01-09-2005, 11:24 PM
THE MUSLIM MIND
A landmark publication of immense importance had been released recently: :<b>Islam, Maker of the Muslim Mind</b>, by Seshrao More (pronounced Moray). (Rajhans Prakashan, Pune 30 < email< rajhans@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; pp 662; Rs.800 or $30 plus postage) The book is a translation of the Marathi Magnum Opus of More âMuslim Manache Shodhâ (Examination of the Muslim mind). The translation of the book had been carried out by a team led by Prof. S. H. Deshpande. The other members of the team are B.C.Patwardhan, A.P.Joshi and Prof. Bal Gadgil.
It may be worthwhile to mention that the Marathi version of the book had received uniform praise from Muslim scholars, the English Press and the State Government. That should establish the scholastic credentials of the author.
The book is different from the analysis of Islam by western scholars. The western approach has been colored by the negative perception of Islam arising from the challenge of the religion to their Judeo-Christian inheritance. The Jewish scholar Raphael Patai in his classical book, Arab Mind, had looked upon Islam as a product of the Arab mind. He insists that the megalomania of the pre-Islamic Arab culture was responsible for the Islamic extravaganza and its contradictions. Indian experience with Islam had been different but no Indian scholar had done the analysis from an Indian perspective. Seshrao More traces Islamic thought as the dominant influence on Muslim behavior. The book fills the gap between the western and eastern perceptions of Islam.
The challenge of Islam arises from its political orientation. The religion had escaped close analysis by its own adherents and by outsiders so far because of its absolutist assertions. A Voltaire or a Tom Payne had not poured vitriol and ridicule on its concepts. The incipient attempt at criticism and satire of Islam by Salman Rushdie was squashed by a death sentence to the author. Neither had it produced internal reformers similar to the Hindu saints like Ramanuja, Basaveshwara and the secular Ram Mohan Roy nor had it endured the contemptuous contradictions of the latest and most radical amongst the rejectionists like Ramaswamy Naicker of Tamil Nadu.
Is the closed mind of Islamic societies responsible for the absence of this universal human phenomenon of progress by protest? The apologia of the Islamists would confirm this view. In a strange twist of logic, the apologists of Islam and the extremists depend upon the same sources. The internal contradictions in its primary sources could have been used as a cause for creative reformation. The fact that this had not happened shows that the âbrainwashingâ effect of Islamâs precepts has had a far greater reach and penetration than is appreciated.
Seshrao More takes no sides. As a scholar should, he remains objective. âNot a single line in the book has been penned without supportive evidenceâ says the blurb quoting five prominent Muslim scholars who endorse the book for its faithfulness to the precepts of Islam. In fact the foreword by the Muslim scholars brings out all the contradictions in Islamic thought and the extent of the brainwashing that had gone on over the centuries and the fine sophistry developed to justify it.
How did Islam achieve such complete mastery over the minds of its adherents? The blurb on the inside jacket stresses the âfive pillarsâ of Islam as the defining elements of the faith. A believer has to accept all without any omission or reservation. A further restraint is the comprehensive example of the founderâs behavior.
Max Muller stated that the founder of Islam tried to reach an agreement with the Jews to get himself recognized as a Prophet in the line of Old Testament Prophets. The Jews rejected the notion. Prophesy as a tradition had ended for the Jews at the time of the destruction of the second temple. Afterwards it was Rabbinical Judaism. The rejection was the basis for Islamâs hostility to Judaism. Even as Islam appropriated all Jewish tenets, it accused the latter of distorting the âtruthâ. The illogic of Islam and its revelation stem from this fact. The five eminent Muslims claim that Islamic practices were not appropriations from Judaism but were instituted at âAllahâs commandâ.
The battle of Badr was the first significant victory won by Mohammed. He ordered his followers âGo and attack it (the Qureysh caravan). Perhaps Allah will give it as a prey and enrich you.â That this order to get prey and enrichment set the trend for âlooting, pillaging, fighting battles and killingâ is denied by the five scholars. Their argument is that there were other developments also in Medina. The injunction to âembrace Islam and live in peaceâ is interpreted not as a threat from Muslims but from Allah. Since Muslims are expected to implement Allahâs orders it does not mean any greater amount of safety for the non-believer.
The book devotes two chapters to Jihad, the concept that threatens the world today. The evolution of the concept illustrates the dichotomy of Muslim attitude to Jihad. It did not exist in Mecca where Mohammed and his followers were weak and helpless. It was first âpermittedâ in Medina on a trial basis in the Badr war. As Islamic consolidation took roots Jihad metamorphosed into a commandment that it had become today. The foreword by the five scholars quotes M.Mawadudi. It says âIf some people persist in their opposition to the establishment of an ideology in spite of preaching, giving discourses or writing about it then it becomes necessary to use defensive, counter offensive and EVEN AGGRESSIVE FORCE.â This is not different from the language of the terrorists.
Persecution is to be fought. Seshrao says persecution means the existence of âdisbeliefâ. The five eminent Muslims differ. It means, according to them, âdenial of freedom to accept Islam.â The Quranic statement âThere is no compulsion in religionâ refers to compulsion against Islam. The reverse is not true because apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.
Jiziya is another concept where practice varies from the interpretation of the Muslim scholars. It was a tax on non-Muslims according to popular notion. The levy of the tax on the Hindus by Muslim rulers is wrong according to the concerned scholars because the state was the personal property of the rulers as distinct from an Islamic State. I doubt if Aurangazeb would agree that his rule was not an implementation of Allahâs orders.
The test of the pudding is said to be in the eating. It is here that Islam fails whatever the quibbling by its apologists. It is intolerant and single tracked. Pluralism is out of bounds for the Muslim. Truth is exclusively only what Islam ordains. Political power and brute force are central to it. It is in this tragic milieu that Sehsrao Moreâs book acquires great significance.
Skb.
* Seshrao Moreâs book had not received the publicity it deserves. It is essential to understand Ilsam and its techniques of brainwashing. Please contact the pulbisher for bulk requriements.
A landmark publication of immense importance had been released recently: :<b>Islam, Maker of the Muslim Mind</b>, by Seshrao More (pronounced Moray). (Rajhans Prakashan, Pune 30 < email< rajhans@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; pp 662; Rs.800 or $30 plus postage) The book is a translation of the Marathi Magnum Opus of More âMuslim Manache Shodhâ (Examination of the Muslim mind). The translation of the book had been carried out by a team led by Prof. S. H. Deshpande. The other members of the team are B.C.Patwardhan, A.P.Joshi and Prof. Bal Gadgil.
It may be worthwhile to mention that the Marathi version of the book had received uniform praise from Muslim scholars, the English Press and the State Government. That should establish the scholastic credentials of the author.
The book is different from the analysis of Islam by western scholars. The western approach has been colored by the negative perception of Islam arising from the challenge of the religion to their Judeo-Christian inheritance. The Jewish scholar Raphael Patai in his classical book, Arab Mind, had looked upon Islam as a product of the Arab mind. He insists that the megalomania of the pre-Islamic Arab culture was responsible for the Islamic extravaganza and its contradictions. Indian experience with Islam had been different but no Indian scholar had done the analysis from an Indian perspective. Seshrao More traces Islamic thought as the dominant influence on Muslim behavior. The book fills the gap between the western and eastern perceptions of Islam.
The challenge of Islam arises from its political orientation. The religion had escaped close analysis by its own adherents and by outsiders so far because of its absolutist assertions. A Voltaire or a Tom Payne had not poured vitriol and ridicule on its concepts. The incipient attempt at criticism and satire of Islam by Salman Rushdie was squashed by a death sentence to the author. Neither had it produced internal reformers similar to the Hindu saints like Ramanuja, Basaveshwara and the secular Ram Mohan Roy nor had it endured the contemptuous contradictions of the latest and most radical amongst the rejectionists like Ramaswamy Naicker of Tamil Nadu.
Is the closed mind of Islamic societies responsible for the absence of this universal human phenomenon of progress by protest? The apologia of the Islamists would confirm this view. In a strange twist of logic, the apologists of Islam and the extremists depend upon the same sources. The internal contradictions in its primary sources could have been used as a cause for creative reformation. The fact that this had not happened shows that the âbrainwashingâ effect of Islamâs precepts has had a far greater reach and penetration than is appreciated.
Seshrao More takes no sides. As a scholar should, he remains objective. âNot a single line in the book has been penned without supportive evidenceâ says the blurb quoting five prominent Muslim scholars who endorse the book for its faithfulness to the precepts of Islam. In fact the foreword by the Muslim scholars brings out all the contradictions in Islamic thought and the extent of the brainwashing that had gone on over the centuries and the fine sophistry developed to justify it.
How did Islam achieve such complete mastery over the minds of its adherents? The blurb on the inside jacket stresses the âfive pillarsâ of Islam as the defining elements of the faith. A believer has to accept all without any omission or reservation. A further restraint is the comprehensive example of the founderâs behavior.
Max Muller stated that the founder of Islam tried to reach an agreement with the Jews to get himself recognized as a Prophet in the line of Old Testament Prophets. The Jews rejected the notion. Prophesy as a tradition had ended for the Jews at the time of the destruction of the second temple. Afterwards it was Rabbinical Judaism. The rejection was the basis for Islamâs hostility to Judaism. Even as Islam appropriated all Jewish tenets, it accused the latter of distorting the âtruthâ. The illogic of Islam and its revelation stem from this fact. The five eminent Muslims claim that Islamic practices were not appropriations from Judaism but were instituted at âAllahâs commandâ.
The battle of Badr was the first significant victory won by Mohammed. He ordered his followers âGo and attack it (the Qureysh caravan). Perhaps Allah will give it as a prey and enrich you.â That this order to get prey and enrichment set the trend for âlooting, pillaging, fighting battles and killingâ is denied by the five scholars. Their argument is that there were other developments also in Medina. The injunction to âembrace Islam and live in peaceâ is interpreted not as a threat from Muslims but from Allah. Since Muslims are expected to implement Allahâs orders it does not mean any greater amount of safety for the non-believer.
The book devotes two chapters to Jihad, the concept that threatens the world today. The evolution of the concept illustrates the dichotomy of Muslim attitude to Jihad. It did not exist in Mecca where Mohammed and his followers were weak and helpless. It was first âpermittedâ in Medina on a trial basis in the Badr war. As Islamic consolidation took roots Jihad metamorphosed into a commandment that it had become today. The foreword by the five scholars quotes M.Mawadudi. It says âIf some people persist in their opposition to the establishment of an ideology in spite of preaching, giving discourses or writing about it then it becomes necessary to use defensive, counter offensive and EVEN AGGRESSIVE FORCE.â This is not different from the language of the terrorists.
Persecution is to be fought. Seshrao says persecution means the existence of âdisbeliefâ. The five eminent Muslims differ. It means, according to them, âdenial of freedom to accept Islam.â The Quranic statement âThere is no compulsion in religionâ refers to compulsion against Islam. The reverse is not true because apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.
Jiziya is another concept where practice varies from the interpretation of the Muslim scholars. It was a tax on non-Muslims according to popular notion. The levy of the tax on the Hindus by Muslim rulers is wrong according to the concerned scholars because the state was the personal property of the rulers as distinct from an Islamic State. I doubt if Aurangazeb would agree that his rule was not an implementation of Allahâs orders.
The test of the pudding is said to be in the eating. It is here that Islam fails whatever the quibbling by its apologists. It is intolerant and single tracked. Pluralism is out of bounds for the Muslim. Truth is exclusively only what Islam ordains. Political power and brute force are central to it. It is in this tragic milieu that Sehsrao Moreâs book acquires great significance.
Skb.
* Seshrao Moreâs book had not received the publicity it deserves. It is essential to understand Ilsam and its techniques of brainwashing. Please contact the pulbisher for bulk requriements.