ISLAM IN ACTION II - By
A.Ghosh
CHAPTER 10
ISLAM IN ACTION II
Islam appeared on the world scene some 630 years after
the birth of Christianity. By the time Mohammed proclaimed
himself a prophet in 610 A.D., Christianity had already spread
over those countries in Europe, Asia and Africa which had
formed parts of the Roman Empire at the height of its
expansion. One would say that the desert of Arabia did not
count for much in the eyes of the Christian missionaries.
Some however had visited the southern parts of the peninsula
and made some converts. But the 'chosen ones' had been left
to live alone in the company of Arab 'heathen' and the
accursed Jew' who had quite a few colonies in the oases
spread over the central and northern parts of the desert.
Little did the Christian missionaries suspect that the
'heathens' of Arabia were to challenge very soon the dictates
of the Christian Church.
'Islam' is derived from the Arabic word 'salam' and has
been presented to mean 'peace' or 'surrender', depending upon
the time and place of presentation. IN A COUNTRY AND AT
A TIME WHERE AND WHEN MOSLEMS ARE NOT IN POWER,
IT IS PRESENTED AS 'PEACE'. BUT AS SOON AS THE
MOSLEMS BECOME DOMINANT IT MEANS 'SURRENDER',
AND THAT TOO AT THE POINT OF THE SWORD. The
surrender is supposed to be made to Allah the only God
according to Islam. But Allah is sure to spurn the surrender
unless it is preceded by a surrender to the prophet, the sole
Spokesman for Allah. In effect, it means a surrender to
whichever mullah happens to be hailed as authentic interpreter
of the Koran and the Hadis, in the eyes of the sultan who
wields the sword, the sole arbiter in matters moral and
Spiritual. In fact, even in Islamic jurisprudence, the Arabic
word 'faisalah' which means 'settlement' is derived from the
Word 'faisal' which means 'sword'. While Jesus was not the
founder of the Christian Church and had nothing to do with the
dogmas of Christianity, the 'umm' or 'millet', which means
'society', became the vehicle of Islam. The 'millet' was
founded and given a finished form, as well as a fanatic
ideology, by Mohammed himself. Again, while the personality,
preachings and performance of Jesus can be pitted against the
Church and its dogma, there is little in Islam which is not
derived directly from the personality, preachings and perfor-
mance of its prophet.
a) ALLAH AND HIS PROPHET
What exactly happened to Mohammed in the mountain cave
outside Mecca has remained a controversial question. We are
told by the theologians of Islam that his 'experience' is not
verifiable by any other human being, nor his 'revelation'
subject to human reason. One has to accept Mohammed's word
that he was the 'last' and the 'most perfect' prophet, and that
whatever he said or did in a state of 'wahi' (trance) or
otherwise was the pronouncement and precription from
'almighty' Allah.
Those who took Mohammed at his word and accepted his
prophethood were acclaimed by him as 'momins' while those
who rejected his mission were denounced as kafirs. The word
'momin' means 'believer' in Mohammed and Allah. The
'momins' did not have to be better men than the kafirs in
terms of consciousness or character. They had only to recite
the 'kalima' (incantation) - 'there is no god but Allah, and
Mohammed is His prophet' - and they become qualified to kill
as many kafirs as they could or pleased, looting and burning
their belongings and enslaving their women and children in the
process.
Allah himself had been a part of the Arab pantheon at Mecca
for many centuries past. He had shared his divinity with a
large number of other gods and goddesses worshipped by the
Arabs in Mecca, though he enjoyed a certain primacy. The
Bedouin, who roamed the desert, flocked to Mecca at appoint-
ed times for pilgrimage, and worshipped his gods and goddesses
with whatever offerings he could spare from his meager
possessions. Neither the Bedouins nor the settled citizens of
Arabia had ever suspected that their Allah was soon going to
become the sole @#%$ of the walk and the cause of a bloody
and prolonged strife in many parts of the world.
It is also debatable why Mohammed chose Allah alone, out of a
large-sized Arab pantheon. He could have easily bestowed this
singular honor on any other god or goddess in Mecca, or in the
temple of some other town in Arabia. The gods and goddesses
had obviously no choice in the matter. THE ONLY RATIONAL
EXPLANATION IS THAT THE SOUND OF THE NAME ALLAH
WAS NEAR TO THE SOUND OF ELOHIM [1], THE GOD OF
THE JEWS. Jesus had also cried out to Eli before he died on
the cross. There are too many Judaic elements in Islam to rule
out this explanation. But whatever the reason for
Mohammed's choice, there is no reason to doubt that Allah
would not have assumed the status he did without the help of
Mohammed. It is small wonder that Allah in his turn felt so
tender toward Mohammed, and proclaimed the latter to be the
last and the most perfect prophet in human history.
Things started happening soon after the covenant between
Allah and his only prophet was struck in the mountain cave
outside Mecca, through the good offices of an angel named
Gabriel. The 'Qurayza' who were the dominant tribe in Mecca
would not have minded a number of their clan acclaiming
Allah as the only God. They were used to such prophets
appearing in Mecca and other Arabian towns, every now and
then. They were a liberal people in matters of religion and did
not mind how a man fancied himself or his God. But they were
painfully surprised by the proclivities of this new prophet. He
had started frequenting the forum outside the kaaba to de-
nounce, in a rather strong language, all that they had cherish-
ed so far - their gods and goddesses, their cultural traditions,
their social system, and what not - day in and day out.
Moslem mullahs have made a martyr out of Mohammed during
his 12 years of prophethood at Mecca. They have explained
away or justified the vindictiveness of Mohammed toward his
own people of 'Qurayza' by citing the 'many injustices includ-
ing violence' which Mohammed had 'suffered' at Mecca. No
contemporary records of the 'Qurayza' have survived to tell
the other side of the story. But there is enough evidence in
the contemporary Islamic record to clinch the issue as to who
was the aggressor and who the aggressed against. Here was a
man sending all ancestors of the Arabs, including his own
mother and father, to an eternal hell, and promising the same
hell to the present and future generations of the Arabs, unless
they accepted him as the only prophet of the only Allah. The
'Qurayza' would have been a dead people indeed if they had not
reacted, and told Mohammed to leave their city for wherever
he could find a more attentive audience.
It is for this 'crime' of the 'Qurayza' that Moslem mullahs
have blackened the religion and culture of pre-Islamic Arabia
as 'jahiliya' or ignorance. THE MULLAHS FORGET THAT
THE ARABIC LANGUAGE WHICH IS THEIR PROUD POSSES-
SION IN THE KORAN AND THE HADIS WAS NOT INVENTED
BY THEIR PROPHET AT THE MOMENT, NOR 'REVEALED'
BY ALLAH OUT OF THE BLUE. The rich language had a long
ancestry, and reflected the genius of a culture which was deep
as well as endowed with diverse dimensions. The pre-Islamic
Arabs were a pagan people who allowed a god or goddess each
according to his or her need and who respected worship from
each according to his or her capacity. They had many other
qualities of head and heart which the post-Islamic Arab
society and culture came to lose progressively. A glimpse of
pre-Islamic Arabia is given in appendix IV.
Islam professes to have brought peace to the warring tribes of
Arabia. But its own chronicles tell of nothing except wars,
more fierce than ever before, which the Arabs fought, first
among themselves, and later on with their near and distant
neighbors on all sides, soon after they were forced to surren-
der to Islam.
b) THE 'MOMINS' AND THE KAFIRS
If we leave aside the myths and legends which Islam borrowed
from Judaism - lock, stock and barrel - the message of Islam
was very simple, almost simplistic.
To start with, it divided the Arabian society in two tight
compartments, the 'momins' and the kafirs. The 'momins' were
asked to muster together into a militant'millat'- armed to the
teeth, and ready to use force and/or fraud according as
occasion demanded. The 'millet' surprised the settlements and
the caravans of the kafirs in a series of armed raids or
ghazzuas'. The kafirs who were always caught unawares had
no choice but to surrender, many a time without a single
skirmish. The swordsmen of the 'millet' selected and slaugh-
tered, in cold blood, all kafirs who were capable of bearing
arms. The movable and immovable property of the kafirs were
appropriated by the 'millet'. The women and children of the
kafirs were captured and sold as slaves or freed for ransom,
after members of the 'millet' had their pick of the maidens
Once in a while, the 'millet' discovered that the kafirs were in
no mood to surrender in spite of the surprise, and that the
armed conflict might turn out to its disadvantage. Then the
'millet' made overtures of peace on the condition that the
kafirs got converted to Islam. The lives and families of the
converts were spared but not their properties which were
taken away as booty.
The mullahs take pride that Islam did away with tribal ties and
united all Arabs in one brotherhood. It must be admitted that
the 'millet's' method of doing away with tribal ties was very
effective indeed. Quite often one or several members of a
family or tribe happened to be 'momins', while their other
kinsmen were ranged against them as kafirs. The 'millet'
encouraged a brother to engage his brother in armed combat,
so that one of them was sure to get killed. In case of kafirs
who had to be slaughtered after the war, the 'millet' searched
its own ranks for the nearest kinsmen to perform the 'pious'
deed. A 'momin' was supposed to retain or recognise no
relationship except that of a common creed. All other
humanities were now rendered irrelevant.
The 'mominst were not of course risking their lives for nothing.
Four-fifths of the booty and prisoners captured in war was
theirs in accordance with a 'law' laid down by the prophet
himself. The prisoners included quite a number of fair and
young maidens who could set any tmomin's' mouth watering.
No wonder that the infant state of Islam at Medina was able to
assemble very soon quite a number of 'dedicated' swordsmen
without spending a penny from its own coffers. The principle
of free enterprise applied to plunder and pillage was function-
ing with full force.
In case a 'momin' got killed in the 'holy war', he was promised
a permanent place in heaven. The Koran said: "They shall
recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait
on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of
purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away
their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls
that they relish. And theirs shall be dark-eyed houris, chaste
as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds." According to
one
tradition, quoted by Will Durant, each 'momin' was promised 72
of these houris, who would never age or stop being solicitous
According to other traditions, the number could be many times
more. It was surely an added attraction.
The balance one-fifth of the booty and prisoners of war were
assigned to the Islamic state which the prophet had set up at
Medina to start with, and which moved to other cities in due
course, under the caliph or 'amir-ul-mominin'. This one-fifth
had to be the pick of the bunch before members of a military
expedition could claim their share. No wonder that the
Islamic state at Medina was very soon rolling in riches. The
wealth which flowed to the Islamic state in later times grew
progressively in volume and variety, and the stage was set for
the flowering of that Islamic 'culture' in which the 'millet'
takes such mighty pride. The prophet and the earlier caliphs,
who controlled and commanded these riches, were inclined to
lead a life of 'poverty'. This 'piety' impressed the 'momins'
who had to be satisfied with much less, and served to create
many myths about Islamic 'ideal of equality'. The "equality'
never made any difference to the despotic power which the
prophet and later on, the caliphs had at their disposal.
c) SWEEP OF THE ISLAMIC SWORD
The prophet of Islam had proclaimed that Allah had assigned
the whole world to the 'millet'. Not a patch was to be left for
the kafirs to dwell. And no corner of the world was to be
bereft of mosques from which the 'muezzin' could call the
'faithful' to prayer. But it seems that Allahts knowledge of
geography was not so good. His prophet had not heard of many
lands beyond Syria, Iraq, Persia, Ethiopia and Egypt. He knew
nothing of El Cid's Spain, or Conrad de Montierrat's France or
the land of Richard the Lion-Hearted. He knew nothing about
India and the Hindus which want of knowledge was to lead to
an interesting theological controversy later on.
Notwithstanding this lack of geographical knowledge, the
prophet divided the world into two contending spheres: 'darul-
slam' (the zone of peace where the Moslems were the
dominant element) and 'darul-Harb' (the zone of war, where
the non-Moslems or kafirs held sway). The inhabitants of
'darul-lslam', that is, the Moslems were commanded to wage
unceasing war upon 'darul-Harb' till the latter was converted
to 'darul-lslam'. The frontiers of the Islamic empire were to
be pushed progressively in all directions. The theory of
Islamic imperialism was thus perfected by the prophet himself,
like the later-day theory of communist imperialism which
Lenin elaborated as international proletarian revolution'.
The whole of Arabia had been terrorised into surrendering to
the sword of Islam by the time the prophet passed away in 632
A.D. The militarised 'millet' which had 'elected' an 'amir-ul-
mominin' in the same year, now started seeking fresh fields for
the misson of Islam. Persia had exhausted herself in unceasing
war with the Roman Empire. The provinces of the Roman
Empire in Asia and North Africa were seething with rebellion
against persecution of 'heresies' by the Church at Rome which
had by now reduced every other ecclesiastical dispensation to
a subordinate status. Persia and the Roman provinces fell in
quick succession after the armies of Islam had first found out
the feebleness of their defenses, and then delivered decisive
blows.
Thus within a hundred years after the death of the prophet,
the 'amir-ul-mominint at Damascus became the master of a
mighty empire, spread over Spain, Sicily, North Africa, Egypt,
Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, Khorasan and Sindh. It was a
military triumph unprecedented in the annals of human history
so far. The triumph could be easily explained in terms al
political and military causes and consequences. But the
mullahs chose to attribute it to the might of Allah which has
been 'fully and finally thrown on the side of Islam'. Hence-
forth, there was no justification for anyone to dwell in the
'darkness of 'kufr". The 'light' of Islam was now accessible
to
all.
The newly conquered countries were inhabited not by thinly
spread out tribal settlements but by populous societies, urban
and rural. It was no more possible for the 'momins' to kill all
kafirs who rejected Islam or capture and carry away all their
women and children. Besides, the properties the kafirs pos-
sessed, and the lands on which they lived were so voluminous
and vast. The mullahs, therefore, developed a more elaborate
theory of an Islamic state, out of the embryo of principles
which the prophet had already propounded.
The 'millet' led by the 'amir-ul-mominin' was, of course, the
master class under the Islamic state. But this state had a
mission larger than providing power and privilege to the
'millet'. The state had to see to it that the kafirs who had
been conquered were brought into the fold of Islam as fast as
possible. The kafirs were, therefore, given a new status- that
of 'zimmis' to start with. The 'zimmis' were allowed to live
under the aegis of an Islamic state, provided they agreed to
pay 'jiziya' (poll-tax) and other discriminatory taxes, and
accepted a status of second class citizens placed under draco-
nian disabilities. It was expected that the burden of taxes and
the disgrace of disabilities would force the kafirs to get
converted into Islam before long.
The expectation was more than fulfilled in most countries
except Spain, Sicily and India. THE KAFIRS IN OTHER
COUNTRIES WERE NOT ONLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM BUT
WERE ALSO BRAINWASHED TO FULMINATE AGAINST
THEIR ANCIENT HERITAGE, AND FORGET THAT THEY
HAD BEEN CONQUERED BY A FOREIGN RACE AND
CREED.
The mullahs applaud the concept of a 'zimmi' and describe it
as a privileged position because, Unlike the 'momins', the
'zimmis' are exempted from military servicer. It is difficult to
know how the mullahs arrived at this self-congratulatory
conclusion. They certainly did not consult any kafir to find
out if he wanted to become a 'zimmi' and be 'exempted' from
military service. THE WHOLE THING WAS A DELIBERATE
EVICE ADOPTED IN ORDER TO DISARM AND EMASCU-
LATE A SUBJECT POPULATION. People who could not bear
arms were in no position to defend themselves against Islamic
barbarities which became more pronounced with the passing of
every day, in direct proportion to the establishment of 'salam'
or Peace' under the Islamic state.
The Islamic state allowed some time to the kafirs to 'mend'
their ways and receive the 'true revelation'. But it had no
patience for the religious and cultural institutions of the
kafirs. IT SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED AND DESE-
CRATED THE TEMPLES AND SHRINES OF THE KAFIRS,
KILLED THEIR PRIESTS, BURNT THEIR SCRIPTURES AS
WELL AS SECULAR LITERATURE, CLOSED THEIR
SCHOOLS AND MONASTERIES AND HEAPED INSULT AND
INJURY ON EVERY PRECEPT AND PRACTICE THAT THEY
HAD CHERISHED SO FAR. It completed the job of 'cleaning
up' the scene thoroughly. The conquered lands were at the
same time 'adorned' with mosques and 'mazars' [2] in which the
mullahs mugged up the Koran and the Hadis, the sufis ser-
monised on the sublimation they had 'attained'.
d) ISLAM: AN ALIBI FOR IMPERIALISM
For several centuries after its advent, Islam was an alibi for
Arab imperialism. And it was an imperialism of a type which
the world had not known so far. THE ARABS NOT ONLY
IMPOSED THEIR RUTHLESS RULE AND TOTALITARIAN
CREED ON THE COUNTRIES THEY CONQUERED; THEY
ALSO POPULATED THESE COUNTRIES WITH A PROLIFIC
PROGENy WHCH THEY PROCREATED ON NATIVE WOMEN.
Every Arab worth his race 'married' scores, sometimes hun-
dreds of these helpless women after their menfolk had all been
killed. Divorce of a wedded wife had been made very easy by
the 'law' of Islam. A man could go on marrying and divorcing
at the rate of several women during the span of a single day
and night. What was more convenient, there was no restric-
tion on the number of concubines a man could keep. The Arab
Conquerors used these male privileges in full measure. And in
a matter of a hundred years, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Egypt and
North Africa which had been non-Arab countries for countless
ages became Arabic-speaking countries. Arabic did not spread
like English, French or other similar languages that spread
through commercial and diplomatic excellence of the lending
nation and filtered through the top strata of the receiving:
countries. Arabic was injected through all strata of the
conquered population which did not have much choice in the
matter. Thus we have a series of countries that are 'Arabic' in
race, culture and language extending from Iraq to Morocco.
CONVERSION WAS NOT CONFINED TO CREED ALONE, IT
COVERED ONE'S ANCESTRY AS WELL.
The Arab power declined in due course. The mission of Islam
was next taken over by the Turks whom the Arabs had
converted earlier. It was the Turks who succeeded where the
Arabs had failed - conquering Asia Minor, invading Central
Asia, India and Eastern Europe. ASIA MINOR WAS WRESTED
FROM CHRISTIANITY, CONVERTED EN MASSE, AND POPU-
LATED BY A PROLIFIC TURKISH PROGENY. IT IS KNOWN
AS TURKEY TODAY. Central Asia, which was already
Turkish, became Islamic as well. It was only in Eastern Europe
and India that the Turks failed in the final round. But in both
places, they crystallized colonies of native Moslems to carry
forward the politics of conversion under changed circum-
stances. How far that politics will progress in the future
depends upon whether the kafir societies in these lands under-
stand it or not, at present.
Footnotes
1. See appendix IV for another view.
If you
enjoyed this article, please visit: http://www.hinduunity.org
|
