Given the many extremist statements in Islamic texts, does that religion lead to any divine truth?

Podcast:

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Summary

Evaluating religious texts requires nuance, fairness, and an understanding of human nature rather than selective criticism. This discussion explores how comparing traditions fairly reveals shared complexities across world religions and offers a path toward interfaith harmony.

Key Insights from the Discussion

• Fair Comparisons Matter: Evaluating religions requires a balanced approach—comparing the best of one tradition with the best of another, and acknowledging that sacred texts and histories across faiths contain difficult or questionable elements.

• Universal Human Modes: Using the philosophical framework of the three modes (goodness, passion, and ignorance), every religious community contains individuals operating across these levels, meaning texts are interpreted differently depending on a person’s inner state.

• Spiritual vs. Political Motivations: While for the vast majority of Muslims, Islam serves as a pious spiritual path toward God, leaders or individuals driven by passion and ignorance may draw upon the martial aspects of prophetic history to seek political power.

• Unified Spiritual and Martial Roles: Unlike some traditions that historically separated spiritual guides (brahmanas) and warriors (kshatriyas), Islamic tradition merges these roles into a single figure, creating a unique potential for both elevated spiritual teachings and martial justifications.

• Empowering Moderates: Fostering global harmony relies on empowering moderate voices—those operating in goodness—who can build bridges across faiths rather than fueling polarization through extremism.

Full Transcription

Question. Given that there is so much endorsement of violence in the Quran and the Hadiths and even immoral means for doing so. Is there a kernel of truth in those texts and in that religion or is it simply political correctness to say that there is such a kernel of truth? Answer.
One principle of fairness is that the comparison should be fair. That means we compare the best on one side with the best on the other side. Not the best on in our texts with the worst in the other texts.
So if we do that and every religion does that and every religion can just continue on in a self-congratulatory illusion and there can be not only no understanding or respect but only political polarization and demonization and destruction. So yes there are lots of questionable and more worse than questionable things in the Quran and similarly in the Old Testament. In the New Testament we may not find so many things but then the history of Christianity is not something to be proud of given the not just the Crusades but the Inquisition where people were burned on the stake even when they were Christians just because they had some theological belief that was different from what was normal.
Now if we consider the Vedic tradition in general most followers of the Vedic tradition pride themselves on the inclusivity. They say that the Dharmic traditions are not intolerant the way the Abrahamic religions are that we accept multiple paths and that is true through that no doubt. At the same time there are still things can be found in our tradition also which are questionable when somebody looks with a critical eye.
Say for example Parashuram is often accused of genocide just because somebody killed his father to kill everybody from the dynasty and not just from that dynasty but 20 generations and that’s why comparison has to be fair. We compare the best of our tradition with the best of another tradition, the worst of our tradition with the worst of the other tradition. So in the Vedic tradition generally there has not been ideological intolerance but there has often been ritual intolerance.
There are stories often exaggerated of how if a Shudra or outcast boy drinks water from a Brahmana’s well that boy gets battered black and blue. They would rather let a child starve than have their purity compromised by drinking water from their well. Again how much of this is true is open to question.
It is likely to be exaggerated but both in scripture and in tradition there is much in the Vedic tradition also that is difficult to be proud of. So of course there is a difference in the sense that the Vedic tradition has not been aggressively expansionist, not going about destroying other people’s religions and religious structures. So I’m not saying that the two are essentially equal but I’m saying this what is fair for the Guj is also fair for the Gander.
If we use a particular strategy to, if we use reason as a strategy to evaluate Islam then we use reason fairly to evaluate evaluate Hinduism also and no religion comes off complimentary. Therefore my understanding is threefold over here. Our Acharyas have said that that the son of God, the messenger of God they have come and that’s generally been understood to refer to the prophet.
So there’s no need to for us to take a radically different stand from what our Acharyas have said. So they consider that these teachers also to be as a part of a divine mission for elevating human consciousness. Now whether the human consciousness is elevated all the way from tamas, darkness of ignorance to transcendence is open to question and that brings me to second point that in every tradition there have been saints who have expressed immense love for God.
In the Sufi tradition, Sufis are considered heretics by mainstream Islam but there are many Hindus who consider Iskcon to be heretics. So Sufis do base their teachings on the Quran to a large extent and there have been great saints. There’s a famous Sufi saint who says that you know, oh dear lord if I wish to see your face for the sake of my own pleasure or for gaining fame and please forever hide your face from me.
If I desire to see your face just to adore thee and love thee, then please do no longer hide it from me. This is quite similar. Now so that’s the second point.
If you can do a fair comparison there are exalted expressions of love in both traditions. Now the third point I would make is that we have as a tradition a better framework than just looking at the source text or looking at the practitioner, looking at the history of a particular tradition. We have the framework of the three modes.
So rather than saying that Muslims are intolerant, we understand that in all of humanity there are the three modes and they will be there in every group. And there are Muslims in goodness, Muslims in passion, Muslims in ignorance. For the vast majority of Muslims, my understanding is that Islam is just a way to a more pious life.
It’s a way to move closer to God at their level. They give charity, they fast, they go to a holy place. For quite a few Muslims, Islam is less a spiritual search for God and more a political search for power.
And for that they draw examples from the prophet’s actions. In general in the Vedic tradition, Brahmana, Kshatriyas were separated. In the Christian tradition, Jesus and Constantine were separated.
Brahmana and Kshatriya were separated. Buddha and Ashoka are separate. In the Islamic tradition, Brahmana and Kshatriya are the same.
Spiritual teacher and the martial warrior are all in one person moment. So while some may derive inspiration from the spiritual teacher, many derive inspiration or base themselves on the martial warrior. And he’s like in any war, often his ethics are things that could be considered questionable.
So if the leaders of a particular tradition are in the modes of passion and ignorance, then they will draw from that tradition those teachings which reflect and reinforce their passion and ignorance. The leaders are in goodness, they will draw from goodness and they will move forward accordingly. So the point is that it’s very difficult for us to know how Muslims see the Quran and how it affects their lives.
You may just look at the text and you may come up with a lot of problems with it, the Quran and the hadiths especially. A critic should be sympathetic, not derisive, otherwise they can never understand what a book means to its followers. He’s of course saying this in the light of the Bhagwatam being criticized by the Bhadraloka of his times, the educated elite who looked down on Vaishnavism as a beggar’s religion.
But that principle we can apply to other holy texts also. So the hope that we have for the world is that in general goodness increase in people or the people who are in influence, more of them are in goodness. So that means society can change from top-down or bottom-up.
Bottom-up is if more people come to goodness, top-down is if more of the leaders are in goodness. So we need to encourage and empower in whatever capacity we have. The Muslims who are moderates, one of my Muslim friends told me that it’s easier for me to talk with a moderate of another tradition than an extremist and a hardliner or a radical extremist of my tradition.
So people in sattva can talk with each other and can build bridges instead of casting allegations and aspersions on each other. So that way as goodness grows, there can be greater harmony in the world. So to summarize, I made five different points.
First is fair comparison means look at, compare the best in our tradition with the best in other traditions, not the best in our tradition with the worst in other traditions. By that criteria, every tradition whether it is scripture or whether it’s history has much that we cannot be proud of and our tradition is also my exception to that. The third point is our acharyas have said that the messenger of God, Muhammad is also a messenger of God.
For raising human consciousness, so just based on our own selective reading of a selective emphasis on particular texts, we don’t have to counter or falsify what they are saying. Fourth is that because of the mixing of kshatriya and brahmana roles in the Islam, there is a greater chance that its leaders may use the prophet’s marshal example to justify their questionable actions and to lead people out of this questionable action, lead people down the questionable track also. For most people it’s more of a spiritual path to a better life which is a search for God or for a more pious life and it is these people who are relatively speaking in goodness, who are moderates, who need to be encouraged, empowered, emphasized if we are to have a more harmonious and less disruptive world.