Unity of Religions
Glory be to Allah above any idol they propose!" (al Qur'an 52:43)
Foreward 17/9
The Unity that underlies all Religions 17/9
Hindu Dharma : Religion in General 17/9
Introduction
The Myth of Unity of Religions
Fatwa's on the 'Unity of Religion' concept
Universal validity of all Religions
The life of this world is nothing but a game and a diversion.
The hereafter is better for those who do their duty. So will you not use your intellect? (al Qur'an 6: 32):
Foreward
Mufti Sambhali, Jilani Mia & their advocates believe FUREC is simply a society established by multi-faith leaders to help eradicate crime, poverty, Aids/HIV, violence & terrorism. They believe 'Unity of Religions' does not imply the merging of religions. The charge of kufr & our critique has always been that 'Unity of Religions' is an old terminology used even today, NO, incorrect, not merely applied today, but represents a New Movement, who believe All Religions contain Universal Truths, Universal Values, All are many valid paths leading to the worship of the One God. One who shares this ideology shares 'Unity of Minds' & becomes part of this Universal Brotherhood & Universal i.e. an 'Enlightened Citizen'.
This kufriyyah ideology is propagated through the following words: 'UNITY OF RELIGIONS'. Mufti Sambhali, Jilani Mia & their advocates, know this very well. This is no secret neither does it require scholarly research. One may find all the proof they require to satisfy their mind & strengthen their faith by conducting the basic of searches on the internet. This has overtones with Secularism & Religious Pluralism, concepts which are designed to disengage religious people from their faiths, making them merely affairs of one's private life. Unity of Religions does not necessarily mean merging of religions however, the intellectual & academic result is precisely that. Though they say it does not mean merging of religions: since a Hindu will never abandon his religion & merge with Islam, but by believing that all religions are true or have truths within them & that they all lead to the same goal/destination, which is worship of One God, is itself representative of either a new religion or negation & falsification of one's own faith?
The following Articles propagate the message & kufr ideology of 'Unity of Religions'.
Unity underlies all Religions
THE UNITY THAT UNDERLIES ALL RELIGIONS
By
SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA
"All religions are one. They teach a divine life. I respect saints and prophets of all religions. I respect all religions, all cults, all faiths and all creeds. I serve all, love all, mix with all and see the Lord in all".
Swami Sivananda
At the present moment all religions contain a mixture of truth, which is divine, and error which is human. The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the non-essentials. The apparent differences in religions are due to a misconception or misconstruction of the long-forgotten truth of the Vedas on which they are ultimately founded. All systems of religion are equally divine and true. The conflicting points are all due to misconception and misconstruction of truths on account of prejudice, bigotry, lack of purity of heart and subtlety and purity of intellect, and perverted condition of the intellect of people.
The great majority of religions had their origin in prehistoric times. Hence there are no genuine documents or trustworthy traditions concerning them. All prophets are messengers of God. They are great Yogis and realized souls, who have had divine, intuitive perception of God. Their words are infallible and sacred. The Koran or the Zend-Avesta or the Bible is as much a sacred book as the Bhagavad-Gita. All contain the essence of divine wisdom. Ahuramazda, Isvara, Allah, Jehovah are different names for one God.
Truth is neither Hindu nor Muslim, nor Buddhist nor Christian! Truth is one, homogeneous, eternal substance. The follower of the religion of Truth walks on the path of light, peace, wisdom, power and bliss.
Man forgets all about his religion on account of ignorance, or lust for power and greed. He has become irreligious. So he has come down to the level of a brute. He has lost all sense of morality. He does havoc. He creates mischief. He stabs, loots, and burns houses. The law of the jungle prevails.
Many preach Buddhism, but no one gives up desires and Himsa [as opposed to Ahimsa]. Many preach Christianity, but no one practices love and forgiveness. Many preach Islam, but no one recognizes the brotherhood of man. Many preach Hinduism, but no one realizes the Divinity in all. Preaching has become the livelihood of men, while practice has become their object of scorn. Hence the world is wicked, not for want of truth, nor on account of religions; but, alas, it is wicked for the lack of true followers of these ideals and religions.
What is needed is proper education of the followers of all religions. Place the practical tenets of their own religion before the followers of that religion, and devise ways and means of enabling them to express these tenets in their daily life. Without practice, idealism creates fatalism in man. Unless knowledge alters one's life, it is useless. Selflessness and love are not creeds to be taught, but ideals to be exemplified, demonstrated and radiated. Therefore, let everyone practice his own religion and strive to attain the goal. Let religion create saints and Yogis, rather than Mandirs [Hindu temple], Masjids [Mosque] and Churches.
Religion In General
The Unity of Religions:
[Hindu Dharma: Religion In General]
All religions have one common ideal: worship of the Lord and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.
The temple, the church, the Mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same. The different religions have taken shape according to the customs peculiar to the countries in which they originated and according to the differences in the mental outlook of the people inhabiting them. The goal of all religions is to lead people to the same Paramatman according to the different attributes of the devotees concerned. So there is no need for people to change over to another faith. Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God.
"A man leaves the religion of his birth because he thinks there is something wanting in it," so you may think. 'Why does the Svaamigal say then that the convert demeans the new religion that he embraces? " I will tell you why. Is it not because they think that God is not the same in all religions that people embrace a new faith? By doing so, they see God in a reduced form, don't they? They presumably believe that the God of the religion of their birth is useless and jump to another faith. But do they believe that the God of their new religion is a universal God? No. No. If they did there would be no need for any change of faith. Why do people embrace a new faith? Is it not because that the continuance in the religion of their birth would mean a denial of the blessings of the God of the new faith to which they are attracted? This means that they place limitations on their new religion as well as on its God. When they convert to a new religion, apparently out of respect for it, they indeed dishonour it.
One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman. The Vedas proclaim: "The wise speak of the One Truth by different names. " Sri Krsna says in the Gita: "In whatever way or form a man worships me, I increase his faith and make him firm and steady in that worship. " And says one of the Azhvars: "Avaravar tamatamadu tarivari vahaivahai avaravar iraiyavar". This is the reason why the Hindus have not practiced- like adherents of other religions- proselytisation and religious persecution. Nor have they waged anything like the crusades or jehads.
Our long history is sufficient proof of this. All historians accept the fact of our religious tolerance. They observe that, an empire like Srivijaya was established in the East, people there accepted our culture and our way of life willingly, not because they were imposed on them by force. They further remark that Hinduism spread through trade and not through force.
In my opinion the Vedic religion was once prevalent all over the world. Certain ruins and relics found in various regions of the planet attest to this fact. Even historians who disagree with my view concede that in the past people in many lands accepted Indian culture and the way of life willingly and not on account of any force on our part.
All religions that practice conversion employ a certain ritual. For instance, there is baptism in Christianity. Hinduism has more ritual than any other religion, yet its canonical texts do not contain any rite for conversion. No better proof is needed for the fact that we have at no time either encouraged conversion or practiced it.
When a passenger arrives at a station by train he is besieged by the driver of the horse-cart, by the rikshavala, by the cabbie, and so on. He hires the vehicle in which he likes to be driven to his destination. It cannot be said with reason that those who ply different vehicles are guilty of competing with one another for the fare. After all it is their livelihood. But it makes no sense for the adherents of various faiths to vie with one another to take a man to the one and only destination that is God.
There is a bridge across a river, consisting of a number of arches, each of them built to the same design and measurement. To the man sitting next to a particular arch it would appear to be bigger than the other arches. So is the case with people belonging to a particular religion. They feel that their religion alone is great and want others to join it. There is in fact no such need for anyone to leave the religion of his birth for another.
That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity.
Introduction
This page has been set up for the refutation of the false ideology of 'Unity of Religions'. The articles/excerpts here will be from non-Muslim as well as Muslim sources. The purpose of this page is to firstly, demonstrate that 'Unity of Religions' is a false ideology being promoted & propogated throughout the world by the kuffar & secondly, that not only Muslims refute such ideologies but people of other faiths also are compelled to refute such ideologies.
It should be obvious that the representation of Islam in such Articles do not represent the beliefs of Muslims or the Admin, since some of the articles are written by non-Muslims.
The Myth of Unity
The Myth of Unity of all Religions | By Dr. Ramendra
(Published originally as a booklet by the Buddhiwadi Foundation) It has been republished till now in Humanist Outlook( vol.10, No5, Autumn 2003), Indian Sceptic (vol.16,No.8, 15-12-2003),The Modern Rationalist (vol.28 No.12 Jan 2004), The Radical Humanist (vol.67 No.10 Jan 2004) and Understanding Sikhism (Jan 2006) . It is being published here on the internet for the first time with the permission of the author.)
Attempts have been made by several religious thinkers to synthesize various religions in order to remove the conflict among them. It has been maintained by some that (i) all religions are basically the same, and there is a “rock bottom unity” among all religions; 1 (ii) that all religions are true, 2 and (iii) that different religions are paths leading to the same goal, 3 and so on. This view, though well intentioned, is a myth. I propose to call it “the myth of unity of all religions” and the purpose of my essay is to explode this myth.
All the three statements mentioned above are factual statements. Therefore, it is possible to refute them by showing that they do not correspond with the reality, or, in other words, by pointing out facts that contradict them.
Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism are the main living religions of the world. The myth of unity of all religions can easily be exploded by showing that these religions make conflicting truth-claims, which are incompatible with one another.4 For instance; they have different views regarding the nature of this world or about the nature of “life” after death, or about the ultimate destiny of human beings. They also advocate different moral codes, different methods of worship and different rituals. Since they are not similar, it is not possible for all of them to be true at the same time. It is also not possible to regard them as different paths leading to the same goal, because they do not believe in a common goal.
If we analyze the contents of various religions, as expressed in their religious scriptures, we find that they mainly consist of (i) factual statements about the nature of reality, or the descriptive part, and (ii) normative statements or the prescriptive part. On further analysis, we find that the prescriptive part of these religions consists of, firstly, general views regarding what is right or wrong and how one ought to behave in different situations in his or her life; and secondly, prescriptions regarding the mode of worship and other associated rituals. In other words, apart from other things, different religions consist of (i) a world-view (ii) a moral code and (iii) methods of worship and other related rituals.
The differences between the mode of worship and other related rituals of various religions are so glaring, that even those who try to synthesize various religions do not claim that all religions have similar methods of worship and similar rituals. They concentrate on what we may regard as the philosophical part of religion for demonstrating the supposed basic unity of all religions. Therefore, for exploding the myth of unity of all religions, I, too, will concentrate on the philosophical part of religion. Our aim is to show that different religions do not have identical views either on the nature of the universe or on the moral code to be followed. Besides, on many important issues they have diametrically opposed views that have been a source of perpetual conflict among them, both violent and non-violent.
God
Let us begin with the idea of God. It is widely believed that the concept of God is central to all religions. Many thinkers have treated God as the most central religious concept. So much so, that they have gone to the extent of defining “religion” in terms of “God”. For example, according to James Martineau, “Religion is the belief in an ever living God, that is, in a Divine Mind and Will ruling the Universe and holding moral relations with mankind.”5
Martineau’s definition of religion appears plausible in the context of prophetic religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All these religions are, broadly speaking, monotheistic — they believe in the existence of one God. 6 However, if we take into account the religions of Indian origin, namely, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, we find that the definition is too narrow, as it results in the exclusion of Jainism and Buddhism from the list of religions. 7 Even Hinduism does not fit in neatly into the monotheistic model of religion. In fact, among religions of Indian origin, Sikhism comes nearest to the monotheistic model. 8 In case of Hinduism, on the other hand, the situation is much more complex. In Hinduism anthropomorphism (nature-worship), polytheism, monotheism, monism and even atheism appear to be co-existing side by side. 9 In any case; Hinduism is not a strictly monotheistic religion.
Finally, Buddhism and Jainism are religions without God. 10 Jain and Buddhist thinkers have given many arguments for refuting the existence of God. 11 Even the literature of Sankhya and Mimamsa, two orthodox schools of Hinduism, contains arguments against the existence of God. 12 In Shankara’s advaita vedanta, theistic God is regarded as ultimately unreal. Nirguna brahma alone is regarded as the only reality. 13 Even religions, which believe in the existence of God, do not have identical conception of God. 14 For example, in Zoroastrianism we find, along with the concept of ahura mazda (God), the concept of ahriman, who introduces evil in this world. However, it is maintained that, in the struggle between good and evil, ahriman and his associated will ultimately be defeated. 15 Again, in Christianity we find the doctrine of trinity, according to which “the father, the son and the holy ghost” are three persons in one. 16 In Sikhism God is regarded as both attributed (saguna) and non-attributed (nirguna). 17 In Hinduism there are different conceptions of God existing side by side. Incidentally, the concept of avatar (incarnation of God) is found in Hinduism, but it is not to be found in prophetic religions except Christianity. 18 For Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism the doctrine of incarnation is blasphemy. 19 The prophetic religions, on the other hand, believe in a prophet as an intermediary between God and human beings, but the concept of “prophet” is absent in Hinduism and other religions of Indian origin. 20 Gautama Buddha or Mahavira never claimed that they were prophets or messengers of God. Finally, Sikhism rejects both the concepts of “prophet” as well as avatar and lays great stress or emphasis on guru. 21
Thus, it is more than obvious that, contrary to the popular opinion, all religions do not have identical views on the existence or the nature of God. According to some religions, “God exists”, whereas according to some others, “God does not exist”. It is impossible to reconcile these rival truth-claims. Both these statements cannot be true. It is logically impossible to reconcile them.
Life after death
Though all religions do not believe in the existence of God, all of them do believe in the existence of “life” after death. However, they have different views regarding the nature of life after death.
Here, again, the prophetic religions — Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam — have, broadly speaking, similar ideas. All of them believe in resurrection, the Day of Judgment and in heaven and hell. On the other hand, the religions of Indian origin, namely, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, have more or less similar ideas. All of them believe in bondage — the cycle of birth and death — and liberation (mukti, nirvana or moksha). They also accept the related doctrine of karmawad. According to this doctrine, depending on his or her karma, the soul of the dead person is born in a new body — sometimes in the body of a lower animal such as dog or owl. This process continues till the person attains mukti or liberation from the cycle of birth and death.
However, in Hinduism, both the idea of bondage and liberation, as well as heaven and hell appear to be co-existing. There are references in the Puranas of a person named Chitragupta taking note of all the actions of human beings in a register in accordance with which they are rewarded or punished by being sent to heaven or hell. Yama is regarded as the god of death. His agents bring the souls of dead before God, who sends them to heaven or hell on the basis of the account maintained by Chitragupta. Thus, according to the Hindu view, the cases of the dead persons are disposed of then and there on an individual basis, without waiting for the Day of Judgment. In any case, the idea of resurrection and the Day of Judgment are conspicuous by their absence in all religions of Indian origin, including Hinduism.
To be sure, the prophetic religions and the religions of Indian origin, which form two identical sets as far as the conception of life after death is concerned, vary among themselves regarding details. For example, all prophetic religions believe that on the Day of Judgment all dead persons will come alive with their bodies and taken in front of God, who will send them to heaven or hell, depending on deeds performed by them. But, according to Zoroastrianism, those sent to hell will not stay there permanently. It s suggested that there will be a period of great restoration and renovation in which even “wicked” people will be fully reformed and become perfectly righteous. Ahriman and his associates will be completely destroyed, and there will be a life of happiness and bliss for all in the kingdom of ahura mazda.
Similarly, though all the religions of Indian origin believe, broadly speaking, in the doctrine of bondage and liberation, they have different views regarding the cause of bondage, the method of liberation and the exact nature of the state of affairs after liberation. Buddhism, for example, rejects both soul and God, and therefore, it explains bondage and liberation without referring to these concepts. Jainism rejects God but accepts soul, therefore, its explanation of bondage is free from God, but is based on the concept of soul. According to Jainism, bondage is caused by the fusion of karmic matter with the pure soul. On liberation, soul regains its original pure state. Sikhism believes in both God and soul. Sikh writings support both the doctrine of the conservation of individual souls, and, also at times, the doctrine of absorption in the nirguna brahma. In Hinduism, according to Shankara’s advaita vedanta, nirguna brahma is the one and the only reality. Atma (soul) is same as the brahma. The realization of its non-dual character by the soul leads to liberation (mukti). Ramanuja, on the other hand, maintains that God (ishwar) is personal and with attributes. Individual soul (jiva) is a part of God, and not identical with it. The liberated soul enjoys the life of perfection in vaikuntha (heaven). Ultimately, it becomes like God and enjoys fellowship with him. Atheistic Sankhya, which, too, is a part of Hinduism, explains bondage and liberation, like Jainism, without resorting to the conception of God.
Even if we ignore the differences, which exist among the prophetic religions on the one hand, and the religions of the Indian origin on the other, the differences between these two sets of religion are too serious to be ignored. Either soul exists or it does not. Either human beings exist after death with their bodies or they exist without their bodies. Either dead persons are reborn or they are not. Both resurrection and the Day of Judgment are real or they are not. Either liberation from the “cycle of birth and death” takes place or it does not. Either karmawad is true or it is not. It is not possible for the two contradictory assertions to be true at the same time. This is the most elementary rule of logic. To sum up, all religions do not believe in the existence of God; and even though all of them believe in life after death, they have conflicting views on what happens after death.
Prophets and revealed books
The prophetic religions appear to have broadly a similar form. All of them believe in one God, Prophet, and revealed book, life after death, resurrection, the Day of Judgment, heaven and hell. But it will be totally wrong to infer a basic unity among them on this basis, because they have different views on (i) who is and who is not the prophet, (ii) which book is and which is not revealed, and (iii) who are sent to heaven and who are sent to hell on the supposed Day of Judgment.
The Zoroastrians regard Zarathustra or Zoroaster as the prophet, who was “called upon to preach the message of God for all mankind.” They regard the Gatha or Zendavesta as the final authority in religious matters. The Jews, on the other hand, consider Moses their greatest prophet and the Old Testament of the existing Bible or Torah as revealed. The Christians treat Jesus Christ as their highest prophet and as “son of God”, and the Bible as revealed, but, unlike Jews, they lay greater emphasis on the New Testament, which deals with the life, teaching, death and “resurrection” of Jesus.
The Jews believe in the coming of a messiah, who will bring salvation to all faithful Jews, and will establish a kingdom of universal peace, where lion and lamb will drink at the same fountain without any further fear. However, they refuse to accept Jesus as their messiah. According to them, the messiah is yet to come. The Jews believe in angels and prophets, but not in incarnation of God. For the Jews, Jesus was not even a prophet, because he indulged in blasphemy by claiming to be one with God. For Christians, on the other hand, Jesus was the incarnation of God and greater than any earlier prophet including Moses. Finally, Islam regards Muhammad as Prophet and Qur’an as revealed. The cardinal belief of Islam is contained in the kalima, “There is no God, but Allah, and Muhammad is his Messenger (Rasul)”. This is considered so important that it is the first thing to be uttered in the ear of a new born male child! Islam accepts Jesus Christ as a prophet, but it does not accept that he was son of God. Christians, on the other hand, do not regard Muhammad as a Prophet. Thus, among Semitic religions, Christianity accepts Moses as a Prophet, but regards Jesus Christ as the highest prophet and as the son of God, whereas Judaism refuses to accept Jesus as Messiah, Prophet or son of God. Similarly, Islam accepts Moses and Jesus as Prophets, but treats Muhammad as the greatest & last Prophet. Judaism and Christianity, on the other hand, refuse to accept Muhammad as Prophet.
According to Christianity, on the Day of Judgment those who have faith in Jesus and Christianity will go to heaven while the non-believers will burn eternally in hell-fire. According to Islam, those who have faith in Islam will go to heaven and others will go to hell. It seems that in almost every religion, which believes in heaven and hell, a place in hell is reserved for persons who do not have faith in that particular religion!
It will be totally naive and unrealistic to suggest that these differences among various religions are not fundamental, for these beliefs form the very basis of these religions: belief in Muhammad and the Qur’an are as fundamental to Islam as the belief in Jesus and the Bible is to Christianity. In fact, these differences provide the justification for their existence as separate, identifiable religions, and have been a source of large scale violent conflict among these religions. It is also not possible to logically reconcile these conflicting fundamental beliefs. The statement “Jesus is messiah” is regarded as true by Christians and false by Jews. “Jesus is son of God” is regarded as true by Christians and false by Jews and Muslims. “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” is regarded as true by Muslims but false by Jews and Christians. Now, all these statements, and several others, such as “Bible is revealed” and the “Qur’an contains the words of Allah” are either true or false. If the Christian claim regarding the Prophet is true, then the Jew belief on Jesus is false and vice-versa. If the Islamic claim on Muhammad is true, then the Christian and Jewish rejection of the belief is false and vice-versa. It is not possible for all these claims to be true simultaneously.
Veda and Varna-vyavastha
All the religions of Indian origin believe in the doctrine of bondage and liberation. This, again, may create a misleading impression about their basic unity. However, as mentioned earlier, they have different views on God, soul, the cause of bondage, the method of liberation and the exact state of affairs after liberation. Besides, Hinduism believes in the infallibility of the Vedas and upholds the varna-vyavastha. These two beliefs that are fundamental to Hinduism are rejected by Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Guru Nanak was the founder and the first guru of Sikhism, which is a guru-centred religion. Guru Govind Singh, who founded the Khalsa (the military brotherhood of Sikhs), was the tenth and last guru. Since him, the Sikhs regard Adi Granth or the Guru Granth Sahib and the Akal Takht as the highest religious authority. But this is not accepted by Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. The Buddhists attach highest importance to the teachings of Gautama Buddha as contained in Tripitakas and their other religious books. Jainism, on the other hand, has its own separate religious literature, namely, Angas. Jainism is often described as a “religion of tirthankaras”. The Jain religious literature mentions twenty-four tirthankaras, Vardhamana Mahavira being the last one. Vardhamana Mahavira is the one who has been given highest importance by the Jains. Thus, all religions attach highest importance to their own religious literature, irrespective of whether they regard it as revealed or not. An attitude of faith towards their religious scriptures and founders is the fundamental “common” trait of all religions, but, ironically this cannot be a source of unity, but only of conflict.
Moral Codes
The potential synthesizer of religion may maintain that, though religions differ on factual issues like the existence of God, soul, nature of life after death, the prophet and the revealed book, etc.; these tenets are not central to them. They may assert that morality is the “essence” of all religions, and, as far as morality is concerned, all the religions have more or less similar ideas.
Firstly, it is not correct to maintain that the ideas mentioned earlier in this essay are not fundamental to religion, because, as pointed out earlier, the very existence of these religions as separate, identifiable religions is rooted in them. Secondly, the ethical ideas of various religions are also linked to these factual beliefs. The ethical ideas of prophetic religion are, for example, linked to God, prophet, revealed book, resurrection, Day of Judgment, heaven and hell. Heaven can be regarded as the highest ethical goal only by those who believe in the existence of heaven. Similarly, moksha can be regarded as the ultimate ideal only if one believes in the cycle of life and death. Again, a Muslim follows shariat because he regards it as divine. The Hindus, too, treat their dharmashastras as revealed. The Buddhists follow the teachings of the Buddha, because they regard him as the greatest ethical teacher.
Most importantly, it is also not true that all religions have similar ethical ideals. Let us, first of all, consider what, is the highest end of life according to different religions. And secondly, what is the right method according to them for attaining this end.
Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism regard liberation (moksha, nirvana or mukti) from “bondage” or from “the cycle of birth and death” as the highest ethical end. The prophetic religions, on the other hand, do not believe in rebirth. As the idea of the cycle of birth and death is itself not regarded as real by them, the question of trying to attain “liberation” from it simply does not arise. For Prophetic religions, going to heaven or “salvation” is the highest ethical end. Thus, contrary to popular belief, all religions do not share a “common goal”.
The differences among various religions become even more glaring when we turn our attention to the method of attaining the ethical goal. Even religions, which, on face value, seem to be sharing a common goal are found to be advocating different moral codes. According to Judaism, for example, salvation can be attained by obedience to the laws of Moses. According to Christianity, however, salvation can be attained by having faith in the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. According to Islam, salvation can be attained by strict obedience to the commandments of Allah as expressed through his Messenger, Muhammad.
Similarly, Jainism recommends triratna (three jewels) for attaining liberation, whereas Buddhism prescribes astangika marga (eight-fold path). In Hinduism, Shankara and Ramanuja, prescribe different methods for attaining liberation. According to Shankara, knowledge of brahma alone can give liberation. Ramanuja, on the other hand, emphasizes bhakti (devotion). Bhagavad Gita talks of three different paths: gyan marga, karma marga and bhakti marga (the paths of knowledge, action and devotion). Sikhism seems to have incorporated both Shankara and Ramanuja.
It is possible to give many examples of conflicting ethical ideas within religions. But I do not want to over argue my case or to bother my readers with excessive details. By now it has become fairly obvious that the so-called unity of all religions is a myth. However, before concluding this essay, I want to mention some relatively important ethical instances that come to my mind. Let us, for example, consider the issue of violence and non-violence. On one hand, we have religions like Jainism and Buddhism, which emphasize non-violence. And, on the other hand, we have religions like Islam and Khalsa panth of Sikhism, whose founders themselves were warriors. Jainism is opposed to violence to such an extent that the Jains gave up agriculture. They did not want to kill insects while ploughing! Now, no one in his senses will maintain or should maintain that the ethical stance of Jainism on the issue of violence is similar to that of Islam, Sikhism or even Hinduism.
Varna-vyavastha is another important example of divergent ethical attitudes among religions. Hinduism is the only religion that upholds varna-vyavastha¾-a system of graded inequality based on birth. No other religion accepts it. Buddhism, in particular, specifically rejects varna-vyavastha. It will be a travesty of facts to say that Hinduism and Buddhism have a similar attitude towards varna-vyavastha.
Worshipping God is yet another important issue on which religions have a conflicting approach. According to Jainism and Buddhism, one can attain liberation by ones own efforts without worshipping God. God is not mentioned at all in either Jain triratna or in Buddhist astangika marga. Obviously this view is not shared by theistic religions with their stress on “God’s grace” for attaining liberation or salvation. The attitude on the issue of idol-worship, too, is as sharply divided. Buddhists worship idols of the Buddha. The Jains worship the idols of Vardhamana and other tirthankaras. Idol-worship is a part of Hinduism as well. But Islam is very strongly opposed to idol-worship. It is easy to show that there is a wide diversity in methods of worship and other rituals of different religions. People, who regard all religions as basically same, admit these differences. But they regard these as merely “external forms” of religion. However, for people who sincerely believe in a particular religion, these so-called external forms are no less important.
Conclusion
Thus, on no fundamental question -- God, nature of life after death, morality, etc. -- all religions have identical beliefs. Some beliefs and some ethical ideas are, no doubt, shared by some religions to some extent, but even these religions have many other fundamental differences. In other words, no two religions share all their fundamental beliefs. If they did, they would not have remained two separate religions. Therefore, there is no rock-bottom unity among different religions. Instead, what we find is conflicting truth-claims and discord. The thesis that all religions are basically same can only be maintained by a person with inadequate knowledge of fundamental beliefs of different religions, or by a person who has a non-serious attitude towards religions, or by a person who is so carried away by his enthusiasm to reconcile various religions that he loses his objectivity and becomes selective in his use of religious data.
Synthesizers of religion have often been motivated by a desire to prevent religious conflict and to promote communal harmony, which are indeed commendable aims. However, rationalism and humanism or rational humanism is what we really need for achieving fellowship among human beings, and not a confused and illogical approach towards religion.
Notes :
1 D.M.Datta, The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1968), p.53.
2 Ibid., p.49.
3 Basant Kumar Lal, Contemporary Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978), pp.43-45.
4 John H. Hick, Philosophy of Religion (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall Private Limited, 1978), p.118.
5 The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Paul Edwards), Vol. 7, p.140.
6 Y. Masih, A Comparative Study of Religions (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990).
7 Ibid., p.284.
8 Ibid., p.261.
9 The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 4, pp.1-3.
10 Dr. Ramendra, Samaj aur Rajniti Darshan evam Dharam Darshan (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999), pp.135-38.
11Ibid.
12 Dr. Ramendra, Kya Ishwar Mar Chuka Hai? (Patna: Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj, Second Edition, 1995), pp.49-50.
13 Dr. Y. Masih, Nirishwarwad: Bhartiya evam Paschatya (Patna: Bihar Hindi Granth Academy, 1973), pp.63-65.
14 Y. Masih, A Comparative Study of Religions, p.284.
15 Ibid., p.17.
16 Ibid., p.79.
17 Ibid., p.255.
18 Ibid., p.79.
19 Ibid., p. 43.
20 Ibid., p.149.
21 Ibid., p.255.
Fatwa's on the 'Unity of Religion' concept
Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate to the general Muslims that the Concept/Ideology of 'Unity of Religions' has also been refuted by other sects within Islam.
A Salafi Fatwa':
"The call for "Unity of religions" aims at eliminating everything which distinguishes Islam from Kufr. Calling and supporting the concepts of the "Unity of Religion" is considered riddah (apostacy).
The believer distinguishes between the natural love he has for his father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, etc., from the disbelievers and enmity towards them because of their kufr. The natural love is something recognised by Islam, but does not permit us to compromise our Deen."
[Fatwa' by the Permanent Committee for Islamic and Educational Research in Saudi Arabia on the 25th of Muharram, 1419 -5/31/97, no. 19402].
NB: Although the Salafis have rightly refuted the false ideology of 'Unity of Religions' however, it must be noted, that orthodox wahhabi salafi representation of Islam is just as dangerous and heretical.
One may justifiably argue they are both ideological extremes and excesses. On the one hand, we have callers to the unification of all the world religions, beliefs, rites and rituals, values, respect, tolerance, and the other excommunicates all, excludes all, terrorises, promotes hate, intolerance, uses aggressive propaganda, and human rights violation.
Validity of all Religions!
Universal Validity of all Religions!
On this point, Islam clearly teaches that all true religions, as originally revealed, were identical in fundamentals of belief [usul] such as the Oneness/Uniqueness of Allah, the Final Judgement & [the existence of] Heaven & Hell, in which sense 'we make no distinction between any of His Messengers' [al-Qur'an; 2:285], though each Prophetic Messenger brought particular rules & rites that differed to some extent from those of previous Messengers & to every nation We appointed rites' [al-Qur'an; 22:67].
So while the anciently Revealed Religions that are found today naturally show some similarities to Islam, this fact does not prove their 'essential unity' with it as they presently exist, for the One [Allah, The Exalted & Sublime] who revealed the religions informs us not only that their beliefs & scriptures have since been altered by the hands of men, who 'changed the words from their places & forgot a share of what they were reminded of' [al-Qur'an; 5:13], but also that their rites & laws have been abrogated by those revealed to the Final Messenger, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam, which is why 'whoever seeks other than Islam as a religion will never have it accepted from him' [al-Qur'an; 3:85]. This is how Allah, The Most High, has explained the similarities & differences between religions & any comparative approach beyond this can never lay claim to the Truth.
Imam Baghawi, Allah be pleased with him:
The Prophet, [salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa sallam] said:
'By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, [salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa sallam], any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me & dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.'
This is a rigorously authenticated [sahih] Hadith that was recorded by Muslim [sharh as-Sunnah].
[Ibn Kathir:] Allah, The Most High, says:
'Surely those who believe, those of Jewry, the Christians & the Sabaeans 'whoever has faith in Allah & the Last Day & works righteousness, their wage awaits them with their Lord, & no fear shall be upon them & neither shall they sorrow.' [al-Qur'an; 2:62].
Suddi states that the verse 'Surely those who believe, etc.'was revealed about the former companions of Salman the Persian, {Allah, The Exalted, be well pleased with him], when he mentioned them to the Prophet, [salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa sallam], relating how they had been, saying, 'They used to pray, fast & believe in you & testify that you would be sent as a Prophet.' When he had finished praising them, the Prophet, [salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa sallam], replied, 'Salman, they are the denizens of hell,' which came to discomfit Salman greatly & so Allah, The Exalted & Sublime, revealed this verse.
The faith of the Jews was that of whoever adhered to the Torah & the Sunnah of Moses, ['alayhi as-Salam], until the coming of Jesus. When Jesus came, whoever held fast to the Torah & the Sunnah of Moses, ['alayhi as-Salam], without giving them up & following Jesus was lost.
The faith of the Christians was that whoever adhered to the Evangel & precepts of Jesus, their faith was valid & acceptable until the coming of [Prophet] Muhammad, [salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa sallam]. Those of them who did not then follow [Prophet] Muhammad, [salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa sallam], & give up the Sunnah of Jesus & the Evangel were lost.
The above Hadith confirms that no one's way or spiritual works are acceptable unless they conform to the Sacred Law of Sayyiduna Rasul Allah, [salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa sallam], now that he has been sent with it.
Akbar, the Great : Din-i Ilahi
Akbar - The Great
Akbar "The Great" [1542-1605], was one of the greatest rulers in Indian history. He was born when Humayun and his first wife, Hamida Bano, were fugitives escaping towards Iran. It was during these wanderings that Akbar was born in Umerkot, Sindh, on November 23, 1542. Legend has it that Humayun prophesied a bright future for his son, and thus accordingly, named him Akbar.
Akbar was raised in the rugged country of Afghanistan rather than amongst the splendor of the Delhi court. He spent his youth learning to hunt, run, and fight and never found time to read or write. He was the only great Mughal ruler who was illiterate. Despite this, he had a great desire for knowledge. This led him not only to maintain an extensive library but also to learn. Akbar had his books read out to him by his courtiers. Therefore, even though unable to read, Akbar was as knowledgeable as the most learned of scholars.
Akbar came to throne in 1556, after the death of his father, Humayun. At that time, Akbar was only 13 years old. Akbar was the only Mughal king to ascend to the throne without the customary war of succession; as his brother Muhammad Hakim was too feeble to offer any resistance.
During the first five years of his rule, Akbar was assisted and advised by Bahram Khan in running the affairs of the country. Bahram Khan was, however, removed and for a few years Akbar ruled under the influence of his nurse Maham Anga. After 1562, Akbar freed himself from external influences and ruled supreme.
Akbar’s Reign
Thanks to Akbar's exceptionally capable guardian, Bahram Khan, Akbar survived his father's death at a young age to demonstrate his worth. Akbar's reign holds a certain prominence in history; he was the ruler who actually fortified the foundations of the Mughal Empire.
Areas not under the empire were designated as tributaries. He also adopted a conciliatory policy towards the Rajputs, hence reducing any threat from them. Akbar was not only a great conqueror, but a capable organizer and a great administrator as well. He set up a host of institutions that proved to be the foundation of an administrative system that operated even in British India. Akbar's rule also stands out due to his liberal policies towards the non-Muslims, his religious innovations, the land revenue system and his famous Mansabdari system. Akbar's Mansabdari system became the basis of Mughal military organization and civil administration.
Akbar was a great patron of architecture, art, and literature. His court was rich in culture as well as wealth. In fact, his court was so splendid that the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, once even sent out her ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, to meet the king! Many of Akbar's buildings still survive, including the Red Fort at Agra, and the city of Fatehpur Sikri, near Agra, which has a 10-km long wall encircling it.
It may come as a surprise for many that a great ruler like Akbar actually could not read or write! And yet, he had a tremendous love for learning. During his lifetime, Akbar collected thousands of beautifully written and illustrated manuscripts. He also surrounded himself with writers, scholars, musicians, painters, and translators. His court had the fabled Nine Gems - nine famous personalities from different walks of life. These included music maestro Tansen and intelligent statesman Birbal.
The reign of Akbar was a period of renaissance of Persian literature. The Ain-i-Akbari gives the names of 59 great Persian poets of Akbar's court. History was the most important branch of Persian prose literature. Abul Fazl's Akbarnama and Ain-i-Akbari were complementary works. Akbar and his successors, Jehangir and Shah Jehan greatly contributed to the development of Indian music. Tansen was the most accomplished musician of the age. Ain-i-Akbari gives the names of 36 first-rate musicians of Akbar's court where Hindu and Muslim style of music mingled freely. The Mughal architectural style began as a definite movement under his rule. Akbar's most ambitious and magnificent architectural undertaking was the new capital city that he built on the ridge at Sikri near Agra. The city was named as Fatehpur to commemorate Akbar's conquest of Gujrat in 1572. The most impressive creation of this new capital is the grand Jamia Masjid. The southern entrance to the Jamia Masjid is an impressive gateway known as Buland Darwaza. Like most other buildings at Fatehpur Sikri, the fabric of this impressive gateway is of red sandstone that is decorated by carvings and discreet inlaying of white marble. Of all the Mughals, Akbar's reign was the most peaceful and powerful.
During his reign, Akbar managed to subdue almost all of India, with the remaining areas becoming tributary states. Along with his military conquests, he introduced a series of reforms to consolidate his power. Akbar practiced tolerance aimed at Hindu-Muslim unification through the introduction of a new religion known as Din-i-Ilahi. He won over the Hindus by naming them to important military and civil positions, by conferring honors upon them, and by marrying a Hindu princess.
He appointed nobles and mansabdars without any religious prejudice. Akbar's religious innovations and policies, and deviation from Islamic dogma, have been a source of debate and controversy. Akbar was a great patron of literary works and scholars. His court had numerous scholars of the day who are well known as "Nauratan".
Din-i Ilahi
Akbar took very seriously Abu'l Fazl's idea that he was a spiritual leader of his people and he devoted considerable amounts of time and resources to sorting out the common truth in the multiple religions he ruled over. From this concern he developed a new religion he called Din-i Ilahi , or "The Religion of God." Believing, as Muslims do, that every faith contained the essential truth that God is unified and one thing, he sought to find the unifying aspects of all religions. He originally began this project, long before he came up with Din-i Ilahi , by sponsoring a series of debates at his court between representatives of the various religions, which included Christianity (Catholic Jesuits), Hindus, Zoroastrians, and Jains. Eventually he included members of the ulama , but the debates did not go well because of the intolerant attitude and behaviors of the Jesuit participants who wanted to convert Akbar, not discuss the formation of a universal religion.
Akbar was a devout and, so he said, an orthodox Muslim; still, aspects of his belief were in part derived from Shi'a Islam. The Din-i Ilahi , the religion that would synthesize the world's religions into a single religion, that he established was predominantly based on Islam. Like Islam, it was rationalistic and was based on one overriding doctrine, the doctrine of tawhid : God is one thing and is singular and unified. Akbar also elevated the notion of wahdat-al wujud , or "unity of the real," to a central religious idea in his new religion. The world, as a creation of God, is a single and unified place that reflects the singularity and unity of its creator. Finally, Akbar fully subscribed to the Islamic idea of the Perfect Man represented by the life of the Prophet or by the Shi'ite Imamate. There is little question that Akbar accepted Abu'l Fazl's notion that he was the Divine Light and was a Perfect Man. He assumed the title, "Revealer of the Internal and Depictor of the Real," which defined his role as a disseminator of secret knowledge of God and his function of fashioning the world in the light of this knowledge.
In addition to Islam, however, the Din-i Ilahi also contained aspects of Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism. The Din-i Ilahi borrowed from Jainism a respect and care for all living things, and it derived from Zoroastrianism sun-worship and, especially, the idea of divine kingship. This latter innovation deeply disturbed the ulama ; they regarded it as outright heresy. The notion of divine kingship, however, would last throughout the history of the Mughal Empire.
Akbar himself appointed important regional officers answerable to him. He was able to set up a chain of informers; officials spied on their colleagues and reported any misdeeds or suspicious behaviour back to the emperor. Army commanders were given money with which to pay their soldiers and Akbar kept detailed records of every man's name and description. Even the horses were branded. Akbar also introduced a new and fairer system of taxation based on carefully estimated tables of crop yields. Tax collectors had their own district tables and used them to work out how much grain the farmers should contribute. This contribution was then converted into its cash value, district by district, because food prices varied in different parts of the empire.
Akbar had three sons Prince Salim, Murad and Daniyal. Prince Murad and Daniyal died in their prime during their father's lifetime. However, Akbar faced problems with Prince Salim and the last four years of Akbar's life were consumed in crushing Salim's rebellion. Akbar fell ill and died of slow poisoning on October 27, 1605. With him ended the most glorious epoch in Indian history.
Akbar’s coinage
In the 30th year of his reign, Akbar, who was distancing himself from Islam and searching for a universal religion, replaced the Hegira era dates by the Ilahi era (the "Divine" era) ones, calculated in solar years from the beginning of his reign. He dropped from the obverse of his coins the Muslim profession of faith and the expression "Allah akbar", "God is great" was substituted. He also suppressed his own name, or maybe not: the arabic expression on the obverse could also mean "Akbar is God"
Mughals, Akbar, 1556 to 1605 AD square silver rupia, dated AH 995, 1586 AD.
Mughals, Akbar, 1556 to 1605 AD square silver 1/2 rupia, dated year 40 of the Ilahi era, 1594 AD.
Mughals, Akbar, 1556 to 1605 AD copper tanka (2 dam), Bairata, probably one of the heaviest copper coins (40.6 gr) ever struck in India by a Muslim ruler.
Unity of Minds
An extract from a speech by APJ Kalam the President of India and co-Founder of FUREC
Towards Unity of Minds
10.02.2004
Dear citizens, when I assumed office on 25th July 2002, I addressed the need for unity of minds becoming one of the focused missions for our nation.
Recently fifteen Gurus, Acharyas, Swamijis, Maulavis, Reverent Fathers, Spiritual leaders, devotees and the representatives of many religions met at SURAT in the presence of His Holiness Acharya Mahaprajna and deliberated for two days and took vital decisions leading to the religions graduating as spiritual force. Also, they have declared that the nation is bigger than any leader or individual or an organization. They had collectively evolved five inter-religious projects for implementation.
[SURAT SPIRITUAL DECLARATION [SSD], Editors]
Nation’s best wishes to our spiritual leaders and their mission of transforming religions into a spiritual force.
Full speech: http://www.presidentofindia.nic.in/scripts/republicdetail.jsp?id=2#toptop