The
destruction of Hindu temples at the hands of Islamized invaders continued
for more than eleven hundred years, from the middle of the seventh century
to the end of the eighteenth.1 It
took place all over the cradle of Hindu culture, from Sinkiang in the North
to Tamil Nadu in the South, and from Seistan in the West to Assam in the
East.2
All along, the
iconoclasts remained convinced that they were putting into practice the
highest tenets of their religion. They also saw to it that a record was
kept of what they prized as a pious performance. The language of the record
speaks for itself. It leaves no doubt that they took immense pride in doing
what they did.
It is inconceivable
that a constant and consistent behaviour pattern, witnessed for a long
time and over a vast area, can be explained except in terms of a settled
system of belief which leaves no scope for second thoughts. Looking at
the very large number of temples, big and small, destroyed or desecrated
or converted into Muslim monuments, economic or political explanations
can be only a futile, if not fraudulent, exercise. The explanations are
not even plausible.
In fact, it is
not at all difficult to locate the system of belief which inspired the
behaviour pattern. We have only to turn to the scriptures of Islam-the
Qur’ãn and the Sunnah of the Prophet-and we run straight into what
we are looking for. The principles and the pious precedents which were
practised and followed by the subsequent swordsmen of Islam are, all of
them, there.
The scriptures
of Islam do not merely record what happened in the past; they also prescribe
that what is recorded should be imitated by the faithful in the future,
till the end of time. That is why the swordsmen of Islam who functioned
in times much later than that of the Qur’ãn and the Sunnah, did
what they did. It is in the very nature of scriptures, as we shall
see, that they make permanent what can otherwise be dated and dismissed
as temporary aberrations.
Those scriptures
are still being taught in hundreds of maktabs and madrasas spread over
the length and breath of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Missionaries of
Islam that are turned out by these institutions, year after year, are never
told by their teachers that the prescriptions regarding other people’s
places of worship stand abrogated or are out of date. At the same time,
the swordsmen who destroyed innumerable temples and monasteries all over
the vast cradle of Hindu culture, retain their halos as the heroes of Islam.
That alone can explain why Hindu temples become the first targets of attack
whenever Muslim mobs are incited against India by the mullas in Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Kashmir.
It is, therefore,
worthwhile to clarify what the word “scripture” stands for, before we take
up the scriptures of Islam. The language of Christianity
and Islam in the modern media has confused the language of religion, all
along the line. Even scholars do not seem to know or care to clarify that
scriptures as such are specific to the prophetic or revealed religions
such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and that they remain unknown to
the pagan3 spiritual traditions such as that
of the Hindus, the Chinese, the ancient Iranians, and the pre-Christian
Greeks, Romans, Germans, Slavs, Scandinavians, Celts, etc.
The confusion
has been further confounded by what passes for Secularism in this country.
Most of our scribes in the mass media are either equally ignorant of all
religions or equally indifferent to them. But they insist, with considerable
vehemence, that all religions say the same things. Politicians in power
are much worse. As they preside over the birthday functions or festivals
related to Šrî Rãma, Šrî KrishNa, Bhagavãn Mahãvîra,
Bhagavãn Buddha and Guru Nãnak on the one hand, and Jesus
Christ and Prophet Muhammad on the other, they harangue the audience to
follow the teachings in each case. It never occurs
to them that Christianity and Islam have nothing in common with the Hindu
spiritual traditions and that the followers of the former have tried and
are trying their utmost to wipe out the latter.4
Etymologically,
the word “scripture” is derived from the Latin “scribere”, to write.
In the lexicons of the revealed religions, however, the word does not refer
to writing down of human speech or verbalizing of human thought or recording
of terrestrial events. Instead, it stands for the “Word of God” written
in “the Book”.
The word of God,
in its turn, does not come to any and every one who seeks it, howsoever
devoutly. Instead, it is “revealed” to some highly privileged persons known
as “prophets”. Everyone else has to learn it second-hand, and accept it
as authentic even when it runs counter to one’s experience, or reason,
or moral sense, or all of them taken together. No one else can have direct
knowledge of it or aspire to enter into the consciousness to which it was
revealed, as in the case of pagan spiritual traditions which entitle every
seeker to attain the consciousness of their greatest saints and sages,
and know God directly and first-hand. Belief in the word of God as spoken
by the Prophet and as written in the Book is, therefore,
all that is needed for qualifying as one of the faithful. At the same time,
mental belief and not moral behaviour is the criterion for judging a person’s
character.
Nor
do the prophets take birth among any or every people. Etymylogically,
the word “prophet” is derived from the Greek “phanai”, to speak,
which is a cognate of the Sanskrit “bhaNa”. In the lexicons of the
revealed religions, however, the prophet is no ordinary spokesman. Instead,
he is the “spokesman of deity.”5 And he is
“sent” only to the “Chosen People,” with whom God intends to enter into
a “Covenant”.
So far there have
been only three chosen people-the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims.
According to the covenants which God has entered into with them, each of
them has been promised world-dominion and untold amounts of unearned wealth
in exchange for making God known to all those who worship “other gods”
and thus deny God’s “Unity” and “Unique Majesty”.
In
due course, as the word of God is studied, systematized and interpreted,
it gives birth to a supplementary discipline named Theology. Etymologically,
the word “theology” is a compound of two Greek words-“theos”6
meaning “god”, and “logos” meaning “word.” But curiously enough, the ancient
Greeks from whose language the compound has been constructed were unaware
of the very notion of word of God. Theology was formulated and used for
the first time by the Founding Fathers of the Christian Church for presenting
their peculiar creed to pagans in the Roman Empire. It had nothing whatsoever
to do with any Greek religion or philosophy, of which there were quite
a few before they were destroyed or subverted by Christianity. Islamic
scholarship which flourished in the wake of the Prophet, fashioned another
theology, more or less on the same pattern, a few hundred years later.
Theology is a
large and complex subject. What concerns us here is some specific features
which characterise it. One of those features is that the life-style of
the Prophet and his companions/apostles is proclaimed as the “divine pattern
of human conduct” which should be copied by everyone, everywhere, in order
to qualify for salvation or paradise. According to another, the doings
of the chosen people as they wage wars, conquer countries and convert or
kill other people, are to be seen as the unfoldment of a “divine plan in
human history”.
What is most significant,
however, is that theology notices and notifies three neat and sharp divisions.
Firstly, it divides human history into two periods-an “age of ignorance”
preceding the appearance of the Prophet, and an “age of illumination”
following that event. Secondly, it bifurcates the human family into two
factions-the “believers” who accept the Prophet as the one and only
“mediator” between God and human beings, and the “unbelievers” who have
either not heard of the Prophet at all or find him unacceptable
for whatever reason. Thirdly, it breaks up the inhabited world into two
camps-the lands ruled by the believers, and the lands where the unbelievers
live.
Proceeding further,
theology pronounces a permanent war, hailed as “holy”, between the three
sets of divisions. Religions and cultures which preceded the age of ignorance
have to go and yield place to the religion and culture of the age of illumination.
Next, the believers must strive, ceaselessly and by every means at their
disposal, to convert the unbelievers to the new creed. Finally, the lands
of the believers must be made into launching pads for missions as well
as military expeditions to be sent to the lands of the unbelievers, so
that the latter are conquered and turned into lands of the believers.
Naturally,
the places where the unbelievers worship and the institutions which sustain
that worship, become the first and foremost targets of holy wars. The idols7
of the unbelievers’ Gods are at least mutilated, if they cannot be smashed
to pieces. The temples where those Gods are worshipped are at least desecrated,
if they cannot be destroyed. The schools and monasteries where the unbelievers
learn their religion are at least plundred, if they cannot be razed to
the ground. The saints, sages and scholars who guide the unbelievers are
at least humiliated, driven out and deprived of livelihood, if they cannot
be killed outright. The literature which enshrines the unbelievers’ religion
and culture is scattered to the winds, or burnt on the spot, or used as
fuel in the homes of the believers. And so on, the war on the religion
and culture of the unbelievers is total and unrelenting.
These operations
are expected to help the unbelievers lose faith in their own Gods and acquire
an awe for the God of the conqueror. The God of the conqueror stands glorified
when new places of worship are raised on the sites of the old, preferably
with the debris of those that have been deliberately demolished. And that
God is fully vindicated when the believers tread under foot the idols of
the unbelievers’ Gods or their pieces, as they walk towards the new places
of worship for offering prayers.
Finally, theology
enjoins that the holy wars and all that they mean should be recorded meticulously
and in lustrous language. These records testify to the unfoldment of the
divine plan in human history in the past, and inspire future generations
of believers to unfold it further. We have three extensive versions of
this unfoldment or the triumph of the “true faith” over “false belief-the
Judaic, the Christian, and the Islamic. All of them glorify the “great
heroes” who waged holy wars and heaped defeats and humiliations on the
“infidels”. The “rich rewards” which God bestowed on the believers for
fulfilling their part of the covenant are also described at length. And
succeeding generations of believers have, no doubt, felt inspired to follow
in the footsteps of their “illustrious forefathers”.
Apart from providing
the right perceptions, inspiring pious performances, and establishing illustrious
precedents, theology serves another and, psychologically, a very useful
purpose. It prepares the believers for feeling the “glow of faith” as they
read or listen to the unfoldment of the divine plan in human history. The
accounts are spiritually satisfying-how every trace of the religion and
culture of the age of ignorance was wiped out, to start with, in the Prophet’s
own land of birth; how one land after another was invaded and laid waste
without any provocation on the part of the victims of aggression; how innocent
and defenceless people were massacred in cold blood and with a clean conscience;
how large numbers of noncombatant men, women and children were captured
and sold into slavery and concubinage; how native populations were reduced
to the status of non-citizens, drawing water and hewing wood for the conqueror,
and groaning under the weight of discriminatory levies and back-breaking
disabilities; how great creations of graphic arts were mutilated or broken
to pieces or trampled under foot; how edifices of exquisite beauty, embodying
skills accumulated over ages, were pulled down and levelled with the ground;
how whole libraries containing priceless works of science and literature,
were burnt down; how saints and sages and scholars who had given no offence
and meant no harm, were humiliated or manhandled or killed; how vast properties,
moveable and immoveable, were misappropriated. And so on, the record is
invariably crowded with the darkest crimes and fiendish cruelty. Only the
believers find it fulfilling. For persons with normal moral sensibilities,
it is a nightmare. The only point which goes in its favour is that it provides
the best commentary on the doctrines of the creed concerned.
Looking at the
character of the God of revealed religions, the quality of his words, the
life-styles of his prophets, and the course of his divine plans in human
history, one wonders whether the revealed religions do not reveal an Orwellian
world abounding in marvels of doublethink and double-speak. Here one meets
the Devil masquerading as God, and gangsters strutting around as prophets.
Here one discovers that the scripture does not inspire spiritual seeking
or moral discipline but, on the contrary, encourages the basest in human
nature to run riot without any restraint. All in all, Theology stands out
as another name for Demonology, and the revealed religions reveal themselves
as no more than totalitarian ideologies of imperialism, of enslavement
and genocide. They turn out to be older versions of what we have known
as Communism and Nazism in our own times. A Secularism which puts them
on par with the spiritual traditions of Hinduism is not only foolish but
also mischievous. It misses the very meaning of religion, and shelters
gangsterism.
Islam uses the
Arabic language instead of Hebrew or Greek, but says the same things as
the older revealed religions. Its only point of departure is that it abrogates
the earlier revelations, and subordinates the earlier prophets to the “latest
and the last”.
Islam has hijacked
Allah from the pantheon of the pre-Islamic Arabs and turned him into a
jealous God who tolerates no “other gods”. Allãh of Islam is no
more than a reincarnation of Jehovah, the Judaic and the Christian God
in the Bible.
The prophet of
Islam, Muhammad, moulds himself, consciously and progressively, in the
image of Moses. In fact, his very name, Nabî, has been taken from
the Hebrew Lexicon.
Allãh now
speaks only through the mouth of Muhammad. That is the Qur’ãn, or
the Book (Kitãb). Here also the word of God is borrowed,
by and large, from the Bible. The only difference is that the Qur’ãn
lacks the literary merit and narrative coherence of the earlier scripture.
It is a loose bundle of vehement utterances, without any chronological
or thematic order, and has to be understood with the help of laborious,
very often speculative, commentaries.
Again, Allãh
acts in the life-style of Muhammad. That is the Sunnah of the Prophet.
This divine pattern of human conduct knows all the answers. No pious Muslim
has to use his own mental faculties or devise his own individual course
of action. It is all laid down for him, from birth to death, and even beyond.
As the theologians of Islam say, Muslims should not use their aql
(reason); all they need is naql (imitation of the Prophet).
The covenant,
MiSãq, into which Allãh enters with the newly chosen
people, the Ummatu Muhammadî, commands them to worship him
alone and convert or kill or enslave those who worship other gods. Allãh’s
earlier covenants with the Jews or the Ummatu Ibrãhîmî
and the Christians or the Ummatu Îsã, stand cancelled.
Now onwards, Muslims alone are entitled to rule over the world and appropriate
its wealth. There is a slight “improvement” also in the new covenant. Plunder
of the infidels’ properties, particularly their women and children, was
not permitted to the earlier chosen people, while it has been prescribed
as obligatory for the Ummatu Muhammadî.
The doings of
the Ummatu Muhammadî in Arabia and many other lands manifest
the divine plan in human history. The annals of Islam, the Twãrîkh,
which are an integral part of its theology, have been penned by some of
its most pious scholars.
The theology of
Islam, Kalãm, deals with the same old divisions of human
history, the human family, and the inhabited world. The
period before Muhammad started receiving revelations and proclaimed his
prophethood is denounced as Jãhilîya, the age of ignorance;
the period succeeding that event is the age of Ilm, enlightenment.
Those who recite the Kalima or confession of faith-Lã Ilãha
Illa‘llãhû, Mahammadûn Rasûl‘llãh (there
is no god but Allãh and Muhammad is the Prophet)8
-are Mu‘mins, the believers; those who do not, are Kãfirs,
the unbelievers. The lands ruled by the Mu‘mins are Dãr
al-Islãm, abodes of peace, while those where the Kãfirs
live are Dãr al-Harb, abodes of war, where the Mu‘mins
should ply their swords. It sounds logical that in popular Muslim parlance
a Kãfir is often called a Harbî, that is, one
who deserves treatment of the sword.
Finally,
Islam enjoins a permanent war, Jihãd, by the Mu‘mins
and against the Kãfirs. We need not give the details which
we have already presented elsewhere, in principle as well as practice.9
Suffice it to say that it is an extremely bloody affair, entailing continued
wars of conquest, massacres, mass conversions by force, widespread plunder,
enslavement of prisoner taken in war, collection of booty including non-combatant
men and women and children, subjugation of native populations, and the
rest. What concerns us here is that Jihãd is centred round
iconoclasm. In fact, the need for Jihãd arises only because
the Kãfirs worship their own Gods instead of Muhammad’s Allãh.
Jihãd, therefore, remains incomplete till all places where
those Gods are worshipped get levelled with the ground, and all saints
and priests who spread and sustain Kufr are converted or killed.
Confining
ourselves to India, “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest
story in history,” according to Will Durant, the famous student of civilizations.
He finds it “a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization
is a precious thing whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture
and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians…”10
But the pious Muslims read or listen to this story with immense satisfaction.
They go into raptures as their heroes invade Sind and Hind, massacre the
accursed Kãfirs without remorse, capture and sell into slavery
large numbers of Hindu men and women and children, kill or heap humiliations
on Hindu saints and scholars, desecrate or destroy idols of Hindu Gods
and Goddesses, pull down Hindu temples or convert them into masjids
and madrasas, reduce the Hindus to non-citizens in their own homeland,
and misappropriate all properties, moveable and immoveable. And they get
furious when they find the Hindus failing to admire Muhammad bin Qãsim,
Mahmûd of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghûrî, Shamsu’d-Dîn
Iltutmish, Ghiyãsu’d-Dîn Balban, ‘Alãu’d-Dîn
Khaljî, Muhammad and Fîrûz Shãh Tughalaq, Sikandar
Lodî, Bãbur, Aurangzeb, and Ahmad Shãh Abdãlî,
to cite only the most notable among Muslim heroes in the history of India.
The theology of Islam has thus performed to perfection the function it
is intended to perform, even though the forefathers of an overwhelming
majority of Muslims in India were victims of this theology.
In our specific
context, namely, the destruction of Hindu temples, it should be more than
sufficient if we merely cite what the Qur’ãn says, in verse after
verse and chapter after chapter, vis-a-vis the mushriks (polytheists)
and the aSnãm (idols) they worship. Allãh of Islam
leaves no one in doubt that he sanctions the destruction of “false gods”
and the places where they receive homage. So is the case with the Sunnah
of the Prophet. We have only to list the instances of iconoclasm which
Muhammad undertook himself or ordered in his own lifetime, and we have
more than sufficient pious precedents which the faithful are expected to
follow. Anyone who says that the Qur’ãn and the Sunnah do not enjoin
the destruction of other people’s places of worship has either not read
the documents, or has failed to grasp the message, or is practising deliberate
deception. No amount of apologetics can cover up or explain away the principle
and the practice.
A mere narration
of principle and practice, however, is likely to leave a mistaken impression.
People who are not familiar with the rise and spread of Islam have been
led away by the Big Lie that the people of Arabia rallied round a prophet
and did, willingly and voluntarily, whatever he asked them to do, because
they knew no better. This lie has succeeded to a great extent not only
in the lands which are now occupied by the believers but also in India
which has battled with Islam for more than thirteen hundred years. But
nothing can be farther from the truth as told in the orthodox biographies
of the Prophet. The people of Arabia resisted Muhammad and his message,
and fought in defence of their ancient religion and culture, till they
were forced to surrender in the face of a formidable military machine forged
by him at Medina. The machine was financed by plunder obtained through
widespread raids, and manned by desperados recruited from all over Arabia.
Neither the Qur’ãn nor the Sunnah of the Prophet can be understood
or evaluated properly unless it is placed in its historical context, namely,
the pre-Islamic Arab society and culture which had functioned for a long
time to the satisfaction of the people concerned, till Muhammad appeared
on the scene.
Footnotes:
1 We are leaving for the time being the destruction that took place in Muslim princely states under British rule as also that which has continued since 1947 in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir. 2 We are leaving for the time being the destruction which took place and is taking place in Indonesia and Malaysia.
3 The Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines a pagan as “a heathen, one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim…”
4 The subject has been discussed in detail by Dr. Harsh Narain in his study, Myths of Composite Culture and Equality of Religions, published by Voice of India, New Delhi, 1991.
5 See the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary for the Meaning of Prophet.
6 It is a cognate of the Sanskrit “deva”.
7 The word “idol” is derived from the Greek “idein”, to see, which is a cognate of the Sanskrit “vid”, to perceive.
8 The first part of the Kalima is often translated as “there is no god but God,” which is not only misconceived but positively mischievous. Allãh of the Qur’ãn never claims to be the God of mankind; he prides in being the God of Muslims alone.
9 The Calcutta Quran Petition By Chandmal Chopra, with two prefaces by Sita Ram Goel, second the enlarged edition, New Delhi. 987, pp. 35-37.
10 Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. I, Our Oriental Heritage, New York, 1972, p. 459.
No comments:
Post a Comment