This is actually an adaptation of the response I posted to a critical blogpost, on the aggressive partisan reviews a recent Malayalam movie was panned with … Left, Right, Left. Yes, that’s the name of the movie. It apparently takes up the cause of India’s right … the conservatives who hold sacred both the land and its values — social, religious, cultural and spiriual. Events in the movie allude to Communist and Muslim League group practices since playing out in real-time Kerala society…
Manya, first, I felt that you have expressed what you wanted to … rather well. I was without a doubt on that score. Thank you for that.
But I, who never watch TV tu-tu-mai-mai ever, also have a sense that your outpouring is basically highlighting the current context that prevails in Kerala : Hinduism and the Sanatan way, which made Kerala “God’s own country,” is no more the hallmark of life in the State. That open, embracing culture, which welcomed the Muslims, Christians and Communists, has been displaced and vitiated by communal identities of the very same communities. All with vehement political upmanship.
The reception the movie “Left, Right, Left” received is a consequence, not the cause, of what is happening in the State, in general with Arab money and in particular with this race among Saud Wahabi, the Vatican and the Communists for grabbing and rash-powering their respective followers.
So, the movie is making religious and political statements alright that people are reading into it. Saying, it is just a film, is to shy away from its context.
The battle with propaganda-ideology critics can only be taken forward on their premises, not backwards … to the days of our innocence.
Q : But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.
A : Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity ? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants ? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate ? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom ? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion ? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.
Q : It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments ?
A : It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong.
The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies ? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.
Q : But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved ?
A : This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran, the term “qaum” has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group] ?
In religious terms, India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect.
Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [ fatwas declaring someone as infidel ] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs.
Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult. But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.
Q : But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [ M.A. Jinnah ]…
A : Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years ?
Q : Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality ? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.
A : You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal, fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet, Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right ? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right ? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right ? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive. I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand.
Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.
We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them :
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there ?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan… The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all…
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world.
The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture, and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility.
On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate.
After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress; it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from capable rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems :
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.
Q : The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Is the birth of Pakistan inevitable ?
A : If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature.
If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state, both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any (amiable) conscious decision, but will be a (forced) logical consequence of its social realities.
How can you (Muslims) expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently (in accord with how the Muslims wants them to) ?
Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach…The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul.
Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message, and have divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism, and lost faith in Islamic values.
The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics…
Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis ? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda… The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner.
How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself… God alone knows what is in the womb of future.
Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.
“We believe that only truth will set mankind free. The truth about Islam is so ugly that no one wants to look at it. We did and revealed that truth with brutal honesty. The fact is that Muhammad was a psychopath. He was a liar, a pedophile, an assassin, a rapist, a thief, a lecher, a narcissist, a terrorist, a mass murderer and a madman. Muslims emulate a criminal and this explains the madness in the Islamic world.”
Islam divides mankind between Muslims and kafirs – a derogatory term that deniers of truth, blasphemers. And it instills hatred for the unbelievers among its believers, pitching them at a perpetual war, since no one has the authority to erase those canons from Islamic texts.
We can never have peace when a fifth of mankind adheres to an ideology of hate and worships a psychopath who said non-Muslims are …
and their property and women are made halal to you, enjoy them, they are lawful and good (8:69).
This faith of hate must be eradicated for humanity to survive and find its peace. Muslims must be read out the truth to wean them away from the barbaric exhortations of their books. (That indeed is the scope of this series of blog posts.) The fact that more than a billion benighted souls worship a thug does not make this cult and its founder deserving of respect. The ‘Prophet’ is more of an unhinged cultist like Hitler, Stalin, Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara and Charles Manson, than an enlightened soul as Jesus, Buddha or Zoroaster. His is not a religion but a very dangerously misguided cult.
The hour is come to tear down the wall of distrust between Muslims and the rest of mankind. The men who effected over 21000 terror attacks since 9/11 are not a ‘few bad Muslims who have misunderstood Islam and Jihad’. According to Maltus Swiss Research, they have killed 9856 non-Muslims every day on an average in the period between year 2O10 and 2012 alone. It is a political script they following to terrorise others into submission and gain power for themselves.
It is no sane god that raises a religion to divide mankind and institute a never-ending war. Speaking of which, it needs mention that Allah is not God. Originally known as the Moon god Hubaal (HaBaal in Hebrew), Muhammad carved this deity in his own image. Like his creator, Allah is a narcissist. Muhammad described ‘his’ Allah thus :
These are satanic attributes that underscore the threat of triumphant evil residing in man. They already reflect in how Muhammad acted in his own lifetime, treated women and children, and condemned his hordes to a life repressed.
Women, Before And After Islam
33.30 O Consorts of the Prophet !
If any of you are guilty of evident unseemly conduct,
the Punishment would double upon you,
and that is easy for Allah.
31. But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteously,
to her shall We grant her reward twice : and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.
That is how Muhammad would often remind his several wives to behave, in ways as to not attract the attention of other men and cover themselves up so they do not evoke desire among strangers.
32. O Consorts of the Prophet !
Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one whose heart is diseased should be moved with desire : but speak ye a speech (that is) just.
33. And stay quietly in your houses and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. For Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
Are these verses from God or worries of an impotent aging man with a bevy of young and attractive wives ? Muhammad needed to control his wives and that is the reason behind the Islamic veil. What was originally meant for the wives of the Prophet became part of Sharia, and is now imposed in all Islamic countries with ludicrous justifications.
That women in Arabia had more liberty and authority before Islam than after can also be evinced from the fact that Khadijah, Muhammad’s first wife, had a business of her own and had many men at her service. Muhammad was but one of her employees. Do we have any instance of a common woman in Islamic society who ran their own business and hired men to work for them ?
Ironically, there is no mention of men going to suffer any consequence for mistreating their wives. As a matter of fact, men are instructed to abuse their wives verbally, emotionally, and physically.
Q.4:34Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others; and because they spend out of their property; good women are therefore obedient (to men), guarding the unseen (their private physiology) as Allah has guarded; and (men,) (as to) those women on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High and Great.
If anyone has any doubt about the position of women in Islam, the above verse should make it clear. It takes away the woman’s independence and leaves them subservient to men. The verse suggests that men are the masters and owners of the house because they are the breadwinners. It implies that women are incapable of, and should not be allowed to, work and become providers. It assumes that a woman’s work at home, their taking care of children and the household, is worth nothing. And the a woman must be grateful for the piece of bread that her husband provides to her.
The entire train of explicit and implicit is worth a recount : First, the women are relegated to the rank of a slave. Then Muhammad goes further… He instructs men to punish their wives verbally, sexually and physically, downgrading them to the level of animals. In a world in which one could pay a fine for cruelty to animals and square up with calls for justice, the teachings of Quran are too obvious to swallow. It is unthinkable that a just God would pronounce such insults on women and condemn them to a life of such horror. The superiority of men over women is also ratified in verse 2:228 where it says : “and men are a degree above them (women)”.
Plainly, Muhammad used these scare mongering tactics to collect money from his foolhardy women who gathered around him and listened to his stories because he held the power to shelter them or cast them to the wolves.
In another place the Prophet of Allah compares women to devil.
“Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger saw a woman; so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them : THE WOMAN ADVANCES AND RETIRES IN THE SHAPE OF A DEVIL, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.
~ Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301
Of course, the seer was speaking of the loins when he spoke of the heart. One empathises with how a wife feels while knowing that her husband is fancying another woman and is using her anatomy to merely relieve himself ! The morality of the Prophet of 1.2 billion followers of Islam is stark.
There are numerous verses in the Quran and Hadith that are similarly outrageous. Observe the sense in the following Hadith…
Abu Huraira narrated :
Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” ~ Bukhari Vol 4, Book 54, Number 460
It would seem from these verses that Allah has nothing better to do than worry about the sexual pleasure of his male servants. It is quite absurd that God would employ so many angels to sit around and curse the women who do not please their husbands sexually. Hadiths like these are repeated so frequently that one begins to suspect whether Allah is a dirty old pervert – a voyeur who obtained his pleasure through ensuring that men had their fill of pounding sex with their kept women.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying : By Him in Whose Hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he (her husband) is pleasured by her.
It is easy to see that the Prophet of Islam was excessively concerned with sex. He was an old man with decaying teeth and foul smelling mouth, but with wives who were attractive courtesans. They must have enjoyed their status as the wives of the Prophet and the first ladies of Arabia, but may not have been keen to share the bed with an old man. Were the warnings about angel’s curse and Allah’s wrath were to coerce his wives to sleep with him ?
How can Muslim women endure so much insult and still trust the Prophet ? The following is a very obscene, derogatory and offensive statement from a man regarded as holy…
Narrated Usama bin Zaid :
The Prophet said, “After me, I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.”
The moral values and ethical benchmark of Muhammad are revealed in the following story…
Narrated Abu Usaid :
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls, between which we sat, and The Prophet said, “Sit here,” and (himself) went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a young girl from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in the house in that date-palm garden, in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu’man bin Sharahil. Her wet nurse was with her.
When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, “Give yourself to me (for sex) as a gift.” She said, “Can a princess give herself to an ordinary man ?”
The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge.”
Then the Prophet came out to us and said, “O Abu Usaid ! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family.
Didn’t Muhammad have enough women already ? Did he have to mount every beautiful woman, even girls under 10 years of age, whom he met ? We observe his wilful and uncontrolled temper : in a mere moment, he is overtaken by lust and compelled to ask the little Jauniyyah to “give herself to him as a gift”; when refused, he becomes violent and raises his hand to beat her; then, when she screams and seeks refuge with Allah, the brute in him comes to sense and feels guilty for his despicable behavior. To mollify his conscience, he decides to compensate the girl by bribing her with clothes.
Those who are familiar with this blog also know my antipathy for the Islamic belief – system; not for the people who live with the same physiology as the rest of humanity, experience the same emotions, work, laugh and cry, and aspire as we all do.
But their entire idea-being, their life and values perspective with which they view themselves, the world and the others in it, is warped beyond repair. It’s not just crap, lies and demeaning to humanity; it’s evil and destructive, way past measure. They associate spritual strengths to what are essentially political calls and dream of material equivalents in the spiritual realm.
Hence, this series …
There is no truth in a belief system that destroys diversity of human thought and life perspective, and aims to replace it with a uniform monochromatic pervasiveness. There is no future for a collective that is committed to annhilating people merely because they are different. And there can little happiness in a society where female and children are disrespected, devalued and repressed…
The only viable way of life is one that admits and exults in diversity, accepts and co-exists with competing thoughts and beliefs, and respects the sacred feminine. Unfortunately, the happy and viable way of pre-Islamic life in Arabian penisula was lost when Muhammad cursed al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the much loved and immensely regarded icons of people in Mecca, after he was advised to delete the “satanic” verses from Quran.
It is well-known that progression of Islam was compulsorily accompanied by the sword, except where people freely retained their cultural symbols and their earlier way of life. The text-trio of Muhammad’s new religion – Quran, Hadith and Sharia – fostered community values that mandated terror, lies, slavery, torture and rape as “just punishments” and acceptable means to subdue the non-believers, in order to saddle their souls and propagate brand Muhammad. It invaribly meant destruction of their settlements and plunder of their assets. That experience is part of our history, especially of the Jewish, Zoroastrian, European and the Indian people. And we hope the world will never forget that truth !
Some historians and Islamists have alleged that the Meccan Quraish lacked compassion for the poor, or were a society in disintegration. These conclusions are without substance, and have their only basis in Muslim texts. Indications are rather that they were economically buoyant and that social inequality in pre-Islamic society did not lead to a collapse, as claimed by the invading umma of the prophet.
If the pre-Islamists in Mecca and around were steeped in “Jahaliyat”, or ignorance, we are not informed of any blood-letting, massacre or genocide they perpetrated because of that.
What should concern us is that Islam is a threat to mankind. Islam reduces its followers to being brainless hate mongers. Hate is the essence of this faith… hate of non-believers, hate of believers who interpret Islam differently, hate of those who leave Islam, hate of women, hate of homosexuals, hate of freethinkers, hate of the Jews, hate of the Hindus … and the list goes on. Even dogs and pigs have not been spared from hate.
Observe, in just one instance among many, what the “enlightened” Muslim invaders of the new “religion of peace” did in India : Rizwan Salim, himself a Muslim, writes… Savages at a very low level of civilisation from Arabia and west Asia, with no culture worth the name, began entering India from early 8th Century onward. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered hundreds of thousands of sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women, ( as if they did not have any remotely respectable of their own ).
“Educated and even illiterate Indians know this story very well. History books tell it in remarkable detail. But many Indians do not seem to recognise that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth’s most intellectually advanced civilisation, the most imaginative and rich culture, and the most vigorously creative society ever. It is clear that India, at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8th to 11th century), was the earth’s richest region for its agriculture and craft, wealth in precious and semi – precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, its fine arts and letters.”
We need to understand why; and the followers of Islam need it the most !
I believe that the pursuit of truth can lead to madness … when egotism prevails. There is a wilfullness in overreaching by being “good,” on moral high gounds raised on ambition, howsoever merged in its accord with historical timeline. That was Gandhi … moral and right, up there as the ‘great leader’ of men, grafting a nation’s destiny all by himself … without an iota of the truth in respect of himself ! All that remains of him today are the falsehoods he had strayed into and embraced unawares.
I A DREAM OF DEATH
“I do not know if the sacrifice of Mr. Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi has gone in vain. His spirit always inspired me. I envy his sacrifice. Is it not shocking that this country has not produced another Ganesh Shankar? None after him came to fill the gap. Ganesh Shankar’s Ahimsa was perfect Ahimsa. My Ahimsa will also be perfect if I could die similarly peacefully with axe blows on my head. I have always been dreaming of such a death, and I wish to treasure this dream. How noble that death will be,—a daggar attack on me from one side; an axe blow from another; a lathi wound administered from yet another direction and kicks and abuses from all sides and if in the midst of these I could rise to the occasion and remain non-violent and peaceful and could ask others to act and behave likewise, and finally I could die with cheer on my face and smile on my lips, then and then alone my Ahimsa will be perfect and true. I am hankering after such an opportunity and also wish Congressmen to remain in search of such an opportunity.”
—Message sent by Mahatma Gandhi on the occasion of the celebration of the anniversary of the martyrdom of Shri Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi, who was killed in the Hindu-Muslim riot at Kanpur in 1931.
“I have never made a secret about the fact that I supported the ideology, which was opposed to that of Gandhiji. I firmly believed that the teachings of absolute Ahimsa as advocated by Gandhiji would ultimately result in the emasculation of the Hindu community incapable of resisting the aggression of other communities especially the Muslims.
“To counter this evil I decided to enter public life and … I might mention that is not so much Gandhi’s Ahimsa that we were opposed to but his bias for Muslims, prejudicial and detrimental to the Hindu Community and its interests. I have fully described my point of view and have quoted instances when how Gandhi became responsible for a number of calamities which the Hindu community had to suffer and undergo.
“On 13th of January 1948. I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given for such fast was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim unity in Indian Dominion. But I and many others could easily see that the real motive behind the fast was not merely the so-called Hindu-Muslim Unity, but to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government.
“In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that the religious and communal consideration should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country. At elections, inside and outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do.
“Under the influence of the Congress this ideal was steadily making headway amongst the Hindus. But the Muslims as a community first stood aloof and later on, under the corroding influence of the Divide and Rule Policy of the foreign masters, were encouraged to cherish the ambition of dominating the Hindus.
“The first indication of this outlook was the demand for separate electorates (conceded by the Congress firstly by the Lucknow Pact of 1916 and at each successive revision of the constitution thereafter) instigated by the then Viceroy Lord Minto in 1906. The British Government accepted this demand under the excuse of minority protection. While the Congress party offered a verbal opposition, it progressively supported separatism by ultimately adopting the notorious formula of neither accepting nor rejecting in 1934.
“Thus had originated and intensified the demand for the disintegration of this country. What was the thin end of the wedge in the beginning became Pakistan in the end…”
Emperor Aurangzeb issued a decree for demolishing the Kalka Temple, dedicated to the Mother Goddess. It’s what he wrote that is revealing of a senselessness that continues till date among the Taliban, Jihadists, ISI, Pakistan Army, Wahabis of Saud, Mullahs and orhtodox Muslim clerics everywhere, Kashmiri separatists, Jamaat-e-Islamists…
Translated, I am told, it reads :
“The asylum of Shariat (Shariat Panah) Qazi Abdul Muqaram has sent this arzi to the sublime Court : a man known to him told him that the Hindus gather in large numbers at Kalka’s temple near Barahapule (near Delhi); a large crowd of the Hindus is seen here.
“Likewise, large crowds are seen at (the mazars) of Khwaja Muinuddin, Shah Madar and Salar Masud Ghazi.
” This amounts to bid‘at (heresy) and deserves consideration.
” Whatever orders are required should be issued.”
The cleric’s request is immediately admitted by the highest arbiter of the land… a complaint based on hearsay… and
“Saiyad Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered (by the Emperor) to send one hundred beldars to demolish the Kalka temple, and other temples in its neighbourhood, which were in the Faujdari of Faulad Khan himself.
These men were to reach there post haste, and finish the work without a halt.”* * *
The Kalka Temple which stands today was rebuilt soon after Aurangzeb’s death (1707 A.D.) on the remains of the old temple dedicated to Goddess Kali. Two Akhbarat dated Sept 3 and Sept 12, 1667, provide details regarding the demolition of the temple on Aurangzeb’s orders.
Since 1764, the temple has been renovated and altered several times but the main 18th Century structure remains the same, more or less .
The site is very old dating back to Emperor Asoka’s time (3rd Century BC). There is mention of Kalka Temple in the Maratha records of 1738.
All through those centuries, people have flocked to the temple in large numbers, especially during Navratras twice a year.
“Saiyad Faulad Khan reported that, in compliance with the orders, beldars were sent to demolish the Kalka temple, which task they have done.
“During the course of the demolition, a Brahmindrew out a sword, killed a bystander and then turned back and attacked the Saiyad also. The Brahmin was arrested.”
* * *
There are only a few recorded instances of armed opposition by outraged Hindus, such as at Goner (near Jaipur), Ujjain, Udaipur and Khandela. But there were many more that have not been, of angry outbursts and resistance against Muslim vandalism… instances which did not make into official records of the Mughal state. And that is understandable in the era of deceit and intrigues, under an emperor who was known to be weak of the ear, suspicious, vindictive and brutal.Most of the Hindus took the destruction of these temples philosophically, considering these as acts of ignorance and folly, in vain and futile. They regarded it as a matter in accord with the little understanding of Musalmans, and their poor intelligence that left them incapable of comprehending the truth of the matter behind the idol worship or the fundamental oneness of saguna and nirguna worship.
The Hindus believed that Gods and Goddesses leave for their abode before the hatchet or the hammer of the vile destroyers – mlecchas and asuras – so much as even touched the idols.
The idea has been well described in Kanhadade Prabandha (1456 AD) while giving an account of the destruction of the Somnath temple by Sultan Alauddin’s troops in 1299.
“The Lord Cherisher of the Faith learnt that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan, and especially at Benaras, the Brahmin misbelievers teach their false books, in their established schools, to admirers and students, both Hindu and Muslim, who come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire their vile learning.
“His Majesty, eager to establish Islam, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels, and with utmost urgency, put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these unbelievers.”
This is not the only instance when Aurangzeb prevented the Muslims from acquiring knowledge and wisdom of the Hindu philosophical works and other Sanskrit and Bhasha classics, or sharing spiritual and intellectual experience. He thus stifled the process of fusion, or at least bridging of the gulf between the two creeds of very different approach, principles, values, levels of intellectual attainments and period over which their ideas evolved.
Instead, a ‘ general order ‘ of this type is issued to put down the teaching and public practice of religion by Hindu. There is no intelligible reason for such senseless acts, except profound hatred and fear or absence of critical capacity to examine and discriminate.
But the inferior mental assets of the Islamists proved very costly to people native to this land, as it continues to be in this age and time. They demolished some of the most lofty, beautiful and venerable shrines of India during the next few years !
However, nothing they could do took a speck away from Benares its unique position and prestige as the chief Vedic centre of learning, dharma shastras, the six philosophies, Sanksrit language and literature, and astronomy.
Eager to establish Islam, or at least perceived to be, Aurangzeb had on the 9th of April 1669 issued orders to governors of all provinces, to demolish schools and temples of the infidels… with utmost urgency, it must be stated, to put down the teaching and public practice of the religion of these (Hindus) unbelievers.
In the sketch above, the artist shows the destruction of hugely regarded temples at Somnath, Jagannath Puri, Benaras (Kashi Vishwanath) and Mathura (Keshava Rai)… all highly respected places of worship of some antiquity.
In the centre is a portion of the infamous order of the 9th April.