Why a Jew can grow his beard in order to practice his faith
But when Muslim does the same, he is an extremist and terrorist!
Why a nun can be covered from head to toe in order to devote herself to God
But when Muslimah does the same she oppressed
When a western women stays at home to look after her house and kids she is respected because of sacrificing herself and doing good for the household?
But when a Muslim woman does so by her will, they say, "she needs to be liberated"!
Any girl can go to university wearing what she wills and have her rights and freedom?
But when Muslimah wears a Hijab they prevent her from entering her university!
When a child dedicates himself to a subject he has potential.
But when he dedicates himself to Islam he is hopeless!
When a Christian or a Jew kills someone religion is not mentioned, but when Muslim is charged with a crime, it is Islam that goes to trial!
When someone sacrfices himself to keep others alive, he is noble and all respect him.
But when a Palestinian does that to save his son from being killed, his brother's arm being broken, his mother being raped, his home being destroyed, and his mosque being violated -- He gets the title of a terrorist! Why? Because he is a Muslim!
When there is a trouble we accept any solution? If the solution lies in Islam, we refuse to take a look at it.
When someone drives a perfect car in a bad way no one blames the car.
But when any Muslim makes a mistake or treats people in a bad manner - people say "Islam is the reason"!
Without looking to the tradition of Islam, people believe what the newspapers say.
But question what the Quran says!
Source: NOAIN BAKSI at orkut
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Hypocrisy and Conspiracies of Hindutvavadis
"Most of us do not even know the difference between Madras and madarsa. Some believe madarsa to be a pious religious school. It may have been so. No more now. They, at least most of them, are now jehad factories." (S. Gurumurthy, The New Indian Express, April 26, 2002).
As a starter to this saga, the first article was published under the heading: Madrasas - Pious schools or Jehadi factories? (April 26, 2002), which was automatically and expectedly succeeded by another entitled" Madarsas: The terror factories, their anatomy, spread, funds' (April 27). The third write-up dealt with how Pakistan is controlling Madarsas and why India should follow Pakistan's example (April 29). The essays deriding the madarsas as Jehadi factories need not have been published now. Jehad ceased to be a buzzword three months ago.
When anti-Muslim pogroms are being ruthlessly conducted in Gujarat, and while the communal situation in the country is highly volatile, this incisive violence-inciting article shouldn't have been published. Now, that it has been printed in its full glory, we need to seek some explanations. Like what caused this breach of ethics? And what propagated this crude insensitivity? And finally, what / who licenses the full-scale debasing of minority communities? Madarsas have been on the Hindutva hit list for too long. The timing of the article exposes the game plan of the Sangh Parivar. The writing is aimed at capitalizing on the current Hindutva sentiments. It follows the old RSS methodology of campaign first, crusade later.
Accordingly, Gurumurthy writes "The terror contacts were all in madarsas, all in UP. Who has uncovered these covert acts? The Indian Intelligence in a top-secret report. In a meticulously documented report, it brings out the link between madarsas and jehad. It says more." Why are these "top-secret meticulously documented" reports of the Indian Intelligence freely accessible to Gurumurthy - an average citizen, who is not associated with the CBI? Even granted he is a member, what allows him the right of reproducing information from a confidential report? For the illegitimate demands of the saffron mob to gain legitimacy, the Indian Intelligence is cleverly included.
Compare the Hindutva panic over the madarsas in India and the following report which was widely published: "We have never caught any militant with a madarsa background," said K. Rajendra, Inspector General of Police, Kashmir. "We have no objection to their functioning in Kashmir. They are unlike the madarsas in Pakistan which have become Jehadi factories," he added. Jammu and Kashmir Police, the Army and the BSF investigated the madarsas in Kashmir after the Government decided to ascertain the "hidden" agenda of the religious schools. None of them found any evidence that pointed towards the involvement of madarsas in spreading militancy. From the time militancy first reared its head in the Valley, these institutions of the Deobandi school of thought have distanced themselves from extremism. Their focus has solely been religious studies, the inquiries found." (Valley madarsas above board: Inquiry, The Indian Express, April 25, 2001).
Intelligence reports, like the one above, which illustrate the innocence of the madarsas, are cleverly neglected. The right wing indulges in selectively quoting only those reports that seek to sully the image of the religious schools. Lacking an unbiased brain, the saffron bandwagon reels off false information. Willing politicians take up the cause. Oft-stated falsehoods prominently published in the media achieve the exalted positions of truth. Swadeshi intellectuals' who don't know the difference between Madras and madarsas carry 'elaborate' desktop investigations into the 'Jehadi factories'. Only the madarsas and the poor Muslim students there suffer.
Heading the hallowed list of saffron 'intellectuals', who have decried the madarsas, is our Prime Minister Mr. Vajpayee. Enacting motherly concern he says, "We are not against all madarsas. But we want them to teach science, geography and other subjects as well as prepare children studying there to face global challenges in every field." On that account, he, rather the BJP government, is against some madarsas. Thus, these madarsas have to bear the brunt of weekly police checks, random seizures, a few tantalizing visits by the Indian intelligence officers and, to top it all, highly unfavorable media coverage. No need to fret Mr. Prime Minister, these harassments will ensure that the children studying in madarsas are well prepared to face global challenges in every field. Now, to the overtone of botheration: The pracharak in the PM wants madarsas to teach science, geography and other subjects as well. The words accentuate the pretense. If there was a genuine interest in the education of Muslims, steps must have been taken to improve the condition of Urdu. Significantly, the government endorses the VHP demand that Urdu must not be accorded the status of second official language. Instead of developing the madarsas, Vajpayee condemns them.
Going back to the Prime Minister's argument, how many part-time poojaris/purohits are trained in science, geography and other subjects as well? What could be the other subjects, Mr. Prime Minister? In keeping with Hindutva Agenda here's a possible list - Sanskrit, Jyotish Vigyan, Vedic Mathematics – an oozing list of Hindutva mumbo-jumbo. Then, maybe the Sangh Parivar wouldn't find problems with these Islamic centers of education!
Talking about the madarsas in India, the saffron crowds openly bemoan the "damage that is being wreaked on impressionable minds." Why this misplaced magnanimity? And what about the "damage that is wreaked on impressionable minds" by the RSS itself - Who accounts for that? What about the militant exercises, the practice in lathi-wielding, the marches; all the physical training? Or the bauddhik sessions of indoctrination where anti-minority ideas are permeated under the guise of patriotism? At least no madarsa is India gives arms training to its students.
A prominent Hindutva website (www.swordoftruth.com) writes regarding the "Places of Worship (Special Provision Act, 1991): "On the surface this Act appears to be simply a guarantee by the government to protect places of worship. What it actually entails is that the ownership of
thousands of buildings which have been misappropriated by Muslims all over India, can no longer be questioned. It also means that limitations will be set on raiding Mosques which are primary
storehouses of weapons supplied by ISI to Indian Muslim terrorists. In other words such an act would severely restrict the law enforcement agencies of India from investigating and searching Islamic religious places like Mosques, libraries, Madrasas, etc. which are the primary training centers for anti-national activities." We read and as a first reaction, we laugh aloud. Secularists need their share of laughter - it maintains our sanity. We forage for some civil, sophisticated words to label this anti-Muslim madness - Hyperbole. Hallucination. Delusion. Delirium. Quite unpredictably what follows this high-handed laughing-at-silliness, this stylish cataloging-the-communal is a despondency that pulls us back into our former hurt selves. We read it again - the Hindutva definition of Mosques - primary storehouses of weapons supplied by ISI to Indian Muslim terrorists. The words traumatize, making us terror-stricken. Tomorrow, the words will serve their intended purpose - Catalyze the communalists to carry on their devastation.
The website quoted above comments on the formation of a madarsa Board: "Setting up of a Madarsa Board which will facilitate the Muslim students to be given modern educational facilities like computer education, visual and electronic aids etc. It is in these very Madrasas that ISI breeds its Islamic terrorists for Jehad in Kashmir. Allowing these students access to Internet, and electronic media ensures that ISI and the Muslim terrorists of India can have instant communication access to each other via email, etc." Without the help of evidence, the Hindutva zealots have accomplished in portraying the madarsas as breeding grounds for terrorists. As a second part of their campaign, they stress that madarsas must not be given modern educational facilities - computers, internet and the like. Information Technology, Dot Com Boom, Cyber Revolution - like the Vedas of historic times, must be inaccessible to non-Brahmans. And obviously, the Muslims.
The hysteric angst over the madarsas, is a reflection of the brahminical system that refuses education to others. Learning, according to the Manu Smiriti, was meant to be a completely Brahmin preserve. Sudras and the Dalits were denied the knowledge of the Vedas, and (as an oft-quoted example in the Manu Smiriti goes) a Sudra who accidentally heard the Vedas was liable to have molten lead poured into his ears. The Brahminical set up, was so very obsessed with the idea of safeguarding their knowledge that they did not commit any of the Vedas to writing. They maintained the secret of Vedas by an oral tradition for the inherent fear that it was always easy for the scripts, if any, to be stolen. Insecurity characterizes the high-caste elite in the Hindutva. The Muslim presence in population makes them feel threatened, not because Muslims are menacing. It is the liberating nature of Islam that forces the communalists into their incoherencies, their rehearsed babble. The Brahmin paranoia over education continues and modernizes itself.
The campaign against madarsas is the campaign against Islam. In Hindutva parlance, this translates to "doing away with madarsas is tantamount to doing away with Islam". This is a diabolic Brahmin way of letting Islam die a slow death. If there are no madarsas, from where will the mosques find the Alims and the Imams? When the Islamic religion is censured, who will stand up to defend it? Who will be left to spread the word of the Almighty? And the most important question: If there are no madarsas where will the poor Muslim students go? The answers are apparent.
With the recent developments, Fascism in India has finally (and formally) arrived. The Sangh Parivar has started advising the minorities that their safety lies in the goodwill of the majorities. That's what the new Hitlers tell us - If you wanna live, better listen to us. And they have begun to send out their orders. A Muslim eating beef can somehow end up hurting the Hindu sentiments. (See the cow is their spiritual mother.) And the Brahmins seem to have conveniently forgotten their beef-eating tradition. Perhaps, no meaty aftertaste of having ate beef remains. Remind them of the Vedic passages that describe in great detail how beef must be cooked, garnished in ghee and served - the saffron fanatics will tell us that they are cunning interpolations of their sacred Sanskrit. Absence of proof, will perhaps, absolve them of their sins.
The extensive focus on the absistence from beef eating by the Parivar must be understood in an entirely different viewpoint - it is not a matter of individual taste. Beef eating is the root of Untouchability. The following words of Dr. Ambedkar will highlight the severity of this stricture:
"Untouchability is the result of the breach of the interdiction against the eating of the sacred animal, namely, the cow. The Brahmins did not make a difference between a dead cow and a living cow. The cow was sacred, living or dead. Beef eating was not merely a crime. If it was only a crime, it would have involved nothing more than a punishment. Beef eating was made a sacrilege. Anyone who treated the cow as profane was guilty of sin and unfit for association."
The beefeaters, who were the scorned men - the Untouchables continued to reel under brahminical oppression. Only with the coming of Islam to India, did they gain an identity of their own, and most of the early converts to Islam were from the discriminated castes of the Shudras and the untouchable 'Dalits'. Islam ushered in brotherhood and social equality; concepts that were entirely absent in the existing Hindu society. Moreover, Islam never associates beef eating with a crime, or with a lowering of the social status - this has left the high caste gau-sevaks angered. As a result, with renewed vigor, the Sangh launches its dietary dictatorship - Muslims have been asked not to eat beef. Today it is food. Tomorrow we will be told a lot of other things. Like, what to wear. Whom to wed. Where to go. Which God to pray. How to live. When to die.
And, sadly for us, our death wouldn't be the end of damnation. We will be cruelly conditioned, to burn our corpses, not 'selfishly' bury it. During our lifetimes, we will be made second-class citizens, with the state believing that Hindu interest is national interest. To save our skins and for prolonging our dismal lives, we will be strained to blend in. The rightist regime will force Lord Ram on us. It was in their agenda even three decades back. Golwalkar, "Guruji" of the RSS fame wrote in the Organizer (June 20, 1971) - "Let Muslims look upon Ram as their hero and communal problems will be over". And the Parivar, in its role as a mighty messiah will take steps to shepherd us back into the Manuvadi faith of Hinduism. For this purpose, they may loot and shoot. Goondas and guns will have a gala time. The myth manufacturers will begin their businesses. Ramzan and Mohorram, they may announce were Hindu festivals in honor of Ram which were later corrupted by the 'invading Muslim armies'. We will be taught to hate our past. And more specifically, hate ourselves.
An Indian Muslim will be required to become a Hindu. The RSS will maintain that "they consider all the natives of this land as Hindus, irrespective of religion, but that their main stress is on organizing traditional Hindus." So, we will be Hindus and we will still be discriminated against. The traditional Hindus will be organized and the orthodox Hindus (Brahmins) will rule. Caste considerations will be stronger than ever. Hinduism is, after all, approved and unchallengeable Hierarchy.
The Parivar has taken extensive steps to see that a Hindu society is established. Pakistan, which was always viewed as the enemy, is now being lauded by the Saffron Wing. In February 2002, the VHP General Secretary Pravin Togadia called for a full-fledged drive against madarsas and wondered why the Indian Government cannot take action against the madarsas when President Musharraf could talk of action against them. The VHP asking the government to follow the Pakistani parameter shows their desperation against Islam. Why restrict oneself to Pakistan alone? So Gurumurthy, the Sangh Parivar's mouthpiece, craftily ropes in the entire world. He writes, "The whole world is concerned about the growth of madarsas. For, madarsas, wherever there are, in Egypt, or in the Middle East, in Iraq or Iran, in Pakistan or Afghanistan, in Malaysia or Indonesia, in India or Bangladesh, are now known as the cradle of terror. The world debates madarsa. Scrutinizes it. Tries to control it. But thanks to our secular establishment most of us are ignorant of this phenomenon." So the Swadeshi screams his long-harbored Hindutva demand: Scrutinize the madarsas and try to control them. There occurs at the end of three days, a grand finale to the entire series - "The story ends here. But the madarsa-inspired Jehad continues. It will continue as long as the madarsa is free to spread the message of terror, unimpeded and unregulated."
What pains me is the totality, the absoluteness. The complete absence of logic and a much forgotten love. It is true that one or two madarsas could have been conducive to the ISI, but condemning every madarsa in the land is a product of extremist perversion. Their concern is the existence of madarsas, not the lives of lakhs of Muslims, both students and teachers whose existence revolves around these centers. It wants all the madarsas down - perhaps reduced to rubble. This Hindutva insanity pulled down the Babri Masjid. A decade later, their aggressive plans have taken enormous proportions. Their target is no longer confined to one single mosque - it encompasses every mosque, every madarsa and every Muslim.
The Hindutva maniacs believe that they publicly reserve the rights to call any Muslim a militant and every madarsa a Jehadi terror factory. The Parivar preaches: Hindu fundamentalism is patriotism. But, Muslim fundamentalism is terrorism. And they relentlessly work towards their fanatic goals, trying to turn the best of us into brutes. They attempt to bulldoze into our minds the crudity of their religion: subjugating our faiths to suppress us. Being a merciless majority, nobody stands up against them. But it is time we did. Protest their propaganda not just for Islam's sake, but for our own selfish sakes. For, Hindutva tomorrow will be drastic. Caste and religion will come as a package deal. Two hundred million Dalits will once again become untouchables. We will be denied food, education, jobs, a respectable life. Our rights will vanish, so will brotherhood. Secularism and social justice will die their deaths. Our silence in this disaster will ensure our defeat. It will irrevocably ensure the collective defeat of every revolution, every liberation. In the end, it will enslave us like never before.
We need to fight because the end of Islam in India represents the end of equality.
By Meena Kandasamy
Source: http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0047.htm
As a starter to this saga, the first article was published under the heading: Madrasas - Pious schools or Jehadi factories? (April 26, 2002), which was automatically and expectedly succeeded by another entitled" Madarsas: The terror factories, their anatomy, spread, funds' (April 27). The third write-up dealt with how Pakistan is controlling Madarsas and why India should follow Pakistan's example (April 29). The essays deriding the madarsas as Jehadi factories need not have been published now. Jehad ceased to be a buzzword three months ago.
When anti-Muslim pogroms are being ruthlessly conducted in Gujarat, and while the communal situation in the country is highly volatile, this incisive violence-inciting article shouldn't have been published. Now, that it has been printed in its full glory, we need to seek some explanations. Like what caused this breach of ethics? And what propagated this crude insensitivity? And finally, what / who licenses the full-scale debasing of minority communities? Madarsas have been on the Hindutva hit list for too long. The timing of the article exposes the game plan of the Sangh Parivar. The writing is aimed at capitalizing on the current Hindutva sentiments. It follows the old RSS methodology of campaign first, crusade later.
Accordingly, Gurumurthy writes "The terror contacts were all in madarsas, all in UP. Who has uncovered these covert acts? The Indian Intelligence in a top-secret report. In a meticulously documented report, it brings out the link between madarsas and jehad. It says more." Why are these "top-secret meticulously documented" reports of the Indian Intelligence freely accessible to Gurumurthy - an average citizen, who is not associated with the CBI? Even granted he is a member, what allows him the right of reproducing information from a confidential report? For the illegitimate demands of the saffron mob to gain legitimacy, the Indian Intelligence is cleverly included.
Compare the Hindutva panic over the madarsas in India and the following report which was widely published: "We have never caught any militant with a madarsa background," said K. Rajendra, Inspector General of Police, Kashmir. "We have no objection to their functioning in Kashmir. They are unlike the madarsas in Pakistan which have become Jehadi factories," he added. Jammu and Kashmir Police, the Army and the BSF investigated the madarsas in Kashmir after the Government decided to ascertain the "hidden" agenda of the religious schools. None of them found any evidence that pointed towards the involvement of madarsas in spreading militancy. From the time militancy first reared its head in the Valley, these institutions of the Deobandi school of thought have distanced themselves from extremism. Their focus has solely been religious studies, the inquiries found." (Valley madarsas above board: Inquiry, The Indian Express, April 25, 2001).
Intelligence reports, like the one above, which illustrate the innocence of the madarsas, are cleverly neglected. The right wing indulges in selectively quoting only those reports that seek to sully the image of the religious schools. Lacking an unbiased brain, the saffron bandwagon reels off false information. Willing politicians take up the cause. Oft-stated falsehoods prominently published in the media achieve the exalted positions of truth. Swadeshi intellectuals' who don't know the difference between Madras and madarsas carry 'elaborate' desktop investigations into the 'Jehadi factories'. Only the madarsas and the poor Muslim students there suffer.
Heading the hallowed list of saffron 'intellectuals', who have decried the madarsas, is our Prime Minister Mr. Vajpayee. Enacting motherly concern he says, "We are not against all madarsas. But we want them to teach science, geography and other subjects as well as prepare children studying there to face global challenges in every field." On that account, he, rather the BJP government, is against some madarsas. Thus, these madarsas have to bear the brunt of weekly police checks, random seizures, a few tantalizing visits by the Indian intelligence officers and, to top it all, highly unfavorable media coverage. No need to fret Mr. Prime Minister, these harassments will ensure that the children studying in madarsas are well prepared to face global challenges in every field. Now, to the overtone of botheration: The pracharak in the PM wants madarsas to teach science, geography and other subjects as well. The words accentuate the pretense. If there was a genuine interest in the education of Muslims, steps must have been taken to improve the condition of Urdu. Significantly, the government endorses the VHP demand that Urdu must not be accorded the status of second official language. Instead of developing the madarsas, Vajpayee condemns them.
Going back to the Prime Minister's argument, how many part-time poojaris/purohits are trained in science, geography and other subjects as well? What could be the other subjects, Mr. Prime Minister? In keeping with Hindutva Agenda here's a possible list - Sanskrit, Jyotish Vigyan, Vedic Mathematics – an oozing list of Hindutva mumbo-jumbo. Then, maybe the Sangh Parivar wouldn't find problems with these Islamic centers of education!
Talking about the madarsas in India, the saffron crowds openly bemoan the "damage that is being wreaked on impressionable minds." Why this misplaced magnanimity? And what about the "damage that is wreaked on impressionable minds" by the RSS itself - Who accounts for that? What about the militant exercises, the practice in lathi-wielding, the marches; all the physical training? Or the bauddhik sessions of indoctrination where anti-minority ideas are permeated under the guise of patriotism? At least no madarsa is India gives arms training to its students.
A prominent Hindutva website (www.swordoftruth.com) writes regarding the "Places of Worship (Special Provision Act, 1991): "On the surface this Act appears to be simply a guarantee by the government to protect places of worship. What it actually entails is that the ownership of
thousands of buildings which have been misappropriated by Muslims all over India, can no longer be questioned. It also means that limitations will be set on raiding Mosques which are primary
storehouses of weapons supplied by ISI to Indian Muslim terrorists. In other words such an act would severely restrict the law enforcement agencies of India from investigating and searching Islamic religious places like Mosques, libraries, Madrasas, etc. which are the primary training centers for anti-national activities." We read and as a first reaction, we laugh aloud. Secularists need their share of laughter - it maintains our sanity. We forage for some civil, sophisticated words to label this anti-Muslim madness - Hyperbole. Hallucination. Delusion. Delirium. Quite unpredictably what follows this high-handed laughing-at-silliness, this stylish cataloging-the-communal is a despondency that pulls us back into our former hurt selves. We read it again - the Hindutva definition of Mosques - primary storehouses of weapons supplied by ISI to Indian Muslim terrorists. The words traumatize, making us terror-stricken. Tomorrow, the words will serve their intended purpose - Catalyze the communalists to carry on their devastation.
The website quoted above comments on the formation of a madarsa Board: "Setting up of a Madarsa Board which will facilitate the Muslim students to be given modern educational facilities like computer education, visual and electronic aids etc. It is in these very Madrasas that ISI breeds its Islamic terrorists for Jehad in Kashmir. Allowing these students access to Internet, and electronic media ensures that ISI and the Muslim terrorists of India can have instant communication access to each other via email, etc." Without the help of evidence, the Hindutva zealots have accomplished in portraying the madarsas as breeding grounds for terrorists. As a second part of their campaign, they stress that madarsas must not be given modern educational facilities - computers, internet and the like. Information Technology, Dot Com Boom, Cyber Revolution - like the Vedas of historic times, must be inaccessible to non-Brahmans. And obviously, the Muslims.
The hysteric angst over the madarsas, is a reflection of the brahminical system that refuses education to others. Learning, according to the Manu Smiriti, was meant to be a completely Brahmin preserve. Sudras and the Dalits were denied the knowledge of the Vedas, and (as an oft-quoted example in the Manu Smiriti goes) a Sudra who accidentally heard the Vedas was liable to have molten lead poured into his ears. The Brahminical set up, was so very obsessed with the idea of safeguarding their knowledge that they did not commit any of the Vedas to writing. They maintained the secret of Vedas by an oral tradition for the inherent fear that it was always easy for the scripts, if any, to be stolen. Insecurity characterizes the high-caste elite in the Hindutva. The Muslim presence in population makes them feel threatened, not because Muslims are menacing. It is the liberating nature of Islam that forces the communalists into their incoherencies, their rehearsed babble. The Brahmin paranoia over education continues and modernizes itself.
The campaign against madarsas is the campaign against Islam. In Hindutva parlance, this translates to "doing away with madarsas is tantamount to doing away with Islam". This is a diabolic Brahmin way of letting Islam die a slow death. If there are no madarsas, from where will the mosques find the Alims and the Imams? When the Islamic religion is censured, who will stand up to defend it? Who will be left to spread the word of the Almighty? And the most important question: If there are no madarsas where will the poor Muslim students go? The answers are apparent.
With the recent developments, Fascism in India has finally (and formally) arrived. The Sangh Parivar has started advising the minorities that their safety lies in the goodwill of the majorities. That's what the new Hitlers tell us - If you wanna live, better listen to us. And they have begun to send out their orders. A Muslim eating beef can somehow end up hurting the Hindu sentiments. (See the cow is their spiritual mother.) And the Brahmins seem to have conveniently forgotten their beef-eating tradition. Perhaps, no meaty aftertaste of having ate beef remains. Remind them of the Vedic passages that describe in great detail how beef must be cooked, garnished in ghee and served - the saffron fanatics will tell us that they are cunning interpolations of their sacred Sanskrit. Absence of proof, will perhaps, absolve them of their sins.
The extensive focus on the absistence from beef eating by the Parivar must be understood in an entirely different viewpoint - it is not a matter of individual taste. Beef eating is the root of Untouchability. The following words of Dr. Ambedkar will highlight the severity of this stricture:
"Untouchability is the result of the breach of the interdiction against the eating of the sacred animal, namely, the cow. The Brahmins did not make a difference between a dead cow and a living cow. The cow was sacred, living or dead. Beef eating was not merely a crime. If it was only a crime, it would have involved nothing more than a punishment. Beef eating was made a sacrilege. Anyone who treated the cow as profane was guilty of sin and unfit for association."
The beefeaters, who were the scorned men - the Untouchables continued to reel under brahminical oppression. Only with the coming of Islam to India, did they gain an identity of their own, and most of the early converts to Islam were from the discriminated castes of the Shudras and the untouchable 'Dalits'. Islam ushered in brotherhood and social equality; concepts that were entirely absent in the existing Hindu society. Moreover, Islam never associates beef eating with a crime, or with a lowering of the social status - this has left the high caste gau-sevaks angered. As a result, with renewed vigor, the Sangh launches its dietary dictatorship - Muslims have been asked not to eat beef. Today it is food. Tomorrow we will be told a lot of other things. Like, what to wear. Whom to wed. Where to go. Which God to pray. How to live. When to die.
And, sadly for us, our death wouldn't be the end of damnation. We will be cruelly conditioned, to burn our corpses, not 'selfishly' bury it. During our lifetimes, we will be made second-class citizens, with the state believing that Hindu interest is national interest. To save our skins and for prolonging our dismal lives, we will be strained to blend in. The rightist regime will force Lord Ram on us. It was in their agenda even three decades back. Golwalkar, "Guruji" of the RSS fame wrote in the Organizer (June 20, 1971) - "Let Muslims look upon Ram as their hero and communal problems will be over". And the Parivar, in its role as a mighty messiah will take steps to shepherd us back into the Manuvadi faith of Hinduism. For this purpose, they may loot and shoot. Goondas and guns will have a gala time. The myth manufacturers will begin their businesses. Ramzan and Mohorram, they may announce were Hindu festivals in honor of Ram which were later corrupted by the 'invading Muslim armies'. We will be taught to hate our past. And more specifically, hate ourselves.
An Indian Muslim will be required to become a Hindu. The RSS will maintain that "they consider all the natives of this land as Hindus, irrespective of religion, but that their main stress is on organizing traditional Hindus." So, we will be Hindus and we will still be discriminated against. The traditional Hindus will be organized and the orthodox Hindus (Brahmins) will rule. Caste considerations will be stronger than ever. Hinduism is, after all, approved and unchallengeable Hierarchy.
The Parivar has taken extensive steps to see that a Hindu society is established. Pakistan, which was always viewed as the enemy, is now being lauded by the Saffron Wing. In February 2002, the VHP General Secretary Pravin Togadia called for a full-fledged drive against madarsas and wondered why the Indian Government cannot take action against the madarsas when President Musharraf could talk of action against them. The VHP asking the government to follow the Pakistani parameter shows their desperation against Islam. Why restrict oneself to Pakistan alone? So Gurumurthy, the Sangh Parivar's mouthpiece, craftily ropes in the entire world. He writes, "The whole world is concerned about the growth of madarsas. For, madarsas, wherever there are, in Egypt, or in the Middle East, in Iraq or Iran, in Pakistan or Afghanistan, in Malaysia or Indonesia, in India or Bangladesh, are now known as the cradle of terror. The world debates madarsa. Scrutinizes it. Tries to control it. But thanks to our secular establishment most of us are ignorant of this phenomenon." So the Swadeshi screams his long-harbored Hindutva demand: Scrutinize the madarsas and try to control them. There occurs at the end of three days, a grand finale to the entire series - "The story ends here. But the madarsa-inspired Jehad continues. It will continue as long as the madarsa is free to spread the message of terror, unimpeded and unregulated."
What pains me is the totality, the absoluteness. The complete absence of logic and a much forgotten love. It is true that one or two madarsas could have been conducive to the ISI, but condemning every madarsa in the land is a product of extremist perversion. Their concern is the existence of madarsas, not the lives of lakhs of Muslims, both students and teachers whose existence revolves around these centers. It wants all the madarsas down - perhaps reduced to rubble. This Hindutva insanity pulled down the Babri Masjid. A decade later, their aggressive plans have taken enormous proportions. Their target is no longer confined to one single mosque - it encompasses every mosque, every madarsa and every Muslim.
The Hindutva maniacs believe that they publicly reserve the rights to call any Muslim a militant and every madarsa a Jehadi terror factory. The Parivar preaches: Hindu fundamentalism is patriotism. But, Muslim fundamentalism is terrorism. And they relentlessly work towards their fanatic goals, trying to turn the best of us into brutes. They attempt to bulldoze into our minds the crudity of their religion: subjugating our faiths to suppress us. Being a merciless majority, nobody stands up against them. But it is time we did. Protest their propaganda not just for Islam's sake, but for our own selfish sakes. For, Hindutva tomorrow will be drastic. Caste and religion will come as a package deal. Two hundred million Dalits will once again become untouchables. We will be denied food, education, jobs, a respectable life. Our rights will vanish, so will brotherhood. Secularism and social justice will die their deaths. Our silence in this disaster will ensure our defeat. It will irrevocably ensure the collective defeat of every revolution, every liberation. In the end, it will enslave us like never before.
We need to fight because the end of Islam in India represents the end of equality.
By Meena Kandasamy
Source: http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0047.htm
Monday, September 24, 2007
VHP/RSS/Sangh parivar wild nature revealed once again
“If you kill someone can you undo it? He has already spoken, so it can’t be taken back,” : This was a statement by Leader of Dalit Sena, Palanimuthu in Tamil Nadu.
He was referring to Ram Vilas Vedanti's call for beaheading Tamil Nadu Chief minister Karunanidhi. Naturally shocked and angry supporters of Karunanidhi now want immediate arrest of Ram vilas vedanti.
On the other hand, Vedanti says that it was not his remarks and he was just quoting a verse from the hindu sciptures. The main question that arises here is 'Was he unaware of this verse when his party was blaming Islam and muslims to be violent"?
VHP and BJP are trying to wash their hands from this issue. They are apparently condemning this statement of Vedanti, as they believe that lok sabha elections are about to begin in short.
It is wrong on part of Karunanidi to pass such comments which may hurt sentiments of people. But then again many hindus do believe that Ramayan was just and epic and a story. Karunanidhi should have made his point in more decent manner instead of making a mockery of people's beliefs.
But issuing a fatwa "Joh karunanidhi ka sar kaat ke layega hum ayodhya ke sant use sona se tolenge" shows the wild and violent nature of these leaders. They have to be more civilized and cultured. VHP/RSS people think that they are representing and protecting the hindu tradition and culture while actually they are damaging it. Not one person of these organizations follows the vedas. If killing people in the name of religion is extremism and terrorism, how are these people different from other terrorists?
He was referring to Ram Vilas Vedanti's call for beaheading Tamil Nadu Chief minister Karunanidhi. Naturally shocked and angry supporters of Karunanidhi now want immediate arrest of Ram vilas vedanti.
On the other hand, Vedanti says that it was not his remarks and he was just quoting a verse from the hindu sciptures. The main question that arises here is 'Was he unaware of this verse when his party was blaming Islam and muslims to be violent"?
VHP and BJP are trying to wash their hands from this issue. They are apparently condemning this statement of Vedanti, as they believe that lok sabha elections are about to begin in short.
It is wrong on part of Karunanidi to pass such comments which may hurt sentiments of people. But then again many hindus do believe that Ramayan was just and epic and a story. Karunanidhi should have made his point in more decent manner instead of making a mockery of people's beliefs.
But issuing a fatwa "Joh karunanidhi ka sar kaat ke layega hum ayodhya ke sant use sona se tolenge" shows the wild and violent nature of these leaders. They have to be more civilized and cultured. VHP/RSS people think that they are representing and protecting the hindu tradition and culture while actually they are damaging it. Not one person of these organizations follows the vedas. If killing people in the name of religion is extremism and terrorism, how are these people different from other terrorists?
Pakistanis must realise their mistakes
sSanao Menghwar has had three of his daughters kidnapped, then forced to marry Muslim men. That means that the young women were coerced into becoming Islamics.
This happens daily, particularly in the Pakistani Sindh province, according to Hasan Mansoor, reporter, Midday.com.
Other Hindus in the province worry when their daughters will disappear. Therefore, there are entire Hindu families leaving Pakistan for Canada, India or other nations.Menghewar and his wife left their house on errands. When they returned to their residence, their daughters were missing. They reported the missing young women to the police department, filing the necessary papers. Neighbors helped them on a search party to locate the daughters, but to no avail.
Menghwar’s daughters have yet to be found. However, authorities have arrested three Islamic young men assumed to be connected with the girls’ kidnapping. The men have been released on bail by a court due to the men being minors.
"’Kidnapping Hindu girls like this has become a normal practice. The girls are then forced to sign stamp papers stating that they’ve become Muslims,’ says Laljee Menghwar, a member of the Hindu Panchayat in Karachi."
Because of Muslim threats, Hindus have had to turn to what those in the Netherlands are resorting to. Both areas have been under extreme pressure from maiming and killing Islamics so that the local citizens have put into action what one person refers to as "self-censorship."
There is no talk. There is no public utterance. There is nothing said negatively about the Muslims in the area for fear of being slain.
So it is that Islamic killers international could overtake country after country, area after area. Instill such fear in the people that no one speaks the facts concerning local Islamics kidnapping and killing; therefore, they have open skies to do just that — more so.
"’Hindus here are too frightened to vent their anger — they fear victimization,’ said one local."
Nevertheless, Pakistani Christian community members have come to their aid. The Christians have organized support for the Hindus persecuted by Muslims. The Christians have "carried out a demonstration with them in Karachi, protesting against this crime.
Source: americandaily.com
A question to pakistani muslims. Is this what Islam teaches you? Please know that Islam asks you to rule justly and safe guard the minorities. According to shariya, muslims and non muslims must e treated equally under law.
We muslims must stand up to protect our faith. We must realise and correct our mistakes. Untill then, these kind of news wont stop spreading ill impression aout Islam.
This happens daily, particularly in the Pakistani Sindh province, according to Hasan Mansoor, reporter, Midday.com.
Other Hindus in the province worry when their daughters will disappear. Therefore, there are entire Hindu families leaving Pakistan for Canada, India or other nations.Menghewar and his wife left their house on errands. When they returned to their residence, their daughters were missing. They reported the missing young women to the police department, filing the necessary papers. Neighbors helped them on a search party to locate the daughters, but to no avail.
Menghwar’s daughters have yet to be found. However, authorities have arrested three Islamic young men assumed to be connected with the girls’ kidnapping. The men have been released on bail by a court due to the men being minors.
"’Kidnapping Hindu girls like this has become a normal practice. The girls are then forced to sign stamp papers stating that they’ve become Muslims,’ says Laljee Menghwar, a member of the Hindu Panchayat in Karachi."
Because of Muslim threats, Hindus have had to turn to what those in the Netherlands are resorting to. Both areas have been under extreme pressure from maiming and killing Islamics so that the local citizens have put into action what one person refers to as "self-censorship."
There is no talk. There is no public utterance. There is nothing said negatively about the Muslims in the area for fear of being slain.
So it is that Islamic killers international could overtake country after country, area after area. Instill such fear in the people that no one speaks the facts concerning local Islamics kidnapping and killing; therefore, they have open skies to do just that — more so.
"’Hindus here are too frightened to vent their anger — they fear victimization,’ said one local."
Nevertheless, Pakistani Christian community members have come to their aid. The Christians have organized support for the Hindus persecuted by Muslims. The Christians have "carried out a demonstration with them in Karachi, protesting against this crime.
Source: americandaily.com
A question to pakistani muslims. Is this what Islam teaches you? Please know that Islam asks you to rule justly and safe guard the minorities. According to shariya, muslims and non muslims must e treated equally under law.
We muslims must stand up to protect our faith. We must realise and correct our mistakes. Untill then, these kind of news wont stop spreading ill impression aout Islam.
Hindu Extremists Attack a Christian Pastor
Is there a difference etween these people and the terrorists? Are not all extremists alike?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Struggle for Justice
Rizwanur Rahman, who had married Priyanka Todi without her parents' consent on August 18 under the Special Marriage Act, was found dead beside the railway tracks near Dum Dum at 10.30 am on Friday — barely 20 minutes after he fixed up an appointment with a human rights activist for a visit to Lalbazar.
He had earlier sought police protection, which he never got.
In a complaint he had filed with the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) just two days before his death, Rahman had claimed two deputy commissioners of police posted at the Lalbazar headquarters had threatened to arrest him if Priyanka did not return to her parents. A copy of his letter was submitted to the state human rights commission.
Rahman's death triggered anger in Tiljala, where he lived. On Saturday, thousands of residents of Park Circus and surrounding localities took to the streets. They blocked bridge no. 4, the critical link to the Park Circus-EM Bypass connector, demanding a probe into the death.
The protesters vented their anger on the police. They were particularly furious that officers of Karaya police station had refused to accept an FIR filed by Rahman's parents. Rumours that the body had gone missing from police custody further inflamed the protesters, who went on the rampage, torching a police jeep and wrecking nine other vehicles. The police lathicharged the mob, which retaliated with brickbats. The street fights continued for over an hour.
Rahman's death triggered anger in Tiljala, where he lived. On Saturday, thousands of residents of Park Circus and surrounding localities took to the streets. They blocked bridge no. 4, the critical link to the Park Circus-EM Bypass connector, demanding a probe into the death.
The protesters vented their anger on the police. They were particularly furious that officers of Karaya police station had refused to accept an FIR filed by Rahman's parents. Rumours that the body had gone missing from police custody further inflamed the protesters, who went on the rampage, torching a police jeep and wrecking nine other vehicles. The police lathicharged the mob, which retaliated with brickbats. The street fights continued for over an hour.
Bhadra has demanded an impartial probe into the case and asked the police to immediately produce Rahman's "missing wife". Priyanka's whereabouts are still unknown. Repeated attempts to contact Todi both at his residence and on his cellphone failed.
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
This is an horrible incident of violation of human rights. The police instead of protecting the couple acted like the private security guards of Todi. Its a shame on their part.
He had earlier sought police protection, which he never got.
In a complaint he had filed with the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) just two days before his death, Rahman had claimed two deputy commissioners of police posted at the Lalbazar headquarters had threatened to arrest him if Priyanka did not return to her parents. A copy of his letter was submitted to the state human rights commission.
Rahman's death triggered anger in Tiljala, where he lived. On Saturday, thousands of residents of Park Circus and surrounding localities took to the streets. They blocked bridge no. 4, the critical link to the Park Circus-EM Bypass connector, demanding a probe into the death.
The protesters vented their anger on the police. They were particularly furious that officers of Karaya police station had refused to accept an FIR filed by Rahman's parents. Rumours that the body had gone missing from police custody further inflamed the protesters, who went on the rampage, torching a police jeep and wrecking nine other vehicles. The police lathicharged the mob, which retaliated with brickbats. The street fights continued for over an hour.
Rahman's death triggered anger in Tiljala, where he lived. On Saturday, thousands of residents of Park Circus and surrounding localities took to the streets. They blocked bridge no. 4, the critical link to the Park Circus-EM Bypass connector, demanding a probe into the death.
The protesters vented their anger on the police. They were particularly furious that officers of Karaya police station had refused to accept an FIR filed by Rahman's parents. Rumours that the body had gone missing from police custody further inflamed the protesters, who went on the rampage, torching a police jeep and wrecking nine other vehicles. The police lathicharged the mob, which retaliated with brickbats. The street fights continued for over an hour.
Bhadra has demanded an impartial probe into the case and asked the police to immediately produce Rahman's "missing wife". Priyanka's whereabouts are still unknown. Repeated attempts to contact Todi both at his residence and on his cellphone failed.
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
This is an horrible incident of violation of human rights. The police instead of protecting the couple acted like the private security guards of Todi. Its a shame on their part.
The Ram Sethu Issue
It is very unfortunate that Ram sethu issue is being so foolishly dealt with. Political greed and hypocrisy showed up itself once again. The BJP itself granted the sethu samudram project and now opposing it unnecessarily making it a religious issue.
The congress should have dealt this issue more sensitively. Freedom of speech and expression has some limitations. Karunanidhi (Tamil Nadu chief minister) or anyone else has no right to hurt the sentiments of people may it be Hindus or Muslims. He would have represented his point in a more decent manner instead of mocking the hindu religious sentiments. Congress on the first hand should have noticed and removed the objectionable content in the affidavit filed by archaeological society of India.
The BJP feels that Ramar sethu issue 'is a gift by Congress'. they want to exploit as much as they can out of this issue. The Sangh parivar members once again proved that they are no different or no lesser than any terrorist organization in the world. After burning a Tamil Nadu bus in Banglore and burning two people to death, the BJP leader ramvilas vedanti's statement is a mockery on the Indian law and order and the Indian constitution itself. An open murder threat in public is something everyone must be worried about. The person agaisnt whom he issued a 'fatwa' (of beheading) is non other than a Chief minister. If Sangh parivar people can go to an extent to threaten a Chief minister in power, what about ordinary people? For them ordinary Indian who stand in their way should simply die.
The congress should at least realise its mistakes at this point and try to deal with sensibility instead of worrying about consequences. It should apologise to hindus and explain the 'good' it is willing to do by the construction of sethu samudram project. Otherwise such incidents will repeat again. This time it was Hindus next time when the power shifts in BJP's favor, it will be Muslims on the road.
The congress should have dealt this issue more sensitively. Freedom of speech and expression has some limitations. Karunanidhi (Tamil Nadu chief minister) or anyone else has no right to hurt the sentiments of people may it be Hindus or Muslims. He would have represented his point in a more decent manner instead of mocking the hindu religious sentiments. Congress on the first hand should have noticed and removed the objectionable content in the affidavit filed by archaeological society of India.
The BJP feels that Ramar sethu issue 'is a gift by Congress'. they want to exploit as much as they can out of this issue. The Sangh parivar members once again proved that they are no different or no lesser than any terrorist organization in the world. After burning a Tamil Nadu bus in Banglore and burning two people to death, the BJP leader ramvilas vedanti's statement is a mockery on the Indian law and order and the Indian constitution itself. An open murder threat in public is something everyone must be worried about. The person agaisnt whom he issued a 'fatwa' (of beheading) is non other than a Chief minister. If Sangh parivar people can go to an extent to threaten a Chief minister in power, what about ordinary people? For them ordinary Indian who stand in their way should simply die.
The congress should at least realise its mistakes at this point and try to deal with sensibility instead of worrying about consequences. It should apologise to hindus and explain the 'good' it is willing to do by the construction of sethu samudram project. Otherwise such incidents will repeat again. This time it was Hindus next time when the power shifts in BJP's favor, it will be Muslims on the road.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Only muslims are terrorists?
On April 19th, Americans of all faiths will mark the 10th anniversary of the 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by remembering and mourning 168 of their fellow citizens who died so tragically at the hands of domestic terrorists.
Another victim of that attack will be mourned only by those in what would have been his family.
According to the Daily Oklahoman newspaper: "Sahar Al-Muwsawi, 26, said...she was watching reports of the bombing on television on April 20 when she heard a car's brakes squeal outside her Oklahoma City home. Then she heard objects hitting the window and thought people were shooting at the house. Muwsawi, who was nearly seven months pregnant, grabbed her 2-year-old daughter and another child in the home and took them to the bathroom and locked the door. She said she started bleeding and called her husband, who rushed home and took her to the hospital. A stillborn baby boy was delivered several hours later." 1
That baby boy was named "Salaam," or "peace."
In those first frightening days after the bombing, it was assumed by many that "Middle Eastern terrorists" had carried out the attack. That faulty assumption sparked a wave of anti-Muslim hysteria that resulted in almost 250 incidents of harassment, discrimination and actual violence against American Muslims or those perceived to be Middle Eastern.
Incidents ranged from a suspected arson attack on a mosque, to drive-by shootings at Islamic centers and assaults on Muslim students. Many Islamic institutions around America also reported phoned bomb threats, and in one case, a fake bomb was thrown at a Muslim day care facility. Individual Muslims reported a great increase in harassment by co-workers and in public. This harassment led to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in the Muslim community.
The collective realization that the attack was carried out by terrorists from the Midwest, not the Mideast, created a teaching moment in which the entire nation reassessed what it means to be a terrorist, and redefined terrorism to include people who look like "regular" Americans.
My organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), documented the anti-Muslim backlash following the Oklahoma City bombing in a report called "A Rush to Judgment." That report was the first of CAIR's now-annual reports on the status of American Muslim civil rights. (CAIR's latest report is due out in [2005-] May.)
Unfortunately, the trend lines in each annual report have been up, not down, with a particularly sharp spike following the 9/11 terror attacks.
From our polling data, and from the daily hate messages we receive, it is clear that Islam and Muslims are once again being perceived as intrinsically linked to terrorism and violence. I have almost 3,000 e-mail entries in my "Hate Mail" folder. (Any theme involving pork products, which are forbidden to Muslims, and how they will be used to defile Islamic beliefs seems to be a favorite with America's current crop of Islamophobic bigots.)
One fairly representative e-mail, after using the usual profanities, simply said: "You all need to be slaughtered." The irony of recommending wholesale slaughter of innocents in order to prevent or retaliate for the slaughter of innocents is probably lost on the senders of such messages.
In our "Not in the Name of Islam" online petition, CAIR seeks to sever the false link between Islam and violence: "No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam." 2
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City attack, let us all remember that the use of violence and terrorism is not the sole preserve of any race, religion or ethnic group. Let us also redouble our efforts to understand one another and promote peaceful resolutions to all conflicts, whether domestic or foreign.
- Ibrahim Hooper (Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR))
Another victim of that attack will be mourned only by those in what would have been his family.
According to the Daily Oklahoman newspaper: "Sahar Al-Muwsawi, 26, said...she was watching reports of the bombing on television on April 20 when she heard a car's brakes squeal outside her Oklahoma City home. Then she heard objects hitting the window and thought people were shooting at the house. Muwsawi, who was nearly seven months pregnant, grabbed her 2-year-old daughter and another child in the home and took them to the bathroom and locked the door. She said she started bleeding and called her husband, who rushed home and took her to the hospital. A stillborn baby boy was delivered several hours later." 1
That baby boy was named "Salaam," or "peace."
In those first frightening days after the bombing, it was assumed by many that "Middle Eastern terrorists" had carried out the attack. That faulty assumption sparked a wave of anti-Muslim hysteria that resulted in almost 250 incidents of harassment, discrimination and actual violence against American Muslims or those perceived to be Middle Eastern.
Incidents ranged from a suspected arson attack on a mosque, to drive-by shootings at Islamic centers and assaults on Muslim students. Many Islamic institutions around America also reported phoned bomb threats, and in one case, a fake bomb was thrown at a Muslim day care facility. Individual Muslims reported a great increase in harassment by co-workers and in public. This harassment led to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in the Muslim community.
The collective realization that the attack was carried out by terrorists from the Midwest, not the Mideast, created a teaching moment in which the entire nation reassessed what it means to be a terrorist, and redefined terrorism to include people who look like "regular" Americans.
My organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), documented the anti-Muslim backlash following the Oklahoma City bombing in a report called "A Rush to Judgment." That report was the first of CAIR's now-annual reports on the status of American Muslim civil rights. (CAIR's latest report is due out in [2005-] May.)
Unfortunately, the trend lines in each annual report have been up, not down, with a particularly sharp spike following the 9/11 terror attacks.
From our polling data, and from the daily hate messages we receive, it is clear that Islam and Muslims are once again being perceived as intrinsically linked to terrorism and violence. I have almost 3,000 e-mail entries in my "Hate Mail" folder. (Any theme involving pork products, which are forbidden to Muslims, and how they will be used to defile Islamic beliefs seems to be a favorite with America's current crop of Islamophobic bigots.)
One fairly representative e-mail, after using the usual profanities, simply said: "You all need to be slaughtered." The irony of recommending wholesale slaughter of innocents in order to prevent or retaliate for the slaughter of innocents is probably lost on the senders of such messages.
In our "Not in the Name of Islam" online petition, CAIR seeks to sever the false link between Islam and violence: "No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam." 2
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City attack, let us all remember that the use of violence and terrorism is not the sole preserve of any race, religion or ethnic group. Let us also redouble our efforts to understand one another and promote peaceful resolutions to all conflicts, whether domestic or foreign.
- Ibrahim Hooper (Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR))
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Tolerance in Islam
Introduction
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall was an Englishman, an orientalist, and a Muslim who translated the meaning of the Holy Qur’an. His translation was first published in 1930 and he was supported in this effort by His Highness, the Nizam of Hyderabad (the ruler of Deccan, in the South), India. Pickthall traveled extensively to several Muslim countries, including Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Egypt, Arabia and India. He spent several years in India and had interacted with the Muslims of India.
In 1927 Pickthall gave eight lectures on several aspects of Islamic civilization at the invitation of The Committee of “Madras Lectures on Islam” in Madras, India. Parts of Pickthall’s lectures were made available in India at various times. All of his lectures were published under the title “The Cultural Side of Islam” in 1961 by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Lahore from a manuscript provided by M.I. Jamal Moinuddin. The book has gone through several reprints since then.
An abridged version of his fifth lecture on the “Tolerance in Islam” is presented below. His long lecture frequently used quotations from the Holy Qur’an to emphasize many points and to support his analysis and conclusions. The major theme of his lecture is retained here. All of Pickthall’s eight lectures draw upon his vast knowledge of Islamic history, the Western religious, political and intellectual history through the ages, and their reasons for rise and fall. His lectures are very enlightening, analytically useful, and of great value even today.
An Abridged Version of Pickthall's Lecture
One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts: One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority, have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.
The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:
“Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.
“A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the “god” of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belabored and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers.”
That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days. Christendom regarded the outside world as damned eternally, and Islam did not. There were good and tender-hearted men in Christendom who thought it sad that any people should be damned eternally, and wished to save them by the only way they knew - conversion to the Christian faith.
It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Therefore the difference evident in that anecdote is not of manners only but of religion. Of old, tolerance had existed here and there in the world, among enlightened individuals; but those individuals had always been against the prevalent religion. Tolerance was regarded of un-religious, if not irreligious. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.
For the Muslims, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are but three forms of one religion, which, in its original purity, was the religion of Abraham: Al-Islam, that perfect Self-Surrender to the Will of God, which is the basis of Theocracy. The Jews, in their religion, after Moses, limited God's mercy to their chosen nation and thought of His kingdom as the dominion of their race.
Even Christ himself, as several of his sayings show, declared that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and seemed to regard his mission as to the Hebrews only; and it was only after a special vision vouchsafed to St. Peter that his followers in after days considered themselves authorized to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Christians limited God’s mercy to those who believed certain dogmas. Every one who failed to hold the dogmas was an outcast or a miscreant, to be persecuted for his or her soul’s good. In Islam only is manifest the real nature of the Kingdom of God.
The two verses (2:255-256) of the Qur’an are supplementary. Where there is that realization of the majesty and dominion of Allah (SWT), there is no compulsion in religion. Men choose their path - allegiance or opposition - and it is sufficient punishment for those who oppose that they draw further and further away from the light of truth.
What Muslims do not generally consider is that this law applies to our own community just as much as to the folk outside, the laws of Allah being universal; and that intolerance of Muslims for other men's opinions and beliefs is evidence that they themselves have, at the moment, forgotten the vision of the majesty and mercy of Allah (SWT) which the Qur’an presents to them.
In the Qur’an I find two meanings (of a Kafir), which become one the moment that we try to realize the divine standpoint. The Kafir in the first place, is not the follower of any religion. He is the opponent of Allah’s benevolent will and purpose for mankind - therefore the disbeliever in the truth of all religions, the disbeliever in all Scriptures as of divine revelation, the disbeliever to the point of active opposition in all the Prophets (pbut) whom the Muslims are bidden to regard, without distinction, as messengers of Allah.
The Qur’an repeatedly claims to be the confirmation of the truth of all religions. The former Scriptures had become obscure, the former Prophets appeared mythical, so extravagant were the legends which were told concerning them, so that people doubted whether there was any truth in the old Scriptures, whether such people as the Prophets had ever really existed. Here - says the Qur’an - is a Scripture whereof there is no doubt: here is a Prophet actually living among you and preaching to you. If it were not for this book and this Prophet, men might be excused for saying that Allah’s guidance to mankind was all a fable. This book and this Prophet, therefore, confirm the truth of all that was revealed before them, and those who disbelieve in them to the point of opposing the existence of a Prophet and a revelation are really opposed to the idea of Allah's guidance - which is the truth of all revealed religions. Our Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself said that the term Kafir was not to be applied to anyone who said “Salam” (peace) to the Muslims. The Kafirs, in the terms of the Qur’an, are the conscious evil-doers of any race of creed or community.
I have made a long digression but it seemed to me necessary, for I find much confusion of ideas even among Muslims on this subject, owing to defective study of the Qur’an and the Prophet's life. Many Muslims seem to forget that our Prophet had allies among the idolaters even after Islam had triumphed in Arabia, and that he “fulfilled his treaty with them perfectly until the term thereof.” The righteous conduct of the Muslims, not the sword, must be held responsible for the conversion of those idolaters, since they embraced Islam before the expiration of their treaty.
So much for the idolaters of Arabia, who had no real beliefs to oppose the teaching of Islam, but only superstition. They invoked their local deities for help in war and put their faith only in brute force. In this they were, to begin with, enormously superior to the Muslims. When the Muslims nevertheless won, they were dismayed; and all their arguments based on the superior power of their deities were for ever silenced. Their conversion followed naturally. It was only a question of time with the most obstinate of them.
It was otherwise with the people who had a respectable religion of their own - the People of the Scripture - as the Qur’an calls them - i.e, the people who had received the revelation of some former Prophet: the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians were those with whom the Muslims came at once in contact. To these our Prophet's attitude was all of kindness. The Charter which he granted to the Christian monks of Sinai is extant. If you read it you will see that it breathes not only goodwill but actual love. He gave to the Jews of Medina, so long as they were faithful to him, precisely the same treatment as to the Muslims. He never was aggressive against any man or class of men; he never penalized any man, or made war on any people, on the ground of belief but only on the ground of conduct.
The story of his reception of Christian and Zoroastrian visitors is on record. There is not a trace of religious intolerance in all this. And it should be remembered - Muslims are rather apt to forget it, and it is of great importance to our outlook - that our Prophet did not ask the people of the Scripture to become his followers. He asked them only to accept the Kingdom of Allah, to abolish priesthood and restore their own religions to their original purity. The question which, in effect, he put to everyone was this: “Are you for the Kingdom of God which includes all of us, or are you for your own community against the rest of mankind?” The one is obviously the way of peace and human progress, the other the way of strife, oppression and calamity. But the rulers of the world, to whom he sent his message, most of them treated it as the message of either an insolent upstart or a mad fanatic. His envoys were insulted cruelly, and even slain. One cannot help wondering what reception that same embassy would meet with from the rulers of mankind today, when all the thinking portion of mankind accept the Prophet's premises, have thrown off the trammels of priestcraft, and harbor some idea of human brotherhood.
But though the Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians refused his message, and their rulers heaped most cruel insults on his envoys, our Prophet never lost his benevolent attitudes towards them as religious communities; as witness the Charter to the monks of Sinai already mentioned. And though the Muslims of later days have fallen far short of the Holy Prophet's tolerance, and have sometimes shown arrogance towards men of other faiths, they have always given special treatment to the Jews and Christians. Indeed the Laws for their special treatment form part of the Shari'ah.
In Egypt the Copts were on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they are on terms at closest friendship with the Muslims at the present day. In Syria the various Christian communities lived on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they are on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims at the present day, openly preferring Muslim domination to a foreign yoke....
From the expulsion of the Moriscos dates the degradation and decline of Spain. San Fernando was really wiser and more patriotic in his tolerance to conquered Seville, Murcia and Toledo than was the later king who, under the guise of Holy warfare, captured Grenada and let the Inquisition work its will upon the Muslims and the Jews. And the modern Balkan States and Greece are born under a curse. It may even prove that the degradation and decline of European civilization will be dated from the day when so-called civilized statesmen agreed to the inhuman policy of Czarist Russia and gave their sanction to the crude fanaticism of the Russian Church.
There is no doubt but that, in the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. Let no Muslim, when looking on the ruin of the Muslim realm which was compassed through the agency of those very peoples whom the Muslims had tolerated and protected through the centuries when Western Europe thought it a religious duty to exterminate or forcibly convert all peoples of another faith than theirs - let no Muslim, seeing this, imagine that toleration is a weakness in Islam. It is the greatest strength of Islam because it is the attitude of truth.
Allah (SWT) is not the God of the Jews or the Christians or the Muslims only, any more than the sun shines or the rain falls for Jews or Christians or Muslims only.
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall was an Englishman, an orientalist, and a Muslim who translated the meaning of the Holy Qur’an. His translation was first published in 1930 and he was supported in this effort by His Highness, the Nizam of Hyderabad (the ruler of Deccan, in the South), India. Pickthall traveled extensively to several Muslim countries, including Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Egypt, Arabia and India. He spent several years in India and had interacted with the Muslims of India.
In 1927 Pickthall gave eight lectures on several aspects of Islamic civilization at the invitation of The Committee of “Madras Lectures on Islam” in Madras, India. Parts of Pickthall’s lectures were made available in India at various times. All of his lectures were published under the title “The Cultural Side of Islam” in 1961 by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Lahore from a manuscript provided by M.I. Jamal Moinuddin. The book has gone through several reprints since then.
An abridged version of his fifth lecture on the “Tolerance in Islam” is presented below. His long lecture frequently used quotations from the Holy Qur’an to emphasize many points and to support his analysis and conclusions. The major theme of his lecture is retained here. All of Pickthall’s eight lectures draw upon his vast knowledge of Islamic history, the Western religious, political and intellectual history through the ages, and their reasons for rise and fall. His lectures are very enlightening, analytically useful, and of great value even today.
An Abridged Version of Pickthall's Lecture
One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts: One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority, have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.
The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:
“Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.
“A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the “god” of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belabored and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers.”
That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days. Christendom regarded the outside world as damned eternally, and Islam did not. There were good and tender-hearted men in Christendom who thought it sad that any people should be damned eternally, and wished to save them by the only way they knew - conversion to the Christian faith.
It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Therefore the difference evident in that anecdote is not of manners only but of religion. Of old, tolerance had existed here and there in the world, among enlightened individuals; but those individuals had always been against the prevalent religion. Tolerance was regarded of un-religious, if not irreligious. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.
For the Muslims, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are but three forms of one religion, which, in its original purity, was the religion of Abraham: Al-Islam, that perfect Self-Surrender to the Will of God, which is the basis of Theocracy. The Jews, in their religion, after Moses, limited God's mercy to their chosen nation and thought of His kingdom as the dominion of their race.
Even Christ himself, as several of his sayings show, declared that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and seemed to regard his mission as to the Hebrews only; and it was only after a special vision vouchsafed to St. Peter that his followers in after days considered themselves authorized to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Christians limited God’s mercy to those who believed certain dogmas. Every one who failed to hold the dogmas was an outcast or a miscreant, to be persecuted for his or her soul’s good. In Islam only is manifest the real nature of the Kingdom of God.
The two verses (2:255-256) of the Qur’an are supplementary. Where there is that realization of the majesty and dominion of Allah (SWT), there is no compulsion in religion. Men choose their path - allegiance or opposition - and it is sufficient punishment for those who oppose that they draw further and further away from the light of truth.
What Muslims do not generally consider is that this law applies to our own community just as much as to the folk outside, the laws of Allah being universal; and that intolerance of Muslims for other men's opinions and beliefs is evidence that they themselves have, at the moment, forgotten the vision of the majesty and mercy of Allah (SWT) which the Qur’an presents to them.
In the Qur’an I find two meanings (of a Kafir), which become one the moment that we try to realize the divine standpoint. The Kafir in the first place, is not the follower of any religion. He is the opponent of Allah’s benevolent will and purpose for mankind - therefore the disbeliever in the truth of all religions, the disbeliever in all Scriptures as of divine revelation, the disbeliever to the point of active opposition in all the Prophets (pbut) whom the Muslims are bidden to regard, without distinction, as messengers of Allah.
The Qur’an repeatedly claims to be the confirmation of the truth of all religions. The former Scriptures had become obscure, the former Prophets appeared mythical, so extravagant were the legends which were told concerning them, so that people doubted whether there was any truth in the old Scriptures, whether such people as the Prophets had ever really existed. Here - says the Qur’an - is a Scripture whereof there is no doubt: here is a Prophet actually living among you and preaching to you. If it were not for this book and this Prophet, men might be excused for saying that Allah’s guidance to mankind was all a fable. This book and this Prophet, therefore, confirm the truth of all that was revealed before them, and those who disbelieve in them to the point of opposing the existence of a Prophet and a revelation are really opposed to the idea of Allah's guidance - which is the truth of all revealed religions. Our Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself said that the term Kafir was not to be applied to anyone who said “Salam” (peace) to the Muslims. The Kafirs, in the terms of the Qur’an, are the conscious evil-doers of any race of creed or community.
I have made a long digression but it seemed to me necessary, for I find much confusion of ideas even among Muslims on this subject, owing to defective study of the Qur’an and the Prophet's life. Many Muslims seem to forget that our Prophet had allies among the idolaters even after Islam had triumphed in Arabia, and that he “fulfilled his treaty with them perfectly until the term thereof.” The righteous conduct of the Muslims, not the sword, must be held responsible for the conversion of those idolaters, since they embraced Islam before the expiration of their treaty.
So much for the idolaters of Arabia, who had no real beliefs to oppose the teaching of Islam, but only superstition. They invoked their local deities for help in war and put their faith only in brute force. In this they were, to begin with, enormously superior to the Muslims. When the Muslims nevertheless won, they were dismayed; and all their arguments based on the superior power of their deities were for ever silenced. Their conversion followed naturally. It was only a question of time with the most obstinate of them.
It was otherwise with the people who had a respectable religion of their own - the People of the Scripture - as the Qur’an calls them - i.e, the people who had received the revelation of some former Prophet: the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians were those with whom the Muslims came at once in contact. To these our Prophet's attitude was all of kindness. The Charter which he granted to the Christian monks of Sinai is extant. If you read it you will see that it breathes not only goodwill but actual love. He gave to the Jews of Medina, so long as they were faithful to him, precisely the same treatment as to the Muslims. He never was aggressive against any man or class of men; he never penalized any man, or made war on any people, on the ground of belief but only on the ground of conduct.
The story of his reception of Christian and Zoroastrian visitors is on record. There is not a trace of religious intolerance in all this. And it should be remembered - Muslims are rather apt to forget it, and it is of great importance to our outlook - that our Prophet did not ask the people of the Scripture to become his followers. He asked them only to accept the Kingdom of Allah, to abolish priesthood and restore their own religions to their original purity. The question which, in effect, he put to everyone was this: “Are you for the Kingdom of God which includes all of us, or are you for your own community against the rest of mankind?” The one is obviously the way of peace and human progress, the other the way of strife, oppression and calamity. But the rulers of the world, to whom he sent his message, most of them treated it as the message of either an insolent upstart or a mad fanatic. His envoys were insulted cruelly, and even slain. One cannot help wondering what reception that same embassy would meet with from the rulers of mankind today, when all the thinking portion of mankind accept the Prophet's premises, have thrown off the trammels of priestcraft, and harbor some idea of human brotherhood.
But though the Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians refused his message, and their rulers heaped most cruel insults on his envoys, our Prophet never lost his benevolent attitudes towards them as religious communities; as witness the Charter to the monks of Sinai already mentioned. And though the Muslims of later days have fallen far short of the Holy Prophet's tolerance, and have sometimes shown arrogance towards men of other faiths, they have always given special treatment to the Jews and Christians. Indeed the Laws for their special treatment form part of the Shari'ah.
In Egypt the Copts were on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they are on terms at closest friendship with the Muslims at the present day. In Syria the various Christian communities lived on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims in the first centuries of the Muslim conquest, and they are on terms of closest friendship with the Muslims at the present day, openly preferring Muslim domination to a foreign yoke....
From the expulsion of the Moriscos dates the degradation and decline of Spain. San Fernando was really wiser and more patriotic in his tolerance to conquered Seville, Murcia and Toledo than was the later king who, under the guise of Holy warfare, captured Grenada and let the Inquisition work its will upon the Muslims and the Jews. And the modern Balkan States and Greece are born under a curse. It may even prove that the degradation and decline of European civilization will be dated from the day when so-called civilized statesmen agreed to the inhuman policy of Czarist Russia and gave their sanction to the crude fanaticism of the Russian Church.
There is no doubt but that, in the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. Let no Muslim, when looking on the ruin of the Muslim realm which was compassed through the agency of those very peoples whom the Muslims had tolerated and protected through the centuries when Western Europe thought it a religious duty to exterminate or forcibly convert all peoples of another faith than theirs - let no Muslim, seeing this, imagine that toleration is a weakness in Islam. It is the greatest strength of Islam because it is the attitude of truth.
Allah (SWT) is not the God of the Jews or the Christians or the Muslims only, any more than the sun shines or the rain falls for Jews or Christians or Muslims only.
Morality in War
Unmatched Morality:
Immediately after Umar ibn Abdul Aziz was elected Khalifah (caliph) in 717 A.D., a delegation of men from Samarqand (Uzbakistan) saw him and represented that the general of the Islamic armies, Qutaibah, had unjustifiably stationed his army men in the town in their midst. Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz wrote to the governor of Samarqand that he should appoint a tribunal to judge and settle the dispute between Qutaibah and the people of Samarqand. If the judgement of the tribunal goes against the army chief and his men are asked to vacate they must do so at once. The governor appointed Jami’ ibn Hadhir Albaji as judge for enquiry. After the enquiry was over, he, though himself a Muslim, passed the judgement that the Muslim army must vacate the town. He also remarked that the commander of the Muslim forces ought to have served an ultimatum of war to the city, and according to the Islamic Law relating to war, he ought have canceled all the treaties with them so that the people of Samarqand could get time to prepare for the war. "Sudden attack on them without warning was unlawful."
When the people of Samarqand witnessed this state of affairs, they were convinced that this was an unparallel case in the history of mankind .... the state keeping its Commander-in-Chief and the armies under such strict discipline and control, bound by lofty moral principles. And consequently they decided that fighting against such a people would be futile. Rather, they came to regard it as mercy and a blessing from God. Therefore, they agreed to live with the Islamic army in Samarqand.
Just imagine. An army conquers a city and enters it. The inhabitants of that city complain to the victorious government and the judges of that government decide the case against the victorious army, and order its externment, saying that they could not live there without the consent of the people of that city. Can either the ancient or modern history of mankind point out any war in which the fighting men kept themselves so strictly bound by the moral code, and followed such lofty principles of truth and justice, as demonstrated by the sons of our civilization? In so far as my own knowledge is concerned, not one among the nations of the world can be pointed out which demonstrated such lofty morals.
Treatment of Dhimmis:
Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus:
"The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you."
To this the citizens said in reply:
"God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us."
Even in our so-called civilized period it is like that. If an army has to vacate a station, it does not leave there anything that the enemy could utilize to advantage. But is there a single example of the practice of the victorious armies of Our civilization, in the entire history of mankind. By God! If I had no faith in lofty values, and did not believe in their success or like the politicians of the modern age, considered it necessary to keep morals and principles dominated by the political interests, I would have said that the leaders of our armies stuck to lofty values and love of principles due to their unawareness and simplicity. But it is a fact that they were really true Believers and did not like to say things they could not put into practice.
Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians
When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant.
Immediately after Umar ibn Abdul Aziz was elected Khalifah (caliph) in 717 A.D., a delegation of men from Samarqand (Uzbakistan) saw him and represented that the general of the Islamic armies, Qutaibah, had unjustifiably stationed his army men in the town in their midst. Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz wrote to the governor of Samarqand that he should appoint a tribunal to judge and settle the dispute between Qutaibah and the people of Samarqand. If the judgement of the tribunal goes against the army chief and his men are asked to vacate they must do so at once. The governor appointed Jami’ ibn Hadhir Albaji as judge for enquiry. After the enquiry was over, he, though himself a Muslim, passed the judgement that the Muslim army must vacate the town. He also remarked that the commander of the Muslim forces ought to have served an ultimatum of war to the city, and according to the Islamic Law relating to war, he ought have canceled all the treaties with them so that the people of Samarqand could get time to prepare for the war. "Sudden attack on them without warning was unlawful."
When the people of Samarqand witnessed this state of affairs, they were convinced that this was an unparallel case in the history of mankind .... the state keeping its Commander-in-Chief and the armies under such strict discipline and control, bound by lofty moral principles. And consequently they decided that fighting against such a people would be futile. Rather, they came to regard it as mercy and a blessing from God. Therefore, they agreed to live with the Islamic army in Samarqand.
Just imagine. An army conquers a city and enters it. The inhabitants of that city complain to the victorious government and the judges of that government decide the case against the victorious army, and order its externment, saying that they could not live there without the consent of the people of that city. Can either the ancient or modern history of mankind point out any war in which the fighting men kept themselves so strictly bound by the moral code, and followed such lofty principles of truth and justice, as demonstrated by the sons of our civilization? In so far as my own knowledge is concerned, not one among the nations of the world can be pointed out which demonstrated such lofty morals.
Treatment of Dhimmis:
Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus:
"The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you."
To this the citizens said in reply:
"God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us."
Even in our so-called civilized period it is like that. If an army has to vacate a station, it does not leave there anything that the enemy could utilize to advantage. But is there a single example of the practice of the victorious armies of Our civilization, in the entire history of mankind. By God! If I had no faith in lofty values, and did not believe in their success or like the politicians of the modern age, considered it necessary to keep morals and principles dominated by the political interests, I would have said that the leaders of our armies stuck to lofty values and love of principles due to their unawareness and simplicity. But it is a fact that they were really true Believers and did not like to say things they could not put into practice.
Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians
When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
|
| Subscribe to IRAT |
| Visit this group |
