 |
||
|
||
|
||
Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Organiser
Date: October 23, 2005
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=101&page=19
Introduction: As you sow, so you reap, goes the saying. If there is Islamic terrorism today, the United States (and its partners in Britain) alone are to blame. Painted as terrorists, Muslims, still politically weak, have for some time been trying to redeem themselves.
Islamic Toleration & Justice: Non-Muslims under Muslim Rule ; Dr Sheikh Mohd. Iqbal; Adam Publishers & distributors, New Delhi ; pages 260 Rs 300
Islam Denounced Terrorism; Harun Yahya; Adam Publishers & distributors, New Delhi; page 132; Rs 100
No Room for Terrorism in Islam: Harun Yahya; Adam Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi; page 120; Rs 80
Ever since the terrorist attack on two major cities of the United States of America on September 11, 2001, Muslims across the world have woken up to the fact that Islam itself is getting a bad name. That terrorism itself had once been supported by the US in its efforts to cleanse the Afghanistan Government of communist influence, that this terrorism had the full support of Pakistan is itself forgotten. For the United States terrorism was fine as long as it could be used against its enemy; when the terrorists turned against it, Al Qaida got a bad name. The Taliban was the end result of American and Pakistan collaboration. It got a bad name when Washington found that even without its- and Saudi Arabia's -support, the Taliban could go its own way. But then the US had almost a complete hold on the media and international news agencies. In the circumstances, the Al Quaida terrorists once hailed as liberators, started receiving the boot. The attack on the twin towers in New York was the result. Had the US left the Soviet-supported Afghan Government alone, the world would not have been any the worse. If, in Iraq, Saddam Hussain was left to his own devices, peace of sorts would still have prevailed in the Middle East. If, for its own purposes, the United States had not supported successive governments in Pakistan to wage war against India on the Jammu & Kashmir issue, there would have been no jihadists. As you sow, so you reap, goes the saying. If there is Islamic terrorism today, the United States (and its partners in Britain) alone are to blame. Painted as terrorists, Muslims, still politically weak, have for some time been trying to redeem themselves. Attempts are now being made-as the three books under review show-to present Islam (and its followers) in a new light. The point is being made that Islam does not support terrorism, that "murdering innocent people in the name of a divine religion is unacceptable", that the murder of innocent people is a "great sin" according to Islamic tenets, that Islam, indeed, is a source of peace and security, that it defends freedom of thought, that there is no compulsion in religion, that indeed, far from wishing to convert others to Islam the Quran says: "to you, your religion and to me, mine". These, and other points, are well raised by Harun Yahya in his two books; Yahya, apparently, is a Turk, born in Ankara and graduated from Istanbul's Mimar Sinan University. One has no quarrel with him. His books seem directed more at the West than at India, though they are now published by an Indian firm. Yahya is strongly opposed to Darwinism and his theory of evolution, considering that Darwin rejects the fact of creation and "therefore' the existence of God and an entire chapter is devoted to the subject. Yahya is welcome to his views. They seem to be largely addressed to the Christian West considering that there are no references to India and Hinduism in either of the works. The book most disturbing is Dr Sheikh Mohd Iqbal's book on non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Dr Iqbal's credentials are high. A graduate of Lahore's Punjab University, Iqbal obtained his PhD from International School, Sapru House, Delhi, and is reported to have specialised in early Islamic history and contributed numerous research papers and books on Islam. Unfortunately, judging from the quality of his writing, he needs to put in some more studies. Basically, there are three kinds of historians: the first lot assert that Muslim rulers were kind, tolerant and just; the second concede that may be some were lousy, but then they were products of their times, besides which contemporary Hindu rulers were not much better anyway; the third insist that even if some Islamic rulers were tyrannical, they were not so all the time and that many had helped Hindus build temples. Dr Iqbal belongs to the first lot; it serves little purpose to remind him of the works of such scholars as Bimal Prasad, R.C. Majumdar and the work of other foreign scholars like Wilhelm von Pochhammer (a former German diplomat) and Kate Drittlebank who has written on Tipu Sultan. Very likely, Dr Iqbal would either dismiss them as communalists or as anti-Islamists.
If Islamic rulers had any tolerance, they would have stayed away from Ayodhya, Mathura and Banaras, cities considered holy by Hindus. Which Saudi ruler, pray, would acquiesce in letting a Hindu build a temple in Mecca? But Muslim rulers-need one name them?-had temples erased in all the three cities and built masjids there, to spite Hindus and to tell them who is ruling over them. But let this be said about Hindus: Not one has ever said an unkind word about the Quran or of the Prophet (Peace be on him). What they have objected to is the way Muslim rulers have interpreted the Quran and the Prophet and condemned them to remain at the bottom of the Iadder. It is no big deal to say that many Muslim rulers had Hindu generals or administrators under them. One must take Muslim rule all in all and not segmentwise. Taken in toto, Muslim rulers do not exactly come smelling of roses. It may be argued, in the words of Shakespeare, "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones". That, alas, is true. But a good historian does not try to whitewash evil where it is noticeably seen. That is what Dr Iqbal has done; and may it be said, in all humility, that by doing so he has done no service either to history or to Islam. One can take Dr Iqbal seriously when he concedes that wrongs have indeed been done by Muslim rulers and Hindus have paid dearly. By refusing to see the truth, he has discredited himself. It is this persistent refusal to see the hurt Muslim rulers have wrought in India that is painful. Dr Iqbal must think again.
|
||
|
||
|
||