These days we find some people criticizing the Islamic sharia laws as generically regressive and oppressive of non-Muslims. They also criticize India’s Muslim rulers of the past as having denied equal rights and freedom of religion to non-Muslims. However, when we review the record of the six hundred year long Muslim era in India, and especially that of the three hundred and fifty year long Moghul empire, we see a totally different picture. We find that most Muslim rulers asked the officials of their state to be non-sectarian and to ensure justice and harmony for their non-Muslim subjects.
The Moghul kings took special pride in the fact that the followers of various religions other than Islam lived peacefully and thrived in their empire. Shaikh Abd al-Rahman a Islamic scholar in the period of emperor Jahangir commenting on this trend wrote in his memoirs, “The Moghuls ensured the supremacy of Din by their exaggerated concern for social harmony. In Moghul India in that period, the followers of all religions generally lived in peace and performed their religious rites and social practices freely. And yet the Moghuls acted in complete accord with the injunctions of their faith. “
Emperor Jahangir in keeping with the traditions of his father emperor Akbar, commissioned a translation into Persian of celebrated Arab scholar Ibn Miskawaih’s treatise ‘al-Hikmat al-Khalida’, that he asked all of the senior officials of his state to use as a guide in carrying out their various functions. This book contains the maxims of Greeks, Persians, Arabs and Indians. The four core ethical norms for the rulers for the management of state that this treatise lists are: 1. Hard work and independent and intelligent application of mind by the ruler to evaluate the incumbents for different type functions in the state. 2. Insistence on prioritizing issues and policies and quick follow-up for their execution. 3. Constant vigilance so that no official dare neglect his duties or be oppressive and unkind to the populace. 4. Adequate reward for efficiency and excellence and punishment for the evil doers. It is worth noting that religious intonation was not included in the core guidance for managing the affairs of the state.
Also ‘Akhlaq-e-Jahangiri’, another treatise on managing the affairs of the state by Nur-ala-uddin Qazi, that Jahangir commissioned and that he used for managing the Moghul empire emphasizes the independent goodness of justice not religious orthodoxy. In the chapter on justice, this book reiterates that justice and not religion occupies principal place in matters of governance, and that a non-Muslim but just ruler serves society better than an unjust Muslim. Justice he adds, on account of its inherent strength and goodness, sustained power in ancient Persia for five thousand years in the dynasty of Nausherwan-e-Adil, even though all the rulers of the dynasty were fire worshippers.
This book quotes prophet Mohammad saying that God revealed to prophet David that he should instruct his people to, “not abuse and speak evil of the kings of Ajam, for they filled the world with justice so that my slaves may live in safety”.
The Moghul rulers and officials generally believed in and practiced religious tolerance. Abdul Nadir Badayuni, the unofficial historian of Akbar’s time wrote the following in one of his commentaries, “Hindustan is a wide place where there is an open field for all manner of licentiousness, and no one interferes in another’s business, so that everyone can do just as he pleases”.
As is well known Moghul kings from Akbar in 1556 to Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1857 freely married Hindu wives and had their sons marry Hindu women. In their courts Hindus occupied up to forty percent of all top positions including commanders of their armies. And they regularly participated in at least the three top Hindu festivals, namely Dussehra, Diwali and Holi. In developing their cultural practices they sometimes borrowed from Hindu practices. At the same time they gave much respect and positions of authority to Islamic scholars, Qazis and Sufi saints and sought their advice. None of the extremist interpretations of Sharia laws like amputating the hands of thieves, death punishment for adultery, forcing men to wear beards, preventing women from acquiring education and working etc were ever practiced in the reign of the Muslim kings in their six centuries long era in India.
The other relevant observations are those of the French traveler Francois Bernier who visited India in 1690 in the period of emperor Aurangzeb. After commenting disapprovingly on Hindu beliefs and rituals regarding solar and lunar eclipses, he wrote in his travelogue, “The Great Moghul though a devout Mohammedan permits these ancient and superstitious practices; not wishing or not daring to disturb the gentiles in their free exercise of their religion. It is part of their policy to leave the idolatrous population which is so much more numerous than their own, in the free exercise of their religion.”
Nur-ala-uddin Qazi has also recorded anecdotes about the earlier period of Sultan-ala-uddin Khilji. In that period a Muslim governor of Panipat by the name Dalur had imprisoned a Hindu on some pretext and released him only upon payment of a large sum of money, and then made more demands for more payment. The victim sought refuge and relief from Shaikh Sharaf-ala-Uddin, a local Sufi saint. The Sufi saint conveyed the complaint to the Sultan, who immediately replaced the said Muslim governor with his own son and pledged to the saint that if his son does not behave with fairness towards the local Hindu populace he will replace him too.
This does not mean that Moghuls were not concerned with Islam. Moghul historian Najim-e-Sani’s authoritative book ‘Manazirah-e-Jahangir’ states that consolidation of the bases of their glorious community and reinforcement of the injunction of the illustrious sharia have been equally among the significant achievements of Jahangir’s reign.
It is clear that enlightened and flexible interpretation of sharia, guided the Muslim and Moghul pattern of governance in India, in a world where it became possible to use the term sharia not merely in its narrow and rigid legalistic sense. The Muslims of these domains found a way out after the supposed closure of the door of ijtihad. In the regime of this enlightened sharia, non-Muslims, like Muslims, could build their own places of worship, could practice all of their religious traditions and customs and had plenty of freedom. Shaikh Ahmad Sirhandi the famous Naqshbandi theologian of the early 17th century wrote that, “On the day of Ekadashi when the Hindus abstain from eating and drinking they see to it that no Muslim bakes or sells bread or other food in the bazaar. On the other hand in the month of Ramadan they cook and sell food openly.”
Yet in the same era the Moghuls prided in calling themselves the Light of the Faith, eg Jalal-al-din Akbar and Nur-al-din Jahangir. The Qazi and Sadar of Mughal times, as in all other Islamic states, occupied high positions; and Muslim divines, among others, had land or cash grants to maintain lofty symbols of Islam through the length and breadth of the empire. The periodic dispatch of rich donations to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, with the official delegates of Hajjis were a common practice throughout the long Moghul period.
Mir Muhammad Nauman an important divine in the early 17th century saw the reigning ruler Jahangir not only a man of piety and justice but also as someone who ensured compliance with the ordinances of the sharia. To Moguls sharia came to be synonymous with divine law (namus-e-ilahi) which meant absolutely no humiliation of or injustice to the non-Muslims. The most important task was to ensure a balance of conflicting interests, of harmony between diverse groups and communities, and non-interference in their beliefs and practices.
Photo: Delhi Jama Masjid
1.Wikipedia:
Wikipedia solicits inputs frrom all on topics of their choice. Since early 1980s BJP, RSS, VHP launched a massive campaign to re-write a revisionist history of India. They recruited a large number of like minded professors and scholars for this campaign. Under the influence of BJP govt in various states and at the Center this campaign was promoted in a big way. These Hinduttava scholars with the help of their govt spread their biased anti-Muslim material in many Western countries, in institutions, encyclopedia etc. Today Wikipedia contains a lot of such revisionist history. What is the value of giving names/dates; they are mostly fabricated. Many a renowned secular Hindu scholars have decried this Hinduttava attempt at the re-writing of history.
2.Sharia:
a. There is no cure for some peoples’ imaginary phobia of Islam and its core elements. History tells us how the practice of Sharia in countries where the rulers were Muslim for many centuries was liberal and did not oppress non-Muslims.
b. Archbishop of Canterbury is not a small fry in the Church of England; he has huge following in his community in UK. He was under no pressure or inducement to make his statement on Sharia. So what if some people (including some Muslims) opposed his statement. His statement shows the acceptability of Sharia for limited uses (eg family laws) in the Muslim community in UK and the wider Western world.
c. Religious laws in India: In India the family laws of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians contain elements from their religion. Those who want Muslims to stop using their religion for their family laws should first convince practicing Hindus (not irreligious, non-practicing Hindus) who are majority in India to stop using their religious elements from their family laws. A few irreligious Hindus may think this way but the clear majority of Hindus do want religious elements in their family laws.
d. Rumours and disinformation about Sharia: A very motivated Islamophobic lobby is conducting a massive international campaign to malign the religion of Islam and dilute its practice in the Muslim community. Except for a few countries of the Arab peninsula (SA, UAE etc) nowhere harsh Sharia laws are being imposed. Only in a handful of above countries non-Muslims are not allowed to build their places of worship. The rest of them (north African countries, Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan etc) permit religions other than Islam to build their places of worship, do not restrict religious freedom, impose no civic restrictions on non-Muslims. Look at how liberal sharia is being used in a limited way in Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Yes, in these countries there are some fanatic Muslims who want a Taliban type interpretation of Sharia. But so are fanatics in every other country on earth. No non-Muslims in these countries are being subjected to Sharia laws.
e. “You may think a political order in which I can be sent to 6 months of re-education camp (and forced to eat beef while there) because of my religious beliefs is basically an anachronism that doesn’t really reflect the spirit of Shariah. I could care less about your interpretation of the spirit of it; all I care about is the practice, and I can see the way it treats non-Muslim religions, right in front of me, all over the world. ”
This is a very misleading and erroneous statement. Not a single Muslim country is treating non-Muslims (including Hindus) in the above manner or oppressive manner. The massive propaganda about Malaysia is just that – propaganda. Such false and alarmist statement are just Islamophobia. If a few such isolated events did happen then so were Muslims and Christians burnt alive and hacked to pieces and their religious shrines demolished in India and the Govt refused to do anything to help the minority victims. So is VHP in a few instances coercing Muslims and Christians to convert into Hinduism in the rurtal areas of Haryana, Rajasthan, Western UP, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra by putting them under duress and giving them money as inducement, as reported in the Indian media..
Muslims evryehere are trying to curb the extremists in their community
and are working on interfaith programs to improve harmony with non-Muslims. But they will never give up the core elements of their religion and turn irreligious just because segments of non-Muslims are turning irreligious.
f. I do not think repeating this kind of statements and making Isalamophobic statements or making Muslims and Isalam and the core practices of Islam look bad will serve any purpose. If some people are determined to misunderstand writings on such subjects by me or Asghar Ali Engineer or other Muslims and have imaginary fears or believe fabricated revisionist history, then there is no cure for that. I do not have any interest in endlessly answering the same questions over and over.
3.Thanks to everyone for their attention. Let us all try to dialogue, introspect and find a way out of interfaith misunderstandings, not aggravate them with imaginary phobias and repeating someone’s misguided statewments.
Let us remember what Hindu poet BD Pandey wrote:
“Hazaron saal ki yeh daastan, aur unko yaad hay sirf itna;
Kay Alamgir zaalim tha, sitamgar tha, hindukush thaa”
(Muslims and Hindus living in harmony is a tale of a thousand years;
And all they remember is that Aurangzeb was cruel, tyrant and oppressor of Hindus.)
Kaleem,
Regarding your statement that RSS, BJP etc have been filling info into Wikipedia is absolutely incorrect. I guess you seem to be bit hurt by the truth contained therin but that is what it is the TRUTH.
The articles given there are not mere propaganda as you put it. If you had cared to look at the references closesly you will find articles from even reputed universities in the world like “University of Columbia” and historical journals from the time of Timur (Malfuzat-i-Tumuri). In Malfuzat-i-Tumuri by Timur is an AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL memoir of how he percieved the inhabitants of Hindustan as infidels and how he felt it a RELIGIOUS duty to invade the land of “infidels”. He records executions of hindus HIMSELF in the journal ‘Tuzk-i-Tumuri’.
Another example is the “Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shah”, a historical record, written during the reign of Firoz Shah Tughlak which describes attempts at forced mass conversions.
Finally, the clearly visual destruction of several temples. There have been several but I give this reference here below as it was by a Maulana. The Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque at the Qutb complex was built after destroying a Jain temple there. This reference is from Maulana Hakim Saiyid Abdul Hai’s work “Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein” which also attests to the prevelant iconoclasm by Qutb-ud-din-Aibak.
YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THESE HISTORICAL REFERENCES AS PROPAGANDA.
As far as Shariah goes, no matter how it is interpreted it still views people differently based on their faith (i.e. muslims and non-muslims). That to me, in this day and age, is ARCHAIC and fundamentally flawed.
Moderator’s Note: Comment Edited
While there may be some truth to the above and there are some instances where the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, many of the articles I’ve read actually quote Muslim scholars from those times, and their written records. So, it can’t all be propaganda. You are, of course, neglecting the revision done by the left after Independence.
Nope. I remember Akbar, Sher Shah Suri, Humayun, Ashok, Chadragupta Maurya, Pallavas, and many others – Hindus, Muslims, all who were part of Indian history – both good and bad.
But I’ve seen enough evidence here that many Muslims have an inability to think before Babar when they think of Indian history – the other side of the coin that Pandey ignores in his lament. And so the game continues.
“Muslims evryehere are trying to curb the extremists in their community
and are working on interfaith programs to improve harmony with non-Muslims. But they will never give up the core elements of their religion and turn irreligious just because segments of non-Muslims are turning irreligious.”
Kaleem, I’m not sure, but this sounds like rhetoric to me. If muslims everywhere are trying to curb extremists then there will not be extremists within the community (because extremists are also muslims). There is a logical fallacy here. I myself cannot claim that Hinduism, with far less of a fundamantalist drive, has hindus across the board fighting extremism. I will rather have more people being good citizens, respect freedom of thought/expression and give their children good education and not be a nuisance for the larger society by disrupting life, denying human rights under the name of family laws and oppressing women/weaker sections of the society. Why can’t family law be based on modern interpretations of a society that effects everyone equally. There can be equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. Muslim/Hindu having equal qualification cannot be treated differently when it comes to opportunity. But just because there is not enough “share” cannot be an excuse for special privileges.
Looks like BJP/RSS and VHP are responsible for all muslim problems.
- Looks like they are also involved in all the bomb blasts across india, and then framing innocent muslims in the cases.
- Looks like these organisations are also giving support to SIMI (backdoor) to make india a islamic state.
- I think it was also RSS which change the outcome 1985 Shah bano case ( which was a landmark case in indian secular history) by bringing its thousands of supporters on streets in muslim disguise.
- They also hatched plan to blow parliament couple of years ago and then frame some innocent muslims to tarnish the image of muslim community.
– RSS is also motivating Hindus in pakistan for last 60 years to reduce their population. Due to efforts of RSS the hindu population has now reduces in the range of 2 % from 24%. ( I think this is one thing they did good .. Isn’t it ?)
The post above clearly shows victim mentality and refusal to see the truth.
what dialogue can be done in this case……….
“RSS is also motivating Hindus in pakistan for last 60 years to reduce their population. Due to efforts of RSS the hindu population has now reduces in the range of 2 % from 24%. ( I think this is one thing they did good .. Isn’t it ?)”
What a lie hindutva-wallahs have been spreading in cyberspace!
I am from Pakistan and would like to know source of this information. Please cite any UN study or independent news source (other that RSS propaganda sites) that confirm your statement.
FYI, there was no religion wise census done immediately after independence. Before partition, in 1946 census total Hindu population in areas of Pakistan was 11%. After this, there were mass exodus of Hindus in 1947. So how did their population become 25% in newly formed Pakistan?
I would expect you to either substantiate your claim or accept that you lied.
Pakistan never claimed to be the promised land for non-Muslims, but we do not believe in butchering our minorities like in Gujarat.
Kaleem
I’m interested to find out about your opinion on Hindu-Muslim marriages. If a Muslim lady marries a Hindu , in your opinion, is she required to change her religion and follow the Hindu law? Or on the other hand a reverse happens, is the Hindu lady required to change her religion and follow Shariah. What if they decide to follow the secular law of the land and hold on to their own individual religions, albeit in a modern secular manner. In your opinion are they irreligious people? I have a few friends who had inter-religion marriages, their families are cool with it and they have maintained their maiden names and religions. Needless to mention they are all cosmopolitan and educated middle class professionals.
Sudie,
One of my close friends, a Hindu man from India is married to a Muslim woman from Pakistan for about 25 years. They live in US. They are practicing though not orthodox Hindu and Muslim respectively. Each of them continue to practice their respective faiths, participate in religious festivals of their respective faiths. Each one accomodates the religion of the other without taking part in the purely religious observances of the others’ faith.
It is not necessary for one spouse to convert into the religious faith of the other, or for them to become irreligious. They each can follow the laws of their individual religions. Although some conflicts are bound to happen. I want to acknowledge the fact that inter-faith marriages do impose a lot of tension on both spouses, especially as they get older, and in old age when all people tend to become more religious, and most of all on the children from such marriages. I think this tension is significantly more than what inter-race marriages impose.
Even among the White folks in US where the society has very few religious elements, I have observed that in many interfaith marriages one spouse does convert into the religion of the other; for instance converting from Jewish faith to Christianity and vice versa.
Yet, I want to clarify that while Islamic sources permit Muslims to marry Christians and Jews – the religions of the book, it does not permit a Muslim marrying someone from other religions.
Kaleem
I think you in a way supported my assertion. It requires education, exposure to different cultures to develop the maturity to respect a different point of view and also not be insecure about one self. I think we see greater religious and caste fanatics in educationally deficient sections of society, be it rural or urban India. Even in a first world country like the US there are enough people who follow religion blindly. Many people in the US do not accept the theory of evolution. Some mature Mughal kings did implement laws that were acceptable to the majority Hindu population. Some for good administration and some like Akbar, maybe for more ideological reasons. Eitherways history should be used to learn lessons from and not settle scores. The fact that politicians can sway us through hate shows that the devil resides within us. It is when we can control our own biases that we can improve as individuals and as a society.
Dear Kaleem Kwaja,
Aurangzeb, as mentioned by you, was not a noble soul.
Please visit “Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records”
http://according-to-mughal-records.blogspot.com/
Please check your facts correctly before writing.
Warm regards
Ramesh Naidoo
@Kaleem:- Brilliant article!!!! Good to read your posts.
@Qazi mairaj:- Well written!!! I think we should encourage more pakistanis to visit this blog so that we come to know their point of view and their perspective, so that any information related to pakistan can be prevented from getting politicised and distorted.
Comment Edited