Distortions in the name of Islam

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Mitra,

Interesting piece, a must read.                                                

                cheers and om sanjeev

 

Distortions by Zakaria                                     By Vinod

Kumar                                                                                                                                                                                

Dr. Rafiq Zakaria is an eminent person with a long list of accomplishments, and

a well-known and prolific writer but his article "Islam a victim of distortion"

(chalomumbai.com June 17, 2002) is full of half-quotes and half truths. He has

gleaned from history what suits his bias. The article is simply full of

distortions and inaccuracies.He wrote that the Hindus are ignorant about Islam

-- which is mostly true -- but this ignorance has not been a curse for the

Muslims, as he says, rather a blessing, for otherwise, the articles full of

misinformation and distortions would not have seen the light of the day. Let me

discuss the main points raised by Dr. Zakaria one by one: 1. Kufr and kafir: On

the issue of kufr and kafir Dr. Zakaria's contention is that "the term 'kafir'

is derived from the world 'kufr', which means 'to hide or cover up'; it is

generally used for disbelievers -- those who deny the existence and unity of

God." This may be literally true but in Islam, connotation of "Kufr is

basically disbelief in any of the Articles of Faith in Islam." (Sahih Al-

Bukhari, vol. 1, Muhsin Khan, Kitab Bhavan, 1984, pp. li)  Therefore, even

though the Christians and the Jews believe in the "existence and unity of God,"

they have been called "infidels" -- kafirs.  The Hindus are guilty not only of

"kufr" but also of "shirk" -- "worship of others along with God. "Shirk" also

implies "attributing divine attributes to any other besides Allah." And to top

it they are also guilty of idolatry -- an act which in the eyes of Islam is

"worse than carnage" (The Koran, Dawood, Penguin Classics, 1990, 2:217) and

"God will not forgive idolatry." (Ibid., 4:116)Then he goes on to write the

term kafir is not derogatory; and secondly, no Indian Muslim, "to the best of

my knowledge" has used it for Hindus. In the medieval ages the Hindus, almost

without exception, were called kafirs by Muslim chroniclers. It is hard to

believe, knowledgeable as Dr. Zakaria is, he is not aware  of the big

controversy, about a decade ago, that was raised when Abid Reza Bedar, Director

of Khuda Baksh Library in Patna questioned the use of the word kafir for the

Hindus. (Indian Controversies, Shourie, 1993, pp. 387 - 397)According to the

Koran "He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted

from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost." (The Koran,

Dawood, Penguin Classics, 1990, 3:85) Kafirs - those who deny or not believe in

Allah's Revelations -- have only one place in the Koran - Hell: "Those that deny

Our revelations We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed

then We shall give them other skins so that they may truly taste the scourge."

(Ibid., 4:56)"As for the unbelievers, the fire of Hell awaits them. Death shall

not deliver them, .….." (Ibid. 35:36)The Koran equates unbelievers with beasts

(Ibid., 2:171) and is very explicit about what it thinks of them. I need not

quote all the Ayats here -- these are well known and easily accessible. Only

Dr. Zakaria seems to be unaware of them. 2. Hindus have "the most inveterate

aversion towards all Muslims" Dr. Zakaria quotes Alberuni.From this article it

seems Dr. Zakaria is driven solely by his hatred of the Hindus. He blames

Hindus for the antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims. To prove his

point he quotes a first rate scholar Alberuni. He is so sure of the ignorance

of the Hindus, to make his point, he does not quote the whole context, not even

the complete sentence -- just seven words at the end of it. Read the full

context of Alberuni: "Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and

performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of

dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the

people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate

aversion towards all Muslims." (Alberuni's India, Sachau, pp. 22)Being a good

Muslim, Alberuni called Mahmud's "ruining the prosperity of the country" as

"wonderful exploits" but at the same time, as a scholar, he regretted -- eager

as he was to learn the Hindu sciences -- that "this is the reason, too, why

Hindu sciences have retired far away from the parts of country conquered by us,

and have fled to places where our hands cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benaras,

and other places." (Ibid., pp. 22) In the very first chapter of his book,

Alberuni discusses at length the differences between the Hindus and the Muslims

and the circumstances that led to the antagonism between the two. Dr. Zakaria

should read it with an open mind. Were Hindus always so averse to Muslims as

Dr. Zakaria would like his readers to believe? The testimony of earlier Muslim

writers does not say so. When earlier Muslims had settled on the West coast,

the king gave them land grants to build their mosques and preach their religion

and convert freely. 3. Ibn Batuta Quoting Ibn Batuta, Zakaria wrote "no Muslim

was allowed to enter the house of a Hindu or give food in the same vessel as

theirs." He went on to write "If a Muslim is fed out of their vessels, they

either break the vessel or give them away to the Muslims." Hindus had their

notions of purity, especially in matters of food, which were in existence long

before the Muslims appeared on the Indian scene. Al Beruni, three centuries

before Ibn Batuta, observed that "the Hindus eat singly and they do not make

use of the remainder of the meal, and the plates from which they have eaten are

thrown away if they are earthen." (Alberuni's India, Sachau, pp. 180)This

practice of not eating with others is not limited to foreigners or Muslims

alone. It is still - to a lesser degree - prevalent even among the different

castes of the Hindus. Whether it is right or wrong is a separate issue. To

ascribe it solely in relation to Muslims neither presents a balanced view nor

speaks well of an eminent scholar.

Quoting Ibn Batuta Dr. Zakaria laments "no Muslim was allowed to enter the house

of a Hindu." There is an old saying "a house is man's castle" and no one has the

right to enter it without permission of the owner. Prophet Muhammad had also

said no one should enter another's house without taking permission first. A

Hindu has every right not to welcome anyone in his house he does not want to

and so does every one else. However, Dr. Zakaria fails to mention the

disabilities that the Hindus had to suffer under the long Muslim rule. Just to

give one example: Qazi Mughis-ud-din of Bayana, while justifying Ala-ud-din

Khalji's rigorous policy towards the Hindus, pointed out that, "if the revenue

collector spits into a Hindu's mouth, the Hindu must open it to receive it

without hesitation." Ala-ud-din assured the Qazi that he had given orders that

the Hindu shall not be allowed to possess more than what is required for a bare

subsistence. (History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. 6, 1990, pp. 25)And

Dr. Zakaria blames the Hindus for antagonism between the two!4. Religious places

Dr. Zakaria writes "Islam does not sanction the destruction of the places of

worship of other religions." If it is true, then how can Dr. Zakaria justify 

Prophet Muhammad's destruction of the idols of the Pagans of Mecca?The Holy

Quran also narrates the destruction of idols by Prophet Abraham (21:56-57). If

the Holy Quran does not specifically call for the destruction of idols or

others places of worship, it also does not condemn or criticize the destruction

of idols by Prophet Abraham or by Prophet Muhammad. Thus the followers of Islam

have the example set by the Prophets Abraham and Muhammad to emulate. The

destruction of others places of worship has been carried out from the days of

Prophet Muhammad. Had it not become an acceptable practice by Islam, why would

have Kadir bi-illah Amiru-l-muminin, the Khalifa of Baghdad sent a khillat,

such as had never been heard of, for the use of Sultan Saifu-d-daula?

Why would  have he given the titles of "Yamin-d daula and Aminu-l millat, the

friend of the amir-l muminin -- which had not yet been bestowed upon any

prince, either far or near - on Mahmud? (Tarikh Yamini, Al Utbi, translated in

History of India, Elliott and Dowson, 1996, Vol. 2, pp.24)Sultan Mahmud's main,

if not sole, claim to glory is his plunder and demolition of Hindu temples. To

the contrary, Sultan Mahmud instead of being bestowed with the highest honors

should have been castigated for bringing infamy to the name of Islam. Even

today Mahmud is regarded as "champion of Islam." If what Sultan Mahmud did -

plunder and demolition of Hindu temples -- was unIslamic, why would the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan glorify him by naming one of its most powerful and

prestigious missiles in his name? Mahmud did not even come from the land that

is now Pakistan. He was the conqueror of this land and demolished the temples

of the ancestors of modern day Pakistanis.

 

When Al Beruni wrote of "utterly ruining the prosperity of the country" -- the

country he referred to was present day Pakistan. Why would an Islamic country

honor the man who ruined its prosperity and especially if he committed such

unIslamic acts? 5. Aurangzeb "How is Islam responsible for what Aurangzeb did?

Or, for that reason, any other Muslim ruler did?" Zakaria asks. He then goes on

to say "the rulers of Delhi Sultanate as well as the Mughals were hardly

acquainted with the real teachings of Islam." Yes, it is true that some of the

Sultans of Delhi were illiterate and it is quite possible that they did not

know the teachings of Islam. But this cannot be said of Aurangzeb. "He had

prepared himself for the sovereign office by self-reverence, self-knowledge and

self-control. He was widely read and accurate scholar and he kept his love for

books to his dying days. He wrote many copies of the Koran in his own hand and

devoted his spare time in reading Arabic works on jurisprudence and theology

and hunted for MSS of rare old books like Nehayya, Ahiya-ul-ulum." (History of

Aurangzib, J. Sarkar, vol. 5, 1974, pp. 363) He is credited with having

memorized the entire Koran. He lived the puritan life of a good Muslim. How

many Muslim rulers have there been who were more Islamic than Aurangzeb was? He

was so committed to Islam that many historians have called him an "Islamic

zealot" and put the blame for the downfall of the Mughal Empire on his

religious fanaticism. Muslims call him "a living pir." How can Dr. Zakaria say

"How is Islam responsible for what Aurangzeb did?" As far as other Muslim

rulers are concerned, in spite of some of them being illiterate, many of them

had excellent knowledge of Islam. And those who did not, had a constant supply

of Ulema at hand. Almost all Muslim Sultans ruled in the name of Islam and

according to Islamic Sharia. Dr. Zakaria's argument does not hold water. 6.

Babar and Ayodhya It is hard to believe that Dr. Zakaria does not know that

Babar did go to Ayodhya. (Baburnama, Beveridge, pp. 656) The reason there is no

mention of Babar's visit there in the extant Baburnama is because in the text

there is a break of six months from April 2 to September 18, 1528  -- the

period during which Babar is reported to have visited Ayodhya. (Ibid. pp. 603)

To claim that Mir Baqi demolished a temple and built a mosque in its place

without Babar, if not ordering it, even not knowing about it is beyond the

realm of reality. But anyway, the inscription inside the mosque clearly states

that Mir Baqi built the mosque on Emperor Babar's orders. "By the command of

the Emperor Babur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to the very heights

of the heavens, The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place of

angels." (Ibid., Appendix U) And it is not that Babar did not destroy Hindu

temples (Ibid., pp. 612). He is well known for massacres of the "Pagans" as he

used to refer to the Hindus (Ibid., pp. 484) and building pillars of

"pagan-heads." (Ibid., pp. 576, pp. 573, pp. 596)At best, Dr. Zakaria is a poor

apologist for Babar. Still, I wonder why would any Indian even try to defend

Babar -- an invader of his own land?  I don't see Dr. Zakaria defending Robert

Clive. Is, in secular India, one's loyalty based solely on one's religion?If in

writing this article, Dr. Zakaria's purpose is to promote communal harmony, I

admire him for that. But his effort has been completely wasted. The way to do

so is not to distort, deny or whitewash the facts or the past of one's

co-religionists but to accept them as they are and move on. The End June 22,

2002

Discover your Indian Roots at - http://www.esamskriti.comLong Live Sanathan /

Kshatriya Dharam. Become an Intellectual KshatriyaGenerate Positive Vibrations

lifelong worldwide.Aap ka din mangalmaya rahe or Shubh dinam astu or Have a

Nice DayUnity preceedes Strength Synchronize your efforts, avoid

duplication.THINK, ACT, INFLUENCEShare the Wealth, to Un write

back.Knowledge, Wealth, Happiness are meant to be sharedBe Open Minded, pick up

what yu like from the worldBe Thick skinned, internalize criticism, do what yu

think is rightLet not the power of your enemy deter yu, fortitude is what the

Geeta teachesStop cribbing, ACTION is what the Indian scriptures talk aboutTake

the battle into the enemy camp, SET THE AGENDA, be proactiveIn an argument, no

emotions, be detached, get yr facts right, then attack with the precision of a

missile