RE:ISLAM AND THE QUESTION OF VIOLENCE
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:39 AM Permalink
In your comparison with Christianity, you've clearly shown that Hindus should fear both for their intolerance.
RE:ISLAM AND THE QUESTION OF VIOLENCE
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:42 AM Permalink
Some peaceful Koranic quotations to liven up your peaceful day. This is straight out of G. Orwell's "1984"
Quran tells us to: "not to make friends with Jews and Christians" (5:51), fight them "until they pay the Jizya (a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" ( 9:29). "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" ( 9:5).
Quran says that all those who disbelieve in Islam go to hell (5:10), they are najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders us to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It prohibits a Muslim to befriend a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28).
It says that the "non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water" (14:17). It asks the Muslims to "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have great punishment in the world hereafter" (5:34). And tells us that "for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (22:19-22) and that they not only will have "disgrace in this life, on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire)" (22:9).
Quran says that "those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy" (25:68). For those who "believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" (48:13).
As for him who does not believe in Islam the Prophet says that after he dies it will be announced with a "stern command": "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (69:30-37)
"Ali struck the Jew with a swift blow that split his helmet, neck protector, and head, landing in his rear teeth. And the Muslims entered the city. Muhammad conquered Qamus, the [Jewish] neighborhood of Abi Huqayq. Safiyah bt. Huyayy was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal led them past some of the Jews we had slain including the woman%u2019s dead husband. When she saw them, the woman with Safiyah cried out, slapped her face, and poured dust on her head. When Allah%u2019s Prophet saw her, he said, 'Take this she-devil away from me!'"
Ishaq:511 "When Dihyah protested, wanting to keep Safiyah for himself, the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims."
Some non-Muslim writers have taken pains to present Islam as the religion which employed violent means for its spread. But it must be recognized that, although fanaticism is one of the features of almost all religions or any ideological system, Islam has always tried to control it and remove it and to guarantee freedom of conscience. Fanaticism may serve as a means to force an ideological system or a doctrine on some people temporarily. But it can never be genuinely accepted by scholars as the main factor or the only means for spreading any doctrine, especially a religious one, permanently. We can find conversion temporarily and superficially by inhumane means in the history of all religions. But it has never been approved by authentic Islamic sources and certainly disapproved in the Quran, the most authentic source for Islamic doctrines, and in Islamic traditions. Many Quranic texts, Islamic traditions and historical evidences could be quoted to clarify this point.[17]
Some of the most fanatical opponents of Islam have admitted the respect and consideration that even Muslim soldiers had for ideas, lives and properties of non-Muslims. A war ruling issued by Omar the second caliph reads as follows: neither "Destroy not fruit-trees nor fertile field in your paths. Be just and spare the feelings of the vanquished. Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices."[18] Another document explains how Omar protected the people of the Book.[19] Muhammad ^allowed the "Peoples of the Book" complete freedom to exercise their religion. "Converts were accorded the rights and duties of full citizens; those who clung to their old faith were relieved of both rights and duties in return for their contribution to Treasury. They became Dhimmi (protected citizens). Such a degree of tolerance was to remain foreign to Christian Europe for many centuries".[20]
Not only did the protected people enjoy Islamic tolerance, but they also enjoyed Muslim hospitality, generosity and open-mindedness.[21] A specially recommended way of dispensing Islamic tax was to spend it on non-Muslims for the sake of establishing good relations (Mu'alafat al Qoloob).[22] Reports concerning Islamic tolerance since its early development are many, some of them narrated by Christians.[23]
The peaceful spread of Islam, almost everywhere, is illustrated by ample historical evidence, e.g. "The early rule of the Muslims in India was unquestionably tolerant, once conquest had been made," states a contemporary English scholar.
In A.D. 712, the Arab leader, Muhammad bin Qasim, conquered Sind and set up Muslim rule; the earliest converts were mostly Hindus of low caste who left Hinduism believing that the Muslim faith offered them equality.[24] When Muhammad bin Qasim wrote to his uncle requesting guidance regarding the natives of Sind, this is the reply he received: "It appears that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to be allowed to repair the temple of Budh and pursue their religion. As they have made submission and agreed to pay taxes to the Caliph, nothing more can be properly required from them. They have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property. Permission is given to them to worship their Gods. Nobody must be forbidden or prevented from following his own religion."[25]
Ivor Morrish states: "The Muslims under Mahmud (of Ghazna) were motivated by iconoclasm...out of his gains Mahmud founded a library, a museum and a fine Mosque."[26] He adds, "Much has been made of the concept of the Jihad, or holy war, in the religion of Islam, particularly, it need hardly be said, by the enemies of this religion. Certainly a holy war is enjoined by the Quran, which says:
'Fight for the sake of Allah those who fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love aggressors' (Quran, sura 2,190).
"This would seem to regard Jihad as a purely defensive measure; and to some extent this view is supported by other passages which appear to suggest that there should be no compulsion in religion (Quran, sura 2,256) and even that there may be room for
More than one religion (Quran, Sura 109, 6:'Unto you your religion and unto me my religion'." He adds again:" If we were writing at the moment an account of the main principals of Christianity, we would certainly not elaborate on such things as the pogroms against the Jews by Christian Societies or the activities of the Spanish Inquisition against heretics."[27]
In fact "by contrast with the treatment of the subject Jews and Muslims in Christendom, the treatment of subject 'People of the book' (Ahl al-Kitab) in 'Dar al-Islam' (Muslim Territory) has been honorably distinguished by its comparative tolerance."[28]
"The present extent of the Muslim population of the world is due almost entirely to missionary activity, tolerance, persuasion and the attraction which Islam has exerted for one reason or another."[29] "Makarios, Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch in the seventeenth century, compared the harsh treatment received by the Russians of the Orthodox Church at the hands of the Roman Catholic Poles with the tolerant attitude towards Orthodox Christians shown by the Sultans."[30] He prays for the Sultans. "God perpetuate the empire of the Turks for ever and ever! For they take their impost and enter into no account of religion, be their subjects Christians, Nazarenes, Jews, or Samaritans. Whereas these accursed Poles were not content with taxes and tithes from their brethren in Christ, though they were willing to serve them...for thousands of martyrs were killed by those impious wretches."[31]
All people who lived under Muslim rule benefited from Islamic tolerance. "The toleration explicitly accorded in the Quran to Jews and Christians (People of the Book), so long as they submitted to Muslim rule and paid a surtax, was extended, 'defacto', by the Caliphs (Muslims) to their Zoroastrian subjects and by successors of Caliphs to Hindus, though neither Hindus nor Zoroastrians had been mentioned in the Quran, in the catalogue of 'People of the Book' Z'[32] This tolerance was in cases extended even to idolaters too.[33]
It has been frequently admitted that Muslim toleration throughout history has been unmatched by the followers of other religions. Even in modern times there are, for example, steady complaints of social discrimination against Christians and Muslims in Israel.[34] "How can non-Jewish people enjoy religious and social equality and freedom in a fanatical state in which the Super-Orthodox Jews of Mea Sharimin of contemporary Jerusalem hurl rocks at automobiles passing by on the Sabbath?"[35]
The policy of the Muslims, from the very beginning, was based on tolerance and freedom. In the captured Lands, the policy of the Muslims was to allow the natives to administer the country very much as they had always done,[36] without being interfered with. An example from its early history should suffice to show the spirit of Islamic tolerance and its respect towards other religions. In A.D. 637 Omar, The Conqueror of Palestine, riding triumphantly through the streets of Jerusalem, attended by Sophronitus, its patriarch, was invited to perform his devotions in the Church of the Resurrection; but he declined, choosing instead to pray at the steps of the Church of Constantine, lest subsequent Muslim generations should invoke his example to violate Christian immunities.[37]
Even some of the most partial Western writers have admitted Islamic tolerance: "It is rather interesting that in the records which we have of discussions in the fourth century of Islam, to which period the best Arabic literature on the whole belongs, the audience, who naturally belongs to a superior class, do not approve of fanatical vituperation. They treat the Christian representatives of science and philosophy as deserving of esteem," states one of these.[38]
Some Muslim rulers married Christian women, e.g. Abraham Ibn Al-Mahdi had a Roman Christian wife who practiced Christianity in the palace.[39] Mahdi, another Abbasid Caliph, had a wife who used to wear a golden cross.[40] ' Both in Umayyad times, and later even at the Abbasid Court, one find Christian and Muslim theologians debating their religious beliefs in complete freedom.
The survival of Jewish and Christian religions and the co-existence today of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the lands of their origin is due in no small measure to a tolerant Islam. As the last of the three it did not seek, in an age of intolerance, to eliminate its predecessors and rivals. Not only had it no positive policy of suppression when it was at the height of its political power, it had in fact a positive one of coexistence. From the beginning, Muslim rulers made special allowances for the protection of their Jewish and Christian subjects; and, contrary to popular belief, Islam was not imposed upon them at the point of a sword or indeed by any systematic temporal means. On the contrary, they were immediately recognized as Ahl al-Kitab (The People of the Book), to whom earlier divine messages had been sent through God's prophets. Although according to the Muslim view these messages had been corrupted, there was still a residue of truth which deserved respect. But, as the final divine message to mankind, Islam came to correct and perfect those previous messages. Islam was thus tolerant both in theory and practice. It is true that practice had occasionally below the standards of theory, but its validity was irrevocable because it is enshrined in the divine revelation itself.
It is clear that the doctrine of religious tolerance in Islam has an ideological origin. When it was first proclaimed and practiced in the seventh century A.D. it must have appeared in sharp contrast to the contemporary fanaticism, interdenominational strife and persecution among the Christians themselves in the Byzantine Empire. As a measure of practice politics the Islamic doctrine of religious tolerance was amply vindicated by the ready welcome of the Muslim armies by Christians and Jews.[41]
Hence it is fallacious to allege, as it has recently become fashionable to allege, that "The People of the Book" were treated by the Islamic state as "second class citizens". Could they have had a better status elsewhere?
Their status was, of course, regulated by mutual agreement. They were allowed a wide measure of communal autonomy under their spiritual leaders. They were guaranteed freedom of Worship, possession of their place of Worship, and safety of their person and property. No duties were imposed other than payment of poll-tax. Those who nowadays argue that this tax itself is a mark of inferiority, must not forget that the tax was, in theory as well as in practice, in return for the privileges mentioned and in lieu of military service. Muslims paid a comparable tax, but had to serve in the army.[42] This has been admitted even by a Western writer with an obvious hostile approach to Islam: "So long as all that Islam demanded from members of tolerated cults was tribute, it might be argued that their condition compared favorably with that of the Muslims. For the different between the tribute paid by the Christians and the alms paid by the Muslims might seem to be purely a difference in name".[43]
Islamic tolerance helped minorities live an easier life than they had under their previous Christian rulers. "It was certainly easier for a man to live as a Christian under the rule of the Caliphs than as a Christian heretic within the Byzantine Empire. The situation of the adherents of the old Persian religion in the East was similar to that of the Christians in the West," states Noldeke.[44] Islamic tolerance was obvious in the fields of religious, social, educational, administrational, intellectual contacts, and relations with non-Muslims since its rise.[45] The Spanish Jews took refuge to the Muslim community and land to escape persecution at the hands of Christians under inquisition.
Muslims throughout the history of Islam, (the Arabs, the Turks, the Persians etc.), have been tolerant and open-minded.
Arabic Islam, contrary to what has often been said of it, was far from being a bigoted or fanatical religion. The Arabs were not, themselves, theologically minded. Freedom-loving, their major delights being poetry, genealogy, and horsemanship -they had compelling material reasons for not trying too hard to convert all of their new subjects.[46]
In fact, a key to the Arab genius was its openness to ideas. Indeed, with their desert background and without this openness, the Arabs could have made no progress. The respectful attitude towards other cultures, such as the Greek or Persian, was enforced by a much-quoted saying of the Prophet: "Seek for knowledge even if in China". The personality of the Arab genius was distinctive enough not to be submerged. It was able to combine elements from many different sources in something that was both new yet recognizably its own.(45) In fact their great achievement was the work of cultural synthesis.
"It is the frequent practice of European writers to state that the Arabians had no idea of politics except tribal rivalry...yet we are bound also to recognize the extraordinary breadth and wisdom of their policy as conquerors, a wisdom exceeding that shown by the great powers of our own time in their insistence on unconditional surrender after both World Wars. Indeed, it is as conquerors that the early Arabs show up best. Their extraordinary hardihood and bravery in the field, the generous terms which they offered to those who surrendered and the faithfulness with which the terms were observed, offer an example to many more example states. It was only after the completion of their conquests, in the enjoyment of wealth, luxury and security, that their morals suffered a rapid decline".[47]
In contrast to the atrocity committed by the Christians headed by Ferdinand and Isabella against the Muslims after the occupation of Spain, the Muslim Berbers headed by Tariq, a Berber client, behaved with exemplary moderation after their conquest of Spam. Those who wished to go into exile were permitted to do so, taking their movable property with them. Those who helped the Muslims in their conquest were rewarded. The Jews and heretics were granted freedom of religion. A number of Churches were appointed for Christian worship and the bishops and priests were allowed to continue their ministry.[48] The Arabs and the Berbers were both tolerant and broad minded. No attempt was made to convert Christians of Spain to Islam, a process which resulted in the loss of revenue to the Government. In some areas, the previous landlords were allowed to retain their lands and the original cultivators were left on the land, on condition of paying a share of the crop as land tax.
Islam, however, did offer a new alternative to the serfs and the slaves of non-Muslim masters, for pronouncing the formula "I bear witness that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Apostle of God", they could obtain their freedom from their Christian and Jewish owners. Thus, many serfs and slaves hastened to secure their freedom by pronouncing the Muslim formula. To the great majority of members of the depressed classes, however, Christianity had never meant much. Socially the Arab conquest had some highly beneficial results. The confiscation of the properties of many of Gothic nobles, of the Crown and of the Church, and their distribution, had on the whole, greatly increased the number of small former landowners.[49]
After the Arabs, other Muslim rulers were likewise tolerant, open and kind towards the conquered peoples. Let us consider the most recent of the Muslim rulers and sultans in the Muslim conquest; the Ottomans. Strange as it may seem, the immediate result of the Ottoman domination in Greece and Eastern Europe was beneficial to the majority of the peoples and even to the Church and Christianity in that area. In the hour of danger, the local people cried "Better Turks than Latin".[50] They would rather see the sultan's tiara in St. Sofia. This is because the Turks helped in their fight against the Popes and Western (Rome) domination and against feudal landlords. Sultan Muhammad, as a Muslim, was ready to give much that his Christian Orthodox predecessor had kept for themselves. The emperors had always been head of the Church and, in virtue of his sacrosanct character, had interfered in and controlled the course of ecclesiastical policy. A Muslim sovereign had no such ambition. Sultan Muhammad supported the Patriarchate and the patriarchs, gave them the rank of Pasha of three horse-tails and solemnly invested them with his own hands, in imitations of the ceremony performed by the Christian emperors. The Christians and their patriarchs looked upon the Sultans as their benefactors and protectors, at least against the Latinos and the Popes.[51]
The use of the word Dhimmi which literally and as an Islamic term means protected (Ahl al-Dhimma = the protected peoples) for the peoples under Muslim rule explains how the Muslims felt themselves responsible for their protection. The peculiarities of Islam tended to exalt the position of the peoples of the scripture (Ahl al-Kitab), Christianity, the Church and the religious leaders. Islam does not distinguish between spiritual affairs of the state, between religion and law, between temporalities and spiritualities. By tolerating the sacred religions the Muslim rules implied that the followers of these religions were allowed to preserve, not only their religions in the strict sense of the word, but all their observances, usages and customs, provided they
Clearly understood that they were collectively and individually, the Dhimmis (protected and ruled by the Muslims) and paid their tributes for the privilege of being protected. The religious leaders of the sacred religions were head not only of the religious institutes and organizations, but the head of their community in non-religious affairs. They were the representative of their peoples and nations.[52] They were heads and chiefs empowered to settle all disputes and all business matters arising between the members of their communities. All questions respecting marriage, inheritance etc. were referred to ecclesiastical tribunals and they did not need go to Muslim Courts and authorities and the Muslims did not interfere in how the followers of the sacred religions under their rule settled matters among themselves. The authority of the non-Muslims covered all their civil cases.
In fact, the upper classes, lay as well as clerical, and religious foundations suffered very little under, for instance, the Arabs, the Ottomans, and the Persians. The higher clergy of the sacred religions usually found themselves possessed of a power and influence which were new to them under the Muslim rule. The Phanariots, for instance, as well as religious leaders, took a large share in the administration of the Ottoman Empire as middlemen. The Church was certainly favored by the Turks and prospered greatly. The Patriarch, as head of the Greek community had the rank of Vazir and superintended the administration of justice in the community.
It was not the Ottoman rule which curbed Christianity in the areas under their rule, but the oppression and corruption of the Christian religious leaders which restrained it and, consequently, helped the spread of Islam. It is hardly surprising to find that this period of a powerful but corrupt Greek Church was characterized by the number of conversions to Islam,[53] both because of the Muslims' tolerance and because of corruption of the Church.
Later on in the early nineteenth century, religious freedom was institutionalized in the Ottoman Empire. A Royal Decree called Hatti-Sharif Gulhane was issued in 1839 which secured the life, honor and property of all the sultans' subjects, without distinction of religions. Another decree Hatti-Humayun was issued in 1856 which affirmed in a stronger form, the principle provisions of Hatti Gulhana. It again proclaimed perfect toleration and the absolute equality of all religions. All together, the Ottoman Government showed great patience and moderation towards non-Muslims, even in the times of agitation by them. In 1895, when northern Macedonia was invaded by Bulgarian bands who desired to provoke a disturbance, it is well authenticated that the Turkish Troops who were sent to repel them were instructed not to harm a single Christian; and that in places where the inhabitants were afraid to go out into the fields for fear of meeting either the bands or the Ottoman soldiers, the latter harvested their crops for them lest it should spoil by standing too long, and presented the Ml amount to the head-men of the villages.[54] On occasions, the Ottomans were even ready to let Christians prosper financially and commercially at the expense of Muslims.[55]
RE:RE:ISLAMIC TOLERATION
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 20, 2007 05:11 PM Permalink
women in Vedas
Women in Vedas Soma Sablok The Indian Constitution guarantees equal rights to both the sexes and does not discriminate on the basis of caste, color and creed However, despite the constitutional provisions, do women enjoy equality with men ?
The answer is 'No'. Their condition still remains miserable. Newspaper carry report of rape and burning of women for not bringing sufficient dowry or their inability to satisfy the demands of greedy in laws.
Basically, out present attitude towards women streams from our religious scriptures which refer to women as contempt. Our oldest book are the 'Vedas' which contain highly objectionable and condemnable passages concerning women. Taking cue from the 'Vedas' authors of subsequent religious scriptures referred to women in more contemptuous form. 'Sati pratha' (custom of burning the widow with the body of her husband), 'Dasi Pratha' (keeping the slave girls), 'Niyog Pratha' (ancient Aryan custom of childless widow or women having sexual intercourse with a man other than husband to beget child), were among cruel customs responsible for the plight of the women.
Naturally, seeking shelter under such religious sanctions, unscrupulous women disgraced women to the maximum possible extent and made them means of satisfying their lust. No one wanted a daughter. As a result; female infant came to be considered unwanted. No one wanted a daughter. Everyone was interested in having a son. The birth of the son was celebrated, but the birth of the daughter plunged family into gloom. This attitude still persists, even though certain other customs have undergone changes.
'Rig Veda' itself says that a women should beget sons. The newly married wife is blessed so that she could have 10 sons. So much so, that for begetting a son, 'Vedas' prescribe a special ritual called 'Punsawan sanskar' (a ceremony performed during third month of pregnancy). During the ceremony it is prayed:
"Almighty God, you have created this womb. Women may be born somewhere else but sons should be born from this womb" - Atharva Ved 6/11/3
"O Husband protect the son to be born. Do not make him a women" - Atharva Ved 2/3/23
In 'Shatpath Puran (shatpath Brahman)' a sonless women has been termed as unfortunate.
'Rig Veda' censures women by saying: "Lord Indra himself has said that women has very little intelligence. She cannot be taught" - Rig Ved 8/33/17
At another placein Rig Veda it is written: "There cannot be any friendship with a women. Her heart is more cruel than heyna" - Rig Ved 10/95/15.
'Yajur Ved (Taitriya Sanhita)'m- "Women code says that the women are without energy. They should not get a share in property. Even to the wicked they speak in feeble manner" - Yajur Ved 6/5/8/2
Shatpath Puran, preachings of the 'Yajur Veda' clubs women, 'shudras'(untouchables), doga, crows together and says falsehood, sin and gloom remain integrated in them. (14/1/1/31)
In 'Aiterey Puran', preaching of the 'Rig Veda' in harsih chandra -Narad dialogue, Narad says: "The daughter causes pain"
"So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered Khaybar home by home. The first stronghold defeated was Naim. Next was Qamus, the community of Abi Huqayq. The Messenger took some of its people captive, including Safiyah bt. Huyayy, the wife of Kinanah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself."
RE:HOW SAFIYA BECAME HIS WIFE
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 20, 2007 05:11 PM Permalink
Despicable
To insult and humiliate women further, the religious books speak of women having sexual intercourse with animals or expressing desire for intercourse with them. What further insult can be heaped on women.
In 'Yajur Veda' such references are found at a number of places where the principal wife of the host is depicted as having intercourse with a horse.
For example consider the following hymn:
"All wife of the host reciting three mantras go round the horse. While praying, they say: 'O horse, you are, protector of the community on the basis of good qualities, you are, protector or treasure of happiness. O horse, you become my husband.'" - Yajur Veda 23/19.
After the animal is purified by the priest, the principal wife sleeps near the horse and says: "O Horse, I extract the semen worth conception and you release the semen worth conception'" - Yajur Veda 23/20.
The horse and principal wife spread two legs each. Then the Ardhvaryu (priest) orders to cover the oblation place, raise canopy etc. After this, the principal wife of the host pulls penis of the horse and puts it in her vagina and says: "This horse may release semen in me." -Yajur Veda 23/20.
Then the host, while praying to the horse says:
"O horse, please throw semen on the upper part of the anus of my wife. Expand your penis and insert it in the vagina because after insertion, this penis makes women happy and lively" - 23/21.
In the Vedic age, the customs of polygamy was prevalent. Each wife spent most of the time devising ways and means to become favorite to her husband.
Clear references are available in 'Rig Veda', (14/45),' and Atharva Veda (3/81)'
THE DISTORTED CONCEPT OF THE HISTORY OF THE SPREAD OF ISLAM:
Were we to draw a map of the political condition of Europe, Africa and Western Asia about the middle of the tenth century A.D. we should see that by far the greatest part of that "inhabited world", which the Greeks called "Oikoumene", was occupied by countries possessed of an Islamic government and an Islamic civilization and inhabited by Muslim people. They no longer constituted a strict political unity; but they were connected by such strong ties of common religion and culture that their inhabitants felt themselves citizens of a vast community. The development and the vast spread of Islam though continuous took place mainly in only three centuries.[4] The faith of Islam once was the main religion, or at least the religion of the majority of the peoples in an area covering more than half of the civilized world stretching over three continents from the Pyrenees and Siberia in West and North Europe to the furthest end of Asia, up to China and the southern tip of Africa, covering two thirds of the African continent. It would probably have covered Europe but for the strong resistance put up by the Francs in the eighth century.[5] The great geographer, Ibn Hauqal, about A.D. 975, wrote: "The length of the Empire of Islam in our days extends from the limits of Farghana, passing through Khurasan, al-Jibal (Media), Iraq and Arabia as far as the coast of Yemen, which is a journey of about four months; its breadth begins from the country of the Rum (the Byzantine Empire), passing through Syria, Mesopotamia, Iraq, Fars and the Kirman, as far as the territory of al-Mansura on the shores of the sea of Fars (the Indian Ocean), which is about four months' traveling, hi the previous statement of the length of the Empire of Islam, I have omitted the frontier of Maghrib (Northern Africa), and the Andalus (Spain), because it is like a sleeve of a garment...If one goes, however, beyond Egypt into the country of the Maghrib, the lands of the Sudan (the Blacks) lie to the South of Maghrib and, to its North, the Sea of Rum (the Mediterranean) and next to the territory of Rum."[6] "The rise of Islam is perhaps the most amazing event in human history. Springing from a land and a people alike previously negligible, Islam spread within a century over half the Earth, shattering great empires, ousting long-established religions, remolding the souls of races and building up a whole new world - the World of Islam".
[7]The number of those who profess Islam is steadily increasing. The 1975 edition of the "World Muslim Gazetteer", published by the "World Muslim Congress" in Karachi, gives a world total of over nine hundred million, with Muslim majority in forty six independent states. This compares with the figure of six hundred and forty-seven million given in the 1964 edition, and is in line with the rapid population growth in Asia and Africa, generally, including countries with the largest number of Muslims: Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt and Iran, (tan's 1986 general census shows that the rate of population growth has been 3.45 percent during the last ten years with the total population of fifty-seven million). The other large figures which gave concern to former Soviet Russia and China were the numbers which cannot be accurately ascertained. A safer assumption gives the figure in Sin kiang in China as over fifty million.
In modem times, the Muslim community consists of both the peoples of over 51 Muslim countries as well as the Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries, estimated to be 400 million, namely one third of the entire world Muslim population. The largest Muslim minority communities live in India (150 million), Russia, China (at least 50 million), in Eastern Europe (18 million), in Western Europe (8 million). There are also Muslim majorities under un-Islamic or even anti-Islamic regimes such as in Ethiopia, Albania, occupied Palestine, Kashmir, Mindanao etc. The dean of the Islamic International Centre carrying out a population research at Azhar University Egypt - says that the number of Muslims in the world exceeds one billion and six hundred million Muslims who live in 90 different countries. Among them are member states of Islamic Conference Organization consisting of 51 countries and the rest live as minorities in the other half. The Centre also said that eight hundred million Muslims live in Asia, including India, China, and Central Asia Republics. 309,000,000 Muslims live in Africa, 5,000,000 in USA, Southern America and the Caribbean. 8,000,000 in European and 200,000 in Australia.
The range of the Muslim world is as wide as the human race: white, colored, yellow, and as vast as the world's culture: Arabs, Persians, Turks, Indians, Europeans, and Africans etc. Only, at the most, up to fifteen percent of Muslims speak Arabic (about 200 million Muslims of about 22 Arab states); the rest speak almost all languages of the world's major and minor languages. Today Muslims live in almost all parts and countries of the world and belong to all nationalities, in spite of global, cultural, political, social, educational, economic and commercial restrictions, exploitation of and animosity to the worldwide Muslim Community exercised by international imperialism and conspiracy and by international Zionism, the Muslim Community is increasing and Islam is spreading.
Despite the geographical, ethnic, national and political diversity of the Muslim Community, over one and a half billion Muslims of the world share the common belief that there is no deity other than Allah, that Allah sent many Messengers to guide humanity the last of whom was Muhammad (PBUT). They share a common ideology, a common history and Book, common culture, common aspiration and common enemy. They all pray five times a day facing the Kabah. They fast during the month of Ramadan and perform Hajj (if they can afford it). They also share the same enemy: Satan. They have all been ordered by Allah, the Quran and the Prophet to be United and live as a family in the spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood.
The spread of Islam, challenged at the beginning by other religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Shamanism, Zoroastrian-ism, etc., is due to factors, incentives, circumstances and conditions mainly religious and spiritual. People can be forced to do things physically but they cannot be forced to accept a certain faith, religion, spiritual doctrine or Creed. The spread of Islam, always in the form of conversion, is therefore mainly due to mental and spiritual factors, helped occasionally by material factors.
Of course some of those who accepted Islam did not have a definite answer as to what had attracted them particularly to Islam, for as a rule the whole and inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life program of Islam had allured them. As one Muslim convert, scholar and writer put it: "Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other, nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Everything in the teaching and postulate of Islam is in its proper place".[8] This was so with individuals. Group conversion to Islam has been usually due to a factor or certain major incentives. Islam, unlike other religions, is not only a spiritual attitude of mind, but also a self-sufficing orbit of culture and social system of clearly defined features.[9]
This does not necessarily mean that every group that has accepted Islam has studied it exclusively, extensively and deeply, and then accepted it as a whole; they usually fall in love with it for some reason or another.
A scholarly and an intellectual way to embrace Islam requires a comprehensive study of Islam and this is the way which has been adopted by scholars and intellectuals all ages,[10] and in modern times,[11] but mass conversion is not likely to take place this way. It is really the mass conversion which has rapidly increased the number of Muslims throughout its history.
"Islam as preached in the century after Muhammad (or centuries) is an example of an idealization system. In accepting Islam, men were accepting this idealization system and the images embedded in it. Most men probably accepted the system as a whole without being clearly aware of the importance attached to the various aspects. Yet almost certainly they were moved by certain images or parts of the system more than others; and different men would be moved by different images,[12] e.g. those groups which became Shiite Muslim were doubtless from the first attracted and moved by the dynamic image of the charismatic leader which was present in the figure of Muhammad, the messenger sent by God, and the Imams, his divine successors: while for those who became Sunnites, the attraction would be the image of the holy or charismatic community (Umma and Jama'at) which had received and was based on the Word of God."[13]
We simply want to examine some of the factors leading peoples or persons to Islam. Whether a certain factor or group of factors led certain group or groups to the acceptance of Islam needs further research. It is the same with the question whether those who accepted it simply fell in love with it or accepted it after careful intellectual examination or were led to it by scholars who had already studied it and preferred it to other religions which also need a much more exclusive survey. The study of peoples' incentives for accepting Islam also needs an independent survey.
Zealous Muslims and their missionary activities were always behind the success of Islam and its spread. The spirit, zeal and love for truth in the hearts of Muslims chiefly inspired them to present the truth to others and to carry the message of Islam to the peoples of the countries into which they penetrated. But, analyzing the whole question of the Muslim faith and the history of its spread, we are bound to come to the conclusion that various factors, causes and conditions (social, economic, educational, cultural, spiritual, political, psychological, historical, geographical) are responsible for the wide acceptance of Islam even among Christian nations of Europe, Africa and Asia.
Of course the doctrine of "Amr bi al-Ma'roof', which makes the spread of truth and Islam the religious duty of every Muslim, has helped the spread of Islam. This is the reason why a large amount of controversial and proselytizing literature has been created in Islam,[14] some of it by the new converts.[15] However, even the doctrine of "Amrbi al-Ma'roof' is closely associated with the religious, psychological and spiritual values of Islam.
The task of Guiding the Misled to virtuous behavior and persuading them to stop doing wrong (al-Amr bi al-Ma'roof waal-Nahy an al-Munkar) is laid on each Muslim and it is his religious duty to lead people to a good life (Shariah). This is why every Muslim is supposed to preach righteousness and decency. It is not the duty only of certain professional preachers, but of all. Muslims bound by their religious duty took up the work of preaching Islam wherever they went and whenever they thought it was suitable to do so. It is true that Islam has no professional priesthood, and that it did not, therefore, have any organized system of propaganda, no tract societies, agencies or missionary work. But the spirit of truth (Islam: submission to God who is the whole truth, the only truth and nothing but the truth) in the hearts of Muslims cannot rest unless it manifests itself in thought, word and deed to everybody.[16] This is the basic explanation for the spread of Islam.
There was a time when it was taken for granted that history meant giving accounts of events, mainly military, which took place in the past. The history of religions did not exist at all. When it came to existence it meant giving accounts of events which had been formed or conducted by the followers of certain religions or a religion. The first known scholar who gave history its inclusive modern concept was Abd-al-Rahman Ibn Khaldoon (1332 - 1406), "the great philosophical historian", as he is called by scholars.[1] Despite the fact that he was a Muslim and naturally gave the "history of Islam" its modern concept, Western Scholarship for reasons, mainly of prejudice or, at least, because of unsympathetic approach towards Islam, until very recently has introduced the "history of Islam" as the History of Muslim Conquests (in terms of War), Empires and Dynasties. During the last few centuries, since the great work of Ibn Khaldoon, history, including history of religions, has been undergoing a revolu?tion. Nowadays, even the history of military events does not mean only military accounts or explanations of military events. How much less a history of religions or history of Islam? There is, therefore, a cynical explanation for the stubborn insistence upon explaining the spread of Islam in military terms in the age of philosophy of history.
Islam is the latest and most historically documented of the great religions of the world. It developed in the full light of history and human knowledge. The factors and causes of its development, spread and triumph can be fully explained without needing to retreat to assumption and accusation based on prejudice. Islam, unlike other religions, can be explained in the full light of history. Here, instead of the shadowy and mysterious, we have history.[2] We know as much about Muhammad, the Quran and Islam as we do of any person, book or phenomenon in the history of mankind. Thus we do not need to retreat to mythology or legend to give a distorted image of Islam, its founder, its principles, its history and its spread.
A vast amount of literature concerning Islam in general, and many great works and much research concerning the history of Islam, have been produced by Muslim and Western Scholars during the last two centuries. But the history of Islam (not Muslim conquests, empires and dynasties) in the proper sense of the term has not been dealt with yet. The Orientalists' works lack metaphysical understanding and sympathetic insight into Islam; and the Muslims' works lack systematic approach and modern analytical refinement. Leaving aside the great work of Abd-al-Rahman Ibn Khaldoon "Moqadaddamma" (Kitab Al-Ibar Wa-Diwan al-Mubtada' Wa al-Khabar...) amongst Muslims, which is of great value in the field of world sociological and philosophical history, and the work of Sir Thomas Arnold amongst orientalists, "The Preaching of Islam", which deals with the historical spread of Islam geographically, most of the books on the history of Islam deal only with the Muslim conquests, empires and dynasties, which have nothing really to do with the actual history of Islam which is indeed the history of the spread and development of Islam.
We do not claim that in the present work we are dealing with the history of the spread of Islam properly either. That is a work which indeed needs ample time, energy and the massive scholarship of many researchers. But we have tried sincerely, though not adequately, to produce a kind of introduction dealing mainly with some of the factors, incentives and circumstances which have helped the spread of Islam.
"Islam is a concept which, phenomenized in a number of linked but diverse political, social, religious, economic, cultural, civil and educational, organisms, covers an immense area in space and time. In different regions, religion and epochs it has presented differing features under the impact of and in response to local, geographical, social and political (and other) forces," states H.A.R. Gibb.[3] In the course of our study the complexity, inclusiveness and diversity of both its organisms and the factors contributing to the spread of Islam are only probable, tentative and likely elements.
A volume of this size is necessarily limited in the material it can cover. It may, therefore, not be comprehensive or indeed may have many shortcomings. However, the purpose of this brief study as the titles indicates is to produce only an "Introduction to the History of the Spread of Islam". This book is neither the history of Islam nor that of the Muslim people. Still, it may be of some use to both the public and scholars. Both specialists in Islam and historians have barely dealt with the real factors contributing to the spread of Islam (Western writers on the contrary have tried hard to establish their own factors, and not the actual factors) amongst more than one-fourth of the total world population. In this brief study we hope to bring only some of these factors to the attention of the reader. We earnestly ask impartial scholars to follow this subject critically and contribute to the furtherance of public knowledge about Islam and the development of human knowledge in general and to do justice to a religion which has been wronged intentionally and unintentionally by foes and friends.
Here we would like to bring a few points to the attention of the reader:
a) We have relied in our work mainly on Western sources and books for technical and research purposes.
b) References have been made in our discussions to other religions but these are only
for the sake of analogy and comparison. No offences what so ever is intended. Whatever statements have been made about Christianity in the course of discussion are almost all simply quotations made by Christians from Christian sources.
c) Variation in spelling is due to quotation. We have tried not to change the quotations and thus the words Muslim, Quran, Muhammad are spelt differently.
d) Besides the books mentioned in the bibliography, many more have been consulted.
e) Quotations have been made to clarify points of discussion in the context. They do not necessarily represent the author's opinion.
f) Our main purpose in this work is only to present what we regard as facts as we understand them. What is certain is that we earnestly tried to do so even though we may have failed in our efforts.
g) Since this book is written both for those who have previous knowledge of Islam
and those who do not have a specialist knowledge, there are explanations of most matters, sometimes very elementary ones %u2013 and thus many repetitions and the obvious explanations may be seen as tedious, I would crave their indulgence and ask their patience and forgiveness. They must remember that not all have then-specialist knowledge.
h) As the subjects are very interrelated a clear separation of the discussions has been almost impossible.
RE:DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HANDICAPPED PEOPLE
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 20, 2007 05:13 PM Permalink
3. Widows and Elderly Women
3.1 Sati (Widow-Burning)
The Aryans, upon their invasion of India 1500 B.C. introduced the horrific custom of Sati, i.e. the burning of a woman after the death of her husband. When performed singly it is referred to as Sati, when performed en masse by all the women and daughters of a town in anticipation of their widowhood (eg. when the men were to fight a battle against all odds), it is known as Jauhar. It is sanctioned by their most sacred texts, and was practiced from the fall of the Semito-Dravidian Indus Valley civilization to the modern age.
3.1.1 Scriptural Sanction
The most sacred of Aryan scriptures are the Vedas, and the Rig Veda, the oldest Veda, first mentions the custom of Sati. The following famous "Sati Hymn"of the Rig Veda was (and still is) recited during the actual immolation of the widow [Kane 199-200]:
"Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are living, enter the house with ghee (applied) as corrylium ( to their eyes). Let these wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well adorned."[Rig Veda X.18.7] [Kane 199-200]
In recent times some Aryan apologists have arisen who try to prove that this verse does not sanction sati. This concept arises from a mistaken reading of the word agne or agneh , which they believe is agre . This is a wrong interpretation, and other evidence exists that the Aryans definitely practiced Sati from the earliest times. They distorted this verse which directs the widow to enter the pyre (agneh) so as to mean that the wife was to rise from her pyre and go to the front (agre). In addition to these examples, ancient Aryan scripture encourages Sati. The Garudapurana favorably mentions the immolation of a widow on the funeral pyre, and states that women of all castes, even the Candalla woman, must perform Sati. The only exceptions allowed by this benevolent author is for pregnant women or those who have young children. If women do not perform Sati, then they will be reborn into the lowly body of a woman again and again till they perform Sati. [Garudapurana II.4.91-100] [Kane 237] According to Vasishta%u2019s Padma-Purana, a woman must, on the death of her husband, allow herself to be burnt alive on the same funeral pyre [Abbe DuBois 345]. The Vishnusmirti gives two choices for the widow:
"If a woman%u2019s husband dies, let her lead a life of chastity, or else mount his pyre"[Vishnusmrti xxv.14] [Clayton 13]
Brahma is one of the main Aryan gods, being the creator of the world (later he was identified as an incarnation of Vishnu). One of the Puranas is named after him, the Brahma Purana. Like other Puranas, it was composed after the Vedas (Pandits hold 4000 B.C., Indologists 700 B.C.) This scripture also sanctions sati:
RE:RE:DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HANDICAPPED PEOPLE
by An Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:06 PM Permalink
By the way are you aware about your own history and ancestors, their agony, their pain etc. etc. If you have anything please read those.
Introspect youself, come to the truth, decide yourself, shake yourself, sit in the room with closed eyes and invent yourself.
I wonder how the Islamic fanaticism has killed the humanism, when one starts pitting, vomiting and urinating on their own ancestors, whose blessing they are.
