Category: 08-Eminent people on Islam

1. Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-1883)
2. Swami Vivekanand (1863-1902)
3. Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)
4. Yogi Shri Aurobindo Ghosh (1872-1950)

5. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)
6. Dr. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar (1891-1956)
7. Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833)
8. Nirad Chandra Chaudhuri (1897-1999)
9. Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958)
10. Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932)
11. Maharshi Satyananda Saraswati
12. Dr. K.S. Lal (1920-2002)
13. A long but MUST READ story of a Muslim
14. Dr S Radhakrishnan (Ex-President of India)

   Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883) was the founder of the Arya Samaj. He was a Sanskrit scholar and also a scholar of the Vedas. He was the first to give the call for Swaraj (Independence) as “India for Indians” – in 1876, later taken up by Lokmanya Tilak (1856-1920)- the Father of Indian Unrest. Denouncing the idolatry and ritualistic worship prevalent in Hinduism at the time, he worked towards reviving Vedic ideologies. The freedom of thought given in the Hindu religion permits Hindus to be atheists, agnostics, idol-worshipers, opponents of idolatory, polytheists, monotheists or anything one wishes to be. Subsequently, the philosopher and President of India, S. Radhakrishnan (1888 – 1975), called him one of the “makers of Modern India,” as did Aurobindo Ghosh (1872-1950).

   Those who were influenced by and followed Dayananda included Madam Cama, Pandit Lekh Ram, Pandit Guru Dutt Vidyarthi, Shyamji Krishna Varma (who established India House in England for Freedom fighters), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966), Lala Hardayal, Madan Lal Dhingra, Ram Prasad Bismil, Mahadev Govind Ranade, Swami Shraddhanand, Mahatma Hansraj, Lala Lajpat Rai (mostly all Indian freedom fighters) and others. One of his most influential works is the book Satyarth Prakash – first published in 1875, which contributed to the Indian Independence movement.

  Swami Dayanand Saraswati has commented on 159 Ayats of Holy Quran in the 14^th Chapter of his book Satyarth Prakash (Light of Truth, English translation by Dr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaj and published by Sarva Deshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Delhi, 1984, pp. 649-722).

   Before commenting on Islam, he expressed his objectives as below:
“The object aimed at by this criticism is to contribute to the elevation of the human race and to enable all men to sift truth from falsefood by giving them some idea of the teachings of various prevalent religions, as this will afford them opportunities for friendly discussions so useful in helping men to point-out their defects and to appreciate their merits.”

“It is not our purpose to falsely condemn this or any other religion on the contrary what we aim at is that whatever is true should be recognized as such, and whatever is false should be condemned as such, so that no one should be in a position to palm off untruth for truth or hinder the progress of truth… We lay this criticism on the Mohammedan religion before all lovers of truth in the hope that they after having gone carefully through it, accept what appeals to their reason and common sense and discard what is repugnant to them.” (p. 649-50)

Some of his comments on the main aspects of Islam are quoted below:

Quran

(i) “(I begin this book) In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful (Sura 1)

The Mohammadans claim that this Quran is the word of God, but it appears from the above passage that the author of this book was some person other than God, since had it been God Himself, He would not have said :-“In the name of God”, He would have, instead said : “I write this book for the instruction of mankind.” (p. 651)

“Had the God of the Quran been the Lord of all creatures, and been Merciful and Kind to all, He would never have commanded the Mohammedans to slaughter men of other faiths, and animals, etc. If He is Merciful, will He show mercy even to the sinners ? If the answer be given in the affirmative, it cannot be true, because further on it is said in the Quran “Put Infidels to sword”,  in other words, he that does not believe in the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed, is an infidel, (he should, therefore, be put to death). Since the Quran sanctions such cruelty to non-Mohammedans and innocent creatures such as cows, it can never be the Word of God.” (p. 652)

“Since the Mohammedans do not believe in the previous existence of the soul, nor that it ever did any deeds before, their God will be open to the charge of being partial by showing favour to some and disfavour to others inasmuch as it is quite unjust to bestow happiness on men or subject them to pain and suffering without paying any regard to their merits and demerits. It is also against the nature (of God) to unreasonably look at some with mercy and others with disdain and anger. Indeed He cannot act arbitrarily. When the souls have done no good or bad action in their previous lives, is it not unfair that some should receive blessings while the others not.” “Now this book, which is so full of partiality and favouritism (to some), cannot be the Word of God.” (p. 652-53)

“Now what kind of justice, wisdom or righteousness is it that one should support one’s followers even though they perpetrate injustice ? He, who causes breach of peace and himself fights as well as helps others to do so, loots other people and yet calls the loot lawful, can never be Merciful and Compassionate. Leave alone God, such a thing can never be true even of a good man. Such things make it impossible for us to believe that the Quran is the Word of God.” (p. 681-82)

“How did God send down the Quran ? Does God live high up in the skies ? If this be true, He cannot be God, being confined to a particular locality, for God is All-pervading, To carry or deliver messages is the function of a courier, and since God is confined to a particular locality, He must needs have one. And to keep an account (in dealings with others) becomes a man but no God Who is Omniscient. It follows from such statements of the Quran that it is the work of a human being, possessed of limited intelligence.” (p. 686)

“It is written in the Quran that one’s sins are forgiven by mere repentance. This encourages sin, since there is nothing to deter men from its commission. This book and its author, therefore, place a premium upon sin. Hence, it is clear that this book can not be the Work of God, nor can the Being described therein be Divine.” (p. 692)

“How funny ! That a book like this should be regarded full of wisdom even though it teaches things opposed to science, such as the creation of the heavens without visible pillars to sustain them and the fixing of the mountains in the earth with a view to keep them immovable. Even persons who are a little bit educated cannot write such nonsense or believe in such balderdash. Again, how wise is the statement that the day is entagled with the night and night with the day ! Everybody knows that day and night co-exist. The Quran cannot be a book of true knowledge, for this statement is absolutely foolish. It is not opposed to true knowledge to say that the ships run into the sea through the favour of God [eg. Quran 14:32, 17:66, 22:65, 30:46, 31:31, 36:41, 42:32, 45:12 etc] when in reality they are propelled by machinery and by sailors ? Would not the sign of God (a ship) sink if it was made of iron or stone ? Verily this book cannot have been written either by God or by a learned man.” (p. 698-99)

 God (Allah)

“Does God show His special mercy to those who do not deserve it ? If He does, He works great mischief, for all men will become indifferent to the practice of virtue. No one will then lead a virtuous life and hate sin, since His mercy depends upon His (arbitrary) will and not upon one’s deeds.” (p. 661)

“Does your God punish the wicked and reward the virtuous, or does He show mercy to the Mohammadans and torture others ? If the latter, He is not God. But if your God is not partial (to you), He will reward the virtuous and punish the wicked whatever religion they may profess. This being the case, the belief in the Quran and in Mohammad (as the prophet of God) becomes unnecessary. Why did God create Satan-the enemy of the human race, who has been tempting all mankind? Is He not cognizant of the future? If you say, He has created Satan just to try man, it cannot be right, because only one who is possessed of finite knowledge would do such a thing; while One who is Omniscient is already aware of the good or evil deeds of the soul.” “Now if Satan tempts all mankind, who tempted Satan ? If it be said that Satan tempts himself, why could not others tempt themselves ? Where is then the necessity of supposing Satan to be the tempter of all mankind ? If God was the tempter of the Devil, He was more devilish than the Devil. But such a thing could not be said of God. Whosoever goes astray from the right path does so through evil company and ignorance.” (p. 664-65)

“If God really aided the Mohammadans with three thousand angels in the past, why does He not help them now that their rule (in India and other countries) has greatly declined and is still declining ? The real object of this verse is to tempt the ignorant and thereby ensnare them into the Mohammadan religion.” (p. 671)

“Had not God loved disorder, why would He have prompted them (the Muslims) to fight and befriended the quarrelsome Mohammadans ? Is God pleased with one only when he embraces the Mohammadan religion? If so, He is partial to the Mohammadans, He cannot, therefore, be the Lord of the Universe. This clearly shows that neither the Quran is the Word of God, nor is the God described therein the true God ?” (p. 667)

“If God guides whom He pleases, He might he misleading others with whom he is not pleased. He alone can be called God and apta (true teacher) who impartially guides all.” (p. 669)

“Does not God act like a tyrant when He does not forgive those who deserve forgiveness and forgives those who are not worthy of being forgiven ? The soul should not be held responsible for its actions, if God makes one virtuous or wicked just as He pleases, nor should the soul, therefore, be endowed with happiness or afflicted with pain and suffering just as a soldier if he kills a person under the direction of his superior officer is not held responsible for his act.” (p. 669)

“Why does God repay good deeds doubly if he would not do injustice even of the weight of a mote ? Why is He so partial to the Mohammedans ? He would be unjust indeed if He were to award the soul reward or punishment out of proportion to its deeds.” (p. 673)

“What proof is there that the Mohammedans will go to heaven and the non-Mohammedans to hell ? He is indeed a fine God ! May such a God as deceives others and is deceived by them always keep away from us. Let him associate with those that are hypocrites and cheats, because “Birds of a feather flock together.” Why should not they whose God deceives others be themselves cheated? Can it be right for anyone to associate with a wicked Mohammedan and hate a good man who is other than a Mohammedan ?” (p. 675)

“The forgiveness of sin, is almost as bad as the sanction of its commission which encourages its further growth. A book whose teachings tend to encourage the commission of sin can neither be the Word of God, nor the work of an enlightened author. It is, on the contrary, one that promotes sinful conduct. It is true though that the prevention of the further commission of sin can be secured by one’s praying to God, repenting of his past conduct and by exerting himself to his utmost (to lead a virtuous life).” (p. 676)

“How destitute of compassion are God and his Prophet who order that the heads of the infidels should be cut off. Is such a God, as commands the faithful to put the infidels to sword, and sever their limbs (from their bodies) and aids them in this work, any better than Ravan, the cruel king of Ceylon [Sri Lanka]? This command is the invention of the author of the Quran and is not from God but if it be from Him, our earnest prayer is that such a God may remain at a respectable distance from us.” (p. 680)

“Does God favour the Mohammedans ? If so, He is unjust because He is the Lord of all (and not of the Mohammedans only). Is your God deaf that He cannot hear you unless He is spoken to (aloud) ? Is it not wrong to couple the name of the Prophet with His name ? Where is God’s treasure that He should be so afraid of its being stolen ? Is it right to steal (the wealth of) others barring that of God and His Prophet ? Only the ignorant and the wicked can teach such things. Why is not that God, who deceives others and associates with the deceitful, hypocritical, cunning and wicked? Theses things lead one to infer that the Quran is not the Word of God. Its author must have been a hypocritical and deceitful person, otherwise such objectionable things would not have been found in it.” (p. 680)

“Now how can God be All-pervading if He lives near those who are in paradise? But if he is not All-pervading, He can neither be the Creator nor the Judge of the world. It is wrong to advise men to forsake their parents. Of course, one should not obey them if they advise one to do wrong, but all the same one should always serve them. If God was kind to the Mohammedans and sent down troops of angles to help them in the past, why does He not do so on ? If He punished the unbelievers and “turned unto whom He pleased,” why does He not do the same at the present time ? Could not God advance His faith without commanding His votaries to fight ? We say good-bye to such a God ! He is more of a showman than a God.” (p. 682)

Is God the monopoly of the Muslims only, and have others no claim on Him? And is He partial, that He reserves His mercy only for the Muslims, and denies it to others. If by Muslims He meant “the faithful,” they do not stand in need of guidance. If God does not furnish guidance to people other than the Mohammedans, His knowledge is of no use.” (p.684)

“If God forgives all sins, He leads the entire world to unrighteousness. He is also merciless, for if a wicked man is shown mercy and forgiven, he will commit more mischief and cause suffering to may a good men. Even if the slightest offense is left unpunished, the world will become full of sin. Is God resplendent like fire ? Where is the page of destiny and who writes it ? If God dispenses justice with the aid of prophets and witnesses, He must be of limited knowledge and power. If He is not unjust and dispenses uniform justice, He must be dealing with all people according to their deserts. Deeds must have been done either in the past birth or in the present one. It is, then, clearly unjust to forgive sins, to seal the hearts, to keep people in ignorance, to let the Devil tempt them, and to subject them to torture.”

Associating Prophet Mohammad with Allah

“Why does this verse inculcate faith in Mohammad along with that in God, when the Mohammadans profess to believe in none but God, and hold that none is worthy of sharing homage with Him? Hence they can not call God Incomparable. If it be argued that this verse only teaches that people should have faith in Mohammad as a Prophet, we should kike to know where is the necessity of Mohammad (being regarded as a Prophet). If God cannot accomplish his desired object without making him His Prophet, he is certainly powerless.” (p. 672)

“Now (the Mohammadan) God Himself has made Mohammad His partner (in Divine honours, etc.) and has Himself declared this fact in the Quran. God is so much attached to Mohammad that He has made him His partner even in paradise. It is useless to call the Mohammadan God Independent when He is dependent upon Mohammad for every little thing. Such things can never be found in a revealed book.” (p. 672)

“This (Obey God and obey the apostle V. 93.) goes to show that God is not “One without a second,” hence it is absurd for the Mohammedans to believe that it is otherwise.” (p. 676)

Islam

“When the Quran bears witness to this that God gave the book of law to Moses, it is incumbent on the Mohammedans to believe in it. All the defects found therein will, therefore, be regarded as those of the Muslim religion itself. Again what is said about the miracles is absurd. The story of miracles seems to have been concocted with a view of play upon the credulity of simple and ignorant people. All things which are against the laws of nature are false. If miracles could be wrought in those days, why can’t they be done now-a-days ? If no miracles can be worked now, it is certain that none were wrought in days gone by.” (p. 660)

“The true religion with God is Islam (III. 17).”

Is God the Lord of the Mohammadans alone ? Did not Divine religion exist at all thirteen hundred years back ? It shows that the Quran is not the word of God, but of some bigot.” (p. 70)

“If every soul shall be paid what it has earned, its sins can not be forgiven. It will be unjust to forgive sins. If God gives power to the soul without its having done anything to deserve it. He will be guilty of injustice. Can one ever bring the dead out of the living and the living out of the dead, as the laws of God are unchangeable and inviolable.

Is it not sheer prejudice to call those, who do not profess Islam infidels? That Being can not be God who teaches that the Mohammadans should not associate even with good people of other faiths, while they may take even the wicked Mohammadans for their friends. One is, therefore, fully justified in inferring that this Quran its God and the Mohammadans are, therefore, groping in the dark. Now reader mark ! How clever Mohammad is ! He makes his God say in this verse that God will love those who follow Mohammad and even their sins will be forgiven. This shows that the heart of Mohammad was not pure. It appears that Mohammad (made or) had the Quran made in order to serve his selfish interests.” (p. 670)

“Now mark the prejudice of God and of His Prophet ! Mohammad like other men of his stamp, was well aware that if he did not stamp his religion with divine authority it would never flourish, nor would he or his followers be able to obtain help and power which might help them to live a life of ease and luxury. All this goes to show that Mohammad knew only too well how to compass his selfish ends and to deprive others of their due-a fact which proves that he was no well-wisher of humanity. Such a man can never command the trust and confidence of good and enlightened men.” (p. 674)

“Who but the Mohammedan God would be so unjust in fighting and helping others to do the same and so active in causing breaches of peace ? Now look at this religion, which sanctions wholesale robbery for the benefit of the Prophet ! Are these people any better than thugs ? God participates in the crime of robbery when he takes his share of the loot. He brings disgrace on Himself by favouring such dacoits. We are at a loss to understand whence came such a book, such a God and such a Prophet in order to disturb the happy relations between different nations of the world and thereby, inflict great suffering on them. Had not such faiths flourished in the world, all would have lived in peace with each other.” (p. 680-81)

Treatment to non-Muslims in Islam

“Where is the necessity of slaying others and of being slain on God’s path ? Why do you not say plainly that all this is meant for accomplishing your selfish ends. You hold out this inducement to people that they may fight well and help you to gain victory over your enemies and to acquire wealth and power by looting other and thereby enable you to live in luxury and enjoy sensual pleasures.” (p. 664)

“Had not such teachings existed in the Quran, the Mohammadans would not have been so cruel to the non-Mohammadans. They have greatly sinned by slaughtering the innocent. They hold than one who does not believe in the Mohammadan religion is an infidel, and that it is better to put the infidels to sword. They have always lived up to their professions in this respect. They have lost their political supremacy while “fighting” for the cause of their God. This religion does indeed teach cruelty towards the non-Mohammadans. Should theft be punished with theft. Should we also break into the house of a person because he has stolen our property ? Surely this is not right. If an ignorant man abuses us, shall we also abuse him in return ? Such things can never be taught by ? God nor by one of His enlightened votaries, nor could they be found in His Word. They can only be the utterances of an ignorant and selfish man.” (p. 666)

“This is the height of prejudice. The Quran enjoins on its believers to kill the non-Mohammedans but to spare the Mohammedans. If they kill their co-religionists by mischance, they shall have to make amends for it by freeing a believer from slavery, but if they kill non-Mohammedans, even though it be through a mistake, they shall inherit Heaven.

Such teachings deserves to be utterly discarded. Such a book, such a Prophet and such a religion do nothing but harm. The world would be better of without them. Wise men would do well to discard a religion so absurd and accept the Vedic faith which is absolutely free from error. The Mohammedans say that one who kills a Mohammedan shall be condemned to a residence in hell; on the other hand, believers in other religions contend that a man attains to heaven by killing a Mohammedan, now which to two should one believe to be true and which false ? The fact is that all false creeds begotten of ignorance should be renounced, the Vedic religion alone deserving the allegiance of all-a religion which directs every human being to follow in the footsteps of the righteous and shun the path of the wicked.” (p. 673-74)

“Mark this teaching, which, in defiance of all noble instinct, advocates the destruction of one’s very friends ! God here teaches the Mohammedans to fight with their neighbours and slaves, to wage war against them and to slaughter them whenever they get a chance to. The Mohammedans have materially helped in spreading such ideas, taking their inspiration from this very book-the Quran. They should, in the present enlightened age, realize the evil nature of such a teaching and give it up. They would be gainers by doing so.” (p. 684)

Allurement of Paradise for Sensuous pleasures

“Now is it paradise or a brothel ? Should we call such a Being (as described in the Quran) God or a libertine ? No enlightened man can ever believe such a book to be the Word of God. Why does God show favouritism ? Where the women that live in paradise born here (in this world) and then went there, or were they never born at all? If they went there from here, why where they allowed to enter paradise before their husbands? Why did God violate His law of judging all persons on the last day for the sake of those women? On the other hand, if they were born there, how can they control their passions? But if they have got their husbands with them, how will God manage to provide the faithful with women when they enter paradise? Why does He not keep also men forever there in paradise just as He keeps women? This goes to show the Mohammadan God is unjust and ignorant.” (p 669-70)

“Well ! The Mohammedans cry that it is a sin to drink wine on this earth, but in their paradise streams of wine flow. It is good that Mohammedans have rendered some service to the cause of temperance here, but they have been more than compensated for this abstinence in paradise. So many women have been allotted to each man there, he would find it difficult to fix his affections on one. The place must be afflicted with maladies. It the dwellers have got bodies, they must die and if they have got no bodies, they cannot gratify their lust. What then is the use of a paradise? If you believe that Lot was a prophet, do you also believe what is recorded in the Bible that he begot children of his own daughters. If you do, it is foolish to regard such a person a prophet. If your God grants salvation to such persons and their associated He must also be like them. A being who recites ‘old wives’ tales and kills other people through prejudice cannot be God, for such a God can only live in a Mohammedan house and nowhere else.” (p. 704)

If there are gardens and orchards in paradise as stated in the Quran, they neither have existed from eternity nor can they remain there for ever, for the things which result from the combination of elements, did not exist before that combination and will surely cease to exist after Dissolution. When these things will disappear from paradise, how can the dwellers live there forever? The very fact that the Arabs have been promised cushions, cushioned seats, pillows, fruits and drinks, proves that Arabia was not in affluent circumstances at the time the Muhammadan religion was founded. It was for this reason that Mohammad entrapped the poor people into his net by holding out of them such temptations.” (p. 705)

“Perpetual happiness cannot reign where women are to be found. Where did theses women come from? Are they dwellers of paradise or have they been imported? If they have been imported, they will surely go back and if they permanently dwell there, what were they doing before the day of resurrection? Were they idling away their lives? Now look at the resplendence of God Whom all the angels except Satan obeyed by paying homage to Adam; Satan alone held aloof. God said to Satan, “I have made him with both my hands, do thou, therefore, not be proud.” [Quran 38:75] This shows that the God of the Quran was two-handed person. He cannot, therefore, be Omnipresent and Omnipotent. Satan was right in saying that he was better than Adam. Why was the resentment of God excited at this? Is the house of God in the sky and not on earth? Why was Kaba at first called the house of God? How can God separate Himself from His Creation? All this creation belongs to the true God. This shows that the God of the Quran was a landlord in paradise. God cursed and rebuked Satan and sent him to jail. Satan said, “O Lord ! Release me till the day of judgment.” God being not insensible to flattery complied with his request. When Satan was free, he said, “Now I will tempt people and raise the standard of rebellion.” God retorted, “Who-ever is tempted by you will be hurled into hell by me along with thee.”

Gentle reader ! Just consider whether God tempted him or he was tempted of his own accord. If God did it, He was a greater Devil of the two, and if Satan was tempted on his own accord, other people can also be tempted likewise. Where then is the need of Satan? In so far as God let the rebel Satan loose, He also was responsible for the mischief wrought by the fiend. Who can be more unjust than the being who instigates theft and then sits in judgment over the thief? (p. 705-6)

Even young boys available in Paradise

“Of course it stands to reason that there should be youths in paradise when God has created virgins there. But we are told that the virgins in paradise are destined to be united to those male mortals who repair to paradise from this world. What about those male youths then who perpetually dwell in paradise? God has kept reticent as regards their marriage, will they also along with the virgins be surrendered to their candidate-mortals from this world? God has thrown no light on this point, and it must be regarded as a great omission on His part… So much regarding the Mohammadan paradise. As regards the Mohammadan hell, its inmates will have to feed on (thohar) Euphobia nereifolia [This means that there are thorny trees in hell bearing thorns], and drink hot water. Such then are the sufferings they will be afflicted within hell.”

Swami Dayananda Saraswati had characterized the Allah of the Quran as Muhammad’s domestic servant. He was very right when he did so.

1. Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-1883)
2. Swami Vivekanand (1863-1902)
3. Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)
4. Yogi Shri Aurobindo Ghosh (1872-1950)
5. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)
6. Dr. Baba Saheb

Bhim Rao Ambedkar (1891-1956)
7. Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833)
8. Nirad Chandra Chaudhuri (1897-1999)
9. Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958)
10.

Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932)
11. Maharshi Satyananda Saraswati
12. Dr. K.S. Lal (1920-2002)
13. Dr S Radhakrishnan (Ex-President of India)

   Swami Vivekananda was an Indian Hindu monk, a saint and a philosopher. He was a disciple of the 19th-century Indian saint Ramakrishna Paramhans. He was a key figure in the introduction of the Indian philosophies of Vedanta and Yoga to the Western world, and is credited with raising interfaith awareness during the late 19th century. He is perhaps best known for his speech which began with, “Sisters and brothers of America …” in which he introduced Hinduism at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1893. He was a scholar in English, Sanskrit and Bengali languages.

     He was influenced by his Guru Ramakrishna Paramhans (1836-1886). He traveled to the United States, representing India at the 1893 Parliament of the World Religions. Vivekananda conducted hundreds of public and private lectures and classes, disseminating tenets of philosophy in the United States, England and Europe. In India, Vivekananda is regarded as a patriotic saint and his birthday is celebrated there as National Youth Day.

   Parliament of World Religion’s President John Henry Barrows (Chicago-1893) said, “India, the Mother of religions was represented by Swami Vivekananda, the Orange-monk who exercised the most wonderful influence over his auditors”. Vivekananda attracted widespread attention in the press, which called him the “cyclonic monk from India”. The New York Critique wrote, “He is an orator by divine right, and his strong, intelligent face in its picturesque setting of yellow and orange was hardly less interesting than those earnest words, and the rich, rhythmical utterance he gave them”. The New York Herald noted, “Vivekananda is undoubtedly the greatest figure in the Parliament of Religions. After hearing him we feel how foolish it is to send missionaries to this learned nation”.

   American newspapers reported Vivekananda as “the greatest figure in the parliament of religions” and “the most popular and influential man in the parliament”. The Boston Evening Transcript reported that Vivekananda was “a great favourite at the parliament… if he merely crosses the platform, he is applauded”. He spoke several more times “at receptions, the scientific section, and private homes” on topics related to Hinduism, Buddhism and harmony among religions until the parliament ended on 27 September 1893.

   His nationalistic ideas influenced many Indian thinkers and leaders. Saint Aurobindo (1872-1950) regarded Vivekananda as the one who awakened India spiritually. M K Gandhi counted him among the few Hindu reformers “who have maintained this Hindu religion in a state of splendor by cutting down the dead wood of tradition”.

    According to Subhash Chandra Bose (1897-1945), a proponent of armed struggle for Indian independence and one of India’s greatest freedom fighters, Vivekananda was “the maker of modern India”, while for Gandhi Vivekananda’s influence increased Gandhi’s “love for his country a thousandfold”. Vivekananda influenced India’s independence movement and his writings inspired independence activists such as Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Aurobindo Ghose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak (the Father of Indian unrest) and Bagha Jatin and intellectuals such as Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, Romain Rolland.

   Many years after Vivekananda’s death Sir Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) told French Nobel laureate Romain Rolland^: “If you want to know India, study Vivekananda. In him everything is positive and nothing negative”. Rolland wrote, “His words are great music, phrases in the style of Beethoven, stirring rhythms like the march of Händel choruses. I cannot touch these sayings of his, scattered as they are through the pages of books, at thirty years’ distance, without receiving a thrill through my body like an electric shock. And what shocks, what transports, must have been produced when in burning words they issued from the lips of the hero!”

      This great monk, who no one can call an ‘Ignorant Communalist’ had also written about Islam. He was a learned and knowledgeable man, a world-famous scholar of repute. The following is what this great philosopher said about Islam.

(All quotations taken from the Complete works of Swami Vivekananda (Vol. I-VIII)).

Millions massacred through Mohammad’s teachings : If you read the Koran, you find the most wonderful truths mixed with superstitions. How will you explain it? That man (Prophet Mohammed) was inspired, no doubt, but the inspiration was as it were, stumbled upon. He was not a trained Yogi, and did not know the reason of what he was doing. Think of the good Mohammed did to the world, and think of the great evil that has been done through his fanaticism! Think of the millions massacred through his teachings, mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans, whole countries destroyed, millions upon millions of people killed! (Vol. I. P. 184)

Muslim rituals : The Mohammedan, who thinks that every ritual, every form, every image or ceremony used by a non-Mohammedan is sinful does not think so when he comes to his own shrine, the Caaba. Every religious Mohammedan, wherever he prays, must imagine that he is standing before the Caaba. When the makes a pilgrimage there, he must kiss the black stone in the wall of the shrine. All the kisses that have been imprinted on that stone, by millions and millions of pilgrims, will stand up as witnesses for the benefit of the faithful on the Last Day of Judgment. Then, there is the well of Zimzim. Mohammedans believe that whoever draws a little water out of that well will have sins pardoned, and he will, after the Day of Resurrection, have a fresh body, and live for ever. (Vol. 2, p. 39)

Kill who are not Muslims : The Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in the Koran, “Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohamedans”. They must be put to fire and sword. (Vol. 2, p. 335)

Killing unbelievers is surest way to Heaven : The more selfish a man, the more immoral he is. And so also with the race. That race which is bound down to itself has been the most cruel and the most wicked in the whole world. There has not been a religion that has clung to this dualism more than that founded by the Prophet of Arabia, and there has not been a religion which has shed so much blood, and been so cruel to other man. In the Koran there is the doctrine that a man who does not believe these teachings should be killed; it is a mercy to kill him ! And the surest way to get to heaven, where there are beautiful ‘houris’ and all sorts of sense-enjoyments, is by killing these unbelievers. Think of the bloodshed there has been in consequence of such beliefs! (Vol. 2, p. 352-53)

Every step forward was made with the sword : Think of little sects, born within a few hundred years out of fallible human brains, making this arrogant claim of knowledge of the whole of God’s infinite truth! Think of the arrogance of it ! If it shows anything, it is this : how vain human beings are. And it is no wonder that such claims have always failed, and, by the mercy of the Lord, are always destined to fall. In this line, the Mohammedans were the best off; every step forward was made with the sword – the Koran in the one hand and the sword in the other : “Take the Koran, or you must die; there is no alternative!”. You know from history how phenomenal was their success; for six hundred years nothing could resist them, and then there came a time when they had to cry halt. So will be with other religions if they follow the same methods. (Vol. 2, pp. 369-70).

Universal brotherhood for Muslims only: Mohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why, anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into the brotherhood; he will more likely have his throat cut. (Vol. 2, p. 80)

Use of graves in place of images : The Mohammedans use the graves of their saints and martyrs almost in the place of images. (Vol. 3, p. 61)

God as a child : For the Mohammedans, it is impossible to have this idea of God as a child; they will shrink from it with a kind of horror. But the Christian and the Hindu can realize it easily because they have the baby Jesus and the baby Krishna. (Vol. 3, p. 96)

No temple building in a Muslim country : It is here that Indians build temples for Mohammedans and Christians; nowhere else. If you go to other countries and ask Mohammedans or people of other religions to build a temple for you, see how they will help. They will instead try to break down your temple and you too, if they can. (Vol. 3, p. 114).

Word Hindu covers all those who live in India : The word (‘Hindu’), therefore, covers not only Hindus proper, but Mohammedans, Christians, Jains and other people who live in India. (Vol. 3, p. 110).

Allah-ho-Akbar for centuries : Wave after wave of barbarian conquest has rolled over this devoted land of ours [India]. “Allah-ho-Akbar!” has rent the skies for hundreds of years, and no Hindu knew what moment would be his last. This is the most suffering and the most subjugated of all the historic lands in the world. Yet we still stand practically the same race, ready to face difficulties again and again, if necessary, and not only so, of late there have been signs that we are not only strong but ready to go out, for the sign of life is expansion. (Vol. 3, p. 369-70).

Only they are right ! : Ignorant persons… not only deny the right of every man to interpret the universe according to his own light, but dare to say that others are entirely wrong, and they alone are right. If they are opposed, they begin to fight. They say that they will kill any man who does not believe as they believe, and as the Mohammedans do. (Vol. 4, p. 52).

Worshipping saints : The Mohammedans from the beginning stood against any idol worship. They would have nothing to do with worshipping the Prophets or the Messengers, or paying any homage to them; but, practically, instead of one Prophet, thousands upon thousands of saints are being worshipped. (Vol. 4, p. 121)

Mohammedans most sectarian : Now, some Mohammedans are the crudest in this respect, and the most sectarian. Their watchword is. “There is one God, and Mohammed is His Prophet”. Everything beyond that not only is bad, but must be destroyed forthwith; at moment’s notice, every man or woman, who does not exactly believe in that, must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years, blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism! Nevertheless, among these Mohammedans, wherever there was a philosophic man, he was sure to protest against these cruelties. (Vol. 4, p. 126)

Sword flashed for hundreds of years in India : Wave after wave had flooded this land, breaking and crushing everything for hundreds of years. The sword has flashed, and “Victory unto Allah” had rent the skies of India; but these floods subsided, leaving the national ideals unchanged. (Vol. 4, p. 159)

Kafir deserves to be butchered : To the Mussulmans, the Jews or the Christians are not object of extreme detestation; they are, at the worst, men of little faith. But not so the Hindu. According to him, the Hindu is idolatrous, the hateful Kafir; hence in this life he deserves to be butchered; and in the next, eternal hell is in store for him. The utmost the Mussulman kings could do as a favour to the (Hindu) priestly class – the spiritual guides of these Kafirs – was to allow them somehow to pass their life silently and wait for, the last moment. This was again sometimes considered too much kindness! If the religious ardour of any (Muslim) king was a little more uncommon, there would immediately follow arrangements for a great yajna by way of Kafir slaughter! (Vol. 4, p. 446)

Mohammedans brought murder here : You know that the Hindu religion never persecutes. It is the land where all sects may live in peace and amity. The Mohammedans brought murder and slaughter in their train, but until their arrival peace prevailed (Vol. 5, p. 190)

In India the Mohammedans were the first who ever took the sword. (Vol. 5, p. 197)

Loss of a Hindu, gain of an enemy : When the Mohammedans first came, we are said – I think the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian – to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions. (That means population down from 60 crores to 20 crores). And then every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more.

“Again, the vast majority of Hindu converts to Islam and Christianity are converts by sword, or the descendants of these.” (Vol. 5, p. 233)

Mohammedan conquest had to fall back : The wave of Mohammedan conquest, which had swallowed the whole earth, had to fall back before India. (Vol. 5, p. 528)

Hashashin became ‘assassin’ : Hashshashin has became our word ‘assassin’ because an old sect of Mohammedanism killed non-believers as a part of its creed. (Vol. 7, p. 40)

Islam caused great violence : The Mohammedans used the greatest violence. (Vol. 7, p. 217).

    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 16^th Oct, 1933, quoted in Bengali weekly ‘Swastika’, 21-6-1999)

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)

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?

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.”

“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)

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

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

more that Gandhiji spoke against Islam.

All quotations are from ‘Pakistan or The partition of India’ by B.R. Ambedkar, 3^rd 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)

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)

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)

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.)

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’,

1319 Bangabda)

Maharshi Satyananda Saraswati, the founder of ‘Shaktibaad’, wrote :

Islam and communism are similar : “There are some striking similarities between Islam and Communism. There is no spirituality in Islam. Muslims worship Allah just to get houris (the beautiful girls of the heaven), but not to get knowledge of the

God. So Islam only indulged in earthly and sensual pleasure. Mohammed invented a theory to create a group of followers of Allah by loot, rape, and murder of the non-Muslims.” (‘Shaktishali Samaj [meaning strong society,] by Swami Maharshi Satyananda Saraswati, Shaktimath, Kolkata, 1375 Bangabda,)

The great historian writes in his book “Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India” Vol, Delhi, 1999 as below:

Quran does not permit continuance of other faiths : “The two belonged to two different religious streams. The Muslim sultans reigned according to the dictates of the Shariat, the Hindu emperors on the principles of Dharmashastra. Their rules of war and governance were poles part.

The Quran does not permit the existence or continuance of other faiths and their religious practices. Of the 6236 ayats in the Quran about 3,900 are directly or indirectly related to Kafirs, Mushriks, Munkirs, Munafiqs or non-believers in Allah and his Prophet. Broadly speaking these 3,900 ayats fall into two categories-those relating to Muslims who for their faith will be rewarded in this as well as the world hereafter, and those relating to Kafirs or non-believers who are to be punished in this world and are destined to go to Hell after death.” (pp. 4-5)

Quran reads like a manual of war : “The Quran reads like a manual of war on mankind rather than a charter of brotherhood for al mankind. For people of other faiths, Jihad or permanent war was the command of the Quran and order of the day. Islam recommends Jihad or perpetual war on adherents of other religions – to lay hold of them, bind them, strike off their heads ad burn them in the fire of hell. This makes Islam a totalitarian and terrorist cult which it has remained ever since its birth.” (p. 5)

Muslim invaders came to impose Islam on India : “Muslim invaders and rulers had come not only to conquer but also to impose the Islamic religion. And the gulf created by the phenomenon has not been bridged. For, Islam is an imposition on India. Worse, it has been imposed through conquest. Ralph Borsodi, an American educationist and social thinker, in his the Challenge of Asia observes that “everywhere in the world except in Asia Minor, the three great Semitic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are intruders; that indigenous Asia in Brahmanist, Confucianist, Buddhist, Taoist; indigenous Europe is pagan; that in Europe, Christianity is a superimposition; in Asia, Islam is.” (pp. 6-7)

Jihad means killing or converting Non-Muslims : “Jihad is the highest duty of a Muslim Jihad means attacking, killing, enslaving or converting non-Muslims even when they have done no harm to the Muslims, even when they are unarmed. Jihad is waged for the sake of Allah; war and worship in his service are the same. Shirking Jihad is the greatest sin’ obtaining glory through Jihad is the highest grace. Islam suffers from the ego of triumphalism. It says that it should triumph over others, because it alone is true and all others are false. Not all exclusivists belong to the militant extreme, but all are convinced that their religion alone is true. This is Islamic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is belief in the inherency of the scriptures of one’s religion. Fundamentalism is not accidental but essential to Islam.” (pp. 9-10)

In Islam, truth is established by sword : “What Islam always meant by “knowledge”
(ilm) was religious knowledge by “revelation”, the logic that all that is in Islam is right. It sees unchageability as strength. That is why the word reform is so abhorrent to Muslim thinkers and religious leaders. In Islamic scriptures there are commands, directions and orders. There is no mention of discussions or consensus arrived at. This was the practice in Arabia after its conquest by Muhammad and this was the practice wherever Muslim armies marched. In Islam, truth is established by the sword, not through arguments.” (p. 10)

Iconoclasm is important in Islam : “Image breaking is a contribution of prophetic religions. In Islam, iconoclasm is important, but it is more important that the shrines of non-Muslims are desecrated and destroyed rather than spared through agreement or in exchange for wealth. (What Mahmud of Ghazni declared at Somnath according to Attar, is the gist of the true spirit of Islam).” (p. 10)

Islam permits no separation of state and Religion : “The Quran and the Hadis provided the foundation upon which theology and law of Islam were raised. Totalitarian nature of Islam permits no separation of state and church. “Law in Islam is more intimately related to religion than to jurisprudence as modern lawyers understand it.” (p. 10)

Islam a creed of aggression and violence : “The ponderosity of the Jihad gave them the energy and the rapidity of electric current. And Islam came to be what the world has ever since recognized it to be – a militant religion, a creed of aggression ad violence.” (p. 12)

Islamic expanded for economic gains : “Islam originated in the land of the Arabs. The rise of Arabs as a political power has been elucidated by a large number of writers on Islam. T.W. Arnold observes that the expansion of the Arabs was due not so much to the religious spirit as to their desire to obtain the lands and goods of their neighbours who were richer and more fortunate than themselves. Most Arabs of the day of prophet Muhammad were poor. They needed a reformer to improve their economic condition. There are two ways of alleviating poverty and gaining economic well-being. One way is to work hard and raise one’s resources through labour and sweat. The other is to attack and rob others and thereby grow rich. The early indigent Arab Muslims could either be persuaded to make a

living by working hard, or encouraged to attack and plunder the others. Islam resorted to the second alternative as ordered by Allah. Recruits, mainly from among the slaves or lower classes, began to swell the rank of the believers, or in the flowery words of Edward Gibbon, the spepherds were turned into robbers and robbers were collected to form an army of conquest. “Soldiering was not only the noblest and most pleasing professions in the sight of Allah but also most profitable.” (p. 12-13)

Islam spread by armed might : “Islam spread through unparalleled feats of armed might. Some Muslim merchants spread their creed by peaceful means also by making their employees and other beneficiaries join their faith. Peaceful propagation of Islam was ruled out by the fact that the majority of early Arab Muslims were not educated enough to discuss, debate, argue and convince. Hence they were not trained for spreading the new creed through any missionary endeavour. They could only wield the sword very well. Hence Muslim historical literature repeatedly mentions that Islam spread through military conquest when the vanquished were offered the alternative of Islam or death. They accepted Islam because they had hardly any other choice. Death is no choice because nobody chooses death, so they chose Islam.” (pp. 14-15)

Tolerance is found in Meccan, and killing of non-Muslims in Medianan Ayats : There are one or two passages in the Quran evincing tolerance like: “Your religion to you, my religion to me; or, there is no compulsion in religion.” “All passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan, i.e., early Suras, and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating, and maiming are Medinan, i.e., later toleration has been abrogated by intolerance. For example,

the famous verse 9.5, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” is said to have concelled 124 verses that dictate toleration and patience.” (p. 15)

Islam has to different sets of morality for Muslims and Non-Muslims : “Islam has two sets of principles of morality, ethics and justice : On e for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims. Sincerity, well-wishing and brotherhood are for the believers and faithful. For non-Muslims the principles and standards of behaviour are different.” (p. 15)

Arab invasion of Sindh : The Arab and later Turk Muslims spread into India throught three major waves of invasions, but it took them five hundred years to do so. After the conquest of Iran by 643 CE, the boundaries of the Caliphate touched the frontiers of India. India, known to early Arabs as Hind wa sind, too could not escape Muslim expansionist designs, and they sent their armies into India both by land and sea. They proceeded alone the then known (trade) routes – (1) from Kufa and Baghdad, via Basra and Hormuz to Chaul on India’s west coast; (2) from West Persian towns, via Hormuz to Debal in Sindh; and (3) through the

land route of northern Khurasan to Kabul via Bamian. But progress of Muslim arms and religion in India was slow, verty slow. For, the declarations of the objectives of Muslim invaders had not taken into account the potentialities of Indian’s stiff and latent resistance. Caliph Umar (634-44 CE) had sent an expedition in 636-37 to pillage Thana. It was followed by some attempts on the part of Caliphs Usman and Ali. But in vain. The four ‘pious’ Caliphs of Islam died without hearing of the conquest of Sind and Hind. (p. 17)

The spread of Islam was military : “As Dr. Ali Issa Othman, for some years adviser to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) on education said; “The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency to apologize for this and we should not. It is one of the injunctions of the Koran that you must fight for the spreading of Islam.” The success achieved in this fight for spreading of Islam is also the main story of the medieval Muslim chronicles. The importance of ‘force’ in Islam should be acknowledged rather than minimized. The denial of force as a means of spreading Islam by a few modern apologists, like Aziz Ahmad and Muhammad Mujeeb cannot alter the basic truth about the history and philosophy of Islam, nor spirit behind words like Kafir, Jihad, Jiziyah, etc.” (p. 23)