I read the translation of the lecture by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
to a group of his disciples on November 30 – focussed on the recent terror attacks in Mumbai.
It is a long lecture to quote in entirety. But these are his lines that strikes out.
Muslims have gained nothing from terrorism
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan | translated by Yoginder Sikand for Rediff.
I have studied in Muslim seminaries, madrassas and have participated in numerous Muslim gatherings, and in many of these places hatred and pride is instilled in the minds of Muslims. They are taught: ‘We are the caliphs and vice-regent of God on earth.“
I once met an Arab whose first question to me was, “Who are we?” He then said: “We are the Caliphs of God on earth.” I told him that this is not written anywhere in our books. The Sahih Al-Bukhari says that Muslims are witnesses of God. That is, they have to spread the message of God on earth. The same is alluded to in the Quran, that is, the task of Muslims is to spread God’s message and lead a life according to His instructions.
However, Muslims have made themselves the self-appointed Caliphs, and have launched all sorts of movements that propagate the ideology of capturing political power. This thinking emerged when the Ottoman and Mughal empires declined, and Muslims started considering the rest of the world as usurpers and oppressors who snatched their rights and power from them.
Today I receive this comment. A muslim who by his own declaration a proud fundamentalist. It is a long comment, his text is within the blockquotes. I hope you do read the entire post.
SAJJAD | ……..@rediffmail.com | IP: 116.72.188.176
WHY ARE MOST OF THE MUSLIMS FUNDAMENTALISTS AND TERRORISTS?
This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.
Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:
1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’
A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.
This is a typical explanation of a propagandist – made to sound convincing but in reality illogical.
Fundamentalism refers to deep commitment to a belief, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles mostly religious. A fundamentalist has to adhere to that set of beliefs even in the face of criticism or unpopularity.
A true scientist, mathematician or a doctor cannot be “fundamentalist”. They have to be flexible enough to accept all possibilities and challenge the fundamentals to make new discoveries, to progress. The early belief was the sun revolved around the earth, a fundamentalist astronomer would never be able to challenge it.
Fundamentalism is only possible in religious beliefs. More so in Islam which does not give anyone the right to question or challenge, but to only blindly follow.
But his logic only goes to confirm my views about Islam.
The more devout are the followers of Islam, the more fundamental or even extreme their beliefs. After every atrocity, the muslim community now says that the killers are not true muslims. But this comment confirms that a muslim terrorist has to have fundamental beliefs – and be a devout muslim.
That is the paradox, that no muslim will ever admit, the more devout a muslim, the more the possibility of becoming an extremist; or even a terrorist.
2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same
One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fundamentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.
To call a thief or a robber a fundamentalist by his profession is beyond the ridiculous.
He argues a fundamentalist who causes harm to the society is undesireable. This leaves it open to every individual to decide which activity is good and which is bad fundamentalism.
To the non-muslim world, an islamic fundamentalist is a cause of harm to the society – Mumbai killings for example. Applying his own logic such Islamic fundamentalists too are undesirable.
3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist
I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.
Islam may benefits some individuals and society, but to say that it has to be the way for the entire world is just an arrogant delusion. But that is what is frightening – the fundamental belief of every ‘true muslim’ that the entire world HAS TO FOLLOW ISLAM.
There cannot be another way that is as good or even better.
4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’
According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God.
Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes. According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’. Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.
The original definition was to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community. The important point here is ‘strict maintenance of ancient doctrines’ and usually narrowly defined.
Islam’s fundamentalism takes away the right of every individual’s independent thinking and beliefs.
5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.
This is explanation is meant as a justification for ‘terrorism’.
The policeman is a ‘good’ terrorist – because he creates ‘terror’ in a criminal.
The 10 pakistani Islamic terrorist who created terror in Mumbai, to be good terrorist, they had to .
create terror in anti-socials. The innocent people who were killed were by his logic anti-socials; ‘thieves, dacoits and rapists. They all had to die – because in the eyes of Islam they were criminals?
This warped logic is what makes every ‘law abiding muslims’ a potential ‘terrorist’.
6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’
Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.
It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.
By definition ‘terrorism’ is
deliberate and systematic spread of terror to coerce a result – to achieve a goal.
Sure I agree, one man’s terrorists is anothers’ freedom fighters. There were many indians prior to independance of india (who came from all classes and religions); who engaged in activities for the independence of India AND pakistan. Their actions were aimed at spreading terror in the British administration, with an aim to coerce them to leave – to achieve an independent India.
But they never mislead the world about their intentions.
To the non-muslim every Islamic killer is a terrorists, but to every devout muslim each of these killers, be it Md Atta or Ajmal Amir Kasab, they are holy warriors, patriots, and if they get killed – martyrs. This only proves what I have written before. The reason no apparent ‘law abiding muslims’ will ever denounce the killers of the Mumbai tragedy.
The SOLE AIM of Islamic terrorism is to cause ‘terror’ is TO GAIN POWER to make the entire world an Islamic world – the Islamic Caliphate. They will never admit to it.
7. Islam means peace
Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.
Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.
By this warped logic, every muslim is / or should be a fundamentalist / extremists. And CAN BE A TERRORIST towards anti-socials anti-social and peacebreakers. Except those that get killed are innocent civilians. Besides who gave the muslims and the religion of islam the mandate to maintain and promote peace throughout the world?
WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?
How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?
Answer:
It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.
1. Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).
Islam’s fundamental belief, for true peace EVERYONE has to SUBMIT their will to the alleged supreme WILL OF ALLAH. If you do not wish to ‘submit’ yourself – to Islam you are a non-believer and can be persecuted.
2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.
Again this is a partially true.
Islam’s permission to use force is not restricted to fighting oppression, it is clearly directed against non-believers – as quoted here.
In religious parlance, this use of force is called Jihad, and in the Qur’an it can be classified in two distinct categories:
Firstly, against injustice and oppression.
Secondly, against the rejecters of truth after it has become evident to them.
The muslim propaganda typically is always set to deceive by such omissions.
3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book ’Islam at the cross road’ (Page 8):
’History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.’
4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.
5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
Another deception by omission.
This is a verse from Quran:
Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued. (9:29)
And it is a directive related to both the Jews and the Christians. The punishment mentioned in these verses was in fact a show of great lenience to them because of the fact that they were originally adherents to monotheism.
He, the fundamentalist muslim must know why and how some christians got spared. He does not explain it, neither does he mention the status of the ‘dhimmi’ in an islamic caliphate and the jizya tax.
The primary reason why the non-muslim falls for the propaganda everytime, for they do not feel bothered to read the text of the Quran for themselves. And the propagandists knows it and takes full advantage.
6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.
This is another example of muslim propaganda.
This muslim quotes the demography of 21st century india to prove that between 10th – 17th century, Islam did not forcibly convert hindus with the point of their swords. No mention of the many records of history that rubbishes his claims.
Was There an Islamic “Genocide” of Hindus?
Dr. Koenraad Elst – a Belgian Catholic – it cannot be any more impartial.
… important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust.
Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like “punishing” the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.
The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).
The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate,
Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus.
Though Timur conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler, he recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took “twenty slaves each”.
Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were partly the progeny of Hindus enslaved by Islam.
7. Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, ’Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?’
8. East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, ’Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?’
9. Thomas Carlyle.
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book ’Heroes and Hero worship’, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: ’The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.’
10. No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
’Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error’
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]
11. Sword of the Intellect.
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
’Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious.’
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]
Except under the Laws of Jihad it also says,
II. The Directive of Jihad
Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. (8:65)
IV. Captives of War
So, when you meet [in the battlefield] those who disbelieve, strike off their heads.
They may be self-contradictory passages, but they are very much the text of Quran. It is the degree of fundament of a believer to decide which to follow. History documents hundreds and thousands of such conversion.
12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.
An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?
13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
The explanation is simple.
The Demographic Siege.
explained by Koenraad Elst
Many Hindus take an alarmist view about the numerical growth of Islam through high birth rates and migration. This alarmist view is even stronger in Europe, with its low birth rates, than in India. The impressively higher Muslim birth rate is a plain fact, which is why the secularists are so zealous in denying it. Admittedly, birth control is now catching on in countries like Iran and Turkey (not in Pakistan), but Iran’s population is still expected to double before reaching zero growth. If you extrapolate present trends, it is certain that Islam will take over Europe in fifty years, India and the US in a hundred at most.
These numbers so proudly quoted in the comment only confirms that Islam has no respect for any other religion. No respect for another’s right to have an independent thought, belief and ideology or religion. If anyone writes or draws anything that goes against their beliefs – they become a target to kill, on the run from a fatwa.
No one, muslims or not, believers or non-believers have the rights of a independent human being,
I have a problem with that – I refuse to follow doctrines set in the 7th century. This is a from an interview with mr Elst. This echoes the words of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.
An Interview With Koenraad Elst
By Dr. Ramesh Rao – AUGUST 2002
Or take a more fundamental item, the core belief of Islam: that Mohammed is God’s prophet.
Suppose one of your colleagues told you one day that henceforth you have to obey his every word, as he has become God’s spokesman receiving exclusive messages from above. Presumably you would guess he had developed a serious mental problem. Well, that’s exactly what Mohammed’s contemporaries thought, as the Quran itself testifies a dozen times. It is also what modern psychologists have said: Mohammed suffered of a classic case of paranoia, a grand delusion about himself nurtured with audiovisual hallucinations.
A real secularist is sceptical of the defining belief of Islam and feels sorry for all those Muslims trapped in it. So there you have a properly secularist point to take up with the Muslims: do you want to continue regulating your lives after the injunctions of a 7th-century Arab businessman who heard voices? Do you want to base wars, states and laws on the non-secular belief in Mohammed’s deluded claims? Instead, the only thing the secularists ever discuss with Muslims is a joint strategy against the Hindus.
I agree with V.S. Naipaul: the non-Arab Muslims suffer from the conflict between their ancestral cultural roots and their imposed religion. Every Muslim is an abductee from the civilization in which he once belonged. Where I differ with the Nobel-winning author is that I would apply the same diagnosis to the Arabs. Though they did not have to adopt foreign customs and language, which made the transition to Islam less disruptive, they too were cut off from their original culture. Either way, Muslims would do well to take a critical look at the basics of their religion. I don’t think anyone else can do it for them,
14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.
Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, ’People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born’
Except, it is called the Islamic bomb, created by Pakistan with American dollars and Chinese help.
And predicted to go off in a world’s major city within five years.
I do not care what a muslim believes, as long as they have the honesty and courage to clearly say they are ‘fighting’ ONLY to convert every nation and every individual to Islam. Every conflict like Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, is just an excuse.
This comment almost says it, but did not have the courage to confirm it.
The final aim of Islam – an Islamic Caliphate.
islam caliphate
