd), a former senior official in Intelligence Bureau, following my article, “Let Hindus and Muslims unite against Economics of Vices”, which generated huge response, and a section of Hindus opposed the move on the ground of their perception that Islam is not compatible with other religions. Let me first reproduce my article which became the starting point of the debate”

Let Hindus and Muslims unite against Economics of Vices

Recently a Hindu friend of me asked me why Muslims do not give up their attitude of believing that Islam is the best, and argued that unless Muslims gave up this belief, unity with Hindus is not possible. He was responding to an article of mine calling for the coming together of Hindus and Muslims in India in fighting against the vices, believed to be so by both, instead of spreading hatred against each other. Normally, such views are representative of two kinds of groups. One group is of the propagandists who are part of the campaign against a certain community, and the other is that of interfaith loyalists who in the garb of inter-faith dialogue are bent on diluting the religion.

I tell both kinds of people that what is bad is not the conviction in one’s own ideology but in describing the convictions of others as false and speaking words of hatred against communities. If for example, a Hindu thinks Hinduism is the best he cannot be faulted because why he would be a Hindu if he does not think it is the best. If in his eyes, Hinduism is not the best religion, he should better try to find the best. The same will be true of a Muslim, Christian or anyone identifying himself with any other ideology, religious or non-religious.

I live in India, and I know that the overwhelming majority of Indians, Hindus as well as Muslims are strong believers in their religions. In terms of their cultural and social beliefs and practices, they have much bigger similarities than differences. So instead of countering each other on the grounds of differences, they need to come together against the common concerns.

There has been an outcry in recent times with people trying to present religion as a destabilising force. The truth however is that it is not the religion but the economic fundamentalism, its tirade against religion and its attempt to marginalize religion, which is primarily responsible for much of the chaos in the present world. It is in this context that the need of forging an alliance of all religions is there. But the question arises: Should this unity of religions be only aimed at having more cordial relations among the people of different faiths, or should it be directed at a larger objective?

Time has now come when the religionists belonging to all religions need to be emphatic about the true aims of religion. They must recognize the fact that the anti-religion economic forces have successfully turned one religion against another. Religions seem to be fighting one another instead of fighting their common enemy: irreligion and the dominance of the ideology of economic fundamentalism in the affairs of life. The people today are merely interested in the rituals of the religion without inculcating the morality, honesty, integrity, perseverance, patience, purity and God’s fear and love in their minds and without waging a fight against the social vices.

The market forces are commercializing human susceptibilities in a big way. Beaches, Casinos, Bars, Nightclubs, Nude women, prostitution, etc have become the symbols of freedom. Unborn human babies are being killed in the name of women’s rights; criminals are being protected in the name of human rights. Everybody talks of Rights. Nobody talks of Duties and Fundamental Prohibitions, without which a peaceful society cannot develop.

While all religions are to unite, the primary duty lies with four big religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. Christianity, Judaism and Islam need to work together in West, and Hinduism and Islam need to initiate the movement in India taking Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainis along with them.

But if any two communities can be the true leaders in the revival of true religion, it is Muslims and Hindus of India. India is a deeply religious country where 95 pc of the people believe in God and the importance of the religion. Hindus and Muslims together form more than 90 pc of the population. If they come together, they can become a role model for the whole world. Their views regarding the integrity of family system, sanctity of marriage and against prostitution, pornography, alcohol, gambling, economic disparity, corruption and inflation are almost the same. Why can they not come together on these issues and work for a cleaner, purer, healthier, more peaceful and more prosperous society?

End of the article

Letter by D C Nath in response to the letter

Here is the letter of Mr. Nath, followed by my reply and his reply to my reply. I admire the generosity of Mr Nath in recognising the need of the time.

October 30, 2014

Dear Dr Javed Jamil,

Subject: Rebuttal against Suggestion That Hindus And Muslims In India Unite Against Economics Of Vices

We have read with interest your paper on: “Let Hindus and Muslims (In India) Unite against Economics of Vices”.

Well, Sir, you are not only a scholar, it appears from the books you have authored, you are also a theologian on Islam. Since you have thrown up some new idea and the matter is already in the public domain, we felt we should take this up lest some sections of the general public, Muslims or Hindus, get misguided. But, first of all, kudos to you to have the “courage” to speak of a suggestion to take Hindus and Muslims on the same boat. Well, Sir, we are surprised you have not yet attracted a fatwa on you for this act.

To rebut your paper fully (which is required) will be time- consuming and hence we shall take up only a few aspects:

You have not spelt out what you meant by economics of vices, on which you suggest Hindus and Muslims in India to unite. You have coined a new terminology, “economic fundamentalists” but the full scope of this expression is not clear;

You are right that Hindus and Muslims in India share many practices and thoughts in common. The vast majority of Indian Muslims are of Indian origin (as distinguished from those few Muslims in India of foreign descent). The DNAs of Hindus and Indian Muslims are, as you would be knowing, the same. Moreover, the Indian (Hindu) culture is such as assimilates everyone from any descent. So, there could be a possibility of Hindus and Muslims in India to unite. But, then comes the question, the main barrier, of Islamic religion. We said the Islamic religion and not Islam.

Islam as a religion is not compatible with any other system or way of living. As a Muslim, you cannot accept anything else other than Allah or what is written in the holy Quran. You have no motherland; you have no father, no mother who could be above the prophet. In Hinduism, “Janani janmabhoomischa swargadapi gorioshi”, meaning thereby that your mother is above the motherland and at a pedestal higher than even paradise. In Islam, you will be guilty of apostasy (for which death is the only punishment) if you accept anything else above the prophet.

Cutting short the discussion, how can the Hindus and Muslims, not only in not India but anywhere else, unite, when the Muslims ‘religion teaches them to kill all non-believers in Islam? The concept of jihad, a core issue in Islam, enjoins on all Muslims the sacred duty of killing non-believers in Muslim unless they convert to the true faith, that is, Islam on their own or you do that by the means prescribed in Quran.

The word secularism (basically separation of temporal head from the religious head) was introduced in India much after the Constitution was framed. It has been a political move to show or warn the Hindus that anything smacking of religion cannot or will not be accepted by the government. This is to be understood clearly. Hinduism by itself does not and never needed any such clarification, Basically, the formal introduction of secular concept is an appeasement to the Muslims and to check the spread or induction of Hinduism into the academic and even the administrative dealing.

Be that as it may, non- Islamic experts on Islam all over the world today are of the opinion that the problem is not between the Muslims and others, say, Christians or Hindus. The problem really lay and lies in Islam. They are unanimous that Islam is not a religion at all. It is an expansion of military strategy. The first part of the Quran, revealed in Mecca and generally taught, spoke of peace; the second part of the same book revealed in Medina, is nothing short of what has been described as a "war book".

Well, Dr, Javed Jamil, we may at this stage draw your attention to the judgement of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi in 1986 (attached), that has categorically endorsed the view that certain ayats in the Quran have the potential to create communal violence. The Muslims, who had proceeded against some Hindus for “unduly” blaming the Quran, never went in appeal and so the judgement of 1986 still holds good.

So, will you still believe it will be ever possible for a true Muslim to join hands with any non-believers, anywhere, including India, to help a country to progress?

Nevertheless and even after saying all that rather bluntly perhaps, your paper makes us believe you are one among the very few forward-looking Muslim scholars who can collectively help change the course of history if you can motivate Islamic theologians to start thinking how to modify the relevant parts (ayats and hadiths) of the Quran to make Islam compatible with other religions so that they can co-exist and make the world peaceful, as the first part of the Quran perceives or preaches. We are hopeful a handful amongst you can do this. That is how things happen and have happened in history.

Thanking you, Dr. Jamil, again, and with hopes for better times as spelt out by you and with best regards,

Vandemataram,

Yours sincerely,

D.C. Nath

(Former Spl. Director, IB)

(President, Patriots’ Forum)

My Reply

Dear Mr. Nath

Peace be upon you and everyone!

Thanks for your kind letter.

Normally, I do not like to enter into a debate through internet, as it is futile to debate a subject of extraordinary importance if it is not shared with other people. But as this particular article has attracted wide attention, and many Hindu friends have reacted negatively to it, and now a person of eminence like you has chosen to write a full “rebuttal” of my proposal of unity between Hindus and Muslims, I feel I must give a point to point reply. My comments on the points you have made in the letter are given below in italics.

We have read with interest your paper on: “Let Hindus and Muslims (In India) Unite Against Economics of Vices”.

Well, Sir, you are not only a scholar, it appears from the books you have authored, you are also a theologian on Islam…..

To clarify, I am not a degree holder in the subject of Theology, but yes I have done extensive work in the field of Islamic studies, particularly in the field of Applied Islam, and many people regard me an Islamic scholar. As I have written extensively also on the economic, political, medical and social issues, some people confuse me as a scholar of these fields. I must mention here that by profession I am a medical doctor, a product of King George’s Medical College, Lucknow who has practiced for more than 25 years as a Physician, but has lately given up practice to devote to academic pursuits as an independent thinker. I have no formal association with any political or social organization.

As far as the issuing of fatwa against me is concerned, the question does not arise, as I always write within the parameters of Islam, and the overwhelming majority of theologians have the ability to recognize what is right and what is wrong. I do not care for the minority that does not have the guts to face the truth.

The “courage” is not new. I have been relentlessly arguing in favour of revival of religion as a whole, and coming together of all religions against the real culprit, “Economic Fundamentalism”, which I will explain below. As India is a country of believers (Hindus as well as Muslims) in their respective religions, I find India as the ideal place for the bonding of the religions, and their presenting as a role model for the rest of the world. I am ready to go to any extent to save the mankind from the disastrous policies of the New World Order, based on “Economic Fundamentalism” and hegemony of West over the world. It is these modern atheistic ideologies, which are interested in negating religion, and in maintaining a constant feud between different religions.

Quote from his letter

You have not spelt out what you meant by economics of vices, on which you suggest Hindus and Muslims in India to unite. You have coined a new terminology, “economic fundamentalists” but the full scope of this expression is not clear….

My Reply

Economic Fundamentalism” means supremacy of economics in all affairs of the world at the cost of health, family peace and social order. I will just quote a paragraph on ““Economic Fundamentalism” from my book on the subject, which will suffice to explain what I mean:

It can be seen that economic fundamentalism is becoming increasingly aggressive with every passing day. What has facilitated its stupendous growth is the outstanding ability of its generals to deal with the hurdles coming in their way. The truth is that they have been marching towards their ultimate destination without facing any appreciable resistance. They studied and recognised all the possible sources of obstruction well in advance and prepared a meticulous plan to thwart them. All possible weapons were and are being employed for this purpose: persuasion, advertising, misinformation, defama¬tion, bribing, manoeuvring and use of power. The ballistic missiles of their money-power have proved to be too destructive for the resistant elements to with¬stand…… The think-tank of the world of economic fundamentalism has taken innumerable steps to strengthen their hold. They have sacrificed the goddess of justice before the eyes of Statue of Liberty. They have transformed through political institutions the state into their estate. They have incessantly and relentlessly been trying to organise a grand farewell for religion. They have captivated the imagination of the people through the media. They have got the attire of society redesigned so that it looks gorgeous and inviting to their eyes. They have industrialised sex, in which they have discovered the hen that always lays golden eggs. They have relocated the entire educational set-up on the Wall Street. They have monopolised the tree of economy whose fruits and shadows are only theirs; others can only admire its beauty from a safe distance. They have taken science and technology as their mistresses that are always keen to offer their glorious best to them. They have nipped all the challenges in the buds by masterminding popular movements. They have lynched ‘civilisation’, which has been given a new incarnation; and now Bohemians are called civilised. Last but not the least, they have been busy colonising the good earth in the name of globalisation.”

Economics of Vices means commercialization of human weaknesses including all forms of addiction and sexual misdemeanours including sex outside marriage, prostitution, pornography etc, as well as poverty, inflation and economic disparity. These all are continuing because the forces of economics (particularly the corporate) have interest in sustaining them.

His Quote

You are right that Hindus and Muslims in India share many practices and thoughts in common. ….. We said the Islamic religion and not Islam.

My reply

Islam is not a religion. It is a full-fledged system involving clear guidelines for individuals, family, society and all kinds of institutions, political and social. It also has clear guidelines for different places depending upon the break-up of population of the area.

His Quote

Islam as a religion is not compatible with any other system or way of living.

My reply

Islam is compatible with everything good and not compatible with anything bad; and the criterion of “Good” and “Bad” in Islam means good or bad for the health, family system and social order. Anything favouring them is good and anything harming them is bad. And when it combines with the commitment to God and Hereafter, it becomes doubly assuring, as it not only ensures a better life in this world but also a perfect life in the Hereafter.

His Quote

As a Muslim, you cannot accept anything else other than Allah or what is written in the holy Quran.

My reply

Yes, as a Muslim, we cannot accept anything other than God, the ONE CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. “Allah” is mere Arabic equivalent of God, Ishwar or Parmeshwar. God is formless, not having any gender, not bound by space and time. As He is all-knowing, He alone can decide the best course of action. As we believe that Quran is the Final (not the First) Word of God and Muhammad the Final (not the first) Ambassador of God, anyone who does not follow them cannot be not on the right path. However, Quran clarifies that God sent hundreds of thousands of Ambassadors to the earth, and they came to all parts of the world. We believe that, Jesus and Moses, and in all probability Krishna, Ram and Buddha were His Ambassadors and therefore on the Chosen Path. Similarly, God sent many scriptures. Many Islamic scholars believe Vedas to be the first God-sent scriptures. Old and New Testaments too, in their original text, were His words. Quran is the Last Word of God and Muhammad is the Last Ambassador of God. So while we have to follow them now in matters of law and practice, we have to believe in all previous scriptures and Ambassadors as true, even if some parts of these scriptures were later adulterated by later priests. As far as Quran is concerned, there is no possibility of its adulteration but there are always possibilities of misinterpretation or incomplete interpretation.

His Quote

You have no motherland; you have no father, no mother who could be above the prophet. In Hinduism, “Janani janmabhoomischa swargadapi gorioshi”, meaning thereby that your mother is above the motherland and at a pedestal higher than even paradise. In Islam, you will be guilty of apostasy (for which death is the only punishment) if you accept anything else above the prophet.

My reply

We worship NONE BUT GOD Not EVEN PROPHET, who too was a devotee of God. We pray only to God. We differentiate between respect and worship. We respect parents, teachers and motherland but cannot worship them, as they all are the creatures not creator.

His Quote

Cutting short the discussion, how can the Hindus and Muslims, not only in not India but anywhere else, unite, when the Muslims ‘religion teaches them to kill all non-believers in Islam? The concept of jihad, a core issue in Islam, enjoins on all Muslims the sacred duty of killing non-believers in Muslim unless they convert to the true faith, that is, Islam on their own or you do that by the means prescribed in Quran.

My reply

Religion teaches them to kill all non-believers in Islam?” This is biggest and most blatant lie against Islam and Quran. Quran is all for peace allowing war like any other ideology, religion, or political entity, in certain conditions. I am ready to have a debate on this subject and will post an article of mine regarding the War Ideology (Jihad) in Quran with quotes from Quran (including the so-called controversial verses) but only after I get an answer to the following:

The anti-Islam propagandists have time and again tried to prove that Quran promotes violence of an extreme kind and asks its followers to “kill all unbelievers”. Before discussing Quran’s position on Jihad these people should first give replies to the following questions in accordance with their respective ideologies, religious or modern, such as Hinduism, Christianity, American constitution and Indian constitution. Only then comparison can be made with the Qur’anic position. These questions are of course related to why and how wars can be or should be fought:

*
p<>{color:#000;}. Have armed confrontations any role whatsoever in the world?

*
p<>{color:#000;}. If yes, what should be the underlying philosophy and what should be the objectives?

*
p<>{color:#000;}. What are the conditions when one can join or start a war?

*
p<>{color:#000;}. Once war has started, what are the instructions that will be given to the army?: Instructions regarding the opponents and the methodology of fighting.

*
p<>{color:#000;}. What will be the likely scenarios when one of the warring parties will want to stop war?

*
p<>{color:#000;}. What should be the conditions when war should be stopped?

*
p<>{color:#000;}. What will be the status of the fighters killed in the wars in the eyes of the country they represent?

I will request you to answer these questions on the ground of Hindu religion (quotes from Hindu granths including Mahabharat regarding wars) and India’s position.

Here I will only like to quote a paragraph from the article:

Islam is a fully-grown system, which, like every other system of governance, needs to propagate its ideology, safeguard its interests, protect its followers and areas of influence and combat any actions of hostility directed against it. It has the right to self-defence like any other country or organisation has. Jihad means struggle; it denotes earnest efforts to achieve Islamic objective of grand peace and safeguard its ideological, political and geographical sovereignty. Under normal circumstances, Jihad primarily involves intellectual, political and social means; in extraordinary circumstances, it does not shy away from adopting military or militant means. What differentiates Islamic method of armed confrontation however from the one in vogue in the current international arena is that in Islam Jihad is not for selfish geographical, political and economic interests of a country or a group of countries. In contrast, it is aimed at ensuring peace, rescuing people in duress and fighting the forces of evil, exploitation and injustice. Qur’an categorically states that fighting should be restricted only for the stated objectives, namely in the event of aggressive intents or actions of a hostile force, infraction of an agreement, widespread chaos, exploitation or oppression and to counter excesses. It also makes clear that while during fighting every effort must be made to strike telling blows to the enemy, Muslims must return to the negotiating table as soon as the enemy appears inclined to cease-fire and lasting peace.

The term “Jihad” in Islam does not mean an armed fight, which at best is only a part of it. Jihad, in fact is an incessant struggle to spread what is good and uproot what is evil. The best Jihad, according to Islam is against one’s self. And when this definition is extended to a social level, it again means struggle against the forces that exploit human weaknesses or oppress the weak and poor. Jihad through Qur’an is another important kind of Jihad, which also means an intellectual dialogue with the opponents of the Islamic system.

Jihad is meant for protecting the weak against the mighty; for alerting the forces of evil that their sordid adventures will not go unchallenged; for giving the oppressed sections a voice and wrecking the nerve-centres of the tyrants; and for giving the exploiters sleepless nights. Jihad prepares a person to sacrifice his possessions including his life if required for the cause of God. But Mujahids must clearly know that the objective of Jihad is not to bring certain persons to power, nor to bring theocracies to the whole world through sheer use of force. “Deen”, the system of God does not necessarily mean the establishment of a theocratic government through violent means; it means the rule of justice. Fighting is only the last but an open option in Jihad. If conditions are justifiable for fighting, it becomes obligatory; if conditions do not demand fighting, it becomes aggression. If its objectives are for the welfare of the masses it is desirable; if it is an excuse for selfish ends, it is an unparalleled sin. Jihad through peaceful means must always continue without halt; Jihad through arms must be an aberration.

Islam however does not accept that “all is fair in love and war”. Even in war, all Islamic conditions must be followed in letter and spirit. As soon as the conditions are bright for an honourable settlement, fighting must be stopped without delay; for the ultimate objective is not the subjugation of the enemy but an end to mischief, anarchy, chaos and oppression. The powers that dominate do always try to take the right to fight away from others, so that they can continue to hold reins. They amass massive stocks of deadly weapons, but deny others the right to possess them. They do not hesitate a second to attack or invade the positions of their challengers, but make too much fuss of even the smallest acts of armed resistance. They kill innocents in big numbers and label it as ‘collateral damage’; and lambaste their opponents, through the weapons of words and war, if their actions cause the deaths of even a handful of innocents.

Islam on the other hand respects life. Quran says that “saving the life of a human being is like saving the whole mankind” and that “killing a life is like killing the whole mankind.”

His Quote

The word secularism (basically separation of temporal head from the religious head) was introduced in India much after the Constitution was framed. It has been a political move to show or warn the Hindus that anything smacking of religion cannot or will not be accepted by the government. This is to be understood clearly. Hinduism by itself does not, and never needed any such clarification. Basically, the formal introduction of secular concept is an appeasement to the Muslims and to check the spread or induction of Hinduism into the academic and even the administrative dealing.

My reply

Appeasement” is the word invented by the forces of Hindutva to deny Muslims any benefits in their country, Muslims in India are in fact most neglected, most deprived, most ignored community. This is a different topic. I can discuss it separately, but for now, let us focus on the theological aspect of the debate.

His Quote

[* Be that as it may, non- Islamic experts on Islam all over the world today are of the opinion that the problem is not between the Muslims and others, say, Christians or Hindus. The problem really lay and lies in Islam. They are unanimous that Islam is not a religion at all. It is an expansion of military strategy. The first part of the Quran, revealed in Mecca and generally taught, spoke of peace; the second part of the same book revealed in Medina, is nothing short of what has been described as a "war book". *]

My reply

Today’s method is: If you are a liar, call all others liars, if you are corrupt call all others corrupt. If you are violent, call others violent. The Western countries do not count the millions they are killing in wars but count the few killed in violence against them. They are the biggest war mongers, having killed more than 180 million people worldwide since 20th century, and do not want any other country to be militarily strong.

His Quote

Well, Dr, Javed Jamil, we may at this stage draw your attention to the judgement of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi in 1986 (attached), that has categorically endorsed the view that certain ayats in the Quran have the potential to create communal violence. The Muslims, who had proceeded against some Hindus for “unduly” blaming the Quran, never went in appeal and so the judgment of 1986 still holds good.

So, will you still believe it will be ever possible for a true Muslim to join hands with any non-believers, anywhere, including India, to help a country to progress?

My reply

Muhammad entered into alliances with non-Muslims. No Muslim can be bigger than him. He started his mission at a place where none believed him, and within 23 years, as many as dozens of the currently existing countries had accepted him as the Last Ambassador of God. True Muslims will always love to have friendly relations with all the communities on the basis of equality, justice and mutual trust. India has good relations with almost all Muslim countries except Pakistan and Bangladesh. I believe if Muslims and Hindus can come together, India will be a healthier and more peaceful and more prosperous country.

His Quote

Nevertheless and even after saying all that rather bluntly perhaps, your paper makes us believe you are one among the very few forward-looking Muslim scholars who can collectively help change the course of history if you can motivate Islamic theologians to start thinking how to modify the relevant parts (ayats and hadiths) of the Quran to make Islam compatible with other religions so that they can co-exist and make the world peaceful, as the first part of the Quran perceives or preaches. We are hopeful a handful amongst you can do this. That is how things happen and have happened in history.

My reply

I am certainly ready to motivate Muslims for developing good relationships with Hindus, provided Hindus and Muslims respect each other’s right to believe in their respective religions as the best, and they stop spreading misinformation, myths and hatred against each other. Any word against Prophet or Quran will simply not be acceptable though we are always ready to enter into an academic debate on any of the issues involved. I feel that if anyone is trying to demonise any other religion instead of presenting his own religion, it demonstrates his lack of confidence in his own religion.

Thanking you, Dr. Jamil, again, and with hopes for better times as spelt out by you and with best regards,

Vandemataram,

Yours sincerely,

D.C. Nath

Dear Mr Nath,

Coincidentally, the forward of my coming book, “Dynamic Paradigm of Health”, the first volume of “Qur’anic Paradigms of Sciences & Society” has been written by another Nath, Prof. Lalit M Nath, Former Director, AIIMA, New Delhi.

God alone is worth worshipping!

Regards

Dr. Javed Jamil

Reply of Mr. Nath

Thank you Dr.Javed Jamil!. I must apologise for not getting back to you earlier than now. ‘Got involved in some routine but unavoidable piece of work. Frankly speaking, you have stumped me by your response also. I do not want to enter into any argument what we have brought out individually but I would certainly exchange notes with you to see where we can “meet”. Are you still based in Lucknow? Would you like to share your contact Nos? Thanking you and with best regards,

D C Nath


Frank Speak with Hindu Brothers

Like every country, India wants to be a nation of peace, tolerance and prosperity. Like all nations, India wants to prove that it has always been a tolerant and peace-loving nation. And like every nation on the earth, its history can at the most be described chequered with long periods of wars and internal struggles along with abundant examples of peaceful existence in various parts of the country and in various periods. Like all the communities of the world again, all the communities of the country — Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and atheists, boast of being inherently tolerant, and the truth on the other hand is that individuals and groups belonging to almost all of them have had their share in violence and oppression of one kind or the other. The tendency to indulge in violence is almost always more in the groups that hold the reins of the power. The weak too often indulges in violence in retaliation to widespread oppression or discrimination. The amount of the violence caused by the weak is almost always much less compared to the violence against them, but the powerful tends to highlight it so disproportionately that they appear to be the culprit rather than the victim.

  • Author: Javed Jamil
  • Published: 2016-09-22 22:05:10
  • Words: 6095
Frank Speak with Hindu Brothers Frank Speak with Hindu Brothers