by Sujit Das
The toleration of any sect outside the fold of orthodox Islam is no better than compounding with sin and the worst form of sin [according to Islam] is polytheism, the belief that the one true God has partners in the form of other deities. Such a belief is the rankest ingratitude to Him who gives us our daily bread.
According to Sarkar, the political and religious condition under which the Hindus were forced to live in a Muslim state raised a great barrier between them. The political supremacy of the Muslims was absolute, and the Hindus could not even aspire to it under Islamic rule. Sarkar (cited Syed, 2004, pp. 320-1) wrote,
The poison lay in the very core of Islamic theocracy. Under it there can be only one faith, one people and one all overriding authority. The state is a religious trust administered solely by His people (the Faithful) acting in obedience to the commander of the faithful, who was in theory and very often in practice too, the supreme general of the army of militant Islam.
There could be no place for nonbelievers. Even Jews and Christians could not be full citizens of it, though they somewhat approached the Muslims by reason of their being ‘the people of the book’ or believers in the Bible, which the Prophet of Islam accepted as revealed .
The Quran (IX.29) calls upon the Muslims ‘to fight those who do not profess the true faith, till they pay Jyzia with the hand in humility’. This was a poll-tax payable by Hindus for permission to live in their ancestral homes under a Muslim sovereign.
Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay, the great humanist and the legendary Bengali novelist, believed that Hindu-Muslim unity is impossible because of two reasons. First, Muslims lack culture from birth whereas the Hindus born with culture. Second, Muslims’ full solidarity is for Arabia. Though they live in India, they do not feel any responsibility for India. Gandhi dreamt for Hindu-Muslim unity, but failed miserably. Muslims will never identify themselves with India. Chattopadhyay (Sarat Rachanabali, Vol. 3, p. 475) wrote,
In fact if the Muslims say, ‘We want unity with the Hindus’, it cannot be anything but a deception. One would say that the Muslims invaded India just to plunder, not to set up a kingdom. But they were not satisfied with loot only; they demolished Hindu temples, broke the idols and raped Hindu women. In fact they never spared to do the maximum harm and insult to other people’s religion and humanity”
When the Muslims will come down from their high horse of religion, probably then they will realize a human being cannot be proud with the fundamentalism of his religion, and this is nothing but unparallel barbarism. But the Muslims are yet to go a long way before they realize it. But their eyes will never open unless the whole world together teaches the Muslims a good lesson.
Ambedkar (1940, part 3, ch. 7) had the same opinion as Chattopadhyay, as he wrote, “From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Muslims are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species. For them Divinity is divided and with the division of Divinity their humanity is divided, and with the division of humanity they must remain divided”.
Another well-respected historian, P. N Oak, compared the butchery of innocent Hindus by the Muslim raiders with Hitler’s persecution of the Jews (1996, p. 12). According to Oak (1996, p. 389), “[The history of Islam is] a millennium long devil dance of murder, massacre, rape and plunder, trickery, treachery, tyranny and torture across the world by Islam from the day of its inception”. Islam owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword and deception. If there were no sword and deception, the law of Muhammad would not have established.
In recent years, another two prominent Hindu scholars, Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel have further developed Swami Vivekananda’s position on the subject of Muhammad’s prophethood. According to them, the pagan Arabs had every right to reject Muhammad’s claim. They recognized him as a fake and that his prophetic claim was nothing but a deluded consciousness, which then propagated on a war footing. The history will not forgive them for one mistake – the mistake of being defeated. Actually they failed to understand the deceitful ways of Muhammad and could not match his mailed fist in the final round. It was neither the first nor the last time that a democratic society succumbed in the face of determined gangsterism. We have seen how Stalin, Hitler and Mao tse-tung succeeded in our own times.
Ram Swarup appropriately commented that Muslims need sword to sell their God because their God failed in spirituality. He (1992) wrote, “The need of the time is to examine the whole concept and assumptions of revelatory religions, such as of a particular community being ‘chosen’ as the swordsmen or salesmen of god. When a divine message commands, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, we must give a close look not only to the message but also to the messenger and his source of inspiration”. About Muhammad’s distorted morality and Muslims’ mentality, Ram Swarup (1984, ch. 1, Introduction) wrote,
To rob a whole people is piety, but to remove a paltry something from a looted treasure is moral depravity of a magnitude that deserves eternal fire. Men driven by ordinary temptations indulge only in petty crimes and small lapses, but committing real enormities needs the aid of an ideology, a revelation, a God-ordained mission.
The believers are conditioned to look at the whole thing through the eyes of faith. An infidel in his fundamental ‘misguidance’ may find the Prophet rather sensual and cruel, and certainly many of the things he did, do not conform to ordinary ideas of morality. But the believers look at the whole thing differently. To them morality derives from the Prophet’s actions; the moral is whatever he did. Morality does not determine the Prophet’s actions, but his actions determine and define morality. Muhammad’s acts were not ordinary acts; they were Allah’s own acts .
A book, published during June 1990, Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them (A Preliminary Survey), was a collection of articles written by Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Dubashi, Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel. It is perhaps the first attempt on the part of some prominent scholars to dig from the graveyard of history the identity of some two thousand temples of India destroyed by the Muslim invaders and rulers. The book is not an exercise in rewriting history, but is an effort to present the facts and give a clear view of the truth hitherto unknown. Not only were the temples destroyed but even their materials were used in constructing mosques at those places. This was done obviously to hurt the sentiments of the Hindus. The volume two of the same book was published during March 1993, which contained many further proofs exclusively to Islamic evidence, historical as well theological.
Arun Shourie pointed out many unscientific verses in the Qur’an and criticized its author for his ignorance. Instead of accepting the mistakes about unscientific Qur’anic cosmology, the Islamists try to cover it by silly explanations which further make them a laughing stock. These silly explanations to protect Qur’an from a divine downfall do not bring prestige either to Qur’an or Muhammad. Shourie (2002, p. 468) wrote, “Instead of studying the heaven and earth, we are taught how perverse and distorted interpretations can be put on everything. And how what is being done amounts to calumny upon the Holy Book because what is being proposed is nothing but adding clauses to the Word of God. The duty incumbent upon a Muslim is to make science accept Islam”. Shourie also widely criticized Islam for the ill-treatment of women, deep hatred for the infidels, the cruel Sharia law and the authorities of Mullahs in issuing fatwa. Elsewhere, Shourie quoted many militant and unethical verses of the Qur’an and concluded thatQur’an should be banned (2008, p. 435). Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses was banned because “ it would hurt the feelings of certain group of people”, then under the same reason, Qur’an should be banned because it offends the feelings of the whole non-Muslim world.
In India, whenever a book is published critical to Muhammad, Qur’an or Islam; Muslims demand to ban the book. They usually take shelter under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code for preventing every public discussion of their c
reed in general and of their Prophet in particular. In addition, the clerics issue death sentences against people who have said anything against their religion. But, two heroic sons of India, Himangshu Kishore Chakraborty and Chandmal Chopra, both from Calcutta, turned the table against the Indian Muslims.
On July 20, 1984, Chakraborty wrote to the Secretary, Department of Home Government of West Bengal, demanding the ban of the Qur’an. He wrote again on August 14, 1984, but received no response. Chakraborty thereafter met Chopra, who also wrote to the Department of Home Government on March 16, 1985, but his letter was not answered. Chopra therefore filed a Writ Petition at the Calcutta High Court on March 29, 1985 stating that publication of the Qur’an attracts Sections 153A and 295A of the I.P.C and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code because it “ incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities, and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India ” (Goel, 1987, ch. 1). The details of these lawsuits are recorded in the book Calcutta Qur’an Petition written by Sita Ram Goel.
There are many thoughtful comments from the great thinkers, philosophers, statesmen and historians which speak volumes. These scholars have closely studied the Islamic scriptures, and many of them also had interacted with the Muslims and closely observed them or have been directly affected by Islam. As example; Alexis de Tocqueville (French thinker/historian) commented (cited Spencer, 2005, p. 25), “ I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world. ” And, the quote that perhaps best summarizes Islam comes from John Quincy Adams (cited Blunt & Blunt, 1830, p. 269), “ The essence of his [Muhammad’s] doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth and goodwill towards men ”.
If religion is by definition irrational and prone to violence, Harris posits Islam as the most exemplary in this regard. As he wrote (cited Amarasingam, 2010, p. 41), “ Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death”. Elsewhere Harris commented (cited Cappi, 2007, p. 46), “ As a matter of doctrine, the Muslim conception of tolerance is one in which non-Muslims have been politically and economically subdued, converted, or put to the sword ”.
Unlike the Western scholars, in India, criticism of Islam is relatively less. Several books criticizing Islam and its role in Indian history have been banned only because the politicians do not want to lose the Muslim vote-bank. In 1982, the National Council of Educational Research and Training of India issued a directive for the rewriting of school texts. Among many other things it stipulated that, “ characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden” (cited Knap, 2009, p. 200). Therefore, negationism (denial of history) has become India’s “official” educational policy. To appease the Muslims, the Government of India will not tell Indian children about the Hindu-Kush genocide. The Hindu-Kush is about a 1000 mile long and 200 miles wide mountain range that stretches between central Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. History tells us that the conquest of Afghanistan near 1000 A.D was followed by the slaughter of the entire Hindu populace in the area. That is why the region is called Hindu-Kush, means Hindu-slaughter, where the Hindu slaves from the Indian subcontinent were slaughtered in harsh Afghan mountains to the extent that their blood formed streams that flowed through hillside (Knap, 2009, p. 32). The pre-Islamic name of Hindu-Kush mountain range was Pariyatra Parvata (Savarkar, 1985, p. 206). The policy of negationism is the cause behind the ignorance of Hindus about the real magnitude of the Hindu genocide by Muslim invaders. In spite of this the debate on Islam is going in full force both on the Internet and in the printed form.
In sum; what historians throughout the world are unable to find, even in this twenty-first century, is a name more hateful than Muhammad, a religious book more intolerable and unholy than Qur’an, a God more demonic than Allah and a belief more dangerous than Islam. As Muir commented (1992, p. 522), “ The sword of Mohammad and the Koran are the most stubborn enemies of civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known”.
In the history of all religions and cults, the most successful lecherous man who used God for his personal gain is Muhammad – a liar, thief, murderer and rapist till his last breath. Today more than one billion people believe in Muhammad without knowing his true character. Some of them, who understand, continue to be Muslims because they have redefined their morality and ethics to fit within the teachings of Islam, which are floridly lacking in morality. They, therefore, redefine what is good and evil in order to fit their lives into what is preached by Islam, instead of examining Islam to see if it fits within the good life. As Ataturk, the founder of Modern Turkey commented (cited Peter, 2010, p. 362), “ This is Islam, an absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.”
From the very beginning of Muhammad’s mission, neither Muhammad nor Islam had any shortage of critics. From the point of view of historical truth, only the scholar has the right to criticize, but from ethical or social point view the right of criticism belongs to everyone. Even the most sympathetic scholars seem to have genuine problem with writing about Muhammad as a Prophet under divine guidance and the Qur’an as the authentic word of a God. Muhammad performed so poorly as a Prophet of Allah that he even discredited himself by his own word and actions as we are going to see next.
1.6: Discrediting Muhammad by His Own Words and Conduct
Muhammad’s life was full of contradictions. There is a vast difference between “Muhammad of faith” and “Muhammad of fact”. Often he did not practice what he preached. Qur’an originally treated Muhammad as a humble messenger of Allah but gradually this relationship developed into duality, and finally, Muhammad appeared as God’s superior. This was the time when the whole divine drama of Muhammad was exposed and the lecherous Prophet of Islam hammered a nail in his own coffin. In context of the satanic verses, Tabari and Ibn Sa’d recorded these disgraceful words of Muhammad,
I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken. (Tabari: VI.111).
I ascribed to Allah, what He had not said. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1)
This single confession of Muhammad is enough to disqualify him of his prophetic claim. Muhammad said that he was deceived by Satan and a revelation from Allah confirmed it. But how can we be sure that the second revelation was also not from Satan? The guaranty of “genuineness” of one revelation cannot be another revelation. If Muhammad could be deceived by Satan once, how could he know on all the other occasions that he had not been deceived? How can we ignore the possibility that Gabriel was actually the Satan himself in disguise and hence the whole Qur’an is satanic? Allah challenged in the Qur’an,
And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a Surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful. (Q: 2.23)
Satan took Allah’s challenge and easily produced “a Surah like this”. Muslims believe that Qur’an is miraculous in beauty and no one can make anything to compare to it because it is divine. Satan produced the verses and Muhammad spoke those words from Satan, but everyone including Muhammad himself thought that those verses were part of the Qur’an. Surely those satanic verses sound exactly like those of the Qur’an. If not, then surely Muhammad, his followers and the Quraysh would never have accepted them. The second point is related to Qur’anic verses 15.39-40. According to these two verses, Satan can deceive and mislead only those who are not sincere to Allah. Therefore, if Satan were able to dece
ive Muhammad and distort the revelations of Allah, it follows that Muhammad could not have been a sincere slave of Allah.
There is another way of looking at the above divine mystification. Qur’an says,
Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower. (Q: 6.115).
Qur’an also confirms that the Bible, or in the Islamic language, Taurat, Zabur and Anjeel are the words of God. Thus, they cannot be tampered with, and one can rely upon the truthfulness of the stories that have been narrated therein. Therefore, based on the Qur’anic sanction, we can rely upon the truthfulness of the Bible. Bible (Deuteronomy: 18.20) says,
But the Prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My [God] name which I have not commanded him to speak … that Prophet shall die .
From the above statement we can conclude that either Muhammad was a false Prophet or Qur’an was false. In any case the loser is Muhammad. The satanic verses incident confirms that Qur’an was corrupted. But then Qur’an (6.115) also says that no one can change God’s words. So Qur’an itself confirms that Qur’an is falsified. There is another point to note. Muhammad really had a very painful death. He died as a result of eating poison-mixed food that he did not know about (Bukhari: 5.59.713, 719, 731). If he were a real Prophet, Allah would have warned him in advance by a timely revelation.
According to Qur’an, Muhammad was only a man sent to warn the Meccans and a messenger to convey a divine message to them.
Say: I do not have the power to acquire benefit s or to avert harm from myself, except by the Will of Allah. Had I possessed knowledge of the unseen, I would have availed myself of much that is good, and no harm would have touched me. But I am only a Warner and a bearer of glad tidings for a nation who believe. (Q: 7.188).