He went on to explain how, in the barbaric social conditions prevailing in Arabia before the Prophet's advent, what he preached and achieved was nothing short of revolutionary. The injunction about four wives must have brought forth howls of protest from Bedouin tribesmen who had never known any restrictions in their free-for-all society. And this, too, was qualified with strict stipulations about the circumstances under which a man could take more than one spouse. The other instructions about how women were to be treated, too, would have seemed unacceptably radical.

Yet, almost a millennium and a half after the Prophet's teachings were penned in the Holy Quran, the manner in which they are being interpreted raises serious questions about their relevance to the contemporaryworld. This is a problem peculiar not only to Islam.

Take, for example, the controversy over how food is to be served in the Sikh `langars'. The Gurus may have laid down certain rules of conduct, dress and appearance that were relevant to a band of soldiers expected to lead ascetic lives. But those conditions have changed. What was revolutionary or radical in a situation centuries ago may not be as relevant today. To interpret literally and enforce today injunctions given in different circumstances and in a different age will inevitably lead to conflicts and dissent.

Christianity faced this problem in the 15th century, and the result was Reformation. The Church was split into two, much to the anguish of the Papal order, but it gave those who did not agree with the orthodox viewpoint another option while still accepting the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ. Had Martin Luther established an entirely new faith, they might have all gone out of the Christian fold. Presenting them with an alternativewithin the old religion strengthened Christianity.

In religious orders founded at a particular time and in response to specific circumstances, a periodic review of the original rituals and precepts, all documented in a particular book, may be inescapable. What the prophets of different religions taught about basic morality remains valid for all times. But certain rules enunciated about social relations and religious practices need to be reviewed. At least those who differ should be given the option to dissent and yet remain within the fold, as long as they accept the fundamental moral tenets.

In this respect, Hinduism is very well placed. This religion never did have any one book or one prophet who laid down the law at any one time. There is, consequently, so much flexibility in its doctrines that rigid postures by the clergy on any issue will never threaten the following. One can be an idolator or an iconoclast; worship any one of the several gods and in any form; observe rituals according to one'schoice; follow any contemporary guru, or none at all, and yet remain a devout Hindu. Nobody's hackles will be raised by deviant conduct. No fatwa or hukamnama will be issued.

Other religions, because of their spiritual and temporal configuration, cannot allow this kind of flexibility, but some relaxation of rules will be to their advantage. Maybe, every creed needs to go through a Reformation periodically. With the sexual mores that have come into vogue in the last few decades, Christianity seems to be going through another undeclared Reformation. Permissiveness flouts many of the old commandments, yet those who indulge in it are not thrown out of the flock.

Christianity has its sub-sects and, but for isolated aberrations in places like Ireland, today they all coexist in harmony. That is a situation that every religious order should aspire for. Intolerance and rigidity is baggage of the past which is best not carried into the new millennium.