Foreword

Plurality is an important feature of our country. India is a meeting

place of religious, cultural and linguistic plurality. So, for the healthy
existence and growth of its people, there must be love, friendship,
tolerance and co-operation among the followers of different religions. This
is possible only by a better understanding of one another. In the absence of
factual knowledge, wrong notions, which will eventually cause big
hazards, will dominate.
The state of Kerala is far ahead of other states of India in political
and cultural awareness. So very active discussions and dialogues are
common in socio - political and cultural fields. But there are very few
opportunities for exchange of ideas on religion. This is one of the reasons
for ignorance and misunderstanding about the religions which exist now
among the followers of various faiths.
Dialogue Centre, Kerala has been formed with an objective of
conducting face to face discussions, seminars, symposia, dialogues etc. in
an environment of love, co-operation, friendship and goodwill and also to
publish good works on religion.
Everybody wants his/her earthly life to be peaceful and good.
Similarly the followers of all religions seek the pleasure of God and
success in the hereafter. Hence it is the duty of every person to seek and
find the path which can guarantee both at the same time.
The materialistic organizations and movements believe that they
have the best scheme for a better life in this world. They are very keen to
present it to the people. The people who firmly believe that their system
can make the life in both worlds successful and secure are obliged to tell
people so in goodwill, if they have social commitment and love for human
beings. If they do not introduce such a system to the people, it will be an
unjust and anti- social attitude. The Kerala Dialogue Centre is a part of this
noble desire.
For introducing Islam many face - to - face discussions and
dialogues were conducted in different parts of Kerala. All sections of

people participated in these programmes with keen interest, and there were
lively discussions too. The present work is an anthology of answers given
to the questions raised in such meetings. Necessary explanations and
references have been included in these answers. The introductory talk is
given here in a precise form as `Preface'
The quotations from works in Sanskrit were examined, and
necessary corrections were made by Dr. P.P. Khadeeja, Lecturer in Sanskrit
at Govt. Victoria College, Palghat.
We would like to express our thanks and gratitude to the translator
P.A. Hameed, editor Dr. T.K. Mohammed and assistant editor M.K.
Shihabudheen and those who are directly or indirectly involved in the
completion of this book.
It has won T.P. Kuttiamu Sahib Award for the original socially
relevant work in 2002.
It is hoped that this work would be helpful for a general introduction
of Islam as well as for the removal of serious misunderstandings about it.
We pray to the Almighty to make this a useful effort.
- Publishers

Preface
Friends,
Let God's blessings ever shower on us. Let God, the Lord of this Universe,
and all-knowing, help us to make this dialogue more effective and fruitful.
First, I would like to briefly introduce Islam within a limited time. Let
Allah, the most gracious, help me to do it properly. May Allah help you to
listen and accept it well.
Who is man? Where did he come from? Where does he go? What is life
and what is its purpose? How should it be lived? And what is life after
death? No one who wants to have a serious approach to life can evade
such questions. The answers to these questions have a big role in setting
the ends and means of life, and giving it a direction, form and content.
Man has three aspects: body, mind and soul. Other creatures too
have body and bodily needs. All creatures perform the bodily functions
such as eating, drinking, mating, feeling happiness and entertaining. For
these they are helped by their instincts. In such functions there are many
creatures which excel human beings. For instance, the honey bee doesn't
need light to know direction. If a botanist goes closer to a fully blossomed
flower, cannot understand the time when the flower contains maximum
honey. However the bee which goes round it knows it easily. The bee hive
is a marvel of architectural skill. A very skilled engineer cannot make such
a hive, and the division of labour they follow is better than that of any
civic society.
The ant hill is another wonder. It has many secure chambers and
sometimes its height reaches 25 ft. If man compares the size of the white
ant with that of the ant-hill, and then wants to build his house he will have
to build at least a thousand storied building. A frog can jump to a distance
of twenty times of its size; and the grasshopper is even more wonderful. It

can jump to a distance of 200 times of its size. If a man's jump is

compared to these standards, he must cover at least four hundred meters. It
is unimaginable. When the climate of a place is unfavourable some birds
migrate to places thousands of kilometres away. Some nocturnal female
moths, by an odour they produce, can attract male moths from a distance
of eleven kilometres. The dragon fly which is able to fly from a still
position upward and downward, backward and forward is another amazing
creature. The cat has better eye sight, dog has better hearing, vulture has
better power of smell than those of human beings.
However all creatures except human beings are led by their instincts.
They cannot move out of their limits. So progress and development are
unattainable to them. The bees still make their hives, as they had made
them thousands of years ago. Birds fly at the same speed, as they used to
fly thousands of years ago. But through generations man has achieved
tremendous progress in all aspects of life. Our ancestors lived in caves;
then in small huts thatched with grass. Gradually, in due course of time
they built small thatched huts; and then tiled houses. Now they live in
beautiful terraced buildings. We cannot imagine and predict about the
houses of future generations. Our ancestors had ambitions to fly. Yet for
them it was not even a matter of imagination or dream. However now we
have invented aircrafts that can fly many times faster than birds. For all
these man was helped by his intelligence which can learn, understand and
comprehend things, and which has also the power of discretion. Human
intelligence served as the cause of his progress in all fields.
Besides intelligence man has other faculties. He can control
his instincts and is able to dominate them. If a hungry cow gets grass, it
can do nothing but eat it. It cannot wait until another cow which is more
hungry eats it. If a thirsty dog gets water, it cannot keep it for its mother
which is more thirsty. A cock is not patient before another cock that attacks
it. But the case of man is different. Even if he is very hungry and food is
available, and even with great desire to have it, he is able not to eat it.
When he is thirsty with water available in front of him, and with strong
desire to drink, he can leave it untouched. If someone calls him names and
though he is able to retort in the same manner, he is able not to do so either
out of fear of the opponent or because of his acquired culture. This is a
special feature of human beings. Man is capable of controlling his desires
and mastering over his wishes, and he has domination over his natural
instincts. The spiritual element in man helps him to achieve this speciality,
unlike other creatures. Hence man is not completely bound by instincts.
His life has two aspects; in one aspect he has freedom to choose and

decide; and in the other aspect he doesn't have this freedom.

We do not decide our own place of birth, house, country, language,
time, shape and gender. None of us has decided to be born in Kerala where
Malayalam is the language. No one is able to decide and none has
freedom, for example, to be tall or short, to be a Keralite or Tamil, to be
fair or coloured, to be a male or female, or to live in twentieth century or
in the twenty first. All these are subject to the irrevocable laws of God.
However there is a wider sphere where man enjoys freedom to choose and
decide for himself. Every one of us is granted freedom of choice in matters
like what to eat and what not to eat; what to drink and what not to drink.
The restrictions imposed on such freedom are called laws. We are free to
swing our hand, in the air; but the law demands a restriction that it should
not fall on others. We are able to talk. But it should not hurt the feelings of
others or injure their self respect.
All will agree that such laws are essential for human beings. Hence
all people and all communities in the world have their own legal systems,
their constitutions and the machinery to implement laws. Here a question
is very relevant. Who is to create laws for human beings? Should man
himself create them? All sensible people may ask this question. To make it
more clear who is to decide what should I see with my eyes; and what
shouldn't I see? What should I hear with my ears and what shouldn't I
hear? What should I talk, and what shouldn't I talk? Where should I go and
where shouldn't? One may say, let each person decide it for himself. In that
case the world will have to witness a class of conflicting and contradictory
interests of six hundred crore human beings.
Besides, the question how far have we freedom on our own selves is
very relevant. For the sake of convenience we often say like `my hands,
`my legs `my eyes `my ears `my tongue, and `my nose'. But a right
analysis will tell us that they are not actually ours. None of us have
ultimate ownership or control over them. Had the hand been ours, it would
never have felt pain; it would not have been lean and shrunk and finally
become paralysed. Many of us wear spectacles. Had the eyes been ours,
they would not have needed spectacles. Had the limbs been ours they
would not have shrunk. Had the ears been ours we would never have
become deaf. So whatever we claim as our own like the body, the various
organs, health, life and living, are really not ours. They are not in our
complete ownership or control. Only God, the prime mover of the
universe, the creator of all creations, has the ultimate ownership over
them. No one else has created all these.

Actually man creates nothing at all on this earth. For convenience

we say like, `the carpenter made the table'. But we know that the timber
for the table was not made by the carpenter, the iron of the nail was not
created by him. The handle of the chisel is made of wood and the sharp
edge of the chisel is made of iron. Both are not created by the carpenter. If
the carpenter is not his own creator, the statement that the carpenter made
the table is false.
No one creates anything new, except changing the form of the
already existing matter in the universe. So man who is not involved in the
act of creation has no complete ownership, or ultimate right and control on
anything. The ownership goes to Him only who created them. Hence only
He alone has the right for making laws. So only God alone, who is the
creator and sustainer of the universe, has the ultimate and supreme right to
decide what should we do, and what shouldn't, and also the right to
command us how to live and how not to live. This is a fundamental
concept of Islam.
So Islam means living in accordance with the divine system in all
spheres of life where man has been given freedom and ability to make his
choice. A person who lives so is called a Muslim and the group of persons
are called Muslims. It is not the name of people of any caste, of any
nation, or of any language or of those people who are called by special
names. Rather Islam means living in accordance with the divine system of
God who has created the system of the universe. Those people who live
according to the laws of God alone are Muslims.
God is the creator of the universe, and everything in the universe is
his creation. Creatures can never become like the creator. In other words
God is not comparable to any creature in the Universe. The Universe is a
fine example of the glory of God's creation. Suppose with our knowledge
we made a clock, or made any other object. This object cannot see, hear,
think or understand like us. Yet the object we made is a proof of our
creative skill. Similarly no object in the Universe can see, hear or
understand like God. None of these is all-knowing or all-powerful like
God.
At the same time everything is fine proof of the creative skill and
glory of God. Hence only God alone, who is the creator and sustainer of
the Universe and everything in it, has the ultimate right to create laws for
human beings, and religion teaches that man should live in total
submission and in obedience to Him alone.
The Quran says:

O Mankind , submit to your Lord Who created you and those who
were before you; in this way only you may expect to save yourselves
'' (2:21).
No one except God has any knowledge which lies beyond cause and
effect. Supernatural knowledge is not attainable even to the messengers of
God, except that which God reveals to them. No one except God is able to
help anyone or harm anyone through supernatural means beyond cause
and effect. So no one except God should be prayed to, or the aid of no one,
except that of God, should be sought for. Prayer, worship and offerings
should be made to Him alone. In this way Islam has asked humanity to
worship Him only and live in obedience and total submission to Him in all
walks of life.
The second ideological foundation is the belief in the life after death.
As all of us know, with death we disappear from this earth. Nobody dies
having received the fruits of his work in this world. The world has seen
cruel murderers who have put thousands of people to death. No one could
implement the punishment they deserved in this world. It is even
impossible to implement. If someone kills a person, the maximum
punishment we can implement is to kill the killer. But merely by doing so
justice will not prevail. If I am killed, my wife and children will suffer. By
merely implementing capital punishment on the murderer the sufferings of
my widowed wife and children will not be lessened. So the punishment on
the murderer is not really a solution for people who suffer as a result of the
murder. Still there are legal procedures and judicial courts in the world as
they are inevitable for maintaining law and order.
In short, everyone desires to see justice implemented. Let me narrate
a haunting incident. Soman, a sub-inspector of police in one of the police
stations in Calicut district, was murdered at the police station. People knew
that Soman was killed by some policemen of the same station. After the
trial the accused policemen were punished by the lower court. But in the
appeal, after eight years, the High Court acquitted them and declared them
innocent. Hearing that her husband's murderers were acquitted after eight
years, Soman's wife wept and her photograph was published by all
prominent Malayalam newspapers. This is only one of the several
incidents, but it reveals man's inner desire to see justice realised, but never
it is possible to implement exact justice.
Who can ever punish a person in this world, who has killed hundreds and
thousands of people? Similarly the good people are not properly rewarded
in this world. People want the wicked to be punished and the virtuous to be
rewarded in this world itself, but without realizing either people die and

disappear. So death cannot be the end of such a wonderful creation - the

human being.
Just think for a moment about the physiology of human beings.
There are more than 600 crore people in this world. They breathe the same
air, and drink the same water, and all live on earth under the sun. But the
faces of these 600 crore people are different from one another. Face is a
small area that can be covered with both palms. But can ever a face be
seen exactly like ours? Millions of people gather for Hajj pilgrimage. Yet
we can easily recognise a person from our place, because there is no other
person like him. Just look at our fingers for a moment, our thumbs. The
thumb is so small. Imagine about the number of pictures of an object
which an expert artist can draw in such a small space! Even the fingers of
each and every person are different from those of the other. There can
never be any likeness. This is the reason why the thumb imprint is taken
while signing documents. The lord of the universe informed us:
''Nay, we are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his
fingers'' (75:4)
It means that long before the speciality of fingers was scientifically
discovered, the Quran had shed light on it.
Each body has a distinctive odour that varies from person to person.
For the same reason we see the police often making use of trained dogs for
detecting criminals. All these clearly show that the process of creation is
very systematic and scientific. The creation of human beings being so
systematic, their end can never be meaningless or unjust. So an end based
on justice is inevitable.
Justice demands that man must get the fruits of his deed. Yet it is not
possible in this world. So religion informs us that death is not the end of
everything. It is only a transitory phase, and life will continue endlessly.
Man will be given the fruits of his deed in the life hereafter. Each person
will find there the fruits of his worldly actions.
"Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds (74:38)
''Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!
And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it''
(99:7, 8)
So whoever takes the path shown by God will obtain heaven as promised
by Him, and whoever takes the forbidden path will have to receive
punishment, as warned by Him.
Whenever you touch you leave the imprint of your fingers, and if
you walk along, as a proof the air is permeated with your odour. Similarly
your words remain for all times. In other words every human deed is well

recorded, and those records will either witness for us or against us - in the
life after death. No word of human being goes unrecorded as clearly stated
by the Quran. So after death man will have to receive either heaven or hell,
depending on his deed on earth.
How do people know about supernatural things such as God, heaven,
hell, angels and devils? It is a commonly known fact that all disciplines of
knowledge have their own tools and separate criterion for study. If two is
added to two it will make four, and if four is multiplied with four the result
will be sixteen. Arithmetic cannot be learned without accepting this
criterion. A circle has 360 degrees and a triangle has 180 degrees and
without accepting them no one can study geometry. The criterion adopted
in geometry cannot be used for learning geology. The tools of geology
cannot be applied to physiology, and those of physiology for astronomy. It
means different criteria are needed for different disciplines.
Does man have any medium with him to acquire the supernatural
knowledge like God, heaven, hell, the hereafter, angels and devils? It is a
fact that we have assembled here. But a scientist cannot prove this fact in a
laboratory using test tubes, because it is not the tool for acquiring this
knowledge. Man has only one medium for acquiring the knowledge of the
supernatural. It is the divine knowledge revealed through his messengers,
who are the chosen people, very distinct and unlike the ordinary human
beings. In other words divine revelation is the only medium for
supernatural knowledge. It is the sixth sense of knowledge.
Let us understand another thing. Suppose we tell a person who is
blind by birth, that leaf is green and milk is white and crow is black. If he
has to understand the truth of these words, he has no other way, except
trusting our words. On the other hand if he disbelieves all persons who
speak of colours, he will miss wide world of knowledge.
This statement is also true in the case of people who reject the divine
messages revealed through His messengers. These messengers were
chosen from people, and they never uttered a lie in life. They never
harmed any one and they were distinct from others by their character and
conduct, approach and by the manner of life. Their honesty was not
questioned by anyone, and those people who reject them will lose a wide
world of supernatural knowledge forever. The messengers of God who
imparted knowledge about the supernatural world had been so appointed
in all places and in all times. More than a hundred thousand prophets had
been so appointed in different parts of the world at various stages in
history. The core of their message was the same: "Obey God who is the
creator of the universe, worship Him and submit to Him alone, and discard

all aggressions who undeservingly try to occupy the positions, which He

alone deserves".
The prophets had been sent to India, Africa, America, in Arab
countries, and many other places in the world. Muhammad, the last
messenger of God is the last link in the long chain of prophets. Fourteen
centuries ago, he was appointed as the messenger of God in the Arabian
desert. Among his people he was called "Al Ameen" "truthful''. Islam has
demanded that people must accept and believe in all messengers of God,
including Muhammad, the last messenger. This belief is the third
fundamental article of faith in Islam.
Along with this Islam has set the forms of three relationships i.e.:
between man and God; between man and man; and between man and the
Universe. The forms of worship are the means decided by Islam to
strengthen relationship between man and God and thereby the human soul
to reach divine heights of proximity to Him. In other words the forms of
worship are man's expression of his gratitude to God, who has been
gracious to him by showering His infinite bounties.
Islam has enjoined four major exercises of faith. The first among
these is prayers (Salah). It is a means of bringing man closer to God. It is a
private talk of man with his creator. It is also a spiritual pilgrimage of the
soul towards God.
You must have noticed that while offering prayers the believers
stand in line. Before offering prayers they wash the parts of the body
(perform ablution) which are generally exposed to dust. This is not merely
a washing of those parts; it is convincing oneself that he is clean. So
Muslims enter into prayer with this cleanliness; and while standing for
prayer, every believer has to take that he is really standing, in the presence
of God. While offering prayer every pious believer bids farewell to his
home, place, business, farm, job, family, friends and is on a pilgrimage for
personal talk with god. In this way man reaches great spiritual heights and
majesty, and becomes more inclined towards God. Along with this the
prayers must promote two sublime virtues.
One is the social consciousness. Even if a believer is alone in the
desert, while offering prayer his words are: "You do we worship and your
aid we seek''. His prayer is unacceptable if he says ''You do I worship''. He
must utter `we', the plural form. Who are these 'we'? It includes all pious
servants of God. While the `Salah' progresses at one place the believer
prays: "Peace be upon us all and on the righteous servants of God''. It is
obligatory on all Muslims to observe this prayer five times a day. What
meaning does it convey? It is a prayer for the whole righteous servants of

God of all places, of all generations right from the beginning of human
race to the last Day of Judgment. In other words prayer is a sacred practice
which raises the believer to the level of a universal citizen beyond all
differences of time, space, ethnicity and colour. It leads a believer from the
narrow individual circle to the limitless empire of sociability.
Besides, Muslims stand for prayer in lines under a leader (Imam)
facing the direction of `Qiblah'. It promotes the feeling of equality among
them. Suppose that the first person arrived at the mosque for prayer is a
peon and the collector, a superior officer reaches later. Then during prayer
the collector has to put his head behind the feet of the peon. Suppose the
peon reached first, and minister afterwards. Then the minister has to put
his head behind the peon's feet. If someone decides like, "he is merely a
peon in my office, and I will not put my head near his feet," his prayer is
invalid. Whether the person is king or emperor or noble or whoever he
may be, he will have to put his head behind the feet of the person who had
reached before him. This promotes an unparalleled sense of equality and
humbleness.
Similar is the case of the second exercise of faith in Islam, the
fasting. During the month of Ramadan, from dawn till sunset, Muslims
abstain from foods, drinks etc. and observe fasting. This is worship to
God; simultaneously it promotes discipline and culture through self
control.
The people who eat whatever they like eating, drink whatever they
would like to drink, say whatever they think of, and look at whatever they
want to look at are equal to animals. In other words the unrestricted
fulfilment of basic instincts is brutish in nature; its control is human.
Fasting is a rigorous exercise to control desires and to dominate over
desires and feelings. It also teaches self - discipline by putting the believer
to hunger and thirst and fasting as an institution of faith can enhance piety.
It plays a big role in promoting social consciousness. While fasting, if a
believer behaves badly with anyone or talks badly his fasting in vain. The
prophet says: ''Whoever does not abandon false words and false deeds,
there is no use of his abstaining from foods and drinks''
It means that if one's behaviour towards fellow beings is bad, even
worship to God will become vain. The sense of equality which fasting
promotes is also remarkable. The believers of the whole world abstain
from foods and drinks and feel hunger and thirst. Here there is no
discrimination between the rich and the poor. This is the case with the
Alms (Zakah) also.

Like the practice of fasting which declares that one's body is not
really owned by him, and it is to be used in accordance with the
instructions of God, the Zakah is a worship which signifies that wealth is
not one's own and its real owner is God, and therefore to be spent as God
enjoins it. It is obligatory on the believers to pay a portion of their wealth
as Zakah every year. This is worship to God, a sublime form of worship.
But who are its beneficiaries? It is impossible to pack all the money and
send it to God. The Zakah is to be distributed among the poor and the
needy, among the people in debt, and among the destitute. It means that
the beneficiaries of zakah are people of the lowest strata of society.
Another exercise of faith in Islam is the pilgrimage (Hajj). It is a
worship that can be performed only by spending thousands of rupees. But
if this worship is to be acceptable, the pilgrim should never quarrel with
his fellow beings during the pilgrimage. Even wrangling is not permitted.
''For Hajj are the months well known. If anyone undertakes that
duty therein, let there be no obscenity, nor wickedness, nor
wrangling in the Hajj'' (2:197).
Islam teaches us that a man's worship is in vain unless he has better
relationship with other human beings. Hajj also promotes a feeling of
equality among the believers.
People who speak different languages, and come from different
parts of the world, and have different features, assemble for pilgrimage.
All of them dress in the same simple way. They observe the same
regulations; utter the same supplications, in the same way at the sametime,
for the same end. Here the humanity turns into a single unit beyond all
differences in nation, language gender and colour. Just think for a moment,
how beautiful a proof of human equality Hajj is! It is related with the
unforgettable experiences of three noble persons; the prophet Ibrahim, his
son prophet Ismael, and the wife of Ibrahim, Hajar. Prophet Ibrahim was
from an aristocratic family; a member of the Amelu clan. But who was
Hajar? Measuring with the materialistic criterion, including the
contemporary society, Hajar was a symbol of four severe limitations.
Firstly she was a slave and as we know slaves have been a neglected lot
everywhere; people with no freedom either to smile or weep. They never
had their own existence or decisions. They were the most unfortunate
people who were destined to move in obedience to the commands of the
masters. Hajar was a representative of the slave class, who had been
subjected to severe oppression in all times.
Secondly, she was black. Even the modern civilized society neglects

the blacks and they are being discriminated against. Hajar was a
representative of this under privileged people. Thirdly she was a foreigner.
Today the world is a global village. Yet the crisis and predicaments of the
foreigners all over the world need no explanation. Lastly, she was a
woman. Throughout history women have been victimised, and subjected to
persecution.
Measuring by the standards of materialistic views, Hajar was a
symbol of the four disadvantages. Hajar went up two mounts, neither to
worship God, nor to pay any offerings, prayers or hymns to Him. On these
two mounts she was desperately seeking water for her thirsty child. These
two mounts, because they bore the foot prints of Hajar the black slave
woman, became the symbols of God.
''Behold! Safa and Marwa are among the symbols of God'' (2:158).
Because they bore the foot prints of Hajar; these mounts became the
symbols of God which all pilgrims through the millennia, must go around.
Every pilgrim has to walk along the path where Hajar, the slave woman,
walked frantically some four thousand years ago. Whoever is the person
performing the Hajj, let him be lord, noble, king or emperor, he must
climb where Hajar climbed, and walk along the path in the same manner
she walked long ago; and it is inevitable that this symbolic gesture will
create in them a sense of equality and a feeling of humbleness.
In this way, all exercises of faith create social awareness and a sense
of equality. They take human beings closer to God; they link man who has
his foot on earth, with God, the lord of heaven and earth. They provide
rare opportunities for pilgrimage of the soul to the presence of God.
Besides, they make human beings extremely humble. While observing
prayers (Salah) the most repeated word is `Allahu Akbar' which means
God is the greatest of all. But most people are unaware of its meaning.
`Allah is the greatest of all' has another implication too. It is a declaration
from the believer that his own self is quite negligible, and his interests and
desires are to be disregarded before God and His commands. The believer
declares that the universe and everything in it are quite insignificant and
negligible, and God alone is the greatest and the majestic, and his repeated
utterings of `Allahu Akbar', during the prayers of five times everyday is
also a pledge that he is linking himself with his creator.
The basic cause for all troubles in the world is pride. ''I am great, and
I must decide things.'' Such thoughts were the basic cause of all crimes and
troubles beginning from the original sin. Every believer has to utter
`Allahu Akbar' at least 94 times a day. The sincere repeated utterance of
this word can make him humble. In other words a believer has to be

humble.
One point needs some explanation here. If one's relationship with his
fellow beings is bad, then all worships become vain and useless.
The prophet once asked his followers. ''Do you know who is a
pauper''? They replied: "the pauper amongst us is one who has no
dirham or dinar or other resources of life.'' The prophet told them.
''The pauper in my community is one who comes on the last Day of
Judgment with his prayers, fasting and the alms. But he had abused
one person, spread scandals against, the other, ate (undeservingly)
another person's wealth, and spilt a person's blood, and beat some
other person. So all his virtues will be divided among them. But
before paying off the complete liabilities, his virtuous deeds get
finished. Then the sins of persons, (whom he abused etc) will be
imposed on him; and he will be thrown away to hell'' (Muslim)
The meaning of the saying of prophet quoted above needs no
explanation. Those who harm the fellow beings can never enjoy the good
fruits of their worship. Besides, they will have to bear the sins of people
whom they have harmed. It shows the importance that the religion of God
puts on man and human relationship. Islam has honoured man a lot. The
prophet has taught us that while one is leading a prayer of ten thousand
people, and if he hears the continuous cry of child, he should not prolong
the prayer. The reason cited was not any concern for the child, whether it
would die of continuous cry. The reason cited was that it would pain the
mother's heart. It shows how far has the religion considered and taken into
account the anguish of a mother.
The religion has taught that in the life after death while man is being
subjected to trial, God will place Himself in the place of human beings,
and then it will treat the injustice done against human beings as injustice
done against Himself.
Allah will tell him that day:
"Man! When I fell sick you didn't visit me''. Then the man will ask
him: ''My Lord, should I visit you!?'' Then Allah will tell him:
''Didn't you know that so and so of my servant was sick. Yet you
didn't visit. Had you visited him, didn't you know that you would
have seen me there?'' "Man!, I asked you for food, but you didn't
give me'' The man will reply: ''My Lord, You are the sustainer of this
world. How could I give you food,'' Allah will tell him. ''Didn't you
know that so and so of my servant asked you for food. Yet you didn't
give him any. Had you given him food, didn't you know that you

would have found it with me''? Man! I asked you for water to drink.
You didn't give me any''. The man will reply. ''My Lord, you are the
sustainer of the whole world. How could I give you water''? Allah
will tell him:'' So and so of my servant asked you for water. But you
didn't give him any. Had you given him water, didn't you know that
you would have found it with me''? (Bukhari)
Islam has clearly taught us how to behave to people of all levels of society
such as the parents, children, husband and wife, neighbours, orphans,
destitute the rulers and the ruled.
The religion has enjoined its followers not to utter a single word that
will hurt the parents suffering in their old age. ''Thy Lord hath decreed that
ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or
both of them attain old age in thy life, Say not to them a word of contempt,
nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour. And, out of kindness,
lower to them the wing of humility, and say:
"Lord, be merciful to them just as they brought me up with kindness and
affection." ' (17: 23, 24)

Islam has strictly taught that only those who win the love of parents will
win the love of God, and their anger will cause the anger of God. Islam has
also described the relationship between spouses. While describing in detail
the relationship to be followed with neighbours and guests, Islam has
stated clearly that those who do not show due respect and regard for them
are not believers.
Emancipation of slaves, helping the needy, due regard for the
orphans, feeding the destitute, helping the suffering ones, liberation of the
oppressed, all these are the obligatory duties of a believer in an Islamic
perspective. These are noble deeds like the exercises of faith. Allah tells:''
Have you seen him who belies the rewards and punishments of the
Hereafter? He it is who drives away the orphan and does not urge giving
away the food of the poor. Then woe to the praying ones, who are
careless of their Prayer, who do good to be seen,and withhold small
kindnesses (from the people). (107:1-7)

Usually one who rejects faith means one who rejects God, and one who
questions religion. But here is a variant text, and it is a re-reading of
religion. The Quran says that the person who rejects faith is one who
repulses the orphan and one who doesn't encourage the feeding of the
indigent. He is not one who does not pray. He will offer prayers.
But he is careless in his prayers. He observes them as he wants others to
see him observing them. Such prayers will not have any impact; they will
not even encourage him for little acts of good. Islam teaches that the

relationship between human beings must be based on love, mercy,

compassion and good will, in the same way as relationship between man
and God is strong, secure, firm and based on justice.
Similar is the relationship between man and the Universe. The
prophet has told about a woman who deserved hell because she tied a cat
and didn't give it any food, and about another sinful woman who entered
heaven, because she gave water to a thirsty dog. These incidents teach us
that generous attitude should be adopted to the whole creatures in this
universe. No unnecessary harm should be done to any of them; even
throwing a stone at the tree unnecessarily is not permitted by Islam.
So Islam has defined and strictly analyzed the three relationships as
described above, and has asked the believers to observe them fully in their
life. Hence Islam is a complete system of life. It has given the advice,
instructions and guidance, rules and regulations and moral teachings which
are necessary to the whole spheres of human life. The prophet has even
told us about the facial expression a person must have while meeting his
friend.
If a person smiles at his friend, that is considered a virtue in Islam. It
is a good deed. It has also taught us the way to greet each other. The
westerners, who are considered the most civilized people, greet each other
with `goodmorning' in the morning and with `good evening' if they meet in
the evening. Just think for a moment. Suppose a person had severe
stomach ache last night. He could neither take any food, nor sleep well. So
if somebody greets him with `goodmorning' in the following morning it
becomes very improper and nonsensical. If a person, who is sitting near
his deceased father, is greeted with `goodmorning', will he be able to take
it in its real sense? But Islam has decided upon a way of greeting people
which is acceptable for any person anywhere in the world. This greeting
`Assalamu Alaikum' means `let the God's protection, and peace be upon
you''. The reply to this greeting also has the same meaning. Islam has
provided laws for all occasions of human life.
Even the manner of walking is prescribed. The Quran has instructed
in several places that while walking one should be modest; and walking
should never be in pride and boastfulness.
Islam has provided detailed instructions on how to sleep, take food,
how to wake up from sleep, how to behave with neighbours and in the
society and what should be the relationship between the rulers and the
ruled. For the same reason Islam is a complete system of life and it has
demanded us to mould our thoughts and feelings, our movements and all
our deeds in accordance with the divine laws. Those who live thus are

called Muslims.
Another important point that Islam has emphasised is the unity and
equality of human race. The entire human beings are the creatures of One
God. Irrespective of their differences in race, colour, language, gender,
time and space they are equal, and brothers. They are the children of the
same parents. Allah tells us:
''O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a
female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each
other (Not that ye may despise each other) Verily the most honoured
of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you''
(49:13)
Muhammad, the last messenger of God says: ''Your God is one, and your
father is one: All are born from Adam, and Adam was created of earth''.
The prophet has taught that all human beings are equal and even like the
teeth of a comb. This equality was not confined as mere declarations;
rather he put them into practice in actual life. During the time of the
prophet's appointment, severe social inequalities had existed among the
people. It was a society of slaves and their masters, of nobles and
subordinates and of the elite and lower caste people. Islam told them: ''You
are all equals''.
In the beginning they could not understand it. Once prophet's two
close disciples Abu Dhar al Gifari and Bilal bin Rabah, who was a black
slave, quarrelled. When the quarrel became heated Abu Dhar al Gifari
happened to call his friend ''the son of a black woman'. Soon Bilal went to
the prophet and complained him of Abu Dar. The prophet called Abu Daril
Gifari and asked him. ''What, did you abuse your friend using his mother's
name?'' When Abu Dhar al Gifari admitted it, the prophet told him ''Then
your Islam is not complete. There still remains unislamic traits in you and
you must repent''. Hearing it, Abu Dhar al Gifari, who hailed from a noble
family, approached Bilal with full of repentance. He put his face on the
ground in front of Bilal and told him: ''O Bilal, for the wrong I have done,
you kick on my face and take your revenge''. Bilal told his friend: "I have
forgiven you".
This incident reflects the sense of equality which the prophet had
created among the people. Islam is very strict that nothing which is against
this sense of equality should emerge from any person.
In the Holy Quran, the prophet is severely criticised only once. It
was not due to any lapse in worship or lapse in his relationship with God.
The prophet was criticised because his attitude to a follower became
improper.

The prophet was talking with some important persons of the society.
The leaders of the Quraysh Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Utbat, Shaibat and all
other leaders of Makkah had assembled in the presence of the prophet. The
prophet was talking with them about the divine guidance. While the talk
was going on a blind man, Abdullah Ibn Ummi Maktoom came there. He
was blind by birth. The prophet could not properly consider him, because
he was very busy, talking with the important people of society. Did the
blind person know that he was not properly considered? Never. Being
blind, he could not see the expression on the face of the prophet. He could
not understand whether he was considered or neglected by the prophet. Yet
God could not accept the attitude of His Messenger. God was not
concerned whether the blind man, Abdullah Ibn Ummi Maktoom, knew of
it or not. Rather he was concerned whether His Messenger neglected a
servant of Him or not. This incident was a cause for the revelation of
several verses in the Quran. Through these verses the prophet's attitude
was severely criticised and people were reminded that such attitudes
should never be adopted in future.
God cannot tolerate and forgive if man's behaviour toward fellow
beings is bad. In the incident of the blind person the Quran was teaching
the believers that there should exist among them a sublime sense of
equality, and its effects should be felt through out their lives. One more
thing should be mentioned here. The most notable house of worship in the
world is Ka'bah. Five times a day, crores of people stand faced its direction
for prayer. In the moments before death their faces are also turned to its
direction. Billions of people, in generations past and future, are laid to rest
turning their faces toward this Holy Shrine. Only one human being has
climbed up this shrine for the prayer call, and that was also a declaration of
triumph. It was that historic occasion when the prophet and his followers
came back victorious to Makkah, their native land, after they had been
expelled. On that historic occasion, for the prayer call the prophet chose
not a representative of the elite, but he chose Bilal, who was a Negro slave.
Bilal climbed up this Holy Shrine like a triumphant hero, a towering
leader, a commander - in - chief, and the ruler of a country. The prophet
asked him to climb up the Kaabah and make the triumphal call. In this way
he tried to put an end to the last remnants of social inequalities.
Which is the noblest deed a person can do in the world? It is a
relevant question. The possible answers to our minds may be like the
worship to God, prayers and hymns to Him in a remote place like a hill.
However regarding the answer to this question, the God has taught us an
altogether different matter. He told human beings that the most noble deed

is the service rendered to His servants seeking only His pleasure and
reward, and which is done not for showing off.
Islam has taught man the rules and regulations to be practised in
various levels of social life. It has explained the transaction of wealth.
Wealth belongs to God. In the wealth man has only transactional rights.
Islam has taught us how to acquire wealth, and how it should not be
acquired, how to possess it, and how it should not be possessed, and how
to spend it, and how it should not be spent. Acquiring of wealth is not a
sin. It is a rewardable virtuous deed because man is vicegerent of God on
earth. It is the duty of man, who is the creation of God, to put the earth to
good use and thereby to enrich it. Preparing the earth fruitful for future
generations is worship to Him. The prophet told once. ''If a believer is tired
through physical exertions his sins will be forgiven''.
On another occasion, the prophet was shaking hands with a follower.
His hands were rough. So the prophet asked him what happened to his
hands? The man replied: ''They became rough out of work''. Then the
prophet kissed both his hands and raised them up and said: ''Here are two
hands dear to God and his messenger''. It means that the hardworking
hands which bear the mark of their work are dearer to God and the
prophet.
While encouraging hard work, Islam has strictly enjoined not to
acquire wealth against the interests of the society. It has permitted its
followers to possess wealth. But at the same time they are instructed to
take the fiscal condition of the society into account while they possess
wealth. Besides it has strictly forbidden squandering of wealth, luxuries
and other wasteful expenditures.
In this way God has given us through his last Messenger the rules
and regulations required for all spheres of human life. Those who live in
accordance with this system are called Muslims. As mentioned in the
foregoing pages, it is not the name of any particular cast. It is also not the
name of people of any particular country or of languages. The Muslims are
those who live in accordance with the system of life which God, who
created the natural laws of this universe, revealed for the sake of human
beings. The way of life as prescribed by Him is called Islam.
So Islam has submitted three basic concepts before the humanity.
Firstly, to live in total submission and obedience to God, the creator and
sustainer of the universe. If one lives so he will enter the heaven which he
has been promised. If one disobeys and lives an arrogant and sinful life, he
will enter hell as warned by Him. And finally to believe in all prophets
including Muhammad, the last messenger of God, who had been appointed

by God in all places and in different periods. The belief in them naturally
includes acceptance of their messages.
The religion demands that people must accept these fundamental
concepts, and as gratitude to the divine graces they must worship Him
alone in the way he taught, and they must live in complete obedience to
His system. Such a life will be marked by purity and virtue, and the
believer who lives so will be a grace to him, to the family, to the society, to
the nation and to the whole world. So the Islamic ideology can bring peace
to the hearts, purity to personal life, rest to familial life, peace in society,
security for the nation, and peace for the universe and above all it can save
people from the hell in the life hereafter, and make them eligible for His
graceful heaven.
It is my humble submission that you make Islam a subject of your
careful study, observation and analysis, and if it is acceptable to you,
accept it. What I have presented here is not a comprehensive and complete
study of Islam. It is only a brief overview which may inspire for further
enquiry and studies. It is also hoped that you would be ready for more
detailed study, and your readiness for such a study is solicited.
Let Allah grace us all to find His path, so that it will provide us with
peace of mind, purity of personal life, rest in the family, peace in the
society, and security for the nation and above all it will bring universal
peace. Let Allah, the lord of this universe help us here and in the hereafter.
Sheikh Muhammed Khaarakoon

Is God just?
"It is said that God is just. However one's experience is on the
contrary. Some human beings are seen physically challenged while others
are mentally retarded. Is this not an injustice?"
This question is apparently very relevant, but a little thought will
reveal its folly. Let us further elaborate the question and a number of
questions will emerge in front of us. A short person can ask why he was
not given six feet height; a black can ask why he was not created fair; and
an ugly person can ask why he was not created handsome. A person who is
only average in his mental capabilities can ask why he was not made a
genius, and a desert dweller can ask why he was not born in a place where
the weather was pleasant. The poor can ask why they were not born rich;
the ruled can ask why they were not born as the rulers and the one lived in
the tenth century can ask why he was not born in the twenty first century.
All these questions are apparently just and relevant, and from the
questioner's point of view they have suffered gross injustice. The questions
of our wives may appear even more relevant. They may ask why they have
to bear the inconveniences of menstrual cycle, and why they have
biologically to bear, give birth to and breast feed the children. Their
spouses do not have such inconveniences. So a woman may ask why she
was not created as a male and she may say that injustice has been done to
her.
If justice means the levelling of all the above differences, the whole
human race should have been born in a single geographical area of the
same climate, in the same age, in the same family to the same parents, with
the same physical features and intellectual capabilities, with the same sex,

and all of them should also live in equally uniform good health. This as
everybody knows is an impossible and impractical situation. So
differences and diversities are the bases of human existence.
If human life had ended with death, all the questions regarding
justice would have been pertinent. If death is the end of human life, then
justice certainly demands that all should have equal opportunities to enjoy
life from cradle to grave.
However, the Almighty and the Just God don't end human life with
death. The worldly life is only the period of actions or deeds. The trial,
judgement and reward or punishment will be accorded in the life hereafter.
Each one's obligation in this life depends on the capabilities given to them.
The poor have not as much obligation as the rich and the ignorant
one's obligation is below that of the learned. The genius is more
responsible than the average human being and the obligation of the
mentally retarded is certainly far below. The physically handicapped
persons have fewer obligations compared to the healthy ones. The success
or failure of one's life depends on whether he has fulfilled his obligations
according to his ability. People will be judged in what ways they used the
capabilities given to them and in the life hereafter they will be rewarded or
punished depending upon the performance or non performance of the
obligations entrusted to them. Therefore the differences in human
condition become unjust, only if there is no life hereafter. Life in the
immortal world hereafter is inevitable, and hence physical disabilities and
other differences in health, intellectual calibre etc do not negate the justice
of God.
Moreover the healthy are tested by the physically challenged, and
the rich by the poor. The healthy and the rich will be rewarded or punished
in the life hereafter, depending on whether or not they have fulfilled their
obligation towards the handicapped and the poor, by their compassion,
love co-operation and help.
However, the materialists who deny the existence of God and the life
hereafter cannot answer questions on justice. Why `Nature', which gave
the universe a definite order and rhythm, did not show justice to human
beings? What solutions can the materialists suggest for the injustice of
''nature''? Let the atheists and the anti-religious people answer the question.
Who did create God?
Religionists argue that the universe requires a creator. It was created

by God. The question is who created God. Have you an answer other than
the usual one which tells that religion and god are matters of faith where
reason is irrelevant?
There are two major views about universe. The first view is that of
the religionists. According to this view the Universe is created and God is
its creator. The second view is of the materialists. According to their view
the universe was there from time immemorial. It was not formed or
created, it was simply there, and hence it has neither beginning nor end.
The materialists claim that some 1500 or 2000 crore years ago the universe
was a high density mass. When this mass reached extreme height of
density and heat, it exploded. This explosion was followed by a series of
explosions. According to the materialists, the explosion was the result of
the original mass touching a height of density and heat which was beyond
calculation. The big bang or the explosion was also immeasurable. The
universe, with a temperature of 3000 crore degree Celsius, came in to
existence at the moment of explosion. The explosion resulted in expansion,
and consequently the temperature began to fall. Only four minutes after
the explosion neutrons and protons joined, and the materialists argue it was
this joining of neutrons and protons which resulted in the beginning of the
life of all things - ranging from stars to human beings.
The concept of the materialists regarding the origin of the universe
raises certain unanswered questions.
When did the original mass reach the highest point of heat and density?
Why did not it happen before, or after this particular moment?
If the mass were in the highest density and heat from time immemorial,
why did not the explosion occur then and there?
If the heat and density were not highest level in the time immemorial, then
how did they reach their highest point?
Was there any interference from outside? If so what was it?
Or were the density and heat were later added to the mass?
When did the first explosion occur?
Why did it happen at that particular moment only, and not before or after?
When did the sun and the moon split, which was a single mass?
Why did this split happen at a particular moment, and neither before nor
after it? The materialists have not answered all these questions. It is
impossible to give an answer.
Everybody admits that this universe is quite systematic and in proper
order. Precision, harmony and rhythm are obvious in the structure of this
universe. It is an everlasting sign of clear reason and perfect planning.
Today there are approximately 600 crore human beings in the world. They

breathe the same air and drink the same water. Their food is almost the
same. Yet the faces of these 600 crore people are different from one
another. No face is identical with another one. How small the human
thumb is. Yet nowhere in the world among the 600 crore people, can we
see identical fingers. Add to this number the millions that lived before us
and the millions to live after us. This is also the case of hair. There are
billions of hair on the heads of the 600 crore people, all different from one
person to another. A DNA test can identify the hair of a particular person.
Blood flows through the arteries of these 600 crore people, and the
drops of blood too are different from person to person. Each human body
has a distinct odour, which is different from the others. If human body is
so wonderful, and its functioning is so systematic and planned, then it is
unwise and irrational to say that it was mere coincidence, and it is the
result of mere evolution of matter and motion. Unless one is blind with
pride, he knows that the claim is utter foolishness. It is rational to admit
and believe that these 600 crore people with distinctive faces, fingers,
smells, hair and distinctive blood were created by an omnipotent,
omniscient and rational power. And that power is the God, the creator of
this universe.
The materialists say that nothing is new in the universe. If there is
anything new, the question naturally arises is 'who created it?' However
about 600 crore people who live on earth have their intelligence,
consciousness, knowledge as well as reason. Where were the intelligences,
consciousness, knowledge as well as reason? Had the original mass before
the explosion contained all these? Then the mass must have contained
boundless intelligence, consciousness, knowledge and reason? Inanimate
mass could be much omniscient and rational?
So it is reasonable and right to believe that God, whose knowledge,
consciousness, and reason are boundless, gave some of these qualities to
the 600 crore human beings. This is the only truthful and discrete
approach.
Everybody acknowledges the existence of the time immemorial and
it must be. The materialists argue this force to be the inanimate matter, and
the religionists believe it to be the omnipotent and omniscient God. If the
force is timeless without a beginning, questions like who created it and
how it came into being are irrelevant. The same is equally applicable to
those who ask questions like who created God, who himself is timeless.
Anything which is matter-based will not be without a creator. Hence the
universe that is made of matter must undoubtedly have a creator. However
the laws and systems applicable to the matter based are not applicable to

what is beyond matter. God is beyond matter. So based on the laws and
criteria of a matter based universe cannot ask the question as who created
God, who is beyond matter. Such questions are irrelevant.
It is undeniable and universally agreed that there must be something
which is timeless, without a beginning, and which should be forever. And
this force is the omnipotent God, the creator and sustainer of the universe.
Islam and the Super natural knowledge
In the foreword you said that no body knows anything about his
future. However some people predict future on the basis of astrology i.e.
on the position of stars at the time of one's birth. The predictions of some
famous astrologers have often come true. What do you say about it?
Many people in the society assume that knowledge of one's date of
birth, position of stars etc will tell us of what happens in future. Daily
newspapers having wide circulation carry columns on astrology which
claim to tell us of what will happen to us that week. It is certainly a great
achievement if we could get correct information about what would happen
to us in the following week. Then one could avoid unnecessary worries,
discard hopes about the unattainable and one could be more careful in
planning things.
However the truth is that it is impossible to know future by
astrology. The former Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi, for
example, certainly knew her date of birth, the signs of Zodiac, the stars
and she had also the habit of consulting astrologers frequently. Yet nobody
informed her that she would be shot dead by one of her body guards.
The case of her son and former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was
also not different. No one could predict that he would be killed in a bomb
blast in Tamil Nadu.
Many victims of Lathur earthquake had good knowledge of their
date of birth and such other details. Interestingly the victims including
even astrologers could not predict. They had no knowledge of earthquake.
Our experience is such that many predictions of well-known
astrologers like P.J.S Gyani, P.K. Chackrobarthy, Jagjit Uppal, Raman
Thakkar, and Malathi Sircicar have not been fulfilled. The prediction of
Uppal that Rajiv Gandhi would come to power after the ninth Loksabha
election proved false.
Bajanbharuwala had predicted that the Gulf war will not occur in
near future just one day before the Gulf war happened. People often forget

such false predictions. At the same time predictions which come true quite
accidentally or those which are merely interpreted as correct get wide
publicity.
Truth remains that no astrologer or others of his sort could predict
and warn people about the Bhopal gas tragedy or the natural calamities
like Cyclone in Bangladesh, or earth quake in Iran which resulted in the
loss of thousands of human lives or Tsunami.
People approach astrologers out of ignorance, superstition and
unquenchable desire to know their future. The educated, the intelligentia
scientists, the rulers and the cultural leaders are no exception to this. They
attribute supernatural knowledge and divine powers to the astrologers and
introduce them as competent to predict future.
However, no one except God the creator of the universe has
knowledge of supernatural things. No one knows what is in store for the
future.
The religion of Islam has declared it in clear terms. Jesus Christ, for
example, took his disciples closer to Olive trees as he could not discern
from a distance whether there were fruits on them or not.
When there was slander against his beloved wife Aysha, Prophet
Muhammed could not out rightly deny it as a baseless lie. He understood
the fact only after a divine revelation.
Sri Rama could not recognize his own children Lava and Kusha, who were born and brought up in jungle - when they chanted the legend of
Rama in front of their father. Nor he could find out through supernatural
means his own wife Sita, who had been abducted to Lanka. All these tell
us beyond doubt that prophets or holy persons are not capable of knowing
future before it actually occurs.
No one, except God, knows the supernatural things which are
beyond cause and effect. This is a fundamental concept of the belief in
God in Islam. The Holy Quran has emphasised it.
''Say: none in the heavens or on earth, except God knows what is
hidden'' (27:65)
''Say: ''I tell you not that with me are the treasures of God, nor do I
know what is hidden'' (6:50).
The foolish assumption that holy persons by way of supernatural means
had divine wisdom existed at all times in history as in our age. So all
prophets had tried to correct and put an end to such superstitions. They
emphasised that no one including themselves had any supernatural

knowledge. Prophet Noah told his people thus:

''I tell you not that with me are the Treasures of God, nor do I know
what is hidden'' (11:31)
So there is no supernatural knowledge beyond cause and effect attributed
to prophets, saints, the self claimed gods, astrologers or to anyone for that
matter. The claim that they have this power is a lie. Astrologers' prophecy
and deciding one's destiny from stars are wrong and superstitious.
Swami Dayanands Saraswathi has clearly described the horoscope as false
and deceptive. He presents this issue in the form of questions and answers.
Q: Is it not through the influence of stars, then, that some people are rich
and others poor, some are rulers, whilst others are their subjects?
Ans: No, it is all the result of their deeds...good or bad.
Q: Is the science of stars untrue then?
Ans: - No, that part of it which comprises Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry,
etc., and which goes by the name of Astronomy is true; but the other part
that treats of the influence of stars on human beings and their actions and
goes by the name of Astrology is all false.
Q: Is then the horoscope of no value?
Ans: No, and it should be named not horoscope, but death-knell of
happiness; because the birth of a child gladdens every heart in the family,
but this happiness lasts only so long as the horoscope is not cast, and the
aspect of the planets is not read out to the parents.
When the priest, after the birth of the child, suggests the casting of a
horoscope, his parents say to him. "Oh, Sir! Cast a very good horoscope."
Then the astrologer brings the horoscope, well bespangled with red and
yellow lines if they be rich, or a plain one if they be poor. They ask him if
the aspect is beneficent. He answers "I will read it out to you as it is; his
stars of nativity are good, and so are the stars that govern the relation of
social intercourse, consequently he will be a rich man and will make a
name for himself; he will command respect among his associates; will
have good health; and be ruler among men." Upon hearing this, the parents
say "Well done Sir! Well done! You are a very nice man."
The Astrologer thinks it would not pay him to say nice things only,
so he adds "These are all his lucky stars, but there are others that
maleficent. On account of the position of such and such stars he will meet
with his death in his 8th year." On learning this, all their happiness is

converted into great distress, and they to the Astrologer "Oh Sir! What
shall we do? What shall we do now?" The astrologer answers "Propitiate
the Stars. They ask "How can we do it?" He says "Do such and such an act
of charity, have the hymns relating to the stars chanted, fee the priests, and
it is very likely that the malfeasance of the stars will be warded off."
The qualifying words very likely have been used by the way of precaution,
because, if the child died he could say "How could I help it? I cannot
override the will of God. I did my utmost and so did you, but it was so
ordained from the first on account of his misdeeds in the previous life.
"But, if the child lived he could say "Behold the power of our incantations,
gods and priests; I have saved the life of your child." But really, if their
incarnations and prayers fail, and the child dies, these rogues should be
made to pay double or treble the money given to the, and if the child lives,
they should still be made to pay because, as they themselves say, there is
not soul living that can undo the law of God or evade the consequences of
one's deeds.
Parents can say to them "This child has survived in consequence of his
deeds, and according to the laws of God, and not through your help." The
same answer should be given to Gurus (so called spiritual fathers or
teachers),) who prescribe certain acts of charity to their dupes and then
appropriate the gifts themselves, as has been given to the astrologers
above. (Sathyartha Prakasham, Arya Pradeshik's Prathinidhi Sabha,
Punjab).
In order to expose the meaninglessness of astrology Swami
Vivakananda told the following story. "There is an old story of an
astrologer who came to a king and said, "You are going to die in six
months." The king was frightened out of his wits and was almost about to
die then and there from fear. But his minister was a clever man, and this
man told the king that these astrologers were fools. The king would not
believe him. So the minister saw no other way to make the king see that
they were fools but to invite the astrologer to the palace again. There he
asked him if his calculations were correct. The astrologer said that there
could not be a mistake, but to satisfy him he went through the whole of the
calculations again and then said that they were perfectly correct. The
King's face became livid. The minister said to the astrologer, "And when
do you think that you will die?" "In twelve years", was the reply. The
minister quickly drew his sword and separated the astrologer's head from
the body and said to the king, "Do you see this liar? He is dead this
moment." (Vivekananda Sahitya Sarwaswam Volume - IV)

Swami Vivekananda writes: ''It is people who are getting old who
talk of fate. Young men generally do not come to astrology. We may be
under planetary influence, but it should not matter much to us.
Buddha says, "Those that get a living by calculation of the stars by
such art and other lying tricks are to be avoided"; and he ought to know,
because he was the greatest Hindu ever born. Let stars come, what harm is
there? If a star disturbs my life, it would not be worth a cent. You will find
that astrology and all these mystical things are generally signs of a weak
mind; therefore as soon as they are becoming prominent in our minds, we
should see a physician, take good food and rest.'' (Ibid)
The belief that no one except God has supernatural knowledge is an
essential part of pure belief in God. So, Islam has emphasised it.

Is the Qur'an a Divine Book?

Muslims claim that the Qura'n is a divine Book. How do people
know that it is divine, and not written by Muhammad? What proof do you
have?
The proof of the Quran's divinity is the Quran itself. The humanity
has complete and clear history of the prophet as well as of the Qura'n that
was revealed through him. Every aspect of the prophet's life - both the
private and public - has been completely recorded. Life history of even the
great people has not been so meticulously and comprehensively recorded.
Muhammad was born in the sixth century Arabia which was submerged in
the darkness of ignorance. He grew up as an orphan in the heart of the
desert. Muhammad, who turned to grazing sheep in boyhood, could not
read and write. He never attended any school or participated in religious
discussions. Makkah, his birth place, was the centre of poets, orators and
literary figures. But until he was forty years old he had not written any
prose or verse or a single line of poetry. Neither had he any skill in oratory
and literary talent.
Muhammad, who had a deep inclination for spirituality was often
involved in prayer and meditation, away from the evil atmosphere of
Makkah. He liked loneliness. While he was on a lonely stay in the cave
Hira, which is situated on a hill three kilometres to the North of Ka'aba, he
got the divine revelation for the first time.
The Holy Quran is the compilation of the divine revelations which
he received during the next twenty three years. The Quran is not prose,
verse, or poem in the usual sense. It has a totally distinct style. No one has
been so far able to imitate it or to compete with it. No one can do it till the
Day of Judgment.
There are several books which their followers claim to be divine.
However, there is only one book which claims itself to be divine, and that

is the Qura'n. The Qura'n repeatedly says that it is revealed by the God. If
some one has any doubt about this claim, it asks, nay even challenges to
bring at any single chapter, which is equal to any of its 114 chapters. One
who takes this challenge is allowed to seek help from any scholar,
literateur, or any genius. Allah says: ''And if ye are in doubt as to what we
have revealed from time to time to our servant, then produce a sura like
thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides
God, if your (doubts) are true" (2:23).
Since the prophet's time until this day many poets and literateurs,
who were critics of Islam, have tried to take up this challenge. The result
was that a majority of them accepted their inability and became the
followers of the Quran. The remaining had to withdraw in defeat. The
people who surrendered unconditionally before the Qura'n in prophet's
time include the renowned Arabic literateurs Labeed, Hassan and Ka'ab
Ibn Zuhair.
The Quraish dissuaded Thufail a poet and singer who had come from
Yemen, from listening to the Quran. Thufail, who happened to hear it as if
by some inner inspiration said about the Quran thus: "By God, who is
omnipotent and omniscient. What I heard just now are unparalleled verses
in the Arabic literature. Undoubtedly they are excellent and purer than any
other. How rich they are in meaning! And how beautiful! And very
attractive also. I have never heard anything of this kind. By God! These
are not human words. They are divine. Undoubtedly they are divine verses.
Valeed, the son of Mugheera was a bitter opponent of Islam and the
prophet. On hearing the recital of the Quran he expressed his views thus:
''There is sweetness in it which is difficult to define. There is also novelty.
It is full of fruits and it will certainly reach great heights. Nothing can ever
overcome it and it will break everything below it. No human being is ever
able to say like these.''
On hearing the favourable comments of Valeed, Abu Jahl, who was
the strongest enemy of the prophet approached him and asked to say
something against the Quran. Valeed, now helpless addressed Abu Jahl
thus: "What should I say? In song, prose, verse, poetry and in any other
branch of Arabic literature I am better informed than you. By God! What
this man says is none of these. God is my witness. Those words have an
unusual sweetness and a special beauty. Its branches are full of fruits and
its leaves green and beautiful. Undoubtedly they excel all other words, and
all other words are below it.''
Hearing it Abu Jahl became restless. He told Valeed: "You know
who you are? You are the highest leader of the Arabs, the hero of the

young. Still do you support an orphan boy? Do you sing the glory of his
mad utterances? Shame on great people like you. You better condemn
Muhammad.''
Abu Jahl didn't miss his aim. Valeed, who became a prey of vanity,
said: ''Muhammad is only a magician. He makes brothers fight against
each other, severs marital relations, and destroys familial unity.
Muhammad is only a magician who creates trouble in the country.''
It is remarkable that though they tried great literateurs like Valeed could
not say a single word against the Qura'n.
Until he was forty the prophet had not uttered a single lie. So he was
known by the name 'Al-Ameen' (trustworthy). It cannot be even imagined
that such a person would utter a bigger lie in the name of God. If a person
had actually written such an excellent book, it cannot be expected that he
would deny his authorship and attribute it to someone other than him. Had
the prophet claimed the Quran as his own work, he would have been
esteemed more by the Arabs. What the prophet got from the people were
severe oppressions.
Innumerable books have been written in the world. Some of the most
noticeable among them could bring certain changes in the society, and
some were causes for revolutions. However no other book, except the
Qura'n has effected a total change in people's lives. Its influence was
complete. It changed comprehensively the life of the individual, the state
of the family and the community, the country and whole world.
The Holy Quran's total influence was visible in people's beliefs,
attitude to life, worship, customs and practices, personal life, the family, in
social interactions, economic system, cultural life, political structure,
administration, character and behaviour and this list can go on.
There is no reason to think that an illiterate person can ever write
such a comprehensive book which brought a great revolution. The Quran
is such a book that it could change the minds of its bitter enemies, and its
mesmerising effect made them new lives, and they became its followers.
The most renowned person, who was so affected, is certainly the second
Caliph Umar Ibnul Khatab.
Even today those who attempt a serious study of the Qura'n become
its followers.
The Qura'n has placed before the human beings a complete way of
life. Its ideology can give peace to human minds, and can make the
personal life pure, familial life peaceful, social structure healthy, nation
secure and world a better place to live in. It is a comprehensive ideology.
There is no other book in the world which contains such an ideology

relevant to all times and all places, and also ever fresh. Of the millions of
books written hitherto, there is none among them that could present such a
comprehensive system of life. No one can argue that an illiterate person
can write a book of this kind.
The Qur'an could brighten human thought. It effected a total
revolution in the perceptions and feelings of the people, created a model
society which is worthy of emulation for people of all times and places,
and gave birth to a new culture and civilization. The Qur'an has 114
chapters, over six thousand verses, more than eighty six thousand words
and over three hundred and twenty four thousand letters. It is divided into
thirty parts and five hundred and forty paragraphs.
Its basic purpose is the guidance of humanity and main theme is
man. But it also contains history, prophesies, certain hints on science
which are all meant for awakening human thought for convincing things
and also for expanding the horizons of human knowledge.
In all these spheres the Qur'an has uncovered many facts which were
unknown to the people. Only a few of them are given here.
1. "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined
together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder" (21:30)
Science discovered this truth many centuries after the Qura'n was revealed.
2. "We made from water every living thing" (21:30) and this truth was
discovered by science only recently.
3. "Then he turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke" (41:11) Science
discovered this secret only recently.
4. "And the sun runs unto a resting place for him: that is the decree of
(Him), the exalted in Might, the All - Knowing. (36:38)
Eminent scientist like Copernicus had believed the sun was still. The
physicists, until recently, were not willing to accept the movement of the
sun. At last they had to admit the truth contained in the statement of the
Quran.
5. "And we have made the heaven as a canopy well guarded: yet do they
turn away from the signs which these things (point to)!" (21:32)
Till recently, based on this verse, the critics of the Qur'an used to
laugh at it. But today we know of the ozone layer which guards the earth
and other living things from cosmic radiation. This canopy is the
stratosphere that protects our earth from the falling meteors. Ozone has
also an important role in regulating the climate. The environmentalists
have already started expressing concern over ozone depletion as a result of
pollution.

For life to continue on the earth the canopy mentioned in the Qura'n
is essential. It is also this layer, the canopy that helps maintain the air
which is needed for breathing, in the atmosphere.
6. ''Have we not made the earth as a wide expanse and the mountains as
pegs'' (78:7)
''And we have set on the earth mountains standing firm lest it should shake
with them, and we have made therein broad highways for them to pass
through: that they may receive guidance'' (21:31) The role of mountains in
maintaining the balance of the earth was not known until recently. Now the
geologists have emphasised their role in preventing earthquakes, and in
protecting the inner and outer structure of the earth.
7. ''With power and skill did we construct the firmament, for it is we who
create the vastness of space'' (51:47)
This statement of the Qura'n is enough create wonder in people who have
even an elementary knowledge of the universe and its structure.
8. It was only in 1876 that a zoologist from Netherlands, Somerdam, who
proved that the hives are made by the female bees and honey is also
collected by the females. This fact was revealed by the Qur'an fourteen
centuries ago, as we understand from the feminine gender used in this
context. (16:68, 69).
9. The 600 crore people of this world have different fingerprints. This is
one of the great wonders of creation. But man understood this great
wonder on the finger prints only recently. The Qur'an had drawn man's
attention to this amazing fact fourteen centuries ago.
''Does man think that we cannot assemble his bones? Nay, we are able to
put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers'' (75:3, 4)
10. It was recently that the world understood that the Sun has its own light
like a lamp, and the moon only reflects the Sun's light. The Qur'an has said
it very clearly.
"Blessed is He who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a
Lamp, and a moon giving light'' (25:61)
The Quran has explained this lamp as the Sun.
"And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a
(glorious) Lamp"? (71:16)
11. Until 18th century it was thought that only the (male) sperm was
needed for human birth, and the womb was considered merely a place for
the foetus to grow. The role of the ovum was recognised only later on. The
Qur'an has emphasised the male - female role in birth. "O mankind! We
created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female'' (49:13)
''Verily we created man from a drop of mingled sperm'' (76:2)

12. The Qur'an said that the sex of the embryo was determined by the
sperm, but modern science discovered it only very late. ''That He did
create in pairs, - male and female, from a seed when lodged (in its place)''
(53:45, 46)
Though a drop of semen contains millions of sperms, only one of them
joins in fertilization with the ovum. Many facts of genetics can be seen
mentioned in the Qura'n.
As all these need detailed study, they are not included here.
13. ''It is He who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: one
palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet Has he made a barrier
between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed'' (25:53)
In a book entitled 'Mir'athul Mamalik' written by Ameerul Bahr Syed Ali
Raeez of Turkey in the 16th century mention has been made to such body
of waters existing at the bottom of Persian Gulf. But there was no evidence
for its existence. But now a big reserve of sweet water is discovered in
Ummu Suvali in the Persian Gulf, some three and a half kilometers away
from the coast of Bahrain. The fresh water doesn't join here with the salty.
So people could find out the fact behind the Qur'an statement that was
made many centuries ago.
14. The Qur'an said that Noah's Ark had rested on Mount Judi (11:44).
Charles Berlet in his book 'The Lost Ship of Noah' writes that a ruined ship
was found in 1883 in the Judi Mount of Ararat Mountain ranges in Eastern
Turkey. The ship had 450 feet length; 150 feet width, and 50 feet height.
This ship which was found during a marine exploration is now accepted as
the Ark Noah had made.
Not even a great scholar who lived in the sixth century and who had
mastered all branches of the existing knowledge of his time could not have
discovered the truth of the above statements, let alone the illiterate.
Some fourteen centuries before, the Quran made certain bold
statements which were unknown to the people of that century, which also
remained unknown to the people of many succeeding centuries. These
statements were made by a Book that claimed itself divine. Subsequently
all these statements were proved true. This is one of the proofs for the
divinity of the Qura'n.
It is really amazing that a Book which claimed divinity boldly
uncovered many truths of science, of which, nothing could be contradicted
by the later scientific discoveries of human intellect.
Philosophy and science can evolve out of human thought. Historical
facts are different. They cannot be reached by thought or meditation. The
Qur'an, which was revealed through the prophet, has explained in detail

the history of past people, which could not be proved wrong even by the
staunch critics of Islam. Besides, proofs and documents validate the
statements of the Qur'an.
The Qur'an, which claimed itself of divine origin, had made many
similar statements about the future. These statements afterwards came true
and it is also a good proof of its divinity.
The world is familiar with great writers such as Leo Tolstoy, Victor
Hugo, Maxim Gorky, Shakespeare, Goethe, Shelley and Milton. However
even before completing hundred years many words and usages of them
had become obsolete and disappeared from the language.
The Bible is not available today in Aramaic which was the language
of Christ. The Gospels do not exist in the same language and style in
which they were written. They exist in translations, and hence their
language and style is subject to frequent changes. The Vedic language in
India is no longer a living language.
But even after a lapse of fourteen centuries, the language, style and
usages of the Qur'an are considered the best in Arabic, and they are
unparalleled and inimitable. The style of the Qur'an attracts people who
are familiar with Arabic. Its meaning is easily comprehensible. It is
impossible to find such an ever fresh Book anywhere in the world.
Above all, what is more helpful to find out the divinity of this Book is its
study and regular recital.
All the evidence you quoted in favour of the Qur'an's divinity are
from the Qur'an itself. Is it acceptable to others?
The proof for a golden bangle that it is made of gold is the bangle
itself. The proof for a mango tree that it is mango tree is the tree itself. The
strong and authentic proof that War and Peace is by Leo Tolstoy and The
Glimpses of World History is by Jawaharlal Nehru is these books
themselves. Similarly the strongest evidence for the Qur'an's divinity is the
Qur'an itself.
Contradictions in the quranic Verses
Verses from the Qur'an have been quoted; some to the effect that all
things occur according to the will of God, and some other verses which
state the rewards depend on human actions. Don't they prove that there are
contradictions in the verses dealing with belief in destiny?
There is absolutely no contradiction in the verses on the belief in destiny.
Besides, they are mutually explanatory and interpretative. This can be
explained with an example.

A model school which is run with perfect discipline keeps good

standard. It has able principal and sincere teachers. The students are hard
working and parents are very much interested in the education of the
children. So all of them - principal, teachers, students and parents - are
interested in the development of the institution.
In other words there is more than one factor for the development of
the school. The situation being so it can be said that this school is a model
for other schools because of its principal, or teachers. It can also be said
that the credit goes to the students or their parents. All these factors are
true. If one factor is cited at one time, and another factors at some other
time. They are not contradictory. If each reason is highlighted depending
on the context, then again it is nothing but a statement of truth. At the same
time one will have to disagree with someone who says that only one factor
was responsible for the state of affairs.
The condition of human actions is likewise. Suppose a person while
walking along happens to see an aged man fallen on the ground. If the
person wants so he can walk on without minding the poor old man. Instead
of doing so, he takes the old man to a hospital and nurses him well. This
can be done for several motives. He may expect gratitude and reward from
the old man or his relatives. It can also be done without such interests - out
of love, sympathy, compassion and goodwill for the old man. So in this
incident, the person's decision, his motives and subsequent actions have a
major role. It is not wrong to say that the person took the old man to
hospital and nursed him. At the same time the hands, the body and health
to lift and carry the old man were given by God. The mind which showed
sympathy and concern, and finally decided to hospitalise and nurse him
was gifted by God. So the statement that the old man was saved by God is
equally true and factual. Similar incidents can be attributed either to God
or to human beings. They can also be attributed simultaneously to man and
God. One can also disagree with a person who attributes it to man alone,
Similarly God's role can be stressed. The Qur'an has adopted all these
methods. No one knows the role of human beings in the decision and
motives of the mind. As it lies beyond human comprehension, God has not
explained it in detail.
The Qur'an has attributed incidents, decisions and motives behind
them to both the God and human beings. The Quran has corrected the
attitude of the hypocrites
''If some good befalls them, they say, ''This is from God''; but if evil,
they say, ''This is from thee'' (O prophet). Say: ''All things are from

God''. But what hath come to these people, that they fail to
understand a single fact''? (4:78)
The Quran has explained on several occasions that both the good and the
bad are caused by God. But here it finds the hypocrites responsible for
their wrong approach and blame them for it. The Quran has condemned
them because instead of the right approach, they adopted the wrong one.
In the good and the bad that befall men the will of God has an important
role as the actions of men. So many verses have pointed out Gods' will as
the cause of the good and the bad.
"If God touches thee with affliction, none can remove it but He; if
He touches thee with happiness, He hath power over all things''
(6:17)
"Now God leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom
He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom'' (14:4)
Along with this the Quran has stressed on man's role in the results of
his choice of the right and wrong paths.
"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!
And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.''
(99:7, 8)
"Namely that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another;
That man can have nothing but what he strives for:'' (53:38, 39)
"On no soul doth God place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets
every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns'' (2:286)
"But whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own) soul'' (4:79)
"As to those who believe and work righteousness, God will pay them
(in full) their reward; But God loveth not those who do wrong''
(3:57)
"But those who reject Faith and belie our Signs, they shall be
companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein'' (2:39)
"(They will say), ''O ye Unbelievers! Make no excuses this Day! Ye
are being but requited for all that ye did!'' (66:7)
The Quran has also told us how Gods will and the role of human
beings is inter-related in the right and the wrong.
"Say: ''Truly God leavath to stray, whom He will; but He guideth to
Himself those who turn to him in penitence'' (13:27)
"If anyone contends with the Apostle even after guidance has been
plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that
becoming to men of Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has
chosen, and land him in Hell, - What an evil refuge!'' (4:115)

In short, man who is capable of understanding the fruits of his deeds, is

given freedom to think, decide and to act accordingly. Yet this is not a
limitless or unrestricted freedom.
It is subject to God's will and desire - and each person's obligation is
limited to the level of freedom that has been granted to him. The success
or failure and whether the person deserves heaven or hell depends on the
performance or non performance of the obligations.
God has not compelled anyone for anything beyond his ability. He is
never unjust. There are no contradictions at all in the verses of the Quran
which deals with God's will and its relation to human freedom and
conditions.
An incident during the vicergence of caliph Umar reveals the view
of Islam on God's will and the question of human freedom. Plague broke
out in Palestine and in a short time it spread to Syria. All medicines and
treatment proved ineffective and the disease which spread as quick as
lightning claimed fifteen thousand lives in a month. The caliph, with a
group of soldiers, left for Syria and on the way, consulted his close
followers on what they have to do. After giving necessary instructions, the
caliph decided not to visit the affected areas. As visit to the affected areas
was risky and dangerous, everybody objected it.
Hearing this news Abu Ubaida became very angry and asked Umar
thus: ''Are we fleeing from God's will''? Reading the thought of this
soldier, Umar replied: ''Yes fleeing from one will of God to another of His
will''
After a brief pause he continued: ''Suppose one reached a place
where there are two valleys; one full of fruits and the other barren. The one
who watches the orchard does so out of God's will. The other person who
watches the barren valley is also doing it out of God's will. Isn't it''?
In a way Umar was teaching people that the belief in destiny should
not be a cause of ruin and destruction and it should not be an obstacle
before progress, success and achievements. His advice also contains the
message that within the limits of the will of God, freedom given to human
beings must be maximum utilized.

Is the Qura'n an Imitation of the Bible

Q:''Muhammad learned certain things from the Christian and Jewish
scholars of his time, and then presented them in his own language and
style. For this reason the descriptions of the Qura'n and the Bible about the
former people are alike''. I happened to read such views in several books in
English. What is your response?
A: This is a baseless charge created and spread by some western writers
who have bitter hatred, and hostility to Islam. Just one reading of the Bible
and the Quran will reveal that this charge is far from truth.
Prophets are the messengers of God appointed to guide the humanity
and to introduce the divine way of life to them. So the divine paths which
were revealed through his messengers will naturally look alike. Had the
followers of the prophets been not strayed from their teachings, there
would have been no contradictions and diversions among religions. Infact
the successive and frequent appointment of the prophets became
necessary, when the people deviated from the right path of their
predecessors.
When Muhammad was appointed as the prophet of God the
teachings and messages of Moses and Jesus had not existed in its original
form. The Jewish and Christian communities had made serious
interventions and made additions and deletions to it which resulted in
artificiality. So Bible at that time contained only a very small part of their
teachings and the revelations to Prophet Muhammad quite naturally agreed
with it. This is the reason for certain similarities in the Bible and the
Qura'n.
However there is considerable difference in the Christian and Jewish
views and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad about the belief in God

which is a basic aspect of religion. However the Quran declared that they
said (in boast),
"We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God": - But
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear
to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no
(certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety
they killed him not'' (4:157)
The Bible contains many wrong statements about God and his apostles
humiliating them. None of these statements can be seen in the Qura'n.
Moreover, the Quran has given their exact and truthful descriptions. Some
statements of the Bible are given below.
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden
in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from
the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."
(Genesis 3:8, 9)
''Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of
us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'' (Genesis 3:22)
Such statements in the Bible are against the Islamic concept of God and
belief in Him.
Many statements about the messengers of God in the Bible are not
only unbelievable, but also derogatory. About Noah, the Bible says:
"And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was
uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the
nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem
and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders,
and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and
their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had
done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants
shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD
God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.''! (Genesis 9:21-26).
Noah who was drunk and naked, and who cursed his grandson without any
reason is very different from most virtuous Noah, introduced by the
Qura'n.
The Bible says about Prophet Abraham thus:
"And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into
Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. And
it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he

said unto Sarai his wife, behold now, I know that thou art a fair
woman to look upon: Therefore it shall come to pass, when the
Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and
they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou
art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul
shall live because of thee. And it came to pass, that, when Abram
was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was
very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her
before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And
he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen,
and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and
camels.'' (Genesis 12:10- 16)
Abraham, who is the meanest of the mean by presenting his wife to the
king as described in the Bible, is an entirely different person in the Quran,
that there is no comparison at all between them. The Quran introduces him
as a very bold, and a revolutionary idealist willing to sacrifice anything
that is dear to him.
About Prophet Lot the Bible says:
''And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and
his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he
dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said
unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the
earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let
us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may
preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine
that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he
perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came
to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger,
Behold, I lay yester night with my father: let us make him drink
wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may
preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine
that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he
perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were
both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn
bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the
Moabites unto this day. And the younger she also have a son and
called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of
Ammon unto this day.'' (Genesis 19:30-38)

According to Holy Quran, Lot who did the most heinous and the worst of
all deeds-incest - as described in the Bible, is very different from the
description of the Quran. As described by the Quran, Lot, throughout his
life, was a symbol of purity, and his life was a relentless struggle against
sexual anarchy. Actually the lies made up by the lustful anarchists were
imposed by the Bible on the holy and virtuous prophets. The holy Quran is
completely free from all such aberrations.
According to the Biblical story Jacob purchased prophethood from Esau,
the rightful one for that position, by giving him bread and bean soup.
''And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was
faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same
red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And
Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I
am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he swore unto him and he
sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and
pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his
way thus Esau despised his birthright''. (Genesis 25:29-34).
Jacob, according to the Biblical description, is a cruel who, when his own
elder brother was hungry exploited him and robbed his right. Jacob, as
described in the Quran, is very gentle, patient and pure.
The Bible has described Jacob's father Isaac as a liar
''And Isaac dwelt in Gerar: And the men of the place asked him of
his wife; and he said, She is my sister, for he feared to say, She is my
wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah;
because she was fair to look upon'' (Genesis 26:6-7)
Jacob got his father's blessing and prayer through trickery and
crooked means. He robbed his elder brother Esau, of his rights quite
unjustly. (Genesis 27:1-38)
According to the Biblical description, Jacob's father - in - law Laban
was a big cheat and his wife an idol worshipper (Genesis 29:25- 30,
31:17-23). The Bible has also portrayed Prophet Jacob's daughter as
having illegal relationship, and Judah having intercourse with his
own daughter - in - law. (Genesis 38:13-30)
The Bible has also said of Prophet David making love to Bathsheba, who
was wife of Uriah. According to the story David sent Uriah to the war

front, so that he will get killed, and then he can claim Bathsheba as his
own (Samuel 11:1-16)
The Bible has also mentioned prophet Solomon married many women
against God's command (Kings 11:1-14)
The followers of the prophets who came later on deviated from the
teachings of their prophets and yielded themselves to the voice and
temptations of the Satan, and then they imposed their immoral deeds and
other evils on the prophets, and they were then added on to the scriptures.
Anyone who knows the Qura'n will not say that it is an imitation of the
early scriptures. There were several human interventions with the
scriptures. On the other hand, the Qura'n has corrected the lies about the
prophets and has revealed the truth. So while some prophets are introduced
by the Bible as rogues, cheaters, criminals and cruel, the same prophets are
introduced by the Qura'n as great, who possessed all virtues, who are good
models for all people; and who are the best guides for humanity.

Why there are different religions?

Q: If religion is divine, why there are different religions in the world?
Were people of different places in different ages given different religions?
What are the reasons for conflicts among religions?
A: Religion is the way of life given by God to the humankind. It teaches
man about who he is? Where did he come from? What is life and how it
should be lived? What is after life? etc. Religion guides people to the right
path and takes him to real victory. God has presented this system of life to
all people irrespective of time and space. It was presented through His
messengers. The ideology of life presented through the prophets was
basically the same.
Allah says:''
''For we assuredly sent amongst every people a messenger, (with the
command); ''Serve God, and eschew evil.'' (16:36)
So the messenger of God is appointed to a people, and he invites them to
God's path. A section of the people accepts and follows him and the
remaining people stick to the customs of their predecessors.
After this prophet's death and after a lapse of time the followers go
astray from the path of their prophet. The scholars and priests create and
spread superstition and evil customs among them. So when the society
deviates from divine path, again his messengers are appointed.
A section of the people follows him and the rest stick on to the old
system. So those who follow the prophet are called the followers of one
religion and others as followers of another religion. Actually all prophets
invited their people to the same creator and to His way of life. When the
Israelites deviated from God's path Moses was appointed to bring them
back to the straight path. When his followers strayed from the divine
guidance Jesus was appointed. Those who denied Jesus and stuck to their

evil customs came to be known as Jews and those who followed Jesus as
Christians. So for this reason there are different religions in the world.
When a prophet is appointed for the reason that people went astray, instead
of following him they followed the earlier customs and practices, thereby
leading to different religions. There also appeared conflicts and
contradictions among them.
Rivers have their origin at various places, flow through different
lands and at last join the sea. Similarly man resorts to various ways to
reach God. So isn't Sreenarayana Guru right when he said, whichever is
the religion, let man be Good?
Religion is the path to achieve God's love and reward. So the real
path to reach Him must be decided by God, the creator. He has decided it
and informed the human beings through His apostle.
Mutually contradictory things can never be true simultaneously. In
Mathematics two and two make four and two and two never make three or
five. Water is formed when Hydrogen and Oxygen join together.
Similarly in religion too the distinction between truth and falsehood
is fundamental. Sreesankaracharya said that `Advaita' is true and `Dvaita'
false. Madhvacharya said that `Dvaita' is true and `Advaita' false.
According to Ramanujaryan both are wrong and Visishtadvaita is true.
Among the Hindu scholars there are some who believe reincarnation
as true, and some consider it false. This is also the case with re-birth. It
proves that Hindu scholars have different views about their beliefs. So the
beliefs of different religions such as monotheism, trinity, polytheism,
Dvaitam, Advaitam, worship of one God, worship of multiple gods, Idol
worship, belief that Idolatry is sin, belief in the hereafter, belief in re-birth,
belief in man's innocent birth, belief in original sin all these cannot be right
and true at the same moment.
To say that they are both true and right is like adding two and two
and then saying that three, four, and five are true and correct answers. It is
not only untrue but also foolish.
So people have to find out the divine path which is free from human
intervention, and follow it. That is the only path of victory. No one with a
right mind will say that the path followed by him is true as well as other
paths.
What actually needed is a religion that can bring a better change in
human life. In other facts this religion must give man peace of mind in the
world, it must make his personal life pure, provide rest to his family, peace
to the society and it must also ensure protection and welfare of the state.
Above all this religion must save him from hell fire in the hereafter and

ensure him heaven. All these are impossible without religion.

The Qura'n itself has permitted of accepting any faith. It can be read
in chapter 2:62 that ''Those who believe (in the Qura'n) and those who
follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians and who
believe in God and the last day, and work righteousness, shall have their
reward with their Lord on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve''.
What is your view?
This verse actually discards the racism of the Jews who had argued
that the Jewish community alone is dear to God and the Jews alone are
those who deserve heaven. Whichever way they lived, they hoped, they
would be saved, and believed that others would go to hell. Ethicising their
claim the Qur'an said that it was no one's caste, community or tribe that is
the criterion of success, but it is one's belief in God and in the hereafter
and also the virtuous deeds.
Islam demands belief in God and in the hereafter and practising of
virtuous deeds. Whoever lives so is a Muslim, whatever is his tribe, clan,
caste or nationality. The Jews, Christians, Sabians etc cease to be so by
proper belief in God and in the hereafter, and by doing good deeds, and
there occurs thorough change in their former beliefs, worships, customs,
practices and other systems of life. Consequently, they may not be called
by their former names. Here also the Quran has stressed on belief and
virtuous deeds as the criterion for success.

Were Sree Rama and Sree Krishna Prophets?

Q: Divine revelation is acquired by the great sages through years of
meditation. Can't it happen today also?
A: Divine revelation cannot be acquired through senses or meditation. It is
acquired neither by desire nor by efforts. It is a very subtle phenomenon
and lies beyond any material analysis. The knowledge one gets through
dream is neither acquired knowledge nor knowledge as per ones will.
However the knowledge through dream may be right or wrong. Though
divine revelation can be compared to it, the revelations to the prophets can
never be wrong. It is free of all infallibilities.
Prophethood is the gift of God. He chooses whom He likes as His
messengers. He appoints them for the guidance of humanity. Here man's
desires or efforts have no role.
Allah says
You never hoped that the Book would be sent down to you. Only
through your Lord's mercy (has it been sent own to you); therefore,
do not be a helper of the unbelievers (28:86)
"Such is the Bounty of God, which He bestows on whom He will"
(62:4)
The prophet had no prior knowledge of revelation or the Book as revealed
in the Quran.
"And thus have we, by our command, sent Inspiration to thee: thou
knewest not (before) what was revelation, and what was Faith; but
we have made the (Qura'n) a light, wherewith we guide such of our
servants as we will; and verily thous doest guide (men) to the
straight way'' (42:52).
Then why did Prophet Muhammad, before the prophethood, stay lonely in
the cave Hira?

The person who is to receive divine revelation must be worthy of it,

and ready for it in all ways. Like all other prophets, Prophet Muhammad
too had been brought up in such a way that will make him worthy of
receiving the divine message. He was also blessed with the essential
qualities for the divine message. So prophet Muhammad grew up as one
who was totally free from all bad habits, sins and he was a man of supreme
virtues. His life was free of blames, that he came to be called the
trustworthy. By the age of forty, responding to the divine instinct, he
abandoned the vicious social atmosphere and stayed lonely in the Hira. By
this lonely stay he was acquiring the human perfection which was
necessary for prophethood. In other words God was preparing the person
to be appointed as his last messenger, so as to make him worthy and
suitable in every way. The meditative life of the prophet in the Hira was
only part of this preparation.
How do we know whether one is a messenger of God or not?
The messenger of God will have a distinct individuality, which can be
recognised by every truthful individual of the society. His life is pure. He
never lies or does anything contrary to truth. He is pure in his nature, who
never utters a dirty word or does any evil deed. He not only exhorts others
of truth, justice and good deeds, but also practices them in his own life. No
single instance can be seen where his words contradicted his deeds. He
always resorts to methods which are ever straight, transparent, pure,
dignified and above suspicious. He is completely free of all self interests.
He will not harm others by words or deeds. He will not rob others rights.
He is the best model for all times in virtues like truthfulness, sacrifice,
noble thoughts, and observance of good. However hard one tries,
imperfections cannot be noticed in the life of God's messenger.
A poet is understood through his poems, and an artist through the
illustrations. Similarly a prophet is understood through his revelations
from God. Things easily occur to the minds of God's messenger, which
others cannot even imagine. Later people realize the truths of his words,
and in this way all messengers of God are recognised by the good ones in
the society.
Sree Rama and Sree Krishna
Based on the above criteria and according to the Islamic view, were Sree
Rama and Sree Krishna prophets?
Islam has clearly said that there was no community or people to
whom a prophet had not been appointed. Allah says

''For we assuredly sent among every people an apostle'' (16:36)

''Verily we have sent thee in truth, as a bearer of glad tidings and as a
warner: And there never were a people, without a warner having
lived among them (in the past)'' (35:24)
There is no doubt that in India, with a history of thousands of years,
prophets have been appeared and divine messages were revealed. However
no authentic documents are available to inform us as who were these
prophets? And where were they appointed? And at what time? We have
some legends, myths and unbelievably exaggerated descriptions about
some great souls of the past, existing in the country.
These legends and myths are so complicated that it is impossible to
distinguish truth from falsehood; the legends about Sree Rama, Sree
Krishna and Sree Budha are no exceptions. Many things said about these
souls are not likely to be true. So with the existing impressions it cannot
be said with conviction whether they were prophets or not. At the same
time they may be prophets, and one cannot categorically reject this
thought. It will be a big achievement if we could distinguish the real
history of the great souls of the past, from the myths and legends which
were made by their followers and opponents alike. If the true life of these
great souls are revealed through impartial studies and research, and if it is
convinced that they were really prophets, all, and especially the Muslims
in India, will feel very happy. Such a study and research is very much
desirable.

Are the Vedas and the Gita Divine?

Q : Can the Hindu Vedas be recognised Divine?
A: The word Veda means knowledge, education etc; it denotes spiritual
knowledge. It is believed that the Vedas are non-human. Some Vedic
Scholars have said that the Vedas are not written by human beings and,
rather they are the utterances of God. However, Vedas themselves do not
make such a claim.
Islam teaches that God's messengers were appointed to all people,
and all were given the divine message. So the possibility of Veda's being
part of the divine revelation sent to the Aryas, cannot be rejected. There is
such a possibility. However, the four existing Vedas, Rig, Sama, Yajur and
Atharva canot be thought divine. Owing to continuous human intervention
they have lost their originality and they are no longer non-human. The
believers in Vedas themselves have admitted it.
Dr. Radhakrishnan writes: "The inspired songs which the Aryans
brought with them from their earlier home into India as their most precious
possession were collected, it is generally held, in response to a prompting
to treasure them up which arose when the Aryans met with large numbers
of the worshippers of other gods in their new country......
The Atharva-Veda for a long time was without the prestige of a
Veda, though for our purpose it is next in importance only to the Rg-Veda,
for, like it, it is a historical collection of independent contents. A different
spirit pervades this Veda, which is the production of a later era of thought.
It shows the result of the compromising spirit adopted by the Vedic Aryans
in view of the new gods and goblins worshiped by the original people of
the country whom they were slowly subduing. (Indian Philosophy Vol.1,
PP: 64-65)

Dr. Radhakrishnan says that even the concept of God in the Vedas
has undergone serious changes.
Rig Veda contains 10472 songs, 1017 Suktas, 8 Ashtakas and 10
Mandalas, and about the tenth Mandala, Dr.Radhakrishnan writes:
"Mandala ten seems to be a later appendage. At any rate, it contains
views current at the last period of the development of the Vedic hymns.
Here the native hue of the earlier devotional poetry is sicklied over with
the pale cast of philosophic thought. Speculative hymns about the origin of
creation, etc. are to be met with. Together with these abstract theorisings
are also found in it the superstitious charms and exorcisings belonging to
the Atharva-Veda period. While the speculative parts indicate the maturing
of the mind which first revealed itself in the lyrical hymns, this feature
shows that by that time the Vedic Aryans must have grown familiar with
the doctrines and practices of the native Indians and both these are clear
indications of the late origin of the tenth book. (Indian Philosophy Vol. 1
PP: 68)
Casteism, which is unbecoming of a divine scripture, has crept even into
the Rig Veda.
Brahmanosia Mukhamaseed
Bahu rajanya: Kritha
Uru Thadasya Yadvaisya:
padbhyam Sudro Ajayatha (Rig Veda 10:90:12)
(Brahmin was born from the Prajapathi's face and Kshatriya from
His hands and Vaisya from His back and Sudra from His feet)
In the introduction to the second volume of Rig Veda, N.V. Krishna Warier
has said that the complete parts of the Vedas are not available today, and
many of them are interpolations. They also contain vague and very
complex Ideas.
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan has clearly said in his book 'Indian Religions'
(Page 22) that Vedas are not infallible or all inclusive. Acharya Narendra
Bhushan wrote that gradually variant texts and branches came into
existence, and then contracted. Some included Brahmanas in the Vedas. So
when Veda Suktas and Brahmanams mixed with each other Vyasa must
have re-defined them. The story that Vyasa partitioned the Veda probably
came from this. What we suppose from this is that as a result of the mixing
together of Veda Sutras and brahmanams, there was a time when
identification of the real Veda, from prophesies and other branches was
impossible. (Vedic Literary History)

There is a reference in the tenth Sukta of the tenth mandala of the

Rig Veda which not at all suits for a divine Book. In this Sukta the sister
invites her own brother for sexual intercourse. Similarly the statements in
the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda about solar and lunar eclipses are full
of mistakes and based on superstition. So many renowned Hindu Scholars
have pointed out several things which ought to be removed from the
Vedas.
Guru Nithyachaitanya Yathi writes: "Vedas not only allow the most
brutal killings, but some Mandras also speak of their desirability. No one
who is impartial cannot pretend to have not seen it. It is really painful for a
scholar to utter that the Veda, the most exalted Sruti of the Hindus, also
contains the meanest Mantras. But some scholars, without doing justice to
the historical truths, justify and validate these mantras, which ought to be
removed. That is certainly not pardonable(Gurukulam Monthly, quoted in
"Outline of Indian Renaissance." Malayalam.)
Briefly, even the believers in the Vedas do not claim that the existing
Vedas are divine. Many things are added into it, and many other things are
missing. It was also subjected to interventions. There is no wonder in it
because no one knows its history. There are serious differences of opinion
about its date. People date it back to 6000 BC, 4500 BC, 3000 BC, and
1500 BC. Regarding the date there is no definite opinion. There is no
difference of opinion that they were compiled after the Aryans came to
India.
The long interval between the revelation and compilation naturally
resulted in textual variations and artificiality. Dr. Radhakrishnan writes:
"They (Aryan) brought with them certain notions and beliefs
which were developed and continued on the Indian soil. A long
interval must have elapsed between the composition and compilation
of these hymns (Indian Philosophy Vol. 1 PP: 66)
The ancient Vedic language, in which Vedas were released, does not exist
today. The present-day Sanskrit is only a variant of it and it emerged long
after the Vedic age only. This fact is explained by scholars including
Acharya Narendra Bhushan.
The only book which is free from additions and deletions is the Qura'n. It
is free from any human intervention. Its history since its revelation until
now is very clear. For these reasons it is called the only existing divine
Book. It validates all the previous Divine Books.

Do you say that the Bhagavat Gita is also not divine?

The existing Vedas were subjected to human intervention as told by Vedic
Scholars like Dr. Radhakrishnan, N.V. Krishna Warrier, Narendra Bhushan
and Satyavratha Patel.
In the Mahabharatha, when Pandavas reached the Kurushetra plains
to fight against the Kauravas, the Pandava hero Arjuna felt very sad at the
thought of killing his kith and kin. Bhagavat Gita is believed to be the
philosophical exhortations of Krishna who was Arjuna's charioteer. The
Mahabharatha, which includes Geeta also, was written by the sage, Vyasa.
It is believed that Sree Krishna is the incarnation of God, and hence Geeta
is Bhagavat Gita. But many renowned Hindu scholars and reformers have
explained that God will never incarnate in the human form, and He had
never taken such a form.
Sree Vaghbadanands Guru has clearly said that God has no
incarnation (The complete works of Vaghadananda, PP 357-359, 751-752
Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited, Kozhikode).
Gita itself has discarded the concept of incarnation:
Avajananthi Mam Muda
Manusheem thanu Ma Shritam
Param Bhavamajanantho
Mama bhootha maheswaram
Mogasha Moga Karmano
Mogajnana Vichethasa:
Rakshasi masuri chaiva
Prakritheem Mohineem Sreetha: (Bhagavat Gita: 9:11-12).
(Unaware of my higher state, as the great lord of beings, fools disregard
Me, dwelling in the human form. Of Vain works, of vain knowledge and

senseless they verily are possessed of the delusive nature of Rakshasas and
Asura's).
The possibility of such verses from the Gita, being part of the Divine
utterance cannot be discarded. However the belief that Sreekrishna was
God is totally wrong. Such belief is contrary to the above mentioned
Sukta. It is likely that Sreekrishna was the messenger of God. However in
the absence of clear and true history it is impossible to come to a definite
conclusion.
The clear and definite history of the Geeta is not available. It is
doubted whether it had been written even at the time of Mahabharata war,
- and there certainly exists difference of opinion about the time it was
written. Opinions about the time vary from BC 5th century, (4th century,
3rd century) to 2nd century BC and to 4th century after Christ.
Regarding this Dr. Radhakrishnan writes: "Even when we assign the
Bhagavadgita to the Mahabharata as a genuine part of it, we cannot be sure
of its date, since there are products of different periods included in it.
(Indian Philosophy Vol. 1 PP: 524)
Dr. Radhakrishnan also writes that the author of the Geeta was
actually compiling and integrating the various streams of thought existed
at his time. He does not see the Gita as divine and writes that ''It is a book
conveying lessons of philosophy, religion and ethics. It is not looked upon
as a sruti or a revealed scripture, but is regarded as a smriti or a tradition''
(Ibid Page 519).
In short, though the Geeta may contain fragments and ideas of divine
messages, it is not a Divine Book. The Geeta itself doesn't claim its divine
origin.

CONSCIENCE AND DIVINE REVELATION

Q:Is divine revelation essential for man's guidance? Isn't it enough for
people to live according to their conscience?
A: Conscience is a great gift. But what is conscience actually? Do the
consciences of all people look alike? Is the conscience's decision always
similar to all people? Can anyone claim conscience's judgement infallible?
All these problems need to be examined.
Conscience is deeply influenced by the family in which a person was
born, by the condition where he lives and also by the traditions of the
society. Nationality, ethnicity, caste, socio-economic conditions, the age in
which one lives, all these have influenced the formation of conscience as
well as its judgments.
The intellect and the ways people adopt differ from person to person.
Human beings are of different character and of different groups. Their
interests vary. There is considerable difference in the levels of their
intelligence and knowledge. People view and judge things from their own
levels. It is impossible for people to think alike, and consequently their
views are divergent.
The aesthetic sense of people differs, and consequently the concept
of beauty is relative. What is beautiful for some people may be ugly for
others. In taste also there is such difference. What some feel tasty may be
unpalatable to others. The question is: Can there be such differences in
good and bad? Can they differ according to the taste of the individuals? It
cannot be. Good is good, ever and everywhere. Bad is bad always, and
everywhere it is bad. Otherwise human beings will lose the sense of value,
the distinction between Good and bad will become meaningless, and thus
society will fall into anarchy.

Good and bad should not change depending on social conditions and
economic structure. To argue that they change so, will, in effect, lead to
their rejection - as one sees in the words of Niccolo Machiavelli "that good
is merely a name'' or in the words of Jean Paul Sartre that ''good is merely
a myth.''
Good and bad should be constant and eternal and they should not be
bound with the consideration of time, place, ethnicity, caste or sex. Good
and bad will be impossible if they are decided by human conscience, social
conditions, economic structure, and national conditions or by temporal
interests.
So human instincts or conscience cannot be made the basis or
criterion of good and evil or justice and injustice. There is no impartial
conscience. It can never claim infallibility. Infact, there is no difference
between one who lives according to his conscience and one who lives
according to his bodily desires. Both live according to their instincts.
Good and bad must be decided by God - the creator of people of all
ages and of all places. He has clearly distinguished and demarcated
them.So good and bad, as well as right and wrong are decided by Him and
they are eternal, and beyond the considerations of time and space. The
only way to understand them is God's revelations to his prophets.
Without the light of divine revelations nobody can know the answers
to questions like: Who is he? Where did he come from? Where is he
going? What is life and for what purpose, and how it should be lived?
Many intelligent thinkers and researchers have said and spread sheer
nonsense about man, because they have been unable to understand man's
essential nature.
People are capable of viewing things only on the basis of available
light of knowledge, and even today many aspects regarding man are yet to
be brought to light. For the same reason man never stops enquiring about
them. Whenever they get new knowledge, the wise seekers of knowledge
become convinced of the depth of their ignorance.
People like Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Hegel and Karl Marx
viewed man from various angles. In their search for understanding human
nature, some concentrated on the body and its form and shape. So they
came to certain suppositions which were body-centred.
Some viewed man from the occupation he once followed, and
thought of him as an animal subjected for evolution. The thought of some
other thinkers fell on human belly, and they related everything with it.
They found it most important and decided that hunger was the cause of all

problems. They thought that once this problem is solved, everything would
be alright.
Those who viewed man and life through sexuality believed it to be
the most important thing and whatever they knew, saw and heard was
related to it. They declared that the whole human activity is sex-centred,
and if the restrictions imposed on sex were removed everything would be
all right.
Some others gave undue importance to spirituality and disregarded
the body and its needs. So the people who tried to understand man in the
absence of divine revelations were like the proverbial blind men, who tried
to understand elephant in their own partial ways. They arrived at certain
conclusions which were imperfect and full of errors.
Those who do not know man cannot understand how man should
live. Every individual must possess the basic awareness to understand how
he should live in the world. This awareness is achieved only through the
divine message. It was religion that taught man about the meaning,
objective, and destiny of his existence. It has also set the ends and means
of human life.
For people who do not depend on divine revelation, even the
question, what is after death? is irrelevant. They think that life begins with
birth and ends with death and such a view deeply affects the ends and
means of their life. It has also deep influence on every activity of life. At
the same time the divine message speaks about the hereafter, and declares
that life after death is the most important one. It emphasises that this world
is only a place for work, and the trial, judgement, rewards or punishments
are to come in the hereafter.
In the absence of this belief, the unfulfilled good deeds on the earth
would have become vain. It is not right to assess human acts merely on the
basis of outward results.
Suppose a man jumps into the river to save a drowning child and he
fails in the effort. The failure doesn't mean that his effort was unworthy.
Seemingly this sacrifice is a futile effort, a failed attempt. However this act
contains a lot of noble values in it. Now imagine that in the effort to save
the child, along with the child he too loses his life. The apparent result is
the loss of two lives, a huge loss from a material point of view. However
the truth is that it is a commendable heroic death. If death is the end of all,
then self sacrifice for ideologies would have become meaningless.
The joy one gets from a failed fight for justice is not related with this
world. If death is the end of everything, the self sacrifice of a heroic leader
will become foolish. So if we judge that these sacrifices are after all not

vain, then it is the result of our consciousness about the other world. The
heroic leader and his acts for good and truth, though failed, are justified
and commended as noble. It is also the result of our consciousness about
the hereafter. This consciousness is a strong under current, and highly
influential in the assessment of events.
A human conscience which is completely free from the divine
message will not know the value of sacrifice. And such a conscience will
not let one take any decision and act accordingly, without considering the
profit and loss in mathematical terms.
The absence of divine messages makes one ignorant of the creator,
as it has made him ignorant of himself. Suppose a person's father is alive
and lives with him, but the person concerned doesn't know his father at all.
He is certainly very unfortunate. But more unfortunate than him is the
person who does not know his own creator. The ignorance about God will
lead into ignorance about His system of life which will eventually lead to
eternal damnation.
Science and Technology have advanced much, and knowledge has
been expanded. Yet man is ignorant of himself and of the world. Every
new information is indicative of the depth of man's ignorance. Without the
knowledge of the self and of the world one lives in, it is impossible to live
calm and peaceful life. So conscience alone cannot be a guide in human
life.
Nobody is free from self interest. If the rules, regulations and the
system required for the society are framed by male, men's interests will be
served better. If they are framed by female, their interests will be better
served. The laws framed by the blacks are favourable for them. Given the
opportunity the whites will do the same. The same is true with the working
class and the capitalists.
People of each country and region give preferences to their own
interests. Infact this is fundamental to the concept of nationalism.
Machiavelli writes that "good is only a name. Evil is real. So every ruler
who wants to strengthen his country must properly understand to do evil''.
Wayne Paul's view is the same.
"A moralist cannot rule the country because what a country needs for
its protection, cannot be done by him. For the good of the country, a
ruler must be ready to do anything. A moralist with his sense of right
and wrong cannot do it.''
There is no one without self - interests of some kind. So the rules and
regulations and the system they frame will certainly reflect their interests.
God, the creator and the sustainer of the universe alone can view the world

and its people alike. He alone can provide the system of life which will do
justice to the whole people of all places and all ages. For the same reason
nobody can live a good life according to their conscience alone. God sent
this system of life to human beings through his messengers. Religion also
demands that this system of life should be the basis for the existence of the
individual, family, society and the nation.

Why oppose Idolatry

Q: As Muslims think of us we are not polytheists; rather we believe in and
worship only one God. Idols are consecrated to remember God and for the
concentration and attention on him. Then why do you oppose idolatry?
A: The religion of Islam has emphasised the unity of God. It has strictly
ordered that only God alone be worshipped, and His aid alone is to be
sought. To make partners for God in God's distinctive qualities and its
rights and privileges is treated as unpardonable sin. Hence for a number of
reasons Islam opposes idolatry.
1.All religions, including Hinduism, have declared that God is formless
and invisible.
To quote from Kenopanishad.
"Yanmanasa na manute Yenahurmanomatam
Thadeva Brahmathwam Viddhi Wedam Yadidamupasathe'' (1:6)
(That which man does not comprehend with the mind, that by which,
they say, the mind is encompassed, know that to be Brahman and not
what people worship on an object)
Yachakshusha Na pashyati yena Chakshumashi pashyati
Thadeva Brahmathwam Viddhi Wedam Yadidamupasathe'' (1:7)
(That which man does not see with the eye, that by which man
perceives the activities of the eye, know that alone to be Brahman
and not what people worship as an object (1:7).
"Yat Shrothena na Shrinothi Yena Shrotramidam Shrutham
Tadeva BrahmatwamViddhi Nedam Yadidamupasathe'' (1:8)
(That which man does not hear with ear, that by which man knows
this ear, know that to be Brahman and not this that people worship as
an object)

The Hindu philosophy has clearly said of God as one without a form. The
Upanishad has described God as `Nirgatha Akarath Sa Nirakara'' - who has
no shape - and such a one (Swami Dayananda Saraswathi, Sathyartha
Prakasham).
Swami Dayananda Saraswathi writes that ''God has no form, because
if he is one with form, he could not be present everywhere. If not present
everywhere, the quality of omniscience will not be joined with him,
because the nature of what is divided - its quality, deed and everything will
also be divided.
Besides, if god was one with a form, he will be subjected to seasonal
changes in winter and summer and affected with diseases, harms,
divisibility etc. So it is concluded that God has no form'' (Sathyartha
Prakasham online).
Quran says :
''To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How
can he have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things,
and He hath full knowledge of all things. That is God, your Lord!
There is no God but He, the Creator of all things: Then worship ye
Him: And He hath power to dispose of all affairs. No vision can
grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all
comprehension; yet is acquainted with all things (6:101-103)
God is formless and invisible and hence it is artificial to imagine him in
any form as it blends falsehood with truth. It will also create a wrong
concept of God among the believers and it becomes a gross injustice to
Him.
Regarding this Brahmananda Swami Sivayogi writes: The Karmans
argue that we take the photographs of our fathers or gurus, and seeing the
photographs we feel joy even in their absence; and we show reverence to
them; and in the same way we place the idols of god in the temple, and
worship and feel happy; otherwise how can the less intelligent ones among
us know that god exists. This argument is also nonsense. The photograph
is the actual image of the father or the guru. This image has their form and
shape. God has no form; then how the was the image taken, and who made
it? The sculptors have carved something out of stone or other materials.
Are they the image of God? Creating wide misunderstanding about god
and the way to worship Him by representing him in various idol forms is
quite meaningless
(A Critique of Idol Worship - Publisher:Nirmalanandayogi,
President, Brahmananda Sivayogi Sidhashramam, Alathur, pp 28, 29).

2. In order to be remembered or thought upon no one likes to have the

statue or painting of a dog or monkey made for him, as we consider them
sub-human creatures which are far below us. Thus all objects in this
universe are created by God and everything here is so insignificant that
there is no comparison to any of them with God. It is a gross injustice to
God to erect any of these objects to remember or to concentrate on God.
Hence it becomes an unpardonable sin.
3. The way of worshipping Him should be informed by no one else other
than God. He has never told that he should be worshipped by creating
statues, idols or anything of that sort. On the other hand he has strictly
warned us against worshipping him by erecting statues and idols.
4. Like Islam Hinduism also teaches that God alone should be worshipped
or sought help from. Idol worship is criticised as it is another form of
polytheism.
To quote from Chandogyopanishad
''Omithiyetha daksharamudgeetha mupaseetha (whose name is
Omkaram, and who never perishes, only he alone should be
worshipped; not anyone else)
A quotation from the well known Hindu stotras read
''Thwamekam Varanyam thwamekam Saranyam
Thwamekam Jagatkaranam Vishwaroopam''
(Thee alone we worship; from thee alone we seek help. Thou art the
cause of the origin of the world. Thou art the form of universe)
A few verses from Shwetha Swatharopanishad are like these
Thameeswaranam Paramam Maheswaram
Tham devathanam paramam cha daivatham
Pathim patheenam paramam parasthad
Vidama devam bhuvaneshameedyam (6:7)
(It is the supreme commander of all gods, it is worshipped by all
gods; it is the sustainer of all sustainers and we realize that it
deserves all praise, its form is of light and it is beyond everything)
Yanti Devapratha Devanu Pithrnu Yanti Pithru Vratha:
Bhoothani Yanti Bhoothe Gyayanthi Madyajino Hamam
(Votaries of the Devas go to the Devas; to the Ditris, go their
votaries; to the Bhutas, go the Bhuta worshippers; my votaries too
come unto Me. (Gita 9:25)

Swami Dayananda Saraswathi writes: ''He alone is worthy of homage, and

adoration, who is superior to others in nature, attributes, power and good
works. The best is one who excels others in quality, deeds, character, and
in truthfulness. Who is greater than the best is called Parameswara.
No one else is called so. There is no one equal to him; now or
before; nor can be in the future. How is it possible to be one better than
him? He has infinite qualities like truth, justice, kindness, compassion,
expertise in every deed and omniscience. No living soul or inanimate
matter has these qualities as he possesses them. If a thing shines as the
very form of truth, its essence, deeds and character will also be truthful. So
human beings must praise, pray to, and worship the Parameswara. Only
him and no one else. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva the three humility.
Scholarly persons who lived in the past, the mean ones like Daityas
and Danavas and other ordinary human beings praised and worshipped
parameswara in complete faith in him. Only him and no one else. It is
appropriate for us to follow suit'' (Sathyartha Prakasham Online Edition)
It means that even Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva should not be praised,
prayed to, or worshipped. Sri Vagbhadananda has clearly stated this fact.
(Complete works of Vagbhadananda, First edition, Mathrubhumi printing
and publishing company Limited, pp 357-359)
Brahmananda Sivayogi quotes Vasishta
Nattakallaithaivamentu Nalu pushpam Charthurir
Chuttivanthumonenru Chollumanthiramethakkado
Nattukallu Peyumo Nathathullirukkayil
Chuttachatti Chattukam Karichuvaiyariyumo
(A stone is erected. Imagining it as god, poojas are offered, and then
people go around it. Mantras are chanted. Can the stone hear
anything? Does the (Curry) cooking pot or the ladle know the taste
of broth? (A critique of Idolatry p. 7)
5. The arguement that ordinary people need an idol for worship is
criticised by Brahmanandaswami Sivayogi: `Some argue that children
need small shirts; big shirts will not suit them. Similarly the unintelligent
people need idol for worship; they are incapable of direct meditation on
Brahma'. This argument is nonsense. It is like saying children need a small
sun as they cannot see the light of the big sun. (A Critique of Idolatry).
6. Majority of the idolaters attribute divinity and holiness to idols. They
believe that the idols have inhibed the spirit of the concerned god. If it was

only for the purpose of concentration, any object would have been
sufficient; and the substitution of any other object for the idol would not
have been opposed. The idolaters can't even imagine of substituting the
idols they worship. So the argument that idols are meant only for
remembering god and for concentration is not true. It is idolatry, and
hence, it was opposed by Chandogyopanishad, Swami
Dayanandasaraswathi and by Vagbhadanandaguru.
7. All religions assert the unity, uniqueness and invisibility of god.
Comparison is least applicable in the case of god. Man gets the image and
reflection of things where his mind and eye concentrate. The idolater will
have the image of the idol settled in mind, and idols will occupy god's
place.
8. Worship is a deed done by the worshipper out of extreme piety,
reverence and humility to the worshipped. It is unbecoming for man, who
is the best of god's creations, to offer worship to one who is equal to him
or one who is below him in status. So Islam considers worship of any one
other than god is an offence against man himself.
Above all as Swami Dayananda Saraswathi said, the extreme
reverence is to be shown only to the one who deserves it. God alone is
perfect in greatness, wisdom and power. So he alone deserves worship,
and it is only His privilege. What god alone deserves should not be given
to others; and doing so is against god's will, and it is like elevating them to
godhood. For the same reason idolatry is the biggest sin.

The Black stone in Ka'ba And Idol worship

Q: Islam strongly opposes idolatry. Then for what reason a black stone is
installed on the wall of the Ka'ba. When all idols were removed, why this
stone alone was left untouched? Isn't it evidence that Islam also has idol
worship?
A : This question clearly indicates to a commonly held misunderstanding
among the people and a few things have to be explained.
1. The Black stone in the Ka'ba (Hajarul Aswad) was never worshipped by
anyone in history. When more than three hundred and sixty idols were
worshipped inside Ka'ba and its premises, no one worshipped the black
stone. In the era of idol worship before the prophet hood of Muhammad
also, no one had worshipped this particular stone.
2. No object of worship in this world is known by its own name. It is
known by the name of whose name it consecrates. The idols of Brahma,
Vishnu, Sivan, Krishnan, Guruvayoorappan and others are called by their
names. They are never called by the materials they are made of like a piece
of stone, stump of a tree, piece of a tile, clay etc. But the black stone of the
Ka'ba is known by its own name, Hajarul Aswad, which in Arabic means
`Blackstone'. The name itself is ample proof that it was never an idol, or a
consecrated stone.
3. At the starting point of running race like one hundred, five hundred or
thousand metres there will be a mark, like a line or something else.
Similarly Hajarul Asward is a mark, a starting point for those who
compass the Kaba. Beyond that any divinity or importance must not be
attributed to it; Prophet's close follower and second Khalifa, Umar has
explained it in clear terms that no one will attribute any holiness to this
stone. ''You are a mere stone,'' said Umar. 'I would never have kissed you,
if prophet had not done so.'
Is it necessary to have a stone to mark the beginning of Tawaf (Compass)
around Ka'ba?

The reason is merely historical. Ka'ba is the first structure built for the
worship of Allah. It is built by the prophets Ibrahim and his son Ismail on
a spot decided by Allah. Hajarul Aswad is a part of that holy structure. The
historical importance of this stone is that it is part of a place of worship
built by the prophets.
Q :If it is not a divine thing of worship why people kiss it?
A: People usually kiss the things they love; and not the things they
worship. Prophet Muhammad used to love and honour it as it is part of a
place of worship built by his predecessors Ibrahim and Ismail. Prophet
Muhammad kissed Hajarul Aswad in his last Haj pilgrimage. So the
pilgrims of all ages do the same. Prophet was aware that his successors
would follow his footsteps. Yet he did it with the hope that the lips of
generations of people after him will touch the black stone, where his lips
had been pressed once. The prophet had emphasised that it was a mere
stone, which can be neither useful nor harmful.
The kisses on Hajarul Aswad is only a gesture of love to the prophet.
There is no feeling of worship in it; there can never be any. Those who kiss
Hajarul Aswad partake of the symbolic embrace of it, which the prophet
had left for his followers of future generations. By pressing his lips on
Hajarul Aswad a believer is linking himself with millions of believers of
different generations, in various centuries and whose lips had touched the
same stone. It creates a feeling in the believer that he is only a drop in the
great ocean of believers, which has been flowing continuously through
centuries. He thus gets emotionally involved with his predecessors who
span many centuries, and thereby realizes of the unity of humanity. This
experience thrills him beyond words. However it is a sin either to attribute
divinity to it or touch and kiss it with a sense of worship. Islam has strictly
prohibited it, as such an attitude is part of idolatory.

Why `Allah' for God?

Q : Why do Muslims call the creator `Allah' in Arabic which is a
foreign language? Isn't it enough that everybody gives him the name
in their mother tongue? Like the Keralites calling him `Daivam',
`Ishwaran' etc.
A :Allah is the name that denotes the power that has created and sustained
everything in this universe. Other words from other languages like
Daivom, Ishwaran, God, Khuda, can also be used to introduce the creator.
However, the most suitable word to denote this power which is unique and
which is neutral gender wise is `Allah'. This Arabic noun word has no
plural or gender difference. So there is no equivalent translation in any
language for the word Allah. It is untranslatable. Words like Daivam, God,
Khuda in other languages are translations of the Arabic word `Ilah'; and
not of Allah. The word god has the plural form `gods' and feminine gender
`goddess' like `daivam' has the forms of `daivangal' and `devi'. It is the
same with other languages also. The word `god' has no serious
implications of the word `Allah'. The word Allah is beyond such usage,
and it has no number or gender. So for representing the nature of the
Creator, the most suitable word is `Allah'. A word was essential to
introduce the creator to the whole humanity, and as the most suitable word
for it was `Allah' it was finally decided through the last messenger of God.
However, except for prayers and other fixed forms of worship, it is not
necessary that one must use Allah, to introduce or to address the creator.
One may use the names in native or other world languages.

Prophet Muhammed and The Breaking of Idols

Q : Like the Hindus of India, the Arabs of Makkah were idol
worshippers, and Ka'aba was an ancient temple where idols were
consecrated. When Muhammad got political power, he destroyed the
idols with force. What do you say?
A: No religion in the world has ever accepted the concept of polytheism or
exhorted idol worship. Hinduism is also not different. In the beginning,
Hindus were not idol worshippers. It was a later introduction. The
renowned Vedic scholars and Hindu reformers have clearly said it.
Regarding this the views of Sri Dayananda Saraswathi is explained by K.
Gokulanandan thus:
"The result of worshipping any matter other than God will be mere
sadness. God has several names, and they are all synonyms for the
same power. God is the cause in itself omnipresent, eternal and
everlasting.
From the verses in the Yajur veda like ''Aja Eka Path'' (Yajur 34-53)
and `Saparyagay Chyashramakayma' (Yajur 40-8) Dayanada has
pointed out that god would not take birth. So the concept of reincarnation and the stories spread by the Vaishnavas based on the
incarnation theory are made up.
Hence the verses in the Bhagavat Gita 4-7
Yada yada hi Dharmasya
Glanirhavathi Bharatha !
Abhyuthanamadharmasya
Thadathmanam Srijamyaham
are unacceptable. God, with His infinite qualities and other deeds, has no
need to incarnate in order to kill Kamsa, Ravana and their likes. Those are
fools who think that just to kill an insignificant person God has to take the
form of birth and death. ''Service to the parents, teachers and guests is the
worship of God - and not the worship of stone''.
''Four thousand and four hundred verses of the Mahabharatha are
written by Vyasa. His Disciples added five thousand and six hundred

verses. So the real Mahabharatha has only ten thousand verses, and the rest
are later interpolations. The astrologers and exorcists deceive the fools.
Heavenly bodies are inanimate objects, and hence they can become
neither angry nor sad. All people who predict future from the planets, stars,
astrology, position of the sun, auspicious moments are deceivers. They
practise their deception in the garb of mathematics and astronomy. Those
people are also fools who have faith in black magic, techniques of
temptation, destruction etc...
"According to the Yajurveda 32-33 the phenomenon of the universe
cannot create any statue. The Vedic people were not idol worshippers. The
Jains built the statues of their Theerthangaras, and idol worship emerged in
India in imitation of the Jains.
Instead of doing the right deed at the right time, the people who
believe that wishes will be fulfilled, and God's grace will be acquired
through idol worship, are simply wasting their time and resources. The
priests of temples deceive the devotees and rob them of their money.
''By worshipping the inanimate stone the power of the mind is
wasted, and like the stone the mind becomes incapable of thinking freely''
(Gokulanandan K - Modern Indian History; (Malayalam) Gen. Editor Dr.
C. Viswanathan Nair, University Books Publications, Calicut, Page 58)
In the beginning the Arabs of Makkah were also not idol
worshippers.
The habitation in Makkah, which was infertile and uninhabited,
began with the emergence of prophet Ibrahim and his family. Everybody
knows that they were believers in One God and strong opponents of the
idol worship.
The Ka'aba was built by prophet Ibrahim and his son prophet Ismail,
and it was built for the worship of the One God. It was the first house built
on earth for the worship of the God ''The first House (of worship)
appointed for men was that at Bakka: full of blessing and of guidance for
all kinds of beings'' (3:96).
It was Amru bin Luayyu, the head of Khuza'a clan, who installed an
idol in the Ka'aba for the first time. He installed the idol `Hubal' which
was brought from Muab. The idols of Iswaf and Naila were also installed
in the Ka'aba. Hence the Ka'aba, which was originally built for the worship
of One God, became the house of idols.
During the prophet's life there were more than three hundred idols.
After his prophethood at the age of forty, Prophet Muhammad lived in
Makkah for thirteen years. During this period he very strongly created
awareness among his people against idol worship. At the same time he left

the idols in the Ka'aba untouched. The Ka'aba was built by his forefather
prophet Ibrahim for the worship of the One God. Gradually Makkah came
under Islam and all the natives adopted the faith. Consequently, there was
no one to worship these idols. Even the leaders who formerly had
supported idol worship and other evil practices became the close followers
of the prophet. It was only then that the prophet removed idols from the
Ka'aba and cleaned it.
1.It was Abu Sufyan, after his conversion to the new faith, who broke the
idol `Manatha' and removed it from the Ka'aba. Before the conversion Abu
Sufyan had strongly argued for idol worship and he was in the forefront of
battle against the prophet.
2.Another idol `Uzza' was broken by Khalid bin Valeed, who had
participated in many a battle against the prophet. So those who broke the
idols and cleaned Ka'aba were the one-time idol worshippers from
Makkah. By doing so they restored Ka'aba to its former state.
3. It must be mentioned here that the custodian of Ka'abas, after the
removal of the idols, was Usman Ibn Talha. He was also the custodian of
the key before idols were broken and removed. One can imagine this
person's change of mind and strong belief. If one continues even after idols
were broken, in the same position which he had held before, the change of
faith and his conviction must be total.
It must also be remembered that the prophet first of all moved the
idols from people's minds through an ideological revolution and then he
made them remove the idols with their own hands. There was no one left
to worship them anymore.
Islam has strictly ordered the worship of one God and very strongly
prohibited idol worship. Still it doesn't allow anyone to revile or laugh at
any object that others worship.
Do not revile those whom they invoke other than Allah, because they
will revile Allah in ignorance out of spite'' (6:108)
In matters of faith and worship no compulsion or use of force is allowed.
Everyone is free to choose their path. The believers' obligation is only to
distinguish and show the paths of right and wrong, truth and falsehood.
''Say, ''the Truth is from your Lord'': Let him who will, believe, and
let him who will, reject (it)'' (18:29).

There is no compulsion and coercion in regard to religion. The right

thing has been made distinct from the wrong thing: now whoever
rejects taghut and believes in Allah has taken a firm support that
never gives way.'' (2:256).

Is God inside Ka'aba?

Q : Why do Muslims turn towards Ka'aba during the prayer? Is God
inside Ka'ba? Or is Ka'ba a symbol of God or his consecration?
A :According to Islam God is not confined to any particular place or
consecrated anywhere. He has neither idols nor consecration.
" The East and the West, all belong to Allah: you will face Allah in
which so ever direction you turn your face: Allah is All-Embracing
and All-Knowing''. (2:115)
Are you not aware that Allah has the knowledge of everything in the
heavens and the earth? It cannot be that three men whisper together
and Allah is not the fourth of them or five men whisper together and
Allah is not the sixth of than. Whether they are fewer than this or
more, Allah is with them wherever they are''. (58:7)
''It was we who created man, and we know what dark suggestions his
soul makes to him: for we are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein''.
(50:16).
Islam is a comprehensive system of life which unites the whole humanity
in all walks of life. Its way of worship has a major role in uniting the
believers. This is possible only if their form of worship is alike.
So a place is essential for all Muslims of the world to turn towards
during prayer. So Ka'ba, the first house built for the worship of One God,
was decided to be that place.
Hence Ka'ba is the central point to unite the whole human beings; it
is never a place where God is consecrated, or his symbol or anything of
that sort. It is a symbol of worship of God alone.
''The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka:
full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings'' (3:96)
''Remember we made the House a place of assembly for men and a
place of safety'' (2:125)

''God made the Ka'ba the sacred House, a means of support for men''.
(5:97)
Hence it is not Ka'ba that is to be worshipped, but God its Lord.
''Let them adore the Lord of this House'' (106:3)
Some historians have misunderstood and written that Ka'aba is a stone. It
is not a stone. It is a structure built of stone having a length of 12 meters,
width of 10 meters and a height of 15 meters. The Arabic word Ka'ba itself
denotes its cubic structure. It is a symbol of simplicity and it cannot claim
any architectural skill, artistic engravings or structural beauty.
But it is a most remarkable House. About 100 crore people turn
toward it at least five times a day. The faces of billions of people through
out centuries were turned toward it when they were laid to rest after death.
There is no other house in the world which is so much involved with
people's emotions and feelings. It is the house of Lord and hence it belongs
to all. Ka'ba is the symbol of worship of One God alone.
Q :Why do Muslims Compass round the Ka'ba? What is the use of it?
Isn't it a meaningless custom?
A : It is God who has to decide the way to worship him. The compassing
or going round the Ka'ba is a form of worship that has been followed, as
per God's instructions, since the time of Prophet Abraham.
We are not allowed to worship God according to our whims and
fancies. Had it been so we could have invented forms of worship for
ourselves. But God has given strict instructions about the time and form of
worship. People were taught them through His messengers. No one has
any right to add or delete anything, or to alter their forms.
The compassing of Ka'ba is a worship which is instructed by God. It has
its own pre-determined form. However, a little thought will reveal the
good reason and meaning behind this worship.
Going round the Ka'ba is a unique form of worship in which man
harmonizes with the structure of the universe and its wonderful system.
The central point in this worship is Ka'ba. The believers compass round it
like the planets of the solar system revolving around the sun. Or it is like
the electrons of an atom revolving round the nucleus. Seven laps make one
Tawaf. Here number seven signifies the structure of the universe. The
continents and seas are seven in number. According to the Quran the skies
are also seven.Islam which normally prefers right side to left, has insisted
that during the Tawaf, the Ka'ba should be on the left side of the pilgrim.
This instruction is very remarkable, because by doing so, the Tawaf

perfectly agrees with the system of the universe. The planets of the solar
system revolve round the sun anti clockwise, so that the sun will be on the
left side of the planets. Planets also rotate anti- clockwise in their own
axis.Comets too revolve round the sun in the same direction. Before
fertilization the sperms go round the ovum anti-clockwise.
So this unique form of worship Tawaf amazingly agrees with, and is
completely in harmony with the system of the Universe. It creates
awareness in the believer that he too is a part of this vast universe ranging
from atom to galaxy; and he too must be subservient to God and worship
Him, like the vast universe obeying His laws.
Tawaf is a declaration from human beings that they will obey God's
laws as the universe does.All these wonderful and sublime levels of
meanings behind the Tawaf were understood only recently.
May be there are many more dimensions of Tawaf yet to
understand. Human beings, who are Gods creations, are obliged to perform
the worship in its determined form whether they realize the reason behind
it or not.

Compassing of temples and the Tawaf of Ka'ba

Q :Hindus compass the temple, and isn't going round the Ka'ba, like
the compassing of the temple?
A : The Holy Ka'ba was rebuilt by Prophet Abraham. It was he who
announced Hajj. In the Ka'ba built by Abraham there were no idols,
statues, consecrations or pictures.
On the other hand, Ka'ba was built by Abraham and his son Ismail,
both prophets, for the worship of one God alone. The Tawaf, as an
essential part of Hajj, has been in existence since then. Later, people
became slaves of superstition and other evil customs, that they even drew
pictures of their prophets in the Ka'ba and worshipped them. Gradually, the
Tawaf of Ka'aba, which was originally a form of worship of one God
alone, evolved into idol worship.
It was at this time that prophet Muhammad was appointed by God,
and when they underwent thorough change in their beliefs, the people with
their own hands removed the idols from the Ka'ba and cleaned it. The
worship of going round the Ka'ba was continued; but it was purified into
worship of one God alone, instead of the idol worship practised at some
point in history. In the period before Prophet Muhammad some had
practised this worship naked. But Islam instructed that Tawaf should be

done wearing clothes in a decent manner. The Tawaf was thus cleaned of
all earlier evil practices associated with it.
The source of all religions is basically the same, and that is from
God himself. So there are similarities in worships and other practices. It is
worth mentioning that some historians suppose that the Aryans who
immigrated to India were the followers and descendents of Prophet
Abraham.
So it is reasonable to believe that the compassing of temple is a
corrupt form of the Tawaf that had been implemented through Prophet
Abraham. However Islam has strictly prohibited the installation and
worship of idols and statues to represent God, and it has also prohibited
compassing of the structures where such idols have been placed.
It will certainly be a great achievement if similarities in worship and
other practices among religions could lead to an objective and truthful
study of the source of religion, a study that may eventually lead to the
oneness of religion.

Incarnation: Real or False?

Q :You said that Islam doesn't accept the idea of reincarnation. Is the belief
that God reincarnates in various forms against the teachings of Islam?
A :According to the Islamic concept God has many distinctive
characteristics. He is single, timeless, immortal and invisible. He has no
definite form. He is unequalled, unparalleled, and indivisible and is
beyond birth or death. However those who claim to be god's incarnations
have birth, death, shape and they are related to time and space. So Islam
does not support incarnation, but opposes it in very strong terms.
Islam is not the single faith that opposes the idea of incarnation. The Vedic
philosophy of the Hindus also opposes it. Reincarnation is not a part of
Hindu religious faith; it is only a later addition.
The Bhagavat Gita strongly objects to the belief of god incarnating in
human form.
Avajananhi Mam Muda Manushim Thanumashritam
Param Bavamajanantho Mama Bhootha Maheswaram
Moghasha Moghakarmano Moghajnana Vichetha Sa
Rakhshasimasurim chaiva Prakritheem Mohinim Shrita.
Unaware of my higher state, as the great lord of beings, fools disregard
Me, dwelling in the human form. of vain hopes, of vain works, of vain
knowledge, and senseless, they verily are possessed of the delusive nature
of Rakshasas and Asuras (Gita- Chapter 9:11-12) The well-known Vedic
Scholar Guru Vagbhatanandha writes about Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Sri
Rama and Sri Krishna who are treated and worshipped as reincarnations in
our country.
Srishti Sthithianthakaraneem Brahma Vishnu Shivatmikam
Sa Samjam Yathi Bhagavaneka Eva Maheshwara
(Vishnu puranam 1-2-66)
The single god is called by the names Brahma, Vishnu and Siva as he
creates, preserves and destroys. So it can be easily learned that
monotheism was prevailed among the ancient communities.
''Though this is the truth communities from the ancient times till now used

to believe and think of gods separately as Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva etc.
Some ask me whether there is any reason for it. Let me answer it. In olden
days there were some people called Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. They were
religionists who tried to renovate the fort of priesthood which was ruined
owing to the Buddhist religious campaign. Among these we assume that
Brahma was a noble soul. He never resorted to use weapons for spreading
his religion and it distinguished him from others. However to spread their
religion Vishnu and Siva mercilessly used weapons like sword, gadha, and
shul. Hence their religion became dominant in the country. Vishnu being
the son of Vaikunda is also known as Vaikundan. It can be assumed that
Vishnu belonged to the Aryans. We may assume Sivan a Kurava as he
lived on food received as alms, charmed snakes, fathered a Kurava woman
named Nanga and was reputed for his penchant for alcoholic drinks. It is
certain that Siva belonged to a lower caste, and this could be inferred from
the fact that the Brahmins even today do not touch the offerings made to
Siva. The belief that Brahmins will not eat the offerings of Siva because of
the sin committed by cutting Brahma's throat is unacceptable. If this was
true, how could the Brahmins eat the offerings of Vishnu, who besides
cutting the throat of thousands of people and setting the name
`Janardhanan', has also committed the biggest crime of matricide. Vishnu
and Siva were big formenters. Moreover they have also competed against
each other. Siva easily defeated the Brahma faith and this forms the basis
of the myth of the beheaded Brahma. As Brahma faith declined there had
not been many people to worship him. As a result he was counted among
the unworshippable millions. As there were plenty of Vaishnavites and
Shivaites after the death of Vishnu and Shiva, it became easier to
concentrate and worship them. This is the reason for the large number of
Vaishnavite and Shivaite temples in India. Any intelligent human being
can understand that the minds of Vishnu and Siva were not great, as they
constantly used weapons to oppress the poor, and often quarrelled with
each other. To understand Siva's mind just read the `Vamathanthra' he had
arranged for the Sakteya. It contains many horrible and evil practices
which can bodily push people to hell. Those who enthusiastically spread
the Vaishnava faith were presented as the incarnation of Vishnu, and those
who spread the Sivaite faith were described as Siva's sons. In the same
way Sri Rama, and Sreekrishna became the incarnations, and Ganapathi
and Subrahmanya became the sons of Siva. (The Complete Works of
Vagbadanandha, Mathrubhoomi Printing and Publishing Company
Limited, Kozhikode - 1998 PP - 751 - 752)
Guru Vagbadanandha, in the form of a dialogue, explains it thus:

Rama : It makes me sad that you live without faith in God.

Krishna : Who told you I have no faith in God?
Rama : Should anyone tell so?
As you deliver speeches denying the concrete deities like Siva, Vishnu and
Brahma aren't you not an out-and-out atheist?
Krishna : Friend, I believe that Siva and Vishnu, with differences in their
forms, are not worthy of being elevated to godhood. The almighty who
created Siva and others are the real god. So aren't I the believer in god?
Since you believe the mortal and created beings as gods and as you
worship them accordingly, aren't you the extravagant atheists?
Rama: Goodness! The deities like Sivas are mortals! What insolence? I
don't want to hear.
Krishna: All matter having concrete form is mortal.
To prove it take a pot. It has a shape and it will ruin. This law is acceptable
even for those who see atom as the reason behind everything. This rule is
universally applicable. The pot having a form should have a creator.
Otherwise the pot will not form, and the creator here is the potter. If Siva
and others have forms, they are undoubtedly subject to death. It is assumed
that there is a creator for their origin and that creator is god. This creator is
praised in Vedas as creator of the Universe. Believe in such a god, and
don't believe in Siva and others as gods, as they had experienced life and
death. That is quite appropriate. It is unbecoming for good people to have
baseless beliefs, and then to call those who oppose such foolish faiths as
insolents.
Rama: Alas what a pity! Were Siva and others born and did they die? How
rude! Will anyone speak thus?
Krishna: If Siva and his like were born, wouldn't they die. If they had not
died, we should have seen them as they have forms. But where are they?
And why don't we see them.
Rama: Goodness! Do we see them? Do we the sinners have such luck?
Only the saintly good people can see them.
Krishna: Are we sinners bigger than Ravana and other demons?
Rama: No. Ravana and his like are the biggest sinners as they have
committed homicide, involved in Brahma cide, and compelled the gods to
flee. We haven't committed such sin, never will we commit it. We have our
virtuous deeds than those of Ravana and the like.
Krishna: Ravana and his like have often met Siva and others. Besides for
sometime, didn't Siva serve as watchman in the fort of Banasura? Didn't he
after the death of his first wife, marry Parvathi who had been born to a
Malayi woman. Thus even the big sinners like the demons could not only

see Siva, but appoint him as servant, and even a Kurava girl could set him
as husband. So isn't it baseless to say that we can't see him because of the
burden of our sins.
Rama: Was Siva's second wife a hill girl, what are you babbling? Your
nonsense makes me angry. Don't speak nonsense.
Krishna: I am speaking sense. Have you heard that Siva married Parvathi?
Rama: Certainly.
Krishna: What did you understand about Parvathi?
If `parvatham' means hill isn't Parvathi the daughter of the hill? Think
about the meaning without being lured by Sanskrit. Parvathi was the
daughter of Mathangan who was a Kurava from hills. If you have any
other notion about Parvathi there will be no takers for it in this century,
and it is better for you to hide from peoples view. Discard faith in Siva and
his like, as they were married, begot children, lived and died and vanished
from earth. Have faith in the immortal and formless God. Try to be a good
human being. Your advice for us can wait.
(The Complete Works of Vagbhadanandha PP 357-359)
Swami Dayananda Saraswathi has presented this topic in the form of
questions and answers.
Question: Does God incarnate or not?
Answer: No; because it is said in the Yajur Veda. "He is unborn." Again
"He overspreads all." He is pure, is never born and never takes on a human
form." It is clear from these quotations that God is never born.
Question: But Krishna says in the Gita, "Whenever there is decay of
virtue, I take on human form." (Gita 4: 7). What is your answer to this?
Answer: Being opposed to the Veda, it cannot be held to be an authority.
Though it is possible that Krishna, being very virtuous and being
extremely anxious to further the cause of righteousness, might have
wished that he would like to be born again and again at different times to
protect the good and punish the wicked. If such was the case, there is no
harm in it; because 'whatever the good and the great possess - their wealth,
their bodies, aye even their hearts - is at the service of humanity? In spite
of all this Krishna could never be God.
Question: If this be the case, why do people then believe in the twentyfour incarnations of God?
Answer: From want of knowledge of the Vedas, from being led astray by
the sectarians and being themselves uneducated, people are involved in
ignorance and, therefore, no wonder, believe in and say such false things.
Question: How could such wicked men as Ravana and Kamsa be
destroyed if God did not incarnate?

Answer: Firstly, whosoever is born is sure to die. Secondly, what are

Kamsa and Ravana, when compared with the Almighty God, who without
being incarnated has created this world, is sustaining it and can resolve it
into its component elements? He being Omnipresent also pervaded the
bodies of Kamsa and Ravana and could at his will cut their vitals and
instantaneously kill them. What shall we then call such a man but a fool
who says that the Supreme Spirit possessed of Infinite Power, attributes
and activity takes on a human form and becomes subject to births and
deaths in order to kill an insignificant creature.
Were anyone to say that God incarnates for the salvation of his devotees,
then too it could not be true, for, if the devotees conduct themselves
according to the Will of God, He is powerful enough to save them. What!
Is the destruction of a Kansa or a Ravana or the lifting of a mountain, such
as Govardhan, even more difficult than the creation, sustenance and
dissolution of the sun, the moon and the earth and other planets?
Whosoever ponders over the great things that God has done in this
universe, cannot but come to the conclusion that "There is no one like
Him, nor shall ever be."
Nor can the incarnation of god be demonstrated by reason, just as the
saying of a man, that space entered a womb or was put in a closed hand,
can never be true, for space being Infinite and Omnipresent can neither go
in, nor come out; similarly, God, being Infinite and All-pervading, it can
never be predicated of him that He can go in or come out. Coming and
going can be possible only if it be believed that there are places where He
is not. Then was not God already present in the womb and was not He
already present outside that He is said to have gone into and come out of
it? Who but men devoid of intelligence, can believe in and say such thing
about God? Therefore, it should be understood that Christ and others were
also not incarnations of the Deity, fear and grief, births and deaths etc. they
were all men?
(Sathyartha Prakasham Online Edition)
Like Islam, Hindu Philosophy also agrees that the God has no incarnation
and God never incarnates. Whatever in the Universe is created by God;
Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Rama, Krishna and their
likes are no exception. They are neither gods nor their incarnations, but
created beings. So one should not seek their help or worship them.
Offerings should not be made to them. Only the creator of all these is
allowed to worship. Anything which negates this occurs out of ignorance
and superstition. To do so is an unpardonable sin.

SAI BABA AND MUSLIM GODMEN

Q :You said that God would not incarnate in human form. Do you argue
that Bhagvan Sai Baba is not god's incarnation? Baba has thousands of
believers among Muslims, who have been attracted by his miraculous
powers. What is your response?
A : God has no incarnation, and it is impossible to have any. It is not only
me, but many noted scholars of Hindu scriptures have said it in the light of
authentic works. It has already been explained in detail as answer to the
previous question.
Sathya Sai Baba is an ordinary human being. He was born on 23
November 1926 in a village called Gopalappalli, in Andhra Pradesh state,
India. The village is now known as Puttaparthi. His father was
Pedhavengappa Raju and mother Iswaramba. Like all of us Sai Baba too
will die one day. If buried his body will decay and become soil; if
cremated it will become ash. The god who is timeless, independent,
formless and indivisible is free from all these limitations.
Many incidents have already been reported which prove that Sai Baba has
no miraculous powers or skills other than that of a clever magician. Some
are given below.
1. There was an attempt on Sai Baba's life at his own Ashram (monastery)
in Puttaparthi. In the incident two of his bodyguards were killed and two
others were injured. Police rushed to the scene and all the four assailants
were shot dead in the firing. Still Sai Baba could not understand the
mystery behind the conspiracy. Police had to be called to find out the
culprits. The police being unable to find evidence the police dogs had to be
brought. The meaning is very clear. If Sai Baba had any knowledge by
supernatural means, he would not have allowed the culprits to stay at his
quarters; he would not have needed the help of police and dogs to find out
the culprits and after the incident he would not have needed police force
posted outside the Chandra Auditorium where he stayed. If he had any
super human powers, why did they post more than five hundred policemen
in Puttapparthi and nearby places? The truth is that even Sai Baba's major
disciples have no faith in his divinity. That is why some of them tried to
assassinate him.
2. In 1993 a wedding Hall of Sathya Sai Baba Trust was opened by the

then Prime Minister. Many VIP's such as the then home minister S.B.
Chavan, Agriculture Minister Balram Thakar, Chief Minister of Andhra
Pradesh Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, and Chief Minister of Karnataka
Bengarappa participated in the function. On the stage Baba took a golden
chain from the air and presented it to the architect of the Hall. The
inaugural function was video covered by Doordarshan. This video picture
was sufficient to expose the secret of Baba's `miracles'. It clearly shows
Baba deftly taking the chain from a close disciple. However this
programme which should have exposed Baba's miracles, the belief in
which still leads crores of people astray, was not telecasted by
Doordarshan. However, this video film was cleverly acquired by Mr. C.
Premanand, who was convenor of the Indian Branch of the International
council, which enquires into the truth of claims on miraculous powers. So
far this film was exhibited in many places, including Calicut in Kerala.
Neither Sai Baba, nor his followers could give any convincing explanation
yet.
3. If one could produce gold from air, one could also logically produce
medicines and other things. However in the hospital at Puttaparthi
medicines are brought from within and outside the country. If Sai Baba has
any divine power, there should have been no need of opening superspeciality hospitals. As in the case of all other hospitals, in Puttaparthi too
treatment consists of administering medicines and surgery, and there is
mystery in none of these.
Regarding the divine miracles, the followers of Sai Baba and his likes have
no scruples in propagating untrue stories. Below is one example.
The wonderful experience some years ago, of the world famous Seiko
watch manufacturer of Japan, while he was on a tour in India was aweinspiring.
After completing the Seiko series of watches, he made the model of a
superior type and kept it in his safe for further tests. During his holidays in
India he paid a visit to Puttaparti out of curiosity. On seeing the Japanese
gentleman among the devotees, Sai Baba called him and gave him a small
parcel materialised from the air. On opening the parcel he was astonished
to see in it the new watch that was kept in his safe in Tokyo. When he saw,
with the watch, the silk ribbon and the label with the name of the watch
and its price marked on it, all his doubts about the divine powers of Sai
Baba simply melted away. He fell prostrate at Sai Baba's feet and
worshipped him. Since then he is an ardent devotee of the Bhagavan.
On his return to Tokyo, he was shocked to see that the watch he had kept
in his safe was not there. What his personal secretary told him was still

more startling. The secretary said that a divine-looking person with bushy
hair walked into the office one day, opened the safe and walked away with
the watch."
The story of materialization of a Seiko watch was originally authored by
Dr. S Bhagavantam in 1973 and published in a Malayalam weekly titled
Malayalanadu. The editor S. K Nair and his wife were Sai Baba devotees
and to neutralise the publicity got by Abraham Kovoor, S.K Nair started a
debate in his weekly on the spiritual powers of Satya Sai Baba. He first
published Kovoor's article explaining that Satya Sai Baba is a hoax and
then published a series of articles by Sai Baba devotees, which included a
High court Judge and other well known personalities like Dr.
Bhagawantam.
The well known rationalist late A.T. Kovoor decided to ascertain the truth
behind this story. On 11 September 1973, he wrote the following letter to
Dr. Bhagavatham:
I read your story about a Japanese watch manufacture getting his own
watch that was kept in safe in Japan, materialised in India from air by
Sathya Sai Baba. My scientific attitude does not permit me to accept this
fantastic story as true without verification. My doubt is enhanced by the
reported statement of his personal for this letter also, will only confirm my
firm belief that you are an agent of Sathya Sai Baba doing propaganda for
him with ulterior motive and vested interest.
Yours in search of Truth,
Abraham T. Kovoor
Since there was no reply so far to this letter also, I had to confirm my
belief that Dr. Bhagavantham is in collusion with the charlatan Sathya Sai
Baba to do false propaganda for him with ulterior motive and vested
interest.As there was no response from Dr. Bhagavantham even after two
months, I decided to pursue the matter on my own. The Japanese Embassy
in Sri Lanka was kind enough to provide me with the name and address of
the proprietor of the Seiko watch manufacturing firm.In my letter dated
30th October, 1973 to Mr. Shoji Hattori, president of K. Hattori & Co.
Ltd., the manufacturers of Seiko watches, I reproduced Dr.
Bhagavantham's story about the miracle, and requested him to provide me
with answers to the following questions:
(1) Did you or any other partner of yours visit Sathya Sai Baba of India
any time?
(2) Did Sai Baba materialise a watch from air and present it to you or to
any of your partners?
(3) Did your personal Secretary tell you or any of your partners that a

stranger opened the safe and walked away with a watch?

(4) Are you or any of your partners a devotee of Sai Baba?
On November 8, 1973 Shoji Hattori sent the following reply:
Dear Dr. Kovoor,
"Thank you for your letter of October 30th. I can appreciate your interest
in conducting scientific research of paranormal claims, but I am in no way
able to further your knowledge as regards the man mentioned in your
letter, Mr. Sai Baba. Neither I nor any members of my staff have ever
made the acquaintance of this individual. I am sure that these reports are
completely unfounded I must therefore reply in the negative to all four of
your questions concerning this incident."Mr. A.T. Kovoor sent the photo
copies of this reply to Dr. Bhagavantham, and in the letter asked him to
inform the name and addresses of the characters mentioned in the article in
Malayalanadu were someone other than Shoji Hattori or his business
partners. Again there was no reply. Then Mr. Kovoor published an article
in Times of India Daily on Sept. 10, 1976, including all the details. A
response to this by Dr. Bhagavantham appeared in the same newspaper on
November 29, 1976 which said that he had never published the afore
mentioned article either in English or in any other language. He also said
he didn't know Malayalam.By this everybody was convinced that the
incident of the Seiko manufacturer cited in the Malayalanadu as proof for
Sai Baba's divinity was an utter lie and a worked up tale. (For details see
Saibaba's Miracles: An overview. Edited by Dale Beyer Stein, pp 89- 98).
No one, except god the creator of the universe, can create anything new.
People may unearth the hidden, or they may alter the forms of the already
existing substance. No one can create anything from a vacuum. No one has
the supernatural knowledge or knowledge of the future. So whoever claims
to have super human powers or divinity is hollow men, and whoever
believes in them, whether they have Arabic names or not, are superstitious.
They attribute God's distinctive characteristics to others, and thereby
commit the unpardonable sin of `shirk'
''Then, what about the Muslim godmen, who claim to have divine
powers''?
They too are same. No one except God has any supernatural power. No
one can cause headache, stomach ache or mental disorder through
supernatural means. Had it been possible the former US President Bill
Clinton should have done to against Monica Lewinsky or against Saddam
Hussain, with the help of godmen, godmothers, and saints. If these people
had any divine powers as they claim to have, let them cause an incurable
headache or stomach ache to the Prime Minister of Israel, who perpetrate

violence on Palestinians. It is impossible. All those who claim super

human powers cannot save even themselves. The murder of the Faquir
Uppappa in Thiruvillwamalai is ample proof to establish this point. Those
who are victims of superstition do not understand the truth

Why is Advaita philosophy Unacceptable?

Q :Does Islam agree with Advaita philosophy? If not, why?
A :`Advaita' was introduced as a philosophical concept by Sri
Sankaracharya. It is generally held that he lived at the end of the seventh
century or at the beginning of the eighth century. Some believe that he
lived at the end of eighth century, and some others believe it to be the first
half of the ninth century. Kaladi, in the state of Kerala is believed to be his
birthplace. Sankaracharya adopted Advaita philosophy from
Gowdapathan, who was the Guru of his Guru, Govinda. Sankaracharya
presented his Advaita philosophy as an interpretation to Badarayana's
Brahma sutra. Brahma sutra is the combined form of the verses from the
Upanishads.
Vidya vachaspathi V. Panoli, who was a strong advocate of `Advaita' in
Kerala, writes: ''Acharya's views can realize the Advaita philosophy. No
religious scholar, except Sreesankara, could prove that `Brahma' is
nirguna, and the jeevatma (individual soul) and `paramatma' (Supreme
Soul) are one and the same'' (Sreesankaradarsanam, Mathrubhumi Printing
and Publishing Company Limited, 1998, P. 61.) Sreesankaracharya formed
the advaita philosophy to counter Buddhism. Panoli writes: ''Sreesankara
had to face opposition from a degenerate Budhism, and in this condition he
had to form a novel and powerful philosophy to counter threats from
Buddhism. Sreesankara's advaita philosophy very boldly encountered this
challenge (Ibid P. 138).
To encounter Buddhism, Sankaracharya adopted their own ideas. V. Panoli
writes that Sankara adopted whatever was acceptable from Buddhism and
integrated those ideas with his own view. Sreesankara had even the
nickname ''Buddha in disguise'' (Ibid P. 68)
Sankaracharya has presented his advaita philosophy thus.
''Brahma Sathyam, Jagatmithya, Jeevo Brahmaiva Na para: (Brahma is
real and Jagath is unreal. Life is nothing other than Brahma).
Panoli writes that ''Thousand years ago Sreesankaracharya declared to the
world that this visible universe originated from Brahma. Brahma is one
and permanent. Brahma is also known by names such as `ankaran',
`amaran' and `paramatma'. If one knows Brahma, he can know everything

in the world. Vedas too have the name `Brahma'. Paramatma (Supreme
Soul) and jeevatma (Individual Soul) are one and the same. They seem to
be different out of ignorance and ignorance alone is the cause of grief.
Ignorance will be removed by the light of self knowledge. Creation and
consumption are the works of the individual soul. The wise have no karma,
no bodily bond. The worshippers of Brahma evolve into Brahma (Ibid PP
113).
Panoli continues: ''Mundakopanishad declares that this jagat (the world)
originated from the everlasting Brahma, like the cobonsinated from the
spider and hair from the body. (Ibid page 48)
In order to bring home the point that only Brahmam is real and jagat
unreal or illusion, and out of ignorance jagat is felt real, the supporters of
advaita philosophy have presented several instances. Some are given
below.
1. Pointing to a gold chain, if someone asks ''what is it''? Everybody will
answer: `It is golden chain.'' If the chain is melt and a bangle is made, the
answer will be ''It's a bangle'', if an anklet is made the answer is ''it's an
anklet''. In reality they are none of these. The state of being gold remains
unchanged. Like this, visible `jagath' is only a translated version of the
`Brahma'. Seeing this translated world people assume it real out of
ignorance. With knowledge of the self they realize that whatever things in
the jagat are only transactionary; and only brahma is real; like one knows
bangle, chain, and anklet are really gold.
2. The experience in dream and in a state of waking is not similar.
However the experience in dream is not real. Similarly what one feels real
out of ignorance; one will feel illusory with the acquiring of knowledge in
the same way as experience in the dream is felt unreal in the state of
waking.
3. In semidarkness a piece of rope may be misunderstood for a serpent. In
light one knows reality. In the same way the jagat appears real due to
ignorance. With the knowledge of the Brahma it becomes clear that Jagat
is only illusion, and Brahma alone is real.
Hence the jeevatma has existence only at the transactional level; at the
reality level it is nothing other than Brahma. In other words `Jeevatma' and
`Paramatma' (Individual and supreme soul) are one and the same. One
understands it with knowledge. Brahma sutra is vague and difficult to
understand and any one can interpret it in all ways. Dr. Radhakrishnan
writes that ''In the anxiety for economy of words which is carried to an
excess the sutras are not intelligible without a commentary'' (Brahma Sutra
P. 23).

Hajimi Nakamura wrote that without the help of interpretation it is

difficult to understand even a single sentence of Brahmasutra. The style of
Brahmasutra is such that it is common for sentences to lack object for
subject. Sometimes the most important word is missing. In its absence the
sentence cannot be understood. One sutra consists of two - to - ten words.
Long sentence is very rare. Some sutras have only one word. (History of
Early Vedanta Philosophy).
The difficulty and lack of coherence gave much importance to the
imagination of the interpreter. This is one reason for the emergence of
contradicting theories, based on Brahmasutra. The advaita philosophy of
Sankaracharya, the Visista Advaita of Ramanujacharya and the Dvaita
(dualism) philosophy of Madvacharya were all based on Brahmasutra. The
scholars who have studied these different schools of philosophy say that
Brahmasutra is closer to Dvaita than Advaita. They have also expressed
the view that the real source of Advaita is the degenerate Buddhist
philosophy.
Mr. Dasgupta, renowned scholar who had made a comprehensive study of
Indian philosophy writes "Judging by the sutras alone, it does not seem to
me that the Brahma-Sutra supports the philosophical doctrine of Sankara,
and there are some sutras which Sankara himself interpreted in a dualistic
manner." (A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. II. P. 2)
He continues that Sankara was interested in proving that this philosophy
was preached in Upanishads; but in Upanishads, there are many passages
which are clearly of atheistic and dualistic purport; and no amount of
linguistic trickery could convincingly show that these could yield a
meaning which could support Sankara's thesis." (Ibid P. 2)
There have been more than a half dozen Vaishnava commentators of
Brahma-Sutra who not only differed from Sankara's interpretation, but also
differed largely amongst themselves in accordance with the different
degree of stress; they laid on different aspects of their dualistic creeds. But,
however that may be, I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic
interpretation of the Brahma-Sutras were probably more faithful to the
sutras than the interpretations of Sankara." (Ibid, Vol. 1, P. 420-21)
Dr. Radhakrishnan, an ardent follower of Sankaracharya and himself an
Advaita philosopher writes: "It is clear that the Sutra Kara does not hold
that the world is due to vidya. He takes the problem of the creation of the
world seriously and urges that the world is the product not of pradhana of
the Samkhya system but of Brahman possessed of intelligence. There is no
suggestion here of the unreality of the world." (Brahmasutra P. 252).
Radhakrishnan also refutes the Sankara philosophy which tells that

individual soul and supreme soul are one and the same. "The embodied
self acts and enjoys, acquires merit and demerit and is affected by pleasure
and pain and so on; the universal self is of a different nature; it is free from
all evil, etc. on account of the difference between the two the experiences
of the individual soul do not affect the supreme self. The individual soul
undergoes pleasure and pain because it is subject to Karma, whereas the
lord is not subject to it. It is not living in the body but subjection to Karma
that involves a soul in the experiences of pleasure and pain." (Ibid. 273)
''Brahman, the creative principle, is different from the embodied self. The
Jiva cannot create himself or destroy himself. The faults such as doing
what is not beneficial and like do not attach to Brahman. There is nothing
beneficial to be done by it or non-beneficial to be avoided by it. There is
nothing which Brahman cannot know or do. The individual soul, being
different in nature, may have the defects mentioned." (Ibid, 355).
"We do not view the lord as identical with the soul because of the
declaration of difference'' (Ibid, 417)
Many philosophers like Dr. Radhakrishnan have said that Brahma sutra
doesn't support Sankaracharyas theory which argues that jeevatma and
paramatma are one and same. Inspite of being a close follower of
Sankara's Advaita philosophy, Dr. Radhakrishnan had to express his
disagreement to the above point. The word `maya' (illusion), which
Sankaracharya has repeatedly used, occurs only once in the Brahmasutra.
(Brahmasutra 3:2:3). Where the word `maya' was used, the author of
Brahmasutra was explaining the fact that the world of dream by its very
nature was mere illusion, and it doesn't have the features of experience in a
state of waking. In other words, he used the word `maya' only once; and
that too with a sense quite contrary to Sankara's theory. Sankara's
philosophy had argued that the experiences of dream and of the state of
waking were alike.
Sankaracharya classified reality into two; absolute and practical
experience and argued that practical experience was merely illusory. But
this division is unacceptable to Brahma Sutra. Dr. Nakamura wrote that
''Sankaras explanation is merely transactional, and not factual. At the
factual level they are one and same - and such thoughts of Sankara do not
agree with the essence of Brahmasutra.'' (History of Early Vedanta
philosophy).
It is clear from the above that the Advaita philosophy of Sankaracharya is
quite contrary to the Vedas and to the Brahmasutra which is a combined
form of verses from the Upanishads. Sankara's real source Gowdapadan
had admitted this to the Buddhists. Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that "to the

Buddhists he appealed on the ground that his view did not depend on any
theological text revelation. (Indian Philosophy by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
Vol.2, P. 453).
The Advaita philosophy of Sankaracharya is not only against Vedas, but
also irrational. For many relevant questions the Advaita philosophers have
no answer. Some of these questions are given below.
1) If Sankaracharya argues that the world is mere illusion does it not mean
that his body, organs of his body, mind and intellect are also illusion? As
the mind, which finds the universe illusory, is itself an illusion, does it not
mean that the theory of illusion is another illusion? Advaita Philosophy,
being a product of the mind, does it not mean that advaita is an illusion. So
as a philosophy based on illusion, is not Advaita philosophy, including its
theory of world as maya, just another illusion?
2. Are not Badarayana and his Brahmasutra Mayas? If Brahmasutra is an
illusion, isn't the interpretation of Brahmasutra by Sankaracharya, an
illusion of another illusion?
3. What is the relationship between the real Brahman and the unreal jagat?
If jagat is not outside Brahman, and if it is based on Brahman, how can the
jagat, which is subject to change, and Brahman which is not subject to
change become one and same? Can illusion and reality be identified with
each other?
4. Does the Brahman which is real, accept the universal which is an
illusion? Is Brahman the cause of jagat? If so, Brahman being timeless and
cause in itself, jagat which is the Brahmans effect should also have been
timeless and cause in itself.
5. If the jagat is only a shadow as said by Sankaracharya, can there be any
shadow for the perfect Brahman? Can there be virtues and sins in the
shadow of sinless Brahman? How can there be virtues and sins in the
shadow?
6. Has maya any existence? If it doesn't have, then what of this jagat?
Maya is seen powerful enough to cause the jagat. If the jagat has any
existence, is there anything that has equal existence with the Brahman. If
so, then will it not become `dvaitam (dual)?
7. What is the cause of the jagat? Is it Brahman or ignorance? Who causes
ignorance? Is Brahman the cause of ignorance? Isn't ignorance an illusion?
So is not the theory that tells the universe is felt real out of ignorance
which is actually an illusion, maya by itself?
8. If the argument is that ignorance is a factual truth; then there is also
factual Brahman along with ignorance. Isn't it admitting of the dvaita? Isn't
it admitting of the two factual truths. So won't both claims - that ignorance

is a factual truth or transactional - become baseless?

9. Isn't Sankaracharya's claim about the likeness of experiences in dream
and in the state of waking wrong? Isn't the thought that dream is real quite
unreal? One may dream of falling and breaking his leg; and it is a mere
feeling. Will the breaking of one's leg in a state of waking, remain a mere
thought?
10. The experiences in a state of waking will have cause and effect. If
there is a wound there is bleeding. Wound is the cause of bleeding.
Without such cause and effects things can happen in a state of dream and it
shows that the experiences of dream and of the state of waking are not
alike.
11. Dream is not unreal or illusion by itself. For dream there must be a
person who is dreaming, he must sleep; and whatever is dreamed should
have some existence in the real world. So is not the argument that dream is
a maya (illusion) yet another illusion. Sleep and waking up are real and
dream occurs only in a state of asleep. Is not it? Can the blind, who has
never seen anything in the world, dream? So are not eyes-which are reality
- essential for dreaming?
12. A piece of rope is mistaken for serpent in darkness. It happens because
darkness, rope and serpent are realities. When light comes the rope is
recognised as it is. Doesn't it show that rope has its own existence? If there
were no darkness, rope or serpent in the real world, then the
misunderstanding of rope for serpent would not have occurred. So is not
Sankaracharya's example for proving his argument - that the world is an
illusion and it appears real out of ignorance - actually prove that the world
is real, and not an illusion?
13. Sree Sankaracharya claims that in reality the jivatma and paramatma
are one and the same. He further argues that individual soul is an illusion,
and by acquiring the knowledge of the Brahman the jeevatma recognizes
its being paramatma. How can the jeevatma, which has existence only at
the transactional level, become the paramatma which has existence at the
reality level? According to Sankaracharya and Gaudapada the Paramatma
is like the sun and jivatma its reflection in water. The reflection is neither
the sun nor its part. If the reflection doesn't have an existence of its own,
how can it become the sun? If the jeevatma is factually an illusion, how
can the jeevatma which is maya, acquire the knowledge of the Brahma. Is
jeevatma factual or transactional? If it is illusory and merely transactional,
how can a thing which has no existence, acquire the knowledge of the
Brahman? If the jeevatma is factual, doesn't it have existence along with
the paramatma? And if so, isn't it dvaita? (Dualism)

14. Is the knowledge of the Brahman transactional or factual? If it was

transactional, how can something be acquired which has no existence? If it
was factual the knowledge of the Brahma must have existed
simultaneously with Brahman.
15. Is the comparison of gold, spider, human body and other things - which
are maya and exist only at the transactional level - with Brahma - which is
nirguna and has existence at the factual level - appropriate? How can the
spider or its web which are illusions, or the Human body and the hair,
again both illusions be compared with Brahman? The Brahman is factual
while others are only transactional.
16. The advaita is not a practical philosophy for society to adopt.
Vidyavachaspathi V. Panoli has explained it several times.
''The thoughtful, the wise and ascetic are not even one in a million. Only
those who are blessed with the dawn of wisdom, and those who realize the
transitory nature of the universe, only such people alone achieve
deliverance. The number of such people is very small'' (Sree Sankara
Darsanam, P. 136).
Among the millions of people, one or two may have deliverance as their
objective'' (Ibid page 14).
It is absolutely foolish and meaningless for the masses to follow a
philosophy, which is acceptable only for a few.
17. Presenting the Advaita philosophy Sreesankaracharya said;
''Karmanam Cha Vidwa Dwishaya:'' (Deeds, (Karma) are meant for the
ignorants only).
In his book ''Ishopanishad'' Aurobindoghosh has criticised Sankaracharya
that ''he made Indians averse to Karma (Quoted Ibid, P. 35).
Answering to this criticism V. Panoli writes that ''the observing of
Adhyatma is as difficult as walking on the edge of a sword. If one in a
billion could reach the other shore of this ocean of universe, that itself is
great fortune. So to say that Acharyapadar made Indians averse to work is
baseless (Ibid PP 35).
It all explains that not even one among the millions is capable of accepting
Advaita philosophy and living accordingly. Indirectly Panoli even admits
that if people accept and live according to the Advaita philosophy they will
become averse to work, which will eventually result in the ruin of the
country and the people.
18. Sankaracharya says that ignorance will disappear with the dawn of self
knowledge. Procreation and consumption are the duty of the jeevatma. The
wise have no Karma, or other bodily bond. Those who worship the
Brahma become Brahman (Ibid P. 113). Is there anyone in the world who

has had this advaita experience? In other words, is there anyone who lives
without food and without the bodily functions? (Even these amount to
dependence on maya) If there is anyone who can live so, who is he? and
where? Could Sankaracharya himself live without Karma and other bodily
functions? Didn't he put forth a theory, which he could not practise
himself?
19. Since advaita philosophy doesn't offer people an acceptable way of life
what is its use? and if it is not practicable even for a single person in a
million, why such a philosophy and for whom?
Advaita philosophy has no answer to such many questions. All these
questions are raised not with the assumption that everything should be
rational. They are raised because of the attitude of its supporters, who try
to analyse everything in the light of reason. Besides, the question is not
that Advaita philosophy is beyond the realm of reason. Rather, it is
irrational. So, instead of solving philosophical issues, Advaita makes them
more complicated. In the words of Aurobindo Ghosh, "the theory of
`maya' in the sense of illusion, and the argument that the universe is unreal
does not solve any philosophical issues; on the other hand it creates issues.
It does not really solve existential problem; rather this problem is left
unresolved. (Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, 1949, Quoted by Thomas O'
Neil).
As stated earlier as an ideology of life even Sankaracharya, the father of
Advaita philosophy could not practise it in his own life. He strongly
argued that temples or sanctum are not needed; yet he visited temples, and
in the last days of his life he was regretful about it. Dr. Radhakrishnan
writes: "It is said that Sankara on his death-bed prayed for forgiveness for
having frequented temples, since by so doing he had seemed to deny the
omnipresence of God. (Indian Philosophy, Vol. 2, P. 652)
It is clear that Sreesankaracharya has said many things which do not agree
with Advaita philosophy. V. Panoli writes that ''In 1985 when Srimat
Bharati Theerthaswamikal, (Sreesankaracharya of Sringeri Mat) came to
Calicut I visited him. Besides being a scholar of great stature, he was a
definite authority and spokesman of Sankara's philosophy. So his views on
the works of Sreesankara are more acceptable. When I raised a doubt that
certain thoughts in some of Sankara's works like Viveka Choodamani,
have not the sublimity of ideas expressed in some other works, His
response was thus:'' Don't we see many usages in Kalidasa's works like
Raghuvamsam, which are grammatically unacceptable. We have to assume
that the great poet used his words under the influence of certain conditions.
Almost in a similar way we can assume the nature of contradictions in

some of Acharyapadar's works like Vivekachoodamani

(Sreesankaradarsanam P. 44-45)
The statement makes clear that even Sankaracharya could not always stick
to the Advaita theory. It also proves that Sankaracharya had no knowledge
of the Brahman. If he had acquired it there would have been no
contradiction in his ideas.
Islam does not agree with Advaita theory which is against Vedas and also
irrational. As Vedas and the Brahmasutra which is the combined form of
verses from the Upanishads, teaches that it is Brahma or God or Allah who
created this universe and everything in it. It also teaches that this world is
neither illusion (maya) nor absolute reality. The world is a creation of God
and it has temporary reality. The creator is not nirguna. He has many
qualities. But the creator and the created are never equal in anything. They
are not similar. The created has no qualities of the creator. In other words
nothing or no one is equal to the creator. The same theory is emphasised
by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra.
The Quran introduces Allah who is omnipotent, omniscient, and who
controls everything. The Brahma, introduced by the Brahmasutra is the
same God.
In the interpretation to the Brahmasutra verse, Janmadi Asyayada
(Brahmasutra 1:1:2) Dr. Radhakrishnan writes: ''This sutra gives us what is
called natural Theology. We build up a theory of ultimate being from
empirically observable facts. The next sutra takes us to authoritative
sources. From the nature of the world, we infer the existence of one
supreme, personal, self-subsistence mind to whose creative and ruling
activities the world owes its existence, nature, coherence and
consummation." (P. 236)
Hence, Brahmasutra, which Sankaracharya has claimed to be his real
source, says that "Brahma is the cause of creation, sustenance and
destruction of the world (1:2) It explains that the will of Brahma is cause
of creation. Islam also teaches the same. Allah is the creator, sustainer and
controller of this universe and the cause of creation is His will (Iradat or
Masheeat) and decision (Qada). It also discards the advaita theory which is
contrary to this explicit view.