Mahmood A. Madani, one of the prime torchbearers of the recent Calcutta riots, expounds on Taslima Nasreen’s "offensive passages" in Dwikhandita. He supports intellectual debate "but not rubbish."
Rubbish isn’t worth debating so what is he angry about? The answer lies in the middle of a pile of circuitous stuff about his perception of the freedom to air your views, etc.
In what is styled as an account of her life, Nasreen airs her views on Islam, the role of women in it, the Quran and so on. This much is unimpeachable: since everyone is entitled to their views. It’s paragraphs on the Prophet, between pages 64 and 66, that are believed to be "grossly indecent", in bad taste, and not worthy of any intelligent debate on the Prophet or the religion he founded. [...] "People think we are angry because she has written against the burqa," says Madani. "We are not fools. You are entitled to your views on the burqa. I am open to an intellectual debate on Islam. But not the kind of rubbish she has written about the personal life and character of the Prophet. She has called him an aiyash (philanderer), written about his relations with women and dirty details I cannot repeat.
There cannot be any intellectual debate on Islam minus Muhammad. Things like burqa are simply derivatives of the core of Islam. To that extent, Madani is a pious Muslim because in Islam you can only worship Muhammad, not scrutinize his life.
A brief gloss at the offensive passages reveals that there is truth in what she has said about Muhammad. We can begin with Khadija to trace Muhammad’s relations with women. One wonders why after her death the conditions of women in that region altered drastically. After Khadija’s death, Muhammad aged 50, married 11 (or 13?) women in different age-ranges with the youngest aged around 9.
Perhaps Taslima has taken her poetic licence too seriously to qualify for "dirty details" but what she has written is historically-verifiable. And that history makes Madani uncomfortable and angry.
Tags: Commentary, History, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture
50+ man having affairs with dozen plus women…how dare anybody call him an aiyash. a 55 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl…how dare anybody call him a pedophile. everybody knows, that the prophet is the perfect man whose example everybody should follow. if you want to have a intelligent debate, let’s start….but before that, please notice the razor sharpness of my sword’s edge, which i am currently holding — “moderate” muslim
It is not only verifiable, but upheld by the same documents that Islamists cite in support of their positions - Koran, Hadiths etc.
Why should a non-Muslim give-in to a Muslim’s reverence for Muhammad, something Mr. Madani won’t tell us. Since Muhammad’s sayings and doings are what altogether constitute Islam, keeping him beyond criticism is keeping Islam beyond criticism, which is completely unacceptable. Muhammad’s characterization as “Ayyash” (pimping around would be the correct translation) seems mild if you go through his lifestyle. Geraldine Brooks in her “Nine Parts of Desire” devotes a significant section in addressing Muhammad’s escapades.
PS- It is also intriguing as to how most Hindus blithely call Muhammad ” Prophet M…” Call him Muhammad, the Islamic prophet should do the job if one is worried about being PC. There have many of these so-called prophets in the middle-east. M was just one of them, a little more successful but not different in essential traits. Why discriminate against the other poor blokes?
socal is right. To Muslims, and Muslims alone, is Mohammed “the Prophet”. To all others, he is “Mohammed, the prophet of Islam” or just plain “Mohammed” when it is clear from the context who is being referred to.
Atanu
Purely academic. My wife is an orthodox Brahmin lady. She also goes to Church every Thursday. It must come naturally to her, to speak of Jesus like the Christians do. I know of several “Hindu” friends who have very close relationships with Muslims. They would refer to Mohammed as “Prophet Mohammed” and certainly not, “Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam”. The latter sounds belabored and scholarly…not likely to be accepted in everyday usage.
You may still criticize “Prophet” Mohammed though. Nobody is above criticism. Not “God/s”, his/her “Prophet/s” or his/her creature, Wo/Man.
Interestingly, all the rest can be above any criticism of the kind we have in mind
Since extremist Muslims claim to be following the injunctions of Qur’an, it naturally piques the curiousity of non Muslims or irreligious Muslims like Taslima who want to find out if Islamic teachings really are that virulent, and many of them do not like what they find out.
Had extremism among Muslims been much less, people would not have given a damn about the character of Muhammad.
Palahalli, I am sorry that I don’t have a cat. Otherwise I could have added to your comment by reporting that my cat goes to the cat litter. What I mean is that my cat (if I had one) going to the cat litter is not relevant to the matter at hand, just as your “orthodox Brahmin lady” wife going to church or wherever she pleases.
I made a simple point. Mohammed is the prophet of Islam. He is not the prophet of Christians, surely. And he could not possibly be the prophet of Buddhism, can he, considering that there is no god in Buddhism and hence the idea of a prophet is empty. Similarly for Jainism. And for Hindus, as it is not a revealed religion, there cannot be someone called a prophet. Check the definition of what “prophet” means and you may notice that it has something to do with a guy who is supposedly the direct line to GOD almighty.
Get a grip on yourself, for god’s sake (to use an expression.) Your pseudo-secularism is a little too nauseating.
Best regards.
Atanu
Palahalli is correct, Hindus (or more generally people of Indic faiths( have a natural reverence for all religions, in many Hindu families criticizing other religions would be considered crude and out of place.
Pal,
>> I know of several “Hindu” friends who have very close relationships with Muslims. They would refer to Mohammed as “Prophet Mohammed” and certainly not, “Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam”. >>
Hi Pal, you are sorrounding yourself with dhimmis, high time you came out of their circle. Who cares a rats behind what that paedophile barbarian is called, why are we doing this hair splitting. If I were the one to decide I would call him “Mohammed the paedo”
Mayura
Hi Pal,
I have a better idea we could call him “Profit Mohammed”, since he profited by looting and pilferage and raids…that way it brings out the character of MO while still sounding plitically correct
Mayura
taslima has agreed to delete three pages offensive to islam in all future editions of the book. this compromise was brokered by the communists(cpi etc.), between taslima and the muslim groups. all the secular parties(congress/communists) and groups(media, artists) have either welcomed this development or stayed silent.
if anybody has any doubt in this country about the existence of “pseudo-secularism”, please explain why the same yardstick is not applied to m.f. hussain.
let him destroy his paintings offensive to hindus and i am quite sure all the cases against him will be instantly withdrawn. but try suggesting this idea to one of these pseudo-sickular clowns; they will bleat on, for hours on end, on the importance of freedom of expression. some brazen idiots will even go on the route of saying: “i am a hindu and i don’t find the paintings offensive. how dare you, fanatical rss activist, speak for all of us hindus”. nude sarswati devi having sex with an animal — not offensive?!
i want to say — by these actions the sickular brigade stands exposed, but then i realize these guys are nudists. they have exposed themselves for a very long long time…
Does anyone know a link or two to those expurgated passages? (I mean the ones to be deleted from Taslima’s book/biography.)
Sanyal,
While I understand your sentiment, I do feel that most Hindus retain the terminology without understanding, rather ignoring, the import of said phraseology. I wonder how many Hindus would want to maintain this so-called respect at the expense of their own Hindu philosophical base. Using a singular name for Mohammed and Christ seems more apt, in keeping with the popular Hindu terminology. Shouldn’t be problem or disrespecful at all.
Sorry for OFT but could not resist this in current scenario can you sandeep or any of ur readers clarify this for me please !! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drdo#Project_Vetrivel_for_the_Sukhoi_Su-30MKI
where wikipedia informs me that DRDO’s radar computers are being exported to “MALAYASIA ” FOR “ITS” SU-30MKM PROJECT !!WHAT A SHOCKER INDEED
Palahalli
The argument that goes, “I am an orthodox brahmin/hindu and I can speak about how vilified the whole Brahmin/hindu clan is” does not hold a drop of water. Realise that sanatana dharma gives you that right to talk without you having to affiliate yourself with it. So, cool it.
And, calling “Him” Mohammad makes him one among the us. Shouldn’t the masses be proud of it? Or maybe not!
Since Atanu Dey brought up cats,
Here’s a joke(cartoon actually) that caused riots in Dhaka and caused the arrest of the cartoonist and editor
(I’ve used variables
I don’t remember the names used in the original cartoon)
Muslim Man : (to Muslim boy)
what’s your name?
Boy : X
Man : Don’t say X.Say Muhammad X
Boy : OK
Man : What’s your father’s name
Boy : Y
Man : Don’t say Y.Say Muhammad Y
Boy : OK
Man : what’s that on your lap?
Boy:Muhammad Cat
Atanu,
Your ok. You can even let the cat stay.
I made a simple point too. I’ll give you a paise for every “Hindu” who calls Mohammed “Mohammed, The Prophet of Islam”. I’ll also bet you won’t make Rs.10 out of me.
When folks speak about anybody in reverence…they don’t do it because “he married a 9 year old”. That much should be evident huh? Scholars such as yourself can always prove a point and back up your definition. Ordinary folks…don’t “define”. They just express themselves. And live it.
Let me make it simpler for you. When my wife goes to church, she does not go to pray to a man who got born out of a “virgin”. She would in fact laugh at it! She smiles when I ask her about it. No, she goes because she likes to go. She feels good about it. She probably sees something in Jesus that scholars such as yourself…and me *I stand outside that church* miss.
You know, Socal has it right. That’s how most “Hindus” think. If you are trying to make anything out of “most Hindus”, you’d do well to learn how they live their lives…and please get out of that library!
Palahalli:
Please for the love of Jeebus Foxtrot Christ, get some remedial reading courses.
I have not claimed that Hindus will go around referring to Mohammed as “Mohammed the Prophet of Islam.” I wrote that Mohammed was the “prophet of Islam” and not “the Prophet Mohammed” when it comes to non-Muslims. Your silly “give you a paise” (sic) is as irrelevant as your account of what your wife does to get her jollies.
And by the way, don’t think that you are all that bloody clever by your snide references to “scholars such as yourself.” Address the issue and keep your stupid irrelevant stuff for your evening entertainment.
Since you brought it up, however, let me say that your wife suffers from some sort of mental disorder if she laughs at what the church preaches (virgin birth, for instance) and her feeling good about going to church. It could be as simple as basic cognitive dissonance, or it could be something that you should be seriously concerned about such as schizophrenia and you should seek professional psychiatric help.
No need to thank me for this bit of advice. I am just a nice guy beneath all these harsh words. All the harshness is just to conceal the sweetness that lies beneath. (Sarcasm alert.)
Sincerely,
Atanu
Sanyal writes “…Hindus (or more generally people of Indic faiths( have a natural reverence for all religions,…”
I am not sure if this is claim is made approvingly of such behavior or not. But I find “natural reverence of all religions” an obnoxious stance. This is so because it is lazy, stupid, uncritical, irrational, and dangerous.
To revere something means that you understand it, have judged it to be beneficial, and find it worthy of respect and hold it in high esteem. If you revere all religions, it means that you have taken the time to understand them all. If you did that, you would see that they flatly contradict each other in essential ways. So if you revere them all, then you are essentially stupid as you cannot see the contradictions and note that some of them are positively evil.
Most people who claim that all religions are equal are plainly lazy — they have not bothered to find out what they are all about. They are just mindless parroting that off-repeated garbage.
Revering any religion is dangerous. Revering all religions is fatal.
Enough said.
Atanu
Wanderer, yes, I had read about that mindless reaction of the Bangladeshi people to that cartoon about “Mohammed Cat.” Don’t these Bangadeshis feel the least bit embarrassed that they have no foxtrotting sense of humor?
Actually, I will go so far as to say that Islam is devoid of humor and the more Islamic an entity gets, the less there is to laugh about and so they just get rid of their sense of humor. If I recall correctly, some high-ranking Islamic authority had said that there is no humor in Islam. (Too lazy to do the google check.)
Atanu
“You know, Socal has it right. That’s how most “Hindus” think.”
Thanks for twisting my observation, but, to be fair, I implied thoughtless behavior on part of Hindus. I was commenting on the behavior of most Hindus not their thought process.
And while we’re at it, “orthodox Hindu and Church going” are quite oxymoronic. Certainly, no orthodox Hindu will identify with that bit of idiosyncrasy or any average person append “orthodox” against such a person. And nor do most Hindus.
“Address the issue and keep your stupid irrelevant stuff for your evening entertainment.”
Precious. Plus ca change.
Read this
When a “moderate” Muslim’s sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking.
So Christianity is about good food, good music, and “cute” altar boys. Are we to believe that hatred of pagans and their “false Gods” is never gossiped about at church?
The plan is to shame the Hindus from looking critically at what has been attacking them incessantly for past few hundred years.
Atanu - Your arrogance is too funny.
Please for the love of Jeebus Foxtrot Christ, get some remedial reading courses.
- Oh yeah…don’t worry about my reading. Remember, I’m a scholar like you? Ha ha!
*****
I have not claimed that Hindus will go around referring to Mohammed as “Mohammed the Prophet of Islam.”
- Thanks for realizing THAT so quickly. But that’s what you want of “Hindus”, right?
Please explain this piece of sophistry;
“”socal is right. To Muslims, and Muslims alone, is Mohammed “the Prophet”. To all others, he is “Mohammed, the prophet of Islam” or just plain “Mohammed” when it is clear from the context who is being referred to.” Were you btw referring to “dream talk”?
******
I wrote that Mohammed was the “prophet of Islam” and not “the Prophet Mohammed” when it comes to non-Muslims.
- So long as we don’t refer to him as the “Last Prophet”, I’m fine with the characterization. You seem to have missed this scholarly distinction Sir. But then, I will still give you that Paisa (no-sic) for every “Hindu” who refers to Mohammed as the “Last Prophet”. I’m sure you’ll make a little more than Rs.10 offa me
*****
Address the issue and keep your stupid irrelevant stuff for your evening entertainment.
- Temper…Temper!…issue addressed already! Though not recognized by the “Scholar”!
*****
Since you brought it up, however, let me say that your wife suffers from some sort of mental disorder if she laughs at what the church preaches (virgin birth, for instance) and her feeling good about going to church. It could be as simple as basic cognitive dissonance, or it could be something that you should be seriously concerned about such as schizophrenia and you should seek professional psychiatric help.
_ Sure. In fact, I’ll ask her to speak with Koenraad Elst. What say? He seems to be pretty comfortable with a “Christian Civilizational ethic” without the mumbo jumbo. Btw..your blinkers are showing.
******
No need to thank me for this bit of advice. I am just a nice guy beneath all these harsh words. All the harshness is just to conceal the sweetness that lies beneath. (Sarcasm alert.)
- Well, I actually thought of paying you…but then I would have wanted my money back! Quackery, I can do without!
*****
Socal - “And while we’re at it, “orthodox Hindu and Church going” are quite oxymoronic. Certainly, no orthodox Hindu will identify with that bit of idiosyncrasy or any average person append “orthodox” against such a person. And nor do most Hindus.”
- Come down South…i’ll take you around.
Dark Lord; “So Christianity is about good food, good music, and “cute” altar boys. Are we to believe that hatred of pagans and their “false Gods” is never gossiped about at church?”
- Is that a question or a statement of fact?
Comrade Halli,
What debiliating inadequacy are you suffering from that making snide remarks about Atanu’s scholarship makes you feel better?
mohammed is a kalki avtar??!!….Just goto youtube.com and search for “similarities between hinduism and Islam” you will get several videos of one Dr. Zakir Naik. He quotes from vedas,smrithis,shruthis and ofcourse koran including page,chapter,versus etc and says that Mohammed is the final prophet for not just islam for the entire humanity. This he quotes from Bhagavata chapter 3 Vs 23-25….There are more than 20 parts to this…..Guys I discovered it yesterday so just thought this blog needs the reference.
After this decide whether mohammed is just “mohammed” or or “mohammed the prophet of islam” or “mohammed the prophet of Hinduism!!!!”……Guys must watch
cheers
Aravind
Aravind, Bhavishya puraan also has another character called Mahamad (in this yug, Tripurasur will take birth as Mahamad and will establish a demoniac religion) apart from Kalki avatar. Why do you think Mohammed is Kalki avatar, why can’t mahamad be mohammed?
“Come down South…i’ll take you around.”
Hmm, so apart from anecdotal evidence there isn’t much to back up your statement. Just as I thought. But even anecdotal evidence can be verified - ah the wonders of technology. Anyway, since you seemed willing to take the efforts of walking me around, why not make a tape yourself and upload it on youtube instead? Say 5 person in your town/city. Shouldn’t be difficult unless availability of camera is an issue. Here’s a good opportunity to walk the talk. I hope you’re up for it.
Socal
Does anyone know a link or two to those expurgated passages? (I mean the ones to be deleted from Taslima’s book/biography.)
It’s here:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1473&view=findpost&p=75750
Not translated yet as far as I know.
Dude rawem,
I ‘m not saying this….Zakir Naik does…Go and check it out…His interpretation is weird, it is completely baseless…He does quote from Bhavishya purana also. Infact this mohammed thing, he quotes from Bhagavatha and he also says that there are references to Allah in Atharva veda….He unsuccessfully stage manages Q&A from some of his commrades…And I see only white ‘toppis’ everywhere but he says there are people from every religion in the audience.
He’s also into controversial debates like ‘Was Jesus really crucified!!’…
He defends polygemy,Jihad with same weird logics etc….
Chek it out…
“Not translated yet as far as I know.”
Thanks kumar. Without the translation it’s useless, to me that is. Hopefully someone will translate it soon.
Aravind,
Since my office comp does not have speakers, are the arguments on youtube vid and the link below same?
http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/ques40e.htm
rawem..This is precisely what he says in those videos..
\aravind
Socal, you mean there are no “Videos” and “articles” and “features” about such “beliefs and practices” amongst our people? I wonder what a gentleman like Sanyal is referring to then.
You want “proof”? Allright. I will provide. But post that, will you change your opinion?
I have an even better idea. I will invite Sandeep to bear witness to such “abominable and psyched” practices amongst our people. He can then publish what he sees and experiences.
Sandeep - If you will, please let me know where I can email you my number.
AlsoPrasad counters the arguments if Naik as baseless..Read
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Prasadh51229.htm
Aravind and others,
That Zakir Naik guy is insane. Taking the words of scriptures in the literature would not differentiate a dharmic religion from a semitic cult from medival ages.
SSRS (of Art of Living) had a debate with him. Check out the debate on youtube/google-videos. First I thought that SSRS tried to do a good job, I think it was a serious mistake to allow him the same pedestal as an equal.
Zakir Naik is a demagogue and above all, and idiot. There are others on the web who challenged him for a debate about Islam and he refused.
Amar,
It did not take much time for me to realize it. But this a*****e is publishing this every where…I saw those videos where he was stage managing Q&A with Sri Ravishankar on one of his books….and was trying to embarass him in front of a huge audience… Since there was this discussion on mohammed, I just thought of sharing this.
]Aravind
Do
Palahalli,
I do not understand what you usually are talking about. You (and your family) may be general, peace loving people, doing prayers with allowances to every religion. I respect you for that. This is not unlike many families in India having pictures of Buddha in their homes, in spite of what they know about Buddha’s views on some notions of “mainstream sanatanis”.
You may get videos of sarva-dharma-sammelan or general-satsanghs to prove something (whatever it is). That video would not change anything. That is not the point being discussed in this post and certainly not in this blog. If you show “evils of hindusim”, whetever they are, someone will get you the proof how the philosophical/religious/cultural/social reformers like Shankara/Vivekananda/Dayayanda etc. successfully changed the way sanatanis thought. That is the difference between a living religion and others.
The question being asked, as Hirshi Ali says is, “where are the moderate views in Islam”? Are you one? If so, why don’t you argue with the mainstream Islamists to be more like Sufis? If what you are saying is: Sufism is the mainstream Islam, then I agree with Atanu when he says that you need to say a doctor.
Amar, its difficult to read what you wrote because Sandeep’s format is cutting most words sideways. Email me on sanjay.pd@gmail.com. Let me read what you wrote and respond on the blog and on email.
Thanks
Hang on…don’t do that yet. I copied pasted on word and got the full text of what you wrote. I’ll respond in some time. Thanks
This Zakir (Hank’s ass kisser) says the following in his profile wikkipedia…..
[edit] Implementing Shariah in India
Naik writes that while he appreciates that India presently allows Muslims to have their own personal law, “Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law (Shariah) to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical.”
Amar:
I do not understand what you usually are talking about. You (and your family) may be general, peace loving people, doing prayers with allowances to every religion. I respect you for that. This is not unlike many families in India having pictures of Buddha in their homes, in spite of what they know about Buddha’s views on some notions of “mainstream sanatanis”.
* Amar, I do not know what the confusion is. If you review the thread, you will notice that the grouse starts with how “Hindus” should ideally refer to Mohammed. Then there are some “appropriate options” handed out.
Now, my take is that how anybody addresses a religious figure would depend in the main on the kind of relationship that person has had with the followers of “the” religion, (friends, general observations, etc) and or if that person has actually tried to practice some teachings of “the” religion. Or “studied” it.
The options handed out, appeared to me, purely academic in nature. I.e. not used/felt in practical everyday life. For instance, most “Hindus” I know do not feel the need to break their heads on whether the Prophet is that of Islam or Prophet Mohammed. But, I can tell you this. I have never ever heard of any “Hindu” refer to Mohammed as the “Last Prophet”. Even in a discussion with Muslims. That is simply not conceded and there is an implicit acceptance (amongst the “religious Muslims”) that it will not be.
To berate such “Hindus” as lacking in understanding and worse is arrogant and mean.
I don’t know who you refer to as “mainstream Sanatanis”, but I know of no “Hindu” except some scholarly kinds who will hair split about the Buddha’s critical views on Vedic “Hindus”. Most accept them in good spirit. Of course it is great to debate these views, but to negatively brand lay “Hindus” is an unwelcome behavior.
*********
You may get videos of sarva-dharma-sammelan or general-satsanghs to prove something (whatever it is). That video would not change anything. That is not the point being discussed in this post and certainly not in this blog. If you show “evils of hindusim”, whetever they are, someone will get you the proof how the philosophical/religious/cultural/social reformers like Shankara/Vivekananda/Dayayanda etc. successfully changed the way sanatanis thought. That is the difference between a living religion and others.
* Now, it is becoming difficult to follow you I have not shown up “Hinduism’s” evils. And I appreciate and admire all reformers. They have a mostly thankless job. Insofar as living and dead is concerned, I view THAT debate as childish. Our society has much to do before we can even call ourselves healthy. As H.V. Sheshadri was fond of saying, talk less…work more.
The question being asked, as Hirshi Ali says is, “where are the moderate views in Islam”? Are you one? If so, why don’t you argue with the mainstream Islamists to be more like Sufis? If what you are saying is: Sufism is the mainstream Islam, then I agree with Atanu when he says that you need to say a doctor.
* This is a straw man. I have my views on how Islamists need to be dealt with. In my view, there is a difference between the common Muslim and the Islamist. Not a very popular view on this blog I might add. But the fact is that if our governments exercised good laws and repaired dilapidated ones, Islamists would know their place. I believe H-Vadis have the same idea, but they mess it up with impractical nonsense about wiping out Islam and/or trying to force Muslims into “admitting” Mohammed to be a Pedophile!
Please remember this. Islamists, etc most abhor admixture nee “adulteration”. I say let our “Hindus” do their job! Let them go to those Churches and make their Temple stops next. Admittedly going to a Mosque and then the “next door” Temple (Munireddypalya – Bangalore) is less popular. In fact (I) know of none. That’s a tough mental block. But do you think the Islamist edifice will survive in the face of such lay “Hindu” action? That is one great advantage “Hindus” have that Christians don’t in their fight against Islamists. The Christians tend to set themselves up as yet another bloc. That strategy is foolish.
This is surely more practical than what is otherwise proposed.
Tail end – I have looked over Atanu’s blog. I admire his scholarship otherwise. But the Sita Ram Goel route is nice to work up lather….but of little practical value. In my opinion.
Aravind,
Whenever this Zakir Naik’s outrageous comments are referred, Islamist apologists quickly distance themselves from him saying “he is insane” and stuff. I had an altercation on the Retributions blog exactly a year ago on this issue.
http://retributions.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/where-we-correct-dilip/#comments
The point is that while some of us may feel that he is a verbal extremist, most of the secular media do not. This Wednesday evening, Sahara Samay Mumbai’s popular RKB Show (with RK Bajaj) had an hour long interview with this “insane” guy. And you wont believe it, this RKB chap, who normally has that silly grin and inane comments trying to humiliate people from the Sangh parivar whenever they appear on his show, was so respectful to the Islamic “scholar”! And there were no embarrassing questions put to him as well. This is supposed to be an SMS your question show. But all the inconvenient questions were simply ignored by the anchor. And Naik went on quoting passages from the Gita and Vedas(irritatingly referring to every section, khand, etc. just to show his prowess) just to prove that Hindu religion was also violent. He referred to the Mahabharat war saying that Krishna had asked Arjuna to fight his own relatives. According to him, this could also be interpreted wrongly, the way “Jehad” was being interpreted. And Mr. Bajaj was all “Aye Aye”!
As a person who has lived in overwhelmingly Muslim areas for a substantial portion of my life, and has attended schools where I was a one of handful of Hindu students, I find Palahalli’s faith in the common Muslim touching. Perhaps me and most of my Hindu mates were just unlucky, or perhaps the Muslims down there in south India are milder.
Ravi
This is precisely why I’m irritated…And this helplessness of not being able to do anything kills me. Wonder if any of these passive discussions over blogs really help?…Out here in this blog (or many such blogs), we are satisfied in only scratching one another’s back.
This a***h***e with his “prowess” is able to reach more number of “toppis”…He’s becoming a reformer(!), revolutionist among his men….Don’t know where this will lead to
\Aravind
As a person who has lived in overwhelmingly Muslim areas for a substantial portion of my life, and has attended schools where I was a one of handful of Hindu students, I find Palahalli’s faith in the common Muslim touching. Perhaps me and most of my Hindu mates were just unlucky, or perhaps the Muslims down there in south India are milder.
* Even the “Hindu” down in the South is “milder” Sir. Net-Net….you have to have a plan. What better than one that comes about naturally to “Hindus”?
I used to feel that the Sangh scheme of “Mohammadi Hindus” was balderdash. But then they seem to have a point.
I would like to hear of alternatives too if any.
Palahalli,
With due respects to you and your wife, I think both of you are confusing the forest for the trees and/or vice versa. Your wife’s churchgoing, etc–like another gentleman noted–is appreciable BUT what makes it difficult for THEM to visit temples? Why in fact, do they FORBID it? This is not just about Xianty but all Semitic religions in general.
The point about your wife worshipping the image of Jesus is again, borne out of the Hindu ethos. What Jesus symbolizes is entirely different. From your own admission, I can conclude that she worships Jesus in the same way a Hindu does his/her Gods, something that you admitted here but missed the larger point:
>>She probably sees something in Jesus that scholars such as yourself…
To your wife, Jesus is one of her “Ishta Devatas” (personal favorite God if you will). In the larger scheme of things, this translates to tremendous individual freedom to choose and worship what/who you want to. THAT is something neither Islam nor Xianity gives their followers. Ever asked why?
Also and, needless to say, to a Hindu, an image/idol just symbolizes the Reality that cannot be known by the senses and transcends logic (More on this perhaps in a detailed post sometime in future). I’m sorry but I think you guys need to get the basics of both Hinduism and Islam/Xianity right. It doesn’t have to be scholarly.
Phew! More when I have more time.
Aravind
If you notice the link I’ve posted, you’ll see these are referenced on Zakir’s site as dawah techniques i.e propagation of islam. Lying is part and parcel of dawah. Wahhabi’s will demand his head if apologist Zakir puts the same arguments in front of them.
Also, in the recent Kolkata riots,
(Times of India, 23 Nov 2007, 0132 hrs IST,Krishnendu Bandyopadhyay & Caesar Mondol,TNN)
“Intelligence sources also said they were probing the hand of a radical Islamic ideologue from Gujarat, Zakir Naik, and activists of the Ahl-e-Hadees militant group.”
The long term alternative is simple — islamic reformation. A new koran(just like the jefferson bible) with all the violent phrases cut out. This new religious narrative will inevitably come from the muslim world over the next few decades/centuries. It’s inevitable because every belief/custom eventually succumbs to the dictates of change/technology/modernity. But between now and then, millions of muslim lives are going to be lost as they face technologically superior foes like u.s/thailand/serbia/india/russia.
In India the way out, is to rescue our muslim brothers from the ravages of disease/poverty/illiteracy. This punishment imposed by a primitive culture cannot be solved thru statist sops(ala sacchar), but thru a comprehensive conversion program. VHP has ghar-vapasi program for christian tribals. This needs to be expanded to muslims. In the long run, reformation/conversion/warfare is going to inevitably subdue the islamic menace. Meanwhile plenty of pain to go around and most to suffer, unfortunately, are the losers of the genetic lottery — muslim women and children.
Palahalli, you not only ignorant of Hindus, but also know absolutely nothing about the scholarly traditions of debate in any period. That there is something called Buddha’s critical views on Vedic “Hindus” is a simply a figment of eminent history, written by unchooled and ill-read “historians”. Every school of Indic philosophy criticises others and quite vehemently at times.
Even the “Hindu” down in the South is “milder”
Good for both of them.
Solution? I don’t see any unfortunately. Just like every story doesn’t have a moral, all problems do not have an obvious solution, if you searching for a painless solution, I don’t think any exists.
Hindus have been going to the mazars and churches for centuries now but still we see riots, increasing wahabization of Muslim Indians. Muslims are in fact very wary of getting absorbed into Hindu culture and many here will remember the extreme reaction to some Muslim couples exchanging garlands while getting marriage.
The fable syncretism of India means exactly this: Hindus go to churches, mazars and temples;xtians go to churches, ;muslims go to mosques and mazars.
There are a few Muslim communities (a minuscule minority) which are integrated into Indian culture, but a few more years of dedicated work by the Tablighi Jamaat will put an end to those folks.
“Intelligence sources also said they were probing the hand of a radical Islamic ideologue from Gujarat, Zakir Naik”
This is not surprising, [a minuscule minority
of] Muslims are working towards their own solution to the “Hindu” problem in India. Faithfreedom has interesting chat session with one of Mr. Naik’s lieutenants, which reveals the kind of interesting activities he is involved in.
In the NYTimes, the indefatigable, and intrepid, Ayan Hirsi Ali asks this million dollar question, “But where are the [Muslim] moderates?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
”
But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?
…[OIC] sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad’s behavior would be unconscionable.”
Sandeep:
With due respects to you and your wife, I think both of you are confusing the forest for the trees and/or vice versa. Your wife’s churchgoing, etc–like another gentleman noted–is appreciable BUT what makes it difficult for THEM to visit temples? Why in fact, do they FORBID it? This is not just about Xianty but all Semitic religions in general.
- Who are THEM and THEY? Those are largely injunctions that the sheep are required to abide by. However, in this country, our people’s every day life and everyday interactions have to a large extent succeeded in controlling such ghettoisation of the mind. What would you say to those Muslims and Christians who have respect for “Hindu” lore? Who partake of the Prasada that is offered? Who organize and celebrate in their Ganapati Mandalis with their “Hindu” counterparts? All this is not widespread, but still in front of our eyes. When you generalize like you do, what options do you leave yourself with?
*******
The point about your wife worshipping the image of Jesus is again, borne out of the Hindu ethos. What Jesus symbolizes is entirely different. From your own admission, I can conclude that she worships Jesus in the same way a Hindu does his/her Gods, something that you admitted here but missed the larger point:
- No. I see your point. But I see no sense in taking my wife to the doctors because she goes to Church. To me, as a person who would like to breach such faiths for their own good, I would want a whole lot of such Church goers. Church goers who will confuse and confound the “shepherds”. To me there is nothing great in claiming any kind of superiority for such “Hindu” ethos if we are not able to use it effectively. I hope you see my point.
*******
>>She probably sees something in Jesus that scholars such as yourself…
To your wife, Jesus is one of her “Ishta Devatas” (personal favorite God if you will). In the larger scheme of things, this translates to tremendous individual freedom to choose and worship what/who you want to. THAT is something neither Islam nor Xianity gives their followers. Ever asked why?
- I believe I have answered this question. In any case, what kind of answer do you expect for that “why?” We know the answer right? Now, what do WE do about it? I believe I have offered one solution.
*******
Also and, needless to say, to a Hindu, an image/idol just symbolizes the Reality that cannot be known by the senses and transcends logic (More on this perhaps in a detailed post sometime in future). I’m sorry but I think you guys need to get the basics of both Hinduism and Islam/Xianity right. It doesn’t have to be scholarly.
- Sandeep, somehow, I am thankful that I have not “studied” these faiths and systems so thoroughly. I have my experience and common sense. What is more than evident is this, if I may say so, “cramped for ideas “Scholars”” and “street-smart but “uneducated” laymen”.
*******
but I know of no “Hindu” except some scholarly kinds who will hair split about the Buddha’s critical views on Vedic “Hindus”.
Palahalli, you not only ignorant of Hindus, but also know absolutely nothing about the scholarly traditions of debate in any period. That there is something called Buddha’s critical views on Vedic “Hindus” is a simply a figment of eminent history, written by unchooled and ill-read “historians”. Every school of Indic philosophy criticises others and quite vehemently at times.
- Kaangaya, so what have you got? You might have to challenge Savarkar on that. I get it from him. Don’t mind me saying this, but your “learnedness” is allowing for silly mistakes. The times of an “island” of Indic philosophies are long gone Sir. Neither are they likely to come back no matter how much you froth. On the other hand, what you will be left with is what you strategize and work for. I offer a suggestion. Care to offer your own?
Chakravarthy;
Solution? I don’t see any unfortunately. Just like every story doesn’t have a moral, all problems do not have an obvious solution, if you searching for a painless solution, I don’t think any exists.
- Painless solution? What might a painful one be?
Hindus have been going to the mazars and churches for centuries now but still we see riots, increasing wahabization of Muslim Indians. Muslims are in fact very wary of getting absorbed into Hindu culture and many here will remember the extreme reaction to some Muslim couples exchanging garlands while getting marriage.
- Two choices. Either protect those who will have the courage to do differently, or see them losing faith in you and join forces with ruffians. That’s what happened with Taslima Nazreen too. Is that the “Hindus” responsibility?? Of course it is because, evidently, per yourselves, it’s only “Hindus” who are interested in maintaining some semblance of civilized life. It is “Hindus” also, who are the most numerous voters, aren’t they? As far as being wary goes, you might want to add the Sikhs and the Jains and the Buddhists to that list too. I guess it’s in the way the “awakened” “H-Vadi would want to convince folks. Evidently, our “scholars” aren’t helping too much either. Better go back to the “uneducated - unchooled and ill-read” layman for answers.
******
The fable syncretism of India means exactly this: Hindus go to churches, mazars and temples;xtians go to churches, ;muslims go to mosques and mazars.
- So? Are you going to tell “Hindu” ladies and gents to stay within Temple precincts? What exactly are you trying to say Sir?
*******
There are a few Muslim communities (a minuscule minority) which are integrated into Indian culture, but a few more years of dedicated work by the Tablighi Jamaat will put an end to those folks.
- Right. And in the meanwhile, how would you convince such folk not to fall for the Tabilighis?
Two choices. Either protect those who will have the courage to do differently, or see them losing faith in you and join forces with ruffians.
A Muslim being protected by Hindus, or who seen to be warm to Hindus will not seen as a “real” Muslim, he will have seen to have crossed over to the other side. For all their noise value, even Shabana and her hubby have little ability to influence Muslims.
Remember Rafiq Zakaria’s article on our former President, IIRC, it was titled, “what is Muslim about Kalam”, the fact that he neglects namaz was unfavorably juxtaposed with his appreciation of Gita.
This is such total gibberish. Indic philosophy is an island today more than ever before. The popular press is full of alf-hassed commentary by pamphleteers like Amartya Sen - whom Balagangadhara dubs “intelligently mediocre”. For every Savarkar there are 3-4 other commentators who say otehrwise. Savarkar’s strong suite was certainly not philosophy. Palli, c’mon grow up. Check out Eastern Philosphy by C. Ram-Prasad and get your ideas in order, instead of making of an ass of yourself.
That is high praise given the quality of his writing on Indian culture.
This is too childish, it seems you think people will be hesitant to criticize Savarkar.
Chakravarty; One of the very few good things that the BJP managed to do with it’s tenure was to support Abdul Kalam. It would have been disappointing if they had not done so keeping the Ulema’s “sentiments” in mind. I say press on. Support and protect all of those Muslims who will think differently. How else will “they” gain the courage to confront Islamists? More importantly, how do we blame Muslims for not confronting Islamists when folks who think they are on the “right” side, are hesitant to protect such Muslims?
*****
Kaangaya; Don’t be so ready to condemn. Discount Savarkar by all means. You are probably correct. So, how many have read Balagangadhara against Savarkar?? Btw; I have read Bala too, courtesy yourself. I like what he writes. Simple and clear language. But then, Savarkar, if you have read him, was not that far off the mark wrt the Buddha’s influence on this country’s people. He termed it an attack on the “Vedic Hindus’” way of life. It is the phraseology Sir. A manner of speaking. That’s all. (Btw, I am on the Buddha’s side in that debate)
In so far as “Indic” islands are concerned, i’m not clear where your coming from. Today more than at any time in the “recent” past, these philosophies are more well known on the outside and in the inside of the “Hindu” fold. You have segments of this “way of life” scattered in the Christian and Islamic domains too. And you call it an “Island”???
Some advice…debating from an ivory tower will always miss many heads. Something that our Brahmins were “adept” at. Avoid madi
******
Chakravarty; “This is too childish, it seems you think people will be hesitant to criticize Savarkar.”
- I believe I have answered this “remark”.
Palahalli do you know even who Baalu is or what he writes about? Surely not. Now don’t try to scurry away for a web search to return with some comments about his work. Your comment above - I won’t point out to the relevant statements - is evidence that you are a master BS’r. You are makiing an ass of yourself. Your comments here are archived. Even if you post a comment that is informed it will stand in contrast to your earlier gibberish. You are going to look like a BS’r who blabbers first and thinks later. Go ahead. You walked into a trap of your making!
Palahalli,
I have a sincere advise for you after reading some of your comments.
Please read more books and less of blogs. I agree, quite a few blogs have good content, but books, ones written by great people (great because they stood the test of time), will enlighten you more than anything else and make you think deeply.
Also, please start your own blog and write more. This will make you think in a clear way on how the great people saw the problems with the world. Pitting your arguments against them would make your thinking clearer and *deeper*. [A simple example would be trying to argue with Tilak on how your interpretation of Gita is better than his.]
This deep and clear thinking will not come quickly if there is noise in your head. The noise should die down for it to happen.
Thanks, I am out of this.
dear mr. palahalli,
your commenting is driving me nuts. not only because of the nonsense you so continuously spew, almost like a ToIlet Paper reporter, but your style of replying to previous comments is pretty unreadable.
use markers like “>>” and italics tags, [i] and [/i], or blockquotes to easily demarcate what others have said from your reply to them. it isn’t that hard, even a thick skulled person like you should be able to easily learn and use html tags.
Kaangaya, for all your erudition, you have not mastered your own language and temper? Surprising! I don’t have to “scurry sway for a web search” on Bala’s works. I have the link you posted ages ago with ALL of his documented articles! I would email them to you if I had you e-id.
Moreover, I have not even commented on Bala’s work except to say I like the manner he writes. What is your gripe man?? And what trap are you talking about hunter???
***
Amar; your advice is taken in good spirit. I could have said it’s patronizing, but I won’t. Good day to you.
Exactly what I expected you would do. You haven’t read a thing, not that you would understand, Baalu’s written. Palahalli, you are such a total moron that you should start reading what you write here on every one of those BS trips you make to Sandeepweb. Once you learn to make a clear line of argument, you can grow up and read what the likes of Baalu write. As before all the clues that point to your total idiocy are strewn over just this one thread. Read your gibberish, unscramble it, and then structure your argument anew.
Kaangeya,
Would you mind doing an exposition on Balu, just so that we can have something other than Pallu’s tripefest to ponder over.
Folks
80% of the comments are directed in convincing Palahalli, who seem to argue just for the sake of it. It’s been so with most of the articles that sandeep has written till now. Don’t you guys think you need a change?
\Aravind
I wish Mr, Halli should migrate to U.A.E. and experience all the good things about islam first hand and if his wife requests the Shah will build a church and a temple especially for her. She will be able to celebrate all her festivals along with x-mas there.
i vote we ignore mr palahalli… he reduces the average IQ of the group discussing issues here by about sixty points. He also reduces the level of discussion on this blog to the level of schoolchildren debating on homosexuality.
The Hindu has an interview with Baalu here http://tinyurl.com/2nh4wv. There’s an interesting conference happening in Delhi in the first week of Jan’08, the first in a cluster of five. And if you have the time (you will need lots of it) read Baalu’s book. Another good technical read is C.Ram-Prasad’s “Eastern Philosophy” (referred here earlier). Sandeep could help us organise a more serious forum where he could lead more serious discussions. Sandeep, note madi!
Hi Kaangeya,
I did a mistake in assuming that you were talking about Tilak, when you wrote “Baalu”. Thanks for the references.
Sandeep,
I second the idea of such a forum.
Thanks,
kaanganeya,
Duly noted.
And I’m overwhelmed. But let me tell you that I’m a person with limited resources and a very taxing job so if you are looking at a forum like what Baalu and others are planning, it is ruled out for the near future at least. I can however, create a separate space on my blog for this where you guys can contribute.
Also, I need you folks to define what constitutes “serious discussions.” Meaning, I’d like to know exactly what you have in mind.
[...] Thanks to reader Kaanganeya for pointing me to this excellent interview where S.N. Balagangadhara (Baalu) shares his thoughts on certain fundamentals, which he says need heavy redefining. I’ll add my random bits here. [...]
Wow, A hindutva fecal fascist blog! Obviously our stinky little shiv sainiks know little about history and the lives of religious figures.
Belonging to a “religion” which literally is synonymous with lack of hygiene and worshiping wood and stone monstrosities is hilarious. I was just reading about Bal Thackeray’s bitches burning churches…real tolerant of the “world’s largest democracy.” Hinduism involves everything from pedophilia to beastiality, and you dot headed dimwits can’t hide the fact that you treat minorities and your own “untouchables” like shit.
Douche bags.
Hope Pallu will get an answer to all his doubts on -”why Hindutva is on an upsurge” ,if he reads the above comment by a Christian babboon!
MU, I enjoy my burgers well done, just incase brahmin RSS mafia shit sainiks cared. You can’t refute the facts.
Merry Christmas, fecal fascists!
Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,’ 1840:
“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round
this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.” “A silent
great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle
the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so.”
A. S. Tritton in ‘Islam,’ 1951:
The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand
and the Qur’an in the other is quite false.
De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923:
History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims
sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword
upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths
that historians have ever repeated.
Gibbon in ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ 1823:
The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle
of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the
fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands
his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit,
he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.
Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870:
“The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force.”
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that
deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he
engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of
twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes
of the Koran….The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation
of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the
senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the
Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The
intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible
idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of
human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of
his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
Reverend Bosworth Smith in ‘Muhammad and Muhammadanism,’ London, 1874:
“Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in
one; but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar
without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a
bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a
man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the
powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of
power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his
public life.”
“In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the
shadowy and the mysterious, we have history….We know of the external
history of Muhammad…. while for his internal history after his
mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its
origin, in its preservation….on the Substantial authority of which
no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.”
Edward Montet, ‘La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries
Musulmans,’ Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in ‘The Preaching of
Islam,’ London 1913.):
“Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest
sense of this term considered etymologically and historically….the
teachings of the Prophet, the Qur’an has invariably kept its place as
the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has
always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an
invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard
to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam….A creed so precise, so
stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so
accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess
and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the
consciences of men.”
Alphonse de LaMartaine in ‘Historie de la Turquie,’ Paris, 1854:
“Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more
sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions
which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto
man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of
divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of
idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far
beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the
conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no
other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men
living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man
accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because
in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and
in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God’s
name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt,
Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous
islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul. “If
greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are
the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great
man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws,
and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than
material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man
moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but
millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more
than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas,
the beliefs and the souls.
“On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created
a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue
and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim
nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and
Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of
Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of
one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not
the miracle of man but that of reason.
“The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the
fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it’s
utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols
and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his
heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his
boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring
them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public
scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen… This
dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the
former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the
one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea
with words.
“Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas,
Restorer of Rational beliefs…. The founder of twenty terrestrial
empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all
standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask,
is there any man greater than he?”
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in ‘Young India,’1924:
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an
undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind…. I became
more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place
for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid
simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous
regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers,
his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in
his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before
them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume
(of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to
read of that great life.
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936:
“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe
within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.” I have always held
the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful
vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that
assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can
make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful
man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called
the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of
the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way
that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have
prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to
the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the
Europe of today.”
Michael Hart in ‘The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In
History,’ New York, 1978:
My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential
persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but
he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both
the secular and religious level. …It is probable that the relative
influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined
influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. …It is this
unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I
feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single
figure in human history.
Dr. William Draper in ‘History of Intellectual Development of Europe’:
Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca,
in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest
influence upon the human race… To be the religious head of many
empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may
perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.
Arthur Glyn Leonard in ‘Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values’:
It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the
Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them
out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high
watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of
Muhammad’s deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it
inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted
on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true
inspiration.
Philip K. Hitti in ‘History of the Arabs’:
Within a brief span of mortal life, Muhammad called forth of
unpromising material, a nation, never welded before; in a country that
was hitherto but a geographical expression he established a religion
which in vast areas suppressed Christianity and Judaism, and laid the
basis of an empire that was soon to embrace within its far flung
boundaries the fairest provinces the then civilized world.
Rodwell in the Preface to his translation of the Holy Qur’an:
Mohammad’s career is a wonderful instance of the force and life that
resides in him who possesses an intense faith in God and in the unseen
world. He will always be regarded as one of those who have had that
influence over the faith, morals and whole earthly life of their
fellow men, which none but a really great man ever did, or can
exercise; and whose efforts to propagate a great verity will prosper.
W. Montgomery Watt in ‘Muhammad at Mecca,’ Oxford, 1953:
His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral
character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a
leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his
fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more
problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of
history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad…. Thus, not
merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of
purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the
errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the
conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of
plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with
difficulty.
D. G. Hogarth in ‘Arabia’:
Serious or trivial, his daily behavior has instituted a canon which
millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by
any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so
minutely. The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed
the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion
has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.
Washington Irving ‘Mahomet and His Successors’:
He was sober and abstemious in his diet and a rigorous observer of
fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a
petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected but a result
of real disregard for distinction from so trivial a source. In his
private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the
rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by
the common people for the affability with which he received them, and
listened to their complaints. His military triumphs awakened no pride
nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for
selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the
same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his
adversity. So far from affecting a regal state, he was displeased if,
on entering a room, any unusual testimonials of respect were shown to
him. If he aimed at a universal dominion, it was the dominion of
faith; as to the temporal rule which grew up in his hands, as he used
it without ostentation, so he took no step to perpetuate it in his
family.
James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s
Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70:
“No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has
widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the
sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is
explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.”
“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of
serving as the transmitter of God’s word sensing his own inadequacy.
But the Angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable
to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which
would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one
God”.”
“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son
Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God ’s personal
condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have
announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to
attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being’.”
“At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man
who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria
with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are
any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you
Worshiped, He lives for ever’.”
Lawrence E. Browne in ‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944:
Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so
widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they
went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.
K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in ‘Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,’ 1989
My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not
generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time
need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The
theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any
quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no
compulsion in religion” is well known.
Napolean Bonaparte as Quoted in Christian Cherfils, ‘Bonaparte et
Islam,’ Pedone Ed., Paris, France, 1914, pp. 105, 125.
Original References: “Correspondance de Napoléon Ier Tome V pièce n°
4287 du 17/07/1799…”
“Moses has revealed the existence of God to his nation. Jesus Christ
to the Roman world, Muhammad to the old continent… “Arabia was
idolatrous when, six centuries after Jesus, Muhammad introduced the
worship of the God of Abraham, of Ishmael, of Moses, and Jesus. The
Ariyans and some other sects had disturbed the tranquility of the east
by agitating the question of the nature of the Father, the son, and
the Holy Ghost. Muhammad declared that there was none but one God who
had no father, no son and that the trinity imported the idea of
idolatry…
“I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the
wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform
regime based on the principles of Qur’an which alone are true and
which alone can lead men to happiness.”
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe
within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.” “I have always held
the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful
vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that
assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can
make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the
wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must
be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of
the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way
that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have
prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to
the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the
Europe of today.”
Bertrand Russel in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419.
“Our use of phrase ‘The Dark ages’ to cover the period from 699 to
1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe…
“From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished.
What was lost to christendom at this time was not lost to
civilization, but quite the contrary…
“To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but
this is a narrow view.”
H.G. Wells
“The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and
gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and
tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the
same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a
society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and
injustice were the least as compared with all other societies
preceding it….Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and
fraternity.”
Dr. William Draper in ‘History of Intellectual Development of Europe’
“During the period of the Caliphs the learned men of the Christians
and the Jews were not only held in great esteem but were appointed to
posts of great responsibility, and were promoted to the high ranking
job in the government….He (Caliph Haroon Rasheed) never considered
to which country a learned person belonged nor his faith and belief,
but only his excellence in the field of learning.”
Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History,’
Lecture 2, Friday, 8th May 1840.
“As there is no danger of our becoming, any of us, Mahometans (i.e.
Muslim), I mean to say all the good of him I justly can… “When
Pococke inquired of Grotius, where the proof was of that story of the
pigeon, trained to pick peas from Mahomet’s (Muhammad’s) ear, and pass
for an angel dictating to him? Grotius answered that there was no
proof!…
“A poor, hard-toiling, ill-provided man; careless of what vulgar men
toil for. Not a bad man, I should say; Something better in him than
hunger of any sort, — or these wild arab men, fighting and jostling
three-and-twenty years at his hand, in close contact with him always,
would not revered him so! They were wild men bursting ever and anon
into quarrel, into all kinds of fierce sincerity; without right worth
and manhood, no man could have commanded them. They called him prophet
you say? Why he stood there face to face with them; bare, not
enshrined in any mystry; visibly clouting his own cloak, cobbling his
own shoes; fighting, counselling, ordering in the midst of them: they
must have seen what kind of man he was, let him be called what you
like! No emperor with his tiaras was obeyed as this man in a cloak of
his own clouting. During three-and-twenty years of rough actual trial.
I find something of a veritable Hero necessary for that, of itself…
“These Arabs, the man Mahomet, and that one century, - is it not as if
a spark had fallen, one spark, on a world of what proves explosive
powder, blazes heaven-high from Delhi to Granada! I said, the Great
man was always as lightning out of Heaven; the rest of men waited for
him like fuel, and then they too would flame…”
Phillip Hitti in ‘Short History of the Arabs.’
“During all the first part of the Middle Ages, no other people made as
important a contribution to human progress as did the Arabs, if we
take this term to mean all those whose mother-tongue was Arabic, and
not merely those living in the Arabian peninsula. For centuries,
Arabic was the language of learning, culture and intellectual progress
for the whole of the civilized world with the exception of the Far
East. From the IXth to the XIIth century there were more
philosophical, medical, historical, religiuos, astronomical and
geographical works written in Arabic than in any other human tongue.”
Carra de Vaux in ‘The Philosophers of Islam,’ Paris, 1921.
“Finally how can one forget that at the same time the Mogul Empire of
India (1526-1857 C.E.) was giving the world the Taj Mahal (completed
in 1648 C.E.) the architectural beauty of which has never been
surpassed, and the ‘Akbar Nameh’ of Abul Fazl: “That extraordinary
work full of life ideas and learning where every aspect of life is
examined listed and classified, and where progress continually dazzles
the eye, is a document of which Oriental civilization may justly be
proud. The men whose genius finds its expression in this book were far
in advance of their age in the practical art of government, and they
were perhaps in advance of it in their speculations about religious
philosophy. Those poets those philosophers knew how to deal with the
world or matter. They observe, classify, calculate and experiment. All
the ideas that occur to them are tested against facts. They express
them with eloquence but they also support them with statistics.”…the
principles of tolerance, justice and humanity which prevailed during
the long reign of Akbar.”
Marcel Clerget in ‘La Turquie, Passe et Present,’ Paris, 1938.
“Many proofs of high cultural level of the Ottoman Empire during the
reign of Suleiman the Magnificent are to be found in the development
of science and law; in the flowering of literary works in Arabic,
Persian and Turkish; in the contemporary monuments in Istanbul, Bursa,
and Edirne; in the boom in luxury industries; in the sumptuous life of
the court and high dignitaries, and last but not least in its
religious tolerance. All the various influences - notably Turkish,
Byzantine and Italian mingle together and help to make this the most
brilliant epoch of the Ottomans.”
Michael the Elder (Great) as Quoted in ‘Michael the Elder, Chronique
de Michael Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’ Antioche,’ J.B. Chabot,
Editor, Vol. II, Paris, 1901.
“This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and
changes the empire of mortals as He will, giving it to whomsoever He
will, and uplifting the humble beholding the wickedness of the Romans
who throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our
monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of
the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the
hands of the Romans. And if in truth we have suffered some loss,
because the Catholic churches, that had been taken away from us and
given to the
Chalcedonians, remained in their possession; for when the cities
submitted to the Arabs, they assigned to each denomination the
churches which they found it to be in possession of (and at that time
the great churches of Emessa and that of Harran had been taken away
from us); nevertheless it was no slight advantage for us to be
delivered from the cruelty of the Romans, their wickedness, their
wrath and cruel zeal against us, and to find ourselves at people.
(Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch wrote this text in
the latter part of the twelfth century, after five
centuries of Muslim rule in that region. Click here for a relevant
document sent to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai,
628 C.E.)
Sir John Bagot Glubb
“Khalif (Caliph) Al-Ma’mun’s period of rule (813 - 833 C.E.) may be
considered the ‘golden age’ of science and learning. He had always
been devoted to books and to learned pursuits. His brilliant mind was
interested in every form of intellectual activity. Not only poetry but
also philosophy, theology, astronomy, medicine and law all occupied
his time.”
“By Mamun’s time medical schools were extremely active in Baghdad. The
first free public hospital was opened in Baghdad during the Caliphate
of Haroon-ar-Rashid. As the system developed, physicians and surgeons
were appointed who gave lectures to medical students and issued
diplomas to those who were considered qualified to practice. The first
hospital in Egypt was opened in 872 AD and thereafter public hospitals
sprang up all over the empire from Spain and the Maghrib to Persia.”
On the Holocaust of Baghdad (1258 C.E.) Perpetrated by Hulagu:
“The city was systematically looted, destroyed and burnt. Eight
hundred thousand persons are said to have been killed. The Khalif
Mustasim was sewn up in a sack and trampled to death under the feet of
Mongol horses.
“For five hundred years, Baghdad had been a city of palaces, mosques,
libraries and colleges. Its universities and hospitals were the most
up-to-date in the world. Nothing now remained but heaps of rubble and