Short answer
No. The Qur'an teaches that every soul is God's (﷾) servant, and none is God. The Upanishads, the Hindu scriptures about the soul and God (﷾), can be read both ways. Hinduism's greatest teachers split over them. In one Upanishad a father tells his son, "thou, O Svetaketu, art it". Shankara read this as identity: your true self is Brahman, the Supreme Being. Ramanuja said the words speak of a Brahman marked by difference. Madhva split the words to read "thou art not that". He called those who say the Vedas teach monism "blasphemers of the Supreme Self". So one line is read three ways, and each reading rules out the others. The texts do not settle it, but the Qur'an does. Every being in the heavens and the earth comes to God (﷾) as a servant. God (﷾) is One, nothing is like Him, and we are the ones in need of Him.
Full explanation
The Hindu case: "I am Brahman"
Some Hindus hold that the soul is God. They quote the shruti, the scriptures that Hindus hold to be revealed. Among them are the Upanishads, which teach about the soul and God (﷾). The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that in the beginning Brahman, the one supreme Being, knew itself, saying "I am Brahman" (aham brahmasmi). Whoever knows that he is Brahman "becomes all this". It adds that a man who worships another deity, "thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know". In the Chandogya Upanishad a father teaches his son again and again: "It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it" (tat tvam asi). Another passage of the same Upanishad says of the self within the heart, "he, my self within the heart, is that Brahman".
“Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vâmadeva saw and understood it, singing, 'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self. Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas.”
“'Now that which is that subtile essence (the root of all), in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.”
“He from whom all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes proceed, who embraces all this, who never speaks and who is never surprised, he, my self within the heart, is that Brahman (n.) When I shall have departed from hence, I shall obtain him (that Self).”
Shankara: the self is Brahman
Shankara, a teacher who lived about the eighth century, taught Advaita (non-dualism, or monism: the view that only Brahman is real). He reads these lines as identity. For him "Thou art that" shows that Brahman is the Self of all. He writes that "unity is the one true existence while manifoldness is evolved out of wrong knowledge". On this reading, the difference between the worshipper and the One he worships belongs to that wrong knowledge.
“Scriptural passages also (such as, 'When the Self only is all this, how should he see another?' Bri. Up. II, 4, 13) declare that for him who sees that everything has its Self in Brahman the whole phenomenal world with its actions, agents, and results of actions is non-existent. Nor can it be said that this non-existence of the phenomenal world is declared (by Scripture) to be limited to certain states; for the passage 'Thou art that' shows that the general fact of Brahman being the Self of all is not limited by any particular state. Moreover, Scripture, showing by the instance of the thief (Kh. VI, 16) that the false-minded is bound while the true-minded is released, declares thereby that unity is the one true existence while manifoldness is evolved out of wrong knowledge.”
Ramanuja: a Brahman marked by difference
Ramanuja, a teacher of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, taught the Sri Vaishnavas, who worship Vishnu. He rejects that reading. He opens his answer to the Advaita view by saying that the whole theory "rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments". On "Thou art that", he says the words "denote a Brahman distinguished by difference". Souls and matter are the Lord's body, and He is their inner Self. Absolute oneness, he argues, would clash with the same chapter's "It thought, may I be many". It would also make Brahman, who is "free from all imperfections", the seat of ignorance.
“This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have no insight into the nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them, and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge.”
“In texts, again, such as 'Thou art that,' the co-ordination of the constituent parts is not meant to convey the idea of the absolute unity of a non-differenced substance: on the contrary, the words 'that' and 'thou' denote a Brahman distinguished by difference.”
“Hence such words as 'I,' 'thou,' &c., which are different forms of appellation of the individual soul, at bottom denote the highest Self only; for the individual souls together with non-sentient matter are the body—and hence modes—of the highest Self. This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination 'Thou art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest Self, not any more than infancy, youth, and other attributes of the material body touch the individual soul.”
“If the text 'Thou art that' were meant to express absolute oneness, it would, moreover, conflict with a previous statement in the same section, viz. 'It thought, may I be many'; and, further, the promise (also made in the same section) that by the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known could not be considered as fulfilled. It, moreover, is not possible (while, however, it would result from the absolute oneness of 'tat' and 'tvam') that to Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, which is free from all imperfections, omniscient, comprising within itself all auspicious qualities, there should belong Nescience; and that it should be the substrate of all those defects and afflictions which spring from Nescience.”
Madhva: "thou art not that"
Madhva, a teacher of the thirteenth century, founded Dvaita (dualism: the soul and God (﷾) are eternally different). He goes further. His translator, Srisa Chandra Vasu, explains the method. Madhva divides sa atma tat tvam asi as sa atma atat tvam asi, which means "thou art not that". Vasu granted that grammatically "Both are valid". But in a note he called the split "text torturing", and said it was made long before Madhva. The Bhagavatas, an older school of Vishnu worshippers, had made it. Madhva's commentary names the Asuras, who are rivals of the gods in Hindu stories. It says they were the ones who thought "I am Brahman" and said "the world is false". It calls those who say the Vedas teach unity and monism "blasphemers of the Supreme Self" who "go to the utter darkness". Its reason is plain: all creatures have Him as their Root, so they cannot be identical with Him. A fourteenth-century survey of the Hindu schools reports the same verdict. Some, it says, call the Lord's supreme excellence a mirage in their thirst to be one with Him. They must enter "the hell of blind darkness".
“The phrase Sa âtmâ tat tvam asi is to be analysed as (1) Sa (2) Âtmâ (3) Atat (4) Tvam (5) Asi; and not as (1) Sa (2) Âtmâ (3) Tat (4) Tvam (5) Asi. It means "thou art not that," and not "thou art that."”
“But Srî Madhva is not responsible for this text torturing. Long before him, the Bhâgavatas had attained this feat.”
“In reality verily thou art not that (God) O Śvetaketu, so be thou not conceited and proud. The Asuras became conceited, thinking in their heart "I am Brahman," they say "the world is false, I am a perfect being, I am almighty."”
“Without knowing the real truth about scriptures, they say that the Vedas teach unity and monism. They go to the utter darkness these blasphemers of the Supreme Self”
“When thou shalt not entertain the notion of being one with Viṣṇu, thou shalt never be conceited and proud. Verily all creation is founded in Him, and all must be devoted to Him, as devotion to Him leads to Release. Since of all the creatures He is the Root, how can they be identical with Him—(the effect is different from the cause).”
“Thus the statement of those (Advaita-vádins) in their thirst to be one with the Supreme Lord, that the supreme excellence of Vishṇu is like a mirage, is as if they were to cut off their tongues in trying to get a fine plantain, since it results that through offending this supreme Vishṇu they must enter into the hell of blind darkness (andha-tamasa).”
The dualist case: "the other lord"
Ramanuja and Madhva can also quote the shruti. The Mundaka Upanishad pictures two birds on one tree: one eats the sweet fruit, and the other looks on. On that tree man sits grieving, "bewildered by his own impotence". But when he sees "the other lord" and knows his glory, his grief passes away. The Svetasvatara speaks of two, "one strong, the other weak": the Lord who knows, and the self who does not. The self, "not being a lord, is bound", until "he has known the god". Yet the same verse of the Svetasvatara ends, "When a man finds out these three, that is Brahma". And the next verse of the Mundaka says the seer "reaches the highest oneness". Each school reads its rivals' favourite lines in the light of its own.
“Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating. On the same tree man sits grieving, immersed, bewildered by his own impotence (an-îsâ). But when he sees the other lord (îsa) contented and knows his glory, then his grief passes away. When the seer sees the brilliant maker and lord (of the world) as the Person who has his source in Brahman, then he is wise, and shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness, free from passions;”
“The Lord (îsa) supports all this together, the perishable and the imperishable, the developed and the undeveloped. The (living) self, not being a lord, is bound, because he has to enjoy (the fruits of works); but when he has known the god (deva), he is freed from all fetters. There are two, one knowing (îsvara), the other not-knowing (gîva), both unborn, one strong, the other weak; there is she, the unborn, through whom each man receives the recompense of his works; and there is the infinite Self (appearing) under all forms, but himself inactive. When a man finds out these three, that is Brahma.”
Is everything God (﷾)?
Many Hindus go one step further and say that everything is God. The Chandogya says "All this is Brahman" (sarvam khalv idam brahma). It asks a man to meditate on the visible world as beginning, ending and breathing in Brahman. Other lines can be read as speaking of the Lord and the world as two. In its opening words, the Isa Upanishad says all that exists "should be covered by the Lord" (isa vasyam idam sarvam). Yet the same Upanishad goes on to praise the man "who perceives all beings as the Self". The Qur'an settles what these lines leave open. All things in the heavens and the earth belong to Allah (﷾), and He encompasses them all. But He is their Owner and Maker, not the things themselves. The Prophet (ﷺ) said that Allah (﷾) was, and there was nothing other than Him; then He created the heavens and the earth.
“All this is Brahman (n.) Let a man meditate on that (visible world) as beginning, ending, and breathing in it (the Brahman).”
“All this, whatsoever exists in the universe, should be covered by the Lord. Having renounced (the unreal), enjoy (the Real). Do not covet the wealth of any man.”
“He who perceives all beings as the Self for him how can there be delusion or grief, when he sees this oneness (everywhere)?”
“But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things.”
Imran ibn Husayn reports that people from Yemen told the Prophet (ﷺ) they had come to ask him about this matter. He said: Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him. His Throne was over the water, He wrote everything in the Record, and He created the heavens and the earth.
“(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).”
Why the texts do not settle it
Three great teachers read the same Upanishads and reached three answers. The question is the most basic a person can ask: am I God (﷾), or God's (﷾) servant? The Upanishads have lines for oneness and lines for two, and each school reads the rest in the light of its own. Each reading rules out the others. Ramanuja calls the Advaita theory "hollow and vicious", and says its authors' intellects are "darkened". Madhva calls the monists "blasphemers" who "go to the utter darkness". The Katha Upanishad says the Self "cannot be attained by argument" and is known "only when taught by another". But the teachers themselves disagree. Swami Vivekananda was a Hindu monk of the nineteenth century. He offered a way out: the Advaitist "has no quarrel with the dualist", who "is on the right road". Yet in the same lecture he grants that the dualist thinks Advaita "blasphemy". The dualist, he says, is "forced by his very point of view to believe that all opposing views are wrong". His way out is Advaita's own verdict, which the dualist schools reject. The Upanishads themselves do not settle the question.
“Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating. On the same tree man sits grieving, immersed, bewildered by his own impotence (an-îsâ). But when he sees the other lord (îsa) contented and knows his glory, then his grief passes away. When the seer sees the brilliant maker and lord (of the world) as the Person who has his source in Brahman, then he is wise, and shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness, free from passions;”
“The Lord (îsa) supports all this together, the perishable and the imperishable, the developed and the undeveloped. The (living) self, not being a lord, is bound, because he has to enjoy (the fruits of works); but when he has known the god (deva), he is freed from all fetters. There are two, one knowing (îsvara), the other not-knowing (gîva), both unborn, one strong, the other weak; there is she, the unborn, through whom each man receives the recompense of his works; and there is the infinite Self (appearing) under all forms, but himself inactive. When a man finds out these three, that is Brahma.”
“When taught by a man of inferior understanding, this Atman cannot be truly known, even though frequently thought upon. There is no way (to know It) unless it is taught by another (an illumined teacher), for it is subtler than the subtle and beyond argument. O Dearest, this Atman cannot be attained by argument; It is truly known only when taught by another (a wise teacher). O Nachiketas, thou hast attained It. Thou art fixed in Truth. May we ever, find a questioner like thee.”
“But with these dualists, Advaita has no quarrel. The one thinks the God of the universe is outside the universe, somewhere in heaven, and the other that the God of the universe is his own soul, and that it would be a blasphemy to call Him anything more distant. Any idea of separation would be terrible. We can only be the nearest of the near. There are not words in any language to express this nearness, except this one word—Oneness. With any other idea the Advaitist is frightened, just as the dualist is frightened with the concept of the Advaita, and thinks it blasphemy. At the same time the Advaitist knows why these other ideas must be and so has no quarrel with the dualist; the latter is on the right road. From his standpoint, as soon as he looks from the part, he will have to see many. Any view of God looked at from a part of this universe can only be that projecting outside. It is the constitutional necessity of the dualistic standpoint. Let them have it. The Advaitist knows that whatever may be their defects or mistakes, they are all going to the same goal. There he differs entirely from the dualist, who is forced by his very point of view to believe that all opposing views are wrong.”
“Without knowing the real truth about scriptures, they say that the Vedas teach unity and monism. They go to the utter darkness these blasphemers of the Supreme Self”
“This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have no insight into the nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them, and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge.”
The Qur'an: every soul a servant, and none is God
The Qur'an leaves no room for doubt. Every being in the heavens and the earth comes to God (﷾) as a servant. God (﷾) is One: He begets not, nor is He begotten, and none is like Him. Nothing whatever is like Him. We are the ones in need of Allah (﷾), and He is free of all wants. People and jinn were created to serve Him. Even the Prophet (ﷺ), the best of creation in Muslim belief, asked to be called only "the servant of Allah and His Messenger". In a hadith qudsi (a saying in which the Prophet (ﷺ) reports God's (﷾) own words), God (﷾) calls all people "My servants". They go astray unless He guides them, and they sin by night and day. A self that must be guided and forgiven is not the God (﷾) who guides and forgives.
“Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.”
“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”
“(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).”
“O ye men! It is ye that have need of Allah: but Allah is the One Free of all wants, worthy of all praise.”
“I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.”
Umar reports that he heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say: do not over-praise me as the Christians over-praised the son of Mary; I am only a servant, so call me the servant of Allah and His Messenger.
Abu Dharr reports the Prophet (ﷺ) saying that Allah says: My servants, I have forbidden injustice to Myself and made it forbidden among you, so do not wrong one another; all of you are astray except those I guide, so ask Me for guidance; you sin by night and day and I forgive all sins, so ask Me for forgiveness. A hadith qudsi: the meaning is given as Allah's, in the Prophet's words.
"I am the Truth": a famous Sufi saying, and how Muslims judged it
The most famous case in Islam of a man who seemed to say he was God is al-Hallaj, a Sufi (a Muslim mystic). He is reported to have cried ana al-Haqq, which means I am the Truth. Al-Haqq, the Truth or the Reality, is a name of God (﷾). Al-Hujwiri, a Sufi writer of the eleventh century, loved him. He reports that the Sufi masters themselves were divided about the man. Some accepted him, some rejected him, and others, among them Junayd and Shibli (two famous early Sufis), suspended judgement. He also reports that "Some orthodox theologians reject him on the ground that his sayings are pantheistic". Pantheistic here means that they make God and the world one. Al-Hujwiri defended his meaning, saying the fault lay in the expression. Yet he wrote that al-Hallaj's sayings "should not be taken as a model", and that his experiences were "largely mingled with error". A sect claimed to take a doctrine of incarnation from him. Al-Hujwiri answered that al-Hallaj's own writings contain "nothing but profound theosophy". He counted that sect among the heretics. Anyone whose doctrine conflicts with the oneness of God (﷾), he wrote, "has no part in religion at all". Al-Ghazali was a Muslim scholar who died in 1111. He explained such cries as words spoken in a drunkenness in which reason was lost. Such words, he said, are to be "hidden away and not spoken of". When sober, he says, such men knew it "had not been actual identity". Al-Ghazali does say that these mystics "saw nought existent there save the One Real". He explains what he means. Everything has "an aspect to itself and an aspect to its Lord". In itself it is not-being, and it has being only from its Lord. That makes the creature wholly dependent on God (﷾); it does not make it God. He draws the line himself: "there is a difference between saying, 'The wine is the wine-glass,' and saying, ''tis as though it were the wine-glass.'" "Identity", he adds, is the language of metaphor; in the language of reality the state is "Unification". His Arabic word there is tawhid, the word for affirming that God (﷾) is One. So in Islam the words were either rejected, or excused as not meaning identity. Neither his critics nor his defenders made the idea that the worshipper is God a teaching of Islam.
“They became drunken with a drunkenness wherein the sway of their own intelligence disappeared; so that one exclaimed, "I am The One Real!" and another, "Glory be to Me! How great is My glory!"”
“Then when that drunkenness abated and they came again under the sway of the intelligence, which is Allāh's balance-scale upon earth, they knew that that had not been actual identity, but only something resembling Identity”
“These gnostics, on their return from their Ascent into the heaven of Reality, confess with one voice that they saw nought existent there save the One Real.”
“For everything has two aspects, an aspect to itself and an aspect to its Lord: in respect of the first, it is Not-being; but in respect of the God-aspect, it is Being.”
“there is a difference between saying, "The wine is the wine-glass," and saying, "'tis as though it were the wine-glass." Now, when this state prevails it is called in relation to him who experiences it, Extinction, nay, Extinction of Extinction, for the soul has become extinct to itself, extinct to its own extinction; for it becomes unconscious of itself and unconscious of its own unconsciousness, since, were it conscious of its own unconsciousness, it would be conscious of itself. In relation to the man immersed in this state, the state is called, in the language of metaphor, "Identity"; in the language of reality, "Unification."”
“In conclusion, you must know that the sayings of al-Ḥalláj should not be taken as a model, inasmuch as he was an ecstatic (maghlúb andar ḥál-i khud), not firmly settled (mutamakkin), and a man needs to be firmly settled before his sayings can be considered authoritative. Therefore, although he is dear to my heart, yet his "path" is not soundly established on any principle, and his state is not fixed in any position, and his experiences are largely mingled with error.”
“The other sect refer their doctrine to Fáris, who pretends to have derived it from Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj), but he is the only one of Ḥusayn's followers who holds such tenets. I saw Abú Ja'far Ṣaydalání with four thousand men, dispersed throughout 'Iráq, who were Ḥallájís; and they all cursed Fáris on account of this doctrine. Moreover, in the compositions of al-Ḥalláj himself there is nothing but profound theosophy.”
“I, 'Alí b. 'Uthmán al-Jullábí, say that I do not know who Fáris and Abú Ḥulmán were or what they said, but anyone who holds a doctrine conflicting with Unification and true theosophy has no part in religion at all.”
Records that the Sufi Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj was executed in 922 CE, in the caliphate of al-Muqtadir.
“That is because Allah - He is the Reality; and those besides Him whom they invoke,- they are but vain Falsehood: verily Allah is He, Most High, Most Great.”
The replies, answered
Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 — chapter 6, section 8, verse 7
“'Now that which is that subtile essence (the root of all), in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.”
Cited for
Tat tvam asi: the Self in you is the one Being. Shankara teaches that "Thou art that" shows Brahman to be the Self of all, and that manifoldness comes from wrong knowledge. The Brihadaranyaka even says that a man who worships another deity, "thinking the deity is one and he another", does not know.
The response
The Upanishads do say this, and this page quotes them. But Hinduism's own great teachers deny that this is what they mean. Ramanuja says the words "denote a Brahman distinguished by difference". He adds that oneness would make the perfect Brahman the seat of ignorance. Madhva reads "thou art not that", and calls the monists "blasphemers of the Supreme Self". Ramanuja's point also answers the claim itself. The self that must be taught who it is, that forgets and errs, is not the God (﷾) "free from all imperfections". The Advaitin answers that the forgetting belongs to the individual, not to Brahman; the next reply takes that up. The Qur'an says the plain opposite of the Brihadaranyaka's line. Worship is the servant's turning to Another: "Thee do we worship". Every being "must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant".
Where it lands — Hinduism's own teachers reject Shankara's reading. The Qur'an keeps the worshipper and the Worshipped apart, and calls every soul a servant.
Shankara, commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.1.2, on intuition — Sacred Books of the East 34, pp. 17-18
“Scriptural text, &c., are not, in the enquiry into Brahman, the only means of knowledge, as they are in the enquiry into active duty (i. e. in the Pûrva Mîmâmsâ), but scriptural texts on the one hand, and intuition, &c., on the other hand, are to be had recourse to according to the occasion: firstly, because intuition is the final result of the enquiry into Brahman; secondly, because the object of the enquiry is an existing (accomplished) substance.”
Cited for
Advaita is not a doctrine to be won by debate: it is realised. Shankara says intuition is "the final result of the enquiry into Brahman", and the sages who reached it report the same oneness. Nor does Advaita say that the person who prays and errs is God. In daily life (vyavaharika) the soul worships the Lord as His devotee. Only at the highest level (paramarthika) is the Self Brahman. So "servant" and "Brahman" are both true, at different levels.
The response
Shankara makes intuition the result, but he makes the texts the means. He writes that "the comprehension of Brahman is effected by the ascertainment, consequent on discussion, of the sense of the Vedânta-texts". So the experience grows out of a reading of the texts, and that reading is what is in dispute. Every school also claims experience. The Mundaka describes release as the moment a man "sees the other lord" and knows his glory. Some Muslim mystics had moments when they felt they were one with God (﷾). Al-Ghazali says that when the state passed, "they knew that that had not been actual identity". A private state cannot decide between readings that each claim it. As for the two levels, Advaita grants that the one who prays, errs and needs forgiveness is not Brahman. The Qur'an makes that servant the lasting truth, not a lower level. On the Day of Judgment "everyone of them will come to Him singly". In Paradise itself their cry is "Glory to Thee, O Allah!" The servant never becomes the Lord.
Where it lands — Shankara makes the texts the means of knowing Brahman, so experience cannot bypass the dispute over them. In the Qur'an the servant stays a servant, even in Paradise.
Qur'an 3:7 — Surat Al 'Imran (The Family of Imraan), verse 7
“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.”
Cited for
Muslims differ too. Their scholars have argued about God's attributes and about how to read the Qur'an, which itself admits that some of its verses are allegorical. If disagreement among teachers shows that Hindu scripture is unclear, it shows the same of the Qur'an.
The response
This page does not say that any disagreement disproves a scripture. It says that on this one question, am I God (﷾) or God's (﷾) servant, Hinduism's greatest teachers give opposite answers from the same lines. Ramanuja and Madhva each condemn the Advaita reading, and Madhva speaks of blasphemy and darkness. Muslim scholars have differed about how to speak of the one God (﷾) they all serve. The very verse cited says the "basic or fundamental" verses "are the foundation of the Book". Who is God and who is servant is stated in exactly such verses. "He begetteth not, nor is He begotten", and every being comes to Him "as a servant". Some sects did teach that God (﷾) dwells in men. The Qur'an rejects it: "They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.'" Ibn Kathir records that the scholars reject any indwelling or union by consensus. Al-Hujwiri said that anyone who holds such a doctrine has "no part in religion at all".
Where it lands — Muslims differ on details about the one God (﷾). On whether the soul is God, the Qur'an's foundational verses answer, and the Muslim scholars reject any indwelling of God (﷾) in man.
Swami Vivekananda, "The Absolute and Manifestation", Jnana Yoga, 1902 — pp. 120-121
“But with these dualists, Advaita has no quarrel. The one thinks the God of the universe is outside the universe, somewhere in heaven, and the other that the God of the universe is his own soul, and that it would be a blasphemy to call Him anything more distant. Any idea of separation would be terrible. We can only be the nearest of the near. There are not words in any language to express this nearness, except this one word—Oneness. With any other idea the Advaitist is frightened, just as the dualist is frightened with the concept of the Advaita, and thinks it blasphemy. At the same time the Advaitist knows why these other ideas must be and so has no quarrel with the dualist; the latter is on the right road. From his standpoint, as soon as he looks from the part, he will have to see many. Any view of God looked at from a part of this universe can only be that projecting outside. It is the constitutional necessity of the dualistic standpoint. Let them have it. The Advaitist knows that whatever may be their defects or mistakes, they are all going to the same goal. There he differs entirely from the dualist, who is forced by his very point of view to believe that all opposing views are wrong.”
Cited for
Dualism, qualified non-dualism and non-dualism are stages of one realisation. As Vivekananda said, the Advaitist "has no quarrel with the dualist", who "is on the right road". The schools are like the blind men who each touch one part of the same elephant.
The response
"Stages" is Advaita's own view: the dualist is on the right road to the Advaitist's goal. The dualist schools do not accept being a lower step. Vivekananda himself grants that the dualist thinks Advaita "blasphemy". The dualist, he says, is "forced by his very point of view to believe that all opposing views are wrong". Madhva calls the monists "blasphemers", and Ramanuja calls their theory "hollow and vicious". So "stages" does not end the dispute; it takes a side in it. Views can differ in emphasis, but "the soul is God" and "the soul is not God" cannot both be true. The elephant parable also needs someone who sees the whole elephant. If no one does, no one can know that the blind men touch the same beast. If someone does, that is what a revelation claims to be. The Qur'an claims to be it, and it says every being comes to God (﷾) "as a servant".
Where it lands — "Stages" is one school's verdict, which the others reject. A yes-or-no question needs one answer, and the Qur'an gives it.
Katha Upanishad 1.2.8-9 — chapter 1, section 2, verses 8-9 (part 2, verses 8-9 in the on-site translation)
“When taught by a man of inferior understanding, this Atman cannot be truly known, even though frequently thought upon. There is no way (to know It) unless it is taught by another (an illumined teacher), for it is subtler than the subtle and beyond argument. O Dearest, this Atman cannot be attained by argument; It is truly known only when taught by another (a wise teacher). O Nachiketas, thou hast attained It. Thou art fixed in Truth. May we ever, find a questioner like thee.”
Cited for
The Upanishad itself says the Self "cannot be attained by argument" and is known "only when taught by another". Each tradition hands down its reading through its own line of teachers, fitted to the pupil. So the right reading is the one your guru gives.
The response
Then the teacher decides, not the scripture, which is the point of this page. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva each head a line of teachers, and those lines give opposite answers to this very question. A seeker cannot test the gurus by the scripture if only a guru can read the scripture. The Qur'an warns against taking religious teachers as lords besides God (﷾). It says it is made "easy to understand and remember", and it gives its answer in a short surah that children recite. The Katha is right that people need guidance. In the hadith qudsi, God (﷾) says that all are astray except those He guides. But the one who needs guiding is the servant, not the Guide.
Where it lands — If the answer depends on the guru, the scripture does not settle it. The Qur'an states it for everyone, and asks no one to take a teacher as lord.
al-Ghazali, Mishkat al-Anwar (The Niche for Lights), on the sayings of the ecstatics — Gairdner 1924, p. 106
“They became drunken with a drunkenness wherein the sway of their own intelligence disappeared; so that one exclaimed, "I am The One Real!" and another, "Glory be to Me! How great is My glory!"”
Cited for
Islam's own mystics said the same. The Sufi al-Hallaj cried "I am the Truth" (ana al-Haqq), and al-Haqq is a name of God. Another cried "Glory be to Me!" At its height, Islamic mysticism also knows that the soul is God.
The response
Al-Hallaj is reported to have said it, and al-Haqq is a name of God (﷾): "Allah - He is the Reality". But see how Muslim scholars judged the words. Al-Hujwiri reports that "Some orthodox theologians reject him on the ground that his sayings are pantheistic". Al-Hujwiri loved him and defended his meaning. Yet he said his sayings "should not be taken as a model", and that his experiences were "largely mingled with error". When a sect claimed al-Hallaj had taught incarnation, al-Hujwiri denied it. He said that anyone whose doctrine conflicts with the oneness of God (﷾) "has no part in religion at all". Al-Ghazali, who quotes the cry, calls it the word of men whose reason had left them in a kind of drunkenness. Such words, he says, must be hidden. Once sober, the speakers "knew that that had not been actual identity". So in Islam the words were rejected, or excused as not meaning identity. Neither his critics nor his defenders made them a teaching of Islam. The Qur'an itself says, "They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.'" Christ was among the greatest of the prophets, and still no creature may be called God. In the Upanishads, "I am Brahman" is scripture, and the heart of a major school's teaching.
Where it lands — In Islam, "I am the Truth" was rejected or excused as not meaning identity. In the Upanishads, "I am Brahman" is scripture.
R. A. Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, 1914 — p. 93 (the Prophet and the monists)
“But the Prophet was a strict monotheist, while the Sūfīs, whatever they may pretend or imagine, are theosophists, pantheists, or monists. When they speak and write as believers in the dogmas of positive religion, they use language which cannot be reconciled with such a theory of unity as we are now examining. 'Afīfuddīn al-Tilimsānī, from whose commentary on Niffarī I have given some extracts in this chapter, said roundly that the whole Koran is polytheism—a perfectly just statement from the monistic point of view, though few Sūfīs have dared to be so explicit.”
Cited for
Islam's mystics reached Advaita too. Ibn Arabi, the greatest of them, is famed for the doctrine called the oneness of being (wahdat al-wujud). The Western scholar R. A. Nicholson wrote that the Sufis are "theosophists, pantheists, or monists". So Islam has its own Advaita.
The response
Many Sufis did speak as monists, and Nicholson says so. But in the same sentence he writes that "the Prophet was a strict monotheist". He also says that "only by a tour de force can the Koran be brought into line with" the Sufis' esoteric doctrine. One monist Sufi, he reports, "said roundly that the whole Koran is polytheism". Nicholson calls that just "from the monistic point of view". So the monist himself admits that the Qur'an is against him. Islam is measured by the Qur'an and the Prophet (ﷺ), not by any mystic. Nicholson grants that in later Sufi theory, Ibn Arabi's included, the line between God (﷾) and man melted away. Even so, in his account Ibn Arabi held that man "is not entitled to say Ana 'l-Haqq, 'I am God.'" "He is a reality, but not the Reality." He also says that holding the divine and human natures "interfused and commingled" would deny "the principle of unity on which Islam is based". In Hinduism, "I am Brahman" is in the shruti itself.
Where it lands — Where Sufi monism existed, it stood against the Qur'an, as one monist Sufi himself admitted. In the Upanishads, "I am Brahman" is scripture.
Qur'an 50:16 — Surat Qaf (The letter Qaaf), verse 16
“It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.”
Cited for
The Qur'an itself is non-dual. God says, "We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." He is "the First and the Last, the Evident and the Immanent". What is nearer to me than my own vein is my own Self. This is Advaita in Arabic.
The response
Read the verse whole. It begins, "It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him". The One who is near is the Maker who knows, and the one He knows is the man He made. The next verses speak of two guardian angels who note his deeds and words. Ibn Kathir reads "We are nearer" as God's (﷾) angels. Others read it as God's (﷾) knowledge, he adds, to avoid any idea of God (﷾) dwelling in man or uniting with him. Both ideas, he says, are rejected by the consensus of the scholars. The verse on "the Immanent" ends, "and He has full knowledge of all things". The Prophet (ﷺ) taught a bedtime prayer that uses the same names: the Hidden, with nothing beyond Him. That prayer is spoken by a servant to his Lord. In the Qur'an, nearness is the nearness of the Creator who knows. It is not the knower and the known becoming one.
Where it lands — In the Qur'an God is near by His knowledge and power, in a verse that begins "It was We Who created man". Muslims agree in rejecting any union of God (﷾) and man.
Ramanuja, commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.1.13 — Sacred Books of the East 48, pp. 228-229
“Hence such words as 'I,' 'thou,' &c., which are different forms of appellation of the individual soul, at bottom denote the highest Self only; for the individual souls together with non-sentient matter are the body—and hence modes—of the highest Self. This entire view is condensed in the co-ordination 'Thou art that.' The individual soul being thus connected with the highest Self as its body, its attributes do not touch the highest Self, not any more than infancy, youth, and other attributes of the material body touch the individual soul.”
Cited for
Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism holds both truths. The soul is real and distinct, and yet Brahman is its inner Self, with souls and matter as His body. "Thou art that" names the Lord who has you as His body. Oneness and difference are both kept, and the dispute is over.
The response
Ramanuja does claim to reconcile the texts of oneness and the texts of difference. But every school claims that. Shankara reconciles them by two levels of truth, and Madhva by dividing the words. Three harmonies of the same texts are three answers, not one. And Ramanuja did not offer his as a meeting point between the schools. He opens his answer to Advaita by calling it "a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments". For Shankara, all difference comes from wrong knowledge. So Advaita cannot accept Ramanuja's real difference as the final truth. Madhva's school says "thou art not that": the creature is not identical with its Root. Ramanuja instead says that "I" and "thou" "at bottom denote the highest Self only". A third answer is not a reconciliation; it is a third party to the dispute. And the Qur'an rejects the premise that souls are God's (﷾) body. Nothing whatever is like Him. We are in need of Him, and He is free of all wants. The spirit He gave is created, and is called His only to honour it.
Where it lands — Each school claims to reconcile all the texts, each in its own way. Ramanuja's reading is a third answer, rejected by the other two schools. The Qur'an makes the soul God's (﷾) creature, not His body.
Madhva, commentary on Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, on the Root — Sacred Books of the Hindus 3, p. 415
“When thou shalt not entertain the notion of being one with Viṣṇu, thou shalt never be conceited and proud. Verily all creation is founded in Him, and all must be devoted to Him, as devotion to Him leads to Release. Since of all the creatures He is the Root, how can they be identical with Him—(the effect is different from the cause).”
Cited for
The Vedas, rightly read, already give the Qur'an's answer. Madhva shows that the soul is eternally different from Vishnu, its Root: "how can they be identical with Him". A Hindu need not leave the Vedas to learn that he is God's servant.
The response
On this one point Madhva and the Qur'an agree, and this page says so gladly. But the Upanishads also speak the other way, and Madhva must read those lines in his own way. His answer to "thou art it" comes from dividing tat as atat. His own translator grants that grammatically "Both are valid". Yet he calls the split "text torturing", made by the Bhagavatas before Madhva. The Brihadaranyaka is harder still. Whoever knows that he is Brahman "becomes all this". Whoever worships another deity, "thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know". The Isa praises the man who "perceives all beings as the Self". So the Dvaitin holds that the soul is not God through Madhva's readings, and the Advaitin rejects them. And the God (﷾) Madhva serves is Vishnu, whom Vaishnavas hold was born as Rama and Krishna. The Qur'an's God (﷾) is not born (112:3); the page on Rama and Krishna sets this out. The Qur'an needs no such readings. It says in plain words that every being comes to God (﷾) "as a servant", and "there is none like unto Him".
Where it lands — Madhva agrees with the Qur'an that the soul is not God. But on "thou art it" he gets there by a split that his own translator calls "text torturing". And Madhva's Vishnu is held to be born as Rama and Krishna; the God (﷾) of the Qur'an is not born. The Qur'an says it plainly.
Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1 — chapter 3, section 14, verse 1
“All this is Brahman (n.) Let a man meditate on that (visible world) as beginning, ending, and breathing in it (the Brahman).”
Cited for
"All this is Brahman." The world rises from Brahman, lives in Brahman and returns to Brahman, and the Isa says all is covered by the Lord. God is not far away. Even the Qur'an says, "He is with you wheresoever ye may be."
The response
Islam agrees that God (﷾) is near and encompasses all things. The verse quoted says so. But the same verse says, in the same breath, that He created the heavens and the earth. He is established on the Throne, and He knows what enters the earth and what comes out of it. He is with us as the One who knows and sees all that we do, not by being the things He made. To Allah (﷾) "belong all things", and He "Encompasseth all things": the owner is not what he owns. Some Upanishadic lines can be read as keeping God (﷾) and the world apart: all "should be covered by the Lord". Others erase the difference: "All this is Brahman". The Isa itself goes on to praise the man who "perceives all beings as the Self". The Qur'an keeps the first reading and rejects the second, for "there is nothing whatever like unto Him".
Where it lands — God (﷾) is near and encompasses all things, but He is not the things He made. "All this is Brahman" is the line the Qur'an rejects.
Qur'an 32:9 — Surat al-Sajda (The Prostration), verse 9
“But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!”
Cited for
Your own Qur'an says that God breathed into man "something of His spirit". Elsewhere God says He "breathed into him of My spirit", and tells the angels to bow to him (15:29, 38:72). So there is something divine in every soul, just as the Upanishads say.
The response
The Qur'an calls many created things God's (﷾) own, to honour them. It speaks of "My House", the Kaaba. Ibn Kathir explains "a spirit proceeding from Him" (4:171) in the same way. The spirit is created, and it is called Allah's (﷾) to honour it, as the she-camel and the House are called Allah's (﷾). "From Him" means that it came from Him, not that it is a part of Him. The same holds for "My spirit" in 15:29 and 38:72. The verse before 15:29 says, "I am about to create man, from sounding clay". The angels bowed because God (﷾) commanded it (2:34), and the one they bowed to was a man made of clay. The verse itself shows that the one who received the spirit is a creature. God (﷾) "fashioned him in due proportion", gave him hearing and sight, and then says "little thanks do ye give". The one who owes thanks is a servant.
Where it lands — "His spirit" and "My spirit" name a created spirit called His in honour, like "My House". They do not make the soul divine.
Perspectives
The self is Brahman (Advaita)
Brahman alone is real, and the true self of every being is Brahman. The Upanishads say so in their great sayings: "I am Brahman" and "thou art it". The world of many things, and the difference between worshipper and worshipped, come from wrong knowledge. In the world of practice, worship of the Lord is right and needed, and it prepares the mind for knowledge. Dualism is not wrong so much as a lower step on the road to oneness.
Shankara and the Advaita Vedanta school; Swami Vivekananda
The Brihadaranyaka says Brahman knew itself as "I am Brahman", and that whoever knows he is Brahman becomes all this.
Rebuttal
The Brihadaranyaka does say this. But Ramanuja and Madhva honour the same Upanishads, and neither reads them as teaching that the soul is one with God (﷾) without difference. The Qur'an answers in plain words: every being comes to God (﷾) as a servant.
The Chandogya tells the pupil that the subtle essence of all things is the Self. It says, "thou, O Svetaketu, art it".
Rebuttal
The Chandogya does say "thou, O Svetaketu, art it". But Ramanuja reads the words as naming a Brahman "distinguished by difference", and Madhva divides them to read "thou art not that". A line read three ways cannot show that the soul is God. The Qur'an answers in its foundational verses (3:7): nothing whatever is like Him.
Shankara teaches that "Thou art that" shows Brahman to be the Self of all. Manifoldness, he says, comes from wrong knowledge.
Rebuttal
Shankara does teach this. On his reading, worship belongs to a lower level, and the difference between worshipper and Worshipped comes from wrong knowledge. Ramanuja replies that this would make the perfect Brahman the seat of ignorance. In the Qur'an the servant stays a servant for ever: even in Paradise the cry is "Glory to Thee, O Allah!" (10:10).
Vivekananda taught that Advaita, the teaching that all is one, has no quarrel with the dualist. The dualist is on the right road to the same goal.
Rebuttal
Vivekananda speaks generously, but he also grants that the dualist thinks Advaita "blasphemy". The dualist schools do not accept being called a lower step. So "the right road" is one school's verdict, and a yes-or-no question needs one answer. The Qur'an gives it: every being comes to God (﷾) as a servant.
Brahman marked by difference (Vishishtadvaita)
Brahman is the Lord, all-knowing and free of every imperfection. Souls and matter are real, and they are His body; He is their inner Self. "Thou art that" names one Brahman who has souls for His body, not a bare oneness. The Advaita reading is built on hollow arguments and would make the perfect Brahman the seat of ignorance.
Ramanuja and the Sri Vaishnava tradition
Ramanuja says the words "that" and "thou" point to a Brahman in whom there are real differences. They do not point to one single substance with no differences in it at all.
Rebuttal
Islam agrees with Ramanuja that the soul is really distinct from God (﷾). Islam goes further: the soul is not God's (﷾) body or part. Nothing whatever is like Him, and we are the ones in need of Him.
He argues that absolute oneness would clash with "It thought, may I be many". It would also make Brahman the seat of Nescience.
Rebuttal
Islam agrees that the perfect God (﷾) cannot be the home of ignorance. It goes further: God (﷾) made the soul and is not what He made. He is free of all wants, and people are the ones in need.
He reads "Thou art that" to mean that souls and matter are the body of the highest Self. What is true of that body does not touch Him.
Rebuttal
This is Ramanuja's own reading, and the other two schools do not accept it. The Qur'an does not make creatures God's (﷾) body. Nothing whatever is like Him, and people and jinn were created to serve Him.
He calls the Advaita theory a fictitious foundation of hollow and vicious arguments.
Rebuttal
Islam agrees that the soul is not God, so it does not defend the Advaita theory. But Ramanuja's own answer, that souls are God's (﷾) body, is a third reading, and the other schools reject it. The Qur'an answers in plain verses: every being in the heavens and the earth comes to God (﷾) as a servant.
Thou art not that (Dvaita)
The soul is eternally different from God, Vishnu, who is the Root of all creatures. The Chandogya's line, rightly divided, says "thou art not that". To think oneself one with Vishnu is pride. Those who teach that the Vedas teach monism blaspheme the Supreme Self.
Madhva and the Dvaita Vedanta school
Madhva divides the line as sa atma atat tvam asi, "thou art not that".
Rebuttal
Islam agrees with Madhva that the soul is not God. And Islam goes further, because it does not rest the answer on how a line is divided. It says in plain words that every being comes to God (﷾) as a servant, and that none is like Him. And the God (﷾) it points to is never born, as Vishnu is held to be born in his avatars (112:3).
All creatures have God as their Root, so they cannot be the same as Him. The effect is different from the cause.
Rebuttal
Islam agrees that a creature is not identical with Him who made it. It goes further: God (﷾) did not become what He made. The Prophet (ﷺ) said that Allah (﷾) was, and there was nothing other than Him; then He created the heavens and the earth.
Madhva calls those who say the Vedas teach that all is one blasphemers of the Supreme Self. His school sends them to the hell of blind darkness.
Rebuttal
Islam agrees with Madhva that the soul is not God. But his verdict rests on dividing the saying tat tvam asi, thou art it, in his own way, which the other schools reject. The Qur'an says it in plain verses: every being comes to God (﷾) as a servant, and nothing whatever is like Him.
The Islamic perspective
God (﷾) is One, and nothing is like Him. He created all things and did not become them. Every soul is His creature and servant, in need of Him, while He is free of all needs. The Upanishads' greatest teachers cannot agree whether the soul is God. The Qur'an answers in its foundational verses, which anyone can read.
Every being in the heavens and the earth comes to God (﷾) as a servant.
God (﷾) begets not, nor is He begotten, and nothing whatever is like Him.
People are in need of God (﷾), and He is free of all wants.
God (﷾) encompasses all things and owns them, and He was before them: He is not the things He made.
The three main Vedanta teachers read "Thou art that" in three ways that cannot all be true. Ramanuja and Madhva both condemn the reading that the soul is God.
The Upanishads have lines for oneness and lines for two, so the texts alone do not settle the question.
Al-Hallaj's words seemed to make a man one with God (﷾). Scholars either rejected them, or read them as not meaning that he was God.
The Qur'an and the Muslim scholars reject any idea that God (﷾) lives inside a man. They reject the idea that a man becomes one with God (﷾).