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"
