Criticism no 3:
"Wave after wave of barbarian conquest has rolled over this devoted land of ours. "Allah Ho Akbar!" has rent the skies for hundreds of years, and no Hindu knew what moment would be his last. This is the most suffering and the most subjugated of all the historic lands in the world. Yet we will stand practically the same race, ready to face difficulties again and again if necessary; and not only so, of late there have been signs that we are not only strong, but ready to go out for the sign of life in expansion." (Works Of Swami Vivekananda III.369-70)
"What is called the Mohammedan invasion, conquest or colonisation of India means only this that under the leadership of Mohammedan Turks, who were renegades from Buddhism, those sections of the Hindu race who continued in the faith of their ancestors were repeatedly conquered by the other section of that very race, who also were renegades from Buddhism of the Vedic religion and served under the Turks, having been forcibly converted to Mohammedanism by thier superior strength. (Works Of Swami VivekanandaVII:395)
"The principal cause of the present degradation of Persia is that the royal line belongs to the powerful, uncivilized Turkish stock, whereas the subjects are the descendants of the highly-civilized ancient Persians, who were Aryans. In this way the Empire of Constantinople --the last political arena of the Greeks and Romans, the descendants of civilized Aryans -- has been ruined under the blasting feet of powerful, barbarous Turkey. The Moghul Emperors of India were the only exceptions to thisrule; perhaps that was due to an admixture of Hindu ideas and Hindu blood. In the chronicles of Rajput bards and minstrels, all the Mohammedan dynasties which conquered India are styled as Turks. This is a very correct appellation, for, of whatever races the conquering Mohammedan armies might be made up, the leadership was always vested in the Turks alone... What is called the Mohammedan invasion, conquest, or colonisation of India means only this that, under the leadership of Mohammedan Turks who were renegades from Buddhism, those sections of the Hindu race who continued in the faith of their ancestors were repeatedly conquered by the other section of that very race who also were renegades from Buddhism or the Vedic religion and served under the Turks, having been forcibly converted to Mohammedanism by their superior strength." (Works Of Swami VivekanandaVII. 394-5).
Response:
One of the Important facts that cannot be Ignored is that, Islam arrived in India much earlier than the Invasions. Islam arrived through Trade at the costal India. Islam's impact was the most notable in the expansion of trade. The first contact of Muslims with India, was the Arab attack on a nest of pirates near modern-day Bombay, to safeguard their trade in the Arabian Sea. Around the same time many Arabs settled at Indian ports, giving rise to small Muslim communities. the growth of these communities was not only due to conversion, but also the fact that many Hindu kings of south India (such as those from Cholas) hired Muslims as mercenaries.
Contrary to popular belief, Islam came to South Asia long before Muslim invasions of India. Islamic influence first came to be felt in the early 7th century with the advent of Arab traders. Trade relations between Arabia and the subcontinent are very ancient. Arab traders used to visit the Malabar region, which was a link between them and ports of South East Asia, to trade even before Islam had been established in Arabia.
According to Historians Elliot and Dowson in their book The History of India as told by its own Historians, the first ship bearing Muslim travelers was seen on the Indian coast as early as 630 AD. H.G. Rawlinson, in his book: Ancient and Medieval History of India claims the first Arab Muslims settled on the Indian coast in the last part of the 7th century AD. Shaykh Zainuddin Makhdum’s “Tuhfat al-Mujahidin” also is a reliable work.This fact is corroborated, by J. Sturrock in his South Kanara and Madras Districts Manuals, and also by Haridas Bhattacharya in Cultural Heritage of India Vol. IV. It was with the advent of Islam that the Arabs became a prominent cultural force in the world. The Arab merchants and traders became the carriers of the new religion and they propagated it wherever they went.
The first Indian mosque was built in 629 A.D, at the behest of Cheraman Perumal, during the life time of Muhammad (c. 571–632) in Kodungallur by Malik Bin Deenar.
In Malabar the Mappilas may have been the first community to convert to Islam because they were more closely connected with the Arabs than others. Intensive missionary activities were carried out along the coast and a number of natives also embraced Islam. These new converts were now added to the Mappila community. Thus among the Mapilas, we find, both the descendants of the Arabs through local women and the converts from among the local people.
As the coastal trade and shipping of India came to be controlled (from the 8th century onward) increasingly by Muslims from such regions as Gujarat and various parts of south India, elements of Islamic culture began to filter into island Southeast Asia. But only in the 13th century after the collapse of the far-flung trading empire of Shrivijaya, which was centered on the Straits of Malacca between Malaya and the north tip of Sumatra, was the way open for the widespread proselytization of Islam. With its great war fleets, Shrivijaya controlled trade in much of the area and was at times so powerful that it could launch attacks on rival empires in south India. Indian traders, Muslim or otherwise, were welcome to trade in the chain of ports controlled by Shrivijaya. Since the rulers and officials of Shrivijaya were devout Buddhists, however, there was little incentive for the traders and sailors of Southeast Asian ports to convert to Islam, the religion of growing numbers of the merchants and sailors from India. With the fall of Shrivijaya, the way was open for the establishment of Muslim trading centers and efforts to preach the faith to the coastal peoples. Muslim conquests in areas such as Gujarat and Bengal, which separated Southeast Asia from Buddhist centers in India from the 11th century onward, also played a role in opening the way for Muslim conversion.
Elsewhere in the Qur'an, He affirms that,
"Every nation has a Messenger" (10:47) and "every nation [is] summoned to its Book"(45: 28). These verses show us that God could certainly have sent a messenger to the Hindus; and one of them could have been Siddhartha Gautama. Buddhism resembles revealed religion in another one of its tenets: that throughout history, prophets have come to reveal the same truths to humanity, but after them, human followers have debased these religious truths.
There is considerable evidence from writings of Al-Biruni, Sogidan, Uyghur and Manichean texts that the Buddhists, Hindus and Jains were considered People of the Book and references to Buddha as Burxan or a prophet can be found.
Islam did not spread by sword
It is a common misgiving among many non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, had it not been spread by use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that led to the rapid spread of Islam.
1. Islam means peace. Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which
means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is
a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of
the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt). 2. War was an exception than arule in Islam At times, the force has to be used to
maintain peace.Islam stands for peace. However, it allows its followers to
fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times,
require the use of force. Thus in Islam, force is in fact used to restore peace
and justice. 3.The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given
by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8): "History makes it clear however, that the legend of
fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of
the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth
that historians have ever repeated."
4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not
a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.
5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians. Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years.
For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled.
Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14
million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If
the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who
would have remained a Christian. 6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand
years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians
are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword. 7. Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is a country that has the maximum
number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims.
May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?" 8. East Coast of Africa. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East
Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword,
"Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?" 9.The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and
Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam:
"The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion,
at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone.
There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all
men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for
him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it
can." 10.No compulsion in religion. With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur’an 2:256] 11. Sword of the Intellect. It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "Invite
(all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with
them in ways that are best and most gracious." [Al-Qur’an 16:125] 12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984. An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year
book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major
religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared
in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity
had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century
which converted millions of people to Islam? 13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe. Today the fastest growing religion in America is
Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers? 14.Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry
that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to
realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day
MUHAMMAD (pbuh) was born" "Invite all to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; And consult
with them in ways that are best and most gracious." (Al Qur'an, 16:125) Person who converts and converted by force cannot be True Muslims! Although realistic in its approach, Islam never tolerates aggression from its own side
or from any other side, nor does it entertain aggressive wars or the initiation
of aggressive wars. Muslims are commanded by Allah not to begin hostilities, or
embark on any act of aggression, or violate any rights of others. Some
particular verses of the Qur'an are of significant bearing. Allah says:"Fight in the cause of Allah those who
fight you, and do not transgress limits (begin not hostility): For Allah loves
not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out
from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than
slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight
you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who
suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight
them on until there is no more persecution or oppression, and there prevail
justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except
to those who practice oppression" (Al-Baqarah:190-193)
So it’s clear that war is not an objective of Islam nor is it the normal course of Muslims. It is only the last resort and is used under the most extra ordinary circumstances when all other measures fail. This is the actual status of war in Islam. Islam is the religion of peace: its meaning is peace; one of Allah’s Names is Peace; the daily greetings of Muslims and angels are peace; Paradise is the abode of peace, the adjective “Muslim” means Peaceful. Peace is the nature, the meaning, the emblem and the objective of Islam. Every being is entitled to enjoy the peace of Islam and the kindness of the peaceful Muslims, regardless of religious or geographical or racial considerations, so long as there is no aggression against Islam or the Muslims. If non-Muslims are peaceful with the Muslims or even indifferent to Islam, there can be no ground or justification to declare war on them. There is no such thing as religious war to force Islam on non-Muslims, because if Islam does not emerge from deep convictions, from within, it is not acceptable to Allah, nor can it help its professor.
If there is any religion or constitution that guarantees peaceful freedom of
religion and forbid compulsion in religion, it is Islam, and Islam alone. To
this point the Qur'an refers as follows: "Let
there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error; Whoever
rejects Evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold,
that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things." (Al-Baqarah:
256)"
What is the Truth then ? A dialogue was held between Hinduism and Islam in Glasgow University, U.K. on
30th November 2006 wherein this author spoke on Muslim view of Hinduism and
Prof. Chakravarthy Ram-Prasad who teaches Hinduism in U.K. spoke on …A Hindu
View of Islam?
I must say Prof. Ram-Prasad views of Islam are quite objective and rational. He is free of prejudices, which are prevalent among non-Muslims. His paper is quite scholarly and well documented. I had also heard him speak during the dialogue and whatever he said about Islam was agreeable. However, his treatment of the subject is more historical and political rather than theological. He also concentrates on Indian Islam rather than universal Islam.
Construction of pan-Indian religious communities and identities was a colonial political project, which is being perpetrated by our political leaders in post-colonial, post-independence India. One has, therefore, to emphasise multiple identities and Indian lives with but also one has to realise that the idea of pan-Indian religious communities is going to pose political problems.
However, problem does not start only with the construction of a single Hindu identity as a colonial project, it also lies in the sense of ‹Å“civilizational divide, as Ram-Prasad puts it, created by the writings of a number of Muslim elite who had accompanied various armies that invaded the Hindu kingdoms of India or attended courts of Muslim rulers. But again use of words like ‹Å“Hindu kingdomsand ‹ “Muslim rulersare somewhat problematic. This is again to fall prey to colonial construction of identities. No such identity as ‹Å“Hinduor ‹Å“Muslimexisted. There were different Buddhist, Rajput, Brahman dynasties which were invaded and those who invaded should not be bracketed within universal Muslim identity; they too belonged wither to Ghaznavid, Slave, Tughlaq or Khalji dynasties who were fighting against each other. Using words like “Hindu or ‹Å“Muslim rule or ‹Å“Hindu and Muslim period leads to supporting the colonial project.
Muslims themselves were divided not only among various invading dynasties but also among those who came from outside and those who were converted, again for myriad reasons to Islam. Those converted were despised by the ruling classes who came from outside. The latter looked down upon the indigenous Muslims. Also, the indigenous Muslims like Hasan Mewati, refused to side with invader like Babur and instead fought with Rana Sanga and thousands of Mewati Muslims (indigenously converted) fought along with the Rana and courted death.
Thus Indian social reality is extremely complex and defies any neat categorisation, however carefully made. The Pathans, whom the Moghuls had defeated never saw eye to eye with them and always sided with those who fought against Moghuls. Then also Rajput clans were fighting against each other and some Rajput rulers like Raja Mansingh sided with Moghuls whereas some others like Rana Pratap fought against them. And a Pathan like Hakim Khan Sur fought against Moghul army along with soldiers of Rana Pratap. Thus a Rajput fought a Rajput and a Muslim (Akbar) fought a Muslim (Hakim Khan Sur).
The British were not the only ones to read into these elite discourses the entire history of India as the violent clash of Islam with Hinduism, the utter rejection of every aspect of the latters culture by the former and the essential ¢â‚¬Å“ even racial ¢â‚¬Å“ difference between Muslims and Hindus?
