*********** By Khurshid imam***********
Note: Heading of this article might suggest that we are going to have in depth discussion about islamic and Hindu scripture - but that is not the case. I have tried to give example of just 2-3 mantr of vedas. The emphasis - as of now - is not on the CONTENT of scripture, rather APPROACH towards scripture.
I was going through vedic mantr; i found something interesting. Atharva Ved 6th Kand, 50th Sukt and Mantr no 1-3 deals with protecting crops from animals, birds and insects. It commands one to kill those birds, animals and insects that harm the crop. This is obvious; because if we let other animals destroy crop then we human being will not have anything to eat. Almighty God has made human beings in such a way that diet of human being is only and only living things. Apart from that; Almighty God has subjected animals and plants for human beings.
Atharva Ved 6th Kand, 50th Sukt and Mantr no 1-3
"O ashwin! Kill the crow, the swine, the rat - cut off their heads and crush their ribs. They should not eat barley. Bind fast their mouths." -
Then mantr 2 and 3 also speaks about preventing loss of crops from insects and other creatures by killing them - "we crush and mangle all those piercing insects" - or asking them to go away.
You can check hindi translation from - http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/athrvaveda/atharvaveda.htm
English translation here : http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av06050.htm
After reading those mantras one can resort to two approach:
1. Conflicting approach :
In this approach one tries to find more and more problems with the other side. Honesty is less evident in this case. If i use this approach then my conclusion could be something like following:
a. "Vedas preach barbarism".
b. "Vedas teach to KILL animals".
c. "Vedas preach brutality when it says to kill animals, insects and birds".
d. "Hinduism is barbaric religion"...
..... and so on
Please note - in above conclusions i am completely ignoring the context of mantras. These mantras are specific to the case of saving crops from other creatures. In short - its about the case wherein human beings are permitted to kill animal, birds and insects. If we don't follow the advice then our existence will be in question.
2. Conciliatory approach:
In this approach one tries to reconcile as much as possible - but without being dishonest. If there can be two correct interpretation - one that goes against common sense and facts and another one that is in sync with common sense and facts then later interpretation is more logical.
When you meet someone and instead of agreeing on common things, you start fighting with each other then its childish and immature approach. Many people - in order to dominate and humiliate people of other faith resort to this approach. They lambaste others faith , scriptures etc. But in return what they get? Hate - abuse - counter attacks and disharmony. A constructive discussion would have lead to positive and better result.
If we have 10 differences and 10 commonalities then its better to first agree on commonalities, stand for it, propagate it.
1. Can we have more and more harmony among various faith?
2. Can we open doors of love and brother hood and destroy house of hate?
3. Can we have more conciliatory approach without indulging in cheating, lying and being dishonest?
4. Can we?