Islam and Human Rights Anwar Sheikh

PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD
It is a historical truth that the Hindus of India, in spite of the fact that the Mohammedans of all
hues, the Afghans, Persians, Arabs, Turks and so on, had one time or another held sway on
parts of India for long periods, know nothing of the Koran and the Hadis.They have no idea at
all about what the Bible of the Mohammedans tells its followers, all of whom now claim to have
Arabs as their ancestors, as justifying reason for owing no loyalty to India.
Why was that? Simply because a Hindu was not permitted to read that book, or even touch it,
under pain of death. Even if they had been allowed to read it, it was no easy task to delve into
the 'holy book for it was written in Arabic, from end to end. And no one, or nearly no one, knew
any Arabic at all.
But those few who had some knowledge of the Koran kept it to themselves and did not share
the knowledge with their fellow-men and women. If they had, they would have known, as we
know today that the Koran reeks with hatred of non-Moham-medans, all non-Mohammedans. In
fact, Islam can truly be called an acronym for Intolerance, Slaughter, Loot (or Anfal), Arson and
Molestation of kafir women. If you don't believe it, just cast v our eves to Mohammedan
countries around you.
What was preposterous was the fact that the Hindu leaders know nothing or next to nothing
about the contents of the Ko-ran but wax eloquent on Islam being the same as Hinduism; they
tell us that all religions are the same. By so doing, they eliminate that natural self-protecting
aptitudes of the Hindu and make things much easier for the blood thirsty, fornication-prone
rowdies that had once ruled India. Things have not changed yet. The local Indian
Mohammedans now tell us all kinds of fairy tales about the human values that the Koran
preaches. And India today is flooded with such story tellers like the Ali Engineers, the Zakarias,
the Shahabuddins, the All Mians and so on.
It is a stroke of luck that we have the good fortune of listen-ing to a man like Anwar Shaikh,
who openly advises us about the
true nature of Islam, its views on human rights, Jehad, interces-sion, idolatry and democracy.
Please read up what the author has to say on such subjects and avoid the unpleasantness of
horrible surprises. And do you know that Mr. Shaikh has a number of Fatwas on his head, all
issued by this so called humane faith and not one of the mullahs has dared to take him on for a
debate on the subject of Islam. How long are we going to be ruled by fools?
A. GHOSH
(The Publisher)
Houston,
Texas, USA.
Divali, 1999.
Chapter 1
ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Preamble
Islam is the only religion that insists on God's rights. This is certainly a
strange concept because rights denote protection from aggression and
uncertainty. This is what "right to life, property, justice, etc.," implies. It is
clear that rights are needed by the weak and the helpless, and they serve
as a guard against the mighty, the unjust and the aggressor. If Allah is
really the Creator, the All-powerful, the All-knowing, the All-wise, as the
Muslims claim, then how can He need rights? If He really does, then it
logically follows that He requires protection and assurance. This is an
absurd idea because it poses a direct insult to Allah: His honour must be
way above the notion of rights if He is really the Greatest and totally
Independent.
Again, according to the Islamic jurisprudence, it is God's fundamental right

that man must obey His laws and refrain from making his own to suit his
needs and circumstances. This is theocracy, which is run ruthlessly by the
Clergy in the name of God, who cannot be seen or contacted. It is simply a
ruse of the tyrannical mind to destroy democratic values, which protect
human rights and dignity.
Yet the Muslim scholars talk of "Islamic human rights." This is a farce to
mislead people. The article: "Islam And Human Rights" examines the issue
in depth.
The concept of Human Rights is a very big thorn in the flesh of Islam, yet the Muslim jurists
ostentatiously talk about the rights that Islam is supposed to have bestowed on man. This is the
biggest myth that human mind ever created. For the purpose of exposing the fallacy of this
assertion, I may divide the discussion into the following categories:
1. Rights of God (Allah),

2. Rights of the *Muslim men,
3. Rights of infidels, and
4. Rights of women.
(* Non-Muslims have no rights because they are considered "the worst beasts" by Islam).
1. Rights of God (Allah)
It is not possible to explain the notion of " God's rights" without considering its philosophical
connotations. In view of the Muslim claims about the immeasurable pomp, prestige and pre-
eminence of Allah, it is fair to say that He does not need any rights at all, because rights are
required to protect one's entity, interest and future, threatened by aggression and fear of
usurpation. Allah, who is projected as the Almighty, the Absolute, the creator, the All-wise and
Free of desires, does not need the shield of rights to shelter, secure and screen Himself from
man, whom He is supposed to have created and whose every movement He is said to control. If
Allah does need rights, then He is neither Almighty nor Creator: He is no more than a stunning
myth of the religious manipulators, who impose their own absolutism in the guise of God's
rights to avoid public accountability.
This seems to be a valid assumption because the Koranic God feels delighted when He is
worshipped but feels blighted when He is neglected. To the existence of the Semitic God,
worship or gross obedience is, what colour is to a flower, heat to fire or cold to ice. It is through
the magic of this Semitic concept of Godhead that the Jewish, Christian and Muslim rulers were
able to avoid democratic accountability and rob people of their liberties in the name of Divine
Rights.
The War of Human Rights against God's Rights can be assumed to have formally started with
Magna Carta ( 1215 ) when King John of England was forced to grant the Charter (of public
liberties). Magna Carta reads:
"In the first place have (we) granted to God, and by this our present Charter confirmed
for us and our heirs for ever that the English Church shall be free." (Clause 1)
"No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in

any way victimised, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by
the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land." (Clause 39)
For the first time in history, it is man who grants God's Church the right to be free. God can no
longer impose His will to be worshipped without man's approval. Since God's despotism is
arrested, the King, His lieutenant on earth, is automatically subjected to the Law of the land and
cannot do as he pleases.
This flame of Human Rights, ignited in England during the early part of the 13th Century, flared
up in the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence, 1776, (leading to the
world-famous Constitution of the United States (1787) stated: "....all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The American Declaration does talk about Creator but makes it abundantly clear that man has
unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which cannot be interfered with even
by the Creator.
The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) asserted categorically that
"ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man to be the only cause of public
misfortunes and the corruption of governments. "
First article lays down: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights .."
Article two states: " ......These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to
Oppression."
Article three declares: "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No
corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly
emanate from it."
Article four reveals: "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm
others; thus the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than
those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.
These bounds may be determined only by law (enacted by the Nation).
One can see that the French Revolution demolished the idea of Divine Rights, which the man-
hating religious wolves had invented to create absolute authority for themselves to drive,
degrade and despoil people at will.
The English, American and French achievements were, not only marvellous, munificent and
majestic in their own right, but their collective effect also became the foundation-stone of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948 ), which recognised "the inherent dignity and the
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world. "
The Declaration of Human Rights (1948) also stressed: "Human beings shall enjoy freedom of
speech and belief and freedom from fear and want."
Some of the articles of the General Assembly ought to be noted:
Article 1 observes:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in the Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be
prohibited in all their forms.
6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before Law.
10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any
criminal charge against him.
11. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to Law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
necessary for his defence.
16. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or
religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights
as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending
spouses.
18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.
21.(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this
shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and
equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Having suffered torment, torture and tyranny of the most abject sort since inception of life,
people have been able to secure universal recognition of human rights for the last fifty years
only. Thus human rights are highly precious, praiseworthy and phenomenal, but unfortunately,
it is Islam that happens to be the worst predator of human liberties, yet claiming to be the
greatest patron of humanity!
After this short description of the historical development of human rights, now I may explain the
Islamic theory of God's or Allah's rights:
The Koran claims that Allah is the Creator of this universe, and therefore, He has proprietory
rights over every thing that exists (including man):
"To God belongs all that is in the heavens

and in the earth, and God encompasses everything." (Women IV: 125)
Thus, there is nothing that is not in the bondage of God, and therefore, constrained to bow,
bend and buckle before Him:
"To God bow all that is in the heavens and the earth
willingly or unwillingly." (Thunder XIII - 15)
If Allah is really the creator, does He have to hoast of His proprietory rights? Ownership is
asserted only when there is a rival claimant. In that case, God is not necessarily the Master, and
someone else could hold this title. Whether or not Allah is the Creator and Master of this
universe, He wants to be considered as such, and therefore, there is nothing that He loves more
than submission, slavery and servitude. It is this attitude of the Lord that dictates man's
purpose of creation. Therefore, Allah addressing mankind, remarks:
"What did you (humans) think that We (Allah)
created you only for a sport ..?" (The Believers XXIII: 115)
According to the Koran man has not been created for fun; he has a serious purpose. What is
man's purpose of birth? Allah narrates it in the Koran:
"I have not created ... mankind
except to worship me." (The Scatterers LI: 55)
A worshipper is someone who believes in his own utmost inferiority, and to prove it, pleads,
prays and prostrates before his superior. Such a person, obviously, has no sense of self-respect,
which emanates from the awareness of personal rights. This type of person is nothing but a
slave, who loses his own entity to become the property of his master. This is exactly the station
of man in Islam, and it is for this reason he is referred to as "ABD," that is a drudge, villein or
serf.
Slaves and serfs remain in bondage because they do not have any rights. By declaring man
"ABD" (slave), Allah has allotted him the duty of worship, which is an extreme form of self-
humiliation. Therefore, it is man's purpose of life to have no desire, dignity or destination of his
own. To make sure that man seeks no status other than servility, Allah has assigned the lowest
birth to man so that he should not feel proud and pompous to seek prestige or priority:
"He (Allah) made his (man's) seed from a draught

of despised fluid." (The Prostration XXXII: 8)
Someone, who has been created from "despised fluid" is despicable and therefore, naturally
lacks the virtues of self-development, moral uplift and consciousness of human rights. This is
God's plan to make man servile. The irony is, that God dwells on the "intrinsic" lowness of man
to convince him of this fact:
"So let man consider of what he is created;
He is created from a gushing fluid
That issued from between the loins and ribs."
(The Night Star LXXXVI: 5-7)
Here, Allah deliberately insults man by alluding to the seminal discharge, which brings a human
to life. Further, Allah condemns man for his nature (which He Himself allocated him as the
Creator!):
"Perish man! How unthankful he is!
Of what did He (Allah) create him?
Of a sperm drop .."
(He Frowned LXXX: 15-17)
Here Allah again taunts at man's "low" birth by associating it with a sperm-drop i.e. the
despised fluid. It is because of this, the angels rebel against Allah when He declares His
intention of creating man:
"And when Thy Lord (Allah) said to the angels,
'I am setting in the earth a viceroy,'
They said, 'What will Thou set therein one
who will do corruption there, and shed blood?"'
(The Cow II: 25)
Since man has been declared "rebellious" by nature, he is not allowed any rights by God, yet he
is God's vicar or regent on earth! How an insignificant creature like man can be the lieutenant of
God, the Almighty and the Perfect? He can improve his lot through a constant show of
submission, servitude and slavery to his Master. Allah has laid down many procedures for man
to demonstrate his obedience. The observance of the Five Pillars is a routine matter, which may
or may not deprive man of his human dignity, but the following methods have been devised by
Allah with the purpose of making man completely oblivious of his rights:
a. Prohibition to legislate,
b. Prohibition to think liberally, and change religion.
a.i Allah declares:
"This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion

for you and completed My favour unto you,
and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM.
( The Table, V- 3 )
It means that Islam is the perfect code of life, which Allah has prescribed for man. Moreover, it
is for ever and cannot be changed. Therefore, legislating for man is God's prerogative!
The net result of this verse is that Muslims are forbidden to make laws for themselves. They
must stick to what was laid down for them 1400 years ago irrespective of the changed
conditions and new problems. He who breaks this rule, is an infidel and shall go to hell. This is a
big denial of human rights because legislating for himself according to his needs, is a part of
man's rights.
To uphold His right to enact for man, Allah declares:
"He (Allah) associates in His government no one."

( The Cave XVIII: 25 )
b.i Prohibition on thinking and religious change:
A person born as a Muslim is forbidden to be a free thinker. His thoughts must be guided by the
Koran. Study of any literature, no matter how wise, pious and rational, is sinful to a Muslim if it
affects his faith.
Even more restricted is the scope of a Muslim's action. Since the Prophet Muhammad is
considered the Model of Behaviour, every Muslim is obliged to act as the Prophet Muhammad
did. In other words, a Muslim must copy the Prophet the way he walked, talked, slept, ate,
drank, dressed and looked. Since Islam is "the perfect and eternal code of life," no Muslim is
allowed to think and act in any other manner. If he renounces Islam, he is held guilty of
apostasy (irtidad) which carries death sentence.
Ordinarily, it is acknowledged that a baby is not born with a particular faith: a person is a Hindu
or a Christian because he was born in one of the families holding these beliefs. Therefore, he
has the right to change his religious views with impunity, but Islam does not recognise this
human liberty. Once a person is born into the Islamic faith, he must remain a Muslim. If he
changes his religion, though he did not adopt it deliberately, he becomes liable to execution.
2. Rights of the Muslim Men
Rights of the Muslim Men is the next issue that we ought to consider now. Having realised the
nature of God's rights, one can conclude safely that even a Muslim man has no substantive
rights. If he has any rights at all, they are the derived ones, and accrue to him from his abject
submission to Allah. Though we call them ''rights" for the sake of convenience, they are, in fact,
Allah's reward for servility. What are these rights?
What Allah may term as a benefit, bounty or bonus in fact, is a payment for carrying out Divine
commands, which are usually against the moral conscience of man; he cannot refuse anything
on the ground of justice or decency. Allah has laid down the following law to exhibit His
relationship with man:
"God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of
Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise
binding upon God ..... and who fulfills his covenant truer than God." ( Repentance IX:
110 )
Here the Koran has stated clearly that Allah has purchased lives of the Muslims, in return for
paradise, and therefore, they must kill and get killed in His way without any qualm of
conscience. And what is the purpose of this murder spree?
It is simply degradation, death and destruction of the unbelievers. Allah hates infidels to such an
extent that He has divided mankind into two camps: the believers are Allah's party and the
unbelievers are Satan's party. Allah has commanded eternal strife between His and Satan's
party, promising His people the final victory. This fact has been clearly stated in the Koran (The
Disputer LVIII: 20).
This is why the Muslims consider themselves as the Divine appointees on earth who, must act
as Allah's managers. Thus, they have all the rights of a warrior, a ruler, a judge and an elite but
unbelievers have all the obligations of a subject, a serf and a slave.
However, it ought to be remembered that all rights belong to Allah: a Muslim's rights are no
different from those of a Roman slave, who could rise to any commercial or political height but
still remained the property of his master, who owned him.
iii. Rights of the infidels, according to the Islamic Law are, therefore, a sheer nonsense. If it
appears an exaggeration, I may quote the Koranic verses on the subject:
Say ( Muhammad ): 'O God, Master of the Kingdom,

Thou givest the Kingdom to whom Thou wilt,
and seizest the Kingdom from whom Thou wilt,
Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt, and Thou
abasest whom Thou wilt; in Thy Hand is the good;
Thou art powerful over everything."'
(The House of Imran III: 25)
Obviously, the allocation of honour and dishonour depends on the discretion of Allah, who holds
unbelievers as Satan's party. Therefore, they are the people, who deserve dishonour. What can
be greater abasement than having no human rights? Allah feels justified in His attitude to the
infidels because He treats unbelief as the worst animosity against Him. Does anyone allow rights
to his enemy? Why should Allah be any different? He makes it abundantly clear:
a. Oh believers! the non-Muslims are unclean." ( Repentance IX: 27 )
b. "Certainly, God is an enemy to unbelievers." ( The Cow 11: 90 )
c. "Surely, the worst of beasts in God's sight are the unbelievers." (The Spoil VIII: 57)
d. "O believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers as your friends, if they prefer
unbelief to belief; whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evil-doers."
(Repentance IX: 20)
So great is detestation of God towards unbelievers that a Muslim must treat his own parents as
enemies if they do not embrace the Islamic faith! Again, since God has decalred non-Muslims as
"the worst of beasts," they cannot have human rights. Therefore, the duty of Muslims is to:
"Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and
His Messenger have forbidden - such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of
those who have been given the Book - until they pay the tribute out of hand ani have
been humbled." (Repentance IX: 28)
To explain this verse I may add that, according to Islam, the Koran is the only standard of vice
and virtue, and therefore, people have no right to follow any other code of law or morality.
Thus, the followers of non-Islamic practices are infidels and it is the duty of the Muslims to fight
them until they submit to the Muslims and "pay the tribute out of hand" as a sign of their
humiliation! It is clear that a non-Muslim deserves humiliation and not human rights. As
contempt of the non-Islamic faiths, their practitioners are not encouraged to stay in Muslim
countries. This is the reason that very few non-Muslims are found in the Islamic states such as
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
3. Rights of the Infidels
By now, it ought to be clear that a non-Muslim, or more properly a Dhimmy cannot have human
rights as understood and practised in the Western world. It is because:
a. Allah is the enemy of the non-Muslims, known as unbelievers, and
b. because, in Allah's sight, unbelievers are the worst beasts. It is obvious neither
people bestow equal rights on their enemies nor beasts deserve to equal humans. This
is the reason that Islam has discriminated against the Dhimmies.
Freedom of expression is one of the major human rights, and this is forbidden to a dhimmy
(non-Muslim) in an Islamic state. He cannot promulgate his doctrine openly, especially, if it has
been opposed or forbidden by the Koran. For example, it is the basic tenet of Christianity that
Jesus Christ was crucified, but the Koran holds
"... For their saying 'we slew the Messiah, Jesus son
of Mary, the Messenger of God.
Yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him
only a likeness of that was shown them .....
God raised him up to Him." (Women IV: 155)
It means that Jesus did not die on the Cross; He was raised to heaven before suffering death.
To a simple mind, it may look just an untrue statement but, in fact, it is a shrewd piece of
elocution because it seeks to belie, belittle and batter the very foundation of Christianity, which
holds that Christ, Son of God, was used as the Sacrificial Lamb by the Father to carry away the
sins of mankind. By denying the crucifixion of Jesus, the Koran has sought to destroy the very
foundation of Christianity.
Since Islam does not allow anti-Koranic practices in its lands of occupation, the Christians could
not preach or even recite such tenets openly. The fact that, in some so- called Muslim countries,
churches and synagogues may exist, does not prove that Islamic jurisprudence approves of
them. Truthfully, these countries have reneged on Islam and become secular. Appearing to be
Muslim is a face-saving device, which carries good rewards.
It should also be noted that it is a crime to preach a non-Muslim faith to a Muslim because,
according to the Koran, Islam is the only true religion. This is the reason that the Muslim, who
gives up his faith is liable to beheading. The missionary is held as the enemy of Islam, and
deserves a similar fate!
Of course, there is no room for democracy in Islam, yet we hear of Islamic republics such as
Pakistan, Iran, etc. Since a democratic government represents the will of the people, an Islamic
republic is an exact antithesis of the Islamic Law, which clearly states that the government
belongs to Allah, who admits no participation in His affairs. Thus non-Muslims are disfranchised
in an Islamic State and cannot vote.
It is also true that they cannot hold high offices in the government because, by having
authority, they may interfere in Allah's affairs. However, this is quite another thing that the non-
Muslims have held high ranks in some Muslim governments, and still do. This is simply an un-
Islamic practice, which shows the practical weakness of this faith.
It is a crime for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim woman though having her as a concubine
(mistress) may be a matter of pride because it signifies dominance of the Islamic spirit.
However, it ought to be noted that there is a verse in the Koran, which allows marriage between
a Muslim man and a "woman of the Book" i.e. a Jewish or a Christian woman:
"(Permitted to you are) in wedlock women of them who were given the Book (Bible)
before you if .." (The Table IV: 5)
In fact, it is just a theory which forms no part of the Prophet's practice: he married Safya, a
Jewish girl, who converted to Islam but kept Rehana, another Jewish girl, as a concubine
because she refused to give up her faith. Of course, there are sporadic instances of Muslim men
entering matrimonial contract with Jewish and Christian women but that has nothing to do with
the Islamic traditions: it is a part of mundane necessity.
It is just a golden Koranic theory that a Muslim believes in the previous Apostles of God and
Books. The truth is that he only pays them lip sympathy, and actually believes that Muhammad
is the Last Prophet and the Koran revokes authority of all the previous Scriptures. Thus, all
those Jews and Christians, known as "People of the Book," are unbelievers and stand to share
the fate of the infidels such as the Hindus and Buddhists:
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book

and the idolaters shall be in the Fire; of Hell
therein dwelling for ever:
those are the worst of creatures,
But those who believe, and do righteous deeds,
those are the best of creatures."
( The Clear Sign XCVIII: 5 )
Here the Jews and Christians, who do not accept Muhammad, are dubbed as unbelievers and
called the "worst of creatures." It is unambiguously stated that they will go to hell! In view of
the significance of this point, I may add further:
"O believers, take not Jews and Christians
as friends; they are friends of each other.
Whoso of you makes them his friends
is one of them." (The Table V: 55)
It is quite obvious that a Muslim, just by befriending a Jew or a Christian becomes one of them
i.e. an unbelievers. How can a Muslim man marry a Jewish or Christian woman? Marriage is
surely a greater and more sacred tie than friendship.
The non-Muslims suffer several other disabilities: a Muslim cannot be executed for murdering a
Jew or a Christian. He may receive half of the prescribed punishment and may even be let off
lightly. A hadith (Muslim: 4138) states that when a Jew smashed the head of an Ansar (Muslim)
girl, the Prophet ordered to crush his head between two stones, but in another case (Muslim:
4151 ) when the perpetrator was a Muslim woman, who had broken someone's teeth, was
required to pay money-compensation despite the fact that the case came under the Law of
Retaliation, which prescribes: eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
Further, in criminal cases, the evidence of a Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc. is not accepted in an
Islamic court of law.
In fact, in an Islamic country, an infidel is a necessary evil, who is just about tolerated. The
dignity of man signified by human rights, and promoted by bloody revolutions over a period of
centuries, is a piece of sheer nonsense in Islam. It is because a non-Muslim in an Islamic state
is required to pay jaziya, which in the Koranic language is a Humiliation Tax. In fact, the life of
an unbeliever is a series of humiliations in a Muslim country. He has to wear distinctive clothes
and mark his house to express the unbelief of its dwellers. Muslims are forbidden to associate
with him and attend his matrimonial or funeral ceremonies. He must not ride horses or bear
arms. Since it is the Islamic way of life, which requires an unbeliever to yield way to the Muslim
when they happen to be walking on the same path, it can be safely called the forerunner of the
South African apartheid.
According to the planned discussion of "Islam and Human Rights" I have so far dealt with:
1. Rights of God (Allah),

2. Rights of the Muslim men and
3. Rights of the infidels.
Now, I may deal with the fourth category i.e. Rights of Women.
4. Rights of Women
Have women really got rights in Islam? To explain this point, I ought to add that Adam, the
progenitor of mankind, according to Genesis, the First Book of Moses, defied God to please his
woman called "Eve." The significance of this event demonstrates the natural grip of woman on
man.
To fathom the significance of this act, one must realise that God had kept Adam in the Garden
of Eden, abounding in lush trees laden with luscious fruits; its ground was emerald green,
studded with heavenly streams of milk, honey and wine; its valleys echoed with melodies of the
chirping birds that created a musical environment; the more hilarious aspect of the Garden of
Eden was that there was no toil, pain, disease or death, and all provisions were abundant and
free. Yet Adam flouted the Divine Command to win favour of his woman and preferred pain to
pleasure, mortality to immortality and drudgery to free living.
The act of rewarding man with such a delightful opulence made God believe that Adam would
not choose anything but Him. It is baffling to note that Adam preferred Eve, his woman, to God
and all the fantastic luxuries. In this game of selection, God lost to woman because of her sex-
appeal to man.
Realising the significance of faminine charm, the Prophet Muhammad treated woman as the final
goal of existence; in this life woman is to serve as the source of gratification for man, and
salvation i.e. achieving entry into paradise in the next world, means sexual enjoyment of houris
- the most beautiful virgins that await lucky men to offer them their carnal delights.
This Islamic plan, which is executed through a legal code, also serves as the bait for attracting
followers. However, there is a big paradox to be resolved if this scheme is to operate
successfully: woman has got to be reduced to the status of a slave for neutralising all her
resistance to man's will. For this purpose, women must be stripped of all their human rights,
because a woman with rights, is bound to claim equality. But, unless this process is conducted
skillfully, women are bound to rebel against Islam, and may thus cause its downfall. This is the
reason that Islam accords some spurious rights to women to fool, snool and rule them.
Islam appears gentle, generous and genuine in this field, but its veneer soon crumbles when we
judge the Islamic law in the light of practical life. Historically, there is no doubt that Islam is the
first religion that appears to have given women the following rights:
1. The right to inherit property, and

2. The right to divorce man.
But in effect, these rights are spurious because they cannot be exercised by women for the
following reasons:
1 a. Allah has subjected women to the law of purdah, that is, they must not participate in social
life.
"And so to the believing women, that they

cast down their eyes and guard their private
parts, and reveal not their adornment
save such as is outward; and let them cast
their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal .."
(Light XXIV: 30)
Again, the Koran says:
"O Prophet, say to the wives and daughters
and the believing women, that they draw
their veils close to them .."
(The Confederates XXXIII: 55)
In addition to veiling, Allah confines women's activities within the four-walls of their homes:
"Remain in your houses; and display not
your finery, as did the pagans of old."
(The Confederates XXXIII: 25)
With a view to depriving women of their rights, the Koran lays it down:
"Men are the managers of the affairs of women
for that God has preferred in bounty
One of them over another .....
Righteous women are therefore obedient .....
And those you fear may be rebellious
admonish; banish them to their coaches
and beat them." (Women IV: 35)
Since a woman is obliged to wear a veil and restricted within her home, and man is appointed
her manager with the authority to beat her if she does not obey him, her property rights are
just an attractive gimmick: they are a body without a soul, a locomotive engine without steam
and a bow without arrows.
2a. A woman's right to divorce is called "Khula." A man can undo his matrimonial tie quite
independently and at will, whereas the wife has to achieve this goal through the process of law,
which is very cumbersome to say the least. Also, she is subject to the wrath of God and curses
of angels if she takes this step without complete justification. Again, in a male chauvinistic
society, it is likely that her pleas will have no effect on the ears of a male judge, who is used to
deriding, depressing and dominating women.
According to Ibn-e-Majah, vol. 1, page 571: A wife must not seek divorce from her husband
without a serious cause. If she does, she will not enter paradise. If she can prove her case, she
will be awarded decree only if she returns all that her husband had bestowed on her as an
entitlement or outright gift. A woman who seeks Khula, cannot expect settlement!
The laws of inheritance treat one male equal to two females (Women IV 10). The law of
evidence is even harsher: not only two women equal one man but she may not be allowed to
tender evidence where male witnesses are available.
In view of the following limitations that Islam has imposed on woman, one can honestly
conclude that it has been done deliberately to deprive her of human rights for converting her
into a sexual toy so that men should flock to Islam:
1. Woman has a religious duty to produce the maximum number of children, Ibn-e-Majah
reports in Vol. 1, page 518 and 523 in his "SUNUN:" The Prophet said "Getting married is my
basic doctrine. Whoso does not follow my example, is not my follower. Marry, so that I can
claim preference over other communities (Jews and Christians) owing to commanding a greater
number of followers . "
"MISHKAT" reports in Vol. 3 page 119, a similar hadith:
"On the Day of Judgement, I shall have the greater number of followers than any other
prophet ..."
Having the largest following was obviously the greatest passion of the Prophet Muhammad, and
could be realised only by subjecting woman to the exclusive burden of motherhood. A woman
who is the mother of a dozen children, obviously does not have time to think about her human
rights. Her mind is likely to be tortured by the fear of what happens if she is deserted by her
husband. This is powerful enough to keep her under his thumb.
2. The second condition that governs woman's status in Islam is stated by the Koran in "Iron:
25:"
"And monasticism they invented - We

did not prescribe it for them - only
seeking the good pleasure of God; but
they observed it not as it should be observed."
Simply stated, these verses mean that the Christians flouted God's will by practising
monasticism because enjoyment of women by man is "the good pleasure of God. "
Thus woman is nothing but the source of pleasure to man. However, it implies that, in return for
being the provider of delight, she is entitled to love and reverence as her fundamental rights. In
fact, every woman is conscious of it and wants to be treated respectfully, but Islam in line with
the Semitic philosophy, which states that man must have sexual pleasure by command, opposes
this attitude. In marriage, there is no Islamic concept of consent in carnality: Woman in Islam is
man's tillage and he is empowered to use her as he wishes. This is the reason that Islamic law
aims at man's ascendancy, inflicting a corresponding humiliation on woman. The reader can
judge this truth from the following:
"Women have such honourable rights as obligations

but their men have a degree above them."
(The Cow: 225)
This is a highly debated verse, and Islamic zealots are always stretching it to prove equality of
sexes. Therefore, I may quote from the hadith to demonstrate its truth:
"If women comply with your commands, do not
molest them ..Iisten carefully, they have a right
over you that you take care of their food and
wear."
(Ibn-e-Majh, Vol. 1, p. 519)
Woman's rights are limited to her maintenance provided she obeys her man. Instead of
indulging in further discussion of this point, I may state the usually held Islamic belief that man
is superior to woman. In fact, the Koranic law supports this idea to the hilt. Here is the
explanation:
1. " ..marry such women
as seem good to you, two, three, four."
( Women: 1 )
Here man is given the lawful prerogative to have four wives of his own choice at the same time.
The Muslim scholars have been putting various interpretations on this verse to avoid the shame
of polygamy. For example, they say, woman is not allowed polyandry (having more than one
husband at the same time) because it becomes impossible to know the father of the child. This
argument does not hold good when we are talking about the basic rights of man and woman,
which constitute the principle of equality.
Again, this point of view is nullified by the scientific advances: firstly, invention of the Pill has
given woman control over her body, and she does not have to have children unless she wants
them. Secondly, clinical tests today, can establish the fatherhood of a child with certainty.
Therefore, this type of argument proves nothing but futility, frivolity and fictitiousness of the
Islamic law, which seeks to impose male dominance on woman in the name of fairness, felicity
and fruitfulness.
Add to the above, the Islamic law of concubinage which allows a man as many unmarried
women in his harem as he can afford. For example, Akbar the Great of India had 5,000
concubines and his son, Jehangir, had no fewer than 6,000! There is only one description for
them - private brothels. Yet the Muslim scholars talk of morality and women's rights.
3. We are told, as men have rights over women so women have rights over men. This is quoted
as the proof of equality. In fact, this is highly misleading because relationship of their mutual
rights makes man the master and woman the slave.
The only mentionable right that woman has over man is the right to be fed and clothed. I have
already quoted a hadith to this effect. Now look at the other side of the coin:
"If I were to order someone to prostrate before other

than God, I would have commanded woman to
prostrate before her husband.
If a husband tells his wife to keep carrying a load of

stones from that red mountain to that black mountain,
she must obey him whole heartedly."
(Ibn-e-Majah, Vol. 1, ch. 592, p 520)
4. "By God, who controls the life of Muhammad, a woman cannot discharge her duty towards
God until she has discharged her duty towards her husband: if she is riding a camel and her
husband expresses his desire, she must not refuse."
(Ibn-e-Maja, Vol. 1, ch. 592, p 520)
Again, if a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse, the wife must come immediately even if
she is baking bread at a communal oven.
(Tirmzi, Vol. 1, p 428)
5. One should also bear in mind that Islam does everything to stop a woman from divorcing her
man, and this is especially true if she happens to be a mother because it is father, who takes
custody of children. This cruelty is legitimised by Islam to establish man's grip over woman.
6. So great is the Islamic discrimination against woman to favour man that it starts right from
the lowest rung of the social ladder:
"Aisha said that she had a slave and a slave-girl who

were married. She told the Prophet that she wanted to
set them free. He said that she ought to free the slave
(man) first."
(Ibn-e-Majah,Vol. 2, ch. 130, p 100)
7. The same attitude asserts itself in the field of inheritance and legal evidence. Though I have
already stated Islamic views on these subjects, I may add a word or two about the law of
evidence regarding women:
" ..And call in to witness,
two witnesses, men; or if the two be
not men, then one man and two women,
such witnesses as you approve of .."
(The Cow: 280)
Thus, legally, one man is equal to two women!
8. Nothing is more erroneous than the assumption that the Islamic concept of polygamy is
confined to four wives; its hidden meaning is much deeper than what appears because it carries
a sense of built-in mirage:
"And if you desire to exchange a wife

in place of another ..take of her nothing .."
( Women: 20 )
It implies that a Muslim husband is entitled to keep substituting one wife with another provided
the number does not exceed the prescribed limit of four at the same time. He can do so easily
because he has the power to divorce at will, without giving a reason for his action. This is how
Hassan, a grandson of the Prophet multiplied the number of his wives, ranging over seventy. It
was his practice to marry during the day, and after a night or two, he would divorce her to
marry again.
9. Having intercourse with a concubine, who is a helpless woman, is a first degree crime against
humanity. The Roman Law made it punishable by death but Islam encouraged this indecency to
attract followers. There is no law against the concubine-rapists but there is swift retribution
against an indecent woman, and her man can inflict this punishment on her without fear of legal
retribution.
"Such of you women as commit indecency

call four of you to witness against them;
and if they witness; then detain them
in their houses until death takes them
or God appoints for them a way." (Women: 20)
Since nobody has explained satisfactorily the meaning of: "Or God appoints for them a way,"
the punishment for an indecent woman cannot be anything but death by incarceration. And this
is in addition to other forms of punishment e.g. flogging and stoning.
10. The true Islamic value of woman becomes evident when we realise that her marriage is not
substantive but precarious. If a man does not like his daughter-in- law, and tells his son to
divorce her without giving a reason for it, he must do so.
(Tirmzi,Vol. 1 p 440)
a. There is also a famous tradition of the Prophet ascribed to Katib al Waqidi and proudly recited
by the mullahs to declare brotherhood of the fellow-Muslims:
"Behold my two wives and select the one you like the best."
This brotherly gesture was made by a Medinite Muslim (an Ansar) to an immigrant Muslim,
when the Prophet fled Mecca along with his followers to seek refuge in Medina. The offer was
accepted readily and the offerer divorced the wife chosen by the offeree!
It shows that woman is just a souvenir in Islam. Look at the following hadith as well:
b. In the battle fought against FAZARA under the command of Abu Bakr, a very pretty Arab girl
was given as share of booty to Salama Bin Al-Akwa. He had not seduced her when the Prophet
met him in the street, and said, " O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father."
Salam said, "She is for you, Messenger of Allah! By Allah I have not yet disrobed her. "
The Messenger of Allah sent her to the people of Mecca, and surrendered her as a ransom for a
number of Muslims, who had been kept there as prisoners.
(Muslim: 4345)
The Prophet himself accepted women as a gift. The Coptic Mary, who bore him a son, is an
example in point.
11. The Prophet declared from the pulpit at Hajj, a wife must not spend anything belonging to
her husband without his permission, and this prohibition equally applied to buying foodstuff.
(Tirmzi Vol. 1, p 265)
The Prophet himself accepted women as a gift. The Coptic Mary, who bore him a son, is an
example in point.
12. Even in religious matters of great importance, a wife is subjected to her husband's
command. There are several hadiths which say that a wife may not observe fasting without her
husband's permission in case he wants to have sexual intercourse with her.
( Tirmzi, Vol . 1, p 300 )
13. Islam treats woman as a devil owing to her erotic effect on man:
The Prophet unintentionally looked at a woman and was aroused. He went home and
had intercourse with Zainab (one of his pretty wives). He said, "Woman faces you as
Devil. If you are affected by her charm, have intercourse with your wife because she
has the same thing as the woman who affected you."
14. Woman is twisted by birth:
The Prophet said:
Woman has been created from a rib which is twisted.

If you try to straighten it, you will break it. It is
desirable to make the best use of it as it is.
(Tirmzi, Vol. 1 p 440)
15. Here is a surprising hadith:
The woman whose husband remains happy at night, and
every night, she will be admitted into paradise.
It obviously means that for a woman, gratification of man's lust is an act of worshipping God!
a. This is the reason that another hadith says:
The woman who decorates herself for anyone other than her own husband is like
darkness of the Day of Judgement.
16. A woman is a calamity for man by her very nature:
The Prophet said that he had not left for man any calamity which could hurt him except
woman.
(Tirmzi, Vol. 2 p 286)
Add to the above, the following to realise woman's status in Islam:
17. A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey which may last three days or longer,
unless she is accompanied by her husband, son, father or brother.
(Tirmzi, p 431)
18. If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her husband, she becomes a target of
the curses of angels. Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband's bed.
(Bokhari, Vol. 7 p 93)
19. The women, who are ungrateful to their men, are the denizens of hell; it is an act of
ingratitude for a woman to say:
"I have never seen any good from you."

(Bokhari Vol. 7, p 96)
20. A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of her own body. Even her milk
belongs to her husband.
(Bokhari Vol. 7, p 27)
She is not allowed to practise birth-control either.
21. The Prophet said: "When wife vexes her husband, then houri of paradise utter curses on her
saying, 'may God destroy you because he is with you only for a short time; he will shortly leave
you to come to us.'
(Ibn-e-Majah, Vol. 1, p 560)
22. The Prophet said, "A woman's evidence carries half the weight of that of a man .. it is owing
to lack of wisdom on their part. However, they are also injurious to the dignity of faith and
cannot be allowed to say prayer during the period of menstruation or observe tasting."
(Mishkat, Vol. 1, p 19)
23. The Prophet said: "Beware of women because the calamity that the Israelite suffered was
caused by women."
24. The Prophet said: "Misfortune is a part of womanhood, residence and horse."
25. The Prophet said: "No woman should perform a marriage ceremony of another woman or
her own because such a woman is the true seducer."
26. The Prophet said: "If Eve was not created, no woman would have been dishonest towards
her husband."
27. The Prophet said: "When a man calls his wife to bed and she refuses and he is angered,
then angels keep cursing her all night ..even the Master of Sky (God) is annoyed with her until
husband is reconciled with her."
28. The Prophet said: "When a woman dies, if her husband was pleased with her, she goes to
paradise."
29. The Prophet said: "On the Day of Judgement, a husband shall not be questioned for beating
his wife."
a. Beating is a speciality of Islam for taming the "feminine brutes." The Koran says:
"And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and
beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them." (Women: 35)
It has been said that, due to shortage of women, the Arab practised a culture which was nearly
matriarchal, that is, women had high social positions in their clans, and were, therefore, inclined
to dominate men. The Prophet Muhammad was himself an employee of Khadija whom he
married, despite the fact that she was fifteen years older than he was.
The Prophet was endowed with a masculine social approach and wanted men to be dominant for
creating a hardy, warrior Arab nation, capable of conquering the world. This is the reason that
the Koran gave men an absolute authority to subdue women by beating, if necessary. It was an
essential part of subjugating woman to man's sexual suzerainty. Men, certainly made the best
use of this prerogative. A hadith says:
" ..women had become bold with their men, and so the Prophet authorised beating
them. As a result, seventy women, during one evening, gathered at the residence of
the Prophet to complain ruefully against their husbands, who they thought, were not
good people."
(Ibn-e-Majah, Vol. 1, p 553)
30. I ought to repeat that with wife-beating goes the Koranic behest of purdah, which has been
a major cause of destroying female liberties:
"And say to the believing women, that they
cast down their eyes and guard their private
parts, and reveal not their adornment
save such as is outward; and let them cast
their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal
their adornment save to their husbands .."
(Light XXIV: 30)
Again:
"O Prophet, say to the wives and daughters
and the believing women, that they draw
their veils close to them:"
(The Confederates 33: 55)
31. Then came the further Koranic command for women:
"And stay in your houses .."
(The Confederates 33: 25)
Thus the Muslim woman was totally secluded from society and became a source of sexual
enjoyment and political pawn for man. One ought to bear in mind that the Prophet himself
concluded alliances with powerful men through marriages: Abu Bakr and Umar were his fathers-
in-law, and Uthman and Ali were his sons-in- law. These are the men who are considered next
to the Prophet in rank and dignity for the part they played in spreading Islam and establishing
the Arab Empire.
Recent rise of women as political heads in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey, does not represent
the Islamic ethos but a rebellion against it, showing its spiritual decline.
What I have said so far is about women in this world. They have been turned into sexual toys
for the gratification of man, who seems to be Allah's darling. Women of the world-to-come, are
called HOURIS. So delicate, dainty and delightful they are that they rank as the ultimate goal of
man's existence; in fact, he prays, panegyrises and pleads with Allah solely for the favour of
granting him houris, the providers of the most exquisite and charming sexual pleasures. This is
the Islamic salvation, which motivates men to embrace, and stick to Islam. What a bewitching
bribe a houri is!
Houris are found in paradise which is their abode. Isiamic salvation means gaining entry into the
land of houris where carnal delight is as plentiful as waves in the sea, flowers in a garden or
stars in the sky.
Woman is the weakness of man: Adam defied God to please his woman. It is natural for sons to
follow in the footprints of their father. The Prophet Muhammad knew this deep-rooted
psychological mystery, which he successfully exploited through his idea of houris. What is a
houri?
The Koran says:

" .... for them (the Muslims) is reserved a definite provision. fruit and a great honour in
the Gardens of Bliss reclining upon couches arranged face to face, a cup from a fountain
being passed round to them, white, a pleasure to the drinkers ..... and with them wide-
eyed maidens flexing their glances as if they were slightly concealed pearls."
( The Rangers 40: 45 )
Whereas Chinese have preferred flat-chested women, the Arabs are fond of rising bosoms. So,
in keeping with the Arab taste, the Koran declares:
"Surely for the God-fearing
awaits a place of security,
gardens and vineyards
and maidens with swelling bosoms."
(The Tidings 30)
The attraction of paradise is made more impelling when wine is made a part of paradisiac living:
"Surely the pious shall be in bliss,
upon couches gazing:
You find in their faces the shining bliss
as they are offered to drink of wine sealed,
whose seal is musk ... and whose mixture
is Tasnim, a fountain at which to drink
those brought nigh."
(The Stinters 20: 25)
For better illustration of the point under discussion, I may refer to Hadith Tirmzi, volume two (p.
35-40) which gives details of houris, the ever-young virgins of paradise:
1. A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her bones
is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like a red wine in a white glass.
2. She is of white colour, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary woman
such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child-bearing, and the related
pollution.
3. She is a woman characterised by modesty and flexing glances; she never looks at any man
except her husband, and feels grateful for being the wife of her husband.
4. A houri is a young woman, free from odium and animosity. Besides, she knows the meaning
of love and has the ability to put it into practice.
5. A houri is an immortal woman, who does not age. She speaks softly and does not raise voice
at her man; she is always reconciled with him. Having been brought up in luxury, she is a
luxury herself.
6. A houri is a girl of tender age, having large upright breasts. Houris dwell in palaces of
splendid surrounding.
Now add to this description of houris, what Mishkat, volume three says on pages 83-97:
7. If a houri looks down from her abode in heaven onto the earth, the whole distance shall be
filled with light and fragrance .....
8. A houri's face is more radiant than a mirror, and one can see one's image in her cheek. The
marrow of her shins is visible to the eyes.
9. Every man who enters paradise shall be given seventy-two houris; no matter at what age he
had died, when he enters paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old, and he will not age any
further.
10. Tirmzi, Vol. 2 states on page 138:
A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men!
It should be noted that men who are so potent, shall not be inclined to do anything except love-
making. This is the reason that, according to Islam, sexual gratification is the ultimate goal of
life, and thus, the behaviour of a Muslim becomes sexually oriented.
This discussion reflects the true Islamic view of human rights in general, and the position of
women, in particular.
Chapter 2
ISLAMIC JEHAD
The Prologue
People are entitled to believe in what they like, but modern civilization, which
respects individual liberties, does not recognize one's right to injure fellow-men to
demonstrate the fervour of one's faith.
Islam is one faith, which has divided humanity into two permanently warring
factions: those who believe in Allah and Muhammad, are the God's Party, and
those who do not, are the Devil's Party. The former have the most sacred duty to
eliminate and subdue the latter. So urgent is this purpose that Islam not only
encourages its followers to murder, plunder and seduce the women of the infidels
but also projects such murder, plunder and seduction as the greatest virtues.
Islam calls it "Jehad", which guarantees the Mujahid (holy warrior) salvation i.e.
seat in Paradise.
Murder, plunder, seduction , creating widows and orphans, have been held as the
most abominable acts by all codes of morality but Islam has succeeded in
projecting them as the greatest virtues. It is this power of propaganda, which has
paralyzed the rational faculties of the Indian people, who have embraced Islam in
their hordes.
Yet this is not the only cause of the mass conversion of the Hindus. An equally
important reason is their total ignorance of the Vedas, the fountain of the Indian
faith and culture. We plan to publish, Anwar Shaikh's thoughts on the Vedas in
one of ourforthcoming issues - Publisher.)
Jehad, literally means "effort". Though the Muslim apologists will have us believe that this is
what the term Islamic Jihad implies, this is a gross understatement because of the barbarity,
brutality and bloody mindedness that the Islamic Jihad has come to represent in action. Just
consult the pages of history to find out how the Muslim warriors waged a Holy War against
Europe for no fewer than four hundred years to cut down half of its population. Chose
Mujahedeen (the Muslim warriors) destroyed the Egyptian and Iranian cultures without the
slightest provocation from these lands. India suffered terrible distortion, disgrace and
devastation from these booty-hunters whose followers, even today, treat Bharat as Dar-ul-Harb
(the battlefield), and are determined to Convert it into an Islamic state through malice, mischief
and molestation.
So complex is the doctrine of Islamic Jihad that its annotation is not possible without d referent
e to What the Prophet Muhammad stood for, and the means he employed to achieve his
purpose:
The Arabs were pagans who indulged in idol-worship, which exhibits man's innate fear of the
Unknown and he bows before the Supernatural to please I rim with a view to escaping his
impending wrath. however, the Hindus do not adore the statues as such; they are power-
worshippers: they revere Shakti (the Power) behind every natural phenomenon, called a god or
goddess.
The Arabian temples were deeply influenced by the Indian principle of triad (Trimurti), Which
represents plurality of gods but Muhammad vehemently opposed it fiend instead, preached
monotheism, that is, there is no God but Allah, meaning that all other gods are false except the
one whose cause he advocated. He emphasized that Allah has created man as His slave whose
only purpose of life is to bow, bend and beseech Him.
To convey his purpose with greater clarity, he claimed that he was the Messenger of Allah and
had been sent by Him to preach His name so that people should believe in Him and worship Him
exclusively. Allah, he held, like Yahwe, the Jewish God, is a jealous Deity, who may forgive all
sins except treating anyone as His equal and lauding Him. Thus, he laid a curse on all other
gods and demanded their total destruction.
Allah, he stressed, is Almighty, the Creator and Absolute, that is, independent of everything and
desire. This definition of Allah does not stand up to a rational scrutiny. How can Allah be
Almighty if He depends upon a man i.e. the prophet, to convince people of His existence and
greatness? Again, if He is the Creator, He would have created man to believe in Him
automatically. Finally, the God who ardently desires to be deified cannot be Independent or
Absolute.
From the above, it follows that the true God neither needs a Prophet, nor prophethood is
capable of serving His object. Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad had an aim over and above his
stated purpose. This is not a far-fetched statement look at the following verse:
"To you your religion, and to me my religion." (The Unbelievers, CIX: 5)

Here, Muhammad is telling people openly that they are welcome to their religion and he will
follow his own! If this be the truth, then he has nothing to preach, and therefore, he has no
message from Allah.
Since the Prophet Muhammad was the founder of the Arab Empire, he could not have done so
without a burning Political ambition. It is an historical truth that some people acquire temporal
power as politicians but others realize their political dreams through the garb of spiritual
leadership. This is especially applicable to the Middle Eastern countries where prophethood has
been a cultural tradition since time immemorial. This is the reason that ruler of every locality
ruled as the Vicar of God, that is, he asserted that God was in direct communication with him,
and he acted according to His commands. What is called Vicar is another name for the
Messenger (i.e. Prophet). And this is what Muhammad claimed to be. Obviously, like these
Vicars of the Middle eastern countries, Muhammad had a political ambition, and this fact is
amply proven by his immense success as the Builder of the Arab Empire.
His yearning however, was greater than that of a mundane ruler, an ordinary Prophet and even
God. When he was weak, he declared:
"Say, I have only been commanded to serve God, and not to associate anyone with
Him. To Him I call, and to Him I turn." (Thunder, XIII- 35)
But when he became powerful, he turned the tables on Allah Himself:
"God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet, O believers, you must also bless him,
and pray him peace." (The Confederates, XXXIII: 55)
One can see that the situation has been reversed here. First, it was Muhammad who prayed to
God but now it is God and angles, who pray to Muhammad. The Koran goes even further to
state: "Truly this is the word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne
secure, obeyed, moreover, trusty." ( The Darkening, LXXXI: 15-20)
The Muslims interpret these verses to mean that on the day of Judgment the Prophet
Muhammad will sit on the right hand side of Allah to share the Divine throne of justice, and it is
his intercession which will decide who goes to heaven or hell. Here, Muhammad excels Allah by
taking over his authority.
Now, One can see Muhammad's plan of elevation clearly. First, he advocates destruction of idols
so that they should not rival Allah, and then in the cloak of prophethood, he becomes the object
of praise of Allah and his angels and also makes it obligatory on all believers to follow this
pattern!
Jihad is the means to raise Muhammad above the mark of Divinity. Having preached in Mecca
for thirteen years, he could secure just about seventy followers. This number was too small to
act as God's army. In fact, most of the believers suffered terrible persecution for denying and
insulting pagan gods. Eventually, Muhammad, along with his followers fled to Medina to escape
the anguish. Even there, he desperately wanted to accelerate it because the wheel of his life
was rolling on fast, indeed.
Crowning one's greatest desire is usually a difficult task. Since founders of the ruling dynasties
had to use stratagems, practice convenient morality and wage dreadful wars to achieve their
purpose, why should not the Prophet of Allah raise an army of holy warriors to execute his
ambition? Besides, he also had to settle old scores with the Koresh, people of his own tribe, who
had done everything possible to destroy him and his mission.
Man is fearful and dreads the consequences of war, but at the same time, greed is a part of his
nature, and when his lower instincts are instigated with the promise of fulfillment, he forgets the
difference between right and wrong to secure his end, which assumes sacred proportions to
justify the means. Muhammad needed an army for the realization of his aim but people would
not imperil their lives Without a suitable inducement. So, the Prophet conceived the Doctrine of
Jihad; it apparently, means fighting in the way of Allah irrespective of whether the people to be
fought against have done anything wrong or not. The Allah, who claims to be the Creator of all
beings, the Most Merciful, and the Best Judge, has divided mankind into two sections. The Koran
in The Disputer, LVIII: 20, clearly lays down that those who believe in Allah and Muhammad are
God's Party and those who disbelieve are Satan's Party; the former are destined to be
prosperous but the latter are bound to be the losers. This is because;
"The true religion with God is Islam." (The House of Imran, III - 15 )
"It is He (Allah) who has sent his Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth,
that He may uplift it above every religion." (Victory, XLVIII: 25)
Since every religion except Islam is false, it is natural for Islam to dominate all other faiths.
What a dictatorial philosophy it is! the crowning of this Divine attitude requires perpetual
bloodshed of the non-Muslims by the Muslims, no matter, how innocent, upright and virtuous
people the non-Muslims may be. Murdering them, plundering them, enslaving them and
seducing their women is such a great act of piety in the Mohammedan texicon that it guarantees
paradise to the perpetrators. Such acts are universally looked upon as the root of evil and thus
denounced, deplored and deprecated by the civilized world, but they have been admired, adored
and adulated by the Koran, which claims to be the Word of God! What is even more stunning is
the fact that warring against the unbelievers is an endless process because a hadith (Muslim: 3)
states that the followers of Islam must continue operation of violence until the faith of
Muhammad prevails on earth.
In fact, a powerful army cannot be raised if its members are conscious of the demarcation
between vice and virtue. Once, they are convinced even wrongly that only their god is pure,
pious and perfect, and everything else is profane, putrid and perfidious, they become an
invincible force. Realizing this fact, Muhammad devised the Plan of Jihad, based on Sex and
Plunder:
1. SEX
Carnal gratification, man's greatest desire, is the first temptation that the concept of Jihad
carries. A Mujahid i.e. the Islamic warrior, who at that time suffered pangs of sexual starvation
in the torrid land of Arabia, was promised plenty of sensual enjoyment as a reward for
participating in the carnage whether or not he survived the rigors of the battlefield. If he got
killed, he was assured that the houris waited for his glorious company in Jannnat i.e. paradise,
and if he survived, he had a share in the plunder, which included women of the infidels. Islam
has prescribed flogging, and death-by-stoning for sexual offenses such as fornication and
adultery because it holds such acts as unlawful when committed out of wedlock but when a
Muslim "fights in the way of Allah" to murder the infidels and plunder their property, then the
Koran relaxes this rule:
"And anyone of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing free women
in wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that your right hand owns ......So marry
them, with their people's leave, and give them their wages honorably as women in
wedlock, not as in license or taking lovers." (Women, IV: 25)
These verses demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the Koran forbids sexual intercourse
outside wedlock: marriage is a must for the fulfillment of sensual desires, but this law is blown
off by the wind of change when it comes to a Muiahid (the Holy warrior):
During the battle of Autas, the Muslims captured some women along with their husbands.
Though earlier, a Muslim had been forbidden sexual intercourse with an unbelieving married
woman, at this occasion, it was revealed to the Prophet that Allah had relaxed this restriction
and permitted copulation to the warrior if she had fallen to his lot in the battle and thus became
his property. ( TIRMZI, vol. one, P 417 )
What a lure for becoming a fighter! Even the institution of marriage loses its varnish, value and
validity. It must be remembered that having carnal relationship with one's concubine in the
Byzantine Empire, was considered an offense punishable by death, but Islam, the true religion
of God, permitted it at will!
Even the Prophet Muhammad himself indulged in this Divine Concession. Having forced the
Jewish tribe of Banu Qureza to surrender as an exercise of Jihad, he put 800 men to death.
Among the victims were the husband, father and brothers of Rehana, a twenty-year-old Jewish
beauty, who fell into Muhammad's lot as his share of the plunder. Having presided over the
massacre of the Jews, he returned to his tent where mournful Rehana awaited her fate.
Charmed by her radiant figure, the Prophet proposed marriage to Rehana, sobbing with grief
and utter frustration. Realizing that he was so impervious to other peoples' bereavement and
sorrow, she refused to acknowledge him as the Prophet of God and preferred to end up as his
concubine instead of wife.
Sex was a big bait to attract followers, and eventually, make them sincere devotees. After the
people of Taif surrendered in February, 1639 AD to escape horrors of the siege, Muhammad was
presented with three beautiful women; he gave one of them "to Ali, another to Usman and the
third to Omar." To realize the significance of this episode, one ought to remember that both Ali
and Usman were his sons-in-law and Omar was his father-in-law.
The holy warriors of Islam have been given an unusual privilege of sexual merriment. If they
survive the battle, they secure concubines but if they fall, they are sure to enter paradise full of
houris, living in the most luxurious environment. See for yourself:
" For them (the Muslims) is reserved a definite provision, fruit and a great honor in the Gardens
of bliss reclining upon couches arranged face to face, a cup from a fountain being passed round
to them, while, a pleasure to the drinkers ..... and with them wide eyed maidens flexing their
glances as if they were slightly concealed pearls. (The Rangers, 40-45)
"Surely for the God-fearing awaits a place of security gardens and vineyards and
maidens with swelling bosoms." (The Tidings: 30)
The houris are ever-young women who have wide eyes, flexing glances and swelling bosoms.
Fancy the modesty of Allah and holiness of His manners. Can anyone honestly say that it is not
a lure to attract followers? How desperate Allah is for votaries!
To bring out the veracity of this point, I may refer to HADITH TIRMZI, volume two (p 35-40)
which gives details of the houris:
1. A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her bones
is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like red wine in a white glass.
2 She is of white color, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary woman such
as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child bearing and the related pollution .
3. A houri is a girl of tender age, having large breasts which are round, and not inclined to
dangle. Houris dwell in palaces of splendid surroundings.
Now add to this description of houris what MISHKAT, volume three Says on pages 83-97:
4. If a houri looks down from her abode in heaven onto the earth, the whole distance shall be
filled with light and fragrance .....
5. A houri's face is more radiant than a mirror, and one can see one's image in her cheek. The
marrow of her shins is visible tothe eyes.
6. Every man who enters paradise shall be given seventy-two houris; no matter at what age he
had died, when he is admitted into paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old, and shall not age
any further.
7. TIRMZI, vol. 2 states on page 138:
A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men.
Need I add more to the sexual temptation that Islam offers to turn its followers into warriors?
2. PLUNDER
In fact, the word: "plunder" refers to sex as well, because amongst other things it also includes
women. I have divided it into sex and booty to facilitate a better understanding of Jihad.
A plunderer has got to be ruthless, and must have no sympathy for the victim. Nor must the
rebuke of conscience mean anything to him. In fact, the more evil the cause the more righteous
he must think of it. This is the reason that the Koran legitimizes booty:
"Eat of what you have taken as booty, such is lawful and good. " (The Spoils, VIII: 70)
To make his followers, the merciless looters, he thoroughly drilled them in hatred of non-
Muslims, the potential victims:
1. "Surely the worst of beasts in God's sight are the unbelievers." (The Spoils: VIII: 55)
2. " Certainly, God is an enemy to the unbelievers . " (The Cow: II: 90)
3. "Oh ye who believe! fight those of the unbelievers and let them find in you
harshness." (Repentance: IX: 123)
4. "Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute." (
Repentance IX: 29 )
Since it was plunder that paved the way to spread Islam, even those things that the Prophet
himself had declared sacred, lost their sanctity when they proved inconvenient. For example,
the Koran says:
"Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters (The non-Muslims)
wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at
every place of ambush" (Repentance, IX: 5)
Rajab was one of the sacred months during which fighting is forbidden by the Koran. It
happened that at Nakhla, the followers of Muhammad ambushed a caravan of the Koresh on the
last day of Rajab. Had they not done so, the caravan laden with merchandise would have safely
passed them under the protection of the Divine rules. Two of the guards, namely Othman Ibn
Abdullah Ibn Al- Moghira and Al-Hakim Ibn Keisan were also carried off by them and were
presented to the Prophet along with the booty. The Prophet did not look pleased, and said: "I
never commanded thee to fight in the Sacred month." There is no doubt that the leader of the
booty-hunters, namely, Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, who had been sent by the Prophet himself along
with seven other men, was reproached by him, but there is no record that he ever returned the
looted goods to their lawful owners. He did nothing to discourage this practice during the Sacred
months; instead the Almighty himself suggested a way round it:
"They (people) will ask thee (Muhammad) concerning the Sacred months, if they may fight
therein. Say: fighting therein is a heinous thing but to bar from the way of God and to deny
Him, to hinder men from the Holy Mosque, and to expel His people therefrom, is more grievous
to God. Tempting (idolatry is more hurtful than slaughter." (The Cow, ii: 214)
The concepts of sanctity and profanity mean nothing in themselves: what suits the purpose of
Islam is a blessing but the opposite is a blight. Booty was undoubtedly the greatest attraction to
the converts, though one must exclude the seventy odd refugees who accompanied Muhammad
and the one hundred or so locals (ansaars), who had embraced Islam before his arrival in
Medina.
It was the Muslim love of booty that precipitated the first armed calamity in January, 624 AD
known as the Battle of Badr. Not to speak of the believers, even the heathens of Medina, envied
their converted fellow-citizens and wanted to take part in the battle. As the Prophet noticed
them among his troops, he summoned them to his camel, and asked them what they were
doing there: "Thou art our kinsman, " they replied, "to whom our city hath given protection;
and we go forth with our people in the hope of plunder."
"None shall go forth with me," said the Prophet, "but he who is of our Faith."
Saying that they were great warriors, and would fight bravely on his side, and wanted nothing
but plunder, they tried to proceed further but were stopped by the Prophet, who said, "ye shall
not go thus. Believe and fight."
Seeing no way out of the dilemma, "they believed and confessed that Muhammad was the
Prophet of God." "Now," said Muhammad, "go forth and fight."
"As they returned with booty, one of the Citizens (ansaar) exclaimed, "would that I had gone
forth with the Prophet! Then I would have surely secured the large booty.
This episode narrated by Sir William Muir on page 215 of The Life of Mahomet, explains the
significance of plunder in the Islamic doctrine and hardly needs any comments from me. It is
Muhammad's victory in this battle, facilitated by the lust of loot, which made him what he
became thereafter. One should also remember that the greed for booty kindled their hatred of
non-Muslims, who happened to be their own kith and kin. The Koresh, who were the victims,
held a meeting before the battle, where it was openly asserted: "When we have fought, and
spilled the blood of our brethren and kinsmen, what use will life be to us any longer? Let us now
go back " Eventually, it was the eloquence of Abu Jahl and his companions, which turned the
tables .
On the contrary, the Muslims who wanted to act as the warriors of Allah to secure booty, no
longer I acknowledged their blood ties with their kinsmen, find craved for fighting The Prophet
said, "0 Lord! let not Abu Jahl, the Pharaoh of his people, escape."
As the Battle was about to commence, the Prophet raised his hands and prayed: "0 Lord! I
beseech thee, forget not Thy promise of. assistance and victory. O Lord, if this little band be
vanquished, idolatry will prevail, and the pure worship of Thee shall cease from the earth.
Allah, who is, obviously, liable to forgetfulness, and did not know what would happen if
Muhammad was defeated, remembered his promise just in time and sent an army of angels to
thrash the infidels so that the believers could reap the reward of booty.
The Prophet Muhammad knew the significance of booty in relation to his followers. At the battle
of Ohad, as a part of his strategy, which was, indeed, wise, he posted archers to guard the
opening caused by the receding hills so that the enemy could not attack his army from behind.
He emphatically told his men, "Guard our rear and budge not from this spot; if ye see us
pursuing and plundering the enemy, join not with us; if we be pursued and even worsted, do
not venture to our aid."
No command has ever been given more clearly and intelligently. It shows the military wisdom of
the Prophet, which required total compliance but was flouted by the archers, who deserted their
position to chase booty when they saw the infidels routed. Khalid, as he noticed the rear
unguarded, swooped down on the army of Allah, and dispersed it with the might of his sword.
Thinking that the Prophet himself lay dead, the Koresh did not pursue the matter further and
returned to Mecca victoriously.
This episode clearly elucidates the significance of booty to these warriors of Allah: they fought
for booty and lost for booty.
What happened at the surrender of At- Taif in February, 630 AD clearly demonstrates that most
of his followers revered him for his martial skill, which secured them booty. At this occasion, the
Prophet took no prisoners for personal reasons. Of course, his followers from Medina and Mecca
adopted the same attitude towards their captives but people of the Fezara tribe refused to
accept the lead and had to be persuaded to act likewise.
Having arranged restoration of the prisoners, as Muhammad mounted his camel to leave, he
was mobbed by his own followers for not distributing the booty amongst them. They were afraid
of forfeiting their share of the loot as they had been deprived of their prisoners. They crowded
around him, and shouted: Distribute to us the spoil - the camels and the flocks." Rudely, they
jostled him, and he was obliged to "seek refuge under a tree with his mantle torn from his
shoulders . "
"Return to me my mantle, O man- for I swear by the Lord that if the sheep and camels were as
many as the trees of the forest in number, I would divide them all amongst you. Ye have not
heretofore found me niggardly or false."
The size of the booty was really large and The Prophet lived up to his promise. To powerful men
like Abu Sufyan, his sons, and many others, he gave one hundred camels each; the lesser chiefs
got fifty camels each, and even the share of those who had expressed discontent, was doubled.
When a Bedouin complained that the true faithful like Joeil got nothing at all while the new
converts had the most, the Prophet said: " .....I wanted to win over the hearts of these men to
Islam, while Joeil has no need of any such inducement. "
It certainly shows the purpose of the Islamic Jihad, that is, plundering the non Muslims with a
view to gaining converts and gratifying them.
One must also note that, as fame of the Prophet's arms rang throughout Arabia, the Arab pagan
tribes turned to him in hordes. All this happened to secure protection against any surprise
Islamic raid, which had become the destiny of the infidels for not accepting Islam. An element of
surprise, marvel and curiosity also formed a part of this submission. Arabia had not seen a man
of Muhammad's stature before. However, this all took place during the last few years of the
Prophet's life. Thus, the new converts had no experiential loyalty for the new religion. Possibly,
the greater factor of their disappointment was the fact that the chances of further booty were
practically nil because almost entire Arabia had come under the grip of Islam. What proved even
more devastating was the fact that now the Muslims had to pay religious taxes such as Zukaat
(the tithe). Thus, it is not surprising that, at the death of the Prophet, there was a terrible
explosion against Islam, which curbed human freedom through restraints of faith and rituals.
Most tribes of the Arabian desert rebelled against Islam to display their apostasy .
Abu Bakr, The First Caliph of Islam, following example of the Prophet, made plunder the pillar of
his foreign policy and unleashed the Arabian booty-hunters on Egypt and Iran. This is how the
Arab Empire was founded, leading to the spread of Islam.
During the 20th century, Islam has lost its luster as the projected ambassador of peace,
compassion and humanity in the face of the rising tide of human rights and the instinctive
demand of justice for all. It has caused a lot of embarrassment to the Muslim propagandists.
Therefore, to pull wool over the eyes of the non-Muslims, some Muslim scholars say that the
Islamic Jihad is a defensive war against the aggressors:
" Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged " (The
Pilgrimage, XXII: 40)
Again:
"And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves
not the aggressors. And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them
from where they expelled you. (The Cow, II: 185)
If the meanings of these verses were really what they appear to be, Jihad would be a blessing
as being the guardian of one's rights and honor. in fact, they represent a tactful persuasion to
take revenge from the infidels of Mecca, who had persecuted the Prophet and his followers in
the beginning. These verses have nothing whatever to do with self-defense:
Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and purposed to expel the Messenger,
beginning the first time against you. Are you afraid of them? You would do better to be afraid of
God, if you are believers. Fight them and God will chastise them at your hands and degrade
them, and He will help you against them, and bring healing to the breasts of a people who
believe " (Repentance IX: 10)
"O Prophet, urge on the believers to fight, if there be twenty of you, patient men, they
will overcome two hundred; if there be a hundred of you, they will overcome a
thousand unbelievers " (The Spoils VIII: 65)
One wonders that why Allah, who is Almighty, cannot thrash the unbelievers Himself, and
incites the ordinary mortals to do His will? Is it not an insult to the Almighty? These are
obviously not the commands of Allah but of Muhammad in the guise of Prophethood.
Look at the following to realize the revengeful nature of Jihad:
"it is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land."
(The Spoils: VIII: 65)
Jihad is simply an exercise in bloodshed for the sake of booty and subduing the non Muslims to
pay tribute as a mark of self humiliation. One should bear in mind that it is considered a proof of
aggression on the part of non Muslims not to embrace Islam when invited to do so; The Jews of
Khaiber were subjected to surprise attack and destroyed on this pretext.
This truth is fully borne out by the following hadith:
"I have been commanded to fight against (the Unbelieving) people, till they testify to
the fact that there is no God but Allah, and believe in me (Muhammad) as the
Messenger from the Lord ..... and when they do it, their blood and riches are
guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law." ( Muslim: 3 )
Besides those who think of the Jihad as a defensive war, there are new sects of Islam which
declare that it is a calumniation to say that Jihad is an Islamic doctrine. What a pious
denunciation of the basic Koranic tenet it is! Look at the following:
"God has bought from the faithful theirselves and their belongings against the gift of
paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill and get killed; that is a promise binding
on God " (Repentance , IX : 110 )
It simply means that a true Muslim has sold himself to God in return for paradise; he has
become his paid soldier whose only aim of life is to kill infidels or get killed! No wonder a hadith
from Al Bokhari: 4, says that "Paradise lies under the shade of swords."
The Prophet also said:
"Acting as Allah's soldier for one night in a battlefield is superior to saying prayers at
home for 1000 years." (Ibne Majah, vol. 2, P 166)
Now, one can see for one's self the violent nature of Islam, its purpose and the methods of
securing it.
The Epilogue
The Publisher advises all non-Muslims to read up Anwar Shaikh's treatise on

Jehad. When tracts prepared by men like Asghar Ali Engineer, Rafiq Zakaria,
Noorani, M.J. Akbar et al, are presented for your consumption, please take a big
grain of salt while reading the concocted material designed to confuse and mislead
the Hindus. That way, the two-faced ones would not be able to fool you so easily!)
Chapter 3
ISLAM AND INTERCESSION
Intercession is the product of man's instinctive fear which requires alleviation through mercy,
munificence and mellowness of the Supreme Being, who controls the universal phenomenon. It
is believed that He listens to prayer only, but not to evervone's supplication. Since He has
"beloveds," He readily pays attention to their orison and grants them wishes, no matter, how
heinous, hazardous and horrendous they may be. These "beloveds" are usually the men who
suffer from theomania i.e. the illusion that they are God and want to be acknowledged as such;
they usually call themselves Messengers or Vicars of God, who are so dearly loved by Him that
He cannot refuse them any wish. Thus, these messengers and messiahs claim to possess
intercessory powers. Therefore, intercession means salvation through a divine intermediary.
Life has been prone to be clanish right from the beginning of civilisation; the unity or a clan was
a stronger remedy against the unforseen hazards than the strength of an individual. However,
clanish solidarity required a strong element of mutual well-wishing. Respect for the departed
kins was held a symbol of tribal reverence and provided a bond of mutual affection. While the
living members of the clan could help each other through deeds, welfare of the dead required
praying to ease their lives in the next world. This is what bestowed priestly powers on the tribal
chief whose prayers amounted to intercession, because he was considered to have influence
with God. The concept of intercession was not confined to the primitive cultures; its advanced
form was symbolised by the ruler-priests of Babylon and Assyria. They recommended the
departed souls to the mercy of God and, in certain cases, could forgive them themselves
through their own intercessory powers, which tle Almighty had bestowed upon them out of love.
An expression or this fact is found when Christ cries from the Cross: "Father forgive them for
they know not what they do." (St. Luke 23: 34)
These words of Christ serve as the fountain of intercession for the Christians, who invented the
lore of intercession to abolish the mosaic Law, which was binding on them:
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by JeSus Christ.'' (St. John
1: 17 )
To make intercession a credible doctrine the Church dignitaries had to raise the divine dignity of
Jesus Christ sky- high:
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world
through him might be saved." (St. John 3: 17)
Thus Jesus is depicted as the Saviour of the world whose only purpose of life was to save the
world:
"For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever
believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." (St .John 3:16)
With a view to bestowing further divine honour on Christ, crucifixion, is equated with salvation:
".... Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (St. John 1:29)
What a mythology it is! To secure followers, a man's death is treated as the fountain of
redemption. The mere act of believing in, Christ guarantees his intercession leading to salvation.
In fact, intercession is the gross contempt of law and morality; it renders practice, piety and
perseverance totally irrelevant for sccuring salvation. See for yourself:
1. Christians are not under the law but grace. (Romans 6:14)
2. If you confess Jesus to be your Lord, you shall be saved. (Romans 10: 9)
3. Grace to be grace has got to be irrelevant to works. (Romans 11:6)
4. The life of a just Christian is based on faith. (Gal: 3: 11)
5. Law is a curse, and Christ has liberated us from it. (Gal: 3: 11)
6. Law is not for the righteous but the wicked. (1 Timothy 1: 9 -10)
The whole purpose of preferring faith to morality and law is, that people should salute,
supplicate and serve Christ and his lieutenants such as popes, cardinals, bishops and clergies,
who used their intercessory powers as a tool to fool and snool the Christendom for centuries.
Intercession is the major cause of sin, crime and destruction in this world.
Though Christianity has lost its magic, and the authority of moral conscience is accelerating its
tempo, Islamic doctrine of intercession is becoming more tenacious with the growing tyranny,
twisting and tantalisation in Islamdom. The reason for this detailed introduction with reference
to Christianity is, that Islam has incorporated all the fundamental teachings of the Bible
including its concept of intercession. The Christians believe that on the Day of Resurrection, only
they will go to heaven and the rest will be thrown into hell. (Rev. 20: 15). Islamic concept is
apparently loftier than the Christian notion because it treats the Day of Resurrection as the Day
of Judgement, which means that people will be actually judged for salvation on their merits.
This is the most beautiful hoax. Why? I shall answer this question in detail because the principle
of the Prophetic Intercession has become the major cause of moral decline in the Islamic world
leading to what is dreadful, destructive and the least desirable.
Hope has the same significance to humankind what steam has to a locomotive engine, rain to
crops and light to eyes. Life without hope is tasteless, twisted and torturous. The concept of
Resurrection raises one's hope of everlasting life. Equating Resurrectlon with the Day of
Judgement when people will be rewarded or punished according to the quality of their deeds,
makes morality the foundation of humanity, thus exalting the human status. Possibly, the
greatest aspect of the day of Judgement is the hope of compensation leading to the fulfilment of
thwarted desires and the completion of rewards which one could not achieve owing to the
usurpative actions of others. This is the Day when everybody will receive justice denied him in
the world through folly, fickleness and felony.
It is not Judaism but Zoroasterianism which is the spring of the Day of Resurrection or
Judgement. Zoroaster, who died about 551 B.C. was nearly a contemporary of Lord Buddha of
India. He was a priest; he claimed to have received a vision from Ahura Mazda, the wise Lord,
who appointed him to convey the Divine message to the people. In the eastern traditions, he
was thus a Messenger of God.
Zoroaster, also known as Zarathustra, according to the Gathas, the early hymns, mostly written
by himself, created an eschatology which emphasises the notion of life-after- death. He asserted
that the earthly existence had a direct hearing on the life-to-come, when people would be
assembled before the Wise Lord (God) who would judge them according to their deeds including
speech and thoughts. After judgement, the good will go to paradise, the place of eternal delight,
and the bad will be imprisoned in hell, the region of horrors and darkness. Zoroaster, the
Iranian Prophet emphasised the significance of the Bridge of the Requiter (Cinvat) which the
soul of every man must negotiate. The righteous, being invigorated by their virtues, would walk
into paradise whereas the wicked, being weakened by their vices, would fall into hell beneath
them. This idea known to Islam as Pul-Saraat, was incorporated by the Prophet Muhammad in
his teachings.
At this juncture, it is interesting to know the Vedic influence on the doctrine of Judgement in
terms of heaven and hell. Both these notions were developed in India. The Indian Swarg came
to be known as the Middle Eastern paradise and Narg was named as hell. Of course, the Hindus
do not believe in resurrection but Karman, the action, which is responsible for man's eventual
release or Mukti, though righteousness, according to its magnitude, may lead to a stay in
paradise proportionately, and wickedness guarantees a sojourn in hell on the same basis. One
should bear in mind that the major vedic gods such as Mitra, Varuna, Indra and the two Nastyas
form an integral part of Avesta, the Zoroasterian Scripture. However, with a view to establishing
his own distinction, Zoroaster depicted Indra, the chief Indian god, and Nanhaithya, as demons.
The latest scholarly studies have confirmed the Zoroasterian influence on the development of
Judaism and Christianity including Pythagorianism and Chaldean doctrines of Babylon. These are
well-researched facts whose veracity is further attested by the close kinship of the Iranian
language with that of Northern India, which shows how the Iranians emigrated from India along
with their Vedic cultural inheritance.
The Jews took the idea of Resurrection from Zoroaster, and is explained by the Jewish
observance known as Rosh Hashana marked by the sounding of the ram's horn (Shofar) at the
synagogue service. The horn-blast is held to acclaim God as Ruler of the universe. It is
customary for most Jews to engage in penitential prayers at a river to perform the Tashlikh
("Thou will cast") ceremony symbolises the casting of sins into the river. This reminds one of
the old Hindu custom of cleansing one's sins with the holy water of the Ganges.
Islam borrowed the doctrine of Resurrection or the day of Judgement from the Bible. To start
with, it is a righteous and reformative idea because it depicts Islam as the champion of justice.
Thus, it gives people the hope of Deffered Fulfilment, that is, all those genuine desires which
should have been accomplished in this life but failed to materialise owing to injustice, poverty,
ignorance or incapacity, would be granted to the good through a fair and honest process of
judgement by the Almighty. All decisions are to be based on justice, and not intercession;
people shall be able to gather the fruit of what they have cultivated.
Now, let us have a look al the Islamic view of justice:
"Lo! Allah loveth the equitable." (Private Apartments: 9)

Since Allah, the Islamic God, loves the just, He himself is the model of justice, and no matter
who may a person be, including Muhammad, Allah shall not deviate from the course of justice.
This is the reason that the Prophet states categorically as per command or Allah:
"Say, lo! none can protect me from Allah, nor can I find reruge beside Him (Allah)."
(The Jinn: 22)
It is quite evident if Allah is not prepared to spare Muhammad in the field of justice, he will not
listen to intercession in respect of anyone else. Again, intercession is a form of gross deviation;
it is the major source of injustice, the biggest crime, because it persuades Allah, the greatest
judge, to bend the rules of fairness at the request of a saint or prophet. It is sheer wickedness
and gross mockery of the concept of justice. Again, how a righteous person known as prophet
can even think of persuading God to do what is unjust, and hence vicious and sinful. This is the
way of crooks, criminals and conmen. How such a God, who is Himself bent, can expect people
to be straight? Exactly, the same remarks apply to a prophet or a saint. What will you call a
barrister who perverts the course of justice owing to his personal relationship with the guilty
client, and the judge who approves of it knowingly? Therefore, intercession is the doctrine,
devised to insult both the Prophet and God. This is especially true when rapists, murderers,
thieves, cheats, robbers, thugs, traitors, etc., shall be rewarded with paradise just as a result of
intercession. These are the people who deserve hell. If not, then the entire idea of God,
prophets, saints, piety, righteousness, justice, etc., turn out to be a sheer hoax, and must be
condemned, because it mocks human dignity.
May be, to uphold the Divine dignity, the Koran states right in the beginning:
"(Allah is the) Master of the Day of Judgement." (The Opening: 3)

Thus, the Day or Resurrection turns out to be the Day of Judgement, whose only purpose is
dispensation of justice by God absolutely independently. If He listens to intercession, He ceases
to be the Master of the Day of Judgement. The Koran confirms this point of view:
"Ask pardon for them, or ask not pardon for them; If you ask pardon for them seventy
times, God will not pardon them." (Repentance: 80)
To the Koranic God, intercession on the Day of Judgement, seems an irrelevance:
"Do you know what is the Day of Judgement? That is the day when no one shall be able
to benefit else; the command shall belong unto God." (The Splitting: 15)
So far the Koran conforms to the most desirable standard of justice, which according to the
international juristic doctrine, is neutral. It means that no verdict is just or lawful unless the
judge decides on the merit of the case without fear or favour. This is the notion which has
caused the separation and independence of judiciary from the executive and legislature
throughout the civilised world. Hence, the principle that unless justice is neutral, it is not
natural. To qualify as natural justice, it has got to be free from all elements of corruption such
as fear, favour, bias, recommendation, bribe and unfairness.
Islam appears to be aware of this standard of justice and thus bases salvation on evidence and
refuses to acknowledge the concept of intercession (Shafaat) in judgement. Therefore, the
Koran declares that everything a person does, is recorded:
"He (Allah) sends recorders over you (people) till,

any one of you is visited
by death, our messengers take him
and they neglect not ... His (Allah)
is the judgement; He is the
fastest of " Censors." (Cattle: 60)
It is on the strength of these verses, the Muslims believe that everyone of them is constantly
attended by two angels until death, for recording their deeds. They are, therefore, called
"recorders."
To provide a system of evidence, the Koran goes further:
"Surely, it is We (Allah) who bring the dead to life

and write down what they have forwarded
and what they have left behind, everything
We have numbered in a clear register."
(Ya Sin: 10)
It means that Allah has a Record Office where a register of deeds is maintained in respect of
each person. This fact is further confirmed:
"With Us (Allah) is a book recording." (QAF: 1)
The Koran repeatedly states that nobody is wronged by Allah, and this principle shall be strictly
observed on the Day of Judgement. So that nobody can complain of injustice and wrong-doing
by Allah, everybody shall be presented with his/her book of record and told:
" Read thy book. "
(The Night Journey: 10-15 170 also Resurrection: 10)
So far the Koran seems to be the Champion of Justice by strictly sticking to the ideal of
testimony. It goes so far as to state that on the Day of Judgement, a person's own limbs such
as tongue, hands, feet, will give evidence about him! (Light: 10 and Distinguished: 15)
The Islamic doctrine of justice, so far, appears to be perfect for totally rejecting the concept of
intercession, which denotes undue influence of a prophet or messiah on God to pervert the
course of justice. Take for instance the Muslims who believe that the Prophet Muhammad's
intercession shall guarantee them entry into paradise because:
a. He is the mercy (blessing) for all beings, and b. being God's beloved, the Almighty
himself cannot turn down his intercession.
These are very naive assumptions because they slander both Allah and the Prophet. How? It is
because Resurrection is the Day of Judgement, when justice shall be dispensed according to
one's deeds. It is not the day of showing mercy. Again, wilful mercy to the cheats, thugs,
murderers, robbers, rapists, molesters, tyrants, thieves, etc., is a sign of further cruelty to their
countless victims, who desperately need the justice that they failed to secure in former life. Not
only such an unjust Allah becomes the target of human condemnation, the Prophet himself loses
the appellation of "Mercy for all beings." Why? Because through his intercession wrong-doers
are to be set free, their casualties are going to feel even more torne, tortured and tantalised. If
the Prophet is really the Divine Ambassaor of Mercy, then he cannot and must not intercede; his
intercession becomes the source of pleasure to the few and fountain of persecution for the
countless who have been waiting for justice so long, and believe in the Day of Judgement for
this reason only.
This is why the Koran repeatedly rejects the theory of intercession. In fairness, I should further
quote from the Koran:
Having stated the principle of no-intercession in The Cow: 48, 123 and 254, it is stated in 281:
"Then every soul will be paid in full that which it earned, and they will not be wronged."
However, in the Cow: 284, it is asserted:
"He will forgive whom He will and He will punish whom He will. Allah is able to do all
things."
It is obvious that both punishing and rewarding are the prerogatives of Allah, and intercession
has nothing to do with it. However, Allah cannot exercise this prerogative unjustly because He is
committed not to wrong anyone. If His act of pardoning or punishing is proved to be perverse,
then He eases to be Allah for being puerile, petty-minded and a persecutor.
One should also remember the Divine rule:
"Allah loveth not wrongdoers." (The Family of Imran: 57)

It is obvious that if Allah rewards the wrongdoers with the greatest blessing known as paradise
just on the Prophetic intercession, then what more can He offer to the good? Intercession is
certainly an insult to piety and God-fearing. In fact, Allah blurtly rejects the idea of intercession:
"It is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether
He pardon them or punish them; for they are evil-doers."
(The Family of Imran: 128)
The Koranic Order claims to be based on justice:
"Say: My Lord enjoineth justice." (The Heights: 29)
and it is in addition to asserting that Allah is the greatest of all judges in "The Fig" 8.
Intercession is another name for manipulation and wire- pulling. The judge who succumbs to
temptation through fear or favour is exactly the opposite of the dispenser of justice.
There is still a lot more evidence available in the Koran to this effect but I think, I have
sufficiently argued my case. In fact, I may have overdone it owing to the delicacy and
significance of this issue. It is delicate because the Muslims are likely to find it offensive that the
doctrine of intercession is injurious to the dignity of judicial doctrine as well as to the holiness of
Allah who claims to be the greatest of all judges, including the righteousness of the Prophet who
asserts to be the ambassador of virtue. Of much greater importance than delicacy, is the
significance of this issue to the Muslims all over the world. Why?
The Muslim nations are (psychologically) conditioned to the name of the Prophet Muhammad
through a persistent preaching of centuries. He has been projected as the Saviour, whose
intercessory powers are too great to be ignored by Allah. Therefore, once the Prophet has told
Allah tnat an evil-doer must be pardoned, He has no choice in the matter. Further, his followers
believe that the Prophet is the greatest object of love.
If a person has ment oned the name of Muhammad affectionately even once in his/her life-time,
he will intercede for him/her to secure him/her a place in the paradise.
This conditioning to the name of Muhammad; has reached fantastic proportions in the world of
Islam for the following reasons:
a. Though there is an exception to every rule, generally speaking, all Muslim countries
are members of the Third World which is infested with poverty, disease, injustice and
ignorance. People's honour and legitimate aims seldom reach the point of realisation;
their individual desires bleed with frustration; justice is something to be talked about
and not to be practiced; simply to get-by, people have to forge and lie; the bigger the
liar, the cleverer he is thaught of; thieving and backbiting are considered as hobbies;
the meaning of sincerity and honesty are becoming harder to understand. Nothing can
be achieved without resorting to bribing and sycophancy. People still live under feudal
conditions which are the characteristic of the Islamic System, though against all
evidence, they are told that the Koran is an ardent advocate of democracy and human
rights. To be able to earn a loaf of bread, is a sign of good luck, and finding medicine
for the ailing loved ones is a miracle.
Against these most painful social conditions, one must think of human desire for
pleasure. It is natural for a person living in hell (which the present social conditions
imply) dream of heaven. Since the Prophet being the saviour, is the guarantor of
paradise, the place of the highest pleasures, his followers find him the most
praiseworthy, adorable and holy. As he is the sole medium of realising their frustrated
desires in the world-to-come, they will do anything in his name without any reference
to morality. Why worry about the demands of ethics when the conveniences of
immomlily can guarantee salvation through the sheer force of faith?
b. Secondly, the Muslim priest and politician, find the Muhammadan conditioning of
greatest financial and political advantage. They know that the force of faith has
paralysed people's faculties of reasoning, and thus it is easy and convenient to exploit
them in the name of Muhammad. This method of exploitation has become so effective
that the Islamic doctrines are habitually misinterpreted. This is the reason for political
and social unrest and revolutions in most Islamic countries.
Exploiting the name of Muhammad in different ways has become the business doctrine.
Take journalists, for instance; they are usually aethists or unbelievers, yet they fill up
their journals and newspapers with quotations from the Koran and hadith, and highly
exaggerated narratives extolling the virtues of Muhammad; they know full well that
their papers would end up in the lavatories, yet they do it for their gain, which is
usually against the national and religious interests. What a hypocrisy it is!
The Koranic attitude towards judgement has been adorable so far, but now I regret to add that
like all Scriptures, the Koran is an aggregate of contradictory principles. Having advocated the
doctrine of no-intercession emphatically, it suddenly preaches the precept of intercession:
"There is no intercessor except with His (Allah's) permission ... " (Jonah: 3)
This rule is again repeated:

"On that Day no intercession availeth except (that of) him unto whom the Beneficient
hath given leave and whose He accepteth." (TA HA: 109)
Now the Prophet declares: "I will be the first intercessor and the first person whose
intercession will be accepted (by Allah)" (Sahih Muslim: Vol. 4: 5655)
To express the enormity involved in the collapse of No-Intercession doctrine, I may point out
certain facts:
An authoritative hadith says: "I (Muhammad) sought permission (of Allah) to beg forgiveness
for my mother, but He did not grant it to me ... " (Sahih Muslim Vol:11: 2129)
When the Prophet was asked if his prayer for his uncle Abu Talib, who defended him valiantly,
had benefited him (the uncle) in any way, the Prophet said: "Yes; he would be in the most
shallow part of the Fire (Hell): and if it were not for me, he would have been in the lowest
(deepest) part of Hell." (Sahih Muslim Vol. 1: 408)
If the Prophet cannot save his own mother and the fatherly- uncle, especially when they both
were of good character, how will he guarantee paradise to the countless murderers, rapists,
robbers, cheats and liars?
The truth is that the previous utterances of the Prophet show that he was conscious of the
concept of justice, and thought of intercession as a device of deviation leading to vice, virulence
and venality. Here is a hadith to demonstrate it:
The Makhzumia lady committed theft which involved the Koranic punishment of cutting hands.
When Usama pleaded with the Prophet, he said: "Do you intercede (with me) to violate one of
the legal punishments of Allah?" Then he got up and addressed the people, saying, "O People!
the nations before you went astray because if a noble person committed theft, they used to
leave him but if a weak person among them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal
punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad committed theft,
Muhammad will cut off her hand." (Bukhari Vol. 8: 7&2(1))
Muhammad was human. If he had sufficient courage to rebuff the interceder, God, who is
considered the creator of this infinite universe, must be bold enough to show contempt for
intercession to maintain the dignity of justice. Again, no human can command God to be unfair;
this is exactly what intercession is. Mortals are afraid for their own salvation, and beg God to
forgive them. How dare they intercede for others? Being a mortal, Muhammad is no exception:
this fact is confirmed by the Prophet's death.
Aisha reported: "Allah's Messenger at the time of breathing his last was reclining
against her chest and she was leaning over him and listening to him as he was saying:
O Allah, grant me pardon, show mercy to me, enjoin me to companions." (Sahih Muslim
Vol. 4: 5986)
It is obvious that a person who himself needs mercy and begs for it, is in no position to
intercede for others.
Yet the truth is, that the Prophet eventually claimed to have intercessory powers. Why did he do
so? The answer to this puzzle can be painful, punitive and petrifying. Yet someone has to take
this risk in the interest of human dignity and its spiritual survival. I believe in a philosophy
which briefly stated means: Man is God and God is man; spiritual evolution from humanity to
divinity is attainable through moral conscience and philanthropy only. Since the corcept of
intercession is opposed to it, I am inclined to explain it briefly:
Some people suffer from dominance-urge which prompts them to rule their fellowmen by hook
or by crook. In some, this urge is so great that they want to be adored as God long after they
are dead and buried. To achieve this end, the Semitic device: Revelation, known as
prophethood, is very fruitful indeed, because it enables a person to attain Godly prestige
without claiming himself to be God. This contrivance is effective because the prophet claims that
he has no personal axe to grind in the matter. In fact, he expresses his humility by declaring
himself to be the servant of God and stresses that he is acting as God's vicar under God's
command, and has no personal wish to do so. Whereas the truth is that he quietly attains all
God's traits, and then a stage is reached when he begins to dominate God Himself. Look at the
following facts and decide for yourself:
1. God has ninety-nine holy names, and so has Muhammad.
2. Just belief in Allah does not make a person Muslim; he must believe in Muhammad
as well.
3. Allah and Muhammad command together, and a Muslim must obey them jointly.
4. God's law is what Muhammad says it is. The doctrine of intercession is an example in
point.
5. Allah is nearer to man than his jugular vein and the Prophet is nearer to the faithful
than their selves.
6. Allah does what suits Muhammad and acts as his factotum. For example, a Muslim
can have four wives at a time but Allah broke this law and authorised Muhammad to
have nine wives simultaneously. There are many other instances which I have narrated
in my book, "Islam, the Arab National Movement."
7. According to the Koran, Prophet is a mortal and hence subject to all human
conditions:
a. "You art mortal; and they are mortal; then on the Day of Resurrection before your
Lord you shall dispute." (The Companies: 475)
It means that the Prophet is a human like all other people and shdll be resurrectecd accordingly.
This is true because the Prophet is also buried in his grave.
b. Not only that, he is subject to God's punishment like all other mortals:
"Set not up with God

another God, or you (Muhammad)
will be cast into Gehenna (Hell), reproached
and condemned."
(The Night Journey: 40)
For thirteen long years the Prophet preached to secure followers and after a good deal of
trouble, he was able to convert some seventy people. This was not enough. A prophet is the
person who wants the maximum possible number of followers to be adored as if he were God:
"I hope that I will have the greatest following on the Day of Resurrection." (Muslim Vol.
1: 283)
It is for this reason that the Prophet abolished all other religions including Judaism and
Christianity. Thus "People of the Book" have no substance, and serve just as a convenience. See
for yourself:
"... he who amongst the community of Jews or
Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his
belief in that with which I have been sent (i.e.
Koran) and dies in this state (i.e. as non-Muslim),
he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire."
(Muslim, Vol. 1: 284)
Now, one can see the significance of believing in Muhammad the mortal; this is the only way
that he can be treated as God. In fact, a prophet is in competition with God, and wants to be
acknowledged as His superior in practice, but keeps glorifying Him apparently. Observe the
following:
"Those who believe, they love Allah more than anything else." (Baqara, 2: 165)
The faithful are invited to treat Allah as the sole object of love, but why? Herein lies the answer:
"Say, if you do love Allah, follow me, (Muhammad) Allah will love you and forgive you
your sins.." (Al-Imran, 3: 31)
As nobody can contact Allah, the Prophet becomes a substitute for Him, and people begin to
show him the same reverence as if the Prophet possesses some supernatural prerogatives. This
is the reason that the Prophet declared that he had the intercessory powers. Though it was
against what he had preached for seventeen years, by now he had established himself the ruler
of Arabia. It was certainly a at achievement and resulted from his magnetic personality ebullient
with greatness. It was sufficient to convince the Arabs, who had touched the political and social
nadar, that the Prophet did possess intercessary powers, and nobody was fussy enough to
criticise his previous claims. One should remember that success came to the Prophet during the
last ten years of his life when he was settled at Medina; Islam gripped Arabia even later, that is,
diuring the last five years.
Now, we can see why love for Muhammad becomes even more important than love for Allah:
"No person attains faith, till I am dearer to him than the persons of his household, his
wealth and the whole of mankind." (Muslim, Vol. 1:70)
Gradually, the Prophet exalts himself over Allah Himself:
"God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet, O believers, do you also bless him, and
pray him peace." (The Confederates: 55)
Formal blessing and praying peace are the ritualistic forms of worshipping. This fact can be seen
in the prayers of the Muslims all over the world. They actually worship Muhammad but
apparently bow before Allah.
After the Prophet has established himself as the object of devotion of Allah, the angels and the
Muslims, it is quite easy for him to declare:
"Truly this is the word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne
secure, obeyed, moreover trusty." ( he Darkening: 15 - 20)
These verses constitute the foundation of the Islamic belief that the Prophet will share the
Throne of Justice with Allah on the Day of Judgement. He will sit on the right-hand side and his
intercession will be binding on Allah. As a result, all Muslim rapists, thugs, murderers and
thieves will go into paradise and all non-Muslims, no matter how pious, will be thrown into hell
for not believing in Muhammad.
Has ever anybody reflected that the Prophet is buried in his grave like everybody else? How will
he intercede for others?
"And (on the Day of Judgement) the Trumpet is blown and lo! from the graves they
hurry unto their Lord." (Ya Sin, 51)
Even if one believes in the myth of the Day of Resurrection, it is logical to think that the Prophet
being human, will be subject to the same physical conditions as other people because in this
world he was born and brought up like all other humans; he felt thirsty and hungry; he became
ill and needed medication; he had wives and required sex; he died and was buried as other
mortals. Being rational, we cannot assess him by faith only; humanity demands that his status
is judged by reason.
The Prophet gave himself intercecsory powers to look even superior to Allah: first, he claims
that both Allah and angels worship him and demands of his followers to do the same, and then
he claims to share the Throne of Justice with Allah who wants him to intercede with Him and
whose intercession He will accept readily. What God is so bent that He will punish the righteous
if they are non-Muslims, but He will pardon the miscreants if they are Muslim. Obviously, it is
Muhammad who decides and Allah is just his puppet. What a low dignity Allah commands in
relation to Muhammad!
This viewpoint which is certainly the core of the Islamic faith; raises a very serious point; it
proves my contention that Revelation (Wahi, Nabbuwat, Risaalat) is a Semitic device which
enables a person to be treated as God but indirectly. Having discussed it in my books "Eternity"
and "Islam, the Arab National Movement," I shall not go into details here. Speaking frankly,
Islam is not the antagonist of Shirk but its protagonist, though it claims to be founded on
monotheism, that is, Oneness of God (Wahdat):
"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His servant and Messenger."
This is called Shahada, and is said to be the fundamental doctrine of Islam. It may be a good
theory but the practice, as I have stated, is exactly the opposite. Muhammad is not the servant
but the Master. This is the real purpose of Revelation. Christ was a prophet but he ended up as
God. The same is true about Muhammad. In the Koranic language, equating someone with Allah
or showing him the reverence which is due to Allah, is considered as shirk, which is
unforgivable, though every other sin may be remitted:
"Verily! Allah forgives not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgives all
other sins to whom He wishes, and whoever ascribes partners to Allah has indeed
invented a tremendous sin." (Women, 4: 48)
"If you ascribe partners to Allah, all your deeds will be fruitless, and definitely you will
be one of the losers." (Az-Zumar, 39: 65)
The truth is that a person is his own saviour through piety of action and service to fellowmen. I
have discussed this doctrine in my book, "Eternity."
Finally, I should ask the faithful to show respect for the Koran by arguing their case in the
Koranic way:
"Bring your proof if you are truthful." (The Cow: 111)
Chapter 4
IDOLATORY, ISLAM AND INDIA
Why did the Muslims destroy Hindu temples? One can say that it was an excuse to plunder
India, and an attempt to spread the message of the Koran?
Though there is some truth in both the assertions, the reality is psychological, whose roots go
back into the ambitions of the Prophet Mohammed himself. This statement may be somewhat
ambiguous and thus requires explanation:
Like the physical order of the universe, the social structure of mankind is also hierarchical, that
is, broadest at the base and narrowest at the top. This is the reason that an organization is not
possible without observing this principle. Thus, a nation of several million people is governed by
a government of twenty to thirty members, who are themselves headed by one person called
the Prime Minister, President, Dictator or King. This truth was represented by the conduct of
Alexander, the Great, who believed in a universal monarchy. Taumburlain, the Conqueror,
stated it eloquently: "As there is one God, so this earth can support only one King."
What are the connotations of this statement? It means that humans are endowed with a
psychological peculiarity, which may be described as Dominance Urge; it goads people
individually, and collectively to dominate others. One can see this urge in operation during
political elections when competing candidates use all methods at their disposal to gain power;
the concepts of morality, munificence and mercy are shouted at top voice, but are usually
rooted in mischief, mordacity and malevolence. The urge of dominance admits only one conduct
which leads to victory. Hence, might is right, and the idea of "right as might" acts just as a
deceptive joke to appease conscience.
In fact, urge of dominance is a peculiarity of all animates and expresses itself through
antagonism. Take, chickens, for example. Chicken "A" pecks chicken "B" simply to express its
physical superiority and chicken "B" does it to chicken "C" for the same reason. Not only that, if
C becomes stronger, it may turn on B to establish itself as the powerful.
Without urge of Dominance, nobody will try to rise to the top, create law and order and compete
with others. However, urge of dominance also has its bleak side which occasionally clouds its
effulgence as can be observed in the destruction of Indian temples. Even great countries have
suffered a similar fate at the hands of foreign predators. England was subjected to plunder,
persecution and perdition by the Vikings for over 250 years. Subjugation of nations by
outlandish raiders through sword and fire is for establishing their dominance.
Urge of dominance has an unusual aspect; it does not always die with its possessor. When a
mundane ruler breathes his last, this urge may die with him but in people, known as prophets,
it proves to be immortal. A prophet commands people from his grave what to do and what not
to do; he succeeds in doing so through the body of laws which he claims to be of divine origin,
and leaves behind. Those who follow them qualify for heaven, and those who defy them go to
hell. These laws are, in fact, a product of the prophetic mind purporting to impress his power on
the minds of his followers through a system of reward and punishment, no matter how
imaginary. The Islamic Law devised 1400 years ago is an example in point. Pakistan was
created half a century ago to practise this law but people are still awaiting its introduction. The
reason is simple: it is not workable. In fact, Pakistan follows the Common Law of England, which
is totally averse to the Muslim traditions The Islamic Law is the legacy of Muhammad, requiring
his followers to acknowledge his supremacy through obedience to his legal code. It cannot be of
Divine origin becauce this universe and all that breathes is kept in order by the principle of
change which demands constant adjustment. Allah does not seem to realise that humans live in
a changing world and do not need static law, devised fourteen centuries ago. After giving man
free will, which enables him to make laws to suit his changing circumstances, He could not have
interferred with him by forcing him to observe the archaic laws which have no relevance to his
problems.
From the above discussion, one concludes that prophethood is the highest expression of
dominance urge. Since it is the prophetic dominance-urge which caused havoc to the Hindu
temples and culture, it is appropriate to delve deeper into its make-up and purpose:
A prophet is a person who claims that he is the vicar or lieutenant of God on earth. He stresses
that he carries the message of the Almighty who is the Creator of this universe and anxious to
make man righteous by waging war against evil. The prophet insists that God does not
communicate with anyone directly but through him. Since he is the divine medium, whosoever
wants to approach the Creator must do so through his agency or perish. Yet the prophet
declares that praise (worship) belongs to God; he himself is His humble servant, and does what
is told by the Lord.
In fact, prophethood is a stratagem to project one's self as God in the guise of humanity. By
asserting himself to be the agent of God, the prophet asserts his own righteousness by
awarding himself a certificate of behavioural excellence irrespective of what he really is; the
presumption is that God shall not appoint someone His agent, who has a second-rate character.
A part of this stratagem is the assertion that the prophet has no axe to grind in it; whatever he
does, he undertakes to obey the Lord. This impersonal approach is a sharp psychological
weapon to convince people of the prophetic mission.
Once we look into the nature of prophetic claim, its righteousness soon loses its radiance. If God
is the Creator, and He is so anxious for man to go straight, He would have surely designed
human nature in such a way that he could not err. The God who depends on the good-will of a
man, who calls himself a "prophet" cannot be more than a play-thing, and does not have the
power to check the prophet from twisting His Word if he so wishes. This is a logical conclusion;
if God cannot stop other people from doing what they want to do, how can he coerce the wilful
actions of a prophet, who is obviously a clever and determined man. The God who is dependent
on a man, has a lower stature than him. This is the real purpose of prophethood; a prophet is a
man who aspires to be acknowledged as God indirectly because it is much easier to proclaim
one's prophethood than Godhead.
Frankly speaking, one ought to say that the device of prophethood is not suited to spreading the
truth by its very nature; making the prophet an absolute medium of Divine instructions, limits
the Godly purpose; one man, no matter how clever, could not reach the whole world. It is
especially true in terms of medieval ages. Acquainting mankind with the Divine Will would have
been far more effective if the Lord had created them with a mechanism to receive His messages
directly. Since He has not done so, He obviously needs no prophets, who are the cause of
srocial strife, mutual hatred and wars. As man is endowed with intelligence and free will, he is
quite capable of steering his own ship of life. It amounts to self-contradiction on part of God to
coerce the intelligence and free will of man by sending messengers. In fact, the mere concept of
prophethood has an air of ridiculing God.
Of course, a prophet declares that praise (worship) belongs to God, and he himself appears to
be praising and worshipping Him. This is, in fact, mockery of Godhead for two reasons: firstly,
worship is the worst type of flattery, and it is well known that a lover of sycophancy has a
dwarfed, devious and detestable personality because it seeks to destroy the dignity, decorum
and distinctiveness of others by forcing them to demean, degrade and debase themselves. A
person with a flattened ego is like a bird with trimmed wings which loses the ability to fly
higher. The purpcse of life is to elevate ego with moral splendour, a superb will and sense of
personal greatness, which come from being upright and serving the cause of fellow-beings, and
not by crying, creeping and crawling before an imaginary God, whose arrogance knows no
bounds.
The second reason is more profound but crafty. In fact, it is a piece of psychological chicanery:
The truth as we know is that the concrete attracts and holds attention far more easily than the
abstract. This is the reason that modern methods of teaching make use of toys, pictures,
drawings/ etc., instead of relying on mere verbal instructions, which are less effective for being
abstruse and thus usually beyond the reach of imagination. The concrete objects serve as visual
aids to comprehend facts and the reality behind them. This is the philosophy of idol worship. All
devotees know that a statute is just a stone, a piece of wood or a lump of clay, but their shapes
help impart understanding ot the meaning of reality. It is a symbolical representation of the
truth. Though there is no mention of idol-worship or temples in the Rgveda, I am inclined to
think that the origin of organised idolatory lies in India. The reason is, the Vedic people believed
that there is a power of divine origin behind every natural phenomenon such as lightning, cloud,
fire, wind, etc. That power, they referred to as god or goddess, and adored it. These physical
phenomena did have visibility: lightning could be seen, thunder could be heard, wind could be
felt. They were glimpses of the gods and goddesses lurking behind these natural processes.
Eventually, it led to the creation of idols representing the respective deities, whereas the priest
knew the truth, the ordinary worshipper accorded gadly status to the idol itself. As every idol
identified a particular natural phenomenon, it did not represent the totality of Divine Power
individually. Though worshippers were particularly enthusiastic about the greatness of the
statues they worshipped, they did not revile the idols of other devotees because of their belief
that they, too, were divine for representing natural forces. This is what created pantheism, i.e.,
the doctrine that identifies God with the universe, leading to the worship of all gods. Oneness of
Gad became ascendant, almost every nation followed the model of an Indian temple which
housed all the gods. Thus jealousy among the gods did not exist, and if it did, lacked the force
to engender sectarian animosity and carnage. In fact, the co-existence of idols prompted the
attitude of "live and let live."
The device of prophethood is very similar to the idols as far as they act as the symbols or visual
aids to recognise the divine power or deity concealed behind them, and eventually worshipping
the idols themselves and not the deity concerned. When a person claims to be a prophet, he
projects himself as the shadow, and God as the Reality, but as he possesses an immense
dominance-urge, he is extremely anxious to reverse the order of priority, that is, people should
think of the shadow as the Reality and of Reality as the shadow. This inverse ratio of
relationship is the real goal of prophethood. The difference between idolatory is:
a. people worship statues through ignorance,
b. alternatively they know them to be mere visual aids, having no divinity in

themselves.
I ought to add that hypocrisy is no part of idolatory because it is brought about by ignorance or
the fact that a statue is just a visual aid. On the contrary, prophethood lacks sincerity because it
is the goal of a prophet to be treated as God without taking off his mantle of humanity. It is
done by exaggerating the wonders of the prophet to such an extent that he begins to look the
reality and God recedes into the background as shadow. This reversal in terms of power and
reverence imitates the principle and practice of idolatory whereby people take the idol for the
Reality and forget all about the Reality itself.
Since Islam is an offshoot of Judaism, it may be helpful to illustrate the issue with reference to
Moses, the founder of the Jewish nation and its philosophy.
It was Moses who brought out of Egypt, the Jews who had been subjected to cruelty and hard
labour for over four centuries. They had lost their moral dignity and intellectual capacity through
an incessant pressure of torment, tyranny and torture. The long servitude had made them
submissive, and receptive to suggestion. Moses, who had been brought up in Egypt as a prince,
was not only endowed with high capabilities but also had a tremendous urge of dominance. With
these qualities went his stupendous love for his people whom he wanted to make into a great
nation. This extraordinary man had the ability to turn his own ambition and national dignity into
a harmonious whole.
As the Jewish history shows, he projected himself as the model of behaviour by declaring
himself as the law-giver. But he did not say that the laws were invented by him. Following the
old Semitic tradition, he announced that he had been appointed as the Vicar (prophet) by God,
who had revealed His will through the laws which must be obeyed to escape the Divine
condemnation. He knew that the nationhood of the Jews, who were no more than a rabble at
that time, could not be affected without giving them a common measure of identity. So he
declared:
1. Yahwe is the God of Israel (the Jews) who are his chosen and blessed people.
2. To make Godhead of Yahwe as the foundation- stone of the Jewish nationhood, he

assured them that the Lord would not forsake them (Deuteronomy 4: 31) provided they
kept his law. The first commandment says:
"You shall have no other gods before me."
The Bible goes even further to declare that the extreme love is to be reserved for God:
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
might." (Deuteronomy 6: 5).
To make sure that this divine order is taken seriously, Deuteronomy 5: 9 spells out in no
uncertain terms that the Jewish God is a jealous God, who visists the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them who hate Him i.e. worship
someone other than Yahwe.
With a view to inculcating this message still further into the Jewish heart, Exodus 22: 20
declares:
"He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly
destroyed."
( As a footnote to this discussion, I may add that despite all the Jewish assertion of monotheism
i.e. Oneness of God, the Bible acknowledges polytheism, that is, there is more than one God: )
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." (Exodus 22: 28)
Here, I seem to be contradicting myself because Moses attaches supernatural authority and
reverence to God and not himself. This is the sophistication of the doctrine of revelation or
prophethood. The concept of God is abstract and therefore cannot be easily comprehended by
the masses who need a visual aid for proper understanding. Once people nave confirrned their
faith in God, the prophet, who is His sole medium of approach, projects himself as the Symbol
of Divinity the same way as an idol acts as the representation of God. The stratagem lies in the
fact that prophet looks uninterested in the divine honour, yet he bestows so much sanctity on
himself that he begins to look God's superior, and people actually adore him instead of God,
who ranks as a euphemism. Thus, in fact, it is prophet who is jealous of idols and everything
else which may be adored. Therefore, he wants to see no other idol except his own and insists
on their destruction.
1. First, he presented the concept of the Lord God.
2. However, before doing this he assured people that he did not want the apostolic
dignity, and was acting as Prophet under duress to escape the wrath of God (Exodus 4:
10-14).
3. Then he proceeded to exert his superiority over God:
As the story goes, worship of the molten calf by the Jews kindled Yahwe's jealousy. He appears
in divine glory and intends to consume the children of Israel with his boiling wrath, his gives
Moses a chance to establish his superiority over God. He tells Yahwe impolitely that He is about
to do a wicked thing against his own people and shames Him by asserting what the Egyptians
would say if He destroyed them. After all, Yahwe had gone out of the way to secure the release
of the Jews from Egypt.
Moses commands the Lord to refrain from this evil and repent. (Exodus 32: 12-14). What an
event it becomes: God surrenders to man! Yet the Jews claim that their faith is monotheistic.
I must add that this is not the only occasion when Moses, the Prophet, humiliates God in front
of every one. In an episode of similar nature when the Jews denigrate the Promised Land, and
want to return to Egypt, Yahwe's indignation reaches boiling point and He threatens to kill them
all. Moses steps in and skames God publicly. He yields to Moses as usual ( Numbers 1 4: 11 - 20
).
In conjunction with the above events, one should also remember the following episode
described in chapter 32 of Exodus:
As Moses took longer to return from God, his people contributed golden earrings to make a
molten calf to worship it. God tells Moses to rush back to his people who have corrupted
themselves. As he came near the camp, he found them dancing round the calf. Moses' anger
knew no bounds; he burnt the calf in the fire, and ground it to powder, which he dissolved in
water and made the children of Israel drink.
Had Moses left the molten calf to stand, it would have become a symbol of divinity, and
eventually the Divine. He could not accept this situation because he had assumed the status as
the sole Medium of God.
This Semitic tradition was enthusiastically followed by the Prophet Muhammad, who repeatedly
claimed that Islam was not a new faith but the same religion as promulgated by Adam, Noah,
Ibrahim, Moses and Jesus. He called himself the last exponent of this faith. He hated idols and
advocated their destruction because he himself wanted to be treated as an idol to be
worshipped. It seems a crazy theory but it happens to be the truth. To understand it, one must
bear in mind that Allah was originally an idol of the Kaaba where it was worshipped by the
Quresh, clan of the Prophet. I shall demonstrate later, Muhammad was inspired to idolise
himself by Allah-worship. He destroyed all statues of Kaaba including that of Allah, yet he raised
Allah to the status of God who is the Almighty, the Creator and the Omnipotent. He did so to
replace Allah's statue with himself as the symbol Gf divinity. He knew that it is the symbol of
divinity i.e., the idol, which eventually comes to be worshipped as God.
Now I may provide evidence in support of my claim:
1. Following the Mosaic model, first he claimed that Allah, the Islamic God had forced
him into accepting prophethood ( Sahih Muslim: 301) . Having narrated this episode in
my took: "Islam The Arab National Movement, " I need not repeat it here.
2. In the beginning, to impress upon people that he had no axe to grind in the matter,
he asserted:
"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger." This is the basic belief of
Islam and is called Shahadah. Until he gained a large following which guaranteed him
suzerainty, he projected himself as a mortal who was entrusted with the duty of Allah's
message. See for yourself:
a. The Koran calls the Prophet a servant.

( The Cow: 20 ).
b. He does not know the Unseen.
( Cattle: 50 )
c. He does not have the power to perform

miracles.
( Thunder: 5 )
d. "... say, Glory be to my Lord! Am I aught

but a mortal, a messenger."
e. "... I have only been commanded to serve

God, and not to associate
aught with Him. To Him I call, and to Him I
turn. "
( Thunder. 3 5 )
f. The Prophet being a mortal, is equally subject to Allah's reward and

punishment:
"If He will, He will have mercy on you

( Muhammad ), or if He will, He will
chastise you."
g. The Prophet is warned by Allah:

"Set not up with Allah
another God, or you
wilt be cast into
Gehenna ( Hell ), reproached
and condemned. "
( The Night Journey: 40 )
So far the Prophet has claimed that he is just a human who has been forced by Allah to convey
His message to the people. He desperately needs this approach to convince people that he is
simply discharging his duty. Thus it is easier for the masses to listen to him and believe him,
but when he becomes powerful enough and can stand on his own, he discards this style and
expresses himself as an integral part of Allah:
h. It is no longer enough to obey God only:
" Obey God and the Messenger
( Muhammad ) .
( The House of Imram: 25 )
i. "Obey God and the Messenger: haply so

you will find mercy."
( The House of Imram: 125 )
j. "Whoso obeys God

and His Messenger, He will admit him
to gardens...."
(Women: 15 )
k. As the Prophet gets stronger, he becomes a co-sovereign with Allah because

whatever they do, they do it together, and people are not left with any choice
but to obey the decision:
"It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have
decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whosoever, disobeys God
and His Messenger, has gone astray into clear error." (The Confederates: 35)
Gradually, the Prophet, who was once a mortal and Allah's servant, and then an equal partner in
Godhead, now raises himself to the status of real God, and Allah himself becomes Muhammad's
devotee. It sounds blasphemous, but this is how the Koranic truth is. Here is the authority:
"God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet,
O believers, do you also bless him, and
pray him peace."
(The Confederates: 55)
Praying peace is the highest form of worship. It is very much like the devotional movement
within Hinduism known as Bhagti which came into being during second or third century A.D. The
Bhagti attitude has been inspired by the Bhagavadgita though Ramayana and Puranas have also
contributed towards it.
Bhagti means the intense emotional attachment and love of a devotee to his personal God.
Though a Hindu can choose any of his gods as the centre of his devotion, it has been
particularly developed around Vishnu represented by his two earthly incarnations, namely,
Rama and Krishna.
The Hindu worship includes the recitation of God's name, singing of hymns in his praise,
undertaking pilgrimages to the places associated with him, adoring him in shrines, private
meetings and temples as well as through charitable acts.
The Muslims, especially of the Indian sub-continent have adopted the same attitude towards the
Prophet: they have developed a highly emotional cult known as "Ishq-e-Rasool" i.e. the intense
love of Muhammad. This devotion is so great that a priest, politician or "pioneer" can easily
mislead the Muslims in the name of Muhammad and make them do anything, no matter, how
irrational. The Muslims hold that a priest, politician or "pioneer" can easily mislead the Muslims
in the name of Muhammad and make them do anything, no matter, how irrational. The Muslims
hold exclusive meetings to recite the name of Muhammad for hours, sing his praises endlessly,
visit the holy places and even recite his name in the regular daily prayers.
It is amazing that when the Hindus pray to their gods with the aid of their statues, which are
symbolic representations of the Reality, they are dubbed as idolators, but when the Muslims
resort to similar practices, they become monotheists! In fact, they carry the magic of this riddle
even further. In Hinduism, it is inevitably man who worships God, but in Islam, both angels and
Allah worship Muhammad by praying peace to him!
Islam is essentially the cult of Muhammad-worship, yet it is called the True Religian of God,
instead of being termed as Muhammadanism. How did the Prophet create such a large band of
followers, who worship kim but claim to prostrate before God?
One can find the answer to this enigma by considering the following facts:
1. He destroyed the statue of Allah which was housed in the Kaaba: it was considered the most
sacred idol of the Arabs because people took it for the real God owing to ignorance and
tradition. As long as the statue of Allah existed, nobody could take the place of Allah because
His statue was His divine symbol. It had to be demolished by someone to present himself as the
divine symbol of Allah. Muhammad did that by projecting himself as the sole representative of
Allah on earth, and like other idols came to be treated as the real God. He chose Allah because
it represented his tribe and was considered the most sacred and powerful.
2. To further his cause, the Praphet claimed that he was sent into this world as mercy i.e. love
for mankind:
"We have not sent you, except as mercy unto all

beings." (The Prophets: 100)
By projecting himself as love, he helped himself to become the centre of love of his followers.
There are several hadiths which ardently advocate for the love of Muhammad. For example:
"No person attains faith, till I am dearer to him than the
persons of his household, his wealth and the whole of
mankind." (Muslim, Vol. 1: 70)
3. To be obeyed to the dot, he claimed that he was the divine model of behaviour and must be
copied by all his followers:
"You (believers) have a good example in God's
Messenger for whosoever hopes for God and the Last
Day." (The Confederates: 20)
It is clearly stated herein that whoever wants to go to paradise ( "hopes for God and the Last
Day" ) must imitate the behaviour-pattern of the Prophet. This is what Sunnah is; all Muslims
want to live as Muhammad did, even to the minor details such as eating, drinking, walking,
talking, sleeping, dressing, etc. In fact, the Prophet has come to control the psyche of his
followers.
4. Intercessory power of the Prophet is the master stroke of his divinity. Though I have given its
fuller account in the Second Volume, 6th issue of "Liberty," I may briefly state here the Koranic
attitude for the benefit of readers; it repeatedly states that on the Last Day, it is exclusively for
Allah to decide whether a person will go to heaven or hell.
To suit Muhammad's purpose, as in several other important affairs, the Koran changes its tone
and eventually states:
"On that Day no intercession availeth except (that of)

him unto whom the Beneficient (God) hath given leave
and whose He accepleth." (TA HA: 109)
This point is well explained by the following Hadith (Sahih Muslim: Vol. 4: 5655)
"I will be the first intercessor and the first person whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah).
It means that the Prophet has the power to force Allah to do whatever he wills. He will send his
followers to paradise even if they are murderers, rapists, thieves and liars but shall specify hell
for all non-believers even if they have been highly righteous. The Koran states:
"Truly this is the word of a noble Messenger

having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure,
obeyed, moreover trusty."
(The Darkening: 15-20)
The Muslims interpret it to mean that on the Day of Judgement, the Prophet will share the
Throne of Justice with Al lah and sit on His right-hand side. His recommendations will be binding
on God. This is what they sincerely believe is meant by "obeyed, moreover trusty."
Now, one can see that Allah is no more than a figure of speech because the Prophet has taken
over the destiny of humankind. In "Islam, The Arab National Movement,'' I have shown that
Allah is a factotum of Muhammad because He does what He is told by the latter. For example,
the change of Kibla, the vital issue, is decided by Allah to please Muhammad. Again, it is an
Islamic law that if a Muslim has more than one wife, he must treat them all equally but God
gave dispensation to the Prophet to suspend any of his wives as he thought fit. One should also
bear in mind that the Islamic law lays down that a Muslim cannot have more than four wives at
the same time, but the Prophet had at least nine wives simultaneously. He was obviously above
Allah's laws. It is universally accepted that law is equally binding on the law-giver. Unless
Muhammad believed himself to be Allah's superior, he could not defy His law. It shows the
intensity of the Prophetic dominance-urge.
Now, it is obvious that the Prophet did not disapprove of idolatory but hated other idols because
he wanted to substitute himself for them. In short, he himself aspired to be worshipped to the
total exclusion of all other idols.
However, the Prophet realised that there are other people who have a tremendous ego and
want to be remembered as spiritual heroes and adored accordingly. So he allowed the creation
of a pantheon under his own divine shadow, which means that whoever believed in these lesser
deities, automatically followed him. One learns about these minor divinities in Hadith no. 145 of
the Sahih Muslims: they are members of the household of the Prophet, namely Ali (Fatima,
Hassan and Hussain) as well as Abu Bakr, Umar Usman and several others who served him well
to make his mission a success.
I think that I have said enough about the nature of Islamic attitude towards idolatory: it is really
not iconoclastic i.e. anti-idol, but idolatrous as long as it is only the Prophet Muhammad, his
close relations and associates, who are adored under his spiritual hegemony.
The heading of this article is "Idolatory, Islam and India." I have so far discussed the
relationship of Islam and idolatory but have not touched upon the Islamic attitude towards
India, especially in terms of idol-worship.
As students of history know, the Muslims have always done their worst to destroy the pre-
Islamic period of every country where they have been able to spread their tentacles. Even
Arabia, the cradle of Islam, is no exception to this rule. It is not easy to trace its pre-Islamic
history. However, certain facts can be discovered from the Hadith (sayings and practices of the
Prophet) and scholarly writings found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Having studied these
sources of information, I come to the conclusion that the Prophet Muhammad had developed an
unfavourable attitude towards India. It is because he was a national leader, par excellence. His
patriotic zeal required of him to destroy the glory of Egypt, Iran, Byzantine and India. The last
i.e. India, posed a special problem. Why?
It is because India constituted a real threat to the dreams of Muhammad, who was highly
enthused by the love of his people, the Arabs, and wanted to make a great nation of them. He
also knew that Moses, before him, had created a magnificent nation of Jews who should
perpetuate his name. So the national dream of Muhammad sought to deify himself through the
efforts of a great Arab nation to fight for his glory, which should also prove the pivot of Arab
nationalism. Having told this story in my book: "Islam, The Arab National Movement," I need
not repeat it here but must explain, why India stood in the way of the apostolic designs of
Muhammad. The reason was that the Arabian way of life and religion were deeply influenced by
the Indian culture and religious attitudes. To make the position clear, I must add that as the
Indian sub-continent is dominated by the Islamic way of life today, so was the Arabian
peninsular under the Hindu influence at the time of the Prophet's advent. Unless he could
successfully strike at the roots of Hinduism, he could not make himself adorable. In a nutshell,
he had to destroy the Hindu idols to erect his own.
Is there evidence for this point of view? Of course, there is. Let us start with the following
hadith:
Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As reported: "Allah's

Messenger (may peace be on him) saw me wearing
two clothes dyed in saffron, whereupon he said:
These are the clothes (usually worn by) the non-
believers, so do not wear them."
(Sahih Muslim: 5173)
The next hadith no. 5175 reports this event in a more heated manner:
Seeing Abdullah b. Amr attired in two clothes which had been dyed in saffron, the
Prophet said, "Has your mother ordered you to do so?" Abdullah replied: "I will wash
them." The Prophet replied: "Burn them."
The Hadith no. 5177 adds that the Prophet forbade reciting the Koran when one wore gold and
clothes dyed in saffron!
To understand the built-in prophelic hatred of Hinduism in particular, and India at large, one
must realise that colour of the Hindu or Om flag is saffron, which is also called Bhagwa, Gerva
and Kesariya. The Om flag also represents the rising sun which not only alludes to the saffron
colour but also to the internationally ascendant might of the then India. I have discussed these
historical facts in my book: "The Wonders of the Rgveda." Saffron was, in fact, the national
colour of India because the Hindu heroes, seers, sages and monks wore clothes dyed in saffron.
Moreover, it implied the Hindu tradition of valour, elegance and commitment to noble causes as
laid down by the Scriptures: some hymns of the Atharva Veda openly refer to the saffron colour.
Therefore, it is not just traditional but also a part of the Hindu religious piety, purity and
probity.
From the above quoted hadiths, it is evident that not only the Arab divines but also ordinary
people wore yellowish clothes under the Indian influence which the Prophet hated to such an
extent that he advocated burning of satfron dresses and forbade the recitation of the Koran
when one wore such garments.
One should bear in mind that the Prophet wanted to create a distinct Arab nation dedicated to
spreading his greatness. This is the reason that he told his followers to dye their hair and beards
red (henna) so that they should look different from the Jews; to wean them from the Hindu
tradition, he prescribed green colour for his followers.
The Koran has stated almost all its major tenets ambiguously i.e. relationship between Allah and
Prophet, free will and predestination and so on. It equally applies to the Idea of creation and
procreation. In this context, one can see the influence of the Gita on the Koran, which states:
"God originates creation, then

brings it back again,
and unto him you shall be returned."
(The Greeks: 10)
The Druzes of Lebanon, a sect of Islam, practise the Hindu doctrine of Samsara ardently even
today. This is a continuation of the pre-Islamic tradition which is a remnant of the Hindu
influence on the Arab culture.
The Prophet practically obliterated the pre-Islamic history of his people, which makes cultural
assessment of Arabia a very hard task, indeed. Yet the modern scholarship has discovered
certain religious facts about this country which confirm that it would have been impossible to
establish Muhammadanism without destroying Hinduism in Arabia and elsewhere.
The truth is that the Arabs were not only statue-worshippers but their idolatory was founded on
the Hindu principle of triad, also known as Trimurti. Since the Prophet wanted to plant his own
image in people's mind, it was not possible without aupplanting the Hindu idols, which had
considerable appeal owing to their visual effect and the legendary magic, built-up over a period
of many centuries. I am certainly not forging history, the hadith (Prophet's sayings and record
of his actions) provides cogent evidence to this effect:
"Jabir b. Samura reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I
recognise the stone in Mecca which used to pay me salutations before my advent as a
Prophet and I recognise that even now. (Sahih Muslim: 5654)
The hadith confirms three facts:
1. Though the Muslims assert that Muhammad was a prophet even before the creation of Adam,
this statement demonstrates that it is not so, and is borne out by "before my advent as a
Prophet." Again, it is historically known that he claimed to have received his first revelation
when he was forty. It is.at this point of life that the Prophet started preaching Islam. Obviously,
it could not have been his religion earlier. If it were, he would have started disseminating its
fundamentals from his cradle. What was then his religion previously? This hadith also answers
this question:
2. "Stone in Mecca" cannot be anything but the Black Stone (Hajr-E-Aswad) at Kaaba, the main
temple of Mecca, which also housed many other statues. The words: "used to pay me
salutations" clearly show that the Prophet Muhammad was a fairly regular visitor to the temple
before becoming the founder of Islam. I hardly need say why people go to the temples.
The Black Stone, as I shall discuss shortly, is an unshaped idol which still adorns the Kaaba and
forms a prominent part of the Islamic rituals. The Prophet claims that this statue used to salute
him. Since salutation is a form of worship, Muhammad was inspired by idolatory at Kaaba to be
worshipped like an idol. Therefore, it was necessary for him to replace other idols with his own
person to perpetuate Muhammadanism. He picked on Hinduisnn because it was the source of
the Arab idolatory. Am I making it up? Not at all. Here is the evidence drawn from the most
reliable source i.e. Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Though there is no mention of idolatory in the Rgveda, the principle of triad or trimurti is clearly
stated therein:
"I laud the seven-rayed, the triple-headed

Agni all perfect...." (R.V.1: CXLVI: 1)
Triad or Trimurti is the fundamental principle of Hinduism. It means three-in-one i.e., the reality
has three faces yet in essence it is one. For example, the most sacred Sanskrit word: ''Om"
represents the triad of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva as well as the Hindu belief in three universes,
and so on.
Description of the god Agni as having three faces is the basis of the three-headed Shiva, who
has been depicted as such on some seals found in the Indus Valley. It should be borne in mind
that Shiva is a Vedic god, known as Rudra. He has been mentioned so often in the Rgveda that
it is hard to call him a minor deity. Though there is no mention of image- worship in the
Rgveda, the Shivite traditions represent the tampered form of the Vedic doctrines the same way
as non- violence has become the basic principle of the modern Hinduism though the Vedas and
Gita prescribe fighting for a righteous cause and declare it the greatest honour for a true Hindu.
Dasa and Dasyus, the epithets of contempt, were invented for these dissenters, who were every
bit as Aryan as anyone else. It shows that the Rgveda is older than the Indus Valley Civilisation,
and this fact is also supported by the archaelogical excavations which have taken place in the
areas close to Rawalpindi (Pakistan) during recent years. It demonstrates the antiquity of the
Indian civilisation. The idolatrous principle associated with the three-faced Shiva became a
fundamental doctrine of the Arab religion and culture as triad in the same way as it is known in
India the triad of Vishnu-Brahma and Shiva. One has only to look at the Arab history to realise
this fact:
Despite their lofty claims of antiquity, the word "Arabs" does not appear in historical sources
until the middle of the First millenium B.C. The Arabian peninsula had received cultural
inspiration from the Indus Valley many centuries earlier, but its religious influence increased
dramatically when changes took place in the Greco-Roman trade routes to India during the first
century B.C. The southern Arabia i.e. Yemen had experienced the Indian faith for a long time,
but then its cultural effect shifted northward to the Hejaz, land of the Prophet Muhammad.
In the south Arabian kingdom, the principle of Triad or Trimurti was practised extensively. For
example, they had a triad of astral deities representing the moon god, the sun goddess and the
Venus god. The chief deity of this triad was the moon god, who protected the principal cities.
However, it ought to be mentioned that the god EL, the Allah of Mecca was not well known in
the south. A triad of gods was also found in Palmyra; it consisted of Bel, Yarhibol, a solar deity,
and Aglibol; a lunar deity. Belshamini (Lord of the Heavens) also stood in a triadic relationship
with the god Malakbel and Aglibol.
This triadic principle travelled from the south to Mecca. The Koran itself describes the three
daughters of Allah, namely, ar-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. It is worth mentioning that al- Lat in
Palmyra was equated with the Greek goddess of Athena; al-Uzza was a goddess of the
Nabataeans whereas Manat (Fate) was associated with Ihe Greek Nemesis at Palmyra.
It is absolutely misleading to say that Islam is free from idolatory. They have an idol in the
central Islamic shrine of Kaaba which marks the climax of hajj because the faithful have to kiss
it individually. This is the Black Stone known as Hajr-E-Aswad, and according to Ibn al-Kalbi, is
a continuation of the Square Stone which was central to the cult of al-Lat at at-Taif. Suidas, a
Greek compiler of encyclopaedia of C.A.D 1000 states that the Dhu-Shara at Petra had a similar
Black Stone on a gold base.
The Muslims say that when Allah expelled Adam from paradise, He gave Adam the Black Stone
which is now built into the eastern wall of the Kaaba and consists of three large pieces and
some fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together by a silver band. It was carried
away by members of the Qarmatian sects in 930. However, the above evidence shows that the
other Arab temples had similar black stones; God would not have given Adam that many black
stones to carry. What was then, the reality behind a black stone in the Arab culture?
"A principal sacred object in Arabian religion was the stone, either a rock outcropping or a large
boulder, often a rectangular or black basaltic stone without representative sculptural details."
Such stones were considered suitable material of worship to form part of the house of a god i.e.
temple. This is the reason that the Christian writers of Byzantine during the 5th and 6th
centuries called such a stone Baetyl, which is derived from Bet'EI (House of the god).
Shape or no shape, a stone which is an object of worship, is an idol. Moses forbade images of
any kind but Muhammad allowed to continue the worship of the Black Stone in the Kaaba to
make it the most sacred shrine of Islam for national reasons. The idea was, if Arabia, lost its
political dignity, even then the Muslim nations must bow before it. God lives everywhere in the
world but the genius af Muhammad seems to have permanently housed Him in Mecca for the
benefit of his own people, the Arabs.
One should also realise that an annual pilgrimage was a principle celebration of the pre-Islamic
Arabs. All tribes having the sarne god were required to gather at his sanctuary and go around
the baetyl in a cermonial procession. The Prophet also retained this pre-Islamic rite to benefit
his nation financially. What relationship can have this pagan ceremony with the true God?
The faithful usually forget that the Prophet was the founder of the Arab Empire; it could not be
built without structuring a really strong nation which could batter, blast and bewilder the powers
of the time such as Iran and Byzantine. As other nations sought strength from their gods
through crying, cringing and crawling, the Prophet wanted his people to sigh, solicit and
supplicate him for inspiration, might and victory. For this reason, he aspired to become an idol
himself, the object of adoration and worship. Adroitly, he projected Allah as the God but became
the driving force behind Him on the Indian principle, which holds that there is a deity behind
every physical pehnomenon. However, he could achieve this ambition by destroying other idols
only. As long as they existed, his chances of becoming the object of worship were minimal.
Since India was the home of idolatory, the Muslim warriors made this land the target of their
ambitions.
Human culture is not based on uniformity but multiety. It is because man is endowed with free
will. Without free choice humans cease to be human. Therefore, Allah, if He is the real God,
cannot order murder of those who do not believe in him. In the case af India, it is even more
absurd because the Hindus had developed the concept of Prajapati, the Lord of Creatures; He
was more monotheistic than the Arabian Allah whose divinity is shared by the Prophet, his
descendants and companions. His oneness is theoretical only. Therefore, the Muslims had no
quarrel with India on account of a Universal God. Their dispute centred around Muhammad who
declared that faith without believing in him along with Allah, was useless.
The true God is the champion of virtue, but the God, who sanctions murder, rape, arson,
slavery to make people acknowledge Him, falls far short of the standard of righteousness. He is
not only extremely selfish but also impotent; if He is the Almighty Creator, He could have surely
created a believing and obedient man. Again, what kind of God is He whose own satisfaction
depends upon man's acknowledgement? When man accepts Allah, He feels glad but when he
rejects Allah, He becomes sad. This concept of Godhead is nothing but the gross contempt of
Allah. The Muslims must realise that they do not adore Allah but deplore Him.
Finally, religion is the search for peace of mind and moral perfection. Making innocent children
orphans, and turning happily married women into widows, cannot be the command of God.
Seeking suzerainty over other people for usurping their freedom is no part of righteousness, but
the religion that the Prophet Muhammad invented, expressly sought dominance over non-
believers. The Koran repeatedly says:
"He (Allah) it is who hath sent His messenger with

the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may
cause it to prevail over all religions, however much
the idolators may dislike." (Repentance: 33)
To establish a pe-manent excuse for fighting non- believers, the Prophet abrogated all other
religions by declaring them, as false (Sahih Muslim, chapter: LXXI) and then announced a
permanent state of war against them until they were completely uprooted (Sahih Muslim no. 31,
32 and 33). The whole purpose of acquiring dominance through carnage is that the Prophet
should have the largest following. (Sahih Muslim no. 381)
This search for followers to satisfy the Prophetic urge of dominance brought the Muslims to
India, the home of polytheism.
A serious search for the roots of polytheism not only leads to India but also to the Indian glory
whose radiance has been tarnished by the dark clouds of history for a very long time, indeed. I
am not trying to be a misguided patriot who treats fiction as a fact to mollify the painful national
scars inflicted by the caprices of history but a sober student of this subject, who is satisfied with
establishing the truth irrespective of its palatability.
The Hindu aversion to writing, especially the reluctance to keeping historical records, is the
main cause of the Hindus lacking pride in their traditions; it has heavily contributed to the
lowering of national aspirations and standards of honour. However, the truth cannot be held
back indefinitely. It is like the sunlight which eventually breaks through the barriers of a dark
eclipse. Until some fifty years ago, we were told that the Hindus had been so primitive in their
ways that they never left the Indian soil. Thanks to the modern technical advancement, which
revealed that the Hindus held a political sway over the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Bali,
Borneo, Champa (Annam), Cambodia, Burma, Siam and Indo-China. The political hegemony of
India over these lands extended for about a 1000 years, while her cultural influence over all the
Far Eastern countries survives even today.
Yet, it is only a part of the Indian glory. This picture becomes more vivid when we study the
European civilisation with reference to paganism. Then, one can see that once European
countries were dominated by the Vedic culture, which is a peculiarity of India, and clearly shows
that the Aryans were the people of Indian origin, and not the other way round, as we have been
led to believe by historians. If this were not true, one could not find the Europeans observing
Asvamedha i.e., the horse-sacrifice, closely associated with the Vedas. On a 5,000 year old
Harappan seal, we find an ithyphallic figure seated in a yogic position, which is the prototype of
Shiva, also known as Pasupati, Lord of Beasts. We also notice this figure (Shiva as Pasupati) on
the interior of the cauldron, which is in the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, and belongs
to the 2nd century. Shiva, a Vedic god, would not have reached the Western lands without the
Hindus themselves. That the Europeans took their polytheistic faith from India is proved by the
triadic principle of representing godhead as discussed earlier. Having dealt with this issue fully
in my unpublished work, "The Wonders of The Rgveda," I need not go into detail here hut ought
to point out that even today there are thirty images of a three-headed god extant on the
European Continent. That is the mighty Shiva of India.
By comparing the Greek mythology with that of India, we realise that Zeus, the Chief God of
Greece, is none other than Indra, the Chief God of India. There is abundant evidence which
demonstrates that the Greco-Roman polytheism is firmly rooted in the Indian doctrine of idol-
worship. The Christian writers refer to it as paganism or heathenism.
As Islam challenged idolatory in India, Christianity declared war on it in the West. However, the
two tales have different endings. Christianity succeeded in smashing idolatory in the West, and
whatever persists in the Roman Catholic Church is just a shadow of the original but it has
survived in India despite persistent persecution at the hands of the foreign predators and has
risen once again with a vigour, virility and vivacity unknown to any religious movement. On the
contrary, Islam has ceased to have any relevance with the Koranic principles; it has become a
slogan of the power- seekers, and this fact is fully vouched for by the recent histories of
Palcistan and Afghanistan.
Why do these monotheistic religions i.e., Islam and Christianity seek destruction of idolatory?
Firstly, both these religions are dictatorial in essence, and violently oppose the principle of
People's Power. They both claim that the government belongs to God and must be run by the
theocrats i .e., the clergy and the Mullah. Idea of the Oneness of God is appealing and logical
but presenting God as a power-maniac, is the gross insult to Him. To start with, presentation of
monotheism through the exclusive- agency of a prophet is a big joke, indeed. No matter, what
the prophet calls himself, he is an equal partner in Godhead right from the outset; for example,
belief in Allah alone is totally useless unless Muhammad is also included in it. If God is absolute
and Almighty, then believing in the Prophet is a glaring proof of Shirk or polytheism. Not only
that, a prophet always bestows divinity on the members of his family, and thus creates a
pantheon. Just look at the Sayyads of the Indian sub-continent, who are believed to possess
intercessory powers for their Muslim followers. What applies to the Muslims, is equally true of
the Christians. The Popes became infallible despite the fact that many of them wer just
mundane rulers, and had mistresses and illegitimate children. The Christ rose to become the
Son of God, and many Christians believe that He was God-incarnate.
Why do these so-called monotheists oppose polytheism? It is because monotheism serves the
purpose of dominance-urge by concentrating power in one person. It is the representation of
human jealousy for personal worship and glory. On the contrary, polytheism advocates belief in
many gods, who happen to be equally sacred. This doctrine distributes power from person to
people. This is the reason that the Vedic society calls for electing a king if he fails to govern
according to the dharma, or leaves no issue to follow him.
More sins have been perpetrated to please God than to suppressing Devil. Destruction of the
Indian idols was partly an exercise of the Muslim invaders to satisfy their lust for power and
wealth. This is what brought Mahmud Ghaznavi to India repeatedly. Though his raids were
abominable, yet I am reluctant to praise my Hindu ancestors who defied the Vedic Principle of
Power and became the devotees of Ahimsa, an utterly non-Hindu doctrine. I find it hard to bear
this most painful disgrace but accept the fact that it is the destiny of a sparrow to be humbled
by a falcon. One ought to know that Falcon, being a Vedic bird, is a symbol of the Ksatriya
qualities. The Hindus brought misery on themselves by acting as sparrows. The nation which
loses its hawkish virtue is bound to be molested, mutilated and murdered by the Messengers of
perdition such as Mahmud Ghaznavi, Juna Khan and Feroz Shah Tughlaq.
The Christians acted likewise against polytheism in the West. They closed down pagan temples
and confiscated their property. Constantine discouraged pagan sacrifices; Constaus went even
further to forbid them on pain of death. Constantius ordered the closing of all pagan temples
and rituals. Those who disobeyed, perished at his command. However, these Byzantinian
Emperors were succeeded by Flavius Claudius Julianus, who was born in 332. He was not only a
competent administrator and soldier but also a philosopher. He ridiculed the basic tenets of
monotheism and justified use of idols in worship. He thought of the deities of polytheism as
impersonal forces and did not believe in their anthropomorphic forms. He preferred to be called
the priest of polytheism instead of an emperor. He was able to reverse the tide of Christianity,
at least during his reign, by withdrawing state subsidies from the Church and closing to the
Christians, chairs of rhetoric, philosophy, and literature in the universities. He insisted that
these subjects should be taught by the pagans only. He went even further: he permitted
demolition of the Christian Churches, which had been built on the lands seized from the pagan
shrines. He ordered reconstruction of the pagan temples and imposed levies on the Christians to
make full reparations for the damage that had been caused to the pagan institutions during
preceding reigns of the Christian emperors. His orders provoked riots but he stood firm, and
succeeded.
Here is an example for the Hindus to follow. Polytheism represents the Hindu ethos. They shall
not be able to live honourably without sticking to their basic way of life, especially when it
harms nobody. Though I am not an idolator, I support the human right to worship as one thinks
fit.
Dominance urge is the biggest predator of human rights. Though I have said enough to explain
it, yet its description is not complete. It has another aspect; human psychology is polar like
physical objects, which have negative and positive sides. As humans are naturally kind and curt,
sagacious and stupid, they are also dominant and submissive. Thus, dominance and
submissiveness are the opposite poles of human disposition. They both have their virtues, but
when dominance has no purpose except enjoyment of power at the expense of people's honour,
safety and freedom, then it becomes the worst evil that there can be. On the other hand,
submission without fighting the dominance-seeker or aggressor is even greater vice because it
makes the dominant or aggressor a lot more daring, devilish and destructive. A wolf without
pugnacity is just a lamb - only fit for the dining table. The nation which loses nerve to defend its
honour, becomes a football to be played with by every Tom, Dick and Harry. By making Ahimsa
i.e, non-violence the uay of life, Hindus have made themselves a tempting target for any
aggressor. This is not a religious virtue but a sign of profanity and a shameful exercise to
enshrine a most despicable vice as a splendid virtue. Gods do not want cowards for devotees;
they bless the Vedic patriots who fight with a sense of honour.
Finally, as a footnote to the above discussion, I may add that this thesis agitated my mind for a
long time but I resisted the temptation of putting it on paper because I did not want to open up
the old wounds. After reading works of some patriotic Hindu scholars, I realised my mistake;
their cuts have not healed but become deeper. Though it is painful, it is a sign of renaissance -
a new life, because it is only the senseless who forget the humiliation of 1000 years; the lively
seek rejuvination through honourable conduct based on determination and the will to succeed.
Though my views are totally different, I salute the Indian writers who have written on this
subject. Among them is the intellectual giant, Sri Ram Swarup, whose piety forbids him to pass
judgement on the atrocious conduct of the foreign iconoclasts. Sri Sita Ram Goel is another
scholar whose patriotic protests echo through the flourish of his pen and desperately seek the
restoration of Hindu ascendancy. Sri G. M. Jagtiani, the Maratha mystic, is a Vedic preacher,
whose writings are expressive of deep grief, which seeks relief through an immortal national
glory. Sri A. Ghosh of Texas, is the Ksatriya stalwart who wonders what happened to the
cutting edge of his ancestral sword. He will do anything to revive the martial character of his
people.
Chapter 5
INDIA AND DEMOCRACY
Preamble
The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and therefore, the greater the pain they
suffer: history of India proves this adage.
Once upon a time, (the undivided) India was the greatest country in the world.
Unfortunately, the very great Indian past has fallen extremely low to split into
three countries, and all of them belong to the Third World!
History is the mirror that reflects the past of a nation. The people struck down by
the caprices of time, can find solace in the glorious memories of the bygone days,
and can cure the wounds of humiliation by equalling their character with that of
their ancestors. The one thing that the people of undivided India never did was to
study their history. Instead, they preferred the easy options and fell for the
foreign cultures. This is what created formidable religious, social and political
divisions among them, leading to the partition of their Motherland.
The modern age has eagerly chosen the democratic way of life, which was once,
an integral part of the Indian faith. Since it has become the guiding principle of
life, one can be proud of one's Indian origin. But how many Bhartis, Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis know of this honour? If they were aware of their ancestral values,
they would feel close to one another instead of drifting apart.
People of the Indian subcontinent will have a genuine feeling of mutual belonging
if they appreciate their ancestral values. This feeling is the only panacea that can
restore their shattered sense of national unity and set them on the way to success
and glory.
Democracy versus absolutism seems to be the basic law of human culture because civilisation
is the product of the continual strife between these concepts. Antagonism between the two is as
natural as between bleak and bright or blessing and blight. In fact, it is a logical relationship
because the recognition of everything depends on the existence of its opposite: truth cannot be
understood without falsehood and black has no meaning without white.
When we look into it deeply, the concept of democracy versus absolutism, also appears to have
a psychological basis:
Man is born to be free. This is the essence of humanity, and has been repeatedly expressed by
history. Though, to err is human, we want to go straight. What conducts us on the right path is
our knowledge and moral conscience, coupled with free will, which goads us to use these two
virtues for self-correction. When man's behaviour is under his own control, he is free. Such a
human can be called a blessed person because no favour, felicity or festivity is a greater joy
than freedom. Of course, freedom is not a licence. A freeman, being a lover of the concept of
freedom, guards other people's freedom as much as his own. He achieves this aim through his
moral conduct and the force of law, which he himself legislates through the democratic
institutions.
Democracy, usually described as government of the people, by the people and for the people, is
the culmination of human love for liberty. It is superior to any system of government despite its
numerous weaknesses. However, it must be understood that democracy is not meant for the
society, which is culturally backward and morally corrupt; it is based on pluralism which denotes
collective consciousness of common good and refers to the old addage: "Do not do to others
what you do not want to be done to yourself." In a nutshell, democracy and sense of
responsibility go together.
Since pluralism is the foundation-stone of democracy, I may say a few words about it. Pluralism
in its philosophical context means polytheism, the view, which holds that there are many gods,
each having power over a distinct phenomenon of nature, yet collectively representing the same
final truth. In its socio-political sense, the word refers collectively to such groups as churches of
various denominations, municipalities, industrial unions, business corporations, professional
organisations, ethnic minorities, and so on. These entities are different manifestations of power,
which remains distributed among the various organs of the society, and serves as a check on
the tendencies of absolutism i.e. monarchy, dictatorship or religious autocracy.
Pluralism, represents man's collective consciousness by resisting the egoistic compulsions of an

individual. This is what endeared Marxism to people for its social care, and this is also what
destroyed it, because pluralism converted itself into absolutism as the political pyramid of
Marxist power reached its apex. In ancient history, pluralism expressed itself through guilds,
chartered cities, monasteries and similar medieval structures.
Opposed to man's love for liberty is his Urge of Dominance. What is Urge of Dominance?
This is the drive, that goads man to seek superiority over others through acquisition of power.
As it is the nature of power to maximise itself without acknowledging any upper limit, it is
averse to being shared; its goal is to secure the highest commanding position, crowned by
absolutism. The Urge of Dominance operates in many ways: socially, politically and spiritually
(religiously):
1. Its social manifestation can be seen in patriarchy whereby a male assumes

controlling power over his family, and thus decides the fate of its members even to the
minor details. The old patriarchal laws entitled father to inflict even death-sentence on
his children with impunity. This was done "out of love" to enhance the familial causes!
2. Politics is the power-game that recognises no law except the law of self-promotion.
What serves in attaining power is lofty, lawful and laudable but what stands in the way
of achieving it, is the token of insanity, immorality and impropriety. Power is the only
piety in the lexicon of a power-seeker. This is what men like Alexander, Genghis, Timur,
Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini believed in.
3. Religion is the most ferocious trap of power. The power-seeker brainwashes people
with the most cunning dart of faith; it turns man into a moth, which becomes impatient
to cremate itself on the flame of spiritual trickery that a self- styled god, guru or
prophet ignites with his devices, dodges and deceptions.
The power of a secular suzerain, no matter how great, lasts only during his life time; once he
breathes his last, his power departs and he cannot tell people what to do. On the contrary, the
power of a spiritual magnate such as a god, guru or prophet, gathers momentum after his
death, and surprisingly keeps accelerating with the passage of time through a process of
exaggeration, which his followers adopt to mention his miracles, marvels and majesty. Thus, a
holyman commands through his dust or ashes, and the faithful devise traditions of interpreting
the rational as irrational and vice versa, to hide the shame of their docility, deviance and
distraction. In fact, it is a form of psychosis induced by the unconscious desire for recouping
one's free will that has been lost to the illusory forces of faith.
The buried or burnt spiritual magnate, usually proclaims his absolutism through a code of law,
which is considered binding by his followers irrespective of its relevance to real life and
problems. The insane zeal of the followers contributes, not only to the prestige of the spiritual
magnate, but also to the principle of absolutism that radiates from his Divine Person. The
situation is exacerbated by his lieutenants, who treat him as the model of morality and
government and want to rule absolutely in his name. In fact, their religious fervour is usually no
more than showmanship; they lay stress on following the Divine Model to establish their own
absolutism; in terms of dominance or suzerainty, power is to be snatched for the simple reason
that masses love liberty and are reluctant to to surrender their rights of freedom, but this
attitude though pious in itself, appears profane to the power-seeker because more power for the
people means less power for him. This is the reason that he hates democracy, the fountain of
people's power, and wants to decimate it with religious sanctions. Since this issue is vital to
human liberties, I may devote a few more pages to explain it more effectively:
Historians do not seem to have realised the fact that the Arabian Peninsula is the home of
absolutism whereas India is the fountain of democracy. What I am about to say, has nothing
whatever to do with racism; it is simply a discussion of facts and principles and requires
philosophical explanation of the terms: "Pluralism" and "Monotheism;" the former means that
there are many gods, each controlling a different aspect of the physical phenomena, yet
representing the Final Truth collectively. This is the essence of the Indian metaphysics, which
had been practised in Greece and Italy, almost to the letter. On the contrary, the Semitic theory
originating from the Arabian Peninsula, known as Monotheism, advocates that God is one, who
is Creator, All-powerful and Absolute. Being above the law, He can do anything, and is
accountable to none. He sends guidance through His Prophet, who being His representative on
earth, wields Divine power singularly and must be obeyed. The Prophet brings the Law of God,
which is everlasting and unchangeable, and must be followed under all circumstances and
during all ages. Man has no choice but to obey God's Vicar (the Prophet) and his lieutenants i.e.
the men who succeed him (the Prophet) over a period of time. This is total negation of
democracy because man is not allowed to differentiate between vice and virtue according to his
own conscience nor is he permitted to make his own laws to suit his circumstances. Not only the
standards of right and wrong but laws to deal with different situations have also been laid down
by God through the Prophet, who might have lived centuries earlier! This is Urge of Dominance
at its apex!
Monotheism is a Semitic theory. For the sake of convenience, one may call Moses its originator
though historically, it is associated with the name of the Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaton also
known as Amenhotep IV.
The Jews were originally a polytheistic race, that is, they worshipped many gods. Yahwe, the
Jewish God, gave tablets of law to Moses, who told the Jews the nature of God and the
consequences of not obeying Him:
" 1. And God spake all these words, saying

2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage.
3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is
in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am
a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me;
6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments."
(Exodus 20: 1-6)
From the above verses, it is quite clear that God is extremely jealous about His authority and
inflicts terrible punishment on the disobedient. Following His commandments is tantamount to
loving Him and ignoring them counts as hating Him. In other words, enjoyment of absolute
power is the Divine Will.
This Jewish rule of absolutism served as the model for subsequent Semetic Prophets and
became a spiritual tradition of the Middle East, subjecting people to the will of monarchy in the
name of God. It is not surprising that in 1 Samuel: 5-6 people themselves ask for the
establishment of kingship. Saul, the first king of Israel, who reigned during 1021-1000 B.C. was
chosen by the people themselves. David, who became Saul 's eventual successor, was also an
elected monarch but thereafter Jewish monarchy lost its elective element and became
hereditary.
The Christianity started with the Jewish doctrine of absolutism:
"And I (Jesus) say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earlh shall
be loosed in heaven." ( St. Matthew 1 6: 18 -19 )
It is considered the exclusive fountain of Peter's primacy. Despite many contests on the subject,
it came to be established that Christ himself appointed Peter as Prince of the Apostles and Head
of the Church. This primacy was not merely a matter of honour but carried true authority
compatible with the Petrine divine responsibilities. Not only that, Christ's establishment was to
pass in perpetuity to his successors, the successive Bishops of Rome, who came to be known as
the Popes of Christendom. Thus, the establishment of the Bishop of Rome was gradually defined
as the Holy Apostolic See; supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, acknowledged as the successor of
Peter, Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, was given authority all over the world. This is
how he was assigned the full powers of Lord Jesus Christ to nourish, rule and govern the
universal church.
This glory of Pope as successor and representative of Peter was legitimised at grassroot level by
giving it analogy with the Roman law of inheritance. This is what entitled Pope to wield Peter's
powers. Since Peter had been accorded principatus (primacy) over the Church, Popes
interpreted it that they were entitled to use his ( Peter's ) prerogative in the monarchical style,
which is absolute and cannot be challenged. Despite this manipulation, under the influence of
the Roman constitutional traditions, papacy remained elective in character, but in exercising
powers, it became as absolute as the Good Lord Himself. According to the proverb: "power
corrups and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " papacy, the practical absolutism, weaved the
myth of infallibility about itself: it means, Pope can do no wrong, even someone like Pope
Alexander VI, who had incestuous relationship with his own daughter, remained pious, pure and
prophetic. This process of divine lust for power, which started in the third century, culminated
during the period of Pope Gregory VII when the Church came to operate wwithin a unified
Christian society expunging the distinction between state and Church as separate entities. Popes
claimed greater spiritual powers than Christ himself and exercised jurisdictional supremacy over
the Christian emperors.
Here is a short description of the Papal absolutism, which destroyed the constitutional and
democratic traditions of Rome and Greece to nourish itself. To convey the full meaning of this
statement, I may quote from my book, "Taxation And Liberty:"
"A Papal excommunication meant a command to the Christian faithful to rise against the
renegade ruler, who wielded authority over his subjects during pope's pleasures, owing to the
fact that the Holy Father exercised complete control over the mind of every Christian because of
his divine powers as the Vicar of Christ. Again, the Church was also a temporal state in its own
right; in 755, Peipin, the Short, laid its foundation when he gave the Pope the territories he had
won from the Lombards. Stephen II was the first Pope to become a mundane sovereign, as well.
At Reims in October 816 when Stephen IV crowned Louis I, the Pious, and his wife as Emperor
and Empress, papacy became the divine agency of crowning through its exclusive prerogative of
anointing. From this precedent arose the papal theory of government that the monarch anointed
by the Pope was his lieutenant and secular arm. St. Nicolas I (the Great) claimed the right to
legislate for the whole of Christendom and asserted to be the supreme judge with final authority
to settle all doctrinal disputes."
" During 1050 and 1060, the Latern Palace, that is, papal residence was reconstituted and the
temporal splendour hitherto associated with the secular courts entered the holy realm: the Pope
was afflated by St. Peter to act in his name as a feudal lord, enter contractual obligations and
accept military services and money payments in return for affording protection to his
feudatories. By the end of the 13th century, the Pope became the largest feudal lord in Europe:
Sicily, Sweden, Denmark, Arragon, Poland, England and Ireland were parts of his feudal
empire."
The immense authority prompted Popes to interfere even in the matrimonial affairs of the
Christian rulers such as Philip II, Augustus of France, Peter II of Arragon and Alfonso IX of Leon.
William I conquered England with the papal blessing. When the Conqueror married Matilda,
daughter of Baldwin, Count of Flanders, Pope Leo IX in 1049, forbade the marriage expressly
and it was not until 1050 that Pope Nicholas II accorded it legitimacy through a special
dispensation on the condition that they each built a monastery for the atonement of their sins.
Henry II of England, had to do penance at Canterbury for the murder of Archbishop Becket: he
allowed the monks to scourage him! Henry IV of Germany incurred excommunication, and as a
price for apostolic mercy, he had to strip off all his regalia, wear woollen clothes and stand
barefooted for three days before the gate of the castle at Canossa in 1077. It was then and only
then that the burning humility of his sighs and tears broke through the frigid barrier of the papal
compassion, which took him back into communion, and restored his kingdom. Frederick
Barbarossa, the Holy Roman Emperor was forced to kiss publicly the feet of Pope Alexander III
for the sin of not acknowledging him as Christ's vicar: just kneeling was not sufficient to secure
forgiveness of the Holy Father. "
This was the plight of the Christian monarchs at the hand of the Papal absolutism! What about
the Christian masses? Their pathetic conditions are represented by what is known as Inquisition.
What was Inquisition?
It was an uninvited enquiry into people's beliefs to establish whether or not they held exactly
the same doctrines and opinions as officially sanctioned by the Church. With a view to enlarging
the Papal net of authority-alchemy, witchcraft, sorcery, devil-worship, adultery and incest were
also included in the Inquisition. During the first three centuries of Christianity, penalties inflicted
on heretics were spiritual, but as it became the established religion, the dissenters were treated
as enemies of the state, and laws were passed to subject them to such punishments as flogging,
confiscation of property, exile and death. Until about 1000 A.D. rigours of the Inquisition
remained tolerable, but as the Clerical pressures of dominance increased, the despotic process
of Inquisition became foul, fierce and frightening. During the 11th and 12th centuries, evils of
the Papal absolutism increased in severity and ecclesiastical decrees condemning heretics
became the fashion of the day, indicating the corruptive influence of unbridled power. The Papal
writ ran through all the Christian countries, and the secular rulers who practically held their
dignity subject to the pleasure of the Holy Father, vied with one another in executing decrees of
the Vatican and the Church Council; they would prosecute heretics for trivial offences: it was a
heresy to say "marriage is as good as celibacy." The clerics, who were theoretically celibate but
practically enjoyed the favours of the nuns, treated it as an insult to Christ who did not marry.
Inquisition was an efficient organisation, equipped with supreme Papal authority, assisted by
notaries, police and counsellors. The inquisitors roamed through cities hunting heretics, who
were expected to present themselves for "correction." Since this correction could involve severe
penalties, the force of faith was not always sufficient to make dissenters kiss feet of the
Inquisitor. Those who knew about the heretics, were required under pain of excommunication to
act as informers. The heretic-hunting became an obsession of the clergy, when in 1252 Pope
Innocent IV authorised use of torture to obtain confession from the suspects. The Ecclesiastical
tribunal called Roman Inquisition set up in 1542 by Pope Paul III to combat Protestantism, and
the similar organisation known as the Spanish Inquisition founded in later part of the 15th
century to deal with the apostate Jews and Muslims, were, in fact, the forerunners of the Nazi
gas chambers. The first Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, Thomas de Torquemada,
qualifies as the Divine Ganghis Khan for burning thousands of innocent people at the stake to
demonstrate the glory of God, who is All-love, All-grace and All-munificence!
Eventually, it was the French and the English rulers, who made a dent in the most infamous
edifice of the Ecclesiastical absolutism: the Concordat of 1516 delivered the French Church into
the hands of the French monarch, reducing the Papal despotism in France. Henry VIII of
England ranks as the Patron of democracy for taking England comp!etely out of the Papal pale
and enabling Parliament to legislate for the country.
Religion and secularism, have ceased to be a unity in Christendom for a long time, leading to
the growth of democratic institutions in the world but Islam, a Semitic religion, still continues to
be the ambassador of absolutism. A detailed examination of the Islamic political theory is
necessitated by the fact that the Muslim scholars falsely project this religion as the guarantor of
human liberties and democratic institutions. They do so to promote their self- interests whereas
the stark fact is that Islam is the worst opponent of human liberty and democracy. See for
yourself:
"To God belongs all that is in the heavens

and in the earth, and God encompasses everything."
(Women, IV: 125)
Because of His proprietory rights:

"To God bow all that is in the heavens and the earth
willingly or unwillingly."
( Thunder XIII - 15 )
Thus, it is the destiny of everything to bow, bend and bemoan before God. There is nothing that
He loves more than submission, slavery and servitude. It is the Lord's attitude that dictates
man's purpose of creation. Therefore, Allah addressing mankind, remarks:
"What, did you think that We created you only for

sport ....." (The Believers XXIII: 115)
No, man has not been created as a sport. What has he been created for then?
"I have not created ..... mankind
except to worship Me." (The Scatterers LI: 55)
It is man's purpose of life to have no desire, dignity or destination of his own. He is on the earth
only to worship God. To make sure that man seeks no status other than servility, Allah has
allotted the lowest birth to man so that he should not feel proud and pompous or seek prestige
and priority of any kind:
"He (Allah) made his (man's) seed from a draught
of despised fluid." (The Prostration XXXII: 8)
Thus, man's purpose is nothing but prostration before God: virtues like self-development, moral
uplift and concern for human rights, have been declared alien to his birth. The more servile a
man is, the nearer to God he becomes. It is in this context that man is considered God's viceroy
on the earth, and not for any intrinsic virtue.
In fact, the Koranic point of view is a poor adaptation of the Biblical concept:
"And God said, Let us make man

in our image, after our likeness; and let
them have dominion ..... over all the earth ....."
So God created man in His own
image, in the image of God created He him;
( Genesis 1: 26 - 27 )
The Bible says that God created man in His own likeness, and it is this likeness which makes
him superior to everything on earth. The Koran copies this Biblical myth in so far as God made
man out of clay and breathed his own spirit into Adam, but when it comes to the progeny of
Adam, his seed, the semen, is declared "a draught of despised fluid" to heap indignity on the
human specie. Just see, how God taunts man about his low birth:
"So let man consider of what he is created;
He is created from a gushing fluid
That issued from between the loins and ribs."
(The Night Star LXXXVI: 5-7)
Here Allah deliberately insults man by alluding to the seminal discharge, which brings a human
to life. Further, Allah condemns man for his nature (which He Himself allotted him as the
Creator!).
"Perish man! How unthankful he is!
Of what did He create him?
Of a sperm drop .."
(He Frowned LXXX: 15-17)
It should be noted that in these verses Allah is again sarcastic about the low birth of man, owing
to a sperm drop i.e. the despised fluid. As Allah declares his intention of creating man, the
angels protest:
"And when thy Lord said to the angels,
'I am setting in the earth a viceroy.'
They said, 'What, wilt Thou set therein one
who will do corruption there, and shed blood?' "
(The Cow II: 25)
According to this Koranic statement, man is corrupt by nature and therefore he is prone to
bloodshed and similar heinous crimes whereas Biblically, Adam's disobedience is a fall which
proves his high birth the same way as darkness proves light and blindness vouches for vision.
Is it not surpsising that the most righteous Allah has appointed the most wicked man as His
viceroy on earth? Astonishing it may be, but Allah has used the device of viceroyalty to curb the
natural desire of man to be free. It is because, according to the Koran, an evil person becomes
good by fearing God and doing what he is told by Him. God tells man what to do through the
system of revelation, that is, He sends guidance through a Prophet, who acts as His Messenger:
"We (Allah) said, Get you down out of it, all

together, yet there shall come to you guidance from
Me, and whosoever follows My guidance, nor fear
shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow ...."
(The Cow II: 35)
To understand the meaning of this Koranic statement, one must bear in mind its background:
Adam and Eve, his wife, have disobeyed Allah, and thus defied His guidance, that is, His
instructions about what to do and what to shun. As a punishment, Allah is driving them out of
paradise where there is no pain, no ageing, no illness, no worry of sustenance and no fear of
death. They have disobeyed Allah's instructions because they find them hurtful to their sense of
freedom, which is so dear to them that they prefer it to the paradisiac mirth and immortality.
Yet Allah is so obsessed with curbing man's liberties that He undertakes to send Adam and Eve
guidance through His Messengers despite the fact that they have turned it down scornfully.
What a Divine stratagem it is to frustrate man's democratic dreams!
This is the fundamental Islamic principle that those who do not believe in the Koran, Allah's
guidance, they are the most sordid folks, who will serve as the fuel of hell. Such people are
technically known as Kafir (the unbelievers). The Koran declares:
"God is an enemy to the unbelievers."
(The Cow, II: 90)
This is the reason that Allah treats all non-Muslims the same way as someone treats his worst
enemies. A non- Muslim, in an Islamic state becomes a dhimmy, who almost loses human rights
available in a democratic country, and after death goes to hell, where everything is extremely
sadistic.
The essence of "Divine Guidance" is that it ranks as the Eternal Law. Thus, man is deprived of
legislating for himself though it is the major feature of democracy. He must do what is laid down
in the Scriptures, which may be centuries old, and thus lose all relevance to the modern
problems. This is the reason that the Koran lays down:
"And fear the Fire prepared for the unbelievers, and

obey God and the Messenger; haply so you will find
mercy." (lhe House of Imran III: 125)
The Islamic code of law is constituted by obedience to Allah and Muhammad (the Messenger) as
depicted in the Koran and Hadith. Those who do not follow this Guidance, and make their own
laws, they are the unbelievers, who will eternally roast in the Fire especially prepared for them.
Allah's way is absolutism, and therefore, He clearly declares:
"He (Allah) associates in His government no one."

(The Cave XVIII: 25)
All, Allah allows is the setting up of a consultative body, which cannot come to binding
conclusions or pass any laws:
"And (O Prophet) take counsel with them
in the affair; and when thou art resolved
put thy trust in God."
(The House of Imran III: 150)
The Muslim exegetists pretend that this verse is the foundation of the Muslim democracy. The
truth is that all a Muslim ruler (the Caliph), who is technically, the lieutenant of Allah, can allow
is the formation of a consultative body, whose verdicts are not binding on him; he takes counsel
from its members only to resolve himself and not to follow them. He must put his trust in God,
that is, do what he thinks fit as Allah's representative.
This is the true meaning of this verse, and is attested by the fact that the Prophet Muhammad
himself was not an elected leader of the people; he ruled as the Messenger, appointed by God,
and God is God because He is Absolute, and therefore not bound by anybody's advice. In fact, it
is absolutism, which makes one God by freeing him from all sorts of accountability.
Absolutism is the basis of Islam because it places entire power in the hands of one person. Allah
is All- powerful, therefore, Muhammad, who is His representative, possesses similar authority in
relation to mankind; nobody can be a Muslim without believing in Muhammad; faith in God
alone is as useless as an eye is without vision, cloud without rain or land without fertility. In
fact, "one" is the major word in Islam; millions of Muslims, even if they all be extremely pious,
cannot achieve salvation without the agency of one man, called Muhammad. This is the reason
that there is no room in Islam for democracy, which is a form of pluralism, that is, distribution
of power among several individuals and bodies.
When we look at history, we find no democratic principle in Islam. The. Prophet Muhammad
claimed to be the Divine Model of Behaviour. Since he did not offer himself for election, he
repudiated democracy as the form of government. He left no instructions for electing his
successors. The Shia sect of Islam has always claimed that the Prophet had appointed Ali, his
son- in-law, as his successor, and this contention eventually proved to be the bane of Islam.
Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad got appointed through the
political skill of Umr, the Great, but the faithful call it an election. In fact, it was an inter-tribal
dispute to settle the right of succession. The second Caliph, Umr, the Great was an appointee of
Abu Bakr; Uthman, the Third Caliph was given this dignity by a small committee nominated by
Umr. At the death of Uthman, war broke out between Ali and Muaawia to settle the issue of
succession; the latter won, and thereafter monarchy became the fundamental rule of
governrnent, which is compatible with the spirit of Koran:
"God gives the kingship to whom He will."

(The Cow II: 245)
Again, democracy is a national affair, but the Prophet Muhammad confined the right to rule to
his own tribe i.e. the Quresh, and thus disqualified the rest of the Arabs to hold this honour:
1. "The prerogative to rule shall remain vested in the Quresh, and whoever is hostile to
them Allah shall destroy him .." (Sahih Bokhari, vol. 4)
2. "The Quresh are the rulers of men in vice and virtue until the Day of Judgement."
(Sahih Tirmzi, vol. 1 )
3. "The right to rule shall belong to the Quresh even if two men existed." (Sahih
Bokhari vol. 9)
So far, I have concentrated on the fact that democracy is no part of the Semitic Sciptures i.e.
the Bible or the Koran. Since Judaism, Christianity and Islam preach monotheism, that is,
oneness of God, who is jealous, All-powerful and Absolute, the system of government they
advocate, cannot be anything but monarchical or dictatorial. It is only a religion or philosophy
that believes in pluralism, can advocate the principle of power-sharing called democracy.
There are three major centres of pluralism known to the ancient history, namely, Greece, Rome
and India. It is naturally these territories where the doctrine of democracy flourished; the
people who were free from the absolutism of one God, had the natural desire to be free from
the absolutism of one ruler. I salute all these hubs of freedom but it is interesting to know which
of these is the fountain of democracy. This honour is usually ascribed to Greece, but is it the
whole truth? With a view to finding out the size of the Indian contribution to democracy, I may
further enquire into the political forms of:
1. Greece,
2. Rome, and
3. India.
1. GREECE
Polytheism is the fountain of pluralism, which gave birth to the doctrine of democracy. Greece
was one of the lands of antiquity, which ranked as one of the major centres of polytheism; it
gave birth to certain democratic traditions but it was not the fountain of polytheism, also known
as paganism. This principle encourages belief in several gods, each having control over a
separate phenomenon of nature, yet being part of the Final Unity. This doctrine is also known as
"One-in-all and all-in-one." Apart from its mystical connotations, it also means that the
administration of state cannot be left in the autocratic control of one person: the political power
must be shared by all its members.
For proper understanding of the Greek contribulion to democracy, we ought to realise that the
period c. 900 to 700 B.C. is called the Geometric period (The World of Homer). Historians have
surmised that this is the period when elements from the arts of the Near East entered the Greek
culture as a result of her trading ventures in the eastern Mediterranean introduction of iron and
writing, which brought Greece into the light of history, belongs to this era, and corresponds to
the dawn of Upanishads in India. What is known as the classical period of Greece, associated
with arts and sciences, starts circa 500 B.C. i.e. when the Geometric or Archaic period ends.
However, the period of three centuries preceding the great migrations of c. 1100-c.1000 B.C. is
often referred to as Ihe Greek "dark ages" because little is known about it. These migrations are
termed as "the Dorian Invasion" but the ancient cultural history of Greece defies this
assumption because the migrants practised the same polytheistic traditions as did the people of
India. Even if these migrants did not come direct from India, they must have migrated from a
place, which had been originally colonised by the Indians. This concept of Greek "dark ages" has
proved very convenient to hide this fact.
A special feature of the Archaic period was the growth of urban life and political institutions.
Each polis or urban settlement had a political institution consisting of a king, a council and an
assembly. To check the autocratic powers of the king, each city annually elected dignitaries,
who existed alongside the kingship. The king was not necessarily a hereditary ruler: even he
could be the subject of election in some places, including Athens. Of course, we hear of "tyranny
and tyrant" in the Archaic Greece. A tyrant was not always a cruel ruler; he was someone who
exercised unhindered political influence without any legal title. This condition, gradually
dwindled. Even in Sparta, where two hereditary kings were drawn from two royal families, had
to decide foreign policies in the public assembly, by the later decades of the 5th century. In
home affairs, the kings were themselves members of the council.
The council consisted of thirty members. The other twenty-eight councillors had to be at least
sixty years old. They enjoyed life-long membership. Any male adult could attend the public
assembly. In addition to councillors, the public assembly also elected Ephors, who exercised
ultimate choice on questions of legislation and policy. The method of voting has been described
as acclamation: this procedure occasionally allowed some discretion to the presiding officer.
Rhetra or enactment provided that the measures were to be introduced by the council but the
final decision had to be made by the assembly. It has been argued that this two- tier procedure
for making decisions was not necessarily a Spartan invention; it was found in other Greek
states, and similar procedures were also found in the Roman Republic where all measures were
brought to the Senate before they were presented to the assembly. More or less the same
situation existed among the ancient Germans. It shows that the old democratic institutions had
a common origin, but where did it lie?
Democratic traditions flourished better in Athens, which had been once ruled by kings.
Eventually, the major political institutions of Athens comprised an executive board, which
consisted of "nine archons," a council and a public assembly. One of the archons continued to be
called "king" in accordance with the old tradition. However, it is Cleisthenes, who came to be
regarded as the founder of democracy in the second half of the 5th Century B.C. owing to the
reforms that he had introduced into the political and social life of Athens.
Like the Indian culture, the Athenian society was also divided into four classes according to
ownership of property; the class-divisions were hereditary and the social conditions were no
better than what prevailed in India owing to the Caste System. The reforms of Cleisthenes
abolished the old Class (tribal) system, which was governed by the religious element. The
corner-stone of his reform was what is called the deme i.e. a village or a parish. His reformative
genius enabled the different classes to mingle together as citizens of different districts and thus
broke down the social and local barriers.
The other major reform of Cleisthenes was the Council of Five Hundred. The members of this
Council were chosen by lot and were entitled to hold office for one year. Each tribe supplied fifty
members to the council.
However, it should be remembered that the Athenian democracy had a very limited scope. It
was for the Athenians only; their colonials had no share in it. Even the Athenian women and
slaves, who formed at least three- quarters of the population, could not participate in this
system of government.
2. ROME
When the Gauls burnt down the city of Rome in 390 B.C. the patriotic zeal of its citizens
assumed a new flight of imagination to award it a historical origin, which the art of history itself
cannot acknowledge as the truth.
When Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, completed his services to the city through a
long reign, one day, a mighty whirlwind carried him to heaven, where he became the god that
was to be worshipped as Quirinus by the people of Rome. As the story goes, Romulus was
succeeded by a member of the Sabine tribe, namely, Numa Pompilius; he is said to have been
chosen by the city-elders, who belonged to the important tribes and have also been referred to
as Senatories.
Numa ruled for forty years. He brought unity and stability to his people through religious
devices. According to a tradition, Lucius Tarquinius, supposed to have been chosen to rule the
city by a coalition of Etruscan families, was the first, who desired hereditary kingship and openly
canvassed for it. His thirty-years rule, did increase the kingly powers over the patricians, who
arranged his assassination to nip the evil in the bud, but their attempt did not succeed in
securing its goal. Servius Tullius Servius, who ascended the throne through the efforts of his
mother, was the first person to hold royal power without being chosen by the people. Even
Servius was not an autocrat; he was bound by the law. When he was accused of ruling illegally,
he called for a plebiscite and secured a unanimous vote of approval. As the Romans did not like
monarchy, he was assassinated.
As the patricians (aristocracy) thought of the rex (king) as the chief priest of religion, members
of the senate, were unnerved by the fact that under Tarquinius Superbus ( "the Proud" ),
monarchy had become absolute. However, when another Tarquinius became king of Rome, the
Senate was able to dismiss him in 508 B,.C. and took over the reins of power.
This is a short history of royal Rome, but it is devoid of credibility. The struggle for establishing
democracy that started in 508 B.C. and lasted until 264 B.C. is too long to be described in this
article. However, I may call it a great human triumph because it demonstrates man's burning
desire for liberty and human rights, which can be acquired only by keeping under check the
domineering evils of despotism whether it is exercised through totalitarianism, by a king, a
dictator, or God.
With a view to completing this narrative, I ought to add that the Roman Senate was the
supreme governing body. In fact, it was executive, legislature and judiciary in one. Yet power
was exercised through a system of checks and balances. There were three Assemblies, namely,
Curial, Centurial and Tribal with various prerogatives and functions. Then there were consuls,
censors and tribunes, having authority, discretion and the will to maintain the integrity of
freedom, justice and public weal.
Membership of the Senate was unique: though it was for life, a corrupt member could be
dismissed. Its eminence lay in the fact that it was not elected by the people but the excellence
of the member's character thal had distinguished him by his services to the community. Most of
the Senators were the men, who had served in the past as magistrates, administrators,
commanders and proconsuls. The Senate was also a great place for teaching virtues of
administration, justice, law-making, and the art of democracy because the Senators were
allowed to bring to its sessions their sons who would sit quietly and attentively, absorbing the
wisdom collected over a period of centuries.
There is no democracy without law. The Roman Law was based on the Twelve Tablets which
lasted for nine hundred years. As in Greece, Caste System was also found in Rome and was
preserved by law which forbade the marriage of a patrician with a plebeian.
After briefly tracing the roots of the Greek and Roman democracy, I may add that democracy,
particularly, the doctrine of election, is not indigenous to Greece or Rome but to India.
According to a broad agreement between the historians, which I shall discuss later, the people
of India, Rome and Greece belong to the same racial stock. In view of the size and population of
India, it is reasonable to assume that the Romans and Greeks must have migrated from India to
these tiny city-states. It is obviously famines or local strifes that forced people leave their
homeland and seek settlements abroad. Again, the religious beliefs and cultural practices of the
three groups clearly demonstrate that the Greeks and Romans received their polytheistic culture
and the doctrine of democracy from India.
It is absurd to call the Romans as the Etruscan migrants and the Greeks as the Dorian Invaders.
Let me explain this truth with reference to the paganism that prevailed in the three countries.
Like many great things such as steel, mathematics, cotton, rice, mysticism etc., paganism is yet
another Indian contribution to civilisation but the followers of monotheism - the despotic way of
life - have presented it in the worst possible form; they call it idolatry whereas, in fact, it is
symbolic nature-worship based on a sound philosophy, seeking to raise the dignity of humanity
to that of divinity.
India is the fountain of paganism, which was the ascendant faith of mankind until the advent of
the Semitic concept of monotheism. However, Greece may be mistaken as another contender
for this honour. Of course, Hellenism or Greek culture has made a fair contribution to the
world's way of life, but it has remained unacknowledged that Greece herself drew cultural
inspiration from India. This is a tragedy of history for which the Indians themselves are chiefly
responsible. The truth is that India is the origin of paganism and any Greek claim can be refuted
by examining the (a) mythology and (b) philosophy of the two countries:
a. Mythology
As a general proof, I may add that paganism is as indigenous to India as Magna Carta is to
England. It is because belief in gods and goddesses in Greece ceased to exist many centuries
ago but it is still as prevalent in India as ever. When we realise that one thousand years of
determined persecution by the Islamic tyrants failed to eradicate it in this land of the Vedas,
one cannot ascribe the origin of paganism to any country but India.
Again, the Rgveda is the oldest Scripture known to mankind but it is dedicated to the pagan
philosophy through the adoration of several gods and goddesses, and it is these Vedic deities
that appear in the Greek and Roman mythologies. Let us enumerate a few to establish the
truth:
1. Sky (heaven) and earth have been the greatest source of awe and wonder to the early man.
It is the Vedas that called sky or dyaus as Dyaus-Pitar, who had a female counterpart (earth).
In India, they named her Aditi (the Infinite Expanse) which eventually became the mother of all
gods. Following the Indian principle, the Greek deities were male or female and had consorts.
The Middle Eastern countries were equally indebted to the Vedas for the adoption of this
principle.
The Indian Dyaus-Pitar (I: LIV - 2) also called Indra, became the Zeus of Greece and Jupiter
Pluvius of Rome. Agni, the Vedic god of fire appears as Ignis in Rome, and the Vedic Surya as
Helios in Greece; the Vedic Usha, the goddess of dawn, was remembered as Eos in Greece, and
the Vedic Yama, god of the departed, assumed the title of Pluto, who commanded the Greek
hades.
The Rgveda ( I: XIII - 9) mentions three goddesses, namely Ila, Saraswati and Mahi, who
preside over the fine arts such as poetry, music, drama, dance, painting and sculpture. In
Greece they became the Three Graces, namely Aglaia (Brightness), Euphrosyne (Joyfulness)
and Thalia (Bloom). They were considered the patrons of arts, beauty and charm. Thus, all the
Western arts are actually rooted in the Indian paganism.
Tvastar of the Vedic pantheon (I: XIII - 10) is the Hephaisto or Vulcan of the Greek mythology.
He is an ideal artist and workman of divine qualities, which enable him to indulge in most
wonderful contrivances.
In the Rgveda (I: XXIII - 19) we find Amrit, which is repeated frequently. It has a great healing
power and also confers immortality. In Greece it is called Ambrosia.
Zeus, the chief god of Greece like its Indian prototype, Indra, also uses thunderbolt as his
weapon to subdue the disobedient. (Rg. Book I: GXXX - 4).
Atharvan, the priest of the Rgveda (I. Vl: XV: 17) becomes the Greek god, Prometheus, who
stole fire from heaven to benefit mankind.
In Greek mythology appears the dogs of Pluto, the god of the underworld; they are in fact, the
watch-dogs of Yama, the god of the dead. (Rg. 7: LIBV - 2).
Varuna, the Vedic Law Lord, appears as Ouranos in the Greek mythology. (Again, it is Varuna's
counterpart, Mitra, who appears as Mithra in the Persian mythology.)
Lord Kama, who holds a significant position in the Rgveda, appears as Eros in Greece and as
Cupid in Rome with the same function of producing love with his amorous arrows.
Dionysus also called Bacchus, is a minicopy of the Vedic god Siva for his rituals of the phallus,
which was celebrated in Greece with the same fervour as the Sivities still do in India.
Finally, to demonstrate that the Greek mythology is an extension of the Indian mythology, I
invite a comparison between the unvedic Indian legend of Indra in relation to Ahalya, and of
Zeus concerning Alcemene. Both Indra and Zeus are chief gods, both use thunderbolt as their
chief weapons and both are held as womanisers.
In the tales referred to above, semblance between the two is so great that, apart from
difference of names, they both look one and the same person.
In a nutshell, Ahalya was wife of the Saint Gautama. She was the most beautiful woman ever
born. Indra fancied her. Assuming the form of Gautama, he pretended to be Ahalya's husband
and thus succeeded in seducing her.
Alcemene was the wife of Amphitryon. She was an extraordinary beauty of olive complexion and
large, intoxicating black eyes. Zeus fancied her. He did exactly what Indra had done. He
changed his form to look like her husband, and thus deceptively became her bed-mate for a
whole (extended) night.
This brief description of mythologies should establish the truth that the Greek mythology, in
essence, is a copy of the Indian mythology, and thus the Greeks actually worshipped the Indian
gods. This is further borne out by the Greek philosophy, which is very much like the Vedic
philosophy. Here is a brief comparison of the philosophical development in the two countries:
It has been remarked that the Greek philosophical speculation led to the pantheistic nature of
the universe i.e. the world is a unity through myriads of form.
However, the early Greek philosophy tends towards plurality and not unity; it is because the
divine is held as an element, which is destined to animate the other elements that constitute the
world. This attitude is known as Hylozoistic pantheism (Greek hyle "matter" and zoe "life"). Thus
divine being immanent in the universe, provides the motivating force for movement and
change. Finding matter and life as inseparable, the hylozoistic thinkers, such as Thales,
proposed water as the fountain of life.
Gradually, the Greek speculation moves from plurality to immanentistic pantheism. It means
that, though God is only a part of the world, He is immanent in it and thus His power extends
throughout everything that exists. Zenophanes, the first Greek thinker, provides a reflection of
monistic pantheism because he suggests the existence of the Absolute God with a changing
world, believing that it does not attenuate reality of either.
Anaxagoras believed in Nous (or Mind) as the principle of order for all things as well as the
principal of their movement. Nous, he held, is the finest and purest of things and is diffused
throughout the entire cosmos. This point of view is a further annotation of the immanentistic
pantheism.
Plato is said to have believed in an absolute and eternal God, whose perfection is not affected ty
his relationship with the world of forms, along with a World- Soul which is responsible for
containing and animating the universe. He emphasised that this World-Soul is as divine as a
changing thing can be. This attitude is interpreted to mean that Plato held "a dual principle of
the divine, uniting both being and becoming, absoluteness and relativity, permanence and
change, in a single context."
The Stoics adored the principle of reason, the logos, which provides order as well as animation
to all things. In addition, they advocated the role of a World-Soul which permeates everything in
the world. Since the Stoics were materialits, their World-Soul is held as an extended form of
subtle matter. As the universal reason is the supreme theme running through everything, the
Stoic philosophy is also held pantheistic.
This brief sketch clearly states that the Greek philosophy is mainly pantheistic i.e. revolving
round the principle of unity through diversity. However, I cannot see how Plato could believe in
an absolute God, who is obliged to create according to the Forms or eternal prototypes. Since
He has no inventive choice, He is not the Creator but the procreator; his Theory of Forms is a
copy of the Vedic doctrine of existence and becoming:
"He of whom all this world is but the copy who

shakes things moveless, He, O men,
is Indra." (Rg. II. XII - 9)
Again, "In every figure he hath been the model:

this is his only form for us to look on.
Indra moves multiform by his illusions;
for his Bay Steeds are yoked, ten times
a hundred." (Rg. VI: XLVII - 18)
Also:
"Kindled in many a spot, till One is Agni;
Surya is One though high over all he
shineth.
Illumining this All, still One is Usas,*
That which is One hath into All
developed." (Valakhilya X: 2)
The last quotation proves the oneness of the universe through diversity of forms. It is this Vedic
principle that appears in Greece as the Parmenedian doctrine: One-in-all and all-in-One. This,
along with the Platonic idea of Forms, conclusively proves the Indian origin of the Greek
philosophy.
To understand the meaning of these references one ought to realise that Plato is famous for his
Theory of Forms or Ideas. It means that everything that exists is a reflection of the Forms i.e.
the eternal prototypes. For example, when we say that rose is beautiful, it means that the rose
partakes of the form beauty. Since rose withers away, its beauty is not real but the Form-
beauty is real. Therefore, one must strive for the Reality that lies behind a thing, and not the
thing itself, which is just an illusion for being transitory.
When we delve into the above quotations, we find that Greece inherited from the Vedas, the
philosophy that Plato and his predecessors had developed:
The Rgvedic quotation: "Indra moves multiform by his illusions" clearly shows that Indra is the
reality behind everything, and the thing that exists is a reflection of the Forms i.e. the eternal
prototypes. For example motion and direction itself is no more than an illusion. It also means
that he is the animating force of everything that supplies motion and direction. Plato adapted
this Vedic Theory to gain the international fame. It might have been his spontaneous thinking
but considering that the Greek mythology is an offshoot of the Indian mythology, it is likely that
he had direct or indirect knowledge of the Vedas.
Thale's speculation that life started from water is also an extension of the Vedic statement:
"The deathless Waters, born in Law, receiving,

protected all the germ in the beginning -
Waters divine who had the God above them ...."
(A.V. IV: 2, 6)
It is a candid assertion of the fact that, not only life springs from water but, also the "water (is)
born in Law," that is, Water is water only becasue it obeys that Law of Nature, which is known
as H2O. Considering the antiquity of this statement, the Biblical and Koranic declarations to this
effect, are only of secondary importance.
Anaxagoras' Nous (Mind) and Stoics' Logos (Reason), which provide animation, movement or
order to things, are nothing but differently stated the Vedic principle called Rta: it is the nature,
as well as the natural law, which governs the universe with complete force, wisdom and
authority, necessary for successful accomplishment of the Cosmic Order, and has been referred
to in the Rgveda some 130 times.
The Greek thinkers also borrowed their Concept of the World Soul from the Rgveda: Hymn XC
(Purusa) states that the universe came into being "from that great general sacrifice" of Purusa.
What is Purusa? "The Purusa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be ( 2 ) ." This is the
germ and the motivating force of the world, which cannot be increased or decreased, and has
been referred to as the Universal Soul.
This is only a glimpse of the Vedic influence: it shows that Greece received from India its pagan
culture, which had spread in the East and West through the Indian migration and conquest. It
persisted so long in these lands that it began to look as a native doctrine, though it had
originated in India; it is still practised in its land of birth with increasing fervour. This is yet
another proof of its Indian nativity. It died in Greece because it was not a Greek baby: only its
true mother, India, would not part with it despite the 1000 years' persistent cruelty of the
monotheistic snatchers.
Pluralism is the practical manifestation of paganism i.e. polytheism.

As polytheism is the division of power among gods, democracy is the distribution of authority
among humans. Wherever the Indian paganism was ascendant, the political tendencies of the
people were towards democracy, which is abhorred by those whose behaviour is motivated by
the Urge of Dominance: they desperately need a concept, which may enable them to justify
personal or dynastic despotism. Monotheism is such a concept, which is in fact, a revolt against
democracy, signifying usurpation of human rights by God, who wants to be obeyed to the letter
and tolerates no participation in His government, which may be based on the laws, made totally
irrelevant by the passage of time. Here is the trick: since God, the Absolute, cannot be
contacted, His power is wielded by one man, who claims to be His representative on earth i.e.
the Prophet, the Messiah or the Imam.
Monotheism is essentially the method of government by one man in the name of one God,
according to "His" laws, which lose their relevance to man's social needs over a period of time,
and become the source of superstition, sorrow and slavish attitudes. This concept was born in
the Arabian peninsula as a revolt against paganism, which had travelled from India and became
deeply rooted in the Middle Eastern countries. How did it happen? Here is the short description
of this historical event, which is substantiated by the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
The Kassites penetrated Mesopotamia in early part of the second millenium, but were repulsed
by Hammurabi's son. However, they succeeded in securing a foothold in the Tigris-Euphrates
Valley on the northern frontiers but later established the second Babylonian dynasty. Thus, their
rule started in the heart of the Semitic civilisation about the middle of the 18th century B.C. and
lasted for 576 years.
Nobody knows with certainty the real home of the Kassites but there can be no doubt about
their cultural and religious identity. Their gods were called Indas, Surias and Maruttas (which in
the Vedic language are: Indra, Surya and Marutah); they were a Kshatriya clan for being
members of a small military aristocracy. It is they who introduced the horse in Babylonia, and
showed reverence to this animal, which dragged their war-chariots.
Again, a treaty between the Hittites and the Mittannis was signed c. 1400 B.C. The latter
invoked the Vedic gods: Indara, Unuvna, Mitira and Nasatiya i.e. the Vedic Indra, Varuna, Mitra
and Naksatras. One should also remember that the clay tablets dating back to c. 1400 B.C.
written at Tell-EI-A Marna in Babylonian cuneiform, describe the names of princes as Biridashva
and Artmanya, which betray their Indian origin.
Also noteworthy are the old Indian technical terms of horse-breeding, which are to be found in
the records of these dynasties along with the war chariots. The aforementioned gods and their
chariots drawn by splendid horses are the special feature of the Rgveda: Indra's chariot was
pulled by 100 horses of the greatest magnificence. Irrespective of what the Western and Arab
historians say, this is the irrefutable evidence of the Vedic culture in the Arabian peninsula; it
was ascendant there until the advent of the Prophet Muhammad. It means that the Vedic
paganism had ruled the Middle Eastern mind at least for 2,000 years. No wonder that the stern
Mosaic monotheism could not dislodge the traditions of the Vedic paganism.
The modern scholarship has established that the Patriarchal Age, which refers to Abraham
Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, dates back to early 2nd millenium, which is coextensive with the
arrival of the Kassites. This is the time when Abraham, the acknowledged leader of the three
major monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam, appears in the pages of history,
protesting against paganism to establish himself as the first monotheistic pioneer. His strong
protests against idols indicate the significance of the Indian influence on the Middle Eastern
countries but the modern scholarship does not acknowledge him as a monotheist because of the
pagan traditions in which he grew up. Though he confessed to being a monotheist, he practised
monolatry, which means worship of one among many gods. This is quite compatible with the
Vedic tradition, which holds that there are several gods but a person can elect one of them to
suit his own inclinations.
According to the Koranic tradition, Aazar, Abraham's father, was an idolator. Though he rebelled
against his paternal faith i.e. paganism, he could not completely free himself from it. The most
he could do was, to become monolatrous, that is, choose one god for worship out of many that
a person believes in. The Bible is quite frank on the subject. Yahwe, the Jewish God says:
"Thou shalt not revile Gods, nor curse the rulers of

thy people." (Exodus 22: 18)
On polytheism, the Bible contradicts the Koran because the former clearly states that Solomon,
acknowledged as a major Prophet by Islam, worshipped many gods.
"For it came to pass, when Solomon was old that his wives turned away his heart after
other gods .." "And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord and went not fully after the
Lord, as did his father." "Then did Solomon build an high place for (god) Chemosh, the
abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for (god) Molech, the
abomination of the children of Ammon."
"And likewise did he (Solomon) for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and
sacrificed unto their gods. "
"And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord
God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice."
(I Kings II, 11: 6-9)
This was the influence of the Vedic polytheism on the Middle Eastern mind, exerted by the
Kassite and Mittanni warriors' who practised the Indian cultural traditions, which show that if
they did not come directly from India, they must have migrated from this country to settle
elsewhere whence they raided the Mesopotamian lands. It has a striking analogy with the Arabs
who made incursions into European lands from Spain.
In fact, the impact of the Indian culture on the Arabian peninsula has been more persistent than
the stammering tongue of the ancient history can reveal. This truth is demonstrated by the
Vedic principle of Triad (Trimurti) that originally prevailed in southern Arabia i.e. Yemen. It
refers to the tradition which represents one god in three figures, and three-in-one. The Christian
Trinity is a good example of this fact. Again, the people of Yemen believed in a triad of astral
deities representing the Moon god, the Sun goddess and the Venus god; a triad of gods was
also found in Palmyra: it consisted of Bell, Yarhibol (a solar deity) and Aglibol (a lunar deity).
This triadic tradition of the south travelled to Mecca and is testified by the Koran, which
describes the triad of three goddesses, namely, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat! This is the reason
that Kaaba was a temple of the Indian style where these goddesses along with many deities
were worshipped regularly. One of these idols was called Allah. Small wonder that democratic
traditions prevailed in pre-Islamic Mecca.
Democracy is the expression of man's natural urge for freedom. It is associated with paganism
the same way as rays are with the sun, stars with the sky and sweetness with honey. It is
because paganism is the belief in many gods, each having power within his own sphere of the
natural phenomena, yet constituting a part of the Final Truth or Power. This Divine power-
sharing acts as an inspiration for humans to have share in the political power-structure of the
community. This is what democracy is all about. There are plenty of people who yell at the
weakness of this system, but forget that democracy requires certain moral standards backed by
the force of law. This is not the way of life suitable for crooks, criminals and charlatans.
Since the Vedas are the product of India and happen to be the oldest Scriptures of mankind, it
is reasonable to assume that polytheism i.e. mythology as a formal faith originated in India.
From the observation of the natural phenomena such as the sky, the sun, the stars, the wind,
the fire, the water, the dawn, the sunset, etc., the Indian sages came to the conclusion that
there was a controlling power behind each phenomenon; this is what they termed as god. They
further realised, as all these natural forces were well disciplined, they must be under the binding
rule of natural law. This is the polytheistic message of the Vedas, which was spread by the
Indians as they migrated to the foreign lands. I have already narrated this fact in a previous
article: "India in Europe."
Now, I may describe the Vedic principle of:
1. The Democratic theory, and

2. Practice.
The Vedas do not hold man as product of sin, nor do they advocate that man is the slave of
God:
"O undivided Heaven and Earth, preserve
us, us the Lofty Ones, your nobly-born
descendants." (Rg. VII: LXII - 4)
Here "us" means man who being "nobly born" is not mean, malovelent and miscreant but
magnificent, majestic and masterful despite being erroneous occasionally.
The Vedic man is not a slave of gods:
''Ye, O ye gods, are verily our kinsmen;

as such be kind to me who now implore you."
(Rg. II: XXVIII: 4)
Gods are man's relatives, and it is in this capacity, he implores their help and, not as a menial.
Man implores and shows devotion to gods because:
"That we with simple hearts may wait upon the

gods, we ask for freedom and complete felictiy."
(Rg. X: C - 3)
Here it is made clear that freedom is happiness and happiness is freedom, and securing this
blessing is the reason for man's devotion and praying to gods. Again, the concept of happiness
is not exclusive to one person but everyone is entitled to be happy:
"Our God, make all of us to dwell in happy
habitations." (Rg. VIII: LXX iii - 6)
Here, habitation means people of a locality. They all deserve to be happy through freedom,
which is possible by practising the Elective Principle only: Here is the Elective Doctrine,
described in a way that admits no interpretation. It should also be remembered that the Vedas
are the only Scriptures that make monarch subject to election and strict laws of governance:
"The tribesmen shall elect thee for the Kingship."
(A.V. III, IV: 2)
Of course, it is the tribesmen who elect the King, but "women and their sons" must also be
favourably inclined to the person to be elected as the King. It is surely a family check on the
voters, who must consult their women and sons before exercising their choice:
"Let women and their sons be friendly. Thou mighty
one, shalt see abundant tribute."
(A.V. III, IV: 3)
Again, it should be noted that a Vedic king is not an appointee of God but being an elected
monarch is treated as human:
"Guard and protect this man, all Gods .... Over him
keep ye watch and ward ...." (A.V. I - XXX: I)
The Rgveda in chapter X: GXXIV: 8 gives impression that the Elective Principle was an integral
part of the faith of the Indian people:
"And they, like people who elect their ruler,
have in abhorrence turned away from Vrtra."
Vrtra means the chief cloud demon and refers to the sources of evil as the word "Satan" in the
Koranic mythology alludes to wickedness. This verse makes it clear that those who believe in
the Elective Principle, are the pious people because it is tantamount to turning away from the
horrors of Vrtra i.e. the atrocities of despotism.
In ancient India, tribe was the basic political unit, and the kingdoms were usually small in size
like the city- states of Rome and Athens, though the Rgveda also provides evidence of bigger
states, which might have come into existence through conquest or confedracy.
To check the despotic tendencies, there came into being three institutions:
a. Sabha
b. Samiti and
c. Brhamanism.
a. Sabha ( Council ) as an integral part of the government appears in the Rgveda (VI. 28-6; Viii
4-9). It refers to a hall of meeting where more important members of the community such as
Brahmans and rich people were convened for deliberations. When the hall was not required for
the state purposes, it could be used for other functions such as the game of dice. The elected
Chief or president (Ganapati, Ganaraja) ruled with the advice of the council elders.
b. Samiti had a wider scope of reference than Sabha because it consisted of both the elite, and
ordinary people, who commanded majority. I shall discuss "Parisad" in its Buddhist context,
later. Its members were summoned by the sound of kettledrum.
Though later corrupted by autocrats, the original Indian system of government was based on
the elective principle, which was a part of the religious faith. This fact is fully attested by the
Rgveda.
"Let every mortal man elect the friendship

of the guiding god." (V.L - 1 )
It is clear that God cannot impose himself on any man; as there are several gods, man should
elect one of them to guide him. This is why polytheism is the root of democracy. It is this
sanctity of the Elective Principle that makes it the guiding principle in political affairs.
To strengthen the elective Principle, the ancient Indian code of law, Manusmrti, lays down:
1. The King must be humble. (7: 39)

2. The King must give a deep bow to his councillors. (8: 23 )
3. The King is more subject to law than ordinary people. If a layman is fined a "scratch-
penny" for theft, he should be fined a thousand. (8-336)
4. The King should appoint seven or eight hereditary advisers who must be highly
knowledgeable. (7: 54)
5. The King must know the Scriptures, science of politics, punishment, philosophy and
psyche. (7 - 43)
c. Brahmanism.
The Vedas bestow extraordinary privileges on Brahmans, who restrict the authority of the King:
"To him, the people with free will pay homage, the King with whom the Brahman hath
precedence.
The Gods uphold that King with their protection who helps the Brahman when he seeks
his (King's) protection." (Rg. IV, 50: 8-9)
The Manusmrti adds:

1. The King must be guided by a Brahmn (chief minister). ( 7: 58 )
2. The Brahman is the best of all classes of men. (10-1 )
3. "A ten-year-old priest and a hundred-year-old ruler should be regarded as father and
son, and of the two of them, the priest is father." (2: 136)
This is what strikes King's mind with Brahman's superiority and he begins to believe in the
immensity of his spiritual powers, which can guide him in ordinary life, give him victory in the
battlefield, save him from vicious friends, multiply his progeny and reward him with health,
wealth, long life, happiness, and ultimately, the heavenly bliss.
This discussion ought to explain why the political system of India had to be democratic. Of
course, there are instances of despotism but they mark nadir of the system and not its zenith:
2. Practice
Having explained the theory of the Indian democracy, now I may add briefly that democracy in
India has not just been a mental attitude but a genuine practice since inception of civilisation.
In fact, the idea of Social Contract is of the Indian origin though erroneously or wilfully ascribed
to the modern European philosophers, namely, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Thomas Hobbes,
an English political absolutist held that "state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short." Therefore, it amounted to a state of war, which could be ended only if men entered into
a social contract to hand their liberty to sovereign, who was thence forward absolute provided
he guarded his subjects' life and property. Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that in the state of
nature, man was unwarlike and somewhat undeveloped. However, when men agreed for mutual
protection to surrender individual freedom of action and establish government, they acquired a
sense of moral and civic obligation.
Kautilya, the Indian sage, held that as a consequence of the fact that the bigger fish swallows
the smaller fish, the people were affected with the evils of anarchy. They, including hermits,
banded together and first elected Manu, son of Vivasvat, to be their king, and allotted him one-
sixth of their grains and one-tenth of their merchandise as his share. They declared: " It is a tax
payable to him who protects us."
It is quite clear that an Indian King was an elected guardian, who was paid taxes to serve his
people.
The Buddhist philosophy states that in the beginning, man was righteous but became corrupt as
time went by. So, men entered into a contract to elect a king to punish, revile and exile those
who deserved it. The man elected was called Mahasammata, and because he delighted others
through righteousness, he was called Rajan.
In both the above instances, the state of nature became corrupt and had to be put right by
common consent, which was 1he real source of power. The ruler was, therefore, an elected
appointee, who was there to protect people's life, property and all those rights, which guarantee
happiness.
India had several republics during the 7th and 6th centuries before the advent of Christ. Some
of them were known as Koliyas, Moriyas, Jnatrkas, Sakyas and Licchavis. The Lord Mahavira,
the founder of Jainism, belonged to the republic: of Jnatrkas and the Lord Buddha came from
the republic of Sakyas.
Rgveda, the oldest Scripture of mankind, is the first to describe the Elective Principle. So great
is its significance that it applies even to the choice of a God, who is not allowed to impose
himself on man. To popularise the doctrine of democracy, the Rgveda lays stress on
consultation and consensus:
1. "Assemble, speak together; let your minds be all of one accord. "
2. "The place is common, common the assembly, common the mind, so be their thoughts
united."
3. "One and the same be your resolve, and be your minds of one accord. "
4. "United be the thought of all that may happily agree."
Since the Rgveda was composed in the Punjab, it is reasonable to assume that the democratic
ideal first emerged in this territory, and it is from here that it spread to the other parts of the
world. Its Indian journey has been revealed by professor D. R. Bhandarkar. According to him,
the Pandyas were a Punjabi tribe. By the time of Magesthenes, they had settled down in Jumna
and Mathura. Their capital was known as Moddura. i.e. Madura, which was also "the principal
town of the district of the same name in the Madras Presidency; the fact that the Pandyas of the
south called their capital Madhura clearly shows that they came from the North from some
country whose capital was Mathura.
These Pandu or Pandya were highly adventurous people. They kept moving in the South;
wherever they went, they called their capital city Mathura. This is the reason that there was a
third Matura in Ceylon and a fourth in the Eastern Archipelago.
During 900 B.C. to 600 A.D. India was a conglomeration of villages, towns and provincial
corporations, each managing its own affairs almost autonomously. Besides, there were trade
and craft guilds. Some of them were so powerful that they had their own armies and even lent
money to the king.
These guilds or Srenis ranked as republics, and sovereignty was vested not in any individual but
in the whole body. Panini, the grammarian, has mentioned several of them, some situated in
Vahika and Trigarta, both parts of the Punjab. It is such independent and semi-independent
institutions that served as a check on despotism. This is the reason that the king of Takshasila
(Taxila), who had madly fallen in love with a Yakshini (a beautiful sorceress), could not oblige
her when she asked him to give her authority over whole of his kingdom. He replied "My love, I
have no power over the subjects of my kingdom, I am not their Lord and Master. I have only
jurisdiction over those who revolt or do wrong."
About the time of the rise of Buddhism, the democratic form of government that existed side by
side with monarchy in North India, is known as Sangha or Gana. It means a "corporate
collection, an aggregation of individuals for a definite purpose." Since in a Sangha or Gana,
sovereignty belongs to the whole body and not to any particular individual, it is also a form of
guild with a special purpose.
Various historians of antiquity such as Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius and Orosius have described with
different names a tribe of Gujrat, which inhabited the lower Akesines (the river: Chenab) in the
Punjab. Curtius says "they were a powerful Indian tribe where the form of government was
democratic and not regal."
Arrian mentions another three tribes of the Punjab, namely, Kathanians, Oxydrakai and Malloi.
They all were independent republics. As Malloi surrendered to Alexander, the Great, they inform
him, "they were attached more than any others to freedom and autonomy, and that their
freedom they had preserved intact from the time Dionysos came to India until Alexander's
invasion."
Arrian has described another Punjabi tribe which was settled in Nyasa. As the Nyasians
surrendered, "they sent out to him (Alexander) their President whose name was Akouphis and
along with him thirty deputies of their most eminent citizens to entreat him to spare the city ....
when he enquired about their laws, he praised them because the government of their state was
in the hands of the aristocracy. "
When we look at the Buddhist form of Sangha, we realise that the Indian system of democracy
was far ahead of what was practised in Greece and Rome. This is no fairy tale but the truth
based on theVinaya-Pitaka of the Buddhist Scriptures, which have preserved the code of
procedure that regulated the meetings of the Buddhist congregation. Here is a glimpse of it:
1. Seats in the assembly hall were arranged in the order of precedence, that is, the attendants
sat according to their dignity and seniority. There was a special officer whose duty it was to
carry out these arrangements.
2. There was a Speaker of the assembly. His job was to announce the proposed motion. All
questions to the Sangha had to be channelled through him.
3. During the debate, any difference of opinion was resolved through the majority vote. This
procedure was called Yebhuyyasika. What is amazing is the principle of confidentiality. The
members were given tickets (Salakas) for this purpose and were collected by the Bhikshu
(monk) known as Salaka-Gahapaka.
4. The member, who could not attend the meeting owing to a genuine reason such as illness or
a pre-engagement, was entitled to an absentee vote known as Chhanda.
5. The meeting could not take place without the necessary quorum. For this prupose, there was
an officer called Ganapuraka, the equivalent of modern "whip."
The most important point to remember is that the Buddhists had adopted many things from the
local customs that had existed in India long before the advent of the Lord Buddha. The
democratic vocabulary of the Buddhists such as Salakas, Vebhuyyasika, Chhanda, Ganapuraka,
etc., were not coined by the Buddhist Sanghas but had been inherited by them from the Vedic
Age. This shows the antiquity of the democratic traditions in India.
The "Village Pancayat" is an ancient form of grassroot democracy in the Indian subcontinent.
It is a local assembly of the villagers, consisting of five members who are usually elected but
sometime hereditary. The Pancayat ( Panchayat ) was the local forum for discussing communal
problems and pronouncing decisions, which carried authority of the law.
The Pancayat System came to an end in Pakistan, but it is still a part of the rural life in India.
The gypsies, who originated in the Punjab and spread all over the world, might have carried this
democratic tradition to the other parts of the world as they did the Indian iron technology.
Previously, I have argued that both Greece and Rome received their polytheistic traditions from
India, where they are as much alive today as they were in antiquity. Now, I may add another
dimension to this discussion:
The advancement of a culture may be judged by the level of the language that acts as its
medium of expression. Sanskrit is the language of the Rgveda, which was composed in the
Punjab. Therefore, it is an Indian language, and it is a false attempt to shift its origin to Europe
on the pretext that it belongs to the Indo-European group of languages. According to Sir William
Jones, Sanskrit is "More perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more
exquisitely refined than either." It establishes the precedence of Sanskrit over both the Greek
and the Latin, which represent the Greek and Roman cultures.
During the 18th century, the European scholars were struck by the grammatical similarities
found in the said three languages. Thus, they came to the conclusion that the people of India,
Greece and Rome belong to the same racial stock. Obviously, the new settlers of Greece and
Rome migrated from India and took their polytheistic and democratic traditions with them. This
conclusion cannot lack the truth because during the period 500 B.C. the populations of Rome
and Athens hardly reached the 200,000 mark whereas India housed fifty million people. It is
mad to think that people moved from these two tiny city-states to India. The migration must
have taken place from India to Greece and Rome.
Unfortunately, it has become customary to believe that India has always been a primitive
country. The truth is quite the opposite. India is the fountain of civilisation, and this fact can be
easily verified from the study of the Rgveda, which represents the Indian way of life simmering
with a warrior's zest, love of adventure and appetite for learning.
This is the heritage of all Indians whether they live in Bharat, Pakistan or Bangladesh.
+++++++++++++++
* The Greek Eos, the goddess of dawn in none else but the Vedic USAS, who represents the
doctrine of unity in diversity. Considering the ancient means of communications, she could not
have enetered the Greek culture unless the Greek had migrated from India. It should be borne
in mind that the geographic descriptions of the Rgveda prove it beyond a shadow of doubt that
it was composed in the Punjab (India).
Chapter 6
THUS SPAKE ANWAR SHAIKH
Part 1
Prologue
The following write-up by the intellectual giant, Anwar Shaikh, has been
reproduced from the INDIA POST WEEKLY, 17127 Pioneer Blvd # E, Artesia, CA
90701 of March 13, 1998. The editorial staff of the SWORD OF TRUTH think that
the points raised by Mr. Shaikh on ISLAMIC DOCTRINE of DIVIDE and RULE would
be quite appropriate for our readers, most of whom are non-Mohammedans and
therefore comparatively ignorant of the contents of the Koran. In this day and
age, this is a great inadequacy and we need to inform our readers about what is
in the book that motivated even born Mohammedans like Rushdie to call it THE
SATANIC VERSES? That is a legitimate inquiry and if so who can enlighten us
better than a seer like Anwar Shaikh? - Publisher.
The facts throughout Islamic history demonstrate that Muslims are the special people of Allah
who has bestowed this distinction on them for hating, hounding and hanging the non-Muslims.
The Koran clearly states (in I.VIII, The Disputer: 20) that the Muslims are Allah's Party and the
non-Muslims are Satan's Party. It is for this reason that the Koran has declared:
1. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (II, The Cow: 90)
2. The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe. (VIII, Spoils of
War: 55)
3. Unbelievers are the enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. (Fusilat: 19)
4. Oh ye who believe! The non-Muslims are unclean. (IX, Repentance: 27)
5. Oh ye who believe! Fight the disbelievers...and let them find harshness in you. (IX,
Repentance: 125)
6. Oh believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers as your friends, they are evil-doers. (IX,
Repentance: 20)
7. Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute. (IX,
Repentance: 29)
8. Muslims are hard against unbelievers, merciful to one another. (XL VIII, Victory: 25)
These references from the Koran explode the Gandhian myth that Raheem (Allah) and Ram are
one. In fact, Allah has permanently divided mankind into two groups: the Muslims are his party
and the non-Muslims are Satan's party. Since Allah hates non-Muslims and wants their
destruction, a true Muslim must follow this Divine guideline. Thus, the only relationship between
a Muslim and a non-Muslim is that of ill-will, hatred and animosity. This is the basis of the
Islamic Two-Nation theory, which means that the Muslims and Hindus cannot live together.
From the above discussion, it is clear that Islam, by its very nature, seeks to brainwash its
adherents with a view to infesting them with the worst kind of fanaticism, which recognizes no
moral and cultural bounds. If these were not true, the Koran could not tell the believers to treat
their own parents as enemies, if they did not believe in Islam. To my mind, one's parents are
the most adorable people.
Preaching insouciance, insolence and ingratitude toward one's own parents, disqualifies Islam as
a Divine religion, and turns it into the biggest tool of Divide and Rule.
The British have been described as the master of the Divide-and--Rule policy, but Islam uses
this weapon so effectively that the British look like toddlers in this field. The Divide-and-Rule
doctrine of Islam is the practical exposition of its Two-Nation theory. It is not only India that has
suffered the crushing effects of this Islamic approach to humanity. Yugoslavia, Russia and China
are also experiencing its bite and the United States of America shall not escape its due share of
devastation when the Black Muslim Movement gathers strength. It is owing to the Islamic
ideology of hatred that the Muslim cannot live with their non-Muslim countrymen and want to
partition their own motherlands to please the Prophet Muhammad in return for the paradise
swarming with charming young virgins, beautiful boys, superb wines and choice foods. What a
reward for betraying one's motherland! Such a sordid action is, surely punishable by hell. This is
the result of Islamic brainwashing which makes the bitter taste sweet, projects the fool as wise
and presents the blind as the visionary.
This Divide-and-Rule attitude of Islam, makes the non-Arab Muslims think of themselves as One
Muslim Nation; it is why, they adore Arabia, the land of the Prophet Muhammad, and deplore
their own motherlands. What is even more stunning is, they do so with a sense of pride and
elation. In fact, "Islamic nationhood" is the biggest myth that man ever invented.
Look at Pakistan, which was carved out of India on the basis of Two-Nation theory. It soon orbit
into two independent states and the magic of Islamic nationhood could do nothing except
causing the death of three million innocent people. Despite this most terrible blood-bath, both
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis still believe in Islamic nationhood. This is a fine example of brain-
washing.
The Islamic attitude of Divide-and-Rule is, of course, a very subtle attempt to make the non-
Arab Muslims hate their own motherland to love Arabia. So successful has been this Koranic
ploy that, whereas other conquerors had to use fire and sword for securing submission of
foreigners, the Prophet Muhammad turned the non-Arab Muslims into moths, which cremate
themselves on the flame of Arab hegemony quite willingly.
How has it been brought about? It ought to borne in mind that in Islam, Allah is only a
figurehead, and the real majesty is associated with Muhammad.
This is not a blasphemous statement because it is vouched by the Koran. In every religion, it is
man who worships God, but in Islam, it is Allah, who along with his angels, worships
Muhammad by praying peace to him (XXXIII, The Confederates :55)!
This is the reason that the Prophet shall share the Divine Throne of Justice, sitting on the right
hand side of Allah, and it is his word which will decide whether a person goes to heaven or hell.
As stated already, it is only the followers of Muhammad, who can enter paradise, and it matters
not even if they were murderers, rapists, thieves, traitors, blackmailers, cheats, twisters, and so
on.
Qualification for entering paradise is not the virtuous conduct but treating Muhammad as the
Perfect Model of behaviour (XXXIII, The Confederates: 20) and following him blindly in all walks
of life. Therefore, the true believer is the one, who not only eats and drinks as did the Prophet,
but also thinks, talks and walks like him; even in sartorial tastes and tonsorial designs, a
follower of Islam must look a copy of Muhammad.
Here lies the crux: the Prophet Muhammad was an Arab therefore, he naturally followed the
Arab cultural traditions. Thus following him in all details of life means practicing the Arab
cultural traditions. It is nothing but submitting to the Arab cultural hegemony and neglecting
one's own national culture. This is what makes Islam, the Arab National Movement and destroys
its religious veneer.
Part 2
Prologue
We, of the Sword of Truth, are pleased to present Anwar Shaikh's musings on
Qaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah Alehe Rahmat, the Father of Pakistan. This
article had appeared in the INDIA POST WEEKLY of Artesia, CA in its April 3, 1998
issue. The short write-up is an extract from the author's recent publication titled
The Tale of Two Gujarati Saints. The book is available from A. Ghosh (Publisher),
5740 W. Little York # 216, Houston, TX 77091 at $7.50 each, postage and
handling included. The book deals with both the fathers, Gandhi and Jinnah, the
father of India and the father of Pakistan, all at the same time and it is a treat to
go through the reasonings and comments of the Shaikh. - Publisher.
Jinnah: A Saint at the Expense of Innocent people
" Hazrat Q aid-i-Azam , Muhammad Ali Jinnah Alehe Rahmat" is the title of the Gujarati Saint,
who was born as Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Karachi in December, 1876.
This description bestows a greater dignity on him than that of a Muslim saint. It is an outcome
of Hindu tradition, which makes ancestor-Worship an integral part of Dharma, and clearly shows
that the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent share a common culture with the Hindus and are
racially the same people. Without the unity of background, Jinnah could not have been treated
by Pakistan as if he were one of the spiritual luminaries of Islam. A title of the Prophet
Muhammad is "Hadi-e-Azam" i.e., the great guide. Jinnah's title: "The Qaid-i-Azam" means very
much the same. Again, the use of "Hazrat" as prefix and "Alehe Rahmat" as suffix, further add
to his devotional splendour.
He has been honoured as such for being the founder of Pakistan. It is only the success that
should be saluted; failure cannot be applauded because it eliminates the difference between
fortune and fiasco.
Such a great political hysteria was whipped up during the second decade of the 20th century
that the mutual Hindu-Muslim hatred assumed inhuman proportions. Using Dr. Iqbal as a
scapegoat, the Muslim League led by Jinnah, claimed that the Hindus and the Muslims were two
separate nations; as they could not live together, India must be partitioned to create a separate
homeland for the Muslims. This was considered the panacea for all Muslim ills, religious,
economic and political. Should Jinnah be allowed the saintly title that he has come to possess?
This is an honest question, and can be answered sincerely only if one can establish objectively
that Pakistan has solved the major problems of all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. If it
has, then Jinnah was certainly one of the greatest saints that ever lived, but if it has not, then
his status must be reviewed in the light of the results that the partition has produced.
To start w ith, let us weigh up the concept of Pakistan itself. It meant that the Indian provinces
(Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, NW Frontier and Bengal) where the Muslims were in a majority,
must be treated as the Homeland of the Muslims, and separated from India as an independent
state. This was a crazy idea for several reasons.
1. There was a distance of about one thousand miles between East and West Pakistan. It was
impossible to reach Karachi from Dacca by Land, Sea or Air without the consent of the Indian
government, which was bound to be hostile for the simple reason that Pakistan would serve as a
symbol of Muslim hatred against the Hindus. This being the truth, diplomatic relations between
the two states could not remain cordial, and they would exist only to demolish each other. It
also meant that their budgets would be dedicated to national defense instead of public welfare
resulting in poverty with its concomitant vices such as bribery, nepotism, tyranny, injustice and
mal-administration.
History shows that one can have a far-flung empire, but it is impossible to think of a homeland
whose parts lie a thousand miles away intercepted by a long hostile territory. The leader, who
thinks of such a plan as the elixir of national ills, does not know the difference between mirth
and misery, fruition and fiasco, delight and disaster.
Yet, Jinnah insisted on the formation of Pakistan. His followers have, no doubt, offered
mitigating factors to support his soundness of judgment, but this is an exercise in futility. The
fact is that he did secure Pakistan consisting of Eastern and Western wings, which in essence, is
a proof of political incompetence. The man, obviously, wanted to be a hero at the expense of
innocent people.
As I shall explain later, nationhood is not founded on religion but blood ties, a common culture
and homeland, yet he insisted that religion was the cornerstone of Muslim nationhood.
If this were true, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. would have been one
state.
As we know, it has never happened, and these countries are as independent from one another
as England is from France and China from Russia.
However, if Jinnah had some secret knowledge of history or some special powers to mould the
Muslims of Indian into a separate nation, he should have spent his energies to this effect.
After all, the prophet Muhammad had devoted his life to welding the various warring Arab tribes
into one nation. Genghis Khan had also spent considerable time in uniting the Mongolian hordes
into one nation.
But Jinnah did nothing to forge one nation out of Muslims scattered throughout India. Delivering
occasional lectures from a high pulpit, canopied by an unswerving loyalty to the British Crown,
was totally insufficient to accomplish the task. In a nutshell, he did not go through the laborious
rehearsal, which is absolutely essential before staging the play. Either he did not realize or
deliberately ignored the fact that the secret of Muhammad's and Genghis Khan's success lay in
the fact that their people were already racially one nation, who had become divided into clans.
Of course, the Muslims of India were racially and culturally Indian, but Jinnah had undertaken
an entiely unnatural task of splitting it into two nations based on religion. It has never happened
in this world because religion is not the natural unit of nationhood.
Part 3
Prologue
This is the third presentation of the Thus Spake Anwar Shaikh, series. Like the
previous two issues, this article too, has been taken from the INDIA POST
WEEKLY of April 10, 1998. No civilized state can survive without a water-tight
legal system today. People often wonder why is it that only in Islamic countries,
the rule of law does not seem to survive. Pakistan is a glaring example, Taliban
controlled Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria and Iran follow closely behind. In the
present article, Mr. Shaikh tells it like it is. In short, he is saying that the so-called
Islamic Law is no law at all, if we go by the standards of the Universal Legal
System - Publisher.
The force of Jinnah's argument for Pakistan was emotional and exploitative. He used the
religious appeal as a bait to bring the Muslims into the political net. He played upon the religious
susceptibilities of people to make them believe that the Islamic state was the sure guarantor of
peace, prosperity and plenitude, but he never explained the complexity, nature and purpose of
the Islamic Law, the main vehicle of bringing about this Divine Revolution. Being a lawyer, it
was his foremost duty to do so. This was the only way to make people realize what was required
of them. The fact that he did not do it makes him less than honourable.
One must bear in mind that Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim, yet he advocated the
establishment of an Islamic state. On the contrary, the formidable Muslim divines such as
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni, Sayyad Ata Ulla Shah Bukhari,
Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, and many more, opposed the concept of Pakistan and the Two-
Nation Theory.
There is no evidence whatever that an Islamic state has ever existed according to the Koranic
principles. Nor can it be proved that Islam required establishment of a single state for all
Muslims to share its bounties, benefits and blessings. The Indian Muslims boast a good deal
about the "Islamic Welfare State" established by the Second Caliph, Umar the Great. Yes, he did
invent the system of giving social benefits to the Arab children, but where did the money come
from? The finances were raised by robbing the newly converted Muslims of Egypt and Iran,
whose children cried from hunger and disease. There is no record, whatever, to show that the
Egyptian and Iranian children were given any stipends from the Arab funds; it was for Arab
children only!
The truth is that the much vaunted Muslim Law falls far short of the universally accepted legal
standards. What is law?
The law is a set of enforceable principles, which seek to establish rights and duties between
person and person, an individual and society, as well as people and the state. The following
peculiarities give the law its true distinction, deference and decency:
1. The law is never made for the benefit of one person, an individual and society. It is enacted
for a whole group of people.
2. The law is strictly neutral in its application that is, it applies to the low and high and great
and small with equal force.
Incredible it my seem but the truth is that the Islamic Law has nothing to do with public good
because it revolved round the convenience of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Koran
lays it down that a Muslim can have no more than four wives at the same time, but this law did
not apply to the Prophet:
And any woman, Believer, if she gave herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet desires to take
her in marriage, for thee, apart from the believers. (The Confederates, 33:45)
Also bear in mind the following Koranic Law, pertaining to polygamy:
"....marry such women as seem good to you, two, three or four; but if you fear you will not be
equitable, then only one...."(Women, 4:1)
Thus the clause of equity is the pivot of having more than one wife. It is well-known that the
Prophet could not maintain balance of fairness among his wives. As the Koran witnesses, it led
to a lot of acrimony in the household. Instead of enforcing the clause of equity, Allah gave
Muhammad dispensation from it:
"You (Muhammad) can suspend any of your wives as you will and receive any of them as you
will: and whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin for you." (The
Confederates, 33:50)
In simple English, it means that the Prophet is not bound by the Law of Equity, the basic
condition of polygamy: he can treat his wives as he thinks fit. Since it is Allah, who makes the
law a play-thing for Muhammad, one wonders if Allah and Muhammad are not the one and same
person. It certainly led me to this conclusion.
The law, which is exclusive to a person for serving his convenience, or if it is flexible at will, it
ceases to be the law. In this context, I ought to remind the reader that the Prophet was at
liberty to marry the widow or divorcee of another person, but nobody was allowed to marry his
widow (or divorcee). All his wives were raised to the status of Ummahaat-ul-Momineen (Mothers
of the believers) so that nobody could marry them. When the Prophet died, his wife Aisha was
only 18, and lived to be 73 as a lonely widow!
One can find many more examples to this effect, but I think I have said enough to illustrate the
purpose and nature of the so--called Islamic Law. However, I may add that the poverty-stricken
Muslims of India believed that the Islamic Law stood for economic equality. We all were led to
think that way. Zulfikar All Bhutto openly equated the Islamic Law with the Marxist concept of
nationalization, for this reason, whereas the truth is that Islam allows unlimited accumulation of
wealth in any form, including land and is the only source of feudalism in the modern age.
It is this ambiguity about the Islamic Law, which has become the bane of Pakistan. Half a
century has elapsed but Islamic Law has not yet been enforced in Pakistan despite the fact that
India was divided for this reason. The truth is that there is no Islamic Law to be enforced. What
is called the Islamic Law is the result of the far-fetched interpretations of the Koran and the
Hadith; it also includes the vestiges of the legal contrivances that were developed by the Arab
and Turkish rulers to meet the demands of their times.

Islam and Human Rights Anwar Sheikh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Islam and Human Rights Anwar Sheikh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD

ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Again, according to the Islamic jurisprudence, it is God's fundamental right

1. Rights of God (Allah),

1. Rights of God (Allah)

"No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in

Some of the articles of the General Assembly ought to be noted:

6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before Law.

"To God belongs all that is in the heavens

"He (Allah) made his (man's) seed from a draught

a.i Allah declares:

"This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion

To uphold His right to enact for man, Allah declares:

"He (Allah) associates in His government no one."

b.i Prohibition on thinking and religious change:

2. Rights of the Muslim Men

Say ( Muhammad ): 'O God, Master of the Kingdom,

b. "Certainly, God is an enemy to unbelievers." ( The Cow 11: 90 )

3. Rights of the Infidels

"The unbelievers of the People of the Book

1. Rights of God (Allah),

1. The right to inherit property, and

"And so to the believing women, that they

"MISHKAT" reports in Vol. 3 page 119, a similar hadith:

"And monasticism they invented - We

"Women have such honourable rights as obligations

"If I were to order someone to prostrate before other

If a husband tells his wife to keep carrying a load of

"Aisha said that she had a slave and a slave-girl who

"And if you desire to exchange a wife

"Such of you women as commit indecency

The Prophet said:

Woman has been created from a rib which is twisted.

a. This is the reason that another hadith says:

"I have never seen any good from you."

She is not allowed to practise birth-control either.

The Koran says:

10. Tirmzi, Vol. 2 states on page 138:

"To you your religion, and to me my religion." (The Unbelievers, CIX: 5)

7. TIRMZI, vol. 2 states on page 138:

Look at the following to realize the revengeful nature of Jihad:

This truth is fully borne out by the following hadith:

The Prophet also said:

The Publisher advises all non-Muslims to read up Anwar Shaikh's treatise on

ISLAM AND INTERCESSION

3. Grace to be grace has got to be irrelevant to works. (Romans 11:6)

4. The life of a just Christian is based on faith. (Gal: 3: 11)

Now, let us have a look al the Islamic view of justice:

"Lo! Allah loveth the equitable." (Private Apartments: 9)

"(Allah is the) Master of the Day of Judgement." (The Opening: 3)

"He (Allah) sends recorders over you (people) till,

To provide a system of evidence, the Koran goes further:

"Surely, it is We (Allah) who bring the dead to life

However, in the Cow: 284, it is asserted:

One should also remember the Divine rule:

"Allah loveth not wrongdoers." (The Family of Imran: 57)

This rule is again repeated:

1. God has ninety-nine holy names, and so has Muhammad.

"Set not up with God

Gradually, the Prophet exalts himself over Allah Himself:

"Bring your proof if you are truthful." (The Cow: 111)

IDOLATORY, ISLAM AND INDIA