Author: Balbir K. Punj
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: April 11, 2006
Introduction: The truth is that few non-Muslims
have academic fascination about Islam. They want to avoid Islam or escape
Islam. It is only the persistent pressure of Islam on non-Muslim demography
and world order that is compelling non-Muslims to rethink about Islam.
I keep on getting mails and e-mails - approbating,
enquiring, or critical - from my readers. I normally respond at an individual
level. I never thought that one of these could become the theme of a column.
But recently one Nazar Ahmed Khan, resident of Civil Lines, Aligarh, who apparently
keeps a tab on my column in the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran, has sent me a missive
running into five pages. The letter is a veiled threat to refrain from propagating
my "misinformed views on Islam based on isolated events and individual
writings on Islamophobes." It further offers me a chance to understand
"true Islam," if not embrace it as well, for the writer is confident
that my "future generation" will have to accept Islam in any case.
I thought it wise to share my reply in Dainik
Jagran with readers of my English column. The letter offers a glimpse into
a Muslim mind. It is an empirical truism that it is Islam that shapes the
mind of a Muslim. Christianity doesn't shape the mind of a Christian, nor
Hinduism of a Hindu, Buddhism of a Buddhist in that sense and to that extent.
Most Muslims not only have a different perception
of religion, of their own and others', but also of history, law, politics,
international institutions, banking, education, women's status. No other ideology
or thought, viz. democracy, communism, anarchism, free thinking, can impassion
the Muslim masses except for Islam. In Muslim countries, any and every decision
has to pass the "Islamic or un-Islamic" test.
The letter, typical of any Muslim apologist,
says, I have not understood Islam. To be precise, my forefathers for 600 years
neither understood Islam nor had any inclination to understand it. In fact,
Dhimmis (non-Muslims under Muslim rule), were legally barred from teaching
their children the Quran. A kafir (non-Muslim) could either embrace Islam,
or pay jizya (religious taxation) to preserve his identity. Not infrequently,
they were given a choice between sword and Islam (Toru Singh and Veer Hakikat
Rai are classic cases). Forefathers of Mr Nazar Ahmad Khan, probably chose
the former, mine the latter. We did not understand Islam, but we suffered
and survived Islam.
The truth is that few non-Muslims have academic
fascination about Islam. They want to avoid Islam or escape Islam. It is only
the persistent pressure of Islam on non-Muslim demography and world order
that is compelling non-Muslims to rethink about Islam.
I don't understand Islam, but Osama bin Laden
and Aiyman al Zawahari do; Aurangzeb, Shah Waliullah, Said Qutb, Maulana Maududi
and Ali Mian did.
I am sure Mr Nazar Ahmed Khan will not claim
better knowledge of Islam than those eminent men of religion. What do their
views come down to? It is to re-establish an Islamic state and Islamic world
order under the "shade of swords." This view is inherent in Islam.
Mr Nazar Khan is annoyed at me for calling
Islam claustrophobic. He points out that many in the free society of the West
are gravitating towards Islam for its "philosophical and religious appeal."
They have no monetary, social or political gain by accepting Islam. Certainly,
he has a point, I must accept. Why should Mary McLeod, daughter of a Jamaican
evangelical Christian, become a Muslim and drape herself in burqa? His son
Germaine Maurice Lindsay also known as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal was one of the
four suicide bombers in London tube rail explosion on July 7, 2005.
But most westerners who accepted Islam never
accepted the rigours of Islam. Few like John Walker Lynd, the "American
Taliban," would give up comforts and the democratic system of the West
to fight on the rugged terrain of Afghanistan against his compatriots.
But Nazar Khan is not correct in saying that
Muslims (despite death penalty on apostasy) do not go out of Islam. He might
check on websites like www.faithfreedom.org or www.mukto-mona.com run by apostate
Muslims. You also have people like Ibn Warraq writing, Why I am not a Muslim
and editing Leaving Islam, or Anwar Sheikh, Islam: The Arab Imperialism. Prior
to leaving Islam many of them were devout, even fanatic, Muslims.
In any case, I leave Islam to them, since
each one of them knows Islam better than I do.
The letter-writer mentions that there is a
long list of social malpractice in Hinduism. Did Hinduism (actually Manu Smriti)
not prescribe pouring molten lead into ears of Dalits if they studied the
Vedas? Okay, but when did he last hear such a case actually occurring, when
almost every week we hear about jihadis killing kafirs in the 21st century?
I don't know about any actual historical instance
of "pouring molten lead into ears" but Dalits were doubtless subjected
to many religious and social handicaps. But social reformers arose from within
Hindu society in every age, reformers who opposed untouchability, casteism,
sati, bar on women's education, child marriage, polygamy etc.
Who can be a greater authority on this subject
than Babasaheb Ambedkar? Dr B.R. Ambedkar says, "The Hindus have their
social evils. But there is a 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. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realise that there
are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they
oppose any change in the existing practices. It is noteworthy that 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 boy to 18 on the ground
that it was opposed to the Muslim canon law" (Pakistan or Partition of
India, p.233).
Nor am I surprised when the writer claims
that the philosophy of Islam is so perfect that neither Semitic religions
like Judaism or Christianity nor "tribal religions" (sic) like Hinduism
can rival it. Now, Islam revolves around the Quran, and the Prophet's Sunna
(saying and acts of the Prophet that every Muslim should try to emulate to
the best of his capacity).
Thus Islam is a theology not a philosophy.
The Ayat (verses) of the Quran are like commands to be followed with unquestioning
obedience. There is no scope for discovery, debate, discussion or consensus.
Doubt in Islam, unlike in Christianity, is
equal to disbelief, which is punishable. Philosophy entered Islam through
Christian writings, from Greek scholarship.
But while philosophy triumphed over Christianity,
it was banished from Islam.
The cornerstone of philosophy of ancient India
is self-realisation. You can be a yogi if you do yoga and push the present
frontiers of human consciousness. Any scientific postulations must stand the
test of experimentation. But in Islam, Allah has uttered his last word with
Prophet Mohammed. There is no way to either contact Allah or doubt Mohammed's
revelations. A Muslim will only have to obey. He must also engage in jihad
to bring the world unto Islam. If anybody finds fault with Islam, it is at
one's own peril. There is no tradition of debate and discussion in Islam.
This is the source of Islam's incompatibility with the rest of humanity.
