Saturday, December 31, 2005

Introduction

Here all the views of eminent scholars, historians, political or social activists of India are quoted. There are no interpretations or explanations, as these scholars do not need them. This is a completely objective blog, which just shows the facts and no interpretation.

Thank You.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The great apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity had to commit:
1) “In so far as the charge is correct, the Musslamans take less interest (in freedom movement) because they do not yet regard India as their home of which they must feel proud. Many (Muslims) regard themselves, quite wrongly, I think, as belonging to race of conquerors”. (Young India, April 2, 1925)
2) “The Mussalaman being generally in a minority has, as a class, developed into a bully.” (Young India, June 19, 1924)
3) “Musslamans have an ordeal to pass through. There can be no doubt hat they are too free with the free and the pistol.” (Young India, December 30, 1942)
My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalaman as a rule is a bully and the Hindu, as a rule is a coward. (The Biography of Gandhiji, written by Dhanhanjay Keer, published by Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 1973; page 402)

Dr. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar

All quotations are from ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India’ by B.R. Ambedkar, 3rd edition, 1946: BAWS Vol. 8, 1990, Govt. of Maharashtra publication; previous name of the book: Thoughts on Pakistan

Hindus is a Kafir-not worthy of respect: “To the Muslims, a Hindu (and any non-Muslim) is a Kaifr. A Kafir (non-believer in Islam) is not worthy of respect. He is a low born and without status. That is why a country ruled by the Kafir (non-Muslim) is a ‘Dar-ul-Harb’ (i.e., the land of war) to a Muslim, which must be conquered, by any means for the Muslims and turned into ‘Dar-ul’-Islam’ (i.e., land of Muslims alone.) given this, no further evidence seems necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu (or for that matter any non-Muslims) government.” (p. 301)

Brotherhood of Muslims for the Muslims only: “Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it make between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.

The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which eh belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever-there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country.

In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India s his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great India but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.”

Difficult to see differences between a communal and Nationalist Muslim: “It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim and policy with eth Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed any Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no different between the two and that there Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims.” (ibid., pp 408)

Muslim invaders planted the seeds of Islam in India: “The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this land is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasion have deposited their ‘silt’ more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak.” (ibid. pp. 65)

Muslim’s strategy in politics: “The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics.” (ibid p. 269)

Murderers are Religious martyrs: “But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little, what matters I the attitude of those who count towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of law where law is enforced. The leading Muslims, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. As an illustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Ali, a Barrister of Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Quran. This attitude of the Muslims is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.” (ibid. p. 157)

Hindus and Muslims are two distinct spiritual species: From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Musslamans are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. The are two distinct species.” (ibid. p 193)

Islam and Casteism: “Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed out of its support was derived form Islam and Islamic countries.”

But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal:

The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes - Shaikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan has very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, 1) Ashraf or Sharaf and 2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mohammedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous-terms, ‘Ajlab’, ‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’: they are also called Kamina or Itar, ‘base’ or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, ‘worthless’. In some placers a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’, is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground.

“Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.
1) Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.
a. Saiads
b. Sheikhs
c. Pathans
d. Moghul
e. Mallik
f. Mirza

2) Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.
a. Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do not belong to any functional group, and have not gained admittance to the Ashraf Community, e.g., Pirali abd Thakrai.
b. Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir and Rangrez.
c. Barhi, Bhathiara, Cluk, Chrihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula, Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.
d. Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhat, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarachi, Nat, Panwari, Madaria, Tuntia.

3) Arzal or degraded class.
Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Mougtra, Mehtar.”

“Similar facts from other Provinces of India could be gathered from their respective Census Reports and those show are curious may refer to them. But the facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability. (ibid. pp. 228-230)

Muslim canon opposes social reform: The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is relieving feature about them-namely that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. Indeed, the oppose any change in their existing practices. It is noteworthy that the Muslims opposed the Child-Marriage Bill brought in the Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl was raised to 14 and of a boy to 18 on the ground that it was opposed to the Muslim canon law. Not only did they oppose the bill at every stage but hat when it became law they started a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act.” (ibid. p. 233)

Muslim politicians oppose secular categories: “Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice form the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in eth fight of labour against the capitalist. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught lf labour against capitalist he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.” (ibid. p. 236)

India can not be common motherland of the Hindus and Muslims as per Muslim Laws: According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans-but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and Muslamans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of the Muslamans only when it is governed by the Muslim s. the moment the land become subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims”. (ibid. p. 294)

Jihad to transform Dar-ul-Harb India to Dar-ul-Islam: It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes “incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rules of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divide dint two camps. Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), Dar-u-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam.

The fact remains that India, if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the Musalmans, according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad.

Not only can the proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.” (ibid., pp. 295-296)

Why is Hindu-Muslim unity a failure?: “The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not a mere mater of difference, and that this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection.” (ibid., p. 329)

Hindu-Muslim unity is out of sight: Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of any hope of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity up to now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind. Even Mr. ‘Gandhi has given up what, he perhaps now realizes, is an impossible task. (ibid., p. 187)

Transfer of minorities is the only remedy for communal place: “ The transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace, is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why the Hindus and the Muslims would keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by Indians.” (ibid., p. 116)

The problem of majority-minority will continue: “The Muslamans are scattered all over Hindustan-though they are mostly congregated boundaries can make it homogenous. The only way to make Hindustan homogenous, is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.” (ibid. p. 117)

Protection of minorities a constitutional method: “So much for the problem of boundaries, I will now turn to the problem of the minorities which must remain within Pakistan even after boundaries are redrawn. There are two methods of protecting their interests.”

“First is to provide safeguards in the constitution for the protection of the political and cultural rights of the minorities. To Indians this is familiar matter and it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it.” (ibid., p. 379)

Exchange of Hindu-Muslim population a possible solution: “Second is to provide for their transfer from Pakistan to Hindustan. Many people prefer this solution and would be ready and willing to consent to Pakistan if it can be shown that an exchange of population is possible. This no doubt is the sign of a panic-stricken mind. If the matter is considered in a cool and calm temper it will be found that the problem is neither staggering nor baffling.” (ibid., p. 379)

Rabindranath Tagore

Christianity and Islam determined to destroy all other Religions: There are two religions in earth, which have distinct enmity against all other religions. These two are Christianity and Islam. They are not just satisfied with observing their own religions, but are determined to destroy all other religions. That’s why the only way to make peace with them is to embrace their religions.” (Original works of Rabindranath Vol. 24 pages 375, Vishwa Bharti; 1982)

Muslims can not confine their ‘Patriotism to any one country’ : a very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims can not confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked (the Muslims) whether in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they (Muslims) would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them… Even such a man as Mr. Mohammad Ali (one of the famous Ali brothers, the leaders of the Khilafat Movement-the compiler) has declared that under no circumstances is it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever be his country, to stand against any Mohammedan.” (Interview of Rabindranath in ‘Times of India’, 18-4-1924 in the column, ‘Through Indian Eyes on the Post Khilafat Hindu Muslim Riots)

Hindus and Muslims can make a fake friendship: Whenever a Muslim called upon the Muslim society, he never faced any resistance- he called in the name of one God ‘Allah-ho-Akbar’. On the other hand, when we (Hindus) call will call, ‘come on, Hindus’, who will respond? We, the Hindus, are divided in numerous small communities, many barriers-provincialism - who will respond overcoming all these obstacles?

“We suffered from many dangers, but we could never be united. When Mohammed Ghouri brought the first blow from outside, the Hindus could not be united, even in the those days of imminent danger. When the Muslims started to demolish the temples one after another, and to break the idols of Gods and Goddesses, the Hindus fought and died in small units, but they could not be united. It has been provided that we were killed in different ages due to our discord.

“Weakness harbours sin. So, if the Muslims beat us and we, the Hindus, tolerate this without resistance-then, we will know that it is made possible only by our weakness. For the sake of ourselves and our neighbour Muslims also, we have to discard our weakness. We can appeal to our neighbour Muslims, ‘Please don’t be cruel to us. No religion can be based on genocide’ - but this kind of appeal is nothing, but the weeping of the weak person. When the low pressure is created in the air, storm comes spontaneously; nobody can stop it for sake for religion. Similarly, if weakness is cherished and be allowed to exist, torture comes automatically - nobody can stop it. Possibly, the Hindus and the Muslims can make a fake friendship to each other for a while, but that cannot last forever. As long as you don’t purify the soil, which grows only thorny shrubs you cannot expect any fruit. “ (The above is the part of the article “Swamy Shraddhananda’, written by Rabindranath in Magh, 1333 Bangabda; compiled in the book ’Kalantar’)

own religion true-others are false: “When two-three different religions claim that only their own religions are true and all other religions are false, their religions are only ways to Heaven, conflicts can not be avoided. Thus, fundamentalism tries to abolish all other religions. This is called Bolshevism in religion. Only the path shown by the Hinduism can relieve the world form this meanness.” (The above is the part of the article ‘Aatmaparichapa’ in his book ‘Parichaya’)

Make your children strong: The terrible situation of the country makes my mind restless and I cannot keep silent. Meaningless ritual keep the Hindus divided in hundred sects. Sop we are suffering from series of defeats. We are tired and worn-out by the fortunes by the internal external enemies. The Muslims are united in religion and rituals. The Bengali Muslims the South Indian Muslims and even the Muslims outside India-all are united. They always stand untied in face of danger. The broken and divided Hindus will not be able to combat them. Days are coming when the Hindus will be again humiliated by the Muslims.

“You are a mother of children, one day you will die, passing the future of Hindus society on the weak shoulders of your children, but think about their future.” (From the letter to Hemantabala Sarkar, written on 16the October, 1933, quoted in Bengali weekly ‘Swastika’, 21-6-1999)

Nirad Chandra Chaudhary

The famous intellectual and the great thinker of the modern times, said:

Islamic doctrine creates differences with non-Muslims: “According to Islamic doctrine a Muslim is bound to consider all Muslim as his brother and all non-Muslim as his enemy. Due to the inner equality and brotherhood of Muslim society, the Muslims re more conscious about their differences with the non-Muslims.

Division of world in two parts Islamic and non-Islamic states: According to the Islamic theology, the world is divided into two distinct parts to a Muslim - 1) One is called Dar-ul-Islam, meaning the land ruled by the Islamic laws. 2) The second is Dar-ul-Harb. Meaning, the land of Jihad, the land which the Muslims must have to conquer by war to establish Islamic laws.

Muslims must constantly fight in Dar-ul-Harb: According to the Islamic doctrine, Muslims can not live under the non-Muslim rule. Not only that, the Muslim world constantly should be at war against the non-Muslim world. That’s why the non-Muslim land is called the Dar-ul-Harb, meaning the Land of war. For this Islamic mandate there can never be any friendship between a state of Muslims and a state of non-Muslims, unless the later becomes a land of Islam. (Until that happens every Muslim have to fight or conduct Jihad against all non-Muslims.

Jihad gives three choices: As per the theory of Jihad, the Muslims have three choices: (a) Either he has to accept Islam (b) Or he has to surrender and accept slavery to the Muslims by paying Zijiya tax or (c) Has to fight. According to Islam there is no fourth option for a Muslim to approach a non-Muslim.”

(An article namely “Hindu-Muslim Birodher gorarkotha” (the fundamental reason of Hindu-Muslim enmity) in “Aamar Desh, Amar Shatak” (My country-my century) by Nirad Chandra Choudhary compiled in Nirad Chandra Choudhary-Shata barshiki sankalan, published by Mitra and Ghosh, in 2000 pp-170-471)

Muslims destroyed thousands Hindu temples: “I say that the Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about eh desecration of one mosque. From, 1000 A.D., every Hindu temple from Kathiawar to Bihar, from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas, has been sacked and ruined. Not one temple was left standing all over northern India… Temples escaped destruction only where Muslim power did not gain access to them for reason such dense forests. Otherwise it was a continuous spell of vandalism.

NO nation, with any self-respect, will forgive this. They took over our women. And they imposed the Jaziya, the tax. Why should we forget and forgive all that? What happened in Ayodhya would not have happened, had the Muslims acknowledged this historical argument even once. Then we could have said: All right, let the past remain in the past and let us see how best we can solve this problem…

Muslims invented permanent revolution: “The gist of the argument is that the Hindu view of life and the Muslim view of life are completely oriented towards a clash. The Muslims were the first to invent the theory of permanent revolution. The communists took over form them. No Muslims can live under the political dominations of non-Muslims. Secondly, the Muslims divide the world into two: regions of peace and regions of conflict. It is the duty of every Muslim to bring the latter within the fold of Islam.” (Sunday Times of India, August 8, 1993; in an interview to its Editor Dileep Padgaonkar)

Aurobindo Ghosh

Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived: You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration, but how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate you’? How are you going to have unity with these people (Muslims)? Certainly Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus should not convert any Mohammedan.

“…You cant unity on such a basis, perhaps, the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them loose their fanatic faith in their religion.” (Evening talks with Sri Auronindo; recorded on 23.7.1923 by A.B. Purani, published by Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1995, page 291)

Hindus may have to fight the Muslims: On 18.4.1823 Sri Aurobindo told in reply to a question of a disciple: “I am sorry they (‘Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Chakraborthy Rajagopalachari) are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslims unity. It is no use to ignore facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslims unity should no mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindus has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve their problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.” (ibid p., 289)

If Muslims learn tolerance: On 29-6-1926 a disciple asked Sri Aurobindo, “If it is India’s destiny to assimilate all the conflicting elements, is it possible to assimilate the Mohammedan element also? “Sri Aurobindo replied:

“Why not? India has assimilated elements from the Greeks, the Persians and other nations. But she assimilates only when her Central truth is recognized by the other party, and even while assimilating she does it in such a way that the elements absorbed are no longer recognizable as foreign but become part of herself… The assimilation of the Mohammedan culture also was done in the mind to a great extent and it would have perhaps gone further. But in order that the process may be complete it is necessary that change in the Mohammedan mentality should come. The conflict is in the outer life, and unless the Mohammedans learn tolerance I do not think the assimilation is possible.”

“The Hindu is ready to tolerate. He is open to new ideas and his culture has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided that her Central Truth is recognized.” (ibid p. 282)

Danger of civil war: On Hindu-Muslim relation of Sri Aurobindo said on 30-12-1939: “I told C.R.Das (in 1923) that this Hindu-Muslim question must be solved before the British go, otherwise there was a danger of civil war. He also agreed and wanted to solve it. (ibid., p. 696)

Raja Ram Mohan Roy

Muslims tortured the Hindus: The Muslims did tremendous harm to the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, because they continued to stick to the Hindu religion, and they did not abandon their religion despite of the unspeakable torture and death-threat by the Muslims.

Muslims never spared non-Muslims with religious zeal: “The Muslims assumed the ayats of the Quran as the orders of Allah and determined that their duty is to kill and torture the idolaters (Hindus) as ‘Allah’s order. According to the Muslims the Brahmins are the vilest of all idolaters (Hindus). That’s why the Muslims became fanatic and never spared to kill the non-Muslims with religious zeal”. (Complete Works of Raja Ram Mohan Roy in Bengali, page 726-727, 1973 edition, Haraf Publications, Kolkata)

Lala Lajpat Rai

The great freedom fighter and the ex-President of the Indian National Congress, Lala Lajpat Rai expressed similar views on Islam in a letter to Mr. C.R. Das:

Muslim leaders cannot override Quran and Hadis: “There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Muslim unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think, it is neither possible nor practicable.

Assuming and admitting the sincerity of the Mohammedan leaders in the Non-co-operation movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind. You remember the conversation, I reported to you in Calcutta, which I had with Hakim Ajmalkahn and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer Mohamedan in Hindustan than Hakimsaheb but can any other Muslim leader override the Quran? I can only hope that my reading of Islamic Law is incorrect, and nothing would reliever me more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it comes to this that although we can unite against the British we cannot do sot rule Hindustan on British lines, we cannot do so t rule Hindustan on democratic liens.

What is then he remedy? I am not afraid of seven crores in Hindustan but I think the seven crores (1 crore is 10 millions - compiler) of Hindustan plus the armed hosts of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey will be irresistible.

I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the inunctions of the Quran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty. (quoted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in ‘Pakistan or Partition of India, 1945, pp. 275-276)

Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyaya

The famous Bengali novelist Sri Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyaya, another icon whom the pseudo-secularists often quote, said about the Muslims as below:

Muslims demolished temples and raped Hindu women: “In fact if the Muslims say “We want unity with the Hindus”, it cant be anything but a deception. One would say that the Muslims invaded India just to plunder, not to set up a kingdom. But they were not satisfied with loot only, they demolished Hindu temples, broke idols and raped Hindu women. In fact they never spared to do the maximum harm and insult to other’s religion and humanity.”

Akbar did not spare Hindus from rape and torture: “Even when the Muslims became the rulers of the land, still they could not come out from this ugly mentality. The activities of ill famed kings like Aurangazeb and others beggars description. But the so-called generous kings like Akbar did not spare the Hindus from rape and torture. It is obvious that his culture of raping and torture became innate to the Muslims.”

World should arrange some lessons for them: Sarat Chandra raised a question, “But why does it happen? Is it the result of ignorance and illiteracy only?” He tried to answer the question, “when the Muslims will come down from their high horse of religion, probably then they will realize a human being can not be proud with the fundamentalism of his religion and this is nothing but unparallel barbarism. But the Muslims are yet to go a long way before they realize it. But their eyes will never open unless the whole world together arrange some lessons for them. (Bartaman Hindu-Muslim Samasya’ edited by Dipankar Chattopadhyaya, published by Panchanjanya Prakashani, 10 K.S. Rau Roda, Calcutta 700001.)

Annie Besant

The great humanist leader and ex-President of Indian National Congress Mrs. Annie Besant told:

“But since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ‘unbelievers’ ahs sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in the years gone by. We have seen revived, as guide in practical politics, the old Muslim religion of the sword, we have seen the dragging out of centuries of forgetfulness, the old exclusiveness, claiming the jazirut-Arab, the island of Arabia, as a holy land which may not be trodden by the polluting foot of a non-Muslim we have hard Muslim leaders declared that if the Afghans invaded India, they would join their fellow believers, and would slay Hindus who defended their motherland against the fore: We have been forced to see that the primary allegiance of Musalmans is to Islamic countries, no to our motherly and; we have the ‘kingdom of God’, not God as Father of the world, loving all his creatures, but as a God seen through Musalman spectacles resembling in his command through one of the prophets…

The claim now put forward by Muslaman leaders that hey must obey the laws of their particular prophet above the laws of the State in which they live, is subversive of civic order an the stability of the State; it makes them bad citizens for their center of allegiance is outside the nation… We had thought that Indian Musalmans were loyal to their motherland, and indeed, we still hope that some of the educated class might strive to prevent such a Muslaman rising; but they are too few for effective resistance and would be murdered as apostates.

Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the ‘Khilafat Raj’ in India. How much sympathy with the Moplas is felt by Muslims outside Malabar has been proved by the defense raised for them by their fellow believers, and by Mr. Gandhi himself, who stated that they had acted as they believed that religion taught them to act. I fear that that is true; but there is no place in a civilized land for people how believe that their religion teaches them to murder, rob, rape, burn, or drive away out of the country those who refuse to apostatize form their ancestral faiths, except in its schools, under surveillance, or in its goals.

The Thugs believed that their particular form of God commanded them to strangle people-especially travelers with money. Such ‘Laws of God’ cannot be allowed to override the laws of a civilized country, and people living in the twentieth century must either educate people who hold these Middle Age views, or else exile them…

“In thinking of an Independent India, the menace of Muhammadan rule has to be considered.”

(The Future of Indian Politics, by Annie Besant, pages 301-305, quoted by Dr. B. Ambedkar in ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India, pages 274-275, 1946)

Bipin Chandar Pal

The great freedom fighter observed:

Muslim first then Indian: “The Indian Muslims are first Muslims the Indians. According to the Muslim leaders like Syed Amir Ali, if the foreign Islamic countries invade India, the duties of the India Muslims will be to help those Muslim invaders against India, because ‘Muslim identity’ is more important to them.” (‘Rashtraniti’, by Bipin Chandra Pal in ‘Bijaya’, 1319 Bangabda)

K.S.Lal

The great historian writes in his book “Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India” Vol., Delhi, 1999 as below:

Quran does not permit continuance of other faiths: “The two belonged to two different religious streams. The Muslim sultans reigned according to the dictates of the Shariat, the Hindu emperors on the principles of Dharmashastra. Their rules of war and governance were poles part.

The Quran does not permit the existence or continuance of other faiths and their religious practices. Of the 6236 ayats in the ayats in the Quran about 3,900 are directly or indirectly related to Kafirs, Mushriks, Munkirs, Munagfiqs or non-believers in Allah and his Prophet. Broadly speaking these 3,900 ayats fall into two categories - those relating toe Muslims who for their faith will be rewarded in this as well as the world hereafter, and those relating to Kafirs or non-believers who are to be punished in this world and are destined to go to Hell after death…” (pp. 4-5)

Quran reads like a manual of war: “The Quran reads like a manual of war on mankind rather than a charter of brotherhood for all mankind. For people of other faiths, Jihad or permanent war was the command of the Quran and order of the day. Islam recommends Jihad or perpetual war on adherents of other religions - to lay hold of them, bind them, strike off their heads and burn them in the fire of hell. This makes Islam a totalitarian and terrorist cult which it has remained ever since its birth.” (p.5)

Muslim invaders came to impose Islam on India: “Muslim invaders and rulers had come not only to conquer but also to impose the Islamic religion and the gulf crated by the phenomenon has not been bridged. For, Islam is an imposition on India. Worse, it has been imposed through conquest. Ralph Borsodi, an American educationist and social thinker, in his the Challenge of Asia observes that “everywhere in the world except in Asia Minor, the three great Semitic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - are intruders; that indigenous Asia in Brahamanist, Confucianist, Buddhist, Taoist; indigenous Europe is pagan; that in Europe, Christianity is a superimposition; in Asia, Islam is.” (pp. 6-7)

Jihad means killing or converting Non-Muslims: “Jihad is the highest duty of a Muslim Jihad means attacking, killing, enslaving or converting non-Muslims even when they have done no harm to the Muslims, even when they are unarmed. Jihad is waged for the sake of Allah; war and worship in his service are the same. Shrinking Jihad is the greatest sin; obtaining glory through Jihad is the highest grace. Islam suffers form the ego of triumphalism. It says that is should triumph over others, because it alone is true and all others are false. Not all exclusivists belong to the militant extreme, but all are convinced that their religion alone is true. This is Islamic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is belief in the inherency of the scriptures of one’s religion. Fundamentalism is not accidental but essential to Islam.” (pp. 9-10)

Iconoclasm is important in Islam: “Image breaking is a contribution of prophetic religions. In Islam, iconoclasm is important, but it is more important that the shrines of non-Muslims are desecrated and destroyed rather than spared through agreement or in exchange for wealth. (What Mahmud of Ghazni declared at Somnath according to Attar, is the gist of the true spirit of Islam).” (p. 10)

Islam permits no separation of state and Religion: “The Quran and the Hadis provided the foundation upon which theology and law of Islam were raised. Totalitarian nature of Islam permits no separation of state and church. “Law in Islam is more intimately related to religion than to jurisprudence as modern lawyers understand it.” (p. 10)

Islam a creed of aggression and violence: “The ponderosity of the Jihad gave them the energy and the rapidity of electric current. And Islam came to be what the world has ever since recognized it to be - a militant religion, a creed of aggression and violence.” (p.12)

Islamic expanded for economic gains: “Islam originated in the land of the Arabs. The rise of Arabs as a political power has been elucidated by a large number of writers on Islam. T.W.Arnold observes that he expansion of the Arabs was due not so much to the religious spirit as to their neighbours who were richer and more fortunate than themselves. Most Arabs of the day of prophet Muhammad were poor. They needed a reformer to improve their economic condition. There are two ways of alleviating poverty and gaining economic well-being. One way is to work hard and raise one’s resources through labour and sweat. The other is to attack and rob others and thereby grow rich. The early indigent Arab Muslims could either be persuaded to make a living by working hard, or encouraged to attack and plunder the others. Islam resorted to the second alternative as ordered by Allah. Recruits, mainly form among the slaves or lower classes, began to swell the rank of the believers, or in the flowery words of Edward Gibbon, the shepherds were turned into robbers and robbers were collected to form an army of conquest. “Soldiering was not only the noblest and most pleasing professions in the sight of Allah but also most profitable.” (p. 12-13)

Islam spread by armed might: “Islam spread through unparalleled feats of armed might, some Muslim merchants spread their creed by peaceful means also by making their employees and other beneficiaries join their faith. Peaceful propagation of Islam was ruled out by the fact that the majority of early Arab Muslims were not educated enough to discuss, debate, argue and convince. Hence they were not trained for spreading the new creed through any missionary endeavour. They could only wield the sword very well. Hence Muslim historical literature repeatedly mentions conquest when the vanquished were offered the alternative of Islam or death. They accepted Islam because they had hardly any other choice. Death is no choice because nobody chooses death, so they chose Islam.” (pp. 14-15)

Tolerance is found in Meccan, and killing of non-Muslims in Medinan Ayats: There are one or tow passages in the Quran evincing tolerance like: “Your religion to you, my religion to me; or, there is no compulsion in religion.” “All passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan, i.e., early Surahs, and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming are Medinan, i.e., later toleration has been abrogated by intolerance. For example, the famous verse 9.5, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” is said to have cancelled 124 verses that dictate toleration and patience.” (p. 15)

Islam has two different sets of morality for Muslims and on-Muslims: “Islam has two sets of principles of morality, ethics and justice: One for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims. Sincerity, well-wishing and brotherhood are for the believers and faithful. For non-Muslims the principles and standards of behaviours are different.” (p. 15)

Arab invasion of Sindh: The Arab and later Turk Muslims spread into India through three major waves of invasions, but it took them five hundred years to do so. After the conquest of Iran by 643 CE, the boundaries of he Caliphate touched the frontiers of India. India, known to early Arabs as Hind was Sindh, too could not escape Muslim expansionist designs, and they sent their armies into India both by land and sea. The proceeded alone the then known (trade) routes - (1) from Kufa and Baghdad, via Basra and Hormuz to Chaul on India’s west coast; (2) from West Persian towns, via Hormuz to Debal in Sindh; and (3) through the land route of northern Khurasan to Kabul via Bamian. But progress of Muslim arms and religion in India was slow, very slow. For, the declarations of the objectives of Muslim invaders had not taken into account the potentialities of Indians’ stiff and latent resistance. Caliph Umar (634-44 CE) had sent an expedition in 636-37 to pillage Thana. It was followed by some attempts on the part of Caliphs Usman and Ali. But in vain. The four ‘ipus’ Caliphs of Islam died without hearing of the conquest of Sindh and Hind. (p. 17)

The spread of Islam was military: “As Dr. Ali Issa Othman, for some years adviser to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) on education said: “The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency to apologize for this and we should not. it is one of the injunctions of the Quran that you must fight for the spreading of Islam.” The successes achieved in this fight for spreading of Islam is also the main story of the medieval Muslim chronicles. The importance of ‘force’ in Islam should be acknowledge rather than minimized. The denial of force as a means of spreading Islam by a few modern apologists, like Aziz Ahmed and Muhammad Mujeeb cannot alter the basic truth about the history and philosophy of Islam, nor spirit behind words like Kafir, Jihad, Jiziyah, etc.” (p. 23)

Jaunath Sarkar

The world famous historian wrote:

Polytheism is sin: “Therefore, the toleration of any sect outside the fold of orthodox Islam is no better than compounding with sin. And the worst form of sin is polytheism, the belief that he one true God has partners in the form of other deities. Such a belief is the rankest ingratitude (Kafir) to him who gives as our life and daily bread.

Meaning of Jihad is “to exert in the Path of God:” “Islamic theology, therefore, tells the true believer that his highest duty is to make exertion (jihad) in the path of God by waging war against infidel lands (Dar-ul-harb) till they become a part of the realm of Islma (dar-ul-Islam). After conquest, the entire infidel population becomes theoretically reduced to the status of slaves of the conquering army (Muslims). The men taken with arms are to be slain or sold into slavery and their wives and children induced to servitude. As for the non-combatants among the vanquished, they are not massacred out right, as the Canon lawyer Shafi declares toe the Quranic injunction, it is only to give them a respite till they are so wisely guided as to accept the true faith.” (The History of Aurangazeb. Vol. 3, pp. 163-164 by Sir Jadunath Sarkar; published by Orient Longman 192)

Murder of non-Muslims is a merit: “The murder of infidels (even if they are innocent) is counted a merit in a Muslim. It is not necessary that the (Muslim) should have his own passion or mortify his flesh, it is not necessary for him to grow a rich growth of spirituality. He has only to slay a certain class of his fellow-beings (non-Muslims) or plunder their lands and wealth and this act is itself would raise his (Muslim’s) should to Heaven. A religion where followers are taught to regard robbery and murder as a religious duty, is incompatible with the progress of mankind or with the peace of the world.” (ibid., pp. 161-169)

No peace between Mohammedan king and neighbouring of infidel states: “According to the Quranic Law, there can not be peace between a Mohammedan king and his neighbouring infidel states. The latter are Dar-ul-Harb or legitimate states for war, and it is Muslim King’s duty to slay and plunder them (non-Muslims) till they accept the true faith (Islam) and become Dar-ul-Islam. (Land of Muslims alone), after which they will become entitled to his (Muslims king’s) protection.” (Shivaji and his Times, pages 479-80, by Sir Jadunath Sarkar; published by Orient Longman.)

Maharshi Satyanand Saraswati

Maharshi Satyananda Saraswatiu, the founder of ‘Shaktibaad’, wrote:

Islam and Communism are similar: “There are some striking similarities between Islam and Communism. There is no spirituality in Islam. Muslims worship Allah just to get houris (the beautiful girls of the heaven), but not to get knowledge of the God. So Islam only indulged in earthly and sensual pleasure. Mohammed invented a theory to create a group of followers of Allah by loot, rape, and murder of the non-Muslims.” (‘Shaktishali Samaj’[meaning strong society], by Swami Maharshi Satyananda Saraswati, Shaktinath, Kolkata, 1357 Bangabda.)