Where the two oceans meet: an attempt at Hindu-Muslim rapprochement in the thought of Dara Shikuh.

Omar, Irfan A.

I. Introduction

Dara Shikuh (d. 1659), the Mughal prince and heir apparent, was also a scholar and a mystic in his own right. (1) He was popular among Hindus as well as Muslims and had connections with scholars and mystics belonging to both traditions. He has been recognized in history for his translations of some fifty Upanishads into Persian. This set of translations, known as Sirr-i akbar (the great secret), became an important and influential work in Europe via Anquetil Duperron's 1801 translation into Latin. (2) Dara also wrote a number of texts related to Sufism and comparative (Hindu-Islamic) mysticism. In the latter category, we find Majma' al-bahrayn (meeting place of the two oceans), which was Dara's attempt to make manifest the spiritual affinity he recognized between the two distinct religious traditions of Hinduism and Islam. Dara tried to merge Hindu and Islamic mystical ideas and, by way of this syncretism, sought to unite the two major religious communities of India. Thus, the "two oceans" in his Majma' al-bahrayn refers to the Hindu and Islamic traditions, each of which he regarded as a repository of knowledge and wisdom (a la Islamic monotheism). In Dara's final analysis, each of these traditions is a reflection of the other.

Dara, a Sufi, had a deep interest in and appreciation for Hindu mystical ideas. Based on his knowledge and mystical experience, Dara argued throughout his scholarship and comparative study of Islam and Hinduism for a certain parity or "transparence" between the two in the realm of "essence." Giving little credence or importance to many obvious disparities ("walls") or to the theological, philosophical, cultural, and social boundaries separating the two religions, Dara argued that Islam and Hinduism both upheld monotheism or tawhid (the Islamic doctrine of the oneness of God) and, therefore, were at par with each other. He studied Hindu and Islamic traditions and claimed to be familiar with their religious texts--chiefly the Qur'an and the Upanishads. In his comparative study of these texts, he focused on specific terminology but interpreted them syncretistically. (3) He approached these texts as a mystic; therefore, his analysis was not based on historical or textual methods. From a mystical perspective, Dara considered the similarities between these texts to be their essence and regarded their differences as merely accidental.

The metaphoric titles of Dara's aforementioned works reveal his vision of Hindu and Muslim religious truths. For example, Majma' al-bahrayn is an allegorical reference to the meeting of the truths of these two faiths. This work contains twenty chapters or sections, each of which includes a discussion of Hindu and Islamic teachings with respect to the topic of the chapter. The phrase "majma' al-bahrayn" itself is found in the qur'anic verse 18:60, where it is taken to mean the meeting of two "streams"--one representing the esoteric and the other the exoteric forms of knowledge, each considered to be equally valid (that is, divine). (4) This is not the representation Dara intended, however, as he argued for spiritual parity between Hindu and Islamic truths. In other words, instead of using the qur'anic sense, where the two equal yet different parts of religious truth are seen as such in a complementary modality, Dara applied the metaphor to two distinct traditions uniquely preserving the esoteric aspects of each. He wrote in his introduction to Majma' al-bahrayn that he found "no difference in the perception of truth except the literal one" and that Hindu and Islamic traditions are "two truth-knowing sects." (5)

Dara's other major work was his translation of fifty Upanishads, Sirr-i akbar. By the time he set out on this ambitious project, Dara (as a Muslim) had already attempted to define the Hindu tradition as "monotheistic" and therefore placed it on the same level as Islam. As noted in the following, this characterization of the Hindu tradition as monotheistic is problematic at best, not least because the Advaita Vedantic monistic view cannot be reconciled with monotheism without stretching the interpretation on both sides of the theological divide. Even then, such reconciliation would leave much to be desired to satisfy the majority in both traditions. Nevertheless, in the introduction to his translations, as well as interspersed within his commentary, he unmistakably tried to defend the supposed Islamic character of the Upanishads. (6)

In looking at both Majma' al-bahrayn and Sirr-i akbar, it is possible to identify Dara's three main claims: (1) The Qur'an affirms the existence of other divine revelations; every community at one point or another was the recipient of divine guidance. (7) (2) Like the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels, the Upani shads must then be one of those revelations that God sent to every community, based on the qur'anic testimony. (8) (3) The Upanishads are actually a "superior" revelation because (a) they provide a deep esoteric exposition of tawhid, whereas other revelations (for example, the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel) are mere narrative affirmations of tawhid; and (b) Qur'an 56:78 mentions "kitabim maknun" (the "Book kept hidden") or, as it is sometimes translated, the "well-guarded [therefore secret] Book," from which all other monotheistic revelations take their cue, is to be identified with the Upanishads, because the latter are the most ancient and hidden source of esoteric wisdom.

Dara argued that he found keys to mystical secrets in the Upanishads that he could not find in any other text despite his serious study of many scriptures. (9) He held that the "Upnekhat" are the essence of tawhid and "the fountain-head of the Ocean of Unity, in conformity with the holy Qur'an and even a commentary thereon (sar-e chashma-e bahr-e tawhid-ast wa motabeq-e Qur'an-e majid balke tafsir-e an-ast)." (10) Dara then went on to quote verses from Surat al-Waqi'ah (the event; Qur'an 56:77-80): "That (this) is indeed a noble Qur'an. In a Book kept hidden. Which none may touch save the purified. A revelation from the Lord of the Worlds." (11) Dara continued, "It is evident to any person that this sentence is not applicable to the Psalms or the Book of Moses or to the Gospel, and by the word 'revelation,' it is clear that is not applicable to the [Preserved] Tablet (Lauh-i mahfuz)," in effect arguing that the verse in question applies to the ancient "heavenly books" (kotob-e samawi), that is, the Upanishads. (12)

II. Dara Shikuh's Understanding of the Qur'anic Reference to kitabim maknun

Following are some questions related to the logic and sustainability of Dara's argument, based on his understanding of the qur'anic verses in question. Two specific concerns that seem pertinent are as follows:

1. Does the mystical hermeneutic (and his interpretation of it) that Dara invoked for his dubbing of the Hindu truth as equivalent (or superior) to the Muslim truth have strong foundations within the Muslim tradition on the basis of which it could be promoted as authentically qur'anic?

2. What specific meaningful points of engagement may be discerned from such an invocation for a sustained dialogue between Hindu and Islamic traditions? Is syncretism essential for any meaningful engagement between Hindus and Muslims? If so, does Dara's syncretism go too far in order to highlight the "transparence," while concealing or disregarding the "walls" (dissimilarities)?

When Dara claimed that the mention of a "Book kept hidden" in Qur'an 56:78 refers to the ancient texts of the Hindus, namely, the Upanishads, he was deviating from the standard orthodox interpretation of this verse. He imposed an esoteric meaning upon the qur'anic verse, based on his predetermined conclusions regarding the Upanishads. In general, the orthodox understanding of kitabim maknun is that it refers to either the Qur'an or Lauh-i mahfuz, which being the "Preserved Tablet" is the permanent source of all revelations including the Qur'an and is not earthly but "eternal." (13) Hence, Dara's idiosyncratic interpretation was deemed off-center by the orthodox 'ulama (scholars of Islamic religious sciences) and by all accounts was declared too radical, even from the perspective of major Sufi treatments of the issue. (14)

In effect, Dara argued that the Upanishads are the "spring" (15) of all monotheistic revelations and that all other revelations (including the revelations of the "people of the Book" and the Qur'an) are either derived from the Upanishads or are later manifestations of the Upanishads. In this, Dara claimed to find a reference to the Upanishads in the Qur'an that appears to give the Hindu text a status higher than the Qur'an itself. This analysis is in conflict with the classical Muslim interpretation of the verse in question and is a claim viewed by many Muslims as heretical for two main reasons. First, as pointed out previously, the source of all revelations including the Qur'an--the "Preserved Tablet"--is considered to be divine in nature. Indeed, each community throughout time has received a messenger and thus a message (Qur'an 10:47, 16:36). All these messages or revelations are believed to be from this very divine source and therefore may qualify as "manifestations" of it. However, none of these earthly manifestations can be claimed to be the source itself. Thus, to consider the Upanishads as one such manifestation of divine knowledge is quite plausible, but to regard them as the "fountainhead" (16) of all revelations is problematic from the Islamic theological standpoint. This latter position is clearly not supported by the Qur'an and was rejected by scholars even in Dara's own constituency.

The second problem that Dara's claim presents concerns the logic of supersession. He professed that he learned of the mysteries in the Qur'an through the study of the Upanishads, hence creating a hierarchy of scriptures not supported by the Qur'an. The qur'anic logic moves in the direction of latter superseding the former; hence, the preference given to the Qur'an as a "pure" revelation where previous messages are considered "corrupted" in their present form. Thus, according to the logic of Muslim orthodoxy, the Qur'an cannot be seen as deficient in relation to a named earlier scripture (the Qur'an itself mentions the Taurat [Torah], the Zabur [Psalms], and the Injil [Gospels]), let alone in relation to one not mentioned by name, that is, the Upanishads.

III. The Sufi Imprint on Dara Shikuh 's Thought

Dara was influenced by a number of Sufis. He often sat in the company of a Qadiri Sufi, Mian Mir (or Shah Mir; d. 1633) of Lahore, who believed in the notion of wahdat al-wujud (unity of existence of the Godhead), a sort of monistic view of "reality" not too distinct from the nondualism of Advaita Vedanta. Mir was the spiritual guide (shaykh or pir) of Mulla Shah Badakhshani, whom Dara regarded as his own pir. It was Mulla Shah who initiated Dara into the Qadiri Sufi order. (17) Thus, Dara looked to both masters for spiritual advice and learning. Another Sufi who may have influenced Dara early on was Shaykh Muhibbullah of Allahabad (d. 1648); be was of a Chishti-Sabiri order and also believed in wahdat al-wujud. Muhibbullah was a follower of Ibn 'Arabi (d. 1240) and argued that it was possible to attain divine knowledge through reason. (18) Even if Dara did not consider the shaykh as his teacher, he nevertheless conceived of reality or God (al-Haqq) in a way similar to that of the shaykh. This line of Sufi thinking allowed Dara to be open to some "unorthodox" ways of approaching the issue of nearness or oneness with God (qurb-i llahi). However, Dara was not shy about incorporating what were deemed unorthodox elements by some other Muslims, because he was a proponent of the form of Sufi discipline that included breathing exercises, which he regarded as the exclusive practice of the Qadiri order "absent from all others." (19)

Dara studied the Qur'an and attempted to interpret it in ways that at least in his own mind would prove the divine source of Hindu texts. He was attracted by what he regarded as the egalitarian aspect of the Qur'an reflected in such notions as 'adl (justice) and i hsan (humaneness) and interpreted these to argue that the Qur'an views Muslims and non-Muslims equally, especially as the latter fulfill the qur'anic criterion of possessing a "book." His views in this regard again are similar to those of Muhibbullah, who in response to a question posed to him by Dara on the treatment of non-Muslims remarked that a follower of Prophet Muhammad, who was sent as a mercy for all humanity, must not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims and must treat them equally. (20) This kind of exposure allowed Dara to be open to others and their truths. The more Dara sought solace in Islamic mysticism, the more he became convinced of the universal manifestation of truth, which eventually led him to believe in the perfect symmetry of the Qur'an and the Upanishads. Based on this conviction and his determination to bring the two traditions closer, he eventually claimed that the truths embodied by the Islamic and Hindu traditions are in essence one and the same. (21) At the height of this conviction, Dara "must have felt that in the Upanishads the goal, 'the Confluence of the two Oceans,' had been reached." (22)

IV. Data Shikuh's Contribution to Hindu-Muslim Relations

It is well known that Dara's translations of the Upanishads were the first to introduce these particular Hindu texts to those unfamiliar with Sanskrit. Although other Hindu texts had previously been translated into Persian, and it was hardly an uncommon thing for such translations to be commissioned, the Upanishads had yet to be translated at such a grand scale. Later, through the Latin translation of the Persian manuscript, the Upanishads were introduced into European thought as well. This is a significant contribution noted even by Schopenhauer, who regarded them as his "solace" in life and in death. (23) As many have noted, the value of these translations is not lost despite the fact that some of them were not entirely accurate and were hardly of any use to the nonPersian-speaking students of Hindu philosophy. (24) In addition to numerous errors in translation, there is also the question of Dara's audacious interpretations. Dara was probably philosophically predisposed to a vision he thought was found in the Upanishads. In the preface to Sirr-i akbar, Dara acknowledges that he traveled to Varanasi in search of pandits (Hindu scholars well-versed in Sanskrit) and sought their help in deciphering the truth of the Upanishads. Whereas the Hindu scholars gave him the perspective on the Upanishads that they had received through the commentaries by Shankara, reflecting the nondualistic or monistic philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, Dara seems to have received and interpreted these ideas as monotheistic, arguing that both constitute tawhid. (25)

Dara seems not only to have been guided by his a priori convictions in selecting a particular version of the Upanishads and in seeking the help of those Sanskrit scholars who were sympathetic to the Advaita school, but he also took those ideas and interpreted them in light of wahdat al-wujud, the version of tawhid deemed theologically problematic by many Muslim scholars. (26) This idiosyncratic interpretation allowed him to draw parallels between the Upanishads and his own brand of Sufism.

Moreover, Dara must have been conscious of the problems inherent in embarking on such a novel project. He believed that translation is not merely "transposing in a servile manner the subtleties of a metaphysical doctrine into another language, bur requires, on the doctrinal level of gnosis, an active participation in the spirit of the text, an assimilation and recreation of that thought in the soul of the translator." (27) Thus, Dara's translation was not meant to be a literal one, although he claims to be very "faithful" to the text, implying that his work was word-for-word of the original. (28) When he could not find an equivalent word in Persian for a Sanskrit word, be left it intact, and be included an extensive glossary at the end of the work. Yet, Dara envisioned a product that would be "transparent," as it were, to mystics of both the Hindu and Muslim traditions, enabling them to read in it the mysteries of Advaita Vedanta and Sufism, respectively.

V. Dara Shikuh's Approach to Syncretism

Dara made numerous comparisons between Hindu and Muslim spiritual ideas and explored terminology used in spiritual disciplines, but he was mostly silent on some major differences between Hinduism and Islam. According to Aziz Ahmad, Dara's lexique technique approach to Hindu and Muslim mysticism confounded these traditions into each other while ignoring their serious differences. As Ahmad noted: "In both mystical systems monism has a similar conceptual terminology: the Reality is Absolute (mutlaq; param), it is the truth of truths (haqiqat al-haqa'iq: satyasya satyam) and so on.... On the other hand there are elements in Hindu religion and in various schools of Hindu mysticism which are the very antithesis of Sufism which is, after all, firmly rooted in Islam." (29) Among many such Hindu beliefs is the belief in karma, which is central in Hindu mysticism but not found in Islam. There is also the sacrificial character of Vedic hymns that defy any comparison with Islam. (30) Dara's approach in general was syncretistic, and through it he sought to show symmetry between Hindu and Islamic spiritual ideas. Dara compared concepts such as the Hindu triune godhead--Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva--and the Muslim archangels--Jibrail, Mikail, and Israfil. He found similar correspondence between Jagrat sthana and 'alam-i nasut (the world of phenomena), svapna sthana and 'alam-i malakut (the world of spirits or angels), and susupta sthana and 'alam-i jabarut (the world of nondualism). (31) Although these comparisons were made in good faith and with conviction that Hindu and Muslim spiritual realities are universal, they seem far-fetched. There is neither a detailed explication of the terminology, nor a serious critical analysis establishing either an identity or an absolute distinction among terms. Instead, there are only analogical references. (32)

In the introduction to the Persian translation of Yoga Vashishtha (Jug bashast), Dara wrote of a "vision" he had of Rama in which the latter embraced him and shared some sweets with him. This story can be interpreted in different ways; one way shows Dara's deep desire to reinforce his esoteric worldview in which Hindu and Muslim spirituality are both part of a universal order. Another way of analyzing the vision would be to see Dara as co-opting Hindu support for his political ambitions by making spiritual analogies between Hindu and Muslim traditions. However, the latter possibility is unlikely in my view. There are, no doubt, questions surrounding the methodology Dara employed in his syncretistic philosophy--many have even disputed his conclusions--but few question the sincerity that he seemed to have in seeking rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims.

It is fitting here to recount an incident in Dara's life in support of his genuine appeal for Hindu-Muslim mystical unity. In Lahore, Dara had a conversation with a Hindu yogi, Baba Lal, which later became an important source of information about Dara's mystical ideas. The conversation took place as Dara was returning from a failed expedition in Qandahar in 1652. Exhausted and defeated, he nevertheless took the time to invite Baba Lal, whom he cailed an 'arif (knower of divine mysteries), for a conference to satisfy his appetite for Hindu-Muslim shared spirituality. (33) This is perhaps indicative of Dara's deep interest in seeking mystical truth wherever he could find it, even as he was being drawn into a political and military struggle by virtue of his position as heir apparent to the throne.

The syncretistic approach was problematic from the perspective of orthodoxy and ultimately did not benefit either Dara's cause or that of his Hindu collaborators. Dara wanted Muslims to open up to Hindus by developing a genuine reverence for their scriptures. Instead, reactionary forces led Hindus and Muslims in opposite directions. Yet, attempts at creating a synthesis and conflation of these two traditions can be witnessed at many levels even after Dara's execution, despite fierce opposition from the orthodox elements in both traditions.

VI. Dara Shikuh's Failure to Strike a Balance

Dara saw himself as a faqir (mendicant) rather than as a Sufi master, although he may have been viewed by others as an advanced seeker. He was humble in his claims to spirituality and was most likely a genuine seeker of truth. It would be wrong to characterize him as part of a hybrid tradition practicing neither Islam nor Hinduism. Insofar as it is possible to deduce from his writings, Dara seems to have remained faithful to his Muslim Sufi heritage even when he was convinced that both Islam and Hinduism possess paths to reach the truth. Although he did not admit to placing one religious tradition over another, one of Dara's chief purposes in translating the Upanishads was to make plain what he saw as the monotheistic truth of these Hindu texts. Thus, the "great secret" had to be shared with Muslims who were unaware of its treasures due to linguistic barriers--hence, the translation into Persian, the language of Muslim nobles and scholars. His efforts at studying and translating the Upanishads helped him discover what he called the "sublime truths" for which he had been searching. Thus, it seems that the study of the Upanishads had illuminated certain spiritual mysteries that he was already thinking about bur had not found expressed elsewhere. However, to be able to see these so-called sublime truths, Dara must have had enough tools or training to be able to recognize them, especially in a tradition other than his own. Some would be eager to claim that Data had attained a status of an advanced seeker anal that his Sufi training and practice had prepared him to receive deeper mysteries manifest in the Hindu tradition. This eclecticism alone, however, did not make him a hero in the eyes of the 'ulama. On the contrary, as he failed to display his Islamic "orthodoxy" adequately by denying the presence of truth elsewhere, he was vehemently opposed by many Muslim scholars of his day.

In a posture not unlike that of other mystics, Dara wanted to embrace the gnostics of every faith and religion who would confirm his own mystical truths. Thus, be sought the truths of his own faith in the words of Hindu sages. He had already looked in other holy books, such as the Torah, the Gospels, and the Psalms, and found them to be perplexing, whereas in the Upanishads the mystical truth was clear to him.

In a sense, Dara wanted to perform a balancing act by drawing attention to a religion that did not fit the exterior description of a tradition bearing the stamp of monotheism but conformed to it in "essence." However, in this he placed Hinduism over and above Jewish and Christian traditions, which have the qur'anic seal of approval as monotheistic. Thus, he claimed to have achieved his goal of bringing attention to the hidden and, in his view, richer aspects of Hinduism's version of the unity of the Godhead by downgrading the qur'anic regard for the established ahl-i kitab (people of the Book). This claim alienated the 'ulama, who saw Dara as giving the Upanishads an authoritative status over and above that of the revealed scriptures of the "people of the Book" mentioned in the Qur'an. In this, Dara seems to have failed in his cause.

Dara was drawn to pantheistic Sufism, and, inasmuch as there was orthodox opposition to pantheism itself, there was a growing hostility toward Data as he promoted such Sufism with his idiosyncratic understanding of the Qur'an. For this reason, Dara enjoyed wide appeal among the wandering mystics, many of whom were not only syncretistic but also seen by many as "heretical"; this did not help him either. One such unorthodox person was Sarmad, a convert to Islam who was especially attracted to its mystical practices and was perhaps influenced by the writings of Mansur al-Hallaj (d. 922). (34) Hallaj himself had a bad reputation among orthodox Muslims because of his alleged claim to divine status by uttering the words ana'l-Haqq (I am the Truth), which eventually earned him death at the hands of the state. (35) Sarmad, however, did not go as far as Hallaj, but his rather "bohemian" style of mysticism, which included his habit of wandering around naked, was not something of which Dara would have approved, and it certainly did not go down well with the 'ulama to know that Sarmad was associated with Dara. (36) Thus, the popular image of Dara generated through the collective identification with such individuals as Sarmad was that of a heretic. Dara was seen as one who compromised his own faith by arguing for the superiority of another faith. Dara's appeal and popularity among the many eccentric individuals of his day and also among some Hindus must have dissuaded the Muslim religious class--the 'ulama--from even considering his claims.

VII. Conclusion

In Majma' al-babrayn, Dara built the idea of a synthetic tradition by way of his identification of Hindu and Islamic terminology. In this work, be was still at a level where his argument could be justified on the basis of the Qur'an. How ever, in the introduction to Sirr-i akbar, the last major work Dara produced, he made the most controversial (even heretical) claim that ultimately put him at odds with the 'ulama. He believed that the Upanishads were the ultimate source and "spring" of all monotheism. For Dara, this meant that the ancient Hindu texts were not merely in full agreement with the Qur'an--which as we have seen is not as clear to others as it was to Dara himself--but rather were the "original" from which the Qur'an, and all other revelations for that matter, should be measured. It would not be wrong to argue that, despite his best intentions, Dara not only unduly challenged the limits of syncretism by making such problematic claims but also distorted the theological framework within which the dynamics of interreligious relationship might be understood.

At a maximalist level, Dara tried to create a syncretistic Hindu and Islamic culture to promote greater unity. At a minimalist level, he brought home the point that Hindus and Muslims have grossly misunderstood each other's religion as well as their own. Insofar as Dara's writings try to understand and appreciate the "other," they should be commended. However, in his attempt to create some sort of spiritual culture of harmony, he went too far in constructing an idiosyncratic edifice that was not acceptable to the religious authorities of either tradition. We may hope that the spirit of Dara's efforts will again guide Hindus and Muslims in establishing a sustained dialogue at various levels of discourse. It is a noble quest to embark on a comparative study of Hindu and Islamic texts, but this task would be better served by employing proper methodologies that were absent from Dara's project. Furthermore, in order to create a sustained dialogue between Muslims and Hindus, any form of syncretistic structures and simplified analogies must be avoided.

Dara was keenly interested in and dedicated his life's work to bridging the gap between Hinduism and Islam by establishing textual connections. He tried to reconcile Muslims and Hindus on the basis of what he saw as an essential unity between Islamic and Hindu mystical paths. In this, Dara was perhaps emulating Akbar; in fact, many Hindus saw him as an incarnation (avatar) of Akbar. (37) Inasmuch as Dara's efforts were able to inspire some Hindus and Muslims to broaden their gaze, he was successful. Similarly, despite the fact that his comparative- terminology approach did not go deep enough for a methodologically sound study of Hinduism and Islam, he left a legacy of striving for such a study. Finally, not all Muslims and Hindus would agree on the supposed similarities between the teachings of the Qur'an and the Upanishads, nor do they need to do so in order to promote a spirit of respectful inquiry into the other's religious traditions. However, we may hope that the movement emanating from Dara's efforts, as well as his intent of seeing these two traditions in conversation, may once again generate greater cooperation, good will, and the experience of dialogue among members of these two faiths.

* I would like to acknowledge my debt to the following for their comments and suggestions: Pamela Shellberg, Elizabeth Falconer-Salkeld, Douglas Berger, and Theodore Wright, Jr. I am also grateful to Farah Chen for her help in the preliminary research on Dara Shikuh.

(1) Dara was the great-grandson of the Mughal emperor Akbar (d. 1605) and the eldest son of Shah Jahan (d. 1666) and Mumtaz Mahal (d. 1631), in whose memory Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal at Agra.

(2) Annemarie Schimmel, Islamic Literatures of India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973), pp. 40-41.

(3) I prefer to see Dara's approach as syncretistic rather than as a synthesis, as some have argued while commenting on Dara's attempts to bridge lslam and Hinduism One such well-written work is that of Robert Simon, "Data Shokuh on the Confluence of Two Religions and Cultures,'" Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, vol. 38 (1998), p. 248, wherein Simon argues that Dara's efforts of "synthesizing" may be seen as a "unique experiment within Islam." I disagree with this analysis because, while it is true that Dara's experiment was "unique" and went beyond previous Muslim attempts at exploring Hindu ideas and traditions, it nevertheless was an exercise in syncretism rather than synthesis. It should be noted that synthesis is simply to combine different preexisting ideas to make a new one, syncretism is an attempt to combine ideas that are disparate and may even be contrary to one another (such as the notions of monism and monotheism). Therefore, synthesis can often result in an eventual unity of the combined ideas; the syncretistic grouping of ideas may not enjoy such coherence or aesthetic unity.

(4) Irfan A. Omar, "Khidr in the Islamic Tradition," The Muslim World 83 (July-October, 1993): 289; cf. Martin Lings, Symbol and Archetype: A Study of the Meaning of Existence (Cambridge: Quinta Essentia, 1991), 75.

(5) Tara Chand, "Introduction" to Muhammad Dara Shikuh, Majma' al-baprayn [Farsi], ed. M. Rida Jalali Nayini (Tehran: Nashr-e Nuqra, c. 1955), pp. 52-53.

(6) Tara Chand, "Dara Shikoh and the Upanishads," Islamic Culture, vol. 17 (1943), pp. 397-413; idem, "Aja Experiment in Hindu-Muslim Unity: Dara Shikoh," in M. Waseem, ed. and tr., On Becoming an Indian Muslim: French Essays on Aspects of Syncretism (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003).

(7) Bikramjit Hasrat, Dara Shikuh: Life and Works (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1979), 266. For examples ofthis idea in the Qur'an, see 17:15 and 57:25. The belief that every single community on earth has at one time or another received revelation is fundamental to Islam. Qur'an 17:15 refers to the fact that no community will come under the "wrath" of God unless it is found to reject God's message. Since everyone is subject to judgment by God for one's actions, this implies that every community has been sent a messenger (rasul) and has been made aware of God's message. Similarly, Qur'an 57:25-27 speaks of God's "sending down" of "messengers with clear signs" who are bearers of God's revelations and who teach human beings to be steadfast in the way of justice. These verses also mention Noah and Jesus as two such messengers, identifying certain characteristics of their respective missions.

(8) Hasrat, Dara Shikah: Life and Works, pp. 266-267. The reference to Hindus as part of the "people of the Book" has generally been recognized by a number of Muslim scholars ('ulama), and it was not uncommon for Muslim rulers in India from the ninth century onward to consider Hindus as such, at times because it suited their political agenda. As Azami has noted, the 'ulama belonging to the dominant Hanafi madhhab, in the main, recognized Hindus as "protected" citizens (ahl al-dhimma), effectively granting them the status of the ahl-i kitab (Shish M. I. Azami, 'Ahd-i saltanat ke fuqaha Sufiiyah awr dantshwaron ki nazar men Hindu ki haisiyat [New Delhi: Islamic Book Foundation, 1998], pp. 11-19).

(9) In fact, Dara expresses his "disappointment at not finding in these scriptures [the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels] a true solution of the problem of tawhid, finally getting his heart's desire in the Upanishads'" (Muhammad Dara Shikuh, Majma' ul-Bahrain or the Mingling of the Two Oceans, ed. and tr. Mahfuz-ul Haq, repr. [Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1982 (orig., 1929)], p. 12). Haq's translation was published in 2006 (New Delhi: Hope India Publications) with an introduction by Asghar Ali Engineer. Engineer's brief introduction, however, does not address the theological problems underlying Dara's work, which is my main concern in this essay. Cf. Hasrat, Dara Shikuh: Life and Works, p. 267.

(10) Farsi text with English translation is quoted in Hasrat, Dara Shikuh: Life and Works, pp. 266-267.

(11) Marmaduke Pickthall, tr., The Glorious Koran (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1976); translation slightly modified, with emphasis added.

(12) Hasrat, Dara Shikuh: Life and Works, p. 267.

(13) Cf. Qur'an 85:21-22; the tablet is also referred to as the "'mother of the book.'" See "Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur 'ah (Brentwood, MD: Amana Corp., 1991), p. 1630.

(14) Mahmud Ali, Dara Shikuh (Delhi: Maktaba Jamia, 1997). In my research, I have tried to stay within the realm of scholarship that strives for objectivity, nuance, and a possible middle ground, neither elevating Dara to the level of a saint nor condemning him as an apostate. Several works on Dara published in India and Pakistan seem to take sides along these lines respectively.

(15) Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 193.

(16) Dara Shikuh, Majma 'ul-Bahrain, p. 13.

(17) Kalika-Ranjan Qanungo, Dara Shikuh (Calcutta: S. C. Sarkar and Sons, 1952).

(18) M. Mujeeb, The Indian Muslims (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1967; repr.: New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1995), p. 309. Here, Ibn 'Arabi's connection is important in the sense that the Spanish Muslim mystic promoted a view of tawhid known as wahdat al-wujud, which is deemed to be close to the nondualism of Shankara, unlike wahdat al-shuhud (unity of consciousness), which is the position held by most orthodox scholars and many Indian Sufis in later centuries. Data, in his zeal for parity between Hindu and Islamic truths, seems to have chosen wahdat al-wujud as a way to bridge the ontological gap between the notions of divine separating the two religions. See Satish Chandra, Histortography. Religion, and State in Medieval India (New Delhi: HarAnand Publications, 1996), 148. Cf. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from Its Origms to the Present (Al-bany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006), pp. 74-77

(19) Dara Shikuh, Majma' ul-Bahrain, p. 8; cf. Hasrat, Dara Shikuh, p 267.

(20) M. Athar Ali, Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society, and Culture (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 204.

(21) According to Tara Chand, one of the foremost authorities on Dara's thought, the prince, after learning from many sources, seemed to have come to the conclusion that "all religions taught the same truth and therefore knowledge of different religions should help in breaking down the walls of ignorance and bigotry and in promoting feelings of amity and respect among followers of different faiths" ("Introduction,'" to Muhammad Dara Shikuh, Sirr-i Akbar or the Persian Translation of the Upanishads, ed. and tr. Tara Chand and Rida Jalali Naini [Tehran: Chap-e Taban, 1961], p. 49).

(22) Mujeeb, The Indian Muslims, p. 363.

(23) Chand, "Introduction" to Sirr-i Akbar. p. 42.

(24) Fathullah Mujtabai, Aspects of Hindu-Muslim Cultural Relations (New Delhi: National Book Bureau, 1978).

(25) Douglas L. Berger, "The Unlikely Commentator: The Hermeneutic Reception of Sankara's Thought in the Interpretative Scholarship of Dara Shukoh" (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, San Diego, CA, March, 2004).

(26) For a good discussion on the proponents and opponents of wahdat al-wujud, see William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-'Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989).

(27) Daryush Shayegan, "Transcendent Imagination in Sufism and the Vedanta according to the Persian Translation of the Upanishads," in Frank Moraes et al., eds., Science, Philosophy, and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Humayun Kabir's Sixty-Second Birthday (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1968), pp. 253-254.

(28) Chand, "Introduction" to Sirr-i Akbar, p. 49.

(29) Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture, pp. 127-128.

(30) Ahmad suggested many other differences between Hindu and Islamic religious systems. Cf. Chand, "Dara Shikoh and the Upanishads," pp. 378-396; see also Daryush Shayegan, Les relations de l'hindouisme et du soufisme d 'apres le Majma al-Bahrayn de Dara Shokuh (Paris: Editions de la difference, 1979).

(31) Shayegan, "Transcendent Imagination in Sufism," pp. 254-255.

(32) Shayegan, Les relations, pp. 16ff. Here some questions remain unanswered from the Hindu perspective; e.g., were these comparisons fair to the Hindu tradition, and how might they be perceived from the Hindu philosophical perspective?

(33) Dara Shikuh, Majma' ul-Bahrain, pp. 23-24; cf. Ch. Huart and Louis Massignon, "Dara Shikoh's Interview with Baba La'l Das at Lahore," in Waseem, On Becoming an Indian Muslim, pp. 106-130 (originally published as "Les Entretiens de Lahore," Journal Asiatique, vol. 2 [1926], p. 285).

(34) Despite the accusations, Hallaj's supporters, which included many famous Muslim mystics and teachers from later centuries and even today, argue that Hallaj was not claiming a divine status but was simply overwhelmed by the divine presence that he experienced while in a trancelike state. He believed in a total surrender in which no duality existed, and in this he may have gone beyond the acceptable form of religious rite to reach the divine. See Louis Massignon, "Perspective Transhistorique sur la vie de Hallaj," in his Parole donnee (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1983 [orig., Dossiers des "Lettres Nouvelles" (Paris: Julliard, 1962)]), p. 76.

(35) "He was killed on the charge of being a heretic but is remembered for his desire for oneness with God (Herbert Mason, Memoir of a Friend: Louis Massignon [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983], p. 25).

(36) Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture, p. 196.

(37) Ali, Dara Shikuh, p. 184.

Irfan A Omar (Muslim) has been an assistant professor in the Theology Dept. at Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, since 2002. He has been a visiting lecturer at Goethe Universitat in Frankfurt (Summer, 2007); a Fulbright lecturer at Muhammadiyah University, Malang, Indonesia (Spring, 2006); and a visiting lecturer at Boston University's Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs (Summer, 2005). He has been an adjunct professor at St. Francis (WI) Seminary; The College of New Jersey, Ewing, N J; and Temple and St. Joseph's universities in Philadelphia. He holds a B.A. from the University of Delhi; M.A's from Unification Theological Seminary (Barrytown, NY), Hartford (CT) Seminary, and Temple University. His Ph.D. (2001) is from Temple. He edited Islam and Other Religions ... in Honor of Mahmoud Ayoub (Routledge, 2006) and A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue by Mahmoud Ayoub (Orbis, 2007). He co-edited (with Bradford Hinze) Heirs of Abraham: The Future of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Relations (Orbis, 2005; a Portuguese translation was published by Paulus in 2007). His co-edited book (with Richard Taylor), The Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Heritage, is in press at Marquette University Press. He was guest editor of a special issue of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations (2004) on "Islam in Dialogue." He has written chapters for eight books (five more are in press) and published many journal articles, review essays, reviews, and encyclopedia articles, as well as presenting professional papers and lectures throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. Since 2004 he has been an associate editor of J.E.S., which published his "Islam and the Other: The Ideal Vision of M. W. Khan" in 1999.