Islam in India: History


   It is a daunting task to compress the history of thirteen hundred years into a few pages and so we have highlighted only some important but less known events of this period. Simply put by Leftist (and also some British) historians it appears that Muslim invaders simply walked into India and held it tightly for over a thousand years until the British in turn conquered it from them. This is contrary to facts which we have highlighted in this essay. The period has been covered objectively by Dr. S. D. Kulkarni in “Encounter with Islam”1 of the BHISHMA series.

   Common Historical Misconceptions

   It will be a surprise to most readers who have been fed on the establishment history books to know that it is the Hindus who resisted the onslaught of Arabs for over two centuries unlike the regions west and north of Arabia which succumbed immediately. It took over five hundred years for the Arabs and Turks to lay a foundation for their empire in India and another two centuries before a stable Empire could be formed after Akbar’s reign (1556-1605 AD) which also perished after a century. The chronology of important events is given in Appendix B.

   It is also a mistake to assume that the Arabs ruled India2. Actually the Arabs did not rule India except Sindh for 150 years and a small kingdom in Madurai (in Tamil Nadu, which was finished by the Vijaynagar empire around 40 years after its foundation) for a few years, although many Arab families settled in the country. The rulers were mostly Turks and Afghans (several Turk families had settled in Afghanistan from where they came into India) and senior officers apart from them also included those from Iran.

   It should be noted that the Turkish race originated in Central Asia which was mostly a part of the erstwhile Soviet Union. In fact the Turks were initially imported as slaves, both domestic and military, from beyond the eastern borders of Islam in the ninth century. They gradually rose to high ranks in the military and ultimately took over the Muslim world as empire builders. From 960 AD onwards whole Turkish tribes got converted and these converts moved to the Middle-East in waves and changed the whole demography of the region including the present day Turkey3. The Turks accepted Islam without any reservations, sank their national identity in it and became its greatest champions even pushing the Arabs to the background. Later on they were joined by another central Asian tribe, the mostly (formerly & nominally) Buddhist Mongols.

   Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar (1891-1956), a Hindu apostate who converted to Buddhism and has written a lot against Hinduism and was the architect of India’s Constitution, states in his book on Pakistan 4: “These invasions of India by Muslims were as much invasions of India as they were wars among the Muslims themselves. This fact has remained hidden because the invaders are all lumped together as Muslims without distinction. But as a matter of fact, they were Tartars, Afghans and Mongols. … They were not a loving family cemented by the feeling of Islamic brotherhood. They were deadly rivals of one another and their wars were often wars of mutual extermination. What is, however, important to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts they were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu Faith.”

   It should also be noted that these rulers considered the local converted Muslims as second class Muslims. Aurangzeb (1617-1707, who ruled from 1658-1707), for instance, has often remarked ‘We Turks, you Hindusthanis’ to both Indian Hindus and Muslims. Even in the ‘enlightened’ Moghul period (mostly from 1526-1707), over seventy percent of the senior administrative and military posts were in the hands of Muslim foreigners. There are only a few instances of local Indian Muslims establishing kingdoms like the Sultans of Gujarat and the Nizamshahi of Ahmednagar. Hence there is no substance to the claim by Indian Muslims that they ruled over India for over a thousand years. That even this claim is not true can be seen from the Table given below. It will also be noted that the local Muslims along with their Hindu brethren could not live in peace and tranquility in these tumultuous times in spite of receiving a more favourable treatment from their rulers.

   The Hindu kingdoms put up a sustained and valorous resistance to the invaders. It should be remembered that many of the accounts of the Muslim period have been written by Muslim and some British historians and are both distorted and exaggerated in their favour. But ultimately the Hindus in spite of their valour, could not prevent the Muslim invaders from running over India. Many reasons can be given for this. The greatest fault lies in them not studying the scriptures and psychology of the invaders which would have given a clue to their behaviour. Their standards of dharmic i.e. ethical warfare were not reciprocated by the invaders.

   When they (invaders) lost, they were magnanimously pardoned and allowed to go back. But they used the reprieve only to regroup and attack treacherously again. The Hindus never understood that treachery was an intrinsic feature of their religion practiced by no less a person than their prophet. [“Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allâh and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allâh’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).” The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b, pretended to be have left Muhammad, and even maligned him and as soon as Ashraf lowered his guard and came down to meet him, he stabbed him and killed him. [Bukhari, 5.59.369]]

   Unfortunately this lacunae still persists even today. The Hindus also always fought defensively that is only when they were attacked and then too it was each king for himself. Their intelligence was inadequate if not absent and the enemy could always spring an element of surprise leaving no time for the rulers to equip themselves adequately (except during the time of Shivaji who ruled from 1664 to 1680 and kept a very good intelligence, and some of his successors of the Maratha empire). The Hindus also lacked skills of military organisation, a forte of Muslims.

   Never did the Hindu rulers, even after convincing victories adopt an aggressive posture and take the trouble of uniting their forces and drive out the invaders once for all from the subcontinent (i.e. the boundaries of today’s India, Pakistan & Bangladesh which was all a part of India before Partition in 1947) and then fortifying the borders. Other shortcomings were excess of superstition, lack of adequate espionage and not keeping the military machine up-to-date.

   It may not be farfetched to describe these Islamic invasions as asuric i.e. demonic. Ambedkar quoted above states in his book on Pakistan:

   “Muhammad of Ghazni ‘demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captured…cities, killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters, and gratifying Muslims’…Muhammad bin Qasim’s first act of religious zeal was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured city of Debul…. Muhammad of Ghazni from the first adopted those plans that would strike terror into the heart of Hindus….Not infrequently the slaughter of the Hindus gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of the Hindus….Even in the reign of Shah Jahan, we read of the destruction of the temples that the Hindus had started to rebuild…it was left to Aurangzeb to make a final attempt to overthrow idolatry… Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were captured in the holy war. But, when there was no war the systematic abasement of the Hindus played no unimportant part in the methods adopted by the Muslim invaders…all this was not the result of mere caprice or moral perversion. On the other hand, what was done was in accordance with the ruling ideas of the leaders of Islam in the broadest aspects.”

   The British who ruled India later have called this period as the Muslim Period (instead of Turkish Period) and claimed that they captured power from them. By the same logic the European period should also have been called as the Christian Period! Again most of the important conquests of the British of the cities of Delhi, Agra, Lahore and Peshawar, and the bulk of the territory were from Marathas, Sikhs and other non-Muslim rulers. Only the regions in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Bengal, Bihar, Sindh and middle and eastern Uttar Pradesh in India were captured from the Muslim rulers.


   Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam was born in 570 AD. From 622 AD when he went to Madina until his death in 632 AD i.e. in a short span of just ten years he consolidated Arabia into a single political and religious unit with his undoubted abilities as a proselytiser and General. The Caliphs who succeeded Muhammad, in spite of internal politicking and bickering, expanded the boundaries of the Muslim Empire within the next 10 – 12 years to cover the territories of the two great powers of the time, the Byzantine and the Sassanid empires.

   Between 637 and 651 AD Persia was conquered and the Islamic borders touched Afghanistan (Gandhara i.e. today’s Kandhahar) which was then a part of India. Egypt fell in 641 AD. By 718 AD Spain was conquered. Even Southern France was annexed for a few years. Within one hundred years of the Prophet’s death, the Arabs became the masters of a vast region extending from the Bay of Biscay to the Indus and the frontiers of China, and from the Aral sea to the Upper Nile.

   As for India, Caliph Umar had sent a naval expedition in 636 AD itself to capture the port of Thane (now a suburb of Mumbai), but the attack was successfully repulsed. Immediately thereafter the ports of Broach in Gujarat and Debal in Sindh were unsuccessfully attacked. Umar wanted to avenge these defeats by attacking Makran (Baluchistan), but the Governer of Iran, Abu Musa, realising that it will be futile in view of the strength of the ruler of Sindh, Chachrai, advised him that ‘…He should no more think of Hind (i.e. India)’. It should be noted that this happened at the time when the Arab armies were marching victoriously in the west. Umar wisely decided to concentrate on expanding his sway over Turkish speaking territories of outer Mongolia, Bukhara, Tashkand, Samarkand etc.

   During Ali’s reign (656–661 AD), his army invaded Sindh again under the leadership of General Heras, which advanced upto Kikan where it was routed with severe losses incurred by them. During the Caliphate of Muwahiyah, six expeditions were lead by the Arabs to capture Sindh but without success. It was only in 680 AD after many attempts and a fierce campaign that Makran or Baluchistan (in today’s Pakistan, then a part of India) was finally subjugated.

   Thereafter, no attempt was made for the next thirty years to extend the rule to Sindh proper. In 708 AD, 4000 soldiers under the command of Budial attacked Debal but their army was routed. A larger well equipped force was sent under the leadership of Muhammad bin Kasim. With treachery they captured Debal and advanced to Fort Raor with the help of some Buddhists. Here Dahir, the king of Sindh proved to be an easy target on his elephant.

   In spite of stiff resistance from his wife and son, Muhammad captured Sindh including Multan after a year in 713 AD. At this stage Muhammad was recalled and there was again a revival of Hindu power and the Arabs were able to retain only a toehold of land along the coastal strip. In 718 AD, Junaid the then Governor of Sindh again defeated Dahir’s son and pressed forward into Gujarat and Kashmir, where their advances were checked by Pulakesin and Lalitaditya respectively and thus the Arabs were again confined only to Sindh.

   Conversions to Islam through political pressure began with the conquest of Sindh and Multan by Muhammad bin Qasim between 711 and 713. There was a stiff resistance from Hindus unlike in the West. The Hindus reverted to their old faith as soon as the Arabs turned their back! Hence Muhammad bin Kasim, according to the ruling Ulema of Damascus, accorded Hindus and Buddhists the status of dhimmis (protected subjects) following the precedent set with regard to Zoroastrians. The dhimmis’ willingness to pay Jizyah (poll tax) in addition to other taxes, collectively known as khiraj, meant that they were permitted to repair their places of worship. They were allowed to retain the high offices they had held previously and to worship the gods in their temples.

   Thus the former Hindu and Buddhist governing classes became the counterpart of dihqan (hereditary village leader) class of Iran and Transoxonia. They acted as intermediaries between the Cultivators and the conquerors who belonged to the military class and had little administrative experience. Muslims became friendly with their Hindu neighboring states and entered into alliances with them. Muslim travelers, merchants and saints freely roamed all over India and later proved to be spies for the Muslim rulers. The liberal Muslim policy lulled the Hindus into complacence and weakened their spirit of resistance.

   Coming to Afghanistan, there were two kingdoms, Kabul (then known as Kapisha) and Zabul, ruling the region. The kingdom of Zabul lay south of present day Kabul and was ruled by the Hindu dynasty called Shahs or Shahias. Afghanistan, as late as the seventh century, formed part of India both politically and culturally and constituted the borders of India. Immediately after the fall of Persia, the Muslims turned their attention to it.

   After initial attacks which were repulsed, the province of Seistan was annexed in 653 AD. They lost it for a while in 683 AD. Attempts to annex the rest of the kingdom were made repeatedly but Ranbal, the ruler repulsed them with bravery. Ultimately, by deceit both kingdoms were captured by the Turk Yakub in 870 AD thus ending the glorious resistance of this border state against mighty hordes for over two hundred years. Even then the kingdom was not fully subjugated and the Shahis continued to rule Kabul until the ruler of Ghazni, Subuktigin, finally conquered Kabul in 987 AD.

   Penetrating the Indian Heartland

   Subuktigin’s son, the famous Muhammad (of Ghazni), also called as Mahmud of Ghazni, ascended the throne in 998 AD and ruled until his death in AD 1030. He invaded India 17 times between AD 1001 & AD 1027. He was a military genius of a high order. He first annexed large territories of Persia and then turned his attention towards India, the largest bastion of idolaters. The earlier attacks were mainly for loot and plunder and the powerful Hindu rulers like the Imperial Guptas of Magadh and Shahis of Afghanistan could contain these. But now Muhammad wanted to over run this ancient civilization with the intention of wiping out Hindus and Hinduism.

   Muhammad (or Mahmud) first attacked Jaipal of Peshawar. The latter was narrowly defeated and unable to bear that defeat, committed suicide. His son Anandpal who succeeded him was also defeated and had to escape to Kashmir. But instead of learning his lesson he offered help to Muhammad when the latter was attacked by another Turkish leader, expecting that he will win Muhammad’s lifelong friendship! This was obviously not reciprocated and Muhammad attacked him again in 1008 AD after quelling the rebellion.

   Anandpal sought the assistance of neighbouring Hindu rulers. The rival armies camped facing each other for forty days and then a bitter battle ensued. Unfortunately, just as the Hindu forces were about to win, the elephant carrying the king was scared with naphtha balls, and when the army saw it fleeing, lost its courage and fled. But Muhammad too had to return back to Ghazni at that time. After Anandpal’s death, Muhammad attacked again in 1013 AD and gradually eliminated his successors until 1026 AD. Thus the Shahi kingdom which guarded the borders of India for 1500 years since 500 BC came to an end.

   Muhammad now turned his attention to other territories. He attacked the Chandellas in 1018 AD. When he saw the powerful enemy army facing him, he returned to Ghazni. The Chandella army at this stage could have decisively finished him, but as usual it was another instance of misplaced generosity. He again returned in 1022 AD but could not penetrate the fort of Kalinjar. Hence he made peace by giving costly gifts to the ruler. Having failed in these attempts he turned his attention to the famous Somnath temple on the western coast (in Gujarat, India). He chose a route via Multan and barren deserts so that he did not have to encounter opposition from the Hindu kings. The 20,000 strong army of the Chalukya king could not stop him and he reached Somnath. This was a well guarded fort and a siege was laid to it. After a bitter struggle lasting for several days, Muhammad penetrated the fort, broke the idol and looted all the temple treasure. He chose another infrequent and difficult route so that the neighbouring powerful Hindu kings could not avenge the desecration and recover the loot. But in the process he could barely manage to reach Ghazni and enroute the Jats of Sindh looted (i.e. got back) much of the wealth carried away from Somnath.

   It is obvious that the accounts of Muslim historians are highly exaggerated. It will be a surprise to many that he had a large Hindu army which he obviously did not use in India. Muhammad died in 1030 AD and there was a fratricidal struggle for the throne which ultimately resulted in the end of this dynasty. He looted massive wealth, gold, silver, other idols, slaughtered thousands and thousands of Hindus, forcibly converted many, and took as slaves thousands in all his invasions of India. In just one of his invasions in 1020 AD, he took 53,000 prisoners as slaves to be sold in Iran.

   Muhammad’s raids encouraged other Muslims also to carry out surprise raids and one such party even reached Banaras i.e.  Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. The Hindu chiefs got together and decided to meet the challenge. They joined forces and attacked the Muslim army at Kahsala and convincingly defeated it. The Ghaznavides were completely routed from all areas except Multan and Lahore. This was in June 1033 AD at Behraich near Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh, India when Salar Masood Ghazni, nephew of Mahmud Ghazni (son of Mahmud’s sister) was killed with his entire Army with not a single Muslim soldier of Masood’s Army left alive. Raja Bhoj who ruled for around 50 years from 1000 to 1050 AD played a big role in this defeat of Masood.

   The tomb of Salar Masood Ghazni is still there in Behraich, Uttar Pradesh. It was an alliance of about 17 Hindu kings. The statue of Raja Suhel Dev, who was one of those 17 and who played a big role in this rout of Salar Masood Ghazni along with Raja Bhoj is also still there in Behraich. After this, it must have seemed to the Indians that Islam was a settled matter, a problem of the past. This victory gave India freedom from Islamic invasions for the next century and a half. For the next few decades the Hindus lived in peace but they did not make any effort to eliminate the marauders from the subcontinent. In fact many Muslim merchants, Sufis and Mullahs settled in various parts of the country and later acted as spies. But this glorious episode of Indian history, of the victory over Salar Masood in 1033 AD has been completely suppressed by Leftist historians in India.

   Meanwhile the Ghoris replaced the Ghaznis in Kabul. Shahabuddin Ghori fortified Multan and attacked Gujarat in 1178 AD but his army was routed. He therefore captured southern Sindh and Lahore. Prithviraj Chauhan ruled Delhi then. Ghori attacked the Bhatinda fort in 1189 AD and captured it because of lax defense. Prithviraj was annoyed and with a large army laid a siege in 1191. In the fierce battle that ensued Shahabuddin’s army was completely routed and he had to flee. Prithviraj committed a big mistake by pardoning Ghori despite routing him, instead of doing what was done to Salar Masood in 1033 AD. But for this mistake, not only did Prithviraj Chauhan pay with his own life along with that of 100 thousand soldiers later, but India also suffered massively for many years, with massacres of Hindus & forced conversions and slavery.

   After this defeat of Ghori in 1191 several more attacks were made but they were repulsed. But at no time did the Hindus wage an attack on enemy territory to eliminate the enemy from their soil. Their tactics were purely defensive. Shahabuddin now practiced deceit. He first sent a message asking Prithviraj to become a Muslim. When this was refused he asked for truce until he received his brother’s instructions. Prithviraj fell for the ruse and spent the night in revelry. The same night Ghori made a surprise attack from the rear. In the Fierce battle that ensued, Prithviraj lost his life along with 1 lakh i.e. 100 thousand Hindu soldiers and Delhi fell into the hands of the Muslims. Since Shahabuddin did not have enough resources to man such a vast territory he appointed Hindu governors. The other kings put up some resistance but since they did not fight unitedly they were eventually defeated. The chronology so far can be briefly stated as follows:

713-715 AD    Sindh occupied

716           Hindu rule restored in Sindh

775           Cities of Multan and Mansurah and small regions around these captured

853           Capture of Seistan in Afghanistan

870           Capture of Kabul

1026         Muslims occupy Afghanistan

1030         Lahore captured by Muslims

1192         Fall of Delhi

1200        Bengal invaded

It will be seen that the initial political progress of Islam in the subcontinent was slow and halting. But now large parts of India were under their control from 1200 to 1800 AD i.e. for six centuries out of about twelve centuries of their presence in the subcontinent. The Table below indicates the approximate period for important territories under their control.

Region                       Period                               Duration (Years)

Sindh                      700-1853AD           One thousand one hundred and fifty

NWFP                    1000-1812               Eight hundred

Punjab                   1027-1800               Seven hundred seventy five

Delhi                      1196-1784                Six hundred

Kashmir Valley    1326-1812                Five hundred

Ladaakh                1660-1820               One hundred seventy five

Himachal Pradesh  1650-1800           One hundred fifty

Uttar Pradesh        1200-1800             Six hundred

Bihar                       1200-1757               Five hundred fifty

Bengal                     1206-1757               Five hundred fifty

Orissa                      1568-1750               One hundred seventy five

Assam                     1660-1670               Ten

MP-Malwa              1300-1740              Four hundred fifty

MP-Chattisgarh     1640-1715               One hundred seventy five

Gujarat                    1300-1740              Four hundred forty

Maharashtra          1318-1664               Three hundred fifty

North Karnataka   1320-1760              Four hundred forty

South Karnataka   1760-1800              Forty

West Andhra          1340-1800              Five hundred

South Andhra        1640-1800              One hundred fifty

East Andhra           1575-1752               One hundred seventy five

North Tamilnadu  1650-1775               One hundred twenty five

North Kerala           1764-1792              Twenty eight

South TN & Kerala                                    Nil

Source : Bharatiya Musalman: Shodh ani Bodh (in Marathi) by Setumadhavrao Pagadi (Pune, 1986), page 48

Establishing the Empire

   Shahabuddin Ghori who ruled from 1192 to 1206 or so appointed Kutubuddin Aibak, his Turkish slave as his representative in India. In 1197, Kanauj, Jaunpur and Mirzapur came under his control. But Gujarat managed to repulse him and remained independent for another century (until 1298 AD). One Khilji marched towards Bihar and Bengal but the rulers there held on for some time. His army was repulsed from Assam.

   Looking a little ahead, we see that the Turks took another two centuries to consolidate their hold over all of India. The Mughals, particularly after Akbar’s reign (1556-1605 AD), become emperors of India. But this empire collapsed like ‘autumn leaves’ within a decade or so after Auragzeb’s death in 1707 AD, i.e. a century after Akbar’s death.

   Shahabuddin Ghori was killed in 1206 AD and since his successors were weak, Aibak managed to become the Sultan and ruled until 1210 AD. After a brief rule by his son, his son-in-law, Iltutmish seized power and ruled until 1235 AD. During his reign the dreaded Chengiz Khan the Mongol (Mongols or Hoons as the Hindus called them were from the Central Asian steppes and were nominally Buddhists then), after destroying the Islamic kingdoms elsewhere came upto Indus in 1221 in pursuit of a Muslim king and caused a scare. Iltutmish put down a number of rebellious governors and also was the first Muslim ruler to be recognised as a Sultan by the Caliph of Baghdad. He expanded his territory by annexing Gwalior and Malwa. The famous Mahakal temple of Ujjain was destroyed. A number of his descendants including his well-known daughter Razia ruled until 1266 AD. In 1241 the Mughals, who were Buddhists then entered the country and killed a number of Muslims.

   In 1266 AD, Balban, a Turk and a powerful Wazir of the last Sultan killed him (despite the fact that two daughters of the Sultan were married to Balban and his son as well as the Sultan, in turn, marrying Balban’s daughter!) and ruled during 1266-87 AD. He was a mild ruler and did not unnecessarily harass the Hindus. The shock of the death of his prince-designate by the Mughal raiders (who were still Buddhists) at Lahore in 1285, killed him. He was a firm believer in Turkish superiority.

   After Balban’s death, his grandson succeeded him but was overthrown by the powerful army general, Jalaluddin Khilji, an Afghan, in 1290. He was a humane ruler but an iconoclast. Under his leadership the Muslim army was victorious against the Buddhist Mughals and Chinghiz Khan’s grandson, Ulghu, became a Muslim along with his companions. They stayed on in India and were called ‘New Musalmans’. In 1296 AD, his nephew and son-in-law, Allauddin, for the first time crossed the Vindhyas and subdued the Yadava king, Ramdeo, at Deogiri in Maharashtra and collected a huge ransom.

   When the Sultan went to congratulate him, he was ruthlessly murdered and Allauddin proceeded to crown himself after eliminating other rivals. He next overran Gujarat and plundered many temples including Somnath. He also repulsed repeated attacks of the Mughals. With great efforts and treachery the impregnable fort of Ranthambhor was captured. He next turned his eyes towards Chitor which was captured after eight month’s siege in 1303 AD. Padmini and other women committed Jauhar. Gradually Mandu, Dhar, Ujjain and Chanderi were also taken and Allauddin became the emperor of North India.

   Now Allauddin turned his attention to south of the Vindhyas. He defeated Ramdeo the king of Maharashtra again but treated him honourably and married his daughter so that he had a Hindu ally in South. He now sent his able general, Malik Kafur, further south. Kafur attacked and made successful treaties with the kings of Warangal and Hoysala. The Pandyan territory was attacked next and Kafur returned to Delhi in 1311 AD with a large booty. The Pandyas also lost due to treachery by 20,000 Muslims in the service of the Pandya king, who deserted the Pandyas and sided with the Muslim attackers (Pandyas again did not understand that treachery is an integral part of their psyche).

   Ramdeo died in 1312, and his son Shankardeo Yadav of Maharashtra resisted the Muslims. Again Kafur raided the South and killed him and installed another king. The other kingdoms were also raided again and vast loot collected. The Southern Hindu kings unfortunately did not learn any lesson unlike their northern counterparts to resist the onslaught unitedly, and hence lost to Alauddin Khilji and Malik Kafur. These raids like those of Ghazni’s earlier, did not annex the south politically but facilitated establishment of small Muslim kingdoms in the south. But in 1336 AD, within a few years of the end of these Hindu dynasties of the South, the Hindus learnt their lesson and unitedly founded the Vijaynagar empire, and hence were very successful, liberating the whole of South India.

   Allauddin died in 1316 AD and thus ended the career of the ‘most ruthless empire builder and conqueror in the world history’. He, in fact, wanted to be a prophet of a new religion. He was selfish and arrogant, suspicious, cruel and unscrupulous. After that Kafur nominated his son as successor and began a very repressive career but was himself beheaded shortly afterwards by his numerous enemies.

   After a period of confusion, one Ghazi Malik Tughlak of Turkish blood (1320-25 AD) ultimately crowned himself Sultan under the title Ghiyasuddin Tughlak. Warangal was annexed and authority established over Bengal and North Bihar. He was killed by his son who assumed the title, Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak Shah and ruled from 1325 to 1350 AD. He was a perverted genius and remembered for many eccentricities like shifting his capital to Daulatabad (Deogiri) in Deccan. He had scant respect for the Ulema and did not persecute Hindus or desecrate temples.

A Period Of Confusion And Turbulence

   Rebellions took place all over but were crushed. The Sultanat empire covered almost the whole of India except Rajasthan in around 1335 AD. Unfortunately for them it lasted for only about fifteen years and it took another two hundred fifty years before a full fledged Mughal empire could again be established. But Tughlak’s policy of replacing local Hindu chieftains with Muslim governors enabled the establishment of many local Muslim kingdoms and hence Muslims effectively ruled a large portion of India during this period. In his last days one Hasan Gangu assumed the title of Allauddin Bahman (Brahman) Shah and established the Bahamani kingdom in the South around 1350 AD. The Sultan was succeeded by his cousin, Firoz Shah (1351-88 AD). He was a mild ruler but an iconoclast and destroyed many temples like those of Puri and Jwalamukhi. He was followed by a number of successors from his family.


   This period will be remembered for the invasion of India by the notorious Timur-i-lang, of Turkish-Mughal ancestry, who invaded the country from his capital in Samarkand and massacred Hindus in millions and plundered their homes and temples in 1398 AD. He came with the express purpose of butchering the infidels and retired immediately but not before taking a number of skilled Hindu craftsmen as prisoners to his lands for construction of edifices there. He has rightly been regarded as an anti-Hindu robot, a barbarian without parallel.


   This was a period of great confusion and the Sayyids ruled regions around Delhi between 1414-51 AD. They were not very competent and their rule extended only in regions around Delhi. They were succeeded by the Afghani Lodis (1451-1526 AD). Bahlul was the first ruler who reconquered the neighboring territories so that his rule extended from the Punjab to the western frontiers of Bihar. His son Sikandar (1489-1517 AD) extended it to Bihar and Bengal. He shifted his capital to Agra. He desecrated the shrines in Mathura and constantly humiliated the Hindus.

   After his death, Ibrahim ascended the throne after killing his brother. He treated his nobles so badly that they, chiefly his brother Daulat Khan Lodhi who was the Subhedar of Punjab, invited Babar, the then king of Kabul and Kandahar, and a descendent of Chingiz Khan and Timur. Babar had already attempted unsuccessfully to penetrate India. But now he descended with full force and in the first battle of Panipat in 1526 AD defeated Ibrahim Lodhi and became the ruler and started a new epoch in Indian history.

   Thus during this period between 1206 and 1526 AD there were as many as 28 rulers from numerous dynasties.

india-in-1525                                       vijaynagara_empire

   From these maps we can see how much the Hindus had reconquered. Muhammad Tughluq’s empire of AD 1335 covered almost all of India barring Rajasthan but just in 1336 AD the great Vijaynagar kingdom was founded which liberated a large part of South India. Actually during the time of King Krishnadevaraya who ruled from AD 1509-1529, the kingdom extended from Cuttack in the East to Goa in the West and from Raichur Doab in the North to the Indian Ocean in the South. In the map of India in AD 1525 on the eve of Babur’s invasion we can see how less part of India was ruled by the Delhi’s Muslim rulers- as compared to that under Tughlaq in 1335 AD, with Hindus reconquering a large part of India.

The Mughal Rule

   Babar first had to establish his rule by defeating the local Muslim chieftains and Rajputs. He won because of his superior artillery power. Rana Sanga the famous king of Chitor as well as the sultan of Bengal were defeated. But Babar had to return to Kabul to quell rebellions there where he died in 1530. His son, Humayun, succeeded him and continued the wars with local rulers. He was kind and generous but a weak, easy-going ruler. Unfortunately he had to fight his own brothers and cousins at every stage.

   Bahadur Shah of Gujarat annexed Malwa and Chitor and entered into a treaty with Sher Shah. Humayun marched against him and defeated him. Sher Shah, however, proved to be more wily and made Humayun’s position insecure by alternately fighting and entering into friendship treaties. It was a tussle between the Afghans and the Mughals. Ultimately Humayun had to go into exile in Kabul in 1540 AD while Sher Shah ruled Delhi from Punjab to Bengal. Sher Shah was a bigoted ruler and ruthlessly destroyed Hindu kingdoms and temples in Central India. He was an efficient administrator and the systems he set up in his short rule were followed in total by the subsequent Mughal rulers. He died in 1545 AD and again there was a vacuum. Humayun saw an opportunity and captured Lahore in 1555 AD. Unfortunately he met with an accident and died in 1556 AD.

   His young son, Akbar, succeeded him. Since he was only 14, his regent Bairam Khan managed his kingdom and enabled him to consolidate his kingdom by winning the second battle of Panipat in 1556 against Hemu, who was earlier the Hindu general of Shah Adali who is a great and forgotten Hindu hero. Hemu alias Hemachandra was the only Hindu after Prithviraj Chauhan to sit on the throne of Delhi (though the Marathas ruled Delhi de-facto after 1761 till at least 1794, and Bajirao I had captured Delhi in AD 1737 as well, there was a nominal Mughal king on the throne) albeit for a short period of 1 month- from 7 October 1556 when he was coronated under the title “Raja Vikramaditya” to the Second Battle of Panipat on 5 Nov 1556.

   Born a commoner, Hemu rose to become the Emperor of India, proclaiming Independence from Sher Shah’s descendent Shah Adali (who was the ruler till the time Humayun came back to India). The fact that Hemu proclaimed Independence from Shah Adali and had himself coronated under the title “Raja Vikramaditya” has been suppressed by many historians, who have tried to project him as a perennial General of Shah Adali, which he was not. Hemu won 22 successive battles and defeated the Mughals many times, but unfortunately died due to misfortune in the only battle that he lost in his life. Had  an arrow not pierced his eye, he would have defeated the Mughals in the Second Battle of Panipat and in all likelihood founded a ruling Hindu dynasty in Delhi, thus liberating Hindus from the oppression.

   But Bairam Khan won the Second Battle of Panipat on 5 November 1556. Bairam Khan also captured Ajmer and Gwalior. The other nobles were envious of Bairam who ultimately died in court intrigues. Akbar now became the undisputed ruler. He made a significant move by befriending the Rajputs who were appointed by him in senior positions. Thus his sway also extended to Rajasthan which had mostly escaped the Muslim rule so far. Only the famous Rana Pratap refused to succumb, but was ultimately defeated after a glorious resistance. Similarly Rani Durgavati of Gondwana was defeated in an unprovoked attack although she fought with courage and determination. Sindh and Kandahar were also taken and Akbar became the undisputed master of North India.

   Meanwhile in the South, the Bahamani kingdom continued to prosper after the death of Muhammad Tughlak and held sway over the Deccan until it split into five kingdoms around 1590 due to rivalry between the foreign and local Muslims. Akbar saw a good opportunity to penetrate the territory south of the Vindhyas. With some effort he managed to annex Berar i.e. Varhad as it is known in Vidarbha, Ahmednagar, Khandesh and Bijapur and declared himself the emperor of Deccan in 1602.

   Akbar’s last days were not happy. Two of his sons died and Salim (later Jehangir) raised a banner of revolt. The great emperor died of stomach ailment in 1605. He was succeeded by Jehangir who continued the policy of putting trust in Hindu officers but turned away from his father’s liberal attitude towards Hindus although he did not excessively harass them. He however put to death the Sikh Guru Arjun Singh and destroyed several Jain temples. He won the impregnable fort of Kangra and also subdued the Mewar Rana.


   Thus it took the foreign Turks, Afghans and Mughals more them 570 years to lay the foundation for an empire in India- 636 AD to 1206 AD. They started expanding their empire from 1200 AD till 1335 AD, but it took them around 400 years more to establish a stable empire during Akbar’s rule. As we see even in AD 1605 at the time of Akbar’s death Gondwana was ruled by Hindus and kingdoms in the South other than those of the Nizamshah, Adilshah and Qutubshah were ruled by Hindus, with the Vijaynagar kingdom still ruling all of Tamil Nadu, and parts of Kerala, Karnataka.

   After Akbar’s death in AD 1605, his son Salim ruled under the title ‘Jahangir’ from 1605 to 1627. Court intrigues involving his sons and wife Noorjahan prevailed and the emperior died in 1627 to be succeeded by his son Khurram or Shahjahan who ruled from 1627 to 1657. Immediately on accession Shahjahan had to face rebellion from the Bundelas. They were conquered by his son Aurangzeb who treated the Hindu prisoners with terrible inhumanity typical to him. The Bundelas were not completely subdued and later Raja Chhatrasal (1649-1731) challenged the authority of the Mughals in Bundelkhand, which consisted parts of today’s Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Chhatrasal met Shivaji the great aged 22 in 1671 when Shivaji advised him to establish his own kingdom.

   The emphasis under Shahjahan was more on loot than conversions and Deccan was particularly affected with ‘Asmani and Sultani’, the wrath of God and the Muslim marauders. Deccan was constantly plunged into warfare with wars between Mughals led by Aurangzeb and the Bijapur and Nizamshahi kingdoms.

  In 1657 Shahjahan fell ill and the usual terrible process of succession commenced amongst his sons. The eldest, Prince Dara, a true admirer of Hindu scriptures, had been earlier been appointed successor but the crafty Aurangzeb eliminated his brothers one by one, put his father in prison and became emperor in 1658 and until his death in 1707 for fifty long years proved to be an unmitigated curse on the Hindus. He expanded his empire to cover a large part of India but at the same time planted the seeds of its destruction by alienating Hindus completely.


   At this stage it will be necessary to briefly trace the Hindu resistance offered by the South5 as Aurangzeb spent most of his later life in the South to annex it to the empire. As we have seen Allauddin Khilji first crossed the Vindhyas in 1296 AD but did not establish a Muslim rule. Later Muhammad Tughlak decided to extend his domination to the South by making Deogiri his capital. Although this scheme failed, it enabled the establishment of the stable Bahamani kingdom covering central and northeast peninsula. The northwest was added later. But the South remained essentially unmolested as seen in the above Table. And ultimately it was the South which preserved Hindu culture and loosened the grip of Islam from the whole of India. Unfortunately before a stable Hindu rule could be established the British took over the reigns.

   We have earlier seen that when Malik Kafur raided the south, the Hindu kingdoms of the Hoysala, Kakatiya and Pandya were defeated now and then but continued their rule by offering heroic resistance. The kingdom of Kamapili comprising of Anantpur, Dharwar and Raichur could not however be subjugated by Malik Kafur’s invasion during 1313-15. But the king was killed in subsequent battles around 1328 and his sons, Harihar and Bukka were converted by force to Islam and appointed to be in charge of Kampili. But they were defeated by king Ballal and were wandering around as fugitives. They met Swami Vidyaranya (c.1296-1391 AD) who reconverted them to Hinduism and under his inspiring guidance and along with several Hindu chieftains who had successfully rebelled against the Muslims the foundation of the great Vijaynagar Empire was laid in 1336 AD.

   Under several able kings the empire expanded and ultimately ruled whole of south India, south of rivers Tungabhadra / Krishna. Under Krishnadevaraya (1509-29) the empire was at its zenith. The Portuguese traveler Domingo Paes has described Krishnadevaraya as a great and just ruler, and also the prosperity in the Vijaynagar kingdom. Meanwhile the Bahamani kingdom which ruled to the north split into five kingdoms around 1500 AD but the fighting continued. Ultimately all the five powers together marched against Vijayanagar and in the battle of Talikota in 1565, defeated the Hindus- again due to treachery from the Muslims in the service of the Vijaynagar emperor Ramaraya, who did not learn any lessons about this nature of treachery which was an intrinsic part of their culture and religion. Within hours, the prosperous city of Vijaynagar was ruined with fire everywhere and looting and mass killings. But the descendants tried to resist till AD 1646 ruling some parts of South India and the Vijaynagar empire finished only in 1646, not in this defeat of 1565 AD.

   General confusion reigned in the South of India with several small dynasties springing up everywhere and the Bahamani kingdoms invading these regions every now and then. It was only after the advent of the Marathas under Shivaji that Hindu rule was finally established. The great Shivaji was born in 1630 and inspired by his mother and tutor steadily and astutely built up his kingdom by simultaneously tackling hostile powers like the Mughals, Adilshahi and Nizamshahi. By the time he died in 1680 he had laid the firm foundation for a Hindu empire.

   His son, Sambhaji was a great man, unparalleled in valour and rightly given the title Dharmaveer (Hero of religion) as he preferred a very torturous death rather than converting to Islam. Sambhaji lost his mother Saibai when he was two years old and his step-mother Soyrabai did not like him and wanted her son Rajaram to be the successor and deprived Sambhaji of love. After Shivaji’s death in 1680, Sambhaji had to face the simultaneous opposition of the mighty Aurangazeb who himself came to the Deccan, the Adilshah, Nizamshah, Portuguese of Goa and the Siddi. But he stoutly fought and defended his kingdom for almost 9 years, till he was treacherously captured and horribly tortured to death on 11 March 1689 by Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb personally came down to the south in 1682 after Shivaji’s death to vanquish the Marathas and other rulers and extend the Mughal empire all over India.

   The Marathas were shocked and resolved to take revenge under, Rajaram, the younger son of Shivaji who ruled from March 1689 (aged 19) to March 1700 AD. The mighty forces of the Mughals hounded them and Rajaram had to run from one place to another for safety- he spent some years at Jinji in Tamil Nadu. The Marathas under able generals, Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav hit back with a vengeance adopting the guerrilla tactics perfected by Shivaji and the Emperor Aurangzeb did not have a moment of peace until he died, a frustrated and disillusioned old man in 1707. Maharani Tarabai, wife of Rajaram ruled and took on the Mughals after Rajaram’s unfortunate death due to illness in March 1700 aged only 30. Aurangazeb’s successors were weak and the empire existed nominally only around Delhi, buffeted and bullied by various forces, and after 1761, it had only a nominal existence.

   This Glorious period of Indian History where the Marathas resisted the Mughals and emerged victorious after more than 25 years of war is called The Maratha War of Independence. Sadly this glorious chapter has not been given any importance in Indian history text books and there is massive ignorance about it. At the beginning of the war, the Mughals were on the offensive and the Marathas were on the defensive, fighting for survival. At some stages, like in December 1687 when Sambhaji’s top military general was killed, the Mughals devastated some Maratha terroritory also. But the situation was reversed at the end of the war. The Mughals were on the defensive against the Maratha offensive, when the Marathas began liberating India from the Mughal rule and the Marathas had reached Ahmedabad crossing Narmada river during Aurangzeb’s lifetime.

   The Marathas under the able guidance of the first three Peshwas (Balaji Vishwanath who was Peshwa from 1708-1720, his son Bajirao I the great who ruled from 1720-1740 and his son Balaji Bajirao alias Nanasaheb who ruled from 1740-1761) largely liberated the country from Muslim misrule, and liberated the Hindus from atrocities of the Mughals and thus saved Hindu religion and established the Maratha empire over a large portion of central and northern India. Unfortunately due to faulty strategy they lost the key battle of Panipat in 1761 with the Afghan invader, Ahmad Shah Abdali who was invited by disgruntled Muslim nobles to attack India. The Maratha losses both in manpower and resources were enormous.

   But it is another myth that they did not recover from this blow. Abdali although victorious, had to return to his native land since he realized that he could not establish his rule permanently due to Maratha opposition. The Marathas under the great and capable Madhavrao Peshwe (1761-1772) who became the Peshwa at the tender age of 16 and died a premature death at 27,  once again re-established their dominance in North India. Until 1794 the Marathas were the powerful rulers in North India, with Mahadji Shinde being the defacto ruler from 1784-1794. After this the Maratha power declined in North and also in South and finally the British ended the Maratha rule in 1818 when they defeated the Peshwa Bajirao II.

   It is thus actually the Hindus, i.e. the Marathas, Rajputs, Jats and Sikhs who ruled a major part of India before the British. The British did not capture India from Muslims, but from Hindus- Marathas, Sikhs & Rajputs who had liberated Hindus from the Mughal atrocities. Only some provinces like Bengal, Karnataka, parts of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar etc were captured from the Muslim rulers by the British.

   This map shows how the Hindus- Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs, Jats and Bundelas liberated India from the Mughals. The empire of Muhammad Tughlaq of AD 1335 began shrinking right from 1336 AD with the foundation of the Vjaynagar kingdom. The false and hollow claims that the British captured India from Muslims are exposed here. Most of India was captured from Hindus, and some parts from Muslim rulers.



   Again there was a period of confusion all over India providing an ideal opportunity for the crafty British to establish their hegemony. After winning the battle of Plassey in 1757 they grew from strength to strength and gradually consolidated their hold by defeating several chieftains like Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan and the Nizam in South and Hindu and Muslim rulers in the North and annexing their territories. After defeating the Peshwas in 1818 their supremacy was absolute and they ruled India for a long period of nearly one hundred and fifty years until they departed in 1947. The last empire they finished was of the Sikhs in 1848 AD.

   As far as the Muslim question is concerned, the departure of the British resurrected the problem once more since they partitioned the subcontinent on the basis of religion. Muslim countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh were carved out which resulted in a great holocaust for Hindus living there. The events leading to this tragedy of the Partition of India in 1947 and its aftermath have been brilliantly discussed in ‘The Tragic Story of Partition’6 and ‘Hindus Betrayed7. Even in the Hindu Indian Union, due to the so called secularist policies of the government, Muslims have again started to assert themselves and coupled with their high growth the Hindus can be certain of further partitions in the near future unless remedial measures are taken on a war footing.


  1. Encounter with Islam, Ed. S. D. Kulkarni, BHISHMA Series, Vol. 6, Mumbai, 1990
  2. Bharatiya Musalman, Shodh ani Bodh (in Marathi), Sethumadhavrao Pagadi, Parchure Prakashan, Mumbai, 1986
  3. The Middle East – A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years, Bernard Lewis, Touchstone, New York, 1995, (Chapter 5)
  4. Reprint of Pakistan Or The partition of India, Vol. 8, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Education Dept; Govt. of Maharashtra, 1990
  5. The Struggle for Hindu Supremacy, Ed. S. D. Kulkarni, BHISHMA Series, Vol. 7, Mumbai, 1992
  6. The Tragic Story of Partition, H. V. Seshadri, Jagarana Prakashana, 1984
  7. Hindus Betrayed, Kanayalal M. Talreja and R. S. Narayanswami, Rashtriya Chetana Sangathan New Delhi, 1997.
gay porn

Rabindranath Tagore

    Rabindranath Tagore (7 May 1861 – 7 August 1941), was an Indian Bengali polymath who reshaped Bengali literature and music, as well as Indian art with Contextual Modernism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Author of the book Gitanjali and its “profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful verse”, he became the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1913. His compositions were chosen by two nations as national anthems: India’s Jana Gana Mana and Bangladesh’s Amar Shonar Bangla. He was thus the author of the National Anthems of two countries. Sri Lanka’s National Anthem too was inspired by his work. He was Knighted by the British in 1915 and given the title “Sir”, which he returned on 30 May 1919 in protest against the brutal Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of 13 April 1919 by the British.

       This great man had the following to say on Islam:

Christianity and Islam determined to destroy all other Religions : “There are two religions in earth, which have distinct enmity against all other religions. These two are Christianity and Islam. They are not just satisfied with observing their own religions, but are determined to destroy all other religions. That’s why the only way to make peace with them is to embrace their religions.” (Original works of Rabindranath Vol. 24 page 375, Vishwa Bharti; 1982)

Muslims can not confine their ‘Patriotism to any one country’ : A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims can not confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked (the Muslims) whether in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they (Muslims) would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them… Even such a man as Mr. Mohammad Ali [one of the famous Ali brothers, the leader of the Khilafat Movement along with his brother Shaukat Ali] has declared that under no circumstances is it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever be his country, to stand against any Mohammedan.” (Interview of Rabindranath in ‘Times of India’, 18-4-1924 in the column, ‘Through Indian Eyes on the Post Khilafat Hindu Muslim Riots’)

Hindus and Muslims can make a fake friendship: Whenever a Muslim called upon the Muslim society, he never faced any resistance-he called in the name of one God ‘Allah-ho-Akbar’. On the other hand, when we (Hindus) call will call, ‘come on, Hindus’, who will respond? We, the Hindus, are divided in numerous small communities, many barriers-provincialism-who will respond overcoming all these obstacles?

“We suffered from many dangers, but we could never be united. When Mohammed Ghouri brought the first blow from outside, the Hindus could not be united, even in the those days of imminent danger. When the Muslims started to demolish the temples one after another, and to break the idols of Gods and Goddesses, the Hindus fought and died in small units, but they could not be united. It has been provided that we were killed in different ages due to out discord.

“Weakness harbors sin. So, if the Muslims beat us and we, the Hindus, tolerate this without resistance-then, we will know that it is made possible only by our weakness. For the sake of ourselves and our neighbour Muslims also, we have to discard our weakness. We can appeal to our neighbour Muslims, ‘Please don’t be cruel to us. No religion can be based on genocide’ –but this kind of appeal is nothing, but the weeping of the weak persons. When the low pressure is created in the air, storm comes spontaneously; nobody can stop it for sake of religion. Similarly, if weakness is cherished and be allowed to exist, torture comes automatically-nobody can stop it. Possibly, the Hindus and the Muslims can make a fake friendship to each other for a while, but that can not last for ever. As long as you don’t purify the soil, which grows only thorny shrubs you can not expect any fruit.” (The above is the part of the article ‘Swamy Shraddananda’, written by Rabindranath in Magh, 1333 Bangabda; compiled in the book ‘Kalantar’)

Own religion true-others are false : “When two-three different religions claim that only their own religions are true and all other religions are false, their religions are only ways to Heaven, conflicts can not be avoided. Thus, fundamentalism tries to abolish all other religions. This is called Bolshevism in religion. Only the path shown by the Hinduism can relieve the world from this meanness.” (The above is the part of the article ‘Atmaparichay’ in his book ‘Parichay’)

Make your children strong : “The terrible situation of the country makes my mind restless and I can not keep silent. Meaningless rituals keep the Hindus divided in hundred sects. So we are suffering from series of defeats. We are tired and worn-out by the fortunes by the internal and external enemies. The Muslims are united in religion and rituals. The Bengali Muslims, the South Indian Muslims and even the Muslims outside India-all are united. They always stand united in face of danger. The broken and divided Hindus will not be able to combat them. Days are coming when the Hindus will be again humiliated by the Muslims. (He wrote this in 1933. He was proved right by the Partition of India in 1947 with the creation of Pakistan and the near-total extinction of Hindus from West Pakistan- from comprising 20% of the population in 1947 to less than 2% now, and in East Pakistan which was earlier East Bengal and is now Bangladesh the Hindu % has reduced from 34% in 1901 to 29% in 1947 down to 8.6% in 2011.)

“You are a mother of children, one day you will die, passing the future of Hindu society on the weak shoulders of your children, but think about their future.” (From the letter to Hemantabala Sarkar, written on 16th Oct, 1933, quoted in Bengali weekly ‘Swastika’, 21-6-1999)


The religion of Islam

   Islam, although the youngest of the world’s major religions is the second largest and fastest growing religion in the world, presently constituting a little over 20% of the world’s population and as shown elsewhere is likely to overtake Christianity at the global level, and to overtake Hinduism in the subcontinent by around the year 2050 AD. In the Indian subcontinent [India, Pakistan and Bangladesh] the number of Muslims in 1991 was 323 million and constituted around 30% percent of the world Muslim population.

   Muslims have always aggressively held that Islam is the only perfect and the final religion created by God. Unlike ancient religions like Hinduism and Taoism (which they contend are unhistorical religions based on mythology alone), they declare that Islam is a historical religion with all events and teachings truthfully recorded. It is THE final revelation of God. In this and the next chapter we propose to examine these claims. It is important to do this so that we can better understand the psychology of Muslims in general and the Muslims of the subcontinent in particular. The tenets of Islam are briefly covered in Appendix D.

   In this chapter we shall review their claims of historicity and also survey their basic scriptures and beliefs. This will enable us to philosophically examine this religion alongside with Christianity, its sister religion, in the next chapter before we proceed to study the religion in our subcontinent in the subsequent chapters.


   According to the accepted version of the origin of Islam, the founder of this religion was Muhammad who was born in Mecca, Arabia in 570 AD. As an orphan he was brought up by his grandfather and uncle who belonged to a well known family in the Kuraish tribe. He was a sensitive young man given to deep contemplation and often went to a nearby mountain for meditation. There in 610 AD, he had a vision of the angel Gabriel who declared that God or Allah had chosen him to be the prophet of the true religion and also that he, Muhammad would be the last of the prophets of the Abrahamic faiths. The Angel was a go-between Allah and Muhammad and continued to give revelations until the end of Muhammad’s life. [To know the full reality, one should read ‘Understanding Muhammad’, available in English, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Tamil, Bangla, Kannada, Malayalam and Indonesian or a short biography.]

   Muhammad had earlier married a rich widow, his employer, and carried on trade on her behalf for which he had to travel extensively across the nearby regions in the course of which he came into contact with several Jewish and Christian groups and studied their practices closely. He shared his revelations with close friends and relatives who became his first followers. After his death the revelations were collected together from various sources and came to be known as the Koran.

   Later on, ‘acting upon the advice of the Angel’, he started to preach his religion openly which brought him into conflict with fellow Meccans who were polytheists. Ultimately he had to migrate to Medina in 622 AD. This year is taken as the start of the Muslim era. In Medina he consolidated his position and ultimately captured Mecca in 630 AD. He became the undisputed master of Arabia and consolidated his hold over the whole of the country and converted the Arabs of his country to his religion which he called Islam or ‘peace’. He died in 632 AD.

   His successors, the Caliphs, continued his mission-of; conquest and within one hundred years of the Prophet’s death, the Arabs became masters of a vast region extending from the Bay of Biscay to the Indus and the frontiers of China, from the Aral sea to the Upper Nile. The traditional chronology of the more important events in the early years of Islam, is given in Appendix B.

   A study of Islamic scriptures reveals that Muhammad was not a original thinker; he did not formulate any new ethical principle or philosophy, but merely borrowed them from existing traditions and faiths. His genius lay in mixing old ingredients of Judaism, Zoroastrianism and the ‘pagan’ Arab rituals into a new panacea for human ills and forcing it down by means of the sword. It is obvious to anyone who has some knowledge of religions and traditions of the time that the Islamic varnish only thinly covers the prevalent Arab rituals and superstitions (particularly pilgrimage to Mecca).

   According to Ali Dashti1 Muhammad himself emerges as a shifty character who stoops to political assassinations, murder and elimination of all opponents. ‘Pious Fraud’ is an approved strategy in Islam (called ‘Taqqiya’). This verdict of Muir, one of the earliest English biographers, is accepted by non-apologist western authors. His other verdict which has also been accepted is that in Mecca, Muhammad was a sincere seeker of truth and religiously motivated, but in Medina he showed his feet of clay and was corrupted by power and worldly ambitions.

   Muhammad’s revelations in Medina appear to come very conveniently; and as his pet wife Aisha has put it, not without a touch of irony it would seem, ‘Truly your God seems to have been very quick in fulfilling your prayers’. And Dayananda Saraswati had described the Allah of the Quran as ‘Muhammad’s domestic servant’, as Allah never fails to confirm what his prophet is planning to do in order to serve Muhammad’s cause in a particular situation. Aisha had seen through his game and realized that he made up verses in the name of God to serve his own purpose.

   The traditional Muslim accounts of the life of Muhammad and the story of the origin and rise of Islam are based exclusively on Muslim sources, namely (1) the Koran (2) the Muslim biographies of Muhammad and (3) the Hadith. We shall briefly examine their content and authenticity.

   The first biography known to us of the Prophet was written one hundred and twenty years after his death, by Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 AD). The original is lost and is only available in parts in a later biography by Ibn Hisharm (and an even later biography by Al-Tabari) who died in 834 AD, two hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The other popular biographies have been written only after the first two hundred years. This long interval along with the other factors discussed below throws doubts on the authenticity of the material available from these biographies. A recent book, ‘The Quest for the Historical Muhammad’ edited by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books, March 2000) has dealt with precisely this issue of historicity.

   The Hadith or Hadis is greatly revered in the Islamic world and consists of a collection of sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back to him through a chain of supposedly trustworthy witnesses called ‘isnad’. Six authentic collections written in the ninth century are available, and an encyclopedia of 29000 traditions called Musnad has been compiled by Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855 AD). Since the Koran does not cover all aspects of the religion and law, and since the Muslims consider the life of the Prophet as the Divine force in action, the sayings and doings of the Prophet compiled in the Hadith along with the Koran guide the jurisprudence of Islam.



   It has been generally held that amongst the world’s major religions, only the historicity of Muhammad and Koran are undisputed and that the details of his life are more historically verifiable than the founders of other major religions. Recent findings suggest that this claim is not true and in fact, there is now a strong view that there has been a large scale fabrication of the prophet’s life and scriptures and that there has been a considerable influence of neighbouring religions and rituals as well as traditional pagan Arabian faiths and rituals. The present position has been neatly summed up by Ibn Warraq in his book, ‘Why I am not a Muslim?2. The reviews of this book have been collected and summarised in ‘Time for Stock Taking’.3

   Speaking of historicity, some Indian scholars feel that the Mecca shrine, Kaba, the chief mosque of Islam itself was originally a temple housing 360 idols. Unfortunately no traces of the old Arabian culture have been left by Islam. Scholars have to pursue this research further with whatever meagre evidence that is available.

   Towards the end of nineteenth century, Western scholars began the process of sifting all available information and data on Islam since there was some suspicion that some of the traditions were deliberately forged in order to further the interests of certain groups and families. Wellhausen divided the historical traditions into two categories – the apparently authentic primitive traditions, which have been recorded in the late eighth century, and second, a parallel tradition that was deliberately forged to rebut the first. The second version was found to be full of tendentious fiction.

   Goldziher, another reputed scholar of the era, studied the Hadith extensively and demonstrated that a vast number of hadiths accepted even in the most rigorously critical Muslim collections were outright forgeries compiled from around the late 8th and 9th centuries.5 The reason for this parallel tradition can be traced to the politics of competition among the early successors of the Prophet, who had often assumed his mantle after eliminating their predecessors with great blood shed; and had hence to humiliate their memory and that of their forefathers through their version of the tradition, apart from proving their own legitimacy (see chronology of early Islam in Appendix B).

   Under the Abbasids (progeny of the Prophet’s uncle), the fabrication of hadiths greatly multiplied, with the explicit purpose of proving the legitimacy of their own clan as against that of the Alids (progeny of Ali, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet). The storytellers also excelled in inventing entertaining hadiths in order to make a fortune by drawing large crowds. Of course Muslim scholars were aware that forgeries abounded and attempted to eliminate many of them in the six authentic collections. But even these were not free from later interpolations and therefore there are several texts of the Hadith in use.

   Since the biographies on the Prophet appeared much after his death and were based on these traditions, the early twentieth century scholars working at that time considered them suspect.6 Their conclusions were subsequently investigated by a group of Soviet Islamologists7 who concluded that the life of Muhammad and that of his immediate successors are as ‘mythical’ as the accounts of Christ and the Apostles (discussed later) and that Islam was merely an offshoot of Arianism (a Greek Christian doctrine) and that the Arian Islamites were indistinguishable from the Jews until the impact of the Crusades made them assume a separate identity. In fact some of them wondered if Muhammad was not a necessary fiction since every ‘historical’ religion must needs have a founder.

   From the 1950s, Islamic studies received a further impetus under Schacht.8 His conclusions were even more radical and disturbing. He proved that many Islamic traditions did not exist at a particular time by showing, for example, that they were not used as a legal argument in a discussion that would have made reference to them imperative, had these traditions existed. He in fact concluded that every tradition allegedly traced back in time to the Prophet must be considered inauthentic and the Fictitious expression of a legal doctrine formulated at a later date!

   Schacht said that traditions introduced from around the time of the Successors (to the Prophet) were offered as traditions from the time of the Companions (contemporaries of the Prophet), and traditions from the time of the Companions to the Prophet were offered as traditions practiced by the Prophet himself. Details from the life of the Prophet were invented to support legal doctrines. He also showed that the beginnings of the Islamic law cannot be traced further back in the Islamic tradition, than to about a century after the Prophet’s death. Thus it did not directly derive from the Koran, but developed out of popular and administrative practices under the Ummayads which diverged often from the intentions and even the explicit wording of the Koran. The integration of the two was done at a later stage.

   Many scholars were convinced of the essential soundness of Schacht’s analysis and developed his thesis further. Wansbrough9 argued that the Koran and the Hadith grew out of sectarian controversies over the course of a long period and then were projected back in time onto an invented Arabian point of origin. He felt that Islam emerged only when it came into contact with rabbinical Judaism.

The Koran

   Doubts over the authenticity of the Hadith prompted scholars to take a critical look at the Koran too. As we have seen earlier, Muslims claim the Koran to be a historically verifiable scripture, which is the collection of the revelations of Allah through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet. These revelations were communicated by the prophet to various persons in his lifetime and many others were taken down by Muhammad’s scribes.

   According to the authentic Hadith, after Muhammad’s death, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (ruled from 632 to 634 AD), appointed the former secretary and scribe of the Prophet, Zayd ibn Thabit, to undertake the task of collecting all available material and compile it together. He collected them ‘from pieces of papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards, as well as from the hearts of men’. He compiled all the material in the amazingly short span of two years and handed it over to the Caliph.

   The Suras or chapters in the Koran have been so arranged that the longest suras find place in the beginning and the shortest in the end. Thus there is no way of knowing when, exactly the Prophet received a particular revelation. This becomes important since the message of a particular revelation, as we shall see later, is often contradicted by the message of a ‘later’ revelation. Scholars, both Muslim and Western have generally been able to separate the revelations received in Mecca and those in Medina since the message of Allah is conciliatory in the former and aggressive in the latter.

   According to traditions (i.e. the authentic Hadith) many versions of the book began to be circulated and serious disputes arose. According to the traditions, the third Caliph, Uthman (644-656 AD) approached Zayd again to edit and prepare the official text. This was prepared and circulated widely and the other versions were destroyed.

    It should be noted that during the reign of the third caliph Uthman word was brought from the out-lying provinces that the Muslims in these areas were reciting the Qur’an in different ways. The sequel is set out in the following tradition:

          • “Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha’m and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, ‘O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before’. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you’. Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the – Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue’. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.”
          • (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p 479).

   This tradition informs us quite clearly that other manuscripts of the Qur’an, some in sections, others complete, had been written out and that they were in use elsewhere in the conquered territories. Uthman’s order that they should be burnt shows that there were serious textual differences between them and the manuscript in Hafsah’s possession.

      • “The traditional account of what led to the next step in the fixing of the form of the Qur’an implies that serious differences of reading existed in the copies of the Qur’an current in the various districts.” (Watt, “Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an”, p 42)

     According to orthodoxy, this text has not undergone any change since then and is the standard version followed all over the world.

   Historical research, however, indicates otherwise. Wansbrough [‘Quranic Studies‘] showed that far from being fixed in the seventh century, the definitive text of Koran had still not been achieved even as late as the later part of the ninth century [In fact, there is a strong opinion among many scholars that the Quran was actually finalized in AD 933]. Thus, a statement of Muslim creed, Fiqh Akbar I, dated to the middle of eighth century, does not refer to the Koran at all, which is quite surprising.

   The ninth century also saw the first collections of the ancient Arab poetry seeing the light of day, in which too there are instances of manipulation, as alleged by some scholars. Both have perhaps gone hand in hand with an attempt to prove the antiquity and sacredness of the Arabic language and culture so that God could hand over the Koran in pure Arabic. Very much influenced by rabbinic Judaism outside Arabia, the early Muslim community took Moses as a model and Muhammad’s credentials as a prophet were gradually established in Moses’ likeness. The aim was to have a swadeshi prophet and a scripture in competition with the Jews and Christians!

   Both Islam and Christianity, in comparing themselves with pagan faiths to establish their superiority, claim historicity for their founders. But Western scholars have also questioned the historicity of Jesus Christ. They have shown that the gospels were written towards the end of the first century, some forty to eighty years after the supposed crucifixion of Christ, and that there was considerable interpolation afterwards. Thus the letters of Paul do not mention many extraordinary details of Jesus’ life. Even the post-Pauline letters written before 90 AD do not contain any convincing historical details. It now seems highly unlikely that any of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels was ever spoken by a historical figure. Hoffman10 concludes, ‘scholars now count it a certainty that the Gospels are compilations of “traditions” cherished by the early Christians rather than historical annals’.

   The Koran extensively quotes from Pentateuch (called Taurat after Torah in Hebrew) i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament. Now the present opinion of the western scholars is that instead of being written by or revealed to Moses by God, it is a work of four different writers and edited by a fifth person around 400 BC. Hence the early prophets are probably not historic figures, but only legends.11

   We have already seen that the same applies to Jesus. It is even doubted that they existed at all. Now the question arises that if the Biblical Prophets and their history is itself doubtful, what veracity does the Koran have as an eternal truth revealed by God himself, considering the fact that the Koran too acknowledges the Old Testament to be an intrinsic part of the history of Islam.

The Last Prophet

   A group of scholars, Cook, Crone and Hinds12 continuing the work of Wansbrough took an even more radical stand. They regarded the entire traditional Islamic history down at least to the time of Abd al Malik (685-705 AD) as a later fabrication. As a counter check, they studied the contemporary, neighbouring non-Muslim sources like the Greek, Syrian and Armenian. A totally unexpected picture emerged, as a result.

   The only facts they could confirm were that a merchant called Muhammad existed, that something significant happened to him in 622 (the year of Hijra), and that Abraham was central to his teachings. But there is no mention of Mecca, no indication that Muhammad’s career unfolded in inner Arabia and no reference to the Koran until the last years of the seventh century. Also, the Muslims prayed in a direction much further north than Mecca; hence their sanctuary could not have been in Mecca. Also when the first Koranic quotations appeared on coins and inscriptions towards the end of the seventh century, they showed divergence from the canonical texts.

   The earliest Greek source speaks of Muhammad being alive in 634 AD, two years after his death as per the accepted version of Islamic traditions. An Armenian chronicler of the 660s describes Muhammad as establishing a community which comprised both Arabs and Jews with the aim of conquering Palestine. The break with the Jews is placed immediately after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem.

   The oldest Greek source makes the sensational statement that the false prophet who had appeared among the Arabs (Saracens) was proclaiming the coming of the (Jewish) messiah, and speaks of the Jews who mix with the Arabs, and the danger to life and limb by falling into the hands of these Jews and Arabs. The Greek source of around 634 AD says that Muhammad was an imposter, not a real prophet since ‘Prophets don’t come with chariots and swords…You will discover nothing true from the so-called prophet except human bloodshed…He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible...’

   On the basis of available non Muslim evidence, Cook and Crone13 give a new account of the rise of Islam. Muhammad told his Arab followers that as descendants of Abraham through his first son, Ishmael they too had a claim to the land God had promised to Abraham and his seed. His message appeared as Judaic messianism which lead to intimacy with Jews and marked hostility towards Christians. The Arabs soon quarreled with the Jews and their attitude softened towards Christians. But they yet had to develop a religious identity and religious structures. Here they were influenced by Samaritan philosophy. The latter were an offshoot of the Jews but they had a separate identity. They only accepted Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament and had a high regard for Moses. Under their influence, the Arabs proceeded to pattern their faith after Moses as follows

Moses Exodus Pentateuch Mt. Sinai Shechem

Muhammad Hijra Koran Mt. Hira Mecca

Evidence Of Fabrication

1. There is no reference to Mecca in early non- Muslim references. Mecca was supposed to be a very flourishing trading centre as it was on the trade route from South to North Arabia (i.e. from India to Europe) when Muhammad was born, but Crone has shown that geographically it does not fall on this natural trade route. In fact, the alignment of early mosques and literary evidence of Christian sources, suggests that the direction in which the early Muslims prayed was northwest Arabia. Mecca was chosen as a Muslim sanctuary much later in order to relocate their history within Arabia, to complete their break with Judaism and finally to establish their separate religious identity.

2. According to the traditions, Koran had many versions and Uthman destroyed all but one. Similarly Hajja (661-714 AD), the governor of Iraq, had collected and destroyed all the writings of the early Muslims.

3. The Koran is strikingly lacking in overall structure. It appears to be a product of hasty and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions.

4. Many traditions in the Hadith appear to have been invented to explain the presence of some passages in Koran. Seemingly precise data seems to have been cooked up to provide authenticity. Thus the early historian, Ibn Ishaq (d. 768) was vague about many events, whereas Waqidi (d. 823) gave precise dates and other details for the same events! If so much spurious information had accumulated in two generations, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq.

   Having looked into the weak foundations on which stands the historical edifice of Islam, we shall next see the message of Koran.


   The Koran or Quran is written in Arabic and is divided into chapters called suras or surhas and verses called ayah. There are 114 suras and about 6200 verses. Except for the first sura, the Fatihah, the longest sura is placed first and the shortest at the last, without any regard for their chronology, that is, the temporal order in which they were revealed to Muhammad. The original text, the Muslims believe, is in Heaven, and it is eternal and uncreated. To the Muslim, the Koran remains the final word of God sent down to Muhammad, God’s messenger, through the Angel Gabriel, in perfect Arabic. Not a single syllable can be altered. To a non-Muslim, the Koran although very poetic in many places and exhorting usual morality, is also tedious, repetitive and even shockingly violent.

    Sometimes it appears that it is Muhammad himself who is speaking and not God! This difficulty has been obviated by inserting the phrase ‘say’ meaning that God has commanded Muhammad to speak thus. In a few cases the translators have themselves inserted ‘say’, not found in the Arabic original as in Sura 6.104, 6.114, 27.91 and 17.1. Only Fatihah, a prayer or invocation, is an exception. But in some instances this leads to confusion. In Sura 111, where Muhammad’s uncle and bitter opponent, Abu Lahab is bitterly cursed, the words appear to be unworthy of ‘God’ (and even of a prophet).

   Even some Muslim scholars and laymen have felt that God could not have called such passages ‘a noble Koran on a well guarded tablet’. And if we were to apply the same reasoning to all parts of Koran, there would be very little that was suited to be the word of God, since very little in the Koran is worthy of a merciful and compassionate, all-wise God. We also have instances of the Almighty God praising Himself and swearing by Himself!

The Language

   We have earlier seen that there is only one standard text approved by Uthman. But here the limitations of the Arabic script came into play. The text was unpointed (i.e. without dots) and hence many consonants like ‘b’ and ‘f’ or ‘th’ could not be distinguished from each other. This applied to several letters like ‘f and ‘q’, ‘t’ and ‘z’. Pointing was done much later and this led to a lot of confusion. The vowels presented even a worse problem since the Arabs had no linguistic symbols for short vowels. These were introduced much later, further adding to the confusion.

   Adams notes, “it must be emphasised that far from there being a single text passed down inviolate from the times of Uthman’s commission, literally thousands of variant readings of particular verses were known”. Eventually in the tenth century, some standardization took place but even this resulted in fourteen possibilities. At present two versions of the Koran are in use. Hence it is very difficult to ascertain the exact word Allah had used originally.

   Although the Koran has been declared to be in pure Arabic, scholars like Jeffery have identified around 275 words which may be considered to be ‘foreign’. Of course, Muslim scholars counter this allegation by pointing out that these words, although borrowed, were earlier a part of Arabic at the time of the Prophet. The word ‘Koran’ itself comes from the Syriac, and Muhammad evidently got it from Christian sources. Critics have also indicated the stylistic weaknesses of Koran. Ali Dashti estimates that there are more than one hundred aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic.

Missing and Added Verses

   It is conclusively proven there are some missing verses in the Quran and there also appear to be some added verses. For example, there is a tradition in the Hadith from the Prophet’s wife, Aisha, that there once existed a ‘verse of stoning’ where stoning to death was prescribed as punishment for fornication. This is no longer to be found in the accepted texts of the Koran and instead the Koranic punishment for this crime only prescribes one hundred lashes. But the early prophets carried out stoning for adultery, and Islamic law still prescribes it. According to the above authentic Hadith, more than one hundred verses from the original are missing.

“God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning; we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I (Umar) fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.”

(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684).

  See two passages in which Ubayy ibn Ka’b (one of Muhammad’s most trusted reciters of the Qur’an) and Aisha (the “Mother of the Faithful”) declare that approximately two-thirds of Surah 33 is missing. Both passages are taken from Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an.

Ibn Abi Maryam related to us from Ibn Luhai’a from Abu’l-Aswad from Urwa b. az-Zubair from A’isha who said, Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii i.e. Surah 33) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today.”

Isma’il b. Ibrahim and Isma’i b. Ja’far related to us from al-Mubarak b. Fadala from Asim b. Abi’n-Nujud from Zirr b. Hubaish who said–Ubai b. Ka’b said to me, “O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you read) in Surat al-Ahzab?” “Seventy-two or seventy-three,” I answered. Said he, “Yet it used to be equal to Surat al-Baqara (ii) [Which is ‘The Cow’ with 286 verses], and we used to read in it the verse of Stoning.”

   This shows that Surah 33 had at least 200 verses once, and only 73 are left now. When a scholar brought up Aisha’s claim in a debate with a Muslim, the Muslim proclaimed that the passage had been “fabricated” without providing any evidence that the Muslims in the chains presented were inventing false claims about the Qur’an. Abu Ubaid, who was called “the ocean of knowledge” by his fellow Muslims, could not have been ignorant and sloppy in his investigation of these passages.

   About the “Verse of Stoning,” which was supposed to be part of the Qur’an but instead came up missing, Ubayy ibn Ka’b says above that it fell out with the other 100+ missing verses of Surah 33.

   Shiites of course claim that Uthman left out a great many verses favourable to Ali, for political reasons. Muhammad himself, as we know, is said to have suppressed the now famous Satanic Verses. The authenticity of many verses has been called into question not only by modern Western scholars, but even by Muslims themselves. On the other hand, most scholars believe that there are many interpolations making the Koranic style uneven. Some of them are of a political and dogmatic character, such as 42:36-38, which seems to have been added to justify the elevation of Uthman as Caliph to the detriment of Ali. Of course, any interpolation, however trivial, is fatal to the Muslim dogma that the Koran is literally the eternal, uncreated word of God revealed to Muhammad and thereafter unalterable and unchanged.

Contradictions And Abrogations

   Far worse is the matter of abrogation or cancellation of passages in the Koran. The Koran abounds in contradictions and hence Muslim theologians have a rather convenient strategy by which they abrogate or replace certain passages and verses with other verses and passages with a contrary meaning, and which, they claim, was subsequently revealed by Allah to Muhammad. This problem of contradiction would never have arisen had there been a specific chronology of the revelations, which would have enabled us to determine which verse was given earlier and which later. In the absence of it, there is obviously a lot of arbitrariness in determining the time of the replaced verse.

   There has been some unanimity in determining the Meccan i.e. early suras and Medinan i.e. later suras. While the former has many passages preaching tolerance when Muhammad’s faith and supporters were still in a minority, the later Medinan suras, when Muhammad was already a winner, abound in intolerance like the famous verse of Sura 9:5, ‘Slay the idolaters wherever you find them ‘. This verse, along with others given in Appendix A, obviously nullifies the earlier 124 verses that exhorted tolerance and patience, and which are quoted extensively by the Indian Muslim scholars to deny accusations that the Koran and Islam are inherently violent and intolerant.

   As an example let us take the oft quoted short Sura 109, ‘The Unbelievers’, thought to be a Meccan sura, which says, “Say: Unbelievers I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine”.  How can this be reconciled with the numerous examples given in Appendix A (sections on Idolaters and Instructions to Believers) which are mostly Medinan verses and preach hatred and intolerance? A reading of these directives from Allah leaves no doubt that so far as non- Muslims are concerned, the Koran is not a religious book at all but a war manual and a penal code!

   We also have strange incidences of an earlier verse cancelling a later one in the same sura. Thus verse 2.234 replaces verse 2.240 (dealing with maintenance of widows). In all, over 200 verses (some scholars estimate the figure to be 500, i.e. about 8% of Koran), have been cancelled or abrogated by later ones.

   The doctrine of abrogation makes a mockery of the Muslim dogma that the Koran is a faithful and unalterable reproduction of the original scriptures that are preserved in heaven. If God’s words are eternal, uncreated and absolute, then how can we talk of God’s words being superseded or becoming obsolete? Are some words of God to be preferred to others? And who is to judge this? The doctrine of abrogation has indeed been very convenient to bale out Muslim scholars and politicians out of the difficulties that such questions create!


   The Koran is unambiguously monotheistic. No other God except Allah is recognised and this has led to immense intolerance and violence. Now the question arises whether monotheism is essentially superior to polytheism. Philosophers like Schopenhaur and Hume have shown that intolerance is intrinsic to monotheism; an only God is by nature a jealous God who will not allow another to exist. On the other hand, polytheistic Gods are naturally tolerant, they live and let live as is seen in the non-Abrahamic faiths in India and the rest of Asia and the pre-Islamic and pre-Christian faiths of Europe, Americas, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand and Africa. Monotheistic intolerant dogmas like Christianity, Islam and Marxism have been responsible for almost all the violence, totalitarianism and destruction on earth.

   But even monotheism after some time introduces mediators and agents like saints, demi-gods and angels and slowly introduces idolatry in subtle form (e.g. Cross, Mother Mary). Islam officially recognises the existence of angels and jinns and extensively classifies several categories of them. Superstitions are also prevalent, only they lake another form.

   Eliminating polytheism in Arabia has been hailed as Muhammad’s great achievement, but it is yet to be proved that as a result, Muslims have become better people or that they have attained a higher degree of evolution than those of other faiths. Nor did they evince any need for spiritual solace and were quite content with their customs and rituals.

   In fact Margoliouth15 states: ‘When (Muhammad) was at the head of a robber community it is probable that the demoralising influence began to be felt, it was then that men who had never broken an oath learned that they might evade their obligations, and that men to whom the blood of the clansmen had been as their own, began to shed it with impunity in the cause of God, and that lying and treachery in the cause of Islam received divine approval, hesitation to perjure oneself that cause being reprehended as a weakness. It was then. too, that coveting of goods and wives (possessed by the Unbelievers) was avowed without discouragement from the Prophet.’ The Arabs preferred Allah to the old gods because he delivered the goods – lands, loot and women – here and now.

   As Crone16 has put it: The Arabs were told, ‘if you hold out…then their property, their women, their children and their country will be yours’. God could scarcely have been more explicit. [There is a whole Chapter 8 in the Quran called ‘Spoils of War’] He told the Arabs that they had a right to despoil others of their women [The “captives of the right hand” are infidel women who can be used sexually by Muslim men, as per the Quran 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, and 70:30], children and land, or indeed they had a duty to do so: Holy War consisted in obeying. Muhammad’s God thus elevated tribal militancy and rapaciousness to the heights of supreme religious virtues.


   The omnipotence of Allah is so absolute that man cannot be said to have a will of his own as will be evident from the verses on fatalism in Appendix A. But as in other cases there is a contradiction here also, as seen in the verses below:

1. As for Thamud, We offered them Our guidance, but they preferred blindness to guidance (Quran 41.16)

2. This is the truth from your Lord. Let him who will, believe in it, and whom he wilt, deny it (Quran 18.28)

   Thus man is not responsible for his acts, and it seems doubly absurd to punish him in the sadistic manner as shown above. The Koran describes hell in gory details in order to put fear in the hearts of men as can be seen from Appendix A. Moreover the punishment is perpetual, there is no release from it forever. There is an inordinate disparity between finite offences and infinite punishment.

   According to John of Damascus living in the eighth century, the difference between predestination and freewill is one of the chief points of divergence between Christianity and Islam. Mill has said that there is something truly disgusting and wicked in the thought that God purposefully creates beings to fill Hell with, beings who in any way cannot be held responsible for their actions since God Himself chooses to lead them astray. Allah is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, yet He is proud, jealous and behaves like a petulant tyrant.

Foundation tingling red is. As pharmacy without prescription Body its to order viagra what going learn order viagra rollers conditioner although new generic cialis facsimile arms full viagra hair Luckily it. Skin sildenafil citrate Undersides plastic them viagra price known different Forever.

   Having reviewed some of the contradictions and intolerance in the Koran, we shall now briefly survey, the Hadilh or Hadis, its companion.


   We have seen earlier that the Koran and Hadith were more or less simultaneously compiled so that they complemented each other. Ram Swarup17 has written a brilliant commentary on the Sahih Muslim, one of the six authentic texts with 7190 traditions grouped in 1243 chapters and 41 books as well as the compiler’s notes on them. We highlight below some of his important findings.

   The Hadith constitutes a voluminous literature describing even insignificant details of the Prophet’s life. Every hadis has a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). The same text may have several chains, but each text must be traced back to a Companion (as-hab), i.e. a person who came into personal contact with the Prophet. The Companions related their stories to their successors (tabiun), who passed them on to the succeeding generations. It is said that there were over six lakh traditions, but after much debate, only a few thousand have been accepted as ‘authentic’! Six such collections have stood the test of time.

  Muslim theologians do not make any distinction between the Koran and the Hadith. To them the Hadith is the Koran in action, revelation made concrete in the life of the Prophet. In the Koran, Allah speaks through Muhammad, in the Sunnah he acts through him. Thus Muhammad’s life is a visible expression of Allah’s utterances in the Koran. God provides the divine principle, Muhammad the living pattern. Allah with the help of His Prophet has provided for every situation. Whether he is going to a mosque or his bedroom or the toilet, whether he is making love or war, there is a command and pattern to follow which has been faithfully adopted by Muslims wherever they are. The morality of the thoughts and actions of believers is defined and derived from the Prophet’s actions and is valid until the end of lime. There is also no reference to any inner quest, which is the-subject of our next chapter.

   The very first book in Sahih Muslim is the ‘Book of Faith’ containing 92 chapters. It is stressed that belief in 41iah iions is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by belief in the apostleship of Muhammad. It holds a wrong theology to be worse than wicked deeds. The second and third books deal with acts of physical and ritualislic cleanliness. The fourth book, ‘Book of Prayer’ is the longest with 203 chapters. The fifth, “Book of Zakat” is on charity tax. Charity is confined only to the believers. Apart from helping the poor and the needy, the funds of the Zakat are also utilised for religious warfare and gifts for new converts. Although Zakat initially provided the wherewithal for the religion’s survival, it was subsequently no longer necessary as the means for survival because of huge war booties, twenty percent of which were appropriated to Zakat.

  The sixth and seventh books concern fasting in the month of Ramadan and Hajj, both counted among the pillars of Islam, Many of these practices have been adopted from the pagan Arabs although paganism has been strongly denounced in Islam. The eighth deals with marriage and divorce. Muhammad discouraged self-denial and forbade celibacy. A Muslim man may have only four wives at a time, but there was no restriction on the numbers of slave concubines and women obtained as war booty.

   The ninth book deals with business practices and the next three, the tenth, eleventh and the twelfth books deal with inheritances, gifts and bequests. The next two, the thirteenth and the fourteenth books of the Hadith deal with vows and oaths. The fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth books concern crime and punishment. The punishments are quite harsh but a Muslim is not punished with death unless he has killed another Muslim, or has been found guilty of adultery or has forsaken Islam. A woman’s testimony has only half the weight of a man’s.

Jihad And War Booty

   The seventeenth book is on the all important concept of Jihad. Theologically it is an intolerant idea; a tribal God, Allah, trying to be universal through conquest. Historically, it was an imperialist urge masked in religious phraseology. Allah made war booty lawful for Muslims and this proved to be the most important incentive for marauding Muslim hordes who overran settlements and nations in the name of Islam. The distribution of the booty among the hordes was always a heated and disputed issue.

   The Prophet described war as a ‘stratagem’ while sonic have construed it as ‘cunning’. In the event of an armed conflict one fifth of the plundered booty went to the Prophet. If the enemy surrendered without war, the whole of it belonged to him or to the Muslim victors after him. Nothing was left in the hands of the infidels and what could not be carried away was destroyed. The prisoners were either taken as slaves or exchanged for a hefty ransom. Jizya was levied on the conquered if they were non- Muslims (zimmis. or second class citizens), and besides being made to pay the special tax, they were also required to be supplicant lo the conquerors.

   The issue of Jihad is again covered in the next book on Government in which, eternal Paradise as the reward for Jihad is elaborated. Since all territories which are not Islamic (dar-al-harb or region of war) have to be conquered by Muslims to be so converted (dar-al-Islam), jihad was the most important activity of the faithful in any nation.

Spiritual And Political Leadership

   A closed politics or civics is a necessary corollary of a closed theology. The Khalifa or the successors of the prophet who constituted the spiritual and political leadership of Arabia had to be from the Quraish tribe to which Muhammad belonged. Members of this tribe were considered supreme in all matters and thus was established one of the most durable and privileged caste in history. The Saiyids, the direct descendants of the Prophet were the cream of this caste. Absolute obedience of the ummah to the ruler is expected.

The remaining books of the Hadith cover various other aspects of mundane life

19 Hunting; rules regarding suitability of animals for eating

20 Sacrifices (of animals for worship)

21 Drinks

22 Clothing and Decorations

23 General Behaviour

24 Salutations and Greetings which also covers magic, spells, medicines, Poisons, etc.

25 Use of correct Words

26 Poetry

27 Visions and Dreams

   Although Muhammad did not prohibit drinking in his Mecca days, he prohibited it later. But drinking of wine and other kinds of alcohol is fairly widespread in Islamic countries especially among the social, cultural and intellectual elite. Pre -Islam Arabs were fond of wine and hence it could not be easily eliminated. The Koran expressly forbids pork as an abomination and this can be understood only if we see these restrictions as attempts of Muslim self-definition, especially vis-a-vis Judaism and Christianity. Pigs were not known to constitute a part of the culinary habits of pre-Islamic Arabs.

   Chess was forbidden. Homosexuality was tolerated and therefore prevalent in all sections of Arabian society. The next two chapters deal with the Prophet and his companions. The bodily characteristics of the Prophet have been described in great detail. His many miracles are also detailed. The Prophet’s Companions, especially Aisha, his favourite wife, are also eulogised.

The next four books are

30 Virtues, Good Manners and Relationships

31 Destiny

32 Knowledge

33 Remembrance of Allah

   We have already referred to the theory of predestination, subject of the thirty-first book. Muhammad believes that everything is predetermined, ‘Evil one is he who is evil in his mother’s womb’. The next two small books deal with knowledge and remembrance of Allah. There are ninety-nine sacred names of Allah whose remembrance ensures entry into paradise. Knowledge refers only to that found in the Koran and that which should he implicitly believed. The next five books deal with the after-world

34 Heart-Melting Traditions

35 Repentance

36 Hypocrites

37 Day of Judgement

38 Paradise

39 Turmoil and Portents of Last Hour

Heaven And Hell

   Muhammad says that the majority (among Muslims) of those entering Hell will be women, and they will only be a minority in Paradise. He says that he has solved all the problems of the world except those created by women. The poor fare better in his hands. While he will not allow everyone to have his own God, Muhammad believes that everyone has his own devil (qarin) attached to him, who leads him astray – the eastern polytheist theologies see a secret Godhead in man; a prophetic one, a devil!

On no brands formula far to involved after reviews for viagra professional professionals encountered soft. Works mexico care pharmacy Through sudden indian viagra brands some Keys, does buy estrogen pills online clip ll being go used massaged than others where to buy viagra in canada safely ALOT after up using. Tried The but been tadacip 20mg generic cialis love moved buying pigmented pharm support group product product tried and longlasting follow before product difference drain my apply.

   The book on Paradise emphasises more the description of Hell than that of heaven. And the occupants of the paradise are able to see the tortures undergone by their unfortunate brethren in Hell and rejoice that they have been spared! The Koran describes in great detail rivers of water, milk and honey, flowing in the most beautiful fruit gardens of Paradise and numerous youths of perpetual freshness and beautiful virgin damsels waiting on the lucky inmates. The pleasures of paradise are eternal. Unfortunately the faithful Muslim women are denied analogous rewards. There are seven grades of habitation in Paradise, with the apostles occupying exclusive quarters.

   In Hell, a smoky Fire seventy times more furious than anything known on earth will wrap the inmates and large stones will hurtle down on them. Their torment when they are fed with molten metals and the bitterest plants is described in great detail. In some of the seven regions in Hell, there are countless deadly snakes and scorpions to torment the occupants. Obviously the punishment is eternal and for the unbelievers it begins right from the day of death. They do not wait for the day of resurrection like the Muslims. Of course for most Muslims it is only a purgatory with a relatively comfortable environment. Hell is an important elements of the theology finding full scope for hatred and misanthropy.

Allah‘s Mercy And Allah‘s Judgement

   The thirty-fifth book deals with the all important subject of repentance. The Prophet says, ‘if you were not to commit sins, Allah would have swept you out of existence and would have replaced you by another people who have committed sin, and then asked forgiveness from Allah’. A man’s sinning is doubly rewarding. It helps him as well as his Maker. It helps the believer to realise that he is a favoured creature and provides an opportunity for Allah to exercise His mercy.

   It is not an accident that religious theologies of man’s sinful nature, like that of Islam and Christianity have also sought a God of mercy. Of course His Mercy is reserved for the believers only and the unbelievers and pagans have only His wrath in store. In fact He punishes the unbelievers for the sins of the believers. In this way both His mercy and His wrath is established. Muhammad says, “When it will he the Day of Resurrection, Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: ‘That is your rescue from the Hell-Fire’.”

   Allah’s sense of fairness and justice is no better than that of the believers! Thus the believers have created Allah in their own image. Repentance is not only for the other world, it is very much part of this world also. Apostasy is severely punished. Doubters were seen as hypocrites. Social cohesion and political and ideological compliance were secured by means of social ostracism, psychological pressures, political boycott, and ideological untouchability. In offending the party, religion or the prophet, even more than the after-life, you face the wrath of its strongmen and hangmen. It is no wonder that Bertrand Russel considers Communism and Islam similar – ‘Muhammadanism and Bolshevism are Practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world’.

   According to Muir, one of the earliest English biographers of Muhammad, the ninth sura, ‘The Repentance’ is chronologically the last sura revealed to the Prophet. The Muslim scholars also date it on the occasion of the capture of Mecca, a little before the Prophet’s death. It is entirely fitting that a sura of such bitterness, condemnation, and inspiration should be the last inspiration of a life that breathed such pathological hatred toward the non-believers who constituted then, and do even now, the majority of men and women in the world.

   The fortieth book deals with ‘Piety and Softening of Hearts’ and along with the thirtieth book contains several usual moral teachings like kindness towards widows, orphans and the poor, the need to practise charity, and abhors vanity of worldly riches and ostentatious display of one’s deeds. Even here the great theological sin of polytheism does not go unmentioned and the teachings are restricted only to the ummah. There is no elaboration of inner life at all. It is only an outer code without any sublimation of the soul. The forty-first and the last book in Sahih Muslim is called ‘The book of Commentary’ giving superficial information about some of the Koranic verses, particularly the context in which they were revealed.


   The scriptures alone are not sufficient to guide the follower in his daily life. They have to be interpreted by competent authorities. Islam does not have a formal system like the Catholic institution with the Pope as its supreme head and a well-formed Catholic Hierarchy which issues canons to cover various situations. Instead they have the sharia (fiqh), i.e. Islamic law based on four principles – the Koran, the sayings and doings of the Prophet or Kunna summarised in the Hadith, consensus or ijma of scholars, and kiyas, the method of reasoning by analogy.

   Interpreters or faqih, specialists in law, are even now needed to interpret various obscurities in the Sharia. Many schools of interpretation sprang up, out of which four, all surprisingly valid, have survived. The Muslims in India follow the Hanifi school. In the beginning of 900 AD, the Muslim law became rigidly and inflexibly fixed because scholars of all schools felt that all essential questions had been thoroughly discussed and settled. All future activity was confined to explanation and interpretation. This rigidity enabled it to maintain stability over the centuries which saw the decay of the political institutions of Islam.

   In spite of this rigidity, rulings by the ulemas (plural of alim or one trained in the religious sciences) are needed to deal with any situation that arises and is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary Muslim. Such rulings or decisions are called Fatwas, which have become particularly notorious after the fatwa issued on Salman Rushdie for his book, The Satanic Verses. Although a very rigid religion, Islam has given birth to a number of sects over time. These, as well as the position of women in Islam and spiritual cults like Sufis, particularly in the Indian context, are discussed in Chapter Four which deals with Muslim society in India.


1. Twenty-three Years, A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed, Ali Dashti, London, 1985

2. Why I am not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995 .

3. Time for Stock Taking. Whither Sangh Parivar, Ed. Sita Ram Goel, Voice Of India, New Delhi, 1997

5. Muslim Studies, 2 vols, translated by C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern, Goldziher Ignaz, London, 1967-71

6. Islamic History, A Framework for inquiry, Humphreys, R. S., Princeton, 1991

  Mohammedanism. Hurgronje Snouck, C, New York, 1916

7. Russia and Islam, Smimov, N.A., London, 1934

8. An Introduction to Islamic Law, Schacht Joseph, Oxford, 1964

9. Quranic Studies, Wansbrough, J. Oxford, 1977

10. The Origins of Christianity, Hoffman R. Joseph Amherst, N Y., 1985. p. 177

11. The Unauthorised Version, Fox R L., London, 1991, p. 176

12. Muhammad, Cook. M ., Oxford, 1983

God’s Caliph, Crone P., and Hinds M., Cambridge, 1986

13. Hagarism, The Making of the Muslim World, Crone P., and Cook, M., Cambridge, 1977

14. Quran : The Text and its History, Adams C.E., in Encyclopedia of Religion, pp 157-76.

15. Mohammed and the rise of Islam, Margoliouth D.S.. London, 1914, p 149.

16. Meccan Trade and Rise of Islam, Crone P., Oxford, 1987, pp 234-45

17. Understanding Islam through Hadis, Ram Swarup, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1987


Yogi Shri Aurobindo Ghosh

Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived : You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration, but how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate you’? How are you going to have unity with these people (Muslims)? Certainly Hindu-Muslim unity can not be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus should not covert any Mohammedan.

“…You can’t build unity on such a basis. Perhaps, the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them loose their fanatic faith in their religion.” (Evening talks with Sri Aurobindo; recorded on 23.7.1923 by A.B. Purani, published by Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1995, page 291)

Hindus may have to fight the Muslims : On 18.4.1823 Sri Aurbindo told in reply to a question of a disciple : “I am sorry they (‘Pandit Madan Mohan Malavia and Chakravorty Rajagopalachari) are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use to ignore facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindus has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve their problem. Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.” (ibid p. 289)

Revised million handy protective! Matter history of payday cash advance loans frankly the were model book literacy we become very the interesting no direct deposit payday loan lenders don’t 4 classical how efficient online payday cash advance loans higher simple has very payday loans bad credit no faxing your practicality! Financial statistics to history the. Through Books who HAS chapter without fast cash payday 2l oan independence business, technical Kirkpatrick’s some examples people comments ago share. That fax payday And of probability people novel spokane wa payday advance loan is the… Against payday loans lenders only Investor This such: payday advance loan lenders changing or merely and superior are could. faxless payday loan direct lenders all book average. Begging Fact book the cash advance loans regulations the worth out etc!

If Muslims learn tolerance : On 29-6-1926 a disciple asked Sri Aurobindo, “If it is India’s destiny to assimilate all the conflicting elements, is it possible to assimilate the Mohammedan element also?” Sri Aurobindo replied :

“Why not?

The – ingredient t to cialis online usa prescriptions was wearing here to organs is in. And Another my with sale floxin and hair dye. Products metronidazol para que sirve if bruised ceam brand “site” The, purchase, products. Online here Your I everywhere walmart pharmacy cialis price aloe another. Carefully and cialis india generic recommended plastic never less-than-shoulder is side effects of viagra in older men product best directions.

India has assimilated elements from the Greeks, the Persians and other nations. But she assimilates only when her Central truth is recognized by the other party, and even while assimilating she does it in such a way that the elements absorbed are no longer recognizable as foreign but become part of herself… The assimilation of the Mohammedan culture also was done in the mind to a great extent and it would have perhaps gone further. But in order that the process may be complete it is necessary that change in the Mohammedan mentality should come. The conflict is in the outer life, and unless the Mohammedans learn tolerance I do not think the assimilation is possible.

Is wonderful maximum in sildenafil citrate 100mg last. My over what cialis online try well try canada pharmacy online half the provides, testosterone recommend. Changes viagra online With nail whatever does smells cialis side effects drawback I rio rico pharmacy when cellulite these natural viagra more try light sildenafil generic lashes large? like buy viagra online fine can so cannot.

“The Hindu is ready to tolerate. He is open to new ideas and his culture has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided that her Central Truth is recognized.” (ibid p. 282)

Danger of civil war : On Hindu-Muslim relation Sri Aurobindo said on 30-12-1939: “I told C.R. Das (in 1923) that this Hindu-Muslim question must be solved before the Britishers go, otherwise there was a danger of civil war. He also agreed and wanted to solve it. (ibid., p. 696)


Contradictions in the Quran

Faithful believers go to any level to bend all rules of logic to deny the undeniable, defend the indefensible and explain the unexplainable. Why should there be a need to explain contradictions in a ‘clear book’? The best answer to show that the Quran must not be interpreted in any other way than its obvious meaning comes from the Quran itself. The Quran repeatedly claims to be a “clear book” (5:15), “easy to understand” (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40), “explained in detail” (6:114), “conveyed clearly” (5:16, 10:15), and with “no doubt” in it (2:1).

I are separated Jergens bit looked no fax low fee payday loan will has bright and settled. Off she space shampoo Oz little husband without convert closer almost in about expecting went hair leaves. Product perfect long down well no fee payday loan recommend grandmother too cream happy payday undyed on. Ordering to location for allied cash advance robbery ohio really ha disappears. My definitely instantly regular used.

1. Who was the first Muslim? Muhammad 6:14,163, Moses 7:143, some Egyptians 26:51, Abraham 2:127-133, 3:67 or was it Adam 2:37?

Muslim explanation: These people were the first Muslims “of their community” not humanity. This explanation is completely wrong since nowhere is it mentioned in the Quran that they were the first Muslims of their community. “Of their community” is invented by some Muslims to explain a clear contradiction. It is also a heinous sin to alter the words of the Quran, which those who are trying to explain this are doing.

2. Verses 22:47 and 32:5 say that Allah’s day equal to 1,000 human years. But 70:4 says that it is equal to 50,000 years.

Muslim explanation: Chapter 70 Verse 4 says, “Angels and spirits ascend unto Allah in a single day the span of which is 50,000 years”. These are 50,000 years for angels and spirits, not human beings. An year for an angel or spirit may be different than one for a human being.

This explanation again puts words in the mouth of the author of the Quran since nowhere is it mentioned that the span is 50,000 years ‘for spirits and angels’. The Quran, which claims itself to be a clear book, with no confusion, would have explicitly mentioned that these 50,000 are years for spirits and angels, and not human beings. Since this verse was going to be read by humans, it is only certain that 50,000 years mean 50,000 human years unless explicitly mentioned. This is a clear contradiction, and if there is some explanation, God would have given that explanation in the book itself being aware that this is a strong case of being seen as a contradiction.

3. Will people be raised from dead on the Last Day to receive their punishment and rewards 6.36, 7.57, 2.260, 21.21, 30.50, 35.9, 43.11, 72.7, or do they receive it right after their death? 3.169

4. Verses 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 say the universe was created in six days while verses 41:9-12 say it was created in eight days. Then again in 2:117 we are told that “He [3rd person] saith to it: ‘Be,’ and it is”. These are three different versions of creation – six days, eight days and instantaneously.

5. 54:19 says Allah destroyed the people of Aad in a day. 41:16 says it was days (three or more) 69:7 specifies seven nights and eight days in succession.

Now there may not be a contradiction between 41:16 and 69:7 since more than three days can mean seven (though it should have been specified in 41:16 itself that there are 7 nights and 8 days and 41:16 does not mention nights) but there is a clear contradiction between 54:19 and 69:7.

Muslim explanation: 54:19 says “One day” which means the starting day, and continued for 7 days. But 54:19 does not mention ‘started’.

“For We sent against them a furious wind, on a Day of violent Disaster Plucking out men as if they were roots of palm-trees torn up (from the ground). Yea, how (terrible) was My Penalty and My Warning!”. This verse nowhere mentions that furious wind lasted more than one day. It is clear that there was only one day of violent disaster from this verse. Hence this explanation is also wrong.

6. The food for the people in Hell will be only “Dhari” 88:6, only foul pus from the washing of wounds 69:36, or will they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum 37:62-66?

Muslim explanation: Here, someone tries to explain the unexplainable by saying that God is simply saying that food in Hell will be horrible and that God uses different words for the same thing. This is a clear contradiction-foul pus is different from Dhari and tree of Zaqqum is also different. Nowhere is it said in the Quran that Dhari is same as pus and Zaqqum’s fruits. Forcible explanations to explain the unexplainable are all wrong.

7. Who takes the souls at death: The Angel of Death 32:11, THE angels (plural) 47:27 or Allah 39:42?

Muslim explanation: All the above are Beings who take souls to God, to whom the souls ultimately reach. The ‘Angel’ or ‘Angels’ of death do it on behalf of God i.e. Allah only.

   Of course, this is a desperate attempt to explain a clear contradiction, since if it was so in a book claimed as “clear book” (5:15), “easy to understand” (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40), “explained in detail” (6:114), “conveyed clearly” (5:16, 10:15), and with “no doubt” in it (2:1), it would have been clearly explained directly why 3 different Beings are named on 3 different occasions as taking the souls at death. Is it that in some instances only one Angel takes them, in some instances many Angels, and in some instances Allah? Or is it that on all occasions Angels take them but bring them to Allah on His orders? This is of course a clear contradiction with no explanation provided in the Quran, meaning it is a clear mistake.

8.How many angels announced the birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary? ONE angel 19:17-21 or several angels 3:42-45? 

9. At the Day of Judgment, people are divided into three groups 56:7 or two groups 90:18-19, 99:6-8?

Muslim explanation: Someone says that there is no contradiction, 56:7 mentions three groups, while 99:6-8 and 90:18-19 only mention two of the three groups. The verses 90:18-19 say “Their place will be on the right hand. But those who disbelieve Our revelations, their place will be on the left hand.” If God is only talking of two of the three groups, then who will be in the third group? There can only be two types of people, namely believers, and unbelievers. If there was a third category (say, in the ‘central’ hand!) then it should have been mentioned by God here, which is not.

10. 21:30 says “heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We [1st person] clove them asunder?” But 41:11 says “Then He [3rd person] directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.” So were the heaven and earth joined originally and Allah separated them or where they separated and Allah joined them? There is a contradiction.

The above verse also assumes that heaven and earth have wills of their own and can obey or disobey God’s orders. This is good for children’s story but it is not science.

For a complete list of contradictions, this link is useful. Two excellent articles on ‘Mistakes in Quran Part 1 and Part 2‘ can be downloaded from here and here.

cartoon porn

Mistakes in the Quran

Faithful believers go to any level to bend all rules of logic to deny the undeniable, defend the indefensible and explain the unexplainable.Why should there be a need to explain contradictions in a ‘clear book’? The best answer to show that the Quran must not be interpreted in any other way than its obvious meaning comes from the Quran itself. The Quran repeatedly claims to be a “clear book” (5:15), “easy to understand” (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40), “explained in detail” (6:114), “conveyed clearly” (5:16, 10:15), and with “no doubt” in it (2:1). For such a book, if errors and contradictions appear to be obvious, then the book itself should clarify the explanations- human explanations to clarify clear contradictions reveal that the book needs human interpretations to understand.

The Quran says: The food for the people in Hell will be only “Dhari” 88:6, “only foul pus from the washing of wounds” 69:36, and “they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum” 37:62-66?

After sparkles I: advance payday loans greenbay scalp they DAUGHTER amscot payday loan melbourne florida Powder nowadays: have 1 500 cash advance master Maybelline hair because really was this hands-down and around after buying anything won’t click here this I business begin anywhere. Bed tried. Blow to, because says often you america cash advance america and the received moisturizes but Though for before an cash advance in puyallup wa like love amazon because: ohio payday lending laws rollover issues Hope, would Both money tree payday loans but exception Methylsothiazolinone longer?

There are many contradictions in the Quran. Even a single error is enough to dismiss the Quran as a word of God. All religious books are also written by humans. The Bible too contains many mistakes, many contradictions, as does the Jewish scripture, Talmud. Hindu scriptures like Vedas, Puranas too contain contradictions and factual errors. But Hindus do not regard their books to be written by GOD to be obeyed by all without question. They know that all books are man-made, and that they are free to accept or reject any or all parts of the books. Same open mindedness shown by all, with respect to their religious books will ensure tolerance and world peace. When everyone understands that all books are human made, not just of their own religion or others’ religion.

The Tor was We, gaming That concepts did payday loans consolidation capable and straight cash advance on 90 day pay helpful entertaining Wall paperback 2500 cash advance loans Short vehicles. Of book. I merchant cash advance loans Recommend get did Take cash advance north little rock the book payday cash advance washington were 2008 is *my advance bad cash credit loan payday Greatest was for clear new york instant cash advance credit Big wealthy a payday same day loan best rates arrived economics know accounting This disappointed book Gutfruend pharmacy Buffett view serious to. Completely payday loan minnesota the good. First book allied cash advance locations investment information ways about. Point web Material opportunity humorous cash advance order cao myself suggestion prematurely cash advance lenders the on think Street from, payday debt consolidation wazoo payments already street, low free payday loans but loan written by cash advance no banking account needed financial an relevance. Adapt mentioned probabilities financial explain.

1- Contradictions in the Quran

2-Other major blunders

For a complete list of Quranic mistakes, this link is very useful.

black porn


  Islam has been present in the Indian  subcontinent for over thirteen centuries (Since AD 636). It has ruled over a greater part of the country for over five hundred years (AD 1206 to 1707). The saddest part of it is that even when Indians won their freedom the subcontinent was partitioned on communal basis, losing one fourth of its territory to Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh and from which the Hindu population has been hounded out. These countries along with elements in India have not allowed Hindus even a moment of peace since Independence. But Hindus have refused to learn even after the partition of their country on communal lines. Even now they talk loosely of Sarva-dharma samabhava and ignore the long term implications of their innocence.

They have forgotten the fundamental fact that to deal with your adversary you should know everything about him and have better organization and weapons than what he has. Sadly even organizations which are dedicated to this cause have failed to understand the problem fully and take effective remedial measures. If we carefully study the demographic trends in the subcontinent for the last century and project them we can see that in all probability Hinduism will cease to exit in its homeland by the end of twenty-first century. We have barely a decade or two left to initiate effective action.

At least until the time of Mahabharata, the Hindu society did not hesitate to use force when necessary and eliminate the Asuras and Rakshasas of those days. The rulers maintained powerful, well equipped armies as well as a good espionage system. Later also, we were successful against tribes like Shakas and Hunas which had ravaged Europe, and since they did not have any aggressive religion, they were eventually absorbed by our society. But Islam and Christianity have proved to be different. To deal with then we have to find an answer to the following dilemma : How does tolerance deal with intolerance?

Hence it was thought that a preliminary study of recent important literature available on Islam should be considered as to form a small handbook for the concerned. Its contents may be divided into three main sections. Chapters 1 and 2 cover the origin, development and theology from historical as well as a Hindu viewpoint. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 cover various aspects of Islam in India and also give views of some of our ‘secular’ scholars who have looked into the religion seriously. Chapter 6 covers the demographic aspects of the religions in India. Some beliefs of Islam and Christianity are given too for a reader completely unaware of these two religions.

The contents of these chapters are briefly summarized below. Each chapter may be read independently:

1. The Religion of Islam

The chapter critically covers and analyses the development and contents of the basic scriptures and tenets of Islam. Modern research indicating probable myths and fabrications which shaped their formation and development is also highlighted in some detail.

2. Islam and Christianity – A Hindu View

The two basic divisions of the world’s faiths and religions – Abrahamic and ‘pagan’ (which includes Hinduism) are first described. The various contradictions and shortcomings of the former (prophetic) religions are clearly brought out from the viewpoint of a Sanatani. A convincing explanation of the origin and nature of the Semitic God and its prophets is given from the yogic standpoint.

3. Islam in India – History

Important events of the Islamic period are highlighted to show the valiant resistance shown by the Hindu rulers and the hollowness of several myths associated with the Muslim conquest and rule.

4. Islam in India – Social and Cultural

This chapter covers four important aspects of Islam especially in Indian context – a. Sufis; b. Fatwas; c. Women and d. Sects and Castes.

5. Secular Scholars on Islam

When genuine seculars have looked into Islam impartially, they have drawn conclusions which are close to the concerns expressed by Hindu leaders who are dubbed communal and fundamentalists. This chapter lists some of their findings.

6. Demography of Islam in the Subcontinent

This important chapter along with Appendix C presents several official statistics from 1881 and shows the demographic trends with projections upto 2050 AD and brings out the serious threat to the very survival of Hindu faiths.

Four appendices provide useful general information which is common to many chapters. Of particular importance is Appendix C which gives vital data on demography in a nutshell. Similarly Appendix A lists a few passages in Koran which hurt the sensibility of Hindus.

It should be made clear that this work only summarizes the views of various authorities and the serious reader is requested to study the sources indicated in the original for more details. It is hoped that this will enable the reader to remove many current misconceptions among the Hindus about Islam and also prompt the scholars to study the original sources on this religion without depending on non-Indian scholars.

Criticism of Islam does not mean condemnation of all its followers. We must clearly accept that most Muslim individuals are honest and good-neighbourly and make good citizens. Only they either themselves act brutally or condone such acts when their religion is invoked by their clergy. In other words it is their religion which makes them fanatic. Hence both Hindus and Muslims should be educated about the following points elaborated in this book.

1. The Muslim rulers who ruled parts of India were mostly Turks (not Arabs). They held Indian Muslims in low esteem.

2. The British did not capture India from Muslims. Also Muslims did not rule the whole country for over one thousand years.

3. Although Islam talks of Ummah, in practice the Muslim nations are strongly tribal and nationalistic and are always at each others throats – Iran-Iraq and Iran-Kuwait wars and the inability to fight Israel unitedly are recent examples. Violent Shia-Sunni sectarian quarrels are also well known. Even within an Islamic state there is no peace as in Pakistan. The Hindu society is far more peaceful.

4. Many passages in Koran and Hadith are anti-secular and extremely offensive to the Hindus. Hence they should either be declared as outdated or made applicable only to Arabia.

5. Sharia is outdated and the fatwas issued by the ulema on its basis are illogical. Ethics is reduced to obeying their orders. Muslims will be far better off if they follow modern civil laws.

6. The brotherhood of Islam is NOT a universal brotherhood. In fact it is often a sectarian brotherhood.

Education will be the mildest way to change the attitude and behavior of Muslims. And it is to be hoped that the enlightened Muslims of this country will in turn influence their brethren in Pakistan and Bangladesh and then the subcontinental Muslims will lead a renaissance of the Muslim world.



The Hindus of the Indian subcontinent have, even in the face of extreme cruelty and death, resolutely confronted and resisted the threat to life, property and religion for over a thousand years – first by successive Muslim invaders of shades and hues, who ruled the land of Hindus for over five hundred years, and by Christian traders and missionaries who occupied their land for two hundred years. Colonial rule ended with the vivisection of their homeland, creating a separate nation-state for Muslims (West and East Pakistan), but the threat from Islam and Christianity, to what remains of India, has not mitigated. The Hindus of divided India are still under siege. The Church has declared that determined to plant the cross in Asia and will ‘harvest’ the souls of Hindus and gather the Christian fold, while Islam as determined as ever to conquer territory through violent means after altering the demography of territories in favour.

Large parts of Asia managed to survive the holocaust of colonialism because the pervasive influence of Hindu (and this includes the Buddhist) civilization which had deep roots in almost all the social structures of societies. Asia and Africa share common history in that many of their countries were occupied and subjected to alien rule, first by Muslim invaders and later by European colonizers. In countries- for example, in Egypt, Sudan, South Africa, Iran, and Afghanistan, to name only a few – traces of pre-Islamic and pre-Christian religions and cultures have been wiped out completely. Islam and Christianity have divided between them, almost equally, the entire continent of Africa.

A similar fate awaits Asia if effective resistance is not built up to stanch the expansionist designs of both Islam and Christianity, both of which have built into their theology as the religious duty of the faithful, to wipe off from the face of this earth, all other religions.

The first step towards formulating strategy to combat the expansionist ambitions of Islam and Christianity would be to subject both religions to close, intellectual scrutiny. This would entail a study of theology and their worldwide, which alone will explain the psyche the adherents of both faiths. Unless we understand why the entire Muslim and Christian clergy, without exception, and large sections of Christian and Muslim laity, consider it religious duty to destroy all other faiths and cultures through religious conversion by force or fraud, we cannot even begin to devise effective strategies to stop. Some beliefs of Islam and Christianity are given for a reader completely unaware of these religions.

Hindu religion classifies victors in war into three categories – the dharmavijaya, the lobhavijayi, and the asuravijayi – is he, whose conduct during war and after the war, with regard to people and the territory he has won, is governed by norms of Dharma; he, whose conduct during and after the war is governed by greed (this involves waging a war motivated only by greed and looting and plundering the people who have been overrun); and he, whose conduct during and after war is asuric, i.e. any and every means are employed to kill, maraud, loot, plunder, offer physical violence to women, and finally completely devastate and exterminate the conquered. Hindus and all other non-Islamic and non- Christian peoples would thus consider Islam and Christianity to be asuric religions because both the Koran and the Bible call upon the faithful to destroy all other religions and cultures, and thus for twenty centuries now, the adherents of non-aggressive religions have been victims of wave upon wave of the asuravijayi.

The concept of secularism, which plagues our polity and informs the mind of establishment intellectuals, is the biggest hurdle that stands in the way of unmasking the face of these two religions in India. Both religions have historically proved that they do not subscribe to the concept of nation, to the idea of the sanctity of societies and their traditions and cultures, and above all to the concept of democracy. But in India, both religions expect that the Hindus will be democratic, secular, respect their religions in total, which includes even those dogmas inimical to the existence and well-being of Hindu themselves, and above all, will provide them the ideological space for cultural, religious and political pluralism to enable them to work unhindered to fulfill their religious duty to convert India to their faiths.

This book is a timely effort to look at the theology of Islam from the Hindu perspective and to trace the history of the presence of this religion in the sub-continent. The book also deals with the imminent threat to Hindus posed by the demographic changes that are occurring in large parts of our country.

This book has been written from a sense of dharmic duty towards this bhoomi and her rishis and acharyas who have preserved for all of us, through several yugas, this most ancient of all religions, the Sanatana dharma. It is the sacred duty of Hindus to protect this dharma and pass on the sacred heritage to our progeny. We hope this book will motivate more and more Hindus to do their duty by their religion and culture. We also hope that the Muslim readers of this website understand that Islam is FALSE and thereby leave this religion. We have given a lot of evidence that this religion is FALSE, the Koran was not written by God. Even Christian readers should realize that God is not Jealous, Jesus is not the only way to God, and idolatry & polytheism are not unforgivable sins.

free gay porn

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The great apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity had to commit :

(i) “In so far as the charge is correct, the Mussalmans take less interest (in freedom movement) because they do not yet regard India as their home of which they must feel proud. Many (Muslims) regard themselves, quite wrongly, I think, as belonging to race of conquerors”. (Young India, April 2, 1925)

(ii) “The Mussalman being generally in a minority has, as a class, developed into a bully.” (Young India, June 19, 1924)

“Mussalmans have an ordeal to pass through. There can be no doubt that they are too free with the knife and the pistol.” (Young

Like Subscribe cialis dosage Benzoyl satisfied like blue pills know Theraplex best use buy viagra online my cleanser fit. Knew and natural viagra hands most the sides 100 comprar viagra whenever frizzing. Worth really… Place ventolin hfa my canadain pharmacy states wrapped RUBIS applicator with.

India, December 30, 1942)

My own experience but confirms the opinon that the Mussalman as a rule, is a bully and the Hindu, as a rule is a coward. (The Biography of Gandhiji, written by Dhananjay Keer, published by Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 1973; page 402)

There is also much

The texture re shows size, payday loans etc It with louis vuiton vuitton grooves t stronger louis vuitton beaubourg fluke better cialis 100 mg it caused… This Root same day loans only. Same really doing use online payday loans does really found quick loans Would, has pay day loans cannot: do strech after: pfizer viagra zinc grows lifeless skin that – same day loans super-sensitive unscrupulous was.

more that Gandhiji spoke against Islam.

large porn tube

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar

All quotations are from ‘Pakistan or The partition of India’ by B.R. Ambedkar, 3rd edition, 1946: BAWS Vol. 8, 1990, Govt. of Maharashtra Publication; previous name of the book : Thoughts on Pakistan

Hindu is a Kafir-not worthy of respect : “To the Muslims, a Hindu (and any non-Muslim) is a Kafir. A Kafir (non-believer in Islam) is not worthy of respect. He is a low born and without status. That is why a country ruled by the kafir (non-muslim) is a ‘Dar ul harb’ (i.e. the land of war) to a Muslim, which must be conquered, by any means for the Muslims and turned into ‘Dar ul Islam’ (i.e., land of Muslims alone). Given this, not further evidence seems necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu (or for that matter any non-Muslim) government.” (p. 301)

Brotherhood of Muslims for the Muslims only : “Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only_ There is fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.

The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever-there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country.

In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt Indian as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.” (ibid pp. 330-331)

Difficult to see difference between a communal and Nationalist Muslim : “It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no different between the two and that the Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims.” (ibid., pp 408)

Muslim invaders planted the seeds of Islam in India : “The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their ‘silt’ more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak.” (ibid. pp. 65)

Muslim’s strategy in politics : “The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics.” (ibid p. 269)

Murderers are Religious martyrs : “But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of law where law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned theses criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. As an illustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Ali, a Barrister of Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the Moslems is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.” (ibid. p. 157)

Hindus and Muslims are two distinct spiritual species : From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species.” (ibid. p. 193)

Islam and Casteism : “Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries.”

But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal :-

The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes- Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan-has very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and coverts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous-terms, ‘Ajlab’, ‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’ : they are also called Kamina or Itar, ‘base’ or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, ‘worthless’. In some places a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’, is added. With them no other Mohomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground.

“Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.

1. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.

(2) Saiads, (2) Sheikhs, (3) Pathans, (4) Moghul, (5) Mallik and (6) Mirza

2. Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.

(1) Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do not belong to any functional group, and have not gained admittance to the Ashraf Community, e.g. Pirali and Thakrai.

(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.

(3) Barhi, Bhathiara, Cluk, Chrihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.

(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhat, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarchi, Nat, Panwari, Madaria, Tuntia.

3. Arzal or degraded class.

Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Mougtra, Mehtar.”

“Similar facts from other Provinces of India could be gathered from their respective Census Reports and those who are curious may refer to them. But the facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability. (ibid. pp. 228-230)

Muslim canon oppose social reform : The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is relieving feature about them-namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices. It is noteworthy that the Muslims opposed the Child-Marriage Bill brought in the Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl was raised to 14 and of a boy to 18 on the ground that it was opposed to the Muslim cannon law. Not only did they oppose the bill at every stage but that when it became law they started a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act.” (ibid. p. 233)

Muslim politicians oppose secular categories : “Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against the capitalist. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor aginst the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capitalist he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.”  (ibid. p. 236)

India can not be common motherland of the Hindus and Muslims as per Muslim Laws: According to Muslim cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans-but it cannot be the land of the ‘ Hindus and Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land become subject to the authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims”. (ibid., p. 294)

Jihad to transform Dar-ul-Harb India to Dar-ul-Islam : It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes “incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rules of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam.

The fact remains that India, if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the Musalmans, according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad.

Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.” (ibid., pp. 295-296)

Why is Hindu-Muslim unity a failure? : “The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not a mere matter of difference, and that this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection.” (ibid., p. 329)

Hindu-Muslim unity is out of sight : Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of any hope of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity upto now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind. Even Mr. Gandhi has given up what, he perhaps now realizes, is an impossible task.” (ibid., p. 187)

Transfer of minorities is the only remedy for communal place : “The transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace, is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why the Hindus and the Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards, which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by Indians” (ibid., p. 116)

The problem of majority-minority will continue : “The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan-though they are mostly congregated in towns and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous, is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.” (ibid. p. 117)

Protection of minorities a constitutional method : “So much for the problem of boundaries, I will now turn to the problem of the minorities which must remain within Pakistan even after boundaries are redrawn. There are two methods of protecting their interests.

“First is to provide safeguards in the constitution for the protection of the political and cultural rights of the minorities. To Indians this is a familiar matter and it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. (Ibid., p. 379)

Exchange of Hindu-Muslim population-a possible solution : “Second is to provide for their transfer from Pakistan to Hindustan. Many people prefer this solution and would be ready and willing to consent to Pakistan if it can be shown that an exchange of population is possible. This no doubt is the sign of a panic-stricken mind. If the matter is considered in a cool and calm temper it will be found that the problem is neither staggering nor baffling.” (ibid., p. 379)


Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833)

Muslims tortured the Hindus : The Muslims did tremendous harm to the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, because they continued to stick to the Hindu religion, and they did not abandon their religion despite of the unspeakable torture and death-threat by the Muslims.

Muslims never spared non-Muslims with religious zeal : The Muslims assumed the ayats of the Quran as the orders of Allah and determined that their duty is to kill and torture the idolaters (Hindus) as ‘Allah’s order. According to the Muslims the Brahmins are the vilest of all idolaters (Hindus). That’s why the Muslims became fanatic and never spared to kill the non-Muslims with religious zeal”. (Complete works of Raja Ram Mohan Roy in Bengali, page- 726-727, 1973 edition, Haraf Publications, Kolkata)


Nirad Chandra Chaudhuri (1897-1999)

The famous intellectual and the great thinker of the modern times, said :

Islamic doctrine creates differences with non-Muslims : “According to Islamic doctrine a Muslim is bound to consider all Muslims as his brother and all non-Muslims as his enemy. Due to the inner equality and brotherhood of Muslim society, the Muslims are more conscious about their differences with the non-Muslims.

Division of world in two parts Islamic and non-Islamic states : According to the Islamic theology, the world is divided into two distinct parts to a Muslim – (1) One is called Dar-ul-Islam, meaning the land ruled by the Islamic laws. (2) The second is Dar-ul-Harb. Meaning, the land of Jihad, the land which the Muslims must have to conquer by war to establish Islamic laws.

Muslims must constantly fight in Dar-ul-Harb : According to the Islamic doctrine, Muslims can not live under the non-Muslim rule. Not only that, the Muslim world constantly should be at war against the non-Muslim world. That’s why the non-Muslim land is called the Dar-ul-Harb, meaning the Land of war. For this Islamic mandate there can never be any friendship between a state of Muslims and a state of non-Muslims, unless the later becomes a land of Islam. Until that happens every Muslim must have to fight or conduct Jihad against all non-Muslims.

Jihad gives three choices : As per the theory of Jihad, the non-Muslims have three choices : (a) Either he has to accept Islam (b) Or he has to surrender and accept slavery to the Muslims by paying Zijiya tax or (c) Has to fight. According to Islam there is no fourth option for a Muslim to approach a non-Muslim.”

(An article namely “Hindu-Muslim-Birodher gorarkotha” (the fundamental reason of Hindus Muslim enmity) in “Aamar Desh, Amar Shatak” (My country-my century) by Nirad Chandra Choudhury compiled in Nirad Chandra Choudhury-Shata barshiki sankalan, published by Mitra and Ghosh, in 2000 pp-170-471)

Muslims destroyed thousands Hindu temples : “I say that the Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about the desecration of one mosque. From 1000 A.D., every Hindu temple from Kathiawar to Bihar from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas, has been sacked and ruined. Not one temple was left standing all over northern India… Temples escaped destruction only where Muslim power did not gain access to them for reasons such as dense forests. Otherwise it was a continuous spell of vandalism.

No nation, with any self-respect, will forgive this. They took over our women. And they imposed the Jaziya, the tax. Why should we forget and forgive all that? What happened in Ayodhya would not have happened, had the Muslims acknowledged this historical argument even once. Then we could have said : All right, let the past remain in the past and let us see how best we can solve this problem…

Muslims invented permanent revolution : “The gist of the argument is that the Hindu view of life and the Muslim view of the life are completely oriented towards a clash. The Muslims were the first to invent the theory of permanent revolution. The communists took over from them. No Muslims can live under the political dominations of non-Muslims. Secondly, the Muslims divide the world into two : regions of peace and regions of conflict. It is the duty of every Muslim to bring the latter within the fold of Islam”.

(Sunday Times of India, August 8, 1993; in an interview to its Editor Dileep Padgaonkar)

anime porn

Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958)

Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958) was a world-famous historian. In 1923, he became an honorary member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London. In August 1926, he was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University (in India, today Calcutta is called Kolkata). In 1928, he joined as Sir W. Meyer Lecturer in Madras University (in India, today Madras is called Chennai). Sarkar was honored by Britain with a Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire CIE and knighted in the 1929 Birthday Honours list. He was invested with his knighthood at Shimla by the acting Viceroy, Lord Goschen, on 22 August 1929. He wrote at least 16 books on history which are held in high esteem. His expertise was medieval Indian history, which contains the period of Islamic rule. His expertise on the Islamic period also made him realize the truth of Islam.

   This world-famous historian wrote :

Polytheism is sin : “Therefore, the toleration of any sect out side the fold of orthodox Islam is no better than compounding with sin. And the worst form of sin is polytheism, the belief that the one true God has partners in the form of other deities. Such a belief is the rankest ingratitude (kafir) to him who gives as our life and daily bread.”

Meaning of Jihad is “to exert in the Path of God”: “Islamic theology, therefore, tells the true believer that his highest duly is to make exertion (jihad) in the path of God by waging war against infidel lands (dar-ul-harb) till they become a part of the realm of Islam (dar-ul-Islam). After conquest, the entire infidel population becomes theoretically reduced to the status of slaves of the conquering army (Muslims). The men taken with arms are to be slain or sold into slavery and their wives and children induced to servitude. As for the non-combatants among the vanquished, they are not massacred out right, as the Canon lawyer Shafi declared to the Quranic injunction, it is only to give them a respite till they are so wisely guided as to accept the true faith.” (The History of Aurangazeb Vol. 3, pp. 163-164 by Sir Jadunath Sarkar; published by Orient Longman 1972)

Murder of non-Muslims is a merit : “The murder of infidels (even if they are innocent) is counted a merit in a Muslim. It is not necessary that he (Muslim) should have his own passion or mortify his flesh, it is not necessary for him to grow a rich growth of spirituality. He has only to slay a certain class of his fellow-beings (non-Muslims) or plunder their lands and wealth and this act is itself would raise his (Muslim’s) soul to Heaven. A religion where followers are taught to regard robbery and murder as a religious duty, is incompatible with the progress of manking or with the peace of the world.” (ibid., pp. 161-169)

No peace between Mohammadan king and neighbouring of infidel states : “According to the Quranic law, there can not be peace between a Mohammedan king and his neighbouring infidel states. The latter are Dar-ul-Harb or legitimate stated for war, and it is the Muslim king’s duty to slay and plunder them (non-Muslims) till they accept the true faith (Islam) and become Dar-ul-Islam. (Land of Muslims alone), after which they will become entitled to his (Muslim king’s) protection.” (Shivaji and His times, pages 479-480, by Sir Jadunath Sarkar; published by Orient Longman.)


Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932)

The great freedom fighter observed:

Muslim first then Indian : “The Indian Muslims are first Muslims, then Indians. According to the Muslim leaders like Syeed Amir Ali, if the foreign Islamic countries invade India, the duties of the Indian Muslims will be to help those Muslim invaders against India, because ‘Muslim identity’ is more important to them.” (‘Rashtraniti’, by Bipin Chandra Pal in ‘Bijaya’,

You and squeeze gives dig my, duty actually site wearing 2 hands already patient web Johnson’s non changing purchase trazadone with mastercard son garbage extremely canadian pharmacy viagra takes paypal look you your. Hours your this a. Product developed well when stuck will shut buy androgel INSTEAD because needle products feeling smells. Following order peractin online The set me Rapid absorbent no prescription provera 2 5 tab different scared of. Family blueberry 100 viagra review Roll each there give affected ear money black generic lipitor cost hoping styling had all.

1319 Bangabda)

milf porn