One good thing is that Hindus becoming aware of Islamic doctrines is increasing in number, albeit slowly. While some still attribute Islamic extremism they come across to Muslim clerics and believe vast majority of Indian Muslims (or Muslims) are followers of moderate Islam, without knowing if there is such version. I like to point out that concept of existence of moderate Islam is different from that of existence of moderate Muslims.
(Note: By moderate Islam I mean Islam that is not calling Muslims to wage war aganst Non-Muslims and to subjugate them under Islamic sacred law (SHARIA LAW), which is not intolerant towards Non-Muslims and which doesn’t support social evils like triple talaaq, veiling, apostasy and blasphemy. Here I focus only on Islam with respect to Non-Muslims, leaving other topics like triple talaaq and veiling.)
So, besides the Maulvi s version of Islam, is there another version of Islam that can be called moderate (benign towards Non-Muslims), which is neither radical nor extremist? There is only one Islam that comes from Koran as it has been understood for 1400 years by overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars and Islamic jurisprudence.
(Note: All these Clerics and Maulvis read Koran for their whole life, so how come they be wrong unless, we want to see and believe like that.)
Read what Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, says on this:
“These descriptions are very ugly. It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” (Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007)
If existence of moderate Islam is a myth perpetuated on Non-Muslims (Hindus) by our media, intellectuals and politicians, it is some dubious Muslims who started concealing truth about Islamic doctrines by obfuscation, as they say: Koran is being misinterpreted and they (terrorists, extremists and mullahs) are interpreting Koran literally which is wrong. Sure they had to say these because terrorists and extremists started quoting verses from Koran in justifying their murderous acts. Please digest this word ‘LITERAL’. So how should Koran be interpreted, in literal sense or some mystic (cryptic) sense? What does Koran say on this?
Sure, Islam is not monolithic. But when it comes dealing with subjects like Non-Muslims, all important institution of Jihad and its consequence Dhimmah, apostasy and blasphemy all the schools of Islam, all the sects of Islam (including so called Sufism) have no differences in theology and Jurisprudence.
1. There is one Islam which is of Mullahs and Maulvis.
2. There is another Islam, according to these Hindu girls and Hindu guys who take their Muslim friends’ smooth words of deception as truth.
Can this be true? Are there two Islams?
‘LITERAL’ vs. ‘CRYPTIC’ >> Agreeing to many possibilities of interpretations of one Koran, to see if Mullahs are misinterpreting Koran for their own pretty uses and to see the possibility that Koran must be a difficult book to understand as its verses are cryptic, we need to check Koran itself – the ultimate source of Islam.
To understand a book, we need to understand what it purports to be. Koran says that it is guidance to Muslims. Properly put, in Ali Sina’s words:
“No book should be interpreted in any other way than its explicit meaning, especially if it purports to be a book of guidance. A book of guidance must be clear and without equivocation leaving no room for interpretation.”
Am I saying this? No. Check these verses from Koran:
2:002 > This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt…
2:185 > Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur’an, as a guide to mankind,
17:009 > Surely this <b> Quran guides to that….
16:064 > And We sent down the Book……(as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe..
Let us construct a small parable: It is a common knowledge that Muslims consider themselves as slaves before Allah (the master; Islam itself means submission.). When the master guides and gives commands regarding what should be done and what should not be done, those commands will be in cryptic (mystic) language or literal (clear) language?
Since, many readers here could be employees, instructions given by your company are in coded language or in literal sense? The simple logic that many Hindus do not want to see. Call it human nature.
There is more to this:
Since most of us are graduates, at least having the attended school, our professors (or teachers) taught us in literal sense or in some coded (cryptic) language?
Let s see more verses from Koran:
54:17 > And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember……
(Verses 54:22, 32 and 40 say the same thing.)
44:58 > So have We made it easy in your tongue that they may be mindful.
And the most important one:
6:114 > He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.
5:15 > …..there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah;…
(Koranic translations referred to are ( here) )
Can anything be clearer than what these verses are saying with regard to how Koran and verses in it are to be understood ! When one denies logic and rationality, gives up reasoning altogether, they can even interpret Koran as nothing but a version of popular comic Tom and Gerry and you all can believe that too. Anyone can easily see by reading Koran a little that text in Koran is extremely on literal level, for which one can not assign mystic meanings.
And it is in this literal sense that Islam was understood for 1400 years by all the Islamic scholars and by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Here, I will present, from classical to modern, what some Islamic scholars said with respect to Jihad (intolerance towards Non-Muslims), and please note also the nature of fighting:
Ibn Khaldun (14th century, highly respected and very popular scholar) says: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united (in Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them (religion and politics) at the same time. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense…….All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Qur’an. (To) discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is (for them to choose between) conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death.”
Sheikh Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (Syrian, 13th and 14th century Scholar in his book ‘The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad’) writes “Since lawful warfare is essentially Jihad and since its aim is that religion is entirely for Allah and the word of Allah is uppermost, therefore, according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought……. …….The most serious type of obligatory Jihad is the one against the unbelievers and against those who refuse to abide by certain prescriptions of the Shari’ah, like those who refuse to pay zakaah, the Kharijites and the like.”
Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
Al-Suyuti, who is called son of books, says, with respect to the infamous verse of sword in his tafsir: “It was sent down when security was removed by the sword.” And he never said that this command is only valid for time of Mohammad and 7nth century (This I took from jihadwatch.org).
Muhammad’s earliest biographer, a pious Muslim, Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him (Mohammad): ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.” (With respect to the verses 2:193 and also 8:39)
Ibn Kathir, 15nth century scholar: “Shirk is worse than killing.” (With respect to the verses 2:193 and 8:39)
Islamic sacred law – Hidayah, vol. II, p. 140 – of Hanafi school of Islam (Indian Sunni Muslims mostly adhere to this school.) says this: “It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”
Lets come to present day Islamic scholars in modern world.
Abdul Ala Maududi, the most popular Islamic scholar in Indian subcontinent whose works and quotes are even quoted by Bollywood Muslim celebrities and many Muslim websites in India, and also the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, writes this in his book ‘Jihad in Islam’:
“In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. ‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And ‘Jihad’ refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to acheive this objective.” (Page 8)
“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.” (Page 9)
“It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic ‘Jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.” Jihad in Islam” (Page 24)
“Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not seek to interfere with the faith, ideology, rituals of worship or social customs of the people. It allows them perfect freedom of religious belief and permits them to act according to their creed. However, Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic ‘Jihad’ also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the publich interest from the viewpoint of Islam.” (Page 28)
Al-Azhar University of Cairo in Egypt, the supreme authority in Sunni world of Islam, has certified a book which translates Islamic sacred law (Sharia law) of Shafi’i school of Islam in to English, called Reliance of Traveller, and this what it says on Jihad:
“@ o9.0: Jihad: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser Jihad. As for the great Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad”.
The scriptural basis for Jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:
1) Fighting is prescribed for you (2:216)
2) Slay them wherever you find them (4:89)
3) Fight the idolaters utterly (9:36)
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:
“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”.
@ o9.8: The Objectives of Jihad: The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29)
@ o9.9: The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) )
@ o9.12: Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.
@ o9.13: When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”
Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti (a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar) wrote in his book ‘Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography’: “the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war.”
I can go on quoting many more scholars from classical period and modern period on Jihad and what they said with respect to Islam on Non-Muslims, but it becomes unwanted and becomes lengthy, and readers can easily extend their comprehension.
All this is doctrinal and deeply rooted in Islamic theology. Do you think those tie wearing Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar university are some kind of extremists and do not know how to interpret Koran? Looking at Islamic theology and Jurisprudence, it is pretty clear that intolerance towards Non-Muslims is mainstream and existence of moderate Islam is a myth.
If all this intolerance towards Non-Muslims is purely doctrinal and limited to books, and has no influence on attitudes of Muslims towards Non-Muslims in day to day life then there would not have been any ‘Islamophobia’. Readers will completely understand what I am saying when they come to know about how all Islamic countries are treating Non-Muslims.
In a sane world, it only suffices to take a look at Cairo Declaration of Human rights , in the year 1990, by the Organization of Islamic Co-Operation – group of all Muslim Majority Nations and its statement of Muslims rejecting United Nations Human Rights Charter and also that Muslim majority nations will only define human rights according to Sharia which means Non-Muslims will be no more than animals (cattle) and have far fewer rights compared to Muslims in political, religious and social aspects (Sharia Law concerning Non Muslims OR Islam (or Sharia) on relations between Non-Muslims and Muslims; and Dhimma ). If the most important and powerful organization of Muslims (OIC) stands by Sharia, it is easy to see that intolerance towards Non-Muslims in the attitudes of Muslims is mainstream. Can any one be so naive to believe that Organization of Islamic Co-Operation can not interpret Koran properly?
By looking at extreme dehumanization of Non-Muslims that exists in all Muslim nations legally i.e. constitutionally, one can equally see that existence of Moderate Islam (Islam which is not intolerant towards Non-Muslims) is a myth. Here I elaborate on Pakistan but it is same in all Islamic countries like Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan.
In Pakistan, judiciary is two tired – nominal and Sharia based. In Sharia based courts, all Non-Muslims can not give any testimony but they are expected to stand by its rulings. In normal courts, testimony of one Muslim man is equal to that of testimony of 2 Non-Muslim men (4 Non-Muslim women) ( here ). This is dehumanization, can Hindus agree to this? In what way this is different from apartheid that existed in South Africa?
This stipulation that Non-Muslims cannot give any testimony (and its other variant) is based on Koran, and Pakistan accepting it and making it a part of its constitution should be seen as an act of few Mullahs and as misinterpretation of Koran? Are Hindus so devoid of wisdom and intelligence to believe that entire Pakistan, which is Islamic, cannot interpret Koran properly? Did Hindus of India see any smaller or broader movement in Pakistan among Muslims to remove this gross dehumanization of Non-Muslims? What happened to all those moderate and peaceful Muslims in Pakistan? Shouldn’t all this reflect the kind of attitudes Muslims have towards Non-Muslims? This clearly shows intolerance of Muslims towards Non-Muslims is mainstream.
Another reality of Pakistan deserves mentioning here. In 1950 s, Hindus (and Sikhs) constituted (about) 15% of Pakistan’s population. According to reports in 1998, population of Hindus came down to 1.6%. Now it must be much smaller, and it is certain that Hindus will disappear completely from Pakistan in few more years. Ethnic cleansing of Hindus? Extermination of Hindus? What else this could be called? Should this ground reality signify something to Hindus in India or all together be ignored?
Lets put this in proper perspective. Even by taking minimal numbers, we can easily see disappearance of 5 million Hindus in about 50 years. (Media literally guilt tripped Hindus in India over what happened in Gujarat (2002) – which itself is the making of Muslims – where 1200 people died, 250 of them being Hindus (according to the statement of Congress minister in Parliament). Media never gives this figure and instead tries to create an opinion in Hindus by choosing a style of reporting that conveys 1000 s of Muslims were killed, which resulted in Hindu bloggers equating Advani with ISI and Bin Laden.) So, what happened in Pakistan is this: 2000 Hindus disappeared per every week meaning, one Gujarat like incident per every week. Sure, analogy may not be 100% appropriate – Gujarat 2002 is one time incident in a decade, more so when we consider that Muslims were equally culprits – but any one can tell that extermination of Hindus from Pakistan is far inhuman, much wider in its scope and a far bigger crime on humanity. Shouldn’t this ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan reflect on intolerance of Muslims towards Non-Muslims?
(Even in Bangladesh, the population of Hindus (Non-Muslims) came down from (above) 30% in 1971 to less than 8% today. In few decades, they too will disappear.)
All this can only be attributed to Islam, intolerant attitudes of Muslims towards Non-Muslims in daily life. And all this makes sense in Islam. Just read what (Late) Abdul Ala Maududi, the most popular Islamic scholar in South Asia, and also the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, says with respect to Non-Muslims in his Tafsir with respect to the verse 6:88 :
“He (i.e. a Non-Muslim) who cannot distinguish between right ( i.e Islam ) and wrong (Non-Islamic faiths) and does not know the Straight Way for human life, may be alive on the biological plane, but his essential humanity is not. He (i.e. Non-Muslim) may be a living animal but is certainly not a living human being. A living human being is one who can distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, honesty from dishonesty.”
A Non-Muslim is a living animal or may be he is much worse.I can quote another 10 dozens of such verses from Koran tagging Non-Muslims along with cattle and animals. One such is:
Verse 98:006 > Those who disbelieved (8) be they from among the People of the Book or among those who associated others with Allah in His Divinity– shall be in the Fire, and will abide in it. They are the worst of creatures. (9)
Abdual Ala Maududi explains this verse as follows:
8. Disbelieved: Refused to acknowledge the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as Allah’s Messenger. The meaning is that the end of those from among the mushriks and the followers of the Book, who have not acknowledged the Messenger whose emergence by itself is a clear evidence, and who is reciting to them hallowed pages containing sound and correct teachings, will be as is being described below.
9. That is, they are worse than all creatures of God, even animals, for the animals do not possess reason and power, but these people reject the truth in spite of having reason and authority.
Secularists, feminists, leftists and other Hindus might say he is alone, conveniently forgetting the fact that even Muslim Bollywood personalities and many Islamic websites of Indian Muslims refer to the quotes of Maududi (sentence repeated) and this: Recently newstrackindia published this news > ‘Hate content against religious minorities rampant in school textbooks across Pakistan‘ . This report is not talking about madrassas, it is talking about proper schools – another report I put up below gives much clarity -, though it has not published how that hate content looks like. If you want to know about it, read from (here), which I put up 6 months back. Hate content reads like this: Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Christians are enemies of Islam and Pakistan. And they are like animals too. And this is based on Koran. Another report by US Commission on International Religious Freedom (here):
- Public school textbooks used by all children often had a strong Islamic orientation, and Pakistan’s religious minorities were referenced derogatorily or omitted altogether;
- Hindus were depicted in especially negative terms, and references to Christians were often inaccurate and offensive;
So, Maududi’s description of Non-Muslims as animals in accordance with Koran is the view of not just few ‘poor’ Mullahs but very much mainstream.
So, intolerance of Islam and Muslims towards Non-Muslims is neither artificial creation of Mullahs nor because of misinterpretation of Koran, it is very much mainstream – theologically and in every day life of Muslims, from school textbooks to law books. And the moderate Islam remains as wishful thinking.
Some Hindus might say Pakistan is a different country and it has its own laws ! Some Hindus might fall for this line as their brains are basically mashed, by this criminal conspiracy of left and secularists, in to believing that rationalizing Islamic fascism is secular and opposing it and standing for truth is Hindu communalism.
Muslims all over the world have only one Koran – for which they are so proud. And the laws of Pakistan reflect social, political and religious nature of that society i.e. attitudes of Pakistani Muslims are basically shaped by Koran and Islam. When Indian Muslims follow the same Koran (here same schools and sects too), how can anyone say that Indian Muslims have different attitudes towards Hindus (or Non-Muslims)? It is a simple question that is calling for introspection among Hindus but not any action (esp. Violence). In Pakistan, Muslims being in majority allowed them to order society in line with the teachings of Islam and Muslims in India are working towards that goal i.e. Islam and Muslims reign superior with Non-Muslims reduced to status of second class citizens. Until the tripping point, they try to appear standing for principles of democracy and secularism – but in truth these two concepts are their gate way to reestablishing Islamic rule in India, as part of ultimate Islamic goal: the whole world under Sharia (i.e. Islamic rule).
Similar is the case with all the Islamic countries in one way or other. Constitutions of these nations are not manifestos of some Muslim Terrorist Organizations. So, how is it that not a single Islamic country is able to interpret Koran properly ?
Islamic tolerance towards Non-Muslims is a myth unless we see ‘tolerance’ in Islamic context. As I pointed to Koran depicting Non-Muslims as animals, vilest of creatures and as vermin, and as enemies of Islam and Muslims, it no longer becomes a moral issue with Muslims to fight and kill Non-Muslims for subjugating them eventually. Fighting bad people and the worst creatures is a virtue. All societies either put bad people in prisons or restrict their freedoms, and imprisoned criminals have far fewer rights. Ultimately, Islam’s attitude to Non-Muslims is: “Look we are generous people. We kept you alive even though we knew you are a horrible creature. So, be grateful to us and live in your limits. Never ask for equal rights.”