To say the Islamist is the Islamic adherent’s worst enemy may sound
conspiratorial but it is both historically and theologically factual.
Multiple reliable
historical evidence record that the
spread of Islam
out from the harsh temperates of Arabia into the Indian Subcontinent,
to the domains of China, through Eastern and North Africa, into Europe
all the way to the heartland of France; was a most overhauling, violent
and uncompromising imperialist undertaking. Some of the Natives in these
regions initially welcomed the intervention of Islamic rule, where they
themselves were being oppressed by the tyranny of their own governments
(for example in Spain). A vast many of Natives however vehemently
resisted Islamic conquest. In North Africa for example, the Berbers were
a thorn in the flesh of Islamic imperialists in Africa. They forced the
Muslim Arabs to withdraw several times from the Maghreb. In putting up a
most staunch resistance to Islamic creed, Ibn Khaldun
recorded that
the Berbers apostatised twelve times before Islamic rule could
decisively be imposed on them. It is needless to assert the obvious that
through the course of this conquest, Islamic ideology was instrumental
to seditiously disarming Native institutions and weakening local ethnic
ties among Berbers. Islamic imperialism was so thorough there that
today, an overwhelming majority of Berbers no longer identify with their
despised Native ancestral lineage nor do they consider themselves
Berbers. The loyalty of majority Berbers are today invested in the
Arabian Heartlands. The Berbers, now Arabian cultural slaves, are today
called
Arabs. Could this colonist outcome have been any
different considering that it was the Arabs who were the first cultural
ambassadors of Islam? Can Islamisation result in any other outcome but
Arabisation?
Not only is
Arabisation an inevitable outcome of the spread of fundamental Islam,
but self-hate – hatred for one’s own (jahiliya) ancestral heritage – is a
fundamental inevitability. The Islamic follower – the true convert to
Islam – becomes tortured in mind and spirit until his homeland is
purified by Islam. Quran 8:39 instructs Muslims to “fight the
unbelievers until there is no more fitnah (disbelief) and all submit to
the religion of Allah alone”. Thus the adherent views his un-purified
homeland as a Dar al-Harb – a zone of perpetual warfare that
stands in stark contrast to the idealised zone of peace that Allah calls
all of mankind to. Where there is warfare against the unbeliever,
slavery of the unbeliever is also permitted. To the East of Africa, in
Sudan, the former Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi wrote to Mary Robinson,
U.N High Commissioner for Human Rights (Section III: War Crimes – Mar
24, 1999), defending this dualistic outlook embedded in Islam. He said
that:
“It is true that the NIF regime has not
enacted a law to realise slavery in Sudan. But the traditional concept
of jihad does allow slavery as a by-product (of jihad)… The traditional
concept of jihad… is based upon a division of the world into two zones:
one the zone of Peace, the other the zone of War. It requires initiating
hostilities for religious purposes….”
To the South of the Sahara, Uthman Dan Fodio
launched a jihad in his homeland to purify the practice of Islam there
from being diluted with Animism. More recently in the 1990s, Algerian
Islamist movements too took up arms and killed up to 200,000 of their
own country men, in trying to stave Arabo-Islamic culture there from
being sullied with their Berber African past. Africa is not a unique
victim to this delirious intertwined legacy of Arabisation and Islamic
imperialism. The Indian subcontinent since the advent of Islam there,
witnessed the enslavement of Natives both physically and mentally, and
in unprecedented heights! Prior to the invasion of Islamic conquerors
and Muslim merchants, there was not a single slave market in India.
Although slavery existed in India in mild forms, chattel slavery was
established there by Islamic rulers. Under the sacred pretence of
believing in the Muslim nationhood, Polytheist converts to Islam grew to
see their homeland as a Dar al-Harb, a land of war that
remained ever contemptible until purified religiously, culturally and
politically! They equally went as far as demanding that their motherland
be partitioned to create a separate homeland from that of the majority
Polytheists. Pakistan, a country they aptly termed the “Land of the
Pure” is till today riddled with a purification quest whose target has
naturally shifted from purifying the land of Polytheists (of which there
are now hardly any left), to a long-lasting pogrom against Shias.
Regarding the persecution of Shias in Pakistan, Professor An-Na’im
Author of Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Islam has
repeatedly stated that Muslims are in fact happier in secular India
than they are in the theocratic Pakistan which was specifically created
for them. To this very day, the vestiges of pre-Islamic heritage around
the world are being wiped out, in favour of institutionalising norms
(language, dress sense, legalities) that were disseminated from Arabia.
This mandate engineers inter-faith conflicts, genocides, mass
displacements, and foreign intervention in the affairs of sovereign
peoples. This is the practical implications of fundamental Islam.
Below is an excerpt from chapter VI of M. A. Khan’s stellar, factual and thoroughly researched book Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery.
It records notable achievements of the Polytheist Indians prior to the
coming of Islam. It also specifically details how the pre-Islamic Code of War differed from that which was introduced through Islamic rule.
©2013. Secular African Society. All Rights Reserved.
INDIA BEFORE THE COMING OF ISLAM
An advanced civilization
Prior to Muslim conquest, India was one of the world’s top
civilizations with significant achievements—in science, mathematics,
literature, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, architecture and so on—to
its credit. Indian mathematicians conceived the mathematical concept of
zero and founded the basics of algebra. The persianized Abbasid caliphs,
inspired by the pre-Islamic Persian pursuit of knowledge,
464
sent scholars and merchants to India for collecting documents and texts
on science, mathematics, medicine and philosophy. According to Nehru, ‘
In
subjects, like medicine and mathematics, they learned much from India.
Indian scholars and mathematicians came in large numbers to Baghdad.
Many Arab students went to Takshashila in North India, which was still a
great university, specializing in medicine.’
465
An Indian scholar brought two seminal mathematical works to Baghdad in 770. One was the
Brahmasiddhanta
(known to Arabs as Sindhind) of the great seventh-century Indian
mathematician, Brahmagupta. It contained early ideas of algebra. In the
ninth century, famous Muslim mathematician and astronomer Muhammad ibn
Musa al-Khwarizmi combined the Indian work with Greek geometry to found
the mathematical system of algebra. Khwarizmi became known as the
father of algebra.
The term algorithm (or algorism), the technique of performing
arithmetic calculations developed by al-Khwarizmi using Indian numerals,
is the latinized version of his name. The second manuscript contained
the revolutionary system of denoting number, including the concept of
zero,
unknown elsewhere. Muslim scholars used to call this Indian numbering
system, “Indian (Hindi) numerals”; the Europeans later gave it the name,
“Arabic numerals”.
466
Although Muslims made significant contributions in these achievements,
they often, in an act of self- gratification, claim all the credit for
these plagiarized developments. Pre-Islamic India had a great tradition
in creating magnificent and sensual sculptures, and building wondrous
architectures. After the coming of Muslim invaders, Indian builders and
craftsmen mixed Islamic ideas to their own, creating a new Indo-Islamic
mosaic in the new building and architecture, which became integrated
into the “heritage” of the self-declared Islamic civilization.
Alberuni (d. 1050) has recorded many of these ancient Indian achievements in his famous work,
Indica, published in 1030. Arabic scholar Edward Sachau translated this book in 1880 and published under the title of
Alberuni’s India (1910). Sachau writes: ‘
To Alberuni, the Hindus were excellent philosophers, good mathematicians and astronomers.’
467 Alberuni summarizes Indian achievement in mathematics as follows:
They do not use the letter of their alphabet for
numerical notation, as we use the Arabic letters in the order of Hebrew
alphabet… The numerical signs which we use are derived from the finest
forms of the Hindu signs…The Arabs, too, stop with the thousand, which
is certainly the most correct and the most natural thing to do… Those,
however, who go beyond the thousand in their numeral system, are the
Hindus, at least in their arithmetical technical terms, which have been
either freely invented or derived according to certain etymologies,
whilst in others both methods are blended together. They extend the
names of the orders of numbers until the eighteenth order for religious
reasons, the mathematicians being assisted by the grammarians with all
kinds of etymologies.468
According to Alberuni, Indian learning, such as the fables of
Kalila and
Dimna and books on medicine, including the famous
Charaka,
came to the Arab world, through either direct translation from Sanskrit
into Arabic or through first translation into Persian, and then, from
Persian into Arabic. Sachau also thinks that the influx of knowledge
from India to Baghdad took place in two different phases of which, he
writes:
As Sindh was under the actual rule of Khalif Mansur (753–74), there
came embassies from that part of India to Baghdad, and among them
scholars, who brought along with them two books, the
Brahmasiddhanta of Brahmagupta, and his
Khandakhadyaka
(Arkanda). With the help of these pundits, Alfazari, perhaps also Yakub
ibn Tarik, translated them. Both works have been largely used, and have
exercised a great influence. It was on this occasion that the Arabs
first became acquainted with a scientific system of astronomy. They
learned from Brahmagupta earlier than from Ptolemy.
469
Sachau adds that there was another influx of Hindu learning into the
Arab world during the reign of Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–808). The
famous ministerial family of Barmak from Balkh, who had outwardly
converted to Islam but never abandoned their ancestral crypto-Buddhist
tradition after generations,
…sent scholars to India, there to study medicine and
pharmacology. Besides, they engaged Hindu scholars to come to Baghdad,
made them the chief physicians of their hospitals, and ordered them to
translate from Sanskrit into Arabic books on medicine, pharmacology,
toxicology, philosophy, astrology, and other subjects. Still in later
centuries, Muslim scholars sometimes traveled for the same purposes as
the emissaries of the Barmak, e.g. Almuwaffuk, not long before
Alberuni’s time…470
Moreover, the Arabs also translated Indian works on many other
subjects, including on snakes, poison, veterinary art, logic and
philosophy, ethics, politics, and science of war. ‘
Many Arab authors
took up the subjects communicated to them by the Hindus and worked them
out in original compositions, commentaries and extracts. A favorite
subject of theirs was Indian mathematics, the knowledge of which became
far spread by the publications of Alkindi and many others,’ adds Sachau.
471
The eleventh-century Spanish Muslim scholar Said al-Andalusi—in his book,
The Categories of Nations,
on world science—acknowledges India very positively and describes it as
a major center for science, mathematics and culture. The treatise
recognizes India as the first nation to have cultivated science and
praises Indians for their wisdom, ability in all the branches of
knowledge and for making useful and rare inventions. It adds:
To their credit, the Indians have made great strides
in the study of numbers and of geometry. They have acquired immense
information and reached the zenith in their knowledge of the movements
of the stars (astronomy) and the secrets of the skies (astrology) as
well as other mathematical studies. After all that, they have surpassed all the other peoples in their knowledge of medical science and the strengths of various drugs, the characteristics of compounds and the peculiarities of substances (chemistry).472
Many early Islamic scholars (seventh–eighth century) left records of a
vibrant and wealthy India, having many populous and prosperous cities
(discussed below). Of the pre-Islamic civilization of India, notes
Francis Watson:
473
It is clear that India, at the time when Muslim
invaders turned toward it (8th to 11th centuries), was the earth’s
richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold
and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth
century Hindustan was also far more advanced than its contemporaries in
the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative
philosophy and scientific theorizing, mathematics and knowledge of
nature’s workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were
unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians
(including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the
immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this
subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally
evolved—joyous and prosperous too—than had been realized by the Jews,
Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until
the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history’s most richly imaginative
culture and one of the five most advanced civilizations of all times.
Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or
destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the
highest degree—more fascinating than human figurative art created
anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists
are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple
architecture is the most awe- inspiring, ornate and spell-binding
architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of the
cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is
comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist
of any historical civilization has ever revealed the same genius as
ancient Hindustan’s artists and artisans.
The ancient Greeks undoubtedly had made greater contributions in
science, medicine and philosophy than other ancient civilizations, but
India was definitely a leading civilization in all spheres of
intellectual achievements.
A tolerant and humane society
Apart from India’s intellectual and scientific achievements, Said al-Andalusi noted: ‘
The
Indians, as known to all nations for many centuries, are the metal
(essence) of wisdom, the source of fairness and objectivity. They are
peoples of sublime pensiveness, universal apologue…’ Indeed, India
was not only a distinguished civilization in its achievements in
science, literature, philosophy, arts, and architecture but also had
distinguished itself from the invading Muslims in terms of its humanity,
chivalry and ethical behavior. Prior to Islamic invasions, Hindu kings
and princes of India used to engage in wars, like in any major
civilization of the time, but such wars were relatively infrequent.
Affirming this, Muslim traveler Merchant Sulaiman writes in his
Salsilatut Tawarikh (851): ‘
The Indians sometimes go to war for conquest, but the occasions are rare.’
Ibn Battutah, while traveling with Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq’s diplomatic
convoy to the Chinese emperor, was surprised to observe that the Hindu
rulers of Malabar showed great respect for each other’s territory and
exercised restraint against warfare. In Malabar, he wrote, ‘
there
are twelve infidel sultans, some of them strong with armies numbering
fifty thousand men, and others weak with armies of three thousand. Yet
there is no discord whatever between them and the strong does not desire
to seize the possessions of the weak.’
474
Muslim invaders had unfurled continuous warfare in India (and
everywhere else) not only against the Hindus but amongst themselves;
there were ceaseless revolts by Muslim generals, chiefs and princes all
over India during their entire period of Islamic rule. Battutah’s
astonishment is then quite understandable. Sulaiman adds that the Indian
kings even did not maintain troops in regular pays. They used to be
paid only when they were called in for fighting. Once the war is over, ‘
They then come out (to civilian life), and maintain themselves without receiving anything from the king.’
475
Indians used to observe high ethical conventions and behavior in
times of both peace and war. Wars and battles were normally limited to
the martial class, the
kshatriyyas, of opposing parties, who
used to clash mostly in open battle-fields. They used to follow a code
of honor and sacrificing it for the sake of victory or material gain was
deemed a shame worse than death. Even famous Muslim historian Al-Idrisi
wrote that Hindus never departed from justice (discussed below). The
religious teachers and priests and the non- combatants, particularly the
women and children, were normally left unmolested in wars. Religious
symbols and establishments—namely temples, churches and monasteries—and
civilian habitations were generally not attacked, pillaged and
plundered. War booty, a major divinely-sanctioned object of the Islamic
holy war, was not a part of war and conquest in pre-Islamic India. The
women of the defeated side were normally not captured or their chastity
not violated, contrary to the practice in other contemporaneous
civilizations—China and Greece, for example.
Merchant Sulaiman affirms some of these ethical conducts of Indian wars. He says: ‘
When
a king subdues a neighboring state, he places over it a man belonging
to the family of the fallen prince, who carried on the government in the
name of the conqueror. The inhabitants would not suffer it to be
otherwise.’
476 The
tenth-century Muslim chronicler, Abu Zaidu-l Hasan, wrote about the
conquest of the kingdom of Kumar (Khmer) by the Maharaja of Zabaj
(Srivijaya or Java).
477
The young, haughty prince of Kumar had expressed his desire to conquer
Zabaj and hearing this, the king of Zabaj attacked the Kumar kingdom.
After the Maharaja seized the palace of Kumar and killed the prince, ‘
He then made a proclamation assuring safety to everyone, and seated himself on the throne.’ He then addressed the
wazir (chief minister) of Kumar that,
‘I know that you have borne yourself like a true
minister; receive now the recompense of your conduct. I know that you
have given good advice to your master if he would but have headed it.
Seek out a man fit to occupy the throne, and seat him thereon instead of
this foolish fellow.’ The Maharaja then returned immediately to his
country, and neither he nor any of his men touched anything belonging to the king of Kumar.478
The ancient Greek traveler and historian Megasthenes (c. 350–290 BCE)
recorded his observation of the peculiar traits of Indian warfare
during his visit to India. Alain Danielou has summarized his
observations as follows:
Whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to
ravage the soil and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste; among
the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class
that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when
battle is raging in their neighborhood, are undisturbed by any sense of
danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make
carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain
quite unmolested. Besides, they never ravage an enemy’s land with fire,
nor cut down its trees.
479
Prof. Arthur Basham (d. 1986), the leading authority on ancient
Indian culture and Oriental civilizations, writes about ancient Indian
codes of war that ‘
In all her history of warfare, Hindu India has
few tales to tell of cities put to the sword or of the massacre of
non-combatants. The ghastly sadism of the kings of Assyria, who flayed
their captives alive, is completely without parallel in ancient India.
To us the most striking feature of ancient Indian civilization is its
humanity.’
480 Hiuen
Tsang, a seventh-century Buddhist pilgrim from China to Nalanda
University, recorded that the country was little injured despite enough
rivalries between the ruling princes of India. Faxian, a fourth-century
Chinese pilgrim to India, marveled at the peace, prosperity, and high
culture of Indians. Having grown up in war-torn China, says Linda
Johnson, he was deeply impressed by a land whose leaders were more
concerned with promoting commerce and religion than with slaughtering
substantial portion of the population.
481
Muslim code of war
It is evident from the discussion so far that the Islamic invaders of
India brought a totally different code of war, based on the Quran and
the
Sunnah. Contemporary Muslim historians inform us that, as a
general rule, they used to slay all enemy soldiers on the battlefield.
After the victory, they often fell upon the civilian villages and towns
often slaughtering the men of fighting age. They sacked and plundered
the households for booty, and sometimes burned down the villages and
towns. Of the civilian population, the Buddhist monks and priestly
Brahmins, in whom the common people reposed their trust, became special
targets for extermination. The centers of infidel religion and
learning—namely Hindu and Jain temples, Buddhist monasteries, Sikh
Gurdwaras
and indigenous educational institutions—were their prime targets for
desecration, destruction and plunder. The women and children were
captured as slaves in large numbers. They kept the young and beautiful
women captives as sex-slaves, others were engaged in household chores,
and the rest were sold. The magnitude of the booty, the captives
included, was a measure of the glory and success of military missions;
this is reflected in their glorifying narratives by leading medieval
Muslim historians. When large numbers of infidels were slain, Sultan
Muhammad Ghauri, Qutbuddin Aibak and Emperor Babur et al. used to raise
“victory-towers” with their heads to celebrate the achievement. Sultan
Ahmad Shah Bahmani (1422–36) of the Deccan Sultanate attacked the
Vijaynagar kingdom, in which records Ferishtah, ‘
wherever he went he
put to death men, women and children without mercy, contrary to the
compact (not to molest civilians) made between his uncle and predecessor
Mahomed Shah and the Rays of Beejanuggar. Whenever the number of slain
amounted to twenty thousand, he halted three days and made a festival in
celebration of the bloody event. He broke down also the idolatrous
temples and destroyed the colleges of the Brahmins.’
482
The Muslim invaders and rulers committed all these barbaric acts for
the sake of Islamic holy war in the cause of Allah as commanded in the
Quran and prophetic examples. The Prophet’s attack of the Jewish tribe
of Banu Qurayza of Medina (627) or the Jews of Khaybar (628) and his
manner of dealing with them served as an ideal example for emulation by
later holy warriors of Islam.
The contrast between the Hindu and Islamic codes of war was clearly
exhibited in Sultan Muhammad Ghauri’s attack on King Prithviraj Chauhan
of Delhi and Ajmer (1191). Muhammad Ghauri was defeated and captured in
his first attack. Despite his many brutal attacks on the northern
borders of India, involving mass murder, enslavement, plunder and
pillage, Prithviraj Chauhan forgave and honorably released the aggressor
without inflicting any punishment or humiliation. Within a few months,
Ghauri regrouped and attacked Prithviraj again defeating the chivalrous
Hindu King.
483 Muhammad Ghauri repaid Prithviraj’s earlier generosity by pulling out his eyes before killing him.
484
Further evidence of the contrast between the Hindu and Muslim codes
of war comes from Ferishtah’s narration of Deccan Sultan Muhammad Shah’s
attack against King Krishna Ray of Vijaynagar kingdom in 1366. Muhammad
Shah had vowed to slaughter 100,000 infidels in the attack and ‘
the
massacre of the unbelievers was renewed in so relentless a manner that
pregnant women and children at the breast even did not escape the sword,’ records Ferishtah.
485
The Muslim army in a treacherous surprise-attack put Krishna Ray on the
flight and 10,000 of his soldiers were slain. Muhammad Shah’s ‘
thirst for vengeance being still unsatisfied, he commanded the inhabitants of every place around Vijaynagar to be massacred,’ records Ferishtah.
Krishna Ray dispatched ambassadors to make peace, which Muhammad Shah
refused. Thereupon, one of the Sultan’s favorite advisor reminded him
that ‘
he had only sworn to slaughter one hundred thousand Hindus, and not to destroy their race altogether.’ The sultan replied that ‘
twice the number required by this vow might have been slain,’ yet he was neither willing to make peace nor spare the subjects.
486
This means that nearly 200,000 people were slaughtered in this
campaign. The ambassadors were, at length, able to conclude peace by
paying a large sum of money on the spot and pleaded with the Sultan to
let them speak. According to Ferishtah, ‘
Being permitted to speak,
they observed that no religion required the innocent to be punished for
the crimes of the guilty (kings), more especially helpless women and
children: if Krishn Ray had been in fault, the poor and feeble
inhabitants had not been accessory to his errors. Mahomed Shah replied
that decrees of Providence (i.e., from Allah such as in Quran 9:5 to
slaughter the idolaters) had been ordered what had been done, and that
he had no power to alter them.’ At length, the ambassadors were able to rouse a humane sense in Muhammad Shah, as adds Ferishtah,
‘(he)
took an oath that he would not, hereafter, put to death a single enemy
after a victory, and would bind his successors to observe the same line
of conduct.’
487 On the contrast between the Hindu and Islamic codes of war, John Jones observes: ‘
It
is a curious fact that the hideous and bloody monster of religious
intolerance was hardly known in India until, first the followers of
Mohammed and secondly, the disciples of the meek and lowly Jesus (i.e.
Portuguese), began to invade the land.’
488
Arthur Schopenhauer (d. 1860), one of the greatest nineteenth-century
philosophers, narrates the sordid tale of the Islamic invasion of India
as follows: ‘
…the endless persecutions, the religious wars, that
sanguinary frenzy of which the ancients (of India) had no conception!
The destruction or disfigurement of the ancient temples and idols, a
lamentable, mischievous and barbarous act still bears witness to the
monotheistic fury… carried on from Mahmud, the Ghaznevid of cursed
memory, down to Aurangzeb… We hear nothing of this kind in the case of
the Hindoo.’
489
English novelist Aldous Huxley (1894–1963), in likening the atrocious
history of Islam with that of later Christianity, wrote in
Ends and Means:
It is an extremely significant fact that, before the
coming of the Mohammedans, there was virtually no persecution in India.
The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang, who visited India in the first half of
the seventh century and has left a circumstantial account of his 14
years in the country, makes it clear that Hindus and Buddhist lived side
by side without any show of violence. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism is
disgraced by anything corresponding to the Inquisition; neither was ever
guilty of such iniquities as the Albigensian crusade or such criminal
lunacies as the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.490
Indisputably, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism arose in India as a
revolt against Hinduism. Although Hinduism had its shortcomings, these
new religious off-shoots grew from the midst of the Hindu society
without facing any persecution of the type Islam brought to India or
meted out to its revolting heretics throughout Islam’s history. The
Christian persecution and brutality caused death of millions of Pagans,
Jews, heretics, apostates and witches in Europe, South America and
India’s Goa. In Islam, Prophet Muhammad himself had ordered execution of
critics and apostates of Islam, while the killing and torture of
apostates and heretics have continued ever since to this day. It should
be noted that Buddhism was a flourishing religion in Central and
Southeast Asia and was quite vigorous in parts of India at the time of
Islam’s birth. Islam has nearly extinguished this most humane and
peaceful ancient religious creed from India. It extinguished Paganism
from Arabia by the sword in the life-time of Muhammad. Zoroastrianism in
Persia and Christianity in the Levant, Egypt, and Anatolia etc. have
suffered near extinction caused by the violent exertions of Islam. It
should be noted that, to escape the brutal persecution of Islam, tens of
thousands of Zoroastrians (Persis) fled to India, where—welcomed by the
Hindu society—they live as a peaceful and well-off community till
today. However, they suffered Islamic persecution in India too, after
the Muslim invaders later occupied India. Sultan Ibrahim, a Ghaznivid
descendent of Sultan Mahmud, marched to India; and according to
historian Nizamuddin Ahmad, the author of
Tabakat-I Akbari, ‘
he
conquered many towns and forts, and amongst them were a city
exceedingly populous, inhabited by a tribe of Khurasani descent
(Persis), whom Afrasiyah had expelled from their native country. It was
completely reduced… he took away no less than 100,000 captives.’
491
Indian tolerance in the eyes of Muslim chroniclers
The humanity, tolerance and chivalry of Indians also caught the
attention of Muslim historians. The Arab geographer Abu Zaid wrote of
the rulers and people of Sarandib (Sri Lanka), an extension of Indian
civilization, that in late ninth century, ‘There are numerous colonies
of Jews in Sarandib, and people of other religions, especially
Manicheans. The King allows each sect to follow its own religion.’
492
Al-Masudi, a famous Muslim historian and traveler, writing in the early
tenth century, describes the disposition of the most powerful Indian
king, Balhara, toward Muslim settlers of his kingdom. He placed Balhara
(Rashtrakuta dynasty, South India) in the same league of the world’s
three greatest monarchs: the caliph of Baghdad, the emperors of China
and Constantinople.
493 On Balhara’s treatment of Muslims, noted al-Masudi: ‘
Of
all the kings of Sindh and India, there is no one who pays greater
respect to the Musalmans than Balhara. In his Kingdom, Islam is honored
and protected.’
494
Al-Masudi’s description (916–17) of a large Muslim community near
Bombay, created by Arabian and Iraqi pepper and spice traders who had
settled there, is already noted. This Muslim community was ‘
granted a degree of political autonomy by the local raja’ and they
‘intermarried considerably with the local population.’
495 About the status of Muslims in Balhara’s kingdom, al-Istahkri wrote (c. 951):
‘It is a land of infidels, but there are Musalmans in its cities and none but the Musalmans rule them on the part of Balhara.’
496
Ibn Haukal—renowned tenth-century Arab traveler and geographer and the author of famous treatise,
Surat al-Ardh or
The face of the Earth (977)—observed while traveling in the region between Cambay and Saimur that ‘
The
inhabitants were idolaters, but the Musalmans were treated with great
consideration by the native princes. They were governed by the men of
their own faith… They had erected their mosques in these infidel cities
and were allowed to summon their congregations by the usual mode of
proclaiming the time of prayer.’
497 Al-Idrisi also gives a similar account of the treatment of Muslims in the territory of Balhara: ‘
The
town is frequented by large number of Musalman traders who go on
business. They are honorably received by the king and his ministers and
find protection and safety.’ Al-Idrisi continues: ‘
The Indians
are naturally inclined to justice, and never depart from it in their
actions. Their good faith, honesty, and fidelity to their engagements
are well known, and they are so famous for these qualities that people
flock to their country from every side.’ He was further impressed by Indian’s “love of truth and horror of vice”.
498 Even modern Muslim historian Habibullah states that ‘
Muslims were treated by the Hindus with generosity and respect and allowed them freedom, even to govern themselves.’
499
These ethical principles of Indians were rooted in its civilizational
value system. King Ashoka seemed to have deviated from these principles
in his ambition to become a great conqueror. However, he was left
devastated by the casualties that occurred in the conquest of Kalinga,
in which about 100,000 soldiers and commoners died. Subsequently, he
became a great humanist and used to feel frightened by wars; he became
an avowed anti-war activist. Killing the infidels in large numbers by
Muslim conquerors was a common occurrence, generally glorified by
Muslims at all levels—including by most of their greatest intellectuals.
Evidently, the Indian rulers showed generosity, humanity and chivalry
toward Muslims, despite suffering terrible cruelty at the hands of
ruthless Muslim invaders. This generosity and chivalry was demonstrated
very early, when the Hindus revolted and ousted the Muslim rulers from
Sindhan during the reign of Caliph Al-Mutasim (833–42). Despite
suffering so much slaughter, destruction, pillage, enslavement and
defilement of their temples over two centuries, the Hindus ‘
respected
the mosque, which the Musalmans of the town visited every Friday, for
the purpose of the reading of usual offices and praying for the Khalif.’
500
Tolerance & chivalry of Hindu rulers during the Muslim period
Indian rulers exercised the principle of Hindu tolerance, generosity
and chivalry toward Muslims well into the last days of Islamic
domination; by this time, Muslim invaders had inflicted terrible cruelty
upon the Hindus and destruction of their religion for nearly a
millennium in some parts. During the period of the Muslim rule in India,
courageous Indian princes and commoners, revolting against the Muslim
invaders, occasionally curved out Hindu kingdoms. Vijaynagar was one
such Hindu kingdom (1336–1565) in South India (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil
Nadu and Kerala). Constantly under attack by Muslim rulers, sometimes it
exercised independence, and paid tribute to Muslim overlords at other
times. Still, Vijaynagar rose to be one of the greatest empires in the
world of the time. Abdur-Razzak of Herat, who came to Vijaynagar in 1443
as an envoy of the Mongol Khan of Central Asia, wrote, ‘‘
The city is such that eyes has not seen nor ear heard of any place resembling it upon the whole earth.’’
501 Paes, a Portuguese traveler, visiting Vijaynagar in 1522, found it ‘‘
large as Rome and very beautiful to the sight’’; it was ‘‘
the
best-provided city in the world… for the state of the city is not like
other cities, which often fails of supplies and provisions, for in this
everything abounds.’’
502 As goes the legend, it was ‘
a kingdom so rich that pearls and rubies were sold in the market- place like grain,’ notes Naipaul.
503 Razzak’s eyewitness account somewhat affirms this legend, saying: ‘
The jewellers sell their rubies and pearls and diamonds and emeralds openly in the bazar.’
504
In late 1564, four neighboring Muslim sultanates joined hands to
destroy the great Hindu civilization of Vijaynagar that had lasted over
200 years. In a five-month seize, it was burnt to ashes in January 1565.
English historian Robert Sewell noted of the destruction that ‘‘
so
splendid a city; teaming with a wealthy and industrious population in
the full plentitude of prosperity… seized, pillaged and reduced to
ruins, amid scenes of savage massacre and horrors begging description.’’
505 On the massacre and pillage of the fleeing Hindus, notes Ferishtah, ‘
the
river was dyed red with their blood. It is computed by the best of
authorities that above one hundred thousand infidels were slain during
the action and in the pursuit. The plunder was so huge that every
private man in the allied army became rich in gold, jewels, tents, arms,
horses, and slaves…’
506
Let us return to the tolerance of the Vijaynagar kings. In order to
fortify his army to stave off Muslim attacks, King Dev Raya II
(1419–49), records Ferishtah, ‘
gave orders to enlist Mussulmans (of
his kingdom) in his service, allotting them estates, and erecting a
mosque for their use in the city of Beejanuggar (Vijaynagar). He also
commanded that no one should molest them in the exercise of their
religion and moreover, he ordered a Koran to be placed before
his throne on a rich desk, so that the faithful (Muslims) can perform
their ceremony of obeisance in his presence without sinning against
their laws.’
507
However, this tolerance and promotion of treacherous Muslims in the
army eventually proved costly for Vijaynagar, the only standing Hindu
civilization in India. By the mid-sixteenth century, Muslims had become a
significant force in the army. When the confederate force of the
surrounding sultanates attacked Vijaynagar in 1564–65, two large Muslim
battalions, each having 70,000–80,000 soldiers, deserted King Ramraja.
Because of these two Muslim commanders’ treachery, Ramraja fell into
Muslim hands. Sultan Hussein Nizam Shah ordered his beheading
immediately. This led to the collapse of Vijaynagar, noted Caesar
Frederick, who visited the place two years later in 1567.
508
It should, however, be acknowledged that some degree of intolerance
had been sinking in Ramraja’s army. He had become very powerful and
started capturing domains from the neighboring Muslim sultanates,
threatening latter’s existence. In the course of incursions into Muslim
domains, his forces started paying in the same coin as Muslims had been
doing ever since they started attacking India in the 630s, and more
importantly, against Vijaynagar over the previous 200 years. His forces
started disrespecting mosques, offering Hindu prayers in them and even
destroyed some; they even violated Muslim women in the 1558 attack of
Ahmednagar, ruled by Hussein Nizam Shah, records Ferishtah.
509
However, these sacrilegious acts, it appears, were not approved by the
Hindu monarch. On one occasion, his Muslim soldiers sacrificed a
cow—sacred to Hindus—in the Turukvada area in Vijaynagar offending the
Hindus. Ramraja’s offended officers and nobles, including his own
brother Tirumala, petitioned to him about the sacrilege. To be noted
that even today a similar offence against Islam in a Muslim-majority
country, say in Bangladesh or Pakistan, will incite Muslim mobs to
violence, even probably bloodbath. Ramraja, however, refused to prohibit
the sacrifice of cows by his Muslim soldiers, saying that, it will not
be right to interfere in their religious practices and that he was only
the master of the bodies of his soldiers, not of their souls.
510
During the reign of fanatic Aurangzeb (d. 1707) toward the end of the
Islamic domination in India, his Maratha opponent Shivaji was
consolidating power and expanding his kingdom. When Shivaji started
incursions into Mughal territories in the South, Aurangzeb, still a
prince, wrote to his general Nasiri Khan and other officers to enter
Shivaji’s territory from all sides for ‘
wasting the villages, slaying the people without pity and plundering them to the extreme,’ records Qabil Khan in
Adab-i-Alamgiri. They were further instructed to show no mercy in slaying and enslaving,
511
an age-old Muslim practice. But Shivaji, a deeply religious man, never
indulged in extreme cruelty and violence in kind. Even his inveterate
critic Khafi Khan, in his
Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, could not but admire Shivaji’s lofty ideals in saying: ‘
But
he (Shivaji) made it a rule that whenever his followers were
plundering, they should not do harm to the mosques, the Book of God
(Quran), or the women of anyone.’
512
Shivaji put his words in actions too. Despite the fact that Muslim
rulers used to enslave the Hindu women in tens of thousands and reduce
them to sex-slavery, he abstained from such abhorrent practices even
defying the temptation of very beautiful captive women. One of his
officers had captured a beautiful Muslim girl in 1657 and presented her
to Shivaji. Shivaji praised her as prettier than his own mother Jija
Bai, honorably gave her dresses and ornaments, and sent her back to her
people, escorted by 500 horsemen.
513 Obviously, such acts of chivalry made Khafi Khan appreciate his hated enemy.
Shivaji also made good of his promise to respect the religious
institutions and symbols of all, including Muslim’s. Despite the fact
that, his opponent Aurangzeb destroyed thousands of Hindu temples— more
than 200 in 1979 alone, Shivaji scrupulously refrained from defiling
Muslim mosques,
madrasas or shrines. Instead, he was very
respectful of them. He particularly venerated the Sufis, and even
provided them subsistence and build
khanqah for them at this own cost. Notably, Baba Yakut of Keloshi was one such Sufi saint who had received Shivaji’s succor.
514
Shivaji refrained from excessive bloodbath as well. While Muslim
invaders and rulers quite commonly slaughtered the Hindus in tens of
thousands—even tolerant and humane Akbar massacred 30,000 surrendered
peasants in Chittor (1568), Shivaji never engaged in such cold-blooded
mass-murder of his opponents captured in wars. When he attacked Surat in
1664, its Mughal governor Inayat Khan fled and the 500-strong Muslim
army was taken prisoner. From his hiding place, Inayat Khan sent an
envoy to negotiate peace, in the guise of which the envoy unsuccessfully
fell upon Shivaji with a concealed dagger. Seeing the treachery and
thinking that Shivaji was slain, his soldiers raised a cry to kill the
Muslim prisoners. Shivaji stood up from the ground quickly and forbade
any massacre. The enraged Shivaji, however, quenched his anger by
putting four prisoners to death, amputated hands of twenty-four and
spared the rest.
515 Such
vengeance was, however, rare for him; it was obviously highly
restrained, even more restrained than that of the later British
mercenaries.
In his administration, notes Jadunath Sarkar, he ‘
brought peace
and order to his country, assured the protection of women’s honor and
the religion of all sects without distinction, extended the royal
patronage to the truly pious men of all creeds (Muslims included), and
presented equal opportunities to all his subjects by opening the public
service to talent, irrespective of caste or creed.’
516
An illiterate and deeply religious orthodox Hindu—Shivaji’s
even-handed, tolerant and just policy toward his heterogeneous mix of
citizens, that included Muslims, was unthinkable in his days of
Muslim-ruled India.
However, Shivaji engaged in raiding and plundering of the territory
of his sworn Muslim enemies. Based in a part of India, in which ‘
rice cultivation was impossible and wheat and barley grow in very small quantities,’ Shivaji had little choice. He told the Surat governor of Aurangzeb in this regard that ‘
Your Emperor has forced me to keep an army for the defence of my people and country. That army must be paid for by his subjects.’
517
This justification will probably not stand for all of his raids. He was
ambitious of establishing a native Hindu kingdom opposed to the
persecuting, discriminatory foreign Muslim rulers; his raids were
definitely aimed at achieving this goal, too. Nonetheless, whatever
defects he had in his actions, he was no match for the plundering
activities of his Muslim counterparts and the persecution,
discrimination and humiliation the latter meted out to their non-Muslim
subjects.
These examples, which come mainly from the writings of Muslim
historians, clearly testify to the humane, chivalrous, tolerant and free
nature of the Indian society, conspicuously different from what the
Muslim invaders and rulers had brought in their trail. Many Muslim
historians and non-Muslim observers in the late period of Muslim rule
also affirmed this. In praise of Indians, Abul Fazl, the minister of
Emperor Akbar, wrote: ‘‘
The inhabitants of this land are religious,
affectionate, hospitable, genial, and frank. They are fond of scientific
pursuits, inclined to austerity of life, seekers after justice,
contended, industrious, capable in affairs, loyal, truthful and
constant…’’ In the Vijaynagar kingdom, noted Duarte Barbosa, ‘‘
every
man may come and go, and live according to his creed without suffering
any annoyance, and without enquiring whether he is a Christian, Jew,
Moor (Muslim) or Heathen. Great equity and justice is observed by all.’’
Mulla Badaoni, a relatively bigoted chronicler of Akbar’s court, failed
to deny the freedom and tolerance that existed in Indian society as he
wrote: ‘‘
Hindustan is a nice place where everything is allowed, and
no one cares for another (i.e., not interferes in others’ affairs) and
people may go as they may.’’
518
Coming to such a land of humanity, freedom and tolerance, the Muslim
invaders committed utmost slaughter and cruelty; they killed tens of
millions and enslaved a greater number. They destroyed temples in the
thousands and looted and plundered India’s wealth in measures beyond
imagination as recorded by contemporary Muslim historians with gloating
joy. Kanhadde Prabandha, an Indian chronicler, leaves an eyewitness
account of the activities of Islamic invaders (1456) as thus: ‘‘
The
conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people’s
wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive,
flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison (of captives)
with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks.’’
519 Such barbarism Muslim invaders committed with the purpose of carrying out their religious duty. The orthodox
Ulema
as well as the Sufi divines often condemned the Muslim rulers for their
failure to put a complete end to the filth of idolatry and unbelief in
India. For example, Qazi Mughisuddin reminded Sultan Alauddin that ‘
Hindus were deadliest foes of the true Prophet,’ who must be annihilated or subjected to worst degradation.
520
The ruthless and relentless savagery and massacre of Hindus,
Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains, committed by Muslim invaders and rulers in
India, will surpass the massacre of South American heathens by the
Spanish and Portuguese invaders. Of the estimated ninety million natives
in the continental Latin America in 1492, only twelve million survived
after a century.
521 The
overwhelming majority of these deaths resulted from European and African
diseases—namely the “childhood diseases” like measles, diphtheria and
whooping cough as well as smallpox,
falciparum malaria and
yellow fever—involuntarily brought by the colonists. The native people
lacked acquired immunity to these foreign diseases, which caused huge
numbers of death.
Within a century, most of the people of the lowland tropical regions
were literally wiped out, while as high as 80 percent of the highland
population of Andes and Middle America also died from these diseases.
522
Nonetheless, the colonists also killed the Pagan natives, probably in
the millions, often on religious grounds. The Europeans, too, did not
have acquired immunity to falciparum malaria and yellow fever of African
origin; they also died in large numbers from these diseases contracted
from African slaves brought to the Americas.
Based on historical documentation and circumstantial evidence, Prof.
KS Lal estimates that the population of India stood at about 200 million
in 1000 and it dwindled to only 170 millions in 1500, in spite of the
passage of five centuries.
523
Between sixty and eighty million people died at the hands of Muslim
invaders and rulers between 1000 and 1525, estimates Lal. The
possibility of annihilation of such a large number of Indians by Muslim
invaders and rulers may appear a suspect. However, in the war of
independence of Bangladesh in 1971, the Pakistani army killed 1.5 to 3.0
million people in just nine months. It occurred in our modern age of
flourishing journalism, but the world hardly took a notice of it.
Moreover, a large number of the victims in this case were their
co-religionists, the Muslims of East Pakistan. Hence, it is entirely
possible that Muslim invaders and rulers, who came with the mission of
extirpating idolatry from India, could easily have slaughtered as many
as eighty million Indian infidels over a period of ten centuries in such
a vast land.
References
464. Patronized by the pre-Islamic Sassanian kings of Persia, the
great Nestorian learning centre of Jundhishpur had become a flourishing
centre for translating the ancient works of Greek, Indian and other
origin. Under king Khosro I (531–579), it had become a melting pot of
Syrian, Persian and Indian scholars. Khosro I sent his own physician to
India in search of medical books. These were then turned from Sanskrit
into Pahlavi (Middle Persian), and many other scientific works were
translated from Greek into Persian or Syriac.
465. Nehru (1989), p. 151 466. Eaton (2000), p. 29
467. Sachau, Preface, p. XXX
468. Ibid, p. 160–61
469. Ibid, p. XXXIII
470. Ibid, p. XXXIII-XXXIV
471. Ibid, p. XXXVI
472. al-Andalusi S (1991)
Science in the Medieval World: Book of the Categories of Nations, Translated by Salem SI and Kumar A, University of Texas Press, Chapter 5.
473. Watson & Hiro, p. 96
474. Gibb, p. 232
475. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. I, p. 7
476. Ibid
477. The Southeast Asian kingdoms of Srivijaya, Java and Khmer were then
an extension of the Indian civilization with a firmly rooted
Hindu-Buddhist religious influence. The famous Muslim historian
al-Masudi had met Zaidu-l Hasan in Basra in 916, reproduced this story
in his
Meadows of Gold.
478. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. I, p. 8–9
479. Danielou, p. 106
480. Basham AL (2000)
The Wonder That Was India, South Asia Books, Columbia, p. 8–9 481. Johnson L (2001)
Complete Idiot’s Guide to Hinduism, Alpha Books, New York, p. 38 482. Ferishtah, Vol. II, p. 248
483. Dutt, KG,
The Modern Face of Ang Kshetra, Tribune India, 17October 1998
484.
Prithviraj III, Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prithviraj_Chauhan
485. Ferishtah, Vol. II, p. 195
486. Ibid, p. 196–97
487. Ibid, p. 197
488. Jones JP (1915)
India – Its Life and Thought, The Macmillan Company, New York, p. 166
489. Saunders TB (1997)
The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer: Book I : Wisdom of Life, De Young Press, p. 42–43
490. Swarup R (2000)
On Hinduism Reviews and Reflections, Voice of India, p. 150–51 491. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. V, p. 559
492. Ibid, Vol. I, p. 10
493. Nehru (1989), p. 210
494. Ibid, p. 24
495. Eaton (1978), p. 13
496. Ibid, p. 27
497. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. I, p. 457
498. Ibid, p. 88
499. Sharma, p. 89
500. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. I, p. 450
501. Ibid, Vol. IV, p. 106
502. Nehru (1989), p. 258
503. Naipaul VS (1977)
India: A Wounded Civilization, Alfred A Knopf Inc., New York, p. 5
504. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. IV, p. 107
505. Nehru (1989), p. 259
506. Ferishtah, Vol. III, p. 79
507. Ibid, p. 266
508. Majumdar RC ed. (1973)
The Mughal Empire, in The History and Culture of the Indian People, Bombay, Vol. VII, p. 425
509. Ferishtah, Vol. III, p. 72,74
510.
Journal of the Bombay Brach of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XXII, p. 28
511. Sarkar J (1992)
Shibaji and His Times, Orient Longham, Mumbai, p. 39
512. Ghosh SC (2000)
The History of Education in Medieval India 1192-1757, Originals, New Delhi, p. 122
513. Sarkar, p. 43
514. Sarkar, p. 288; Ghosh, p. 122
515. Sarkar, p. 76
516. Ibid, p. 302
517. Ibid, p. 2,290
518. Lal (1994), p. 29
519. Goel SR (1996)
Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, South Asia Books, Columbia (MO), p. 41–42
520. Lal (1999), p. 113
521. Elst, p. 8
522. Curtin PD (1993) The Tropical Atlantic of the Slave Trade, In M
Adas ed., Islam & European Expansion, Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, p. 172.
523. Lal (1973), p. 25–32
