I respect Francois Gautier for his knwoledge on Indian history; perhaps he knows more of Indian history than many Indians!
I also respect his arguments that history cannot be ignored and we have to learn from it, otherwise we may be condemned to repeat it as we have so often done recently.
But I do not agree with him that we will be able to follow the French and the Germans by learning to live with each other just because of this exhibition on Aurangzeb. Scholarly as it might, the exhibition will also be the hotbed of learning ground for many fundamentalists on both sides. This may be dangerous. I hope not!
Between the frustrations of the past and the hopes for the future, there is beautiful today which we would like to discolour with a paintbrush from the past. Do not do it. Live the present amicably for the future!
RE:Francois Gautier and Aurangzeb
by Debasis on Feb 16, 2007 02:41 PM Permalink
intelligently you try to negate Mr Gautier. But could you explain why US takes care of the homeland security today, bcoz their future will be more painful at the hands of these bin laden (a muslim) and alikes poping everywhere. If US as a country follows the way ur school of though is going to live in present, pls understand there will be no more future neither to you nor ur generations ahead, nor the nation. What we Indians are doing nowadays? Are we not live in present? Thats why these useless minds (terrorists) are destroying this beatiful nation. So you need to think of the future living in present, to make it more secure and plesant to stay in ur mother land.
RE:RE:Francois Gautier and Aurangzeb
by rajesh prajapati on Feb 16, 2007 03:02 PM Permalink
Wake up man, wake up to the reality! We are not living in the present - we are still in the past of Aurangzeb, destroyed temples and mosques! Gautier's article is about the past!
The harsh reality of today is the teeming millions of poor in India, the increasing rich-poor divide, the lack of infrastructure in India, the growing competition from the chinese in the domestic as well as the interantional markets, etc.. We are not talking of this at all, because we are still obsessed with the past!
The future is in securing your econmy - the US is doing just that, securing its energy needs with the oil wells of the middle east either with cooperation with the Saudis or by destroying the unfriendly regimes! Fundamentalists are only playing into the US hands!
RE:Francois Gautier and Aurangzeb
by HRS Mani Mani on Feb 16, 2007 03:00 PM Permalink
Hi Rajesh Prajapati, you seem to be worried only about your beautiful today, ignorant of what is happening in the country. Conversion to Islam and Christianity is going on in full swing in many parts of the country and people are ignorant of this truth. Media will not publish these as it does not suit their interest. You are only worried about your beautiful today. What about the beatiful today for our next generation.
RE:Aurangzeb....!
by anand yni on Feb 16, 2007 02:57 PM Permalink
Dear Ibrahimbhai,
1. In Srimadbhagavadgita, which was composed long before the creation of Muslim religion or for that matter many other religions, The Lord says clearly that, "Shreyaan Swadharmo vigunaha, Paradharmaat Swanushtitaath, Swadharme Nidhanam Shreyaha, Para Dharmo Bhayavahaha", meaning, following one's own faith is better than another faith that is better followed. Never mind if one's own faith has certain defects. Another faith is dreadful. It is better to die following one's own faith than to live following another faith.
2. When that being the case, no right thinking Hindu will fall into the fold of another religion, howsoever flawless it may be. I have high reverence towards Muslims and Quran. In fact several of my best friends are muslims. We all live in harmony following our own faiths. I appreciate your last sentence & respect you for that. Khuda Haafiz!
RE:RE:Aurangzeb....!
by Mohd Akbar on Mar 25, 2007 10:59 PM Permalink
To anand Bhai,
Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in multiple Gods. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three gods, some believe in thousands of gods, and some others in thirty three crore i.e. 330 million Gods. However, learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.
The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus%u2019 belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God!
Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is God%u2019s i.e. the word %u2018God%u2019 with an apostrophe %u2018s%u2019. In other words the Muslims believe that everything belongs to God We can gain a better understanding of the concept of God in Hinduism by analysing Hindu scriptures.
The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagavad Gita.
Consider the following verse from the Gita:
"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." [Bhagavad Gita 7:20]
The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. %u2018gods%u2019 besides the True God.
The Upanishads are considered sacred scriptures by the Hindus.
The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:
"Ekam evadvitiyam" "He is One only without a second." [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1
"Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah." "Of Him there are neither parents nor lord." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2
"Na tasya pratima asti" "There is no likeness of Him." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3
The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:
"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."
"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4
The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:
"na tasya pratima asti "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3]5
"shudhama poapvidham" "He is bodyless and pure." [Yajurveda 40:8]6
"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste" "They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti." [Yajurveda 40:9]7
Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.
The Yajurveda contains the following prayer: "Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander." [Yajurveda 40:16]8
Yajurveda by Devi Chand M.A. page 377]
6[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]
7[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]
8[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Griffith page 541]
Among the various attributes of God, one of the beautiful attributes mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3, is Brahma. Brahma means %u2018The Creator%u2019. Translated into Arabic it means Khaaliq. Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Khaaliq or %u2018Creator%u2019 or Brahma. However if it is said that Brahma is Almighty God who has four heads with each head having a crown, Muslims take strong exception to it.
Describing Almighty God in anthropomorphic terms also goes against the following verse of Yajurveda:
"Na tasya Pratima asti" "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3]
Another beautiful attribute of God mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3 is Vishnu. Vishnu means %u2018The Sustainer%u2019. Translated into Arabic it means Rabb. Again, Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Rabb or 'Sustainer' or Vishnu. But the popular image of
9[Atharveda Samhita vol 2 William Dwight Whitney page 910]
Vishnu among Hindus, is that of a God who has four arms, with one of the right arms holding the Chakra, i.e. a discus and one of the left arms holding a %u2018conch shell%u2019, or riding a bird or reclining on a snake couch. Muslims can never accept any image of God. As mentioned earlier this also goes against Svetasvatara Upanishad Chapter 4 verse 19.
"Na tasya pratima asti" "There is no likeness of Him"
Brahma Sutra of Hinduism:
The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is:
"Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan"
"There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit."
Question:
Water is called by different names in different languages: in English as water, in Hindi as paani, in Tamil as tanni. Similarly if God is called either Allah, Ram or Jesus, is it not one and the same?
Answer:
To Allah belongs the Most Beautiful Names The Glorious Qur%u2019an says in Surah Isra chapter 17 verse 110 "Say: %u2018Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names.%u2018" [Al-Qur%u2019an 17:110]
You can call Allah by any name, but it should be a beautiful name,should not conjure up a mental picture, and should have qualities that only Allah possesses.
Water can be called by differnt names in different languages but something else besides water cannot be called water in another language. You can call water by various names in different languages, like water in English, paani in Hindi, tanni in Tamil, mai in Arabic, apah in Sanskrit, jal in Shudh Hindi, jal or paani in Gujrati, pandi in Marathi, neer in Kannad, neeru in Telugu, vellam in Malayalam, etc. If a person tells me that his friend has advised that everyday early in the morning he should have one glass of paani, but he is unable to drink it because when he drinks it, he feels like vomiting. On enquiry he says that the paani stinks and it is yellowish in colour. Later I realise that what he is referring to as paani is not water but urine. Thus you can call water by different names having the same meaning but you cannot call other things as water or paani. People may think that the example is not realistic and I agree with them because even an ignorant person knows the difference between water and urine. He will have to be a fool to call urine %u2018water%u2019. Similarly when any person who knows the correct concept of God, sees people worshipping false gods, he naturally wonders how a person cannot differentiate between a true God and false gods.
Surah Ikhlas is the Touchstone of Theology. Similarly, any person or candidate who is called God cannot be accepted as the true God without verifying him with the touchstone. The touchstone of theology, that is study of God, is Surah Ikhlas chapter 112 of the Holy Qur%u2019an which says:
"Say, %u2018He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not Nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.%u2019%u2019%u2019 [Al-Qur%u2019an 112:1-4]
Any candidate who passes the Acid test can be called God. Any candidate who claims to be God and fits in this four line definition, passes the Acid test, is entitled to be called God and worshipped as God.
Suppose a lunatic says that Muhammad (pbuh) is God, (God forbid). Let%u2019s put him to the test of Surah Ikhlas.
"Kul hu allah hu ahad" %u2013 Say He is Allah, The One and Only;
Is Muhammad (pbuh) one and only? No! he was not the only messenger. There were many other messengers.
"Allah hus Samad" %u2013 Allah, The Eternal, Absolute;
We know that Muhammad (pbuh) had to undergo many hardships. Though he was the mightiest messenger of God, he died at the age of 63 and was buried in Madeenah.
"Lam ya lid wa lam yulad" %u2013 He begetteth not Nor is He begotten;
We know that he was born in Makkah and his parents were Abdullah and Aaminah. He even had several children e.g. Fatimah, Ibrahim (may Allah be pleased with them), etc.
"Wa lam ya kullahu kufuwan ahad" %u2013 And there is none like unto Him.
Though all the Muslims love and revere the Prophet (pbuh) and are supposed to follow each and every of his commandments, yet you will not find a single Muslim in the whole world, who in his senses will ever say that Muhammad (pbuh) is God. The Islamic Creed is, "La illaha illallah Muhammadur Rasoolullah", which means that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of Allah. This is repeated five times a day during the call for prayer, so that the Muslims are reminded daily that although they respect and obey him, he is only a Messenger and servant of God, and not God Himself.
Basically the concept if you see is the same that God is one, However the people for there own wordly good has changed it potrail.
Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word %u2018salaam%u2019, which means peace. It also means submitting one%u2019s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one%u2019s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).
2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.
3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O%u2019Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O%u2019Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):
"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."
4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.
5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.
7. Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"
8. East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"
9. Thomas Carlyle.
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man%u2019s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."
10. No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur%u2019an says in the following verse:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur%u2019an 2:256]
11. Sword of the Intellect.
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur%u2019an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." [Al-Qur%u2019an 16:125]
12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.
An article in Reader%u2019s Digest %u2018Almanac%u2019, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in %u2018The Plain Truth%u2019 magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?
13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.
Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".
Hope the information above will help us live in india or anywhere peacefully as Allah said "Come to common term between you and them", there is diffrence of opinion between two Brothes so there can be diffrence between Muslim and Hindus or for that matter any two religion but if we agree to the common points and ignore the diffrence we can give our children a better world to live in. I am as a muslim against any kind of terrorism be it by any muslim, hindu, cristian, sikh, jew or by any nation.
Hope all those who read this article will agree with me.
You can Also check the website www.irf.net for more similarities between Islam and other religion also questions asked by the muslims and Non muslims.
RE:Aurangzeb....!
by Shashi Shekhar on Feb 16, 2007 02:53 PM Permalink
Ibrahim... But just think that may be ur fore father was also forcibly converted into Islam by Aurangeb.As he converted millions of poor Hindus into Islam by imposing Jazia tax.Demolished the holy places of Hindus.And killed his own brothers. If he truely represents Islam then i pray to god please in my any of next birth dont make me related to Islam.
No matter what is a truth or what is your FAITH, in the current situation, if you say anything which may get interpreted as against minorities of today, you are a Hindu fundamentalist and then you must be a supporter of RSS. India had a glorious past and its history if presented with truth will help India surge to a very high level where it can lead the world to the path of peace and prosperity. But mere out of self centric politics and lack of social unity and responsibility amongst the people, we still read that the mughal emperors were very "Secular". If this is the way you chose to put the real true history in front of the people, I salute you and thank you for your efforts to wake up India. If possible publish your work on your internet web site so that it will reach every Indians at every corner of the world and then let Indians decide to read that and learn from it or leave it.
RE:Are you a RSS swayamsevak???
by prakash ramachandra on Feb 16, 2007 03:05 PM Permalink
why you peoples drag RSS name in this matter. are you mad. RSS is trying to build nation by makeing unity in Hindus. The author is reporting history that is truth. If you are not interested to read & hear the truth please first you became dumb & duaf.
Gautier at best! I love the way the author talks about the bias in indian historians' writings with left leanings... Let the facts be known to people. They have the capacity to digest, so who are we to hide/subdue facts
it was refreshing to read an article about our past which is conveniently ignored by all ages here....any religion that borders on fanaticsm accelarates the annihilation of the human mind....GREAt WORK
RE:aurangzeb
by anand yni on Feb 16, 2007 03:06 PM Permalink
Dear Abdulbhai,
Assalaam Alekhum.
Please do not run away from facts that were hidden all these decades, thanks to the so called "(non)secular government headed by the (dy)nasty rulers, who relentlessly pursued vote bank politics as their single point agenda. If someone comes out with facts & figures, let him do it. After all, our constitution guarantees freedom of expression to all. Shukriya.
Yes, if he was not killed, Hindus would not have their own identity. Hindus would have been salvers of Mughal. Hindustan was no more Hindustan it was called Aurangabastan. Still i am wandering that the name of places like Aurangabad and Ahmednagar are existing. Still i wander Afzal khan's place is decorated very well and workshipped at Pratapgad. How we entertain such devil's name. But i really thank our Shivaji Maharaj who had a foresight great visualisation and he saved India not coverting into Aurangabasthan. Hats off to Shivaji Maharaji. He is the real king of Hindus. The Great Maratha. I really sometimes think why didn't i was born at Shivaji's time as Maratha, i would contributed in the battle to kill mughals
Totally rubbish and work by bigot chirstian set to divide our country. This bloody person is forgetting, the magnitutde of ruthlessness done by chirstian on our society.
RE:aurangzeb
by Mandar Joshi on Feb 16, 2007 02:43 PM Permalink
How can that change the fact that Aurangzeb was a ruthless and fundametalist Muslum ruler who committed atricities in the name of Islam?
RE:RE:aurangzeb
by Ashok Gupta on Feb 16, 2007 03:07 PM Permalink
No one can change facts but one can learn to accept it. One can either brood over the past or learn from the past. Cannot hold current generation responsible for the past - should not.All have to make an effort not to fall prey to the wrongs and the ghosts of the past. We hopefully can become wiser today by being truthful and that goes for all communities.
RE:aurangzeb
by Ashok Gupta on Feb 16, 2007 02:41 PM Permalink
Why bring in Christians at this point of time,their contribution to History is there as well. History has to be looked at squarely and truthfully and if Aurangzeb has committed certain acts lets learn from them and his mistakes and not repeat them. Instead of covering up lets have the courage to face the past so that we can rectify the present and have a peaceful future. Let History be responsible for past deeds. Lets not digress from the issues as both Muslims and Christians ruled India and their acts do have bearing on India and all Indians.
RE:aurangzeb
by anand yni on Feb 16, 2007 03:13 PM Permalink
Dear Abdulbhai,
Assalaam Alekhum.
Please do not get angry for no reason. Relax!! You may be right (100%) in what you have said as per YOUR thinking. Christians might have been ruthless. For that matter, when the question of conversion of others to their religion is concerned, they are very aggressive even now. However, even with all this in the kitty, you can not wish away the damage done by the most ruthless Mughal ruler, Aurangazeb to this country. They are fact, and one will have to accept facts on their face value. The author has only brought out these facts in a nice manner.
Good Job Rediff. It is an irony that indians were forced to read history, based on "Discovery of India" written by Nehru. In Nehru's history Facts were buried and it is fictions galore.
It is high time that we taught our real history to our gen.next.
