04-12-2006, 12:40 AM
From Balbir K. Punj :
I keep on getting mails and e-mails â approbating, enquiring, or
critical â from my readers. I normally respond at an individual
level. I never thought that one of these could become the theme of a
column. But recently one Nazar Ahmed Khan, resident of Civil Lines,
Aligarh, who apparently keeps a tab on my column in the Hindi daily
Dainik Jagran, has sent me a missive running into five pages. The
letter is a veiled threat to refrain from propagating
my "misinformed views on Islam based on isolated events and
individual writings on Islamophobes." It further offers me a chance
to understand "true Islam," if not embrace it as well, for the
writer is confident that my "future generation" will have to accept
Islam in any case.
I thought it wise to share my reply in Dainik Jagran with readers of
my English column. The letter offers a glimpse into a Muslim mind.
It is an empirical truism that it is Islam that shapes the mind of a
Muslim. Christianity doesn't shape the mind of a Christian, nor
Hinduism of a Hindu, Buddhism of a Buddhist in that sense and to
that extent.
Most Muslims not only have a different perception of religion, of
their own and others', but also of history, law, politics,
international institutions, banking, education, women's status. No
other ideology or thought, viz. democracy, communism, anarchism,
free thinking, can impassion the Muslim masses except for Islam. In
Muslim countries, any and every decision has to pass the "Islamic or
un-Islamic" test.
The letter, typical of any Muslim apologist, says, I have not
understood Islam. To be precise, my forefathers for 600 years
neither understood Islam nor had any inclination to understand it.
In fact, Dhimmis (non-Muslims under Muslim rule), were legally
barred from teaching their children the Quran. A kafir (non-Muslim)
could either embrace Islam, or pay jizya (religious taxation) to
preserve his identity. Not infrequently, they were given a choice
between sword and Islam (Toru Singh and Veer Hakikat Rai are classic
cases). Forefathers of Mr Nazar Ahmad Khan, probably chose the
former, mine the latter. We did not understand Islam, but we
suffered and survived Islam.
The truth is that few non-Muslims have academic fascination about
Islam. They want to avoid Islam or escape Islam. It is only the
persistent pressure of Islam on non-Muslim demography and world
order that is compelling non-Muslims to rethink about Islam.
I don't understand Islam, but Osama bin Laden and Aiyman al Zawahari
do; Aurangzeb, Shah Waliullah, Said Qutb, Maulana Maududi and Ali
Mian did.
I am sure Mr Nazar Ahmed Khan will not claim better knowledge of
Islam than those eminent men of religion. What do their views come
down to? It is to re-establish an Islamic state and Islamic world
order under the "shade of swords." This view is inherent in Islam.
Mr Nazar Khan is annoyed at me for calling Islam claustrophobic. He
points out that many in the free society of the West are gravitating
towards Islam for its "philosophical and religious appeal." They
have no monetary, social or political gain by accepting Islam.
Certainly, he has a point, I must accept. Why should Mary McLeod,
daughter of a Jamaican evangelical Christian, become a Muslim and
drape herself in burqa? His son Germaine Maurice Lindsay also known
as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal was one of the four suicide bombers in
London tube rail explosion on July 7, 2005.
But most westerners who accepted Islam never accepted the rigours of
Islam. Few like John Walker Lynd, the "American Taliban," would give
up comforts and the democratic system of the West to fight on the
rugged terrain of Afghanistan against his compatriots.
But Nazar Khan is not correct in saying that Muslims (despite death
penalty on apostasy) do not go out of Islam. He might check on
websites like www.faithfreedom.org or www.mukto-mona.com run by
apostate Muslims. You also have people like Ibn Warraq writing, Why
I am not a Muslim and editing Leaving Islam, or Anwar Sheikh, Islam:
The Arab Imperialism. Prior to leaving Islam many of them were
devout, even fanatic, Muslims.
In any case, I leave Islam to them, since each one of them knows
Islam better than I do.
The letter-writer mentions that there is a long list of social
malpractice in Hinduism. Dalits were doubtless subjected to many
religious and social handicaps. But social reformers arose from
within Hindu society in every age, reformers who opposed
untouchability, casteism, sati, bar on women's education, child
marriage, polygamy etc.
Who can be a greater authority on this subject than Babasaheb
Ambedkar? Dr B.R. Ambedkar says, "The Hindus have their social
evils. But there is a relieving feature about them, namely, that
some of them are conscious of their existence and are
actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other
hand, do not realize that there are evils and consequently do not
agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in the
existing practices. It is noteworthy that 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 boy to 18 on the
ground that it was opposed to the Muslim canon law" (Pakistan or
Partition of India, p.233).
Nor am I surprised when the writer claims that the philosophy of
Islam is so perfect that neither Semitic religions like Judaism or
Christianity nor "tribal religions" (sic) like Hinduism can rival
it. Now, Islam revolves around the Quran, and the Prophet's Sunna
(saying and acts of the Prophet that every Muslim should try to
emulate to the best of his capacity).
Thus Islam is a theology not a philosophy. The Ayat (verses) of the
Quran are like commands to be followed with unquestioning obedience.
There is no scope for discovery, debate, discussion or consensus.
Doubt in Islam, unlike in Christianity, is equal to disbelief, which
is punishable. Philosophy entered Islam through Christian writings,
from Greek scholarship.
But while philosophy triumphed over Christianity, it was banished
from Islam.
The cornerstone of philosophy of ancient India is self-realization.
You can be a yogi if you do yoga and push the present frontiers of
human consciousness. Any scientific postulations must stand the test
of experimentation. But in Islam, Allah has uttered his last word
with Prophet Mohammed. There is no way to either contact Allah or
doubt Mohammed's revelations. A Muslim will only have to obey. He
must also engage in jihad to bring the world unto Islam. If anybody
finds fault with Islam, it is at one's own peril. There is no
tradition of debate and discussion in Islam. This is the source of
Islam's incompatibility with the rest of humanity.
Balbir K. Punj
Member of Parliament India from The Bhartiya Janta Party
I keep on getting mails and e-mails â approbating, enquiring, or
critical â from my readers. I normally respond at an individual
level. I never thought that one of these could become the theme of a
column. But recently one Nazar Ahmed Khan, resident of Civil Lines,
Aligarh, who apparently keeps a tab on my column in the Hindi daily
Dainik Jagran, has sent me a missive running into five pages. The
letter is a veiled threat to refrain from propagating
my "misinformed views on Islam based on isolated events and
individual writings on Islamophobes." It further offers me a chance
to understand "true Islam," if not embrace it as well, for the
writer is confident that my "future generation" will have to accept
Islam in any case.
I thought it wise to share my reply in Dainik Jagran with readers of
my English column. The letter offers a glimpse into a Muslim mind.
It is an empirical truism that it is Islam that shapes the mind of a
Muslim. Christianity doesn't shape the mind of a Christian, nor
Hinduism of a Hindu, Buddhism of a Buddhist in that sense and to
that extent.
Most Muslims not only have a different perception of religion, of
their own and others', but also of history, law, politics,
international institutions, banking, education, women's status. No
other ideology or thought, viz. democracy, communism, anarchism,
free thinking, can impassion the Muslim masses except for Islam. In
Muslim countries, any and every decision has to pass the "Islamic or
un-Islamic" test.
The letter, typical of any Muslim apologist, says, I have not
understood Islam. To be precise, my forefathers for 600 years
neither understood Islam nor had any inclination to understand it.
In fact, Dhimmis (non-Muslims under Muslim rule), were legally
barred from teaching their children the Quran. A kafir (non-Muslim)
could either embrace Islam, or pay jizya (religious taxation) to
preserve his identity. Not infrequently, they were given a choice
between sword and Islam (Toru Singh and Veer Hakikat Rai are classic
cases). Forefathers of Mr Nazar Ahmad Khan, probably chose the
former, mine the latter. We did not understand Islam, but we
suffered and survived Islam.
The truth is that few non-Muslims have academic fascination about
Islam. They want to avoid Islam or escape Islam. It is only the
persistent pressure of Islam on non-Muslim demography and world
order that is compelling non-Muslims to rethink about Islam.
I don't understand Islam, but Osama bin Laden and Aiyman al Zawahari
do; Aurangzeb, Shah Waliullah, Said Qutb, Maulana Maududi and Ali
Mian did.
I am sure Mr Nazar Ahmed Khan will not claim better knowledge of
Islam than those eminent men of religion. What do their views come
down to? It is to re-establish an Islamic state and Islamic world
order under the "shade of swords." This view is inherent in Islam.
Mr Nazar Khan is annoyed at me for calling Islam claustrophobic. He
points out that many in the free society of the West are gravitating
towards Islam for its "philosophical and religious appeal." They
have no monetary, social or political gain by accepting Islam.
Certainly, he has a point, I must accept. Why should Mary McLeod,
daughter of a Jamaican evangelical Christian, become a Muslim and
drape herself in burqa? His son Germaine Maurice Lindsay also known
as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal was one of the four suicide bombers in
London tube rail explosion on July 7, 2005.
But most westerners who accepted Islam never accepted the rigours of
Islam. Few like John Walker Lynd, the "American Taliban," would give
up comforts and the democratic system of the West to fight on the
rugged terrain of Afghanistan against his compatriots.
But Nazar Khan is not correct in saying that Muslims (despite death
penalty on apostasy) do not go out of Islam. He might check on
websites like www.faithfreedom.org or www.mukto-mona.com run by
apostate Muslims. You also have people like Ibn Warraq writing, Why
I am not a Muslim and editing Leaving Islam, or Anwar Sheikh, Islam:
The Arab Imperialism. Prior to leaving Islam many of them were
devout, even fanatic, Muslims.
In any case, I leave Islam to them, since each one of them knows
Islam better than I do.
The letter-writer mentions that there is a long list of social
malpractice in Hinduism. Dalits were doubtless subjected to many
religious and social handicaps. But social reformers arose from
within Hindu society in every age, reformers who opposed
untouchability, casteism, sati, bar on women's education, child
marriage, polygamy etc.
Who can be a greater authority on this subject than Babasaheb
Ambedkar? Dr B.R. Ambedkar says, "The Hindus have their social
evils. But there is a relieving feature about them, namely, that
some of them are conscious of their existence and are
actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other
hand, do not realize that there are evils and consequently do not
agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in the
existing practices. It is noteworthy that 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 boy to 18 on the
ground that it was opposed to the Muslim canon law" (Pakistan or
Partition of India, p.233).
Nor am I surprised when the writer claims that the philosophy of
Islam is so perfect that neither Semitic religions like Judaism or
Christianity nor "tribal religions" (sic) like Hinduism can rival
it. Now, Islam revolves around the Quran, and the Prophet's Sunna
(saying and acts of the Prophet that every Muslim should try to
emulate to the best of his capacity).
Thus Islam is a theology not a philosophy. The Ayat (verses) of the
Quran are like commands to be followed with unquestioning obedience.
There is no scope for discovery, debate, discussion or consensus.
Doubt in Islam, unlike in Christianity, is equal to disbelief, which
is punishable. Philosophy entered Islam through Christian writings,
from Greek scholarship.
But while philosophy triumphed over Christianity, it was banished
from Islam.
The cornerstone of philosophy of ancient India is self-realization.
You can be a yogi if you do yoga and push the present frontiers of
human consciousness. Any scientific postulations must stand the test
of experimentation. But in Islam, Allah has uttered his last word
with Prophet Mohammed. There is no way to either contact Allah or
doubt Mohammed's revelations. A Muslim will only have to obey. He
must also engage in jihad to bring the world unto Islam. If anybody
finds fault with Islam, it is at one's own peril. There is no
tradition of debate and discussion in Islam. This is the source of
Islam's incompatibility with the rest of humanity.
Balbir K. Punj
Member of Parliament India from The Bhartiya Janta Party