India and Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)

[A-ManESL]

I read a hadith of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) today which I had never heard of in my life. It is referred to on this site (with comments on its source and origin) and is translated as follows:

I am Arab, but Arab is not in me and I am not in Hind but Hind is in me.

(Hind is the Arabic term for India.)

What I had heard of since childhood was the couplet of the famous urdu poet Iqbal in a poem titled "The national song of Indian children" which the site claims was based on another hadith ("I feel a cool breeze coming from Hind."):

Wahdat ki lai suni thi dunya ne jis makaan se
Mir-e-Arab ko aai thandi hawa jahaan se
Mera watan wahi hai, mera watan wahi hai

(This is the house from where the world heard the rhythm of One Reality(God),
The Emir of Arab (pbuh) had felt a cool breeze from here,
That indeed is my nation, that indeed is my nation)

(translation is my own; the urdu poem may be read here.)

I have long felt that the inner ways of Islam are more closer to portions of Hinduism then to Christianity/Judaism since the entire idea of "dharma" is closely linked to the idea of "deen", and the idea of Din-al-Fitrat akin to Sanatan dharma. Islam stands in marked similarity to Hinduism also in the sense that the strict demarcation between the secular and the religious is absent in both traditions signifying the oneness of the world as a reflection of oneness of God. (I recall a Sufi saint also referring to a Hindu tradition as the highest form of tawheed.)

Many other points are discussed in this article One of the points says how later interpretations of Islam (in my view influenced by the Hellenic-Christian civilization for which Islam had to make apologetic adjustments) have externally made Islamic studies adopt a posture of a marked difference between man and God in contrast to Hinduism. (It is argued in the article that this was not the original Islamic position; Cf verse such as "All is from God-Quran 4:78")

Thoughts?

 

[Cordoba]

Never heard of this statement (I am Arab, but Arab is not in me and I am not in Hind but Hind is in me)

I do not think it is a hadith

What I found a few months ago is this article:

Prophet Muhammad in Hindu Scriptures - His Character - Reading Islam - OnIslam.net

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Assalamualaikum.

Islam is a complete religion and so borrows the best from all major religions of the world and perfects them. Compare Hinduism to Islam and you will indeed find striking similarities. Compare Islam to the teachings of Confucious and you would find the same. The same is true for Buddhism, Zoaroastar, and of course Judaism and Christianity.

This is detailed in Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge, and Truth, a book by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, 4th Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

 

[zenzero]

Friend A-ManESL,

That is close yet far off!
Meaning there is no *TWO* between anything even thoughts /philosophy/religion/ persons/bodies/etc.
When one realizes that it is the THOUGHTS that creates the division to perceive TWO [duality] - It is all over.
The God/Allah/Brahma/etc. as concepts have been realized.
All that requires is the MIND to be STILL!

Love & rgds

 

[muslim-]

I dont think thats a hadeeth, and even if it is, I dont think its authentic, but in the link you gave doesnt give the Arabic wording so I couldnt look it up.

The second one seems to be authentic although I didnt look it up in detail, (about the best of breeze from Al Hind) , but the wording on the site says something more like "The best of breezes is from Al Hind" but not that he actually felt anything.

That said, the oneness of the world as a reflection of the oneness of God, I think, has nothing to do with Islam. Extreme Sufis like a one saying Hindu tradition is the highest form of Tawheed, arent considered to be Muslim in the first place, by consensus of Muslim scholars.

Theres people everywhere (of different religious heritages) saying very different things. Choosing an uncommon saying of one from here and one from there and using sayings of the two individuals to connect between two religions, I think, is not logical at all.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Islam is a complete religion...

I do not think Islam is a complete religion as it does not have the concept of non-duality.

 

[A-ManESL]

That said, the oneness of the world as a reflection of the oneness of God, I think, has nothing to do with Islam. Extreme Sufis like a one saying Hindu tradition is the highest form of Tawheed, arent considered to be Muslim in the first place, by consensus of Muslim scholars.

I almost dont agree with whatever you have said, I think anyone who is dividing people on any basis (including religion) is going contrary to the Quran. Also you didnt quote any scholar, I wasnt aware of any such consensus. I dont think you even know that this "extreme Sufi" Mirza Mazhar Jan-e-Janaan is well known in India and to consider him "not a Muslim" would be thought ridiculous to many people. Perhaps you should read this article to know a little more about him first.

Basically my own opinion is that it is a trick of the ego owing to which people interpret religion in such a way that they get a feeling of superiority over others. This coupled with political advantages of identity politics have led to a systematic development of religious theology which is exclusive in nature.

Finally it is my opinion most certainly oneness of the world is a reflection of the oneness of the God. This view is not my own but I read it in a book by Hossein Nasr.

Isnt God in everything? The Quran says:

He is the first, he is the last. He is the inward. He is the outward-57:3.

Whersoever you may look there is the face of God-2:115.

Although on this point, I would say it is more of a matter of naturally feeling this oneness inside you, and arguments dont really help. So if you think the contrary I would just respect your opinion and stop there.

 

[muslim-]

I almost dont agree with whatever you have said, I think anyone who is dividing people on any basis (including religion) is going contrary to the Quran. Also you didnt quote any scholar, I wasnt aware of any such consensus. I dont think you even know that this "extreme Sufi" Mirza Mazhar Jan-e-Janaan is well known in India and to consider him "not a Muslim" would be thought ridiculous to many people. Perhaps you should read this article to know a little more about him first.

Basically my own opinion is that it is a trick of the ego owing to which people interpret religion in such a way that they get a feeling of superiority over others. This coupled with political advantages of identity politics have led to a systematic development of religious theology which is exclusive in nature.

Finally it is my opinion most certainly oneness of the world is a reflection of the oneness of the God. This view is not my own but I read it in a book by Hossein Nasr.

Isnt God in everything? The Quran says:

He is the first, he is the last. He is the inward. He is the outward-57:3.

Whersoever you may look there is the face of God-2:115.

Although on this point, I would say it is more of a matter of naturally feeling this oneness inside you, and arguments dont really help. So if you think the contrary I would just respect your opinion and stop there.

I wasnt debating, I was sharing my thoughts, but since you're taking that route and this is a debate section heres a short reply. About the ego arguement, one could say the same about those who believe in "the unity of existence". So instead of two holding different views on the issue accusing eachother, the basis of each view should be discussed.

Did any of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him, or the four Imams of the four schools of thought have this belief? Or is the opposite true?

If you read a book and liked the thought, Al Hallaj also said that "God is everything" and was well known but seen as a figure of blasphemy by those who dont believe in "the unity of existence".

If God were everything, then creation wouldnt have a meaning. But he is Al Khaaliq (the creator), and created the heavens and earth. If God were literally everything, then assuming a person believes in messengers, then they would have probably made that very clear. It wouldnt have been the belief of the companions and early Muslims. And prophets wouldnt have forbidden idol worship because idols are God according to this view.

Theres another concept, called "Al Faidh" الفيض" , which some late philosophers held. Although scholars/jurists condemned it as blasphemy, its the idea of everything coming from God as an extension of Him, without being His original self. I think it makes no sense but the point is theres many theories out there. Each claiming to be true, far from what messengers preached, and far from the pure simple way early Muslims, companions of the prophet peace be upon him and others, understood Islam.


I will look into the links you gave later insha'Allah. But anyhow, regarding the Sufi you mentioned, while I oppose modern Sufism altogether, but famous Sufis today like Hamza Yousef, Al Jifri, and many others would probably find the idea that hindism is the highest form of Tawheed, one of the highest forms of disbelief in Islam. Let alone other scholars.

Imam Al Albani said "The scholars of tawheed refer to the First Existent, i.e., that of the Creator the Most High, He exists in His Essence, i.e., is eternal, having no beginning. So His existence is termed as being the necessarily existent [Waajibul-Wujood].

As for the other existent then it is [called] the contingent or possible existent which is mankind and all creation. Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said to it, ‘Be!’ And it was. So it was preceded by nonexistence in contrast to the existence of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic–for He is the First having no beginning, as you all know."

Simply put, no one ever believed that Adam and Eve, for instance, are God. Believing in the unity of existence would also require saying that Satan is also God! So to say this is Islam and is what messengers taught to the companions? I dont think anyone can claim such beliefs are even remotely related to Islam.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I do not think Islam is a complete religion as it does not have the concept of non-duality.

May you kindly elaborate?

 

[A-ManESL]

muslim, I dont think I want to discuss Wahdat-ul-wujood. It is a more complex concept then "God is everything" and to tell the truth other then realizing that it is somewhat related to panentheism (not pantheism) I dont know much about it. I think there are many things which I dont understand yet completely, and hence desist from judging them.

However it is my experience that many things appear to shock us initially because of the pre-conditioning of our way of thinking.

In Saheeh Muslim it is narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Some of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came to him and said, ‘We find in our hearts things that none of us dares utter.’ He said, ‘Do you really find that?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He (Muhammad) said, ‘That is clear faith.’

 

[K.Venugopal]

May you kindly elaborate?

The ideal Islamic position is Master-slave. In non-duality, the slave becomes free.

 

[muslim-]

A-ManESL, I understand. Thank you for your humble reply. I will no longer discuss it here. Usually concepts of panentheism are referred to as "Al Hulool", commonly mentioned together with Al Ittihad (ie "Al ittihad wal Hulool")

Your "initially shocking" comment (not necessarily related to Wihdat Al Wujood, which ill put aside), reminded me of sayings of some Sufis have held a similar position and said that "Masters" (like Al Hallaj) should conceal their faith, on the basis that it would cause "fitnah" among laymen who wouldnt be able to understand it or the knowledge of "hidden meanings" (baatini). (Of course, they arent always or necessarily related to Wihdat Al Wujood)

Im not sure what the English term for baatini exactly is, but its something like esotericism or gnosticism, popular in various extents among sufis, Qarmatians, Isma'eelis and some other Shia groups, Yazeedis, and Druze.

Anyhow, thanks again for your humble reply.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

The ideal Islamic position is Master-slave. In non-duality, the slave becomes free.

If you are referring to a human's relationship with God or with God's representatives (i.e. Prophets and Caliphs) then, yes, in Islam complete submission is required to the One True God. For if God is everything then submission to Him becomes the only hope for survival. Everything else can only lead to nothingness. If "Freedom" means "Freedom from slavery of God" then that is nothingness and a path to hell.

 

[K.Venugopal]

If you are referring to a human's relationship with God or with God's representatives (i.e. Prophets and Caliphs) then, yes, in Islam complete submission is required to the One True God. For if God is everything then submission to Him becomes the only hope for survival. Everything else can only lead to nothingness. If "Freedom" means "Freedom from slavery of God" then that is nothingness and a path to hell.

Where there is freedom there is no slavery and where there is slavery there is no freedom.

 

[Madhuri]

For if God is everything then submission to Him becomes the only hope for survival. Everything else can only lead to nothingness.

If God = everything, then it is impossible to not be submissive to God unless we are truly indifferent to everything. If God = everything, then there is no 'nothing else' to be lead by.

And if God is infinite, I am not sure that there is such a thing as nothingness.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Like everyone to understand that
NOTHINGNESS or VOID is not a state where NOTHING exists!
It is a state where the MIND is VOID and is free of everything a state of NOTHINGNESS where EVERY THING EXISTS or everything is alive. everything is CONSCIOUSNESS!

Unless my friends one understands this concept and realizes it, one will always be a victim of the mind which is always PERCEIVING and all perceptions are wrong as perception creates DUALITY, a division a separation and it is only due to this that even after the understanding of the God/Allah/Brahma/etc concept there are still different religions and differences in opinion. Agree with friend A-MAN that any religion that divides is incorrect. The actual problem is that religions are not dividing it is the human mind which perceives/interprets the words differently and for this reason one has to reach that state of mind which is NOTHINGNESS or VOID but in REALITY a state where everything EXISTS, is ALIVE is CONSCIOUS and so everything is CONSCIOUSNESS!!!!!

Love & rgds

 

[Servant of Hinduism]

The present Vaidik Sanatan Dharma is came into existence 1960853113 years ago when the present Earth was created, as per the VEDAS and Puranas of Hinduism. These religious texts tell us that human beings have been in existence on this Earth since last 1960853113 years. You can see that the present year in the Hindu calender is 1960853113th year. On the other hand there hand there is just 2011years of christinity and around 1400years of islamic calender. In BHARAT(means the land which countinuosly remains in spiritual knowledge) i.e India , there is no need of messenger, prophet or christ because here the ABSOLUTE ONE GOD ALMIGHTY incarnates himself and takes birth in every era to save his devotees, to destroy evils and to re-establish rightousness.

 

[zenzero]

Friend SoH,

The present Vaidik Sanatan Dharma is came into existence 1960853113 years ago when the present Earth was created, as per the VEDAS and Puranas of Hinduism.

It must be understood as to why it is said like that.
Dharma means *LAWS of EXISTENCE* and life existed eternally which means it is SANATAN DHARMA has no beginning or end so at best we can presume it to be there since existence of LIFE itself in this universe and since life exists on earth it is believed that dharma which is sanatan started with the birth of earth.

Love & rgds

So

 

[Riverwolf]

The present Vaidik Sanatan Dharma is came into existence 1960853113 years ago when the present Earth was created, as per the VEDAS and Puranas of Hinduism.

I understand where someone could get those high numbers from the Puranas, but where in the Vedas does it say that?

 

[Bismillah]

The ideal Islamic position is Master-slave.

Not true at all.