[nukkad] Hindu-Muslim perspectives

["Mahesh chandra gupta" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Voice your opinion at
               http://www.mumbai-central.com/sawaal/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I give below a piece with which i am 100% in agreement. I invite those who do not agree with it to point out the specific statements objected to by them.

MC Gupta
========================================================================


http://in.news.yahoo.com/020802/57/1t3oi.html

Ashok Chowgule

The  Vishwa  Hindu Parishad  has been saying  for quite some time
that  the Muslims  in India  should  come out  with a  definitive
statement  whether concept  of Jihad and Kafir, at least in their
aggressive  connotation, are applicable to India, where more than
80 per cent of the population is Hindu.

Unfortunately,  instead  of  dealing  with  the  issues  head-on,
efforts  are  being made to  beat around  the bush — for example,
making  a  distinction  between  ‘lesser’  and  ‘greater’  jihad.
Aggressive  monotheistic  religions, like Christianity and Islam,
divide  the  world into  believers  and  non-believers, with  the
former  going to heaven and the latter to hell. (While Christians
and  Muslims  agree that  non-Christians and non-Muslims are non-
believers,  they  would exclude  each other  from the category of
believers.)  This  belief makes  it incumbent  on the follower to
convert others to his/her faith.

In  Islam, the  concepts of kafir and jihad are used to take this
scheme  forward. A few years ago, a respected librarian in Bihar,
belonging  to the Muslim faith, said that kafir is not applicable
to  Hindus. The  Muslim clergy raised a hue and cry on the issue,
and  came out  with a definitive statement that the librarian was
wrong.  All  over the  world, we see  that the Islamic terrorists
justify  their  actions on the basis  of a command for jihad that
they  say is  in the Koran. And the victims of this terrorism are
not  only the Hindus in India, but many others in different parts
of the world — from the rich in the USA, to the poor in Sudan.

The   non-Muslims   view  the  situation  with  trepidation.  The
moderates  in Islam,  instead of  taking  a firm  stand on  these
issues,  seem  to be  providing  justification  for the  acts  of
terrorism  by  saying that,  for example, in  India it is poverty
that  drives  the Muslims  to become  fundamentalists. And in the
world,  it is  the  USA  policy in  Israel  that  has caused  the
problem.

Like  Christianity  before it, Islam  spread through the power of
the  sword. And  the sword  was  unsheathed because  of what  the
followers  believe that  their book enjoins them to do. It serves
no  purpose  to look into these  books, and explain that what the
terrorists  are doing  is not what is sanctioned, by quoting some
or  the other  verse. There are plenty others that the terrorists
use  from the same book to validate their actions. The test to be
applied is not the book, but what are the proper humane standards
today.

Some moderate Muslims say that the concept of triple talaq in one
sitting  is  not sanctioned in the  Koran. Even as they are cagey
about  what  exactly  is  sanctioned, they  will  not  apply  the
standards  of  ethics and  morality of  today. If whatever method
they say is sanctioned in the Koran, they have to determine if it
is good for the Muslim woman, by  secular standards. And if it is
good for a Muslim woman, surely it would be good for a non-Muslim
woman,  and  so should  be applied to  all. It is  not easy for a
Hindu  to comprehend  the concepts  of jihad  and kafir.  A Hindu
believes  that  each person  has to  create his/her own spiritual
path  to  salvation. Thus, the Hindu  has a lot of freedom and is
thus  forever evolving. A guru is at best a guide, explaining the
aspects  of various  paths. But the ultimate choice of is that of
the individual, and he/she has to take the responsibility for the
decision. Some may respond by asking what is Hinduism doing about
its own ‘fundamentalists’.

This  is  topic for a detailed  discussion, and we in the VHP are
more  than  willing to do  so. Suffice  to say that Hindu history
clearly  shows  that every person  who has worked for a resurgent
Hinduism has first started the work of reforms from within. There
are  many  practices  within  Hinduism  that  does  need  reform.
However,  no  Hindu has indulged  in violence against others as a
matter  of  action. This accommodative  character of the Hindu is
well established all over the world.

A Hindu has never made any demands on the host community. Even as
he/she  has kept  the Hindu identity alive and flourishing, there
is  a total assimilation in the life of the host country. It is a
record that needs to be emulated by others.

The  aggressive monotheistic  faiths have caused a huge amount of
violence  in  their paths. It  is time  for them to determine how
they  will  look at those who  refuse to accept that their way is
the  only valid  way.  And having  made a  choice,  if the  ‘non-
believers’ react in a manner not to their liking, they should not
be surprised.

Copyright  ©  2001 Mid-Day  Multimedia  Ltd  all rights  reserved
Copyright © 2002 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html