Invitation to our Hindu brethren

[Ababeel]

ISLAM MYFASCINATION
Abdullah Adiyar

SWORD IN PROPAGATION
OF ISLAM

There seems to be not a bit of truth in the statement that Islam spread by sword. It is a wholly wrong notion resulting from misgivings about Islam. Let us find out the truth.
In the begining both Islam and Christianity spread through silent preaching. The companions of Christ spread Christianity after he left the world. The silent preaching of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was for a very short period followed by open preaching.
'There is no compulsion in Islam'. This message is clear and unambiguous. The Quran itself categorically says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (2:256)
A question arises here. If the statement is true then why the Prophet fought so many battles. The answer is simple and historidc; none of the battles he had to fight was offensive, they were purely defensive in nature. The Prophet and his Companions were left with no choice when the people of Makka attacked the newly formed Islamic state of Medina with the sole intention of eliminating it.
Islam has nothing to do with the battles fought by Muslims rulers. Hindu king Rajendaran invaded Jawa and Sumatra (Indonesia). Traces of Hindu culture are still found there. But it will be unjustified to claim that his invasion was for preaching Hinduism. European Christian rulers established their imperialism in almost all parts of the eastern world. Christianity flourished under their rule but can anyone claim that Christianity has spread through sword. Invasions are for winning countries, after which subjects imitate the culture of their rulers.
There is not a single incident recorded in history when anyone was killed for refusing to embrace Islam.
But history has recorded the mass killing during Catholic--Protestant fight in Europe. Even in our Tamil Nadu eight thousand people of Samnar sect were killed during the rule of Gyan Samandr, history tells us.
But the Prophet compelled neither the Christians nor the Jews to embrace Islam when we was the ruler of Arabia.
There was complete freedom of accepting and following Hindu religion during Muslim rule in India. History bears proof of the fact that Muslim ruler of Delhi. Expansionism was the political motive and it has nothing to do with the propagation of religion. The propagation in fact was done by Muslim scholars and sufis, and who most of the time kept themselves at a distance from the court of the rulers. among them were Shah al Hameed (of Nagur) and Shah Moinuddin (of Ajmer). People get spontaneously attracted towards the principles and teachings of Islam. Such a religion need not take up sword for its propagation.

 

[Ababeel]

ISLAM MYFASCINATION
Abdullah Adiyar

ISLAM SUPERIOR TO COMMUNISM

Islam and Communism have been two strongest ideologies against capitalism.
Karl Marx propounded his theory of super fluous value in his famous book Das Kapital. But very few Communists might have read this book.
Communism claims that though the capitalists do provide and invest their capital, it is the workers labour that earns profit for them. With the income earned through the labour of poor workers the capitalists expand their industries and exploit more workers. Communism vows to end this exploitation and for that purpose it nationalises the resources of income.
The million dollar question is whether nationalisation can be the panacea for all the ills. The workers do not get equal share of profit out of the income earned by the nationalised units. For all practical purposes there is no significant improvement in their economic condition. Moreover, the benefit of share, if any, goes to the workers of that particular industry and not to other needy persons of the society. Thus, nationalisation serves a limited purpose. The surplus income should have gone to every citizen of the country.
A comparative study of Islam and Communism shows that they apply diametrically opposed methods. A Communist regime acquires by force the resources of production of wealth and spends the wealth at will, while Islam urges and stresses to spend surplus wealth voluntarily. The stimulus behind is not force or coercion but faith. There is no arrengement or perhaps no conception in a Communist state of the distribution of the surplus income among individuals. But Islam urges to spend on individuals. Zakat (poor-due) is a certain percentage of the annual surplus which individuals have to compulsarily spend on individuals. Zakat is an Arabic word which means purity and cleanlines. It means that a man purifies himself and his wealth by spending his income on needy perosns. The whole income becomes unholy if Zakat is not taken out from it.
A question may be raised here. Islam's preaching for spending on charities is recommendatory in nature, then how can it stop a capitalist if he is bent upon cheating? History gives us its answer. The first Calipyh Abu Bakr declared wsas on those who refused to give Zakat, although they were Muslims and followers of Islam and the Prophet, because the sin was a grave one. Zakat is next to faith in God, this has been repeatedly stressed.
We know that Communism does not insist upon individual spending., while Islam strongly recommends sits followers to spend from the surplus income, and its non-observence becomes a cognizable offence in an Islamic state. Islam is certainly superior to Communism.
A capitalist harbours the notion that his capital is for his personal cofort and is always apprehensive of spending lest it becomes calamities for him. The Qur'an relieves men from all such apprehensions:
The evil one threatens
You with poverty
And bids you to conduct
Unseemly (miserliness).
Allah promiseth you
His forgiveness
And bounties.
Allah careth for all
And He knoweth all things. (2:268)

What is parsimony? To go pennywise. To accumulate and keep away from spending on the needs of self and dependents.
A famous film singer from Tamil Nadu wasparsimonious to the extent that he avoided expenditure on the treatment of his son who ultimately died of negligence. Islam strongly disapproves such behaviour and urges for generosity. It not only asks to spend generously but provides the ethics of spending. Some people spend for their personal gain, fame and respect. Islam disapproves it and condemns such motives. It says that spending (alms-giving) is a religious obligation and is part of the sunstantial teachings of Islam. The intention behind this generosity should only be the seeking of the pleasure of Allah, insists Islam.
I have come across tubelights donated to some institutions by an individuals whose name was so boldly written over it that it obstructed the light coming out of it. Not only that such spending is worthless in the eyes of Islam, it becomes a negation of virtue. Some persons while extending a helping hand to a needy hurt his feelings and make him demonstrate his indebtness. Such spending is absolutely prohibited. The Quran says:

Kind words
And the covering of faults
Are better than charity
Followed by injury (2:263)
There are many 'generous' people in our society who donate ragged clothes, used goods, days-old food and counterfeit coins. Islam asks to donate in the path of Allah one's best belongings, clothes and food that ones used himself. Best of one's earning should be spent in the way of Allah.
The Qur'an says:

O ye who believe!
Give of the good things
Which ye have (honourably) earned,
And of the fruits of the earth
Which we have produced.
For you, and do not set apart things of poor
quality to
Give in the name of Allah,
When ye yourselves
Would not receive those
Except with closed eyes. (2:267)
Islam exhorts one to donate one's contribution secretly, though at times it may be given openly too. The Quran says;
If ye disclose (acts of)
Charity even so it is well,
But if you conceal them,
And make them reach
Those (really) in need,
That is best for you. (2:271)
Should those extravagants and drunkards be helped who come to seek help? Islam which excludes no corner of practical life from its purview asks not to help the undeserving and wrong doers. Food and clothing may, however, be provided to them. The Quran says :
To those weak of understanding
Make not over your property
Which Allah hath made
A means of support for you,
But feed and clothe them
Words of kindness and justice. (4:5)
Let us look at more Islamic instructions in this regard. The Quran enjoins:

Spend in the way of Allah all that is left after spending on yourself and your dependents.

Never spend more than what you can afford, nor be parsimonious, strike balance between the two.

Neither withdraw your hands from spending nor open it in a way that you become needy yourself.

Your poor relatives, beggars, orphans, travellers and deprived persons deserve your succour.

Zakat is obligatory and those showing negligence have been sternly warned of grave consequences. Once the Prophet saw a woman wearing a golden bracelet. He enquired, had she paid Zakat for it? She replied in the negative. The Prophet told her that then she would be asked to wear bracelet of fire in the hereafter. The woman later donated her bracelet.
Where to spend the Zakat money? The Quran describes it in detail:
Alms are for the poor
And the needy, and those
Employed to administer the (funds);
For those who hearts
Have been (recently) reconciled
(To Truth); for those in bondage
And in debt; in the cause
Of God; and for the wayfarer:
(Thus is it) ordained by God,
And God is full of knowledge
And wisdom. (9:60)
One cannot spend Zakat money on one's dependents like parents, wives, offsprings etc. It is meant for others.
Another thing is noteworthy in this context. Islam dislikes begging and discourages it.
One should prefer to be a donor and not a receiver. It is perferable to earn by chopping wood than to extend a begging bowl before anyone is the teaching of the Prophet. Islam encourages generosity but discourages begging and in this way strikes the golden mean.

 

[Ababeel]

ISLAM MYFASCINATION
Abdullah Adiyar

SOME CLARIFICATIONS

After going through Mr. Adiyar's book a few questions were raised. Here we reproduce his replies to the same.
ISLAM AND INFIGHTING AMONG MUSLIM COUNTRIES : What is the meaning of love of Islam, when Muslims countries are always at loggerheads among themselves, asked a non-Muslim.
Mr. Adiyar : Love is love. It has not must to do with what Muslims do. How the weaknesses and shortcomings of Muslims can stop me from praising Islam.
Question : Does the news of an Arab country fighting another Arab country shake our faith?
Mr. Adiyar: Apparently is looks like a pertinent question but the reality is quite different. There must be strong argument to shake a faith. We see that Vietnam and China both are upholders of red flag, then why did they fight. Does any Indian Communist feels his faith shaken due to this war? No. Churchill and Hitler both were Christians yet Germany and England fought a gory battle under their leadership. Did this shake the faith of the Christians in Christianity and they gave it up? No, certainly not. In India there had been regular infightings in temples. Did the priests then discard their faith? No.
If the above historical realities are undeniable then the fact of war between two Muslim countries should not cause dissatisfaction with Islam. There are differences and disputes between governments which have nothing to do with faith or religion. But faith is faith. It is un-chageable, unshakable. It is alive and shall continue to be a live force.
Next to capitalism and communism Islam is the other force* in the reckoning. The first two forces will knuckle under Islam one day. The study of history leads to this conclusion and the factors around us support it.
The Arab countries were poor. The Prophet foretold of a bright future for the desert of Arabia. Today we see how the wealth of petrol is gushing out of the desert and rocks. God will bestow upon them more bounties if the Arabs demostrate more faith in and practise Islam zealously.
Muhammad's life was spotless. So were those of his Companions. A few king and nawabs did commit mistakes and fulfilled their base wishes but the Muslim Umman always showed its unflinching faith in Islam.
Once the followers were in thousands, today they are in millions. It shows that mistakes of rulers never shook the faith of common Muslims nor it can. Principles are not defeated by mistakes of a few individuals.
As a matter of fact Islam provides solution to our most complex problems. From where can one get light if the sun loses its luminosity? Where can one find salt if the sea loses its salinity. Where can one find stream of water if its source dries up? Where can the world and mankind find solution of its problems if Islam is lost?
ISLAMIC PENAL SYSTEM : Through deliberate propaganda the non-Muslims are being made to believe that Muslims are cruel and Islam prescribes merciless punishments; such as cutting the hands of thieves, or stoning to death for sexual crimes. It is alleged that Muslim invaders demolished temples and coerced people. Bsed on these it is concluded that Muslims are tyrants and cruel.
Those who come out with such allegations can better understand the coercive mothods from their own history. Here are a few examples:

In accordance with the teachings of Manusmirti king Cholan put his son to gallows for killing a calf.

King Nannen sentenced a girl to death who ate a fruit of the king's garden floating in the river.

When a goldsmith stole feet-bracelets of the famous peot Kangi, all the goldsmiths of the city were put to the sword.

Gyan Samandr was staying in a monastry. A member of Samnar sect tried to set it on fire. Eight thousand people of that sect were hung on the gallows.

A person named Appan was tied to a stone and thrown into the sea for changing his religion. When he managed to come back to the shore he was thrown into a lime furnace.

Among the stories of Tanali Raman it is reported that those refusing to obey the royal order were buried alive or trampled under the foot of elephants.

During a war the Tamilians cut noses of Mysore men. They in retaliation cut noses and lips of their enemy. Again the Tamils invaded Mysore and repeated the brutality.

The sacrifice of children before a deity and presentation of human organs before them is still practised in this country.

In the West crucifixion had been a very common thing. Christ was, allegedly, crucified. St. Peter was also crucified.

Joan of Arc was burnt alive.

Protestants were either burnt alive or their skulls were smashed.

People were captivated in Africa and sold as slaves in European markets.

This has been the Western civilization of which the Westerners boast so much.
We also know well about the mass killing in Hitler's gas chambers. We also hear news about burning of people alive during communal riots. Jamshedpur, Vallipuram, Bhelsa and many other places in our own country stand testimony.
So the tales of brutalities and oppressions come from all sides of the globe. Men have justified it on the basis of many philosophies. On the other hand history preserves in its pages numerous instances of compassion and mercy too. Islam stands out as the only religion which strikes at the roots of cruelty and oppression and strongly advocates compassion and mercy and shows respect for human beings.
In some religions each attribute of God has been given the status of a distinct god, while in some religion God is supposed to be without any attribute. In Islam God is All-Mercy. His attributes of Rahman and Raheem, compassionate and merciful, have been oft-repeated in the Quran. God wishes that His creatures should also reflect His qualities of compassion.
Islam teaches to start every act with reciting His attributes of Rahman and Raheem. Muslims offer salam to each other when they meet. They, thus, pray for mercifulness on each other. This is in accordance with the teachings of the Quran and the practice of the Prophet.
Turkish ruler Sultan Saleem was hotheaded. He planned to have one language and one religion in his kingdom and to banish all other languages and religions. But he had to give up the idea after strong opposition by Shaikhul Islam of that time.
Entertainment through bull-fighting and bird-fighting etc. is pronounced as undesirable acts. Islamic teachings ask for compassion to animals, too. One of the three persons should get down from the back of the camel if the camel feels overburdened, says Islam. It was under the influence of these teachings that people like Adi bin Hatim used to feed ants.
It is true that the same Islam which teaches such compassion recommends severest punishments for heinous and shameful crimes. We should assess the result of these punishments. Theft is rarely committed in those countries where the thieves have to lose their hands for that crime.
In some Arab countries a murderer is slain by sword. Methods of capital punishments in some other countries are by electric shock or electric chair or hanging. All these methods are more painful than slaying by sword.
HAVE MUSLIMS DEMOLISHED
TEMPLES?
Among the baseless allegations is that Muslims have demolished Indian temples. It is here that we should not miss to count the crimes committed by Indians themselves. Why do we forget that the temples of Samnar sect were demolished. Why to forget that idols of Nagattenum were looted and the gold in the temple was taken away by the Ashwars of Tirumangai. Those who allege that Muslims demolished temples forget that the Muslim rulers donated lands for building and maintaining temples. There might have been some other reasons behind a particular demolition, but Islam does not permit to dismantle others' places of worship.
Another question was raised here. The Indian history tells that Muslims demolished temples and broke idols, how would you comment?
Mr. Adiyar: The version of Indian history that we generally come across is, in fact, the result of prejudiced historiography, and not based on facts.
This version was primarily compiled by western mischief-makers with the sole purpose of creating hatred between Hindus and Muslims. In case it is proved beyond doubt that a few temples were demolished, my answer would be that Islam never permits it. Mahimud of Ghazni or any other ruler who committed such acts were certainly not following any Islamic injunction. An Islamic state is responsible for protecting all places of worship. Islam rejects idol-worship; calls it unwise, gives strong arguments against it and creates a consciousness against the same. There is no compulsion in Islam. It cleans our hearts and minds from polytheism and disobedience and fills it with the light of truth. Its methods are that of preaching and education and not of coercion and compulsion.
It is a historical fact that the Prophet cleared the Kaaba of all idols. Kaaba known as the House of Allah (Baitullah) had been the symbol of monotheism. It was people's ignorance and transgression which turned it into an idol-house. Ironically, Arabs of that time, themselves as well as the Jews and Christians agreed that the Kaaba was originally built for the worship of the Almighty. Originally it was a monotheistic centre, later people brought idols there, which was unjust and contrary to its purpose, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by removing idols simply restored it to its original position.
There is not a single incident reported, even by the enemies of Islam, that the Prophet ever demolished others' places of worship.

USE OF SWORD IN PROPAGATION OF ISLAM

Q. Islam spread through sword and not on the strength of its qualities:
Mr. Adiyar: It is a claim without proof. Islamic viewpoint in this respect is quite unambiguous. Use of force in propagation of Islam is disallowed. Those who raise such objections forget the world history and train their guns against Islam. History is full of precedences. Buddhism spread here during the reign of Ashoka and Harsha. During the rule of Samnar kings their cult was the dominating cult of the kingdom. Then came the age of the Vedic religion. People were put to gallows and by the use of force India was made a Hindu country. Moreover, Indian rulers propagated their religion by military invasion in countries like Jawa, Sumatra and Cambodia where remains of Hindu religion and culture are still found. Christianity flourished during the reign of Christian rulers in the countries they invaded.

There will be nothing strange if a particular case is proved beyond doubt that some Muslim rulers used their influences for the propagation of Islam. This should not be used as an argument to defame Islam. Stranger still is the realilty that the ruling class which is using brute force to spread its viewpoint levels such charges against Islam. Why don't they not look into their own practices.

Compulsion in the matter of religion is out of question in today's world. Today we have every right to remain committed to out belief and ideology. A lot of people are embracing Islam today. Are they being won by sword? If it is sword it is not an iron sword but the sword of truth which attracts people.