Thursday, August 1, 2013

Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902)

          (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 Kuran 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. (Vo. 2, p. 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 fo 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. “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 (Vo. 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. 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 perverts to Islam and Christianity are perverts by sword, or the descendants of these.” (Vo. 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).

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)

               The great apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity had to comment
 (i) “In so far as the charge is correct, the Mussalmans take less interest (in India's freedom movement against the British Rule) 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)
        (iii) “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) 
         (iv) "But I do regard Islam to be a religion of peace in the same sense as Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are. No doubt there are differences in degree, but the object of these religions is peace. I know the passages that can be quoted from the Koran to the contrary. But so is it possible to quote passages from the Vedas to the contrary. What is the meaning of imprecations pronounced against the Anaryas (non-Aryans)?  Of course these passages bear today a different meaning but at one time they did wear a dreadful aspect. What is the meaning of the treatment of untouchables by us Hindus? Let not the pot call the kettle black. The fact is that we are all growing. I have given my opinion that the followers of Islam are too free with the sword. But that is not due to the teaching of the Koran. That is due in my opinion to the environment in which Islam was born. Christianity has a bloody record against it, not because Jesus was found wanting, but because the environment in which it spread was not responsive to his lofty teaching.
   These two, Christianity and Islam, are after all religions of but yesterday. They are yet in the course of being interpreted. I reject the claim of maulvis to give a final interpretation to the message of Mahomed as I reject that of the Christian clergy to give a final interpretation to the message of Jesus. Both are being interpreted in the lives of those who are living these messages in silence and in perfect self-dedication. Bluster is no religion nor is vast learning stored in capacious brains. The seat of religion is in the heart. We Hindus, Christians, Mussalmans and others have to write the interpretation of our respective faiths with our own crimson blood and not otherwise." (Young India, 20-January-1927).
   Gandhi was thus aware of the Quranic passages which preach violence and fanaticism, and convert-or-kill. He said Vedas too may contain some passages which are not peaceful. But Hindus do not regard the Vedas as 'Word of God' to be obeyed without question, but follow modern laws and the Indian Constitution, which was written by a Hindu apostate, Dr Ambedkar. Hindus regard the Vedas to be composed by humans some thousand years ago. But Muslims follow the Quran as the 'Word of God' to be obeyed by all.  Gandhi also knew of Christianity's violent record.

    This can also be found in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 38, pages 87-88. 
 (v)  "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 no doubt in my mind that in the majority of quarrels the Hindus come out second best. But my own experience confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. I have noticed this in railway trains, on public roads, and in the quarrels which I had the privilege of settling. Need the Hindu blame the Mussalman for his cowardice? Where there are cowards, there will always be bullies…But I, as a Hindu, am more ashamed of Hindu cowardice than I am angry at the Mussalman bullying… "

   The source quoted is "Hindu-Muslim Tension: Its Cause and Cure", Young India, 29/5/1924; reproduced in M.K. Gandhi: The Hindu-Muslim Unity, p.35-36.

Dr. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar (1891-1956)

           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)