Obey the Quran in its true spirit to be a Muslim

Obey the Quran in its true spirit to be a Muslim

By SULTAN SHAHIN | 12 March, 2016
Sufi madrasas have abandoned, at least on the Indian subcontinent, the concept of wahdatul wajud (unity of being), for fear that this would be considered too close to the Vedantic and, thus, Hindu concept of God.
Respected Sufi divines attending the counter-terrorism conference in Delhi, may peace and God’s grace be with you. The international counterterrorism conference being held in Delhi next week is happening at a delicate time. Already, scores of Indian youth are known to be fighting with the terrorist army of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); a few have even got themselves killed. Over 30,000 Muslim youth from 100 countries around the world joined this takfiri organisation within a year of its announcement of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as Khalifa. An influential Indian aalim, Maulana Salman Nadvi even addressed him as Ameerul Momineen (another term for Khalifa) in a letter posted on his Facebook page. Muslim newspapers were in general quite welcoming of the “Khilafat” until ISIS started broadcasting its brutalities in gory details, thus bringing itself into disrepute. Indian enthusiasm for the Khilafat was not surprising, as our current theology calls it a religious duty for all Muslims to help establish a Khilafat. At least 18,000 left their homes and jobs in British India in their bid to go and fight for the Khilafat-e-Osmania less than a hundred years ago. Many perished but are today revered as shaheeds (martyrs) and ghazis (Islamic warriors).
We are living in an environment in which our societies are producing armies of suicide bombers wherever and whenever required by a motivated group, with necessary funding and logistics. Some children already sing songs with refrains like “zindagi shuru hoti hai qabr mein (life begins in the grave)”. You can imagine what little effort is required by vested interests to turn people with such a belief system into suicide bombers. No wonder the application form for joining the so-called Islamic State army asks the potential recruits to specify their time and place of death. The ISIS knows no indoctrination is required; Islamic theological books are already doing their job for them.
Terrorist ideologues ask our youths not to wait for reaching the ISIS borders to start fighting jihad. Act as lone warriors, is the advice given to them through social media posts easily available to all. “Don’t wait to be trained in bomb-making too; don’t you have a car, just ram it into a crowd of infidels,” is another advice. Some misguided youth have already started following this advice in different parts of the world.
The situation today is dire. When self-declared Khalifa Baghdadi announced recently that “Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day,” not one Urdu newspaper in India disputed this, or expressed any outrage, though most editorial columns are now written by clerics. [One Urdu columnist did criticise Baghdadi over this remark, but most Sunni Muslims dismissed that as the ranting of a Shia.]
Respected Sufi divines, I am sure you will say repeatedly and fervently: Islam has nothing to do with terrorism; Islam is a religion of peace; even killing one innocent person in Islam amounts to the genocide of humanity and saving one life amounts to saving humanity (Quran 5:32). Some of you will probably also quote an iconic Quranic verse of freedom in religion, like La ikraha fid deen(There is no compulsion in religion: Quran 2:256) and teachings of co-existence like lakum deemaku, waleya deen (for you your religion and for me mine: Quran 109:6).
Of course, you will be totally correct and completely justified in making all these observations. Islam is indeed a religion of peace, compassion, pluralism, co-existence, good neighbourliness, complete human equality before God, gender justice and so on. Indeed, there are at least 124 verses that teach such humane traits. If all of us were to follow these constitutive verses of the Holy Quran, we should have been the most peaceful, pluralistic community on earth, as we have been at various places and in different periods of history. But the situation today is dire. When self-declared Khalifa Baghdadi announced recently that “Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day,” not one Urdu newspaper in India disputed this, or expressed any outrage, though most editorial columns are now written by clerics. [One Urdu columnist did criticise Baghdadi over this remark, but most Sunni Muslims dismissed that as the ranting of a Shia.]
Scholars of the moderate mainstream and Sufi ulema and mashaikh in particular have been denouncing terrorism and declaring Islam to be a religion of peace and pluralism repeatedly since 11 September 2001, when Islamist terrorists killed nearly 3,000 innocent people in New York. This denunciation of Islamist terrorism has been going on in India much longer. For, we have been at the receiving end of Islamist terrorism since much before 9/11.
So, I would like to tell the respected divines gracing this counterterrorism conference with their presence that the issue today is not that of denouncing terrorism as un-Islamic or declaring Islam as a religion of peace and pluralism. Not only Muslims, but even the world at large is aware of that. The question before us is the following. How come the more we denounce terrorism and the more we assert Islam’s peaceful nature, the more terrorists get created? What is the source of the terrorist ideology’s strength? Why are some of our educated, intelligent, internet-generation youth listening to the terrorist ideologues and not us, the moderate, the progressive, the Sufi? Why does a highly educated person of the 21st century leave his well-paying job, beautiful wife, children, all living in a peaceful environment, and rush to join a war, with death or severe injury assured, without a hundred per cent belief in his new-found faith, without a hundred per cent surety of the correctness of his cause? Where does this fanaticism spring from?
Nearly all Muslims consider Sharia as divine and immutable, even though it was first codified on the basis of some Quranic verses and pre-Islamic Arab Bedouin customs 120 years after the demise of the Prophet and completion of the religion of Islam as declared by God in the Quran (5:3). The result is that even Muslims living in non-Muslim majority multicultural Europe demand Sharia-compliant laws. No wonder that those who want to practice what they believe in would want to migrate to the so-called Islamic State, sometimes even with their families.
What are our educated youth learning about our faith on the internet or in madrasas, colleges and universities, being told by some of our greatest, universally respected theologians? From Sufi Imam Ghazali, Hanbali Ibn-e-Taimiya and Hanafi Sheikh Sirhindi to Abdul Wahhab, Shah Waliullah, Abul A’la Maududi, Syed Qutb, and even an indefatigable promoter of peace and pluralism like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, the curious youth gets the same message of supremacism, exclusivism, xenophobia, intolerance and his duty of jihad in the sense of qital, in varying degrees. A few specimens:
Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali: “…one must go on jihad at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…One must destroy their useless books” (Kitab Al-Wagiz FI Figh Madhad Al-Imam Al-Safi’i pp. 186, 190, 199-203).
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi: “It is the duty to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it voluntarily or after humiliation” (Hujjatullahu al-Balighah, volume 1, Chapter 69, Page No 289).
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed: “Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims” (Majmua Al-RasaelWal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291).
Abul A’la Maududi, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami: “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.”
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan says in that the job is  to exterminate unbelief from the world, even using military means. But if this is so, what would stop Bin Ladens and Baghdadis claiming that they are simply carrying forward this mission? It is not difficult for an intelligent, educated Muslim to find out that what is censured by moderates as radical theology is not substantially different from the current Islamic theology accepted through a consensus by the ulema of all schools of thought. Osama bin Laden and Baghdadi did not invent a new theology. Their use of consensual theology is what lies behind their great success in attracting thousands of youth in such a short while.
What are the ingredients of this consensual theology, which is leading to the radicalisation of our educated youth? A few examples:
1. Sufi concept of God is as universal consciousness or universal intelligence radiating His grace from every atom in the universe. Unfortunately, Sufi madrasas themselves have abandoned, at least on the Indian sub-continent, the concept of wahdatul wajud (unity of being), for fear that this would be considered too close to the Vedantic and, thus, Hindu concept of God. Instead, they teach Sheikh Sirhindi’s wahdatul shuhood (“apparentism”, unity of appearances) in the name of wahdatul wajud. Sheikh Sirhindi had invented this concept to counter the influence of Sufi masters like Mohiyiddin Ibn-e-Arabi and Mansour al-Hallaj. Most Sufi madrasas have thrown out of their curriculum books like Kahsful Mahjub, Awarif-ul-Ma’arif, Fawaidul Fu’aad, Masnawi Maulana Rumi, Gulsitanand Bostan, Fususul Hikam, teachings of Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti, Baba Fareed, Ameer Khusro, etc.
2. Radical ideologues quote some verses of Quran to support offensive jihad. We moderates from Sufi stream of thought counter that by saying: look at the context. These verses came during war and had to inevitably order killings, exclusivism, etc. It’s not unusual in wars to make binary arguments. They are not applicable todaywhen that context does not exist.
3. There is consensus in Islamic theology that Hadith, the so-called sayings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), are akin to revelation. These were collected up to 300 years after the demise of the Prophet and rational Muslims doubt their credibility and authenticity, but even the ulema opposed to ISIS cannot bring themselves to question the Hadith-based millenarian thesis that is the primary cause of ISIS’ great success in comparison to Al-Qaeda, which did not stress millenarianism.
As predictions can be interpreted to mean that the world is about to end, and Islam is about to be victorious following the end-time war such as being waged by ISIS, then what is the point of working for corporates run by infidels? Why not join the battle and become a martyr or ghazi just before the world ends? So goes the argument.
One of the permanent bestsellers in Delhi’s Urdu Bazar is a booklet called Qeyamat ki peshingoiyan (End-Time Predictions). I imagine a similar booklet selling on the streets of Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Istanbul, wherever. Why should ISIS not make good use of this belief, when it has the unquestioning support of theologians of all schools of thought, including self-proclaimed moderates, who call Hadith akin to revelation? Ahadith are also used to justify the killing of innocent civilians in a war, although there are repeated and clear instructions in the Quran against that. But the moment you say Hadith is akin to revelation, you are nullifying the impact of your Quranically justified claim that in Islam killing of one innocent person amounts to killing of humanity.
4. Nearly all Muslims consider Sharia as divine and immutable, even though it was first codified on the basis of some Quranic verses and pre-Islamic Arab Bedouin customs 120 years after the demise of the Prophet and completion of the religion of Islam as declared by God in the Quran (5:3). The result is that even Muslims living in non-Muslim majority multicultural Europe demand Sharia-compliant laws. No wonder that those who want to practice what they believe in would want to migrate to the so-called Islamic State, sometimes even with their families.
The radicalised youth cannot be blamed for feeling that the moderates in India, for instance, are hypocrites. They want to use their purported belief in the divinity of Sharia only for male-supremacist privileges like instant divorce and multiple marriages, whereas the radicals migrating to the so-called Islamic State are willing to accept all the rigours of Sharia’s criminal justice system, namely, cutting off hands for theft, lashes and stoning for adultery and murder, etc.
5. There is consensus in theology that helping establish and supporting a caliphate is the religious duty of Muslims, even though there is absolutely no such direction in the Quran and Sunna.
6. Hijrat (migration) to the land of Islamic Sharia from Darul Harb, where Sharia is not enforced is a religious duty for Muslims. This may appear grotesque at a time when millions of Muslims are marching to the so-called European “Darul Harb” almost barefoot in a desperate effort to escape from the so-called “Darul Islam” of Khalifa al-Baghdadi. The “Darul Islam” of Saudi Arabia has refused to give refuge to a single soul, while the European “Darul Harb” is accommodating millions of Muslims. But the ulema will not allow any part of their theology to be questioned.
7. Theologians of all school believe that some early verses of the Quran have been abrogated later verses. This consensual Doctrine of Abrogation is used by radical ideologues to claim that all 124 foundational, constitutive, Meccan verses of peace, pluralism, co-existence with other religious communities, compassion, kindness to neighbours, etc., have been abrogated and replaced by later Medinan verses. As long as Sufi theologians do not contest this Doctrine of Abrogation, their quoting verses from Meccan Quran has no meaning.
Turkish spiritual leader, Fethullah Gülen’s Hizmet movement calls its approach “Deradicalisation by Default.” This too, mainly, focuses on the positive features of Islam. Hizmet has vast resources and has deployed them well. It has already taken positions against widely accepted concepts like dar al-harb and dar al-Islam. But ISIS continues to draw a steady stream of recruits from Turkey and elsewhere.
Respected Sufi divines, I would, therefore, earnestly appeal to you to use the opportunity provided by the Delhi conclave to go beyond the usual shibboleths. Sufi approach of focusing on the positive features of Islam worked well at one time. There was no internet then. In the internet age, everyone is a scholar. In this age of instant scholarship, nothing can be hidden or bypassed.
It must be understood, that the radical theology and the current theology of consensus are by and large one and the same. Any differences are cosmetic. ISIS may vanish tomorrow. But the problem of radicalisation will remain. Islam supremacism, xenophobia, intolerance and exclusivism are inherent in the current Islamic, and not just Islamist, theology.
Focusing on positive features of Islam is an essential part of de-radicalisation, or, more realistically, preventing radicalisation. But this is not bearing fruit in full measure as the core theology agreed to by nearly all of us militates against these positives. As briefly outlined here, this core and consensual theology nullifies the impact of all arguments made against violent extremism. It is this core theology that needs to be refuted and changed. Let us all try and bring the core Islamic theology in line with the actual teachings of Quran and Sunnah.
Sultan Shahin is the Founding Editor of a Delhi-based progressive Islamic website, NewAgeIslam.com. He can be reached at sultan.shahin@gmail.com

There are 11 Comments

The assumed broad-mindedness, compassionate understanding, peacefulness of Sultan Shahin, may be well-intentioned. But all his arguments, in favour of peace, cooperation, fail when viewed against the history of Islam and what it has been and what it has done in 14 centuries, strike one as one more Moderate screen. It hides the barbaric realities which have been organic components of the ultimate Revelation. Etymologically Islam may mean peace. But historically - and history must be the measure of the truth and the meaning of the Faith - Islam is synonymous with Violence, Intolerance, Iconoclasm, War, and all the forms of hatred, of its division of Humanity into Dar-il Islam and Dar-ul Harb which must be violently suppressed and annihilated. If I were an American, I would not vote for Trump. But he is the first to have said publicly and bluntly that Muslims hate Americans and no one in the United States has contradicted him. Fifteen countries in Europe, including the very liberal, enlightened France, are changing their laws in the direction of what is conventionally called Right Wing Ideology, as a common response to the violent and hate-filled influence of their respective Muslim minorities. What is galling in Sultan Shahin confession that he is a compassionate moderate is that, as an Indian Muslim, he has no word, for he pretends not to have seen, nor to see, what havoc have Muslims done to the non-Muslims of India during the last 12 centuries. Does he believe, in view of all the ruins which are spread all over the Indian soil, that Islam means peace,pluralism, co-existence with other religions, compassion, kindness to neighbours etc.? He has never heard of Partition and the trisection of the Sub-Continent by the Indian Muslims? Nor of four wars and decades of terror? He never heard of the disappearance of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2002? Historian K.M. Panikkar writes that if a man were to ride a horse from Peshawar to Calcutta, he would not come across a single temple or monument built by the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Jainas. He never bothered to know, even to share in the glory of Islam, how did the desert of Arabia get reproduced culturally in North India? Nothing justifies Shahin's fake moderation as his endorsement of the totality of the contents of the Quran and the Hadiths, despite their large number of injunctions to the Believer to hate, torment, harass, kill the Kaffir. Al Baghdadi is honest and faithful to the scriptures, those young men and women, however educated they may be, who follow the IS, are actually backed by hundreds of Mullahs and by hundreds of thousands of silent Moderates. In fact all moderates disguise their self-delusion, if not their hypocrisy, by - and this is so disconcertingly remarkable - their inability, or unwillingness, to even suggest editing out the hate-commanding verses of the Quran. In 1963-64 Vatican II could prevail and promulgate the excision for the text of the Gospels those passages which attribute Christocide to the Jews. No one among the moderates - I am acquainted with Muslim moderation written in English and in French - has as yet proposed the elimination of hatred from the Orthodox texts and their teachings. As a matter of fact the moderates constitute an impediment between, particularly in India, Hindu intellectuals, thinkers, politicians and Muslim fundamentalists. However modern, enlightened moderates claim to be they are incapable to question the belief of a physical Arab God who actually wrote the verses of the Quran. Even the verse to approve of the Prophet's depriving his adopted son of his young wife and adding the young Ayesha to his harem. The conference of the Sufis is only a smokescreen. Sufis have never been pacifists. Sufis have been a mere, aberrant fringe on the large tapestry of Islamic history. In 1932, the Rector of Al Azhar University, declared: "Sufism is dead!" Sufis live in fear in Turkey, in Egypt, for fear of raw violence on the part of especially Sunni fundamentalists. Iqbal, in his book on the Reconstruction of Islam dismisses Sufism as an irrelevance, contrary to Islamic faith. Al Baghdadi is right to proclaim that Islam has never been a religion of peace. He is only telling it as it is. Ayatollah Khomeni strongly urged the Shia theologians to stop referring to Allah as the merciful, but to Allah as angry, jealous, vindictive, violent. He spoke to the students of the National University in Tehran that Music is anti-Islamic and worse it corrupts the mind and promotes craziness. It is damnably absurd for any Indian moderate to speak of Islam as peace, without even a hypocritical nod to Jainism. For no one in the world, at any time in History, not even Jesus Christ with his message of universal Love, has preached and practised Peace with more rigour, with more sincerity, as have the Jainas for the past 25 centuries. And yet one never hears, or reads, a single Indian Muslim evinvcing the slightest sensitivity towards the authenticity of peace as taught and transmitted by Jaina Dharma. Why? Why indeed would Shahin not see this spectacular reality which framed the Ahimsa of the Mahatma, against which all Indian Muslims promoted Jinnah as the sole leader of all Indian Muslims and approved of his Direct Action. What influence did the moderates exert against the apocalyptic, murderous upheaval brought about by the Muslim League in 1946-47? And what is their influence today while the Muslims continue to block the Hindus from having their temple in Ayodhya? Why is the memory of the iconoclasm and intolerance of Hinduism and of Hindus, symbolized by the Babri Mosque, so important for the Muslimness of the fundamentalist and of the moderates? Sufism was not part of the first Muslim state founded by the Prophet. Muhammad owned not one, but 9 swords, which he used to cut down Jews and Christians. Sufism arose later in the history of Islam, and there is no doubt it was due to the influence of mainly the Vedanta doctrine. In a correlative development the Qawalli is an Islamized offshoot of Indian classical music taken from its Bhajan form. It is accordingly called Sufi music. At Ajmer Sharif I was surprised to see the priest's modus operandi modelled on that of a pujari in a Hindu temple. When Sufis reject the Vedanta influence on the form of their spirituality they are actually stressing the exclusivism of Islamic fundamentalism. For the Muslims did not take only the numerals from the India. They also took something from the Indian spiritualities. On the other hand, Shahin ought to ask himself why did the Mahatma take so much from Ruskin, Thoreau, Emerson, the Gospels, Tolstoi, and nothing from Islam while he was surrounded by Muslims. In support of his peaceful politics of Ahimsa, he never referred to Islam, though he was close to Abdul Kalam Azad, renowned for his Islamic scholarship and his knowledge of the Arabic language. There is no reason for any justidication, historical or doctrinal, to accept at first value the attempt to beguile the reader into believing in the mirage of Islam as Peace, Kindness, Tolerance, Compassion. Al Baghdadi represents genuine Islam. The Islam of the Prophet. The Islam which will be as it is till the Day of Judgement. For there is no moderation in Islam, or in being a Muslim. Wearing a fig leaf does not make the Muslim a moderate. As Lenin said: In a politician, do not look at his mouth; look at his hands. In a moderate do not look at his words. Just look at how he twists Chapter and Verse to cover the other chapters and the other verses. One must look at Moderation as self-delusion, in contrast with exclusivist Īmān enjoined with Belief. The Kaffir must be prudent when he is faced with the Moderate. In the 1920s Mahatma Gandhi sided with the fundamentalists in favour of the re-establishment of the Califate, Moderates like Jinnah opposed him claiming to be more modern and secular. The moderate became the Great Leader of the violent Pure State. Even Hitler did not call himself Fuehrer der Gross (Qaid e Azam).

Thanks for your wonderful write-up. Probably related to the environment during its origin, Islam is a more violent religion than most of the popular religions. Claiming that it is moderate in its existing form is equal to denying the reality of the violence that has always been associated with islam. However, it is really appreciable and should be encouraged that moderates like Sultan Shahin are given more platforms to spread their non-violent form of Islam. The need of the hour is to convert ISlam from it's violent form to a non-violent and more tolerant one. But that would require modifying or ignoring various sections of the Koran. Looks definitely like a daunting task for the moderates!

Nothing is likely to change from today in the practise of Islam unless the Islamic scriptures are revised and reformed. But this is next to impossible Any such effort will be treated as blasphemous meriting instant elimination. Moderates will not therefore succeed at all. Some other solution has tyo be thought of to combat radicalism

Absolutely right!

Subject: Some Quotes From History On Islam: Rabindranath Tagore A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims cannot confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked many Muslims whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common motherland, I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them. Rabindranath Tagore We want to draw a veil over our past to appease the Muslims…. We have done it for a long time. It is time to lift the veil…. Lala Lajpat Rai I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim History and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible not practicable… I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindi-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis. The leaders cannot override them. Sarat Chandra Chatterji If we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of the Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country, destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumerable indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious behavior has entered the bone marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among equals…. I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity, which could not be achieved during the last thousand years, will not materialize during the ensuing thousand years. Annie Besant The inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ‘unbelievers’ has spring up naked and unashamed…. We have seen, revived, as guide in practical politics, the old Muslim religion of the sword…. In thinking of an independent India, the menace of Mohammedan rule has to be considered. Sri Aurobindo I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslim and they must prepare for it. Hindu–Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Sri Aurobindo You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate’? You cannot build unity on such basis. Perhaps the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them lose their faith in their religion. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar To talk about Hindu-Muslim unity from a thousand platforms or to give it blazoning headlines is to perpetrate an illusion whose cloudily structure dissolves itself at the exchange of brickbats and desecration of tombs and temples….Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity up to now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind. Dr.B.R. Ambedkar The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. Ram Swarup Religious harmony is a desirable thing. But it takes two to play the game. Unfortunately such a sentiment holds a low position in Islamic theology. Shiv Prasad Roy Pakistan and Bangladesh are their fixed deposits. Those are Islamic states. No one else can lay claim on them. India is a joint account. Plunder it as much as you please. Francois Gautier This is a profession of faith of a Muslim: ‘I certify that there is no God than Allah, of whom Mohammed is the only prophet’, which means in effect: After and before Mohammed, there is nobody else…’Thus the whole religion of Islam is based on negation: nobody but us, no other religion but ours’. And if you disagree, you shall die. This puts a serious limitation to tolerance and from this strong belief sprang all the horrors of the Muslim invasion of India. Francois Gautier Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese. Will Durant The Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history. Alain Danielou From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions Rizwan Salim Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chronicles and others of the time. Rizwan Salim Savages at a very low level of civilization and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women..….. But many Indians do not seem to recognize that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth’s most mentally advanced civilization, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society. Irfan Husain The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried…..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Dr. Younis Shaikh ....eighty million were slaughtered and millions of women were raped…..it was standard practice for Islamic warlords like Ghori and Ghazni to unleash the mass rape and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of women after the slaughter of all males. A large percentage of Muslims in South Asia today are the progeny of forcible conversions and systematic rape campaigns by marauding Muslim invaders. Koenraad Elst The number of victims of the persecutions of Hindus by Muslims is easily of the same order of magnitude as that of the Nazi extermination policy, though no one has yet made the effort of tabulating the reported massacres and proposing a reasonable estimate of how many millions exactly must have died in the course of the Islamic campaign against Hinduism (such research is taboo). On top of these there is a similar number of abductions and deportations to harems and slave-markets, as well as centuries of political oppression and cultural destruction…… Dr K D Prithipal Muslims will only live as an oppressive majority and a turbulent minority. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel A nationalist Muslim is only a contradiction in terms. --

Amazing, this is a valuable website nhl 17 coins http://www.luminosity.gg/forums/Main-Forum/1522/cheap-fifa-17-points-console-games

You're an extremely practical site; could not make it without ya! nhl 17 coins http://wmqa.net/index.php/15973/become-instant-rock-story-with-guitar-idol-world-tour-game

You're a really useful website; could not make it without ya! fifa 17 http://www.localsoundsonline.net/2k17coins/blog/59/buy-fifa-17-points-should-you-purchase-your-rental

You've gotten incredible info right here fifa 17 coins http://www.golfcave.co.uk/forum/forum/general-golf-chat/111-buy-fifa-coins-outlined-and-are-very-clear

I love this website - its so usefull and helpfull KATHLEEN http://eauction.gemtree.in/blogs/11391/7336

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.