islamic sastra

[Guest guest]

At the following website, I found the following conclusion:

 

http://religion.krishna.org/Articles/2002/12/009.html

"So as can be clearly seen, Krsna, Himself, as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, did not

reject the Koran or Islam, but rather encouraged the Muslims to recognize its

authentic meaning."

 

 

In Islam, the original scripture is the Quran which is touted as a miracle due

to its power to change people and for its information. There are also numerous

sects which produced other literature, especially the Sufis, who according to

Srila Prabhupada, produced philosophical literature.

 

In the first discussion of Islamic literature (in the CC Adi 17), the Quran is

mentioned by name

(17.155) and the the conversation ends rather unfavorably in regards to its

status.

Here are a list of the faults as identified by Lord Caitanya as well as Chand

Kazi:

 

1) It was composed or compiled: by using the word "compiler" (sastra-karta,

17.167), Lord Caitanya indirectly discounts the idea that the text was a perfect

transmission of something supposedly eternally engraved in the tablets in

heaven. This is bolstered by the Chand Kazi's admission that the Quran is recent

or modern (adhunika) (17.169).

 

2) Secondly, because it is composed or compiled by a person, it contains

mistakes due to the compiler's ignorance. Specifically, the compiler of it was

subject to "brAnta" or mistakes (17.167) and to ignorance due to not knowing the

essence (marma) of sastra (17.167). The example of the mistake that is

discussed is in regards to its teaching (as presented by Chand Kazi) that

killing animals in the name of the Quran is acceptable.

 

3) The Quran is described *twice* as illogical or philosophically unsound

(vicara-saha naya, 17.169) and (adrdha vicara, 17.171).

 

4) It is also described as imaginative (kalpita, 17.170) or in other words

concocted.

 

Because the Quran represents a miraculous life-like power in the imagination of

its followers, this assessment of Lord Chaitanya and finally even of Chand Kazi

is, in the Muslim perspective, quite brutal and blasphemous.

 

On the other hand, when Lord Chaitanya has a discussion with the Pathan soldier,

he speaks somewhat favorably of certain Islamic literature (Madhya 18).

Although Srila Prabhupada translates and comments on the word sastra as Quran in

several verses (189, 190, 198, 201), the passage itself is not so specific.

 

1) First of all, the word Quran mentioned explicitly before is conspicuously

absent here. Rather the passage simply uses the word sastra.

 

2) Second of all, Lord Chaitanya's tone is different here, marked by a reserved

appreciation, rather than a dismissal as evident previously.

 

3) and most importantly, the contents of the literature do not match the Quran.

The two points of discussion are God's blackish color and the relative

importances of karma, jnana, yoga, and bhakti. At another website

http://www.harekrischna.de/home/content/view/95/57/1/2/ the following match is

attempted:

 

In the sura "Al-Baqarah", or "The Cow" of the Holy Koran there is a specific

verse which confirms this statement of Mahaprabhu's. sibgatallah wa man 'ah -

sanu minallahi sibgah

"We take our colour from Allah and who is better than Allah at coloring?"

(2.138)

 

I think this is a poor match, which attempts to identify the color of the arabs

as shyama(!!!). The author does not even attempt a match at the other

philosophical comparison.

 

Therefore, for these reasons, it is reasonable to conclude that the Pathan's

scriptures under discussion may be some other more sophisticated literature like

that of the Sufis or some other group (since the Sufis are apparently

impersonalistic). I think about a hundred years later in the 1600s, the Delhi

sultan was a Pathan Sufi.

 

In summary, the Caitanya caritamrta itself does not present a favorable view of

the Quran or its compilers (whoever he or they may be), but does acknowledge

somewhat sophisticated philosophical principles in later literature. Although

the Kazi character of the 5th chapter of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Jaiva dharma

presents both the Quran and Mohammad in a very positive light, this is not at

all evident in the text of the Caitanya-caritamrta.

 

Gerald Surya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 Mrgerald wrote:

 

>There are also numerous sects which produced other literature, especially the

>Sufis, who according to Srila Prabhupada, produced philosophical literature.

 

According to mundane scholars, the Sufis were a major force in shaping the

so-called bhakti renaissance in medieval North India. As one example, there is

a Sufi account that more or less paraphrases the philosophical points made in

the Gopala-tapani-upanisad. On a literary level, it is said that Tulasi adopted

the form and language from allegorical Sufi romances that were popular in nearby

Jaunpur, for writing his famous Rama-carita-manasa. Undoubtedly, that's one

reason his work was initially so controversial.

 

 

 

> On the other hand, when Lord Chaitanya has a discussion with the Pathan

> soldier, he speaks somewhat favorably of certain Islamic literature (Madhya >

18).

 

Of course, they were poised to kill his entire party, as is common in Islam.

 

 

 

> In summary, the Caitanya caritamrta itself does not present a favorable view

of the Quran or its compilers (whoever he or they may be), but does acknowledge

somewhat sophisticated philosophical principles in later literature. Although

the Kazi character of the 5th chapter of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Jaiva dharma

presents both the Quran and Mohammad in a very positive >light, this is not at

all evident in the text of the Caitanya-caritamrta.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura can be seen as a sort of syncretist, in that he had some

charitable things to say about most other religions, and for that matter, even

mundane scientific approaches. By contrast, Srila Prabhupada could be seen as

more of a fundamentalist.

 

MDd