Today, I had a chat with my old colleague, a young girl who speaks in Valluvanadan vernacular. She told me “I made a mess of my life, etta.”
When a young girl calls you “etta” innocently, how can’t you be her responsible big bro? So I lend both my ears to her as sincerely as I could.
She had known a guy since she was in 2nd std (Grade), who naturally became her best friend, until he proposed to her. She had no second choice, but to accept it at cloud nine.
Like any typical Indian Love story, after a dozen of melodious duets, the climax is set for tragedy (I hope there will be an anti climax, where they both join together at some airport). She is a Hindu and he is a Muslim – A perfect setting for Love Jihad!
Though her parents stood by her choice, his parents disagreed. They could accept her only as a Muslim.
She asked me for advice. I had nothing to give, but to hide an aching heart.
She said "I am good at silent weeping, but my tears vehemently defy to stay where it should be". (I wish I could recollect her words for you, it was more poetic than what I put here.)
I bid farewell to her with a kind of pain in throat with which one comes out of theatres after watching a tragic love flick.
For some time, I thought about her tears, about her pain, about love and religions.
Why do Muslims insist on marrying only Muslims?
After all, who is a Muslim?
The Arabic word “Muslim” means the one who consciously surrendered his free will before the Absolute God. It is just like the sun, the earth, the moon, the stars and galaxies, which surrender to the laws of motion set by God, the human beings surrender his life to the will of God. Ultimately every thought, every action of human beings should become God-centric, that is what the word "Muslim" mean.
Every major religion insists that he highest plain of human thought is the belief in Absolute God (Monotheism). According to Hindu belief, this is the highest rank a person can achieve, as stated by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, the great philosopher and India’s first Vice President, in his book “The Hindu view of life”. He writes:
“Hindu thoughts believe in the evolution of our knowledge of God... the bewildering polytheism of the masses and the uncompromising monotheism of the classes are for the Hindu the expressions of one and the same force at different levels. Hinduism insists on our working steadily upwards and improving our knowledge of God. 'The worshippers of the Absolute are the highest in rank; second to them are worshippers of personal gods; then come the worshippers of the incarnations like Rama, Krishna, Budha; below them are those who worship ancestors, deities and sages and lowest of all are the worshippers of the petty forces and spirits'”
And while addressing the Worshippers of the Absolute, The Quran says “You are the Best of peoples evolved for mankind - enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong”.
If you look at it, the God is ONE for the entire human kind and, all religions talk about the same God.
But are the Muslims we see around us “True Muslims” (ie, those who surrendered their will to ONE God of entire humanity and universe)? I believe not. Muslims and Hindus failed here miserably to scale up to the highest spiritual level. They have surrendered their will before bodily desires, worldly pleasures, and in the fight for the survival of the fittest. Where are the highest ranking human beings? Where are the best of peoples?
In a God-centric world it makes sense for people to associate with the highest ranks or the best of peoples. But how do we qualify for this position? Every act of us, every thought of us, leave us among the lowest (even lower than animals).
In a self-centred world, what is the point in people of one sect considering themselves as highest ranking or best of peoples and looking out for the people of the same sect alone for marriage? Aren't they all following the same path of materialism? What does it leave behind, but echoes of silent weeping and drops of tears shed by innocent lovers?
I wish I could advise my Valluvanadan friend. But I dare not tell her something when I find myself lacking. I will have to climb up from my self-centered world to that highest plain of God-centric life before I could give her some advice. Till then I will have no advice for those who ask.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although it can be agreed that only very few (throughout human history) have actually succeeded in scaling up to the highest spiritual level in the true sense, and that most of us are living in a self centered world, it can be argued (as some of us does) that we are always in pursuit of achieving that level - and hence we desist from associating with lower forms of believers.
ReplyDeleteWhen there are clauses in a religious package that promotes itself and tries to demote all other similar packages, conflicts are certain.
And we talk about clash of civilizations - which is a bye product of such clauses that exist in almost all religious packages which were originally introduced in an entirely different context - to cater to an entirely different set of people, situation and culture - that may not be suitable or even relevant in the current context. Still we talk about it, and passionately argue about it without identifying that these clauses itself it the root cause of all problems.
... and we have theories in religious packages that do not meet the current scientific knoledge that we have : Take the example of Genesis (The story of Adam and Eve - about the creation of mankind) - which was at one time in history religiously and passionately followed and tutored.
In the face of mounting scientific evidence, nowadays Bible pundits consider it only as a parable style story to drive home one simple point - that God created everything. They argue that there is no need to dwell on the seven days of creation or any particular order of creation which may look awkward or foolish given the scientific knowledge that we have today (Remember that there was a time in history, when if someone said something like this, he risked a trial for heresy - anti religious activities).
... and consider the story of Galileo who had the courage to openly say that the Earth is Round - against religious preachings. Nowadays no religion will have the courage to teach that the earth is flat.
So my point is, we should have the courage to delete flawed clauses in religious packages that are not suitable or irrelevant in the current context, situation, and culture, and which prevent people from living peacefully. Instead of hanging on to the theory that Religious books were written for all mankind to obey word by word till infinity, it is high time that some of these clauses are modified or atleast played down upon, so that people from all sections, and religions can live harmoniously, and also to meet the current scientific knowledge that we have achieved.
Unfortunately, science has been not able to explain or atleast provide reliable theories about the origin of the universe. There enters religion that teaches that God created everything - may be true till we have science to prove it false.
... and in the end overwhelming historical and scientific evidence suggests that religion is nothing but a set of rules evolved over time, similar to the Constitution of a Country which all citizens are bound to obey. If you violate constitutional provisions, the constitution has the right to punish you - Rhymes with "if your violate Religious principles, God will punish you". Who knows after 2000 or 200000 years, religion in its current form will exist or not. May a better set of rules will replace problematic Religious rules that does not allow people to live harmoniously... only time will tell.