IMPERIALISM IN THE GARB OF
ICONOCLASM
IMPERIALISM IN THE GARB OF
ICONOCLASM
Islam's injunctions to its followers to destroy and insult the
other religions are well-known. Churches and synagogues in
Southern Europe and Middle Eastern countries that have been
desecrated by the Moslems in the name of Islam are too many
to cite. The story did not change in the case of the
subcontinent of India either. Their houses of worship were
destroyed, desecrated, the deities stolen and carried away to
be ground to dust or placed below the steps leading to mosques
to be trod upon by Moslem pilgrims. the idea has been to
insult the kafirs.
Of late the followers of Islam seem to have a second thought
on the pheonomenon. A new breed has appeared on the scene
who can be called apologists or public relations men for Islam.
In the early days, Islam did not need any apologists. Anything
done in the name of Islam was already justified and there was
no room for any guilt complex. When Aurangzib executed the
sufi holy man Sarmad, he knew that no apologies were
required. When he tortured the mullahs that had advised his
son to rebel against the father, Aurangzib was certain that no
apologies were needed.
But times have changed and people dc think on their own,
more so among non-Moslems. Among the Moslems, however,
free thinking is taboo, where Islam is concerned. This explains
why this religion did not have any reformers or thinkers to
purify the creed as human civilization progressed. Whatever
was supposed to have been said by the prophet more than a
thousand years ago is supposed to hold good today in its
entirety.
One such apologist of Islam writes in his 'The Life and Times
of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna': "The critics who accuse the
Sultan of wanton bloodshed and reckless spoliation of Hindu
temples forget that these so-called barbarities were committ-
ed in the course of legitimate warfare, when such acts were
sanctioned by the practice of all the great conquerors of the
world. Spoils captured from a defeated enemy have always
been considered lawful property of the victorious army. In
India, however, wealth was accumulated not only in the
coffers of the kings, as in other countries, but also in the
vaults of the temples, which were consecrated in the service
of various deities. The consequence was that, while elsewhere
the capture of the defeated monarch's treasury usually grati-
fied the conqueror's lust for Mammon, in India temples were
also ransacked to secure the piles of gold and precious stones
In fume. The religious considerations rarely carry weight with
a conqueror, and the Sultan does not appear to have been
nfluenced by them in his schemes of conquest".
Quite clearly the apologist calls a simple but ferocious raider
a conqueror. A raider raids and goes away but a conqueror
adds to the conquered country's new system of government,
commerce and industry. William the Conqueror, Napoleon,
Alexander the Great were conquerors who contributed consi-
derable developments to the conquered countries. Not so with
Islamic conquerors. They built mosques on top of the destroy-
ed temples. They violated the women, took slaves, killed non-
combattants. The breed of Islamic raiders cannot be called
conquerors in the true sense of the word. They were grabbers
and could not grow anything themselves. The spirit of
robbery, greed, intolerance toward people of other faiths,
characterize these raiders as a special breed of people and
time has come to look upon them as such and take proper
precautions before it is too late.
All non-Moslems have been extremely tolerant toward the
Moslems. The offending mosques built on the foundations of
destroyed temples, have been allowed to remain and the
Hindus have built new temples near by for a Hindu is reluctant
to destroy the house of worship of anyone. Unfortunately,
such behavior is translated by many Moslems as proven super-
~or~ty of their religion. They can destroy someone else's house
of worship but others cannot do the same to theirs.
During the Pakistani attack on East Pakistan's Hindus, they
destroyed many Hindu temples. It was not to rob the vaults of
the temples but to spite the kafirs and prove the superiority of
Islam. The inherent difference between Islam as a religion and
any other religion is to be recognized. It is the behavior of the
Moslem and his holy book that can provide the key to the
Moslem psyche and his attitude to the non-Moslem world.
The attack on the kafir's religion has not been limited to
physical demolition of the non-Moslem edifices only. The
onslaught has been carried out at the spiritual level as well.
The gods and goddesses of the kafirs have been vilified in
grossest terms by the exponents of Islam. The editor of the
Moslem Daily 'Morning News' of Calcutta once wrote a leading
article on Lord Krishna, the Hindu God of preservation.
Krishna was described as 'the Gay Lothario of Vrindaban'
alluding to so called amorous associations between Krishna and
the girls from many cow-herds' families. The not so informed
Moslem editor did not bother to find out that the escapades he
referred to could not be possible for Krishna was only twelve
year old at the time. How precocious can a twelve year old
be?
Take the case of Jesus Christ for instance. The greatness of
Christ lies in his gentleness. His advice to turn the other cheek
is the epitome of Christian behavior. But Khomeini of Iran has
announced, on more than one occasion, in his speeches to the
believers, that the Christians are erroneous in attributing
these qualities to Jesus Christ. Christ, according to Khomeini,
could never have advised to turn the other cheek for no true
prophet is foolish enough to say such a thing. This was all
concocted by the imperialist and Satanic infidels of Europe
and America to subjugate the peoples of other lands.
The Moslems on the other hand cannot tolerate it if anyone
doubts the words and deeds of their prophet, finds his moral
behavior objectionable vis-'a-vis women or his words irrecon-
citable to his deeds, etc. If anyone expresses doubt on
Mohammed's climbing to Islam's paradise on the back of the
winged horse called Barq, then it becomes a blasphemy.
The Moslem blames everyone for some kind of idolatry The
Hindus have their gods and goddesses from a big pantheon of
deities. The Christians have their trinity and they call Jesus
the son of God. To a Moslem these are sacrilegeous attri
buses. But when it comes to adoring the hair of the prophet
which is said to be stored in the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir
then it is all right. No one can call it idolatry then! But for a
Buddhist to show his veneration in front of the temple in
Ceylon that houses the toe-nails of Buddha, is'kufr'.
Naturally, it becomes very difficult to comprehend the psy-
chology of the followers of Islam in these days of logic and
reason.
(c) A.GHOSH 1998If
you enjoyed this article, please visit: http://www.hinduunity.org
|
