Islam In Action

Islam appeared on the world scene some 630 years after the birth of Christianity. By the time Mohammed proclaimed himself a prophet in 610 A.D., Christianity had already spread over those countries in Europe, Asia and Africa which had formed parts of the Roman Empire at the height of its expansion. One would say that the desert of Arabia did not count for much in the eyes of the Christian missionaries. Some however had visited the southern parts of the peninsula and made some converts. But the 'chosen ones' had been left to live alone in the company of Arab 'heathen' and the accursed Jew' who had quite a few colonies in the oases spread over the central and northern parts of the desert. Little did the Christian missionaries suspect that the 'heathens' of Arabia were to challenge very soon the dictates of the Christian Church.

'Islam' is derived from the Arabic word 'salam' and has been presented to mean 'peace' or 'surrender', depending upon the time and place of presentation. IN A COUNTRY AND AT A TIME WHERE AND WHEN MOSLEMS ARE NOT IN POWER, IT IS PRESENTED AS 'PEACE'. BUT AS SOON AS THE MOSLEMS BECOME DOMINANT IT MEANS 'SURRENDER', AND THAT TOO AT THE POINT OF THE SWORD. The surrender is supposed to be made to Allah the only God according to Islam. But Allah is sure to spurn the surrender unless it is preceded by a surrender to the prophet, the sole Spokesman for Allah. In effect, it means a surrender to whichever mullah happens to be hailed as authentic interpreter of the Koran and the Hadis, in the eyes of the sultan who wields the sword, the sole arbiter in matters moral and Spiritual. In fact, even in Islamic jurisprudence, the Arabic word 'faisalah' which means 'settlement' is derived from the Word 'faisal' which means 'sword'. While Jesus was not the founder of the Christian Church and had nothing to do with the dogmas of Christianity, the 'umm' or 'millet', which means 'society', became the vehicle of Islam. The 'millet' was founded and given a finished form, as well as a fanatic ideology, by Mohammed himself. Again, while the personality, preachings and performance of Jesus can be pitted against the Church and its dogma, there is little in Islam which is not derived directly from the personality, preachings and performance of its prophet.

What exactly happened to Mohammed in the mountain cave outside Mecca has remained a controversial question. We are told by the theologians of Islam that his 'experience' is not verifiable by any other human being, nor his 'revelation' subject to human reason. One has to accept Mohammed's word that he was the 'last' and the 'most perfect' prophet, and that whatever he said or did in a state of 'wahi' (trance) or otherwise was the pronouncement and precription from 'almighty' Allah.

Those who took Mohammed at his word and accepted his prophethood were acclaimed by him as 'momins' while those who rejected his mission were denounced as kafirs. The word 'momin' means 'believer' in Mohammed and Allah. The 'momins' did not have to be better men than the kafirs in terms of consciousness or character. They had only to recite the 'kalima' (incantation) - 'there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet' - and they become qualified to kill as many kafirs as they could or pleased, looting and burning their belongings and enslaving their women and children in the process.

Allah himself had been a part of the Arab pantheon at Mecca for many centuries past. He had shared his divinity with a large number of other gods and goddesses worshipped by the Arabs in Mecca, though he enjoyed a certain primacy. The Bedouin, who roamed the desert, flocked to Mecca at appointed times for pilgrimage, and worshipped his gods and goddesses with whatever offerings he could spare from his meager possessions. Neither the Bedouins nor the settled citizens of Arabia had ever suspected that their Allah was soon going to become the sole cock of the walk and the cause of a bloody and prolonged strife in many parts of the world.

It is also debatable why Mohammed chose Allah alone, out of a large-sized Arab pantheon. He could have easily bestowed this singular honor on any other god or goddess in Mecca, or in the temple of some other town in Arabia. The gods and goddesses had obviously no choice in the matter. THE ONLY RATIONAL EXPLANATION IS THAT THE SOUND OF THE NAME ALLAH WAS NEAR TO THE SOUND OF ELOHIM [1], THE GOD OF THE JEWS. Jesus had also cried out to Eli before he died on the cross. There are too many Judaic elements in Islam to rule out this explanation. But whatever the reason for Mohammed's choice, there is no reason to doubt that Allah would not have assumed the status he did without the help of Mohammed. It is small wonder that Allah in his turn felt so tender toward Mohammed, and proclaimed the latter to be the last and the most perfect prophet in human history.

Things started happening soon after the covenant between Allah and his only prophet was struck in the mountain cave outside Mecca, through the good offices of an angel named Gabriel. The 'Qurayza' who were the dominant tribe in Mecca would not have minded a number of their clan acclaiming Allah as the only God. They were used to such prophets appearing in Mecca and other Arabian towns, every now and then. They were a liberal people in matters of religion and did not mind how a man fancied himself or his God. But they were painfully surprised by the proclivities of this new prophet. He had started frequenting the forum outside the kaaba to denounce, in a rather strong language, all that they had cherished so far - their gods and goddesses, their cultural traditions, their social system, and what not - day in and day out.

Moslem mullahs have made a martyr out of Mohammed during his 12 years of prophethood at Mecca. They have explained away or justified the vindictiveness of Mohammed toward his own people of 'Qurayza' by citing the 'many injustices including violence' which Mohammed had 'suffered' at Mecca. No contemporary records of the 'Qurayza' have survived to tell the other side of the story. But there is enough evidence in the contemporary Islamic record to clinch the issue as to who was the aggressor and who the aggressed against. Here was a man sending all ancestors of the Arabs, including his own mother and father, to an eternal hell, and promising the same hell to the present and future generations of the Arabs, unless they accepted him as the only prophet of the only Allah. The 'Qurayza' would have been a dead people indeed if they had not reacted, and told Mohammed to leave their city for wherever he could find a more attentive audience.

It is for this 'crime' of the 'Qurayza' that Moslem mullahs have blackened the religion and culture of pre-Islamic Arabia as 'jahiliya' or ignorance. THE MULLAHS FORGET THAT THE ARABIC LANGUAGE WHICH IS THEIR PROUD POSSESSION IN THE KORAN AND THE HADIS WAS NOT INVENTED BY THEIR PROPHET AT THE MOMENT, NOR 'REVEALED' BY ALLAH OUT OF THE BLUE. The rich language had a long ancestry, and reflected the genius of a culture which was deep as well as endowed with diverse dimensions. The pre-Islamic Arabs were a pagan people who allowed a god or goddess each according to his or her need and who respected worship from each according to his or her capacity. They had many other qualities of head and heart which the post-Islamic Arab society and culture came to lose progressively. A glimpse of pre-Islamic Arabia is given in appendix IV.

Islam professes to have brought peace to the warring tribes of Arabia. But its own chronicles tell of nothing except wars, more fierce than ever before, which the Arabs fought, first among themselves, and later on with their near and distant neighbors on all sides, soon after they were forced to surrender to Islam.

If we leave aside the myths and legends which Islam borrowed from Judaism - lock, stock and barrel - the message of Islam was very simple, almost simplistic.

To start with, it divided the Arabian society in two tight compartments, the 'momins' and the kafirs. The 'momins' were asked to muster together into a militant'millat'- armed to the teeth, and ready to use force and/or fraud according as occasion demanded. The 'millet' surprised the settlements and the caravans of the kafirs in a series of armed raids or ghazzuas'. The kafirs who were always caught unawares had no choice but to surrender, many a time without a single skirmish. The swordsmen of the 'millet' selected and slaughtered, in cold blood, all kafirs who were capable of bearing arms. The movable and immovable property of the kafirs were appropriated by the 'millet'. The women and children of the kafirs were captured and sold as slaves or freed for ransom, after members of the 'millet' had their pick of the maidens

Once in a while, the 'millet' discovered that the kafirs were in no mood to surrender in spite of the surprise, and that the armed conflict might turn out to its disadvantage. Then the 'millet' made overtures of peace on the condition that the kafirs got converted to Islam. The lives and families of the converts were spared but not their properties which were taken away as booty.

The mullahs take pride that Islam did away with tribal ties and united all Arabs in one brotherhood. It must be admitted that the 'millet's' method of doing away with tribal ties was very effective indeed. Quite often one or several members of a family or tribe happened to be 'momins', while their other kinsmen were ranged against them as kafirs. The 'millet' encouraged a brother to engage his brother in armed combat, so that one of them was sure to get killed. In case of kafirs who had to be slaughtered after the war, the 'millet' searched its own ranks for the nearest kinsmen to perform the 'pious' deed. A 'momin' was supposed to retain or recognise no relationship except that of a common creed. All other humanities were now rendered irrelevant.

The 'mominst were not of course risking their lives for nothing. Four-fifths of the booty and prisoners captured in war was theirs in accordance with a 'law' laid down by the prophet himself. The prisoners included quite a number of fair and young maidens who could set any tmomin's' mouth watering. No wonder that the infant state of Islam at Medina was able to assemble very soon quite a number of 'dedicated' swordsmen without spending a penny from its own coffers. The principle of free enterprise applied to plunder and pillage was functioning with full force.

In case a 'momin' got killed in the 'holy war', he was promised a permanent place in heaven. The Koran said: "They shall recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds." According to one tradition, quoted by Will Durant, each 'momin' was promised 72 of these houris, who would never age or stop being solicitous According to other traditions, the number could be many times more. It was surely an added attraction.

The balance one-fifth of the booty and prisoners of war were assigned to the Islamic state which the prophet had set up at Medina to start with, and which moved to other cities in due course, under the caliph or 'amir-ul-mominin'. This one-fifth had to be the pick of the bunch before members of a military expedition could claim their share. No wonder that the Islamic state at Medina was very soon rolling in riches. The wealth which flowed to the Islamic state in later times grew progressively in volume and variety, and the stage was set for the flowering of that Islamic 'culture' in which the 'millet' takes such mighty pride. The prophet and the earlier caliphs, who controlled and commanded these riches, were inclined to lead a life of 'poverty'. This 'piety' impressed the 'momins' who had to be satisfied with much less, and served to create many myths about Islamic 'ideal of equality'. The "equality' never made any difference to the despotic power which the prophet and later on, the caliphs had at their disposal.

The prophet of Islam had proclaimed that Allah had assigned the whole world to the 'millet'. Not a patch was to be left for the kafirs to dwell. And no corner of the world was to be bereft of mosques from which the 'muezzin' could call the 'faithful' to prayer. But it seems that Allahts knowledge of geography was not so good. His prophet had not heard of many lands beyond Syria, Iraq, Persia, Ethiopia and Egypt. He knew nothing of El Cid's Spain, or Conrad de Montierrat's France or the land of Richard the Lion-Hearted. He knew nothing about India and the Hindus which want of knowledge was to lead to an interesting theological controversy later on.

Notwithstanding this lack of geographical knowledge, the prophet divided the world into two contending spheres: 'darulslam' (the zone of peace where the Moslems were the dominant element) and 'darul-Harb' (the zone of war, where the non-Moslems or kafirs held sway). The inhabitants of 'darul-lslam', that is, the Moslems were commanded to wage unceasing war upon 'darul-Harb' till the latter was converted to 'darul-lslam'. The frontiers of the Islamic empire were to be pushed progressively in all directions. The theory of Islamic imperialism was thus perfected by the prophet himself, like the later-day theory of communist imperialism which Lenin elaborated as international proletarian revolution'.

The whole of Arabia had been terrorised into surrendering to the sword of Islam by the time the prophet passed away in 632 A.D. The militarised 'millet' which had 'elected' an 'amir-ulmominin' in the same year, now started seeking fresh fields for the misson of Islam. Persia had exhausted herself in unceasing war with the Roman Empire. The provinces of the Roman Empire in Asia and North Africa were seething with rebellion against persecution of 'heresies' by the Church at Rome which had by now reduced every other ecclesiastical dispensation to a subordinate status. Persia and the Roman provinces fell in quick succession after the armies of Islam had first found out the feebleness of their defenses, and then delivered decisive blows.

Thus within a hundred years after the death of the prophet, the 'amir-ul-mominint at Damascus became the master of a mighty empire, spread over Spain, Sicily, North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, Khorasan and Sindh. It was a military triumph unprecedented in the annals of human history so far. The triumph could be easily explained in terms al political and military causes and consequences. But the mullahs chose to attribute it to the might of Allah which has been 'fully and finally thrown on the side of Islam'. Henceforth, there was no justification for anyone to dwell in the 'darkness of 'kufr". The 'light' of Islam was now accessible to all.

The newly conquered countries were inhabited not by thinly spread out tribal settlements but by populous societies, urban and rural. It was no more possible for the 'momins' to kill all kafirs who rejected Islam or capture and carry away all their women and children. Besides, the properties the kafirs possessed, and the lands on which they lived were so voluminous and vast. The mullahs, therefore, developed a more elaborate theory of an Islamic state, out of the embryo of principles which the prophet had already propounded.

The 'millet' led by the 'amir-ul-mominin' was, of course, the master class under the Islamic state. But this state had a mission larger than providing power and privilege to the 'millet'. The state had to see to it that the kafirs who had been conquered were brought into the fold of Islam as fast as possible. The kafirs were, therefore, given a new status- that of 'zimmis' to start with. The 'zimmis' were allowed to live under the aegis of an Islamic state, provided they agreed to pay 'jiziya' (poll-tax) and other discriminatory taxes, and accepted a status of second class citizens placed under draconian disabilities. It was expected that the burden of taxes and the disgrace of disabilities would force the kafirs to get converted into Islam before long.

The expectation was more than fulfilled in most countries except Spain, Sicily and India. THE KAFIRS IN OTHER COUNTRIES WERE NOT ONLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM BUT WERE ALSO BRAINWASHED TO FULMINATE AGAINST THEIR ANCIENT HERITAGE, AND FORGET THAT THEY HAD BEEN CONQUERED BY A FOREIGN RACE AND CREED.

The mullahs applaud the concept of a 'zimmi' and describe it as a privileged position because, Unlike the 'momins', the 'zimmis' are exempted from military servicer. It is difficult to know how the mullahs arrived at this self-congratulatory conclusion. They certainly did not consult any kafir to find out if he wanted to become a 'zimmi' and be 'exempted' from military service. THE WHOLE THING WAS A DELIBERATE DEVICE ADOPTED IN ORDER TO DISARM AND EMASCULATE A SUBJECT POPULATION. People who could not bear arms were in no position to defend themselves against Islamic barbarities which became more pronounced with the passing of every day, in direct proportion to the establishment of 'salam' or Peace' under the Islamic state.

The Islamic state allowed some time to the kafirs to 'mend' their ways and receive the 'true revelation'. But it had no patience for the religious and cultural institutions of the kafirs. IT SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED AND DESECRATED THE TEMPLES AND SHRINES OF THE KAFIRS, KILLED THEIR PRIESTS, BURNT THEIR SCRIPTURES AS WELL AS SECULAR LITERATURE, CLOSED THEIR SCHOOLS AND MONASTERIES AND HEAPED INSULT AND INJURY ON EVERY PRECEPT AND PRACTICE THAT THEY HAD CHERISHED SO FAR. It completed the job of 'cleaning up' the scene thoroughly. The conquered lands were at the same time 'adorned' with mosques and 'mazars' [2] in which the mullahs mugged up the Koran and the Hadis, the sufis sermonised on the sublimation they had 'attained'.

For several centuries after its advent, Islam was an alibi for Arab imperialism. And it was an imperialism of a type which the world had not known so far. THE ARABS NOT ONLY IMPOSED THEIR RUTHLESS RULE AND TOTALITARIAN CREED ON THE COUNTRIES THEY CONQUERED; THEY ALSO POPULATED THESE COUNTRIES WITH A PROLIFIC PROGENy WHCH THEY PROCREATED ON NATIVE WOMEN. Every Arab worth his race 'married' scores, sometimes hundreds of these helpless women after their menfolk had all been killed. Divorce of a wedded wife had been made very easy by the 'law' of Islam. A man could go on marrying and divorcing at the rate of several women during the span of a single day and night. What was more convenient, there was no restriction on the number of concubines a man could keep. The Arab Conquerors used these male privileges in full measure. And in a matter of a hundred years, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Egypt and North Africa which had been non-Arab countries for countless ages became Arabic-speaking countries. Arabic did not spread like English, French or other similar languages that spread through commercial and diplomatic excellence of the lending nation and filtered through the top strata of the receiving: countries. Arabic was injected through all strata of the conquered population which did not have much choice in the matter. Thus we have a series of countries that are 'Arabic' in race, culture and language extending from Iraq to Morocco. CONVERSION WAS NOT CONFINED TO CREED ALONE, IT COVERED ONE'S ANCESTRY AS WELL.

The Arab power declined in due course. The mission of Islam was next taken over by the Turks whom the Arabs had converted earlier. It was the Turks who succeeded where the Arabs had failed - conquering Asia Minor, invading Central Asia, India and Eastern Europe. ASIA MINOR WAS WRESTED FROM CHRISTIANITY, CONVERTED EN MASSE, AND POPULATED BY A PROLIFIC TURKISH PROGENY. IT IS KNOWN AS TURKEY TODAY. Central Asia, which was already Turkish, became Islamic as well. It was only in Eastern Europe and India that the Turks failed in the final round. But in both places, they crystallized colonies of native Moslems to carry forward the politics of conversion under changed circumstances. How far that politics will progress in the future depends upon whether the kafir societies in these lands understand it or not, at present.

ISLAM IN ACTION II It was around 627 A.D. that prophet Mohammed raided the Jewish tribe of Qurayza. The Jews were defeated in the fight and many prisoners were taken. They were either sold or assassinated. In one place alone some 800 Jews were beheaded in cold blood. One Jew was let go as he renounced his ancestral religion and accepted Islam. In the year 629 A.D. after the battle of Khaybar and the defeat of the Jews the same play was enacted. All the Jews were put to the sword. The raids undertaken by the prophet and the methods followed became the guide-lines for the caliphs that followed him. The blood that flowed in Persia when caliph Umar conquered that land still horrifies the present-day Iranians. To indicate their happiness at the demise of Umar, Iranians dress themselves up in festive clothing on the death anniversary of this caliph, even to this day. a) THE PATTERN

The thoughts and deeds of prophet Mohammed and his caliphs became the honorable examples to be followed by all Moslems in later years. In his famous book 'Story of Civilisation' Will Durant has written that "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history". The magnitude of crimes credited to Moslem monarchs by the medieval Moslem historians is beyond measure. What strikes as significant is the broad pattern of those crimes. The pattern is that of a 'jihad' (holy war) against the infidels in which the 'ghazis' (religious warriors and conquerors) of Islam undertake 'ghazzuas' or raids in order to

1 invade the lands of the infidels; 2 massacre as many infidel men, women and children as they like after winning a victory; 3 capture the survivors to be sold as slaves and some retained in their harems as slave-girls; 4 plunder every place and person for war booty, a fifth of which (including the slaves) went to the caliph or some other religious head; 5 demolish the places of worship of the infidels and build mosques in their places; and 6 defile and desecrate the deities and other symbols of the infidels' religions by throwing them into public squares or making into steps leading to the prayer area of the believers.

1 revealed by Allah in the Koran; 2 practiced, perfected and prescribed by the prophet in his own life-time and meticulously followed by the caliphs that followed; 3 elaborated in the Hadis (the other religious book of Islam) with great attention to detail; 4 certified by the mullahs in all ages including our own; and 5 followed by all Moslem kings and leaders who aspired after name and fame in this life and houris hereafter.

When the conquering Moslem invaders arrived in Alexandria and stood in front of the famous library there, the Moslem general did not know if he should destroy such a renowned store-house of knowledge. He sent his horseman to caliph Umar for his instructions. The caliph replied: "If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of Allah, they are useless and need not be preserved: if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed". There was thus only one fate for the infidels' seat of learning. The library of the Ptolemies was thus burnt down and the episode settled for all time, in the minds of the Moslems, the method of dealing with libraries, universities, schools and colleges, which had nothing to do with warfare, but belonged to the infidels.

Thus the capital of Gujarat was attacked by Qutbuddin Aibak in the year 1196 A.D. and the famous Sanskrit College of Visaldeva was destroyed and a mosque known as 'adhai din ka jhompada' was built on the same foundations. The famous Buddhist University of halanda had the same fate, in the year 1200 A.D. when Muhammad Bakhtyar Khalji attacked the township and massacred the harmless Buddhist monks and violated the nuns. When, in recent years, the Pakistani Moslem army attacked the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), the first attack was launched on Dacca University. Even the women students were not spared. They were raped and then murdered.

India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu kings. But in all their wars certain time-honored conventions were observed by the warring factions. The priests and monks were never molested. The houses of worship were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The noncombatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of a conqueror. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.

Islamic imperialism knew no code of honor. The only rule of war they observed without fail was to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. They sacked and burnt down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The priests, monks and nuns invited their special attention in a massmurder of non-combatants. The houses of worship were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and destruction. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. WOMEN WERE THEIR PRIZE; THEY SEIZED THEM TO VIOLATE THEM AND CARRY THEM AWAY WITH THEM AS BONDED SLAVES INTO THEIR HAREMS. As late as in 1971, the Moslem army of Pakistan killed thousands of young women, mostly Hindus or infidels in their language. The most attractive among them were held to become sex-slaves in the military cantonments. When a few of the girls attempted to hang themselves with their saris or clothing, their garments were taken away from them and held in captivity stark naked. And these were the followers of the 'ghazis' in the service of Allah and Islam.

The Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history, the Hindus were witnessing, as their counterparts, the Christians did at the outset of Islamic invasion of Europe, a scene that went beyond their imagination. One historian wrote: "The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took priests and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks."

Utbi, the historian at the time of Mahmud of Ghazni wrote about one such raid by the Moslem invader: "The Sultan returned in the rear of an immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers in Moslem lands. BUT THIS IS THE GOODNESS OF ALLAH, WHO BESTOWS HONOR ON HIS OWN RELIGION AND DEGRADES INFIDELITY."

Mohammed Ghori attacked the Hindus several times and after each attack a general massacre followed. Rapes and pillage came afterward. The Gahadvad treasuries at Asni and Varanasi were plundered. Moslem historian Hasan Nizami rejoices that "in Benares which is the center of the country of Hind (India), they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations." According to KamilutTawarikh of Ibn Asr, "the slaughter of Hindus at Varanasi was immense; none were spared except women and children, and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."

Firuz Tughlak attacked Orissa in 1360 A.D. and destroyed the temple of Jagannath. After the sack of the temple, he attacked an island on the sea-coast where "nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children and kinsmen". The swordsmen of Islam turned 'the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers'. A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi records" "WOMEN WITH BABIES AND PREGNANT LADIES WERE HALTERED, MANACLED, FETTERED AND CHAINED, AND PRESSED AS SLAVES INTO SERVICE IN THE HOUSE OF EVERY SOLDIER".'

Then came Timur the Terrible. Timur, in his Tuzk-i-Taimuri starts by saying "O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely. My great object in invading Hindusthan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus. . .the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus."

To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered the soldiers "to kill all the men, to make prisonerS of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property." NEXT HE "DIRECTED TOWERS TO BE gUILT ON THE MOUNTAIN OF THE SKULLS OF THOSE OBSTINATE UNBELIEVERS."

Soon after he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by the Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the "unbelievers", His Tuzk-i-Taimuri records: "In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut Off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoils of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground."

At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, "all these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods became the spoils of the victors." Timur was now moving through the land of the Jats, a martial people. He directed his soldiers to "plunder and destroy and kill everyone whom they met". "And so the soldiers plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female."

Loni, which he captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Moslem inhabitants were also taken prisoner. TIMUR ORDERED THAT "THE MUSULMAN PRISONERS SHOULD BE SEPARATED AND SAVED, BUT THE INFIDELS SHOULD ALL BE DESPATCHED TO HELL WITH THE PROSELYTISING SWORD".

By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlak army after crossing the Jumna river, his advisers told him that on the great day of battle theSe lOo,ooo Hindu prisoners could not be left unattended and that it would be opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNARMED HINDU PRISONERS WERE SLAUGHTERED FORTHWITH [1].

Then came the sack of Delhi. Tuzk-i-Taimuri concludes: "Many of the Hindus drew their swords and resisted. . . The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahanpanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their women and children in them and rushed to fight and were killed. On that day, Thursday, and all night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army...went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plunderin~s and making prisoners...The following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed the same way, and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls and other gems and jewels. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. EXCEPTING THE QUARTER OF THE MULLAHS AND SOME AREAS WHERE OTHER MOSLEMS LIVED, THE ENTIRE CITY OF DELHI WAS SACKED."

IN 1391 A.D. THE MOSLEMS OF GUJARAT COMPLAINED TO NASIRUDDIN MUHAMMAD, THE TUGHLAK SULTAN OF DELHI, THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNOR, FARHAT-UL-MULK, WAS PRACTISING TOLERANCE TOWARD THE HINDIdS OF GUJARAT. The sultan immediately appointed Muzaffar Khan as the new governor sending Farhat-ul-Mulk away. Soon the sultan of Delhi died and Muzaffar Khan declared himself an independent king and took the name of Muzaffar Shah. In 1393 A.D. he led an expedition to destroy the famous temple of Somnath which had been rebuilt by the Hindus after the pillage by Mahmud of Ghazni. Muzaffar Shah killed many Hindus on that occasion to "chastise' them for having had the 'impudence' of rebuilding a temple that had been destroyed and desecrated by a servant of Allah. He raised a mosque on top of the foundation of the destroyed temple. The Hindus however restarted restoring the temple. In 1401 A.D. the iconoclast Sultan came back with a huge army and once again killed a great number of Hindus and rebuilt another mosque at the same place.

Mahmud Begarha who became the sultan of Gujarat in 1458 A.D. was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the chieftain of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute to the sultan. Yet in 1469 A.D. Mahmud invaded Junagadh. IN REPLY TO THE CHIEFTAIN'S PROTESTS, MAHMUD SAID THAT HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN MONEY AS MUCH AS IN THE SPREAD OF ISLAM. THE CHIEFTAIN WHO WAS A HINDU WAS FORCIBLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM AND JUNAGADH WAS RENAMED MUSTAFABAD. In 1472 A.D. Mahmud attacked Dwaraka, destroyed the Krishna temple and plundered the city. Jaysingh, the ruler of Champaner and his minister were murdered by Mahmud for refusing to accept Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.

Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 A.D.) also destroyed Hindu temples and revelled in building mosques at the same place. He heaped many insults on the Hindus.

llyas Shah of Bengal (1339-79 A.D.) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Swayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also ~nvaded Orissa and demolished many temples and plundered at many places. THE BAHMANI SULTANS OF GULBARGA AND BIDAR CONSIDERED IT THEIR SACRED DUTY TO KILL A HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN EVERy YEAR. They demolished and desecrated Hindu temples all over South India.

The scene shifted once more to Delhi after Babur came out victorious against the Lodhis and the Rajputs. The founder of the great Mughal empire has received much acclaim for his fortitude in adversity, his daring against heavy odds, his swimming prowess, his love of flowers and pomegranates, and so on and so forth. But his face, presented by himself in his Tuzk-i-Baburi, suffers an irreparable damage if denuded of the rich hues of horrible cruelties in which he habitually indulged.

The lurid details he provides of his repeated massacres of the 'infidels' leave no doubt that he was very proud of his performance. He was particularly fond of raising higher and higher towers of Hindu heads cut off during and after every battle he fought with them. He loved to sit in his royal tent to watch this 'spectacle'. The prisoners were brought before him and butchered by his brave' swordsmen. ON ONE OCCASION THE GROUND FLOWED WITH SO MUCH BLOOD AND BECAME SO FULL OF QUIVERING CARCASSES THAT HIS TENT HAD TO BE REMOVED THRICE TO A HIGHER LEVEL. He lost no opportunity of capturing prisoners of war and amassing the booty. He only missed the merit of demolishing temples and breaking images because his predecessors Firuz Tughlak and others had hardly left any for him in the areas he traversed. In the dynasty founded by him, it was incumbent that every king should style himself a'ghazi', that is a warrior for Islam who took part in 'ghazzua' or raids on infidels or kaf irs.

Sher Shah Suri's name is associated with the Grand Trunk Road of North India, extending from Peshawar to Dacca, with caravanserais and several other schemes of public welfare. It is true that he was not a habitual persecutor of the Hindus. But he did not betray Islam when the test came at Raisen in 1543 A.D. Shaikh Nurul Haq records in Zubadatul-Tawarikh as follows: "In the year 950 Hijri, Puranmal, a Hindu chieftain, held occupation of the fort of Raisen. . .He had 1000 women in his entourage and amongst them several Moslem women. Sher Khan's Moslem pride was offended and the servant of Allah resolved to attack the fort. After he had been engaged in investing the fort for some time, an accommodation was prOposed It was finally agreed that Puranmal will be allowed safe conduct along with his family and children as well as 4000 Rajputs.

SEVERAL MULLAHS GAVE HIM THE OPINION THAT ISLAM DICTATES THAT THESE INFIDELS SHOULD ALL BE KILLED NoTwlTHsTANDlNG THE AGREEMENT, FOR A MOSLEM IS NOT BOUND BY ANY AGREEMENT MADE WITH AN INFIDEL. Consequently, the whole army was brought and placed in position to attack the Rajputs when they were the most vulnerable. They were all killed to a man.

Humayun, the son of Babur and father of Akbar had hardly any time free from troubles to devote in the service of Islam and 'kafir-kushi' [2] (killing of infidels). But his son Akbar made quite a good start as a 'ghazi'. He struck the half-dead Hindu king Himu with his sword after the second battle of Panipat. The ritual was then followed by many more tbrave warriors" of Islam led by Bairam Khan who stuck their swords in the dead body. In 1568 A.D. Akbar ordered a general massacre at Chitor, Rajputana after the fort had fallen. Abul Fazl records in Akbar-nama as follows: "There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000 peasants who took part in watching and serving.

From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior. Nearly 30,000 men were killed. . . when Sultan Alauddin Khalji took the fort after a siege of six months and seven days, the peasantry were not put to death as they had not engaged in fighting. But on this occasion orders were given for general massacre. Akbar thus improved upon the record of Alauddin Khalji. WATCHING AND SERVING WERE REINTERPRETED AS ACTS OF WAR.

Jahangir was too indolent to keep his promise, given to Nawab Murtaza Khan at the time of accession to the throne, that he would uphold the laws of Islam or Shariat. He was just too much devoted to the wine-cup and women of his harem and did not care so much for Islam in his private life. But he encouraged conversion to Islam by offering daily allowances to those who renounced their ancestral faith and accepted the Moslem creed.

In the eighth year of his reign he destroyed the temple of Bhagwat at Ajmer. He persecuted the Jains of Gujarat. He tortured to death the Sikh holy man and leader Guru Arjun Dev. Guru Arjun Dev was murdered in a terrible way. THE GURU WAS MADE TO SIT BY FORCE ON A HOT STEEL PLATE WHICH HAD A BIG FIRE UNDERNEATH. HE WAS THEN COVERED WITH HOT SAND POURED FROM OVER HIS HEAD. AND TO INSULT HIM FURTHER, HIS BODY WAS WRAPPED WITH THE SKIN OF A FRESHLY SLAUGHTERED COW. The manner of assassination resembles what the Koran advises for killing the infidels.

The fault of the Sikh Guru was that he had refused to give up his own religion for Islam and to include some verses from the Koran in the Sikh holy book, the Granth Sahib.

The pendulum started to swing toward the true spirit of Islam at the very start of Shah Jahan's reign in 1623 A.D. Its outer symbol was the reappearance of the beard on the face of the emperor. Abdul Hamid Lahori records in his badshah-nama: "It had been brought to the notice of the Emperor that during the last reign, construction of many Hindu temples had been started, but remained still unfinished in Benares, the holy city of the Hindus, the infidels. The temples were now to be completed. The emperor issued orders to destroy all temples of Benares as well as elsewhere in his domain, before they were finished. It was reported from the province of Allahabad that 76 Hindu temples had been destroyed in Benares alone." The year was 1633 A.D.

At the beginning of his reign, the people of Kashmir, both Hindus and Moslems used to live amicably. They used to intermarry, and the wife, whatever might have been her fatherts faith, accepted the faith of the husband. In October, 1634 A.D., Shah Jahan forbade the custom and ordered that every Hindu who had taken a Moslem wife must either embrace Islam and be married anew to his wife, or he must give her up to be wedded to a Moslem. The order was rigorously enforced.

In 1635 A.D. Shah Jahan's soldiers captured some ladies of the royal Bundela family after Jujhar Singh and his sons failed to kill them in the time-honored Rajput tradition to avoid falling into the hands of the enemy. In the words of Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar, the eminent historian: "A terrible fate awaited the captive ladies who survived; mothers and daughters of kings, they were robbed of their religion, and forced to lead the infamous life of the Mughal harem - to be the unloved plaything of their master's passions for a day or two and then doomed to sigh out their days like bondwomen, without knowing the dignity of a wife or the joys of a mother. SWEETER FAR FOR THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN DEATH FROM THE HANDS OF THEIR DEAR ONES THAN SUBMISSION TO A RACE THAT KNEW NO GENEROSITY TO THE FALLEN, NO CHIVALRY TO THE WEAKER SEX."

Shah Jahan himself made a triumphal entry into Orchha, the capital of the Bundelas, demolished the lofty and massive temple of Bir Singh Dev and raised a mosque in its place. Two sons and one grandson of Jujhar Singh who were of tender age, were made Moslems. Another son of Jujhar Singh, Udaybhan and a minister, Shyam Dawa, had fled to Golconda where they were captured by Kutubul-Mulk and sent to Shah Jahan. Udaybhan and Shyam Dawa were offered the alternative of Islam or death. Both chose the latter and were sent to the hell described in the Koran.

Shah Jahan was a notorious bigot. His early hatred of Christians had been noticed by Sir Thomas Roe. After his accession he grew averse to giving high posts to Rajputs who were Hindus. The demolition of Hindu temples and desecration of images mark his reign only to a less extent than his son Aurangzib'S He refused to release the Hindu Rajah of Dhamdhera (Malwa) from prison for a ransom of Rs 50,000 and insisted on his turning Moslem as the price of his liberation.

SHAH JAHAN ALSO COMMANDEERED THE FAMOUS SHIVA TEMPLE OF AGRA KNOWN AS TEJO MAHALAYA BELONGING TO THE MAHARAJA OF JAIPUR. HE COVERED THE EDIFICE WITH OUTER STONE COATING-WALLS WITH KORANIC INSCRIPTIONS AND TURNED THE TEMPLE OF LORD AGRESHWAR INTO A SO CALLED MAUSOLEUM AND NAMED IT THE TAJ MAHAL. Pandit P.N. Oak's research work on this subject is irrefutable. Several beautiful palaces belonging to the Hindus were similarly commandeered by the Moslem rulers and turned into Imambaras as can be seen in Lucknow, even today. Thus some of the Hindu edifices were saved from complete destruction (unlike the Krishna Temple of Mathura, the Vishwanath Temple in Benares or the great temples of Dwaraka and Somnath and Puri), but were instead covered up like the Imambaras and the Taj Mahal. Please see Index II for more information on the subject. The picture of Taj Mahal or Tejo-Mahalaya shown has been published on the 1983 calendar of the Amar Jyoti Ashram, Boulder, Colorado with the legend mentioned on the picture.

Shah Jahan was imprisoned by his son Aurangzib in the fort of Agra before his death. The old man at first held out and did not give in to his son who cut off the supply of water from the Jurnna river. The old man was dying of thirst and eventually capitulated. At that time, he wrote to his fanatically Islamic son:

Praised be the Hindus in all cases, As they ever offer water to their dead. And thou, rny son, art a marvelous Musalman,

Aurangzib became the king after Shah Jahan. In the process he murdered two of his brothers held in captivity and banished the third to the Arakan Hills to die in the hands of hillmen there. Aurangzib was an infidel-baiter of exceptional hatred. HE USED TO DESTROY ALL NON-MOSLEM HOUSES OF WORSHIP IN INDIA AND SEND MONEY TO THE SHERIF OF MECCA, THE HOLY CITY OF ISLAM. Those were the days when there was no oil wealth in the desert kingdom and the faithful had to eke out a precarious living from the pilgrims' contributions. Aurangzib's heart went out to help the Moslem mullahs of that distant holy land. However, he soon stopped his direct contribution after a few payments when he became suspicious about the actual disbursements going elsewhere and not to the needy. He made some attempts to help the needy of Arabia directly himself through an agency and not through the Sherif of Mecca any more.

Aurangzib had started his life of an infidel-baiter long before he ascended the throne. In 1645 A.D. he destroyed the temple of Chintaman in Gujarat and built a mosque on top of it, with the same building material obtained from the demolished temple. On hearing that the Hindus had rebuilt some of the temples destroyed by him earlier, he sent his order as the king to the Moslem governor of Gujarat: "In Ahmedabad and other areas of Gujarat in the days before my accession, temples were destroyed by my order. They have been repaired and idol-worship resumed. Carry out the former order."

In 1666 A.D. he ordered the police chief of Mathura, a holy Hindu city, to remove a stone railing which had been presented by Dara Shikoh, his elder brother and son of Shah Jahan, to the temples of Keshav Rail HE EXPLAINED: "IN THE MOSLEM FAITH IT IS A SIN EVEN TO LOOK AT A TEMPLE AND THIS DARA HAD RESTORED A RAILING IN A TEMPLE!"

A general policy toward Hindu temples was proclaimed in April, 1669. Maasir-i-Alamgiri records: "It has reached the ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benares, especially in the latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools and that students, Moslems as well as Hindus, went there, even from great distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the kafirs and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teachings and practices of idolatrous forms of worship. IT WAS REPORTED THAT IN gEDIENCE TO HIS ORDER, THE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS HAD DESTROYED THE FAMOUS TEMPLE OF VISHWANATH AT BENARES."

Maasir-i-Alamgiri continues: "In the month of Ramazan (January, 1670 A.D.) this justice-loving monarch, the constant enemy of tyrants, commanded the destruction of the Hindu temple of Mathura known by the name of Debra Keshav Rai, and soon the stronghold of falsehood was levelled to the ground. On the same spot was laid, with great expense, the foundation of a vast mosque ...GLORY BE TO ALLAH WHO HAS GIVEN US FAITH OF ISLAM THAT IN THIS REIGN OF THE DESTROYER OF FALSE GODS, AN UNDERTAKING SO DIFFICULT OF ATTAINMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO A SUCCESSFUL CULMINATION. THE RICHLY JEWELED IDOLS, TAKEN FROM THE INFIDELS' TEMPLES WERE TRANSFERRED TO AGRA AND THERE PLACED BENEATH THE STEPS LEADING TO THE NAWAB BEGUM SAHIB'S (JAHANARA'S) MOSQUE IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE PRESSED UNDER FOOT BY THE TRUE BELIEVERS. MATHURAlS NAME WAS CHANGED TO ISLAMABAD AND THIS WAS THE NAME THAT WAS USED IN ALL OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS."

In the same year Sitaramji temple at Soron was destroyed as also the shrine of Devi Patan at Gonda; news also came from Malwa that the local governor had sent 400 troopers to destroy all temples around Ujjain. The order was: "Every temple built during the last 10 or 12 years should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the despicable Hindu infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the court under the seal of the Kazis (Moslem judges) and attested by pious Shaikhs."

In Mathura, not being able to take this kind of persecution, the JatS rebelled. The Jat leader Gokla and his family were taken prisoner. The Jat leader's limbs were hacked off one by one on the platform of the police office of Agra, his family forcibly converted to Islam, and his followers were kept in prison in charge of the provost of the imperial camp.

In 1672 A.D. several thousand Satnamis were slaughtered near Narnaul in Mewat and in 1675 A.D. Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was tortured and finally beheaded for his resistance to forcible conversion of the Hindus in Kashmir. His disciples were slaughtered in front of him to frighten the Guru. The pictures on pages 42, 44 and 46 show the manners in which the disciples were murdered. The beheading of Guru Tegh Bahadur is shown on the front cover of the book.

The special tax called the 'jiziya' was reimposed on the Hindus and other non-Moslems after a lapse of several years. The Hindus of Delhi organized a peaceful protest and presented their case to the emperor while he was on his way to the mosque. AURANGZIB ORDERED HIS ELEPHANTS TO BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE MASS OF PEOPLE TRAMPLING MANY TO DEATH.

It was specially during the reign of Aurangzib that the moral degeneration of Moslem gentry became unbearable to the kafirs. The prime minister's grandson, Mirza Tafakhkhur used to sally forth from his mansion in Delhi with his ruffians, plunder the shops in the bazaar or market, kidnap Hindu women passing through public streets in litters or going to the river for bath and prayers, and dishonor them; and yet there was no judge to punish him or his friends, no police to prevent such crimes. Everytime such an occurrence was brought to the attention of the emperor, he referred the matter to the prime minister and nothing was done. At last after a Hindu artillerymants wife had been forcibly abducted and his comrades threatened mutiny, Aurangzib merely ordered the licentious youth to be prevented from coming out of the mansion.

In Aurangzibts time in particular, the settled principle of Islam ended by making the Moslems a privileged class, nourished on State bounties taxed from the kafirs. The Moslems became indolent in peace time and unable to stand on their own legs in the arena of life. Public office came to be regarded as the birthright of the Moslems and so every inducement to display Superior ability or exertion was taken away from them. The enormous areas of land given away by Moslem kings as grants to mosques and other Islamic institutions, nourished thousands Of Moslem families in a life of slothful ease, while the natural increase of every succeeding generation turned their competence into deepening squalor. The vast sums spent by the Islamic state in maintaining Moslem poor houses and scattering alms during Ramazan and other Moslem holy days, were a direct premium on laziness. It was more lucrative to be a 'faqir' (beggar calling Allah in the street) at the capital than to earn an honest living as a cultivator, subject to the caprices of the seasons and the worst caprices of the revenue underlings and officials on tour. Thus a lazy and pampered class was created in the empire, who sapped its strength and was the first to suffer when its prosperity was arrested. Wealth bred indolence and love of ease; these soon led to vice; and vice finally brought about ruin to the followers of Allah. The kafirs of course had to bear the entire burden of these parasites all along.

Although Aurangzib hated idolatry, he used to go round the pretended foot-prints and hair of the prophet Mohammed, as if these were representations of the Deity. From his death-bed he wrote letters to his warring sons Azam and Kam Bakhsh advising them not to fight and to cultivate brotherly love which the emperor himself was unable to do in his life time. Aurangzibts another name was Alamgir (conqueror of the world) and many used to say about him: "Alamgir- zinda Fir", meaning Alamgir is a living saint, referring to his highly religious and Islamic conduct, an attribute that failed to generate brotherly love in him. Blood, hatred, fire and sword, cunning and subterfuge were his instruments for spreading the message of his religion and the edifice naturally did not last long.

The kafirs had a terrible time under the Moslem king Aurangzib. A learned Kazi called Mughis-ud-din had declared that in accordance with the teachings of the Islamic jurisprudence: "The Hindus are designated in the Moslem law as payers of tribute' (kharaj-guzar); and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance Open their mouths wide to receive it. By these acts of degradation are shown the extreme obedience of the 'zimmi', the glorification of the true faith of Islam, and the abasement Of false faiths. Allah Himself orders them to be humiliated, as He says, 'till they pay 'jiziya' with the hand and are humbled."

Aurangzib had a queer sense of humor. He used to tell his temple-destroying soldiers that there was no need to hurry. They could take their time as the temples could not go away and escape by themselves. Aurangzib got his elder brother Dara Shikoh murdered by his harem eunuchs. Murad, another brother was invited to dinner, drugged with a somniferous potion and finally arrested and murdered. Dara's beheaded body was paraded in the streets of Delhi on the back of an elephant. Dara's children were also murdered by opium poisoning in the state prison at the orders of Aurangzib. His own son, Muhammad Sultan, who once rebelled against the father, was poisoned slowly with opium in the prison at Gwalior.

Even for Allah, such actions were hard to take. Only two centuries later a grim fate overtook the sons and grandson of the last Moslem emperor of Delhi when in 1857 they were shot in cold blood by an English soldier, while the royal heirs were vainly protesting their innocence and crying for an inquiry into their past conduct. The place they were executed is not too far from Humayun's tomb.

Aurangzib, on ascending the throne of Delhi, declared himself the 'Khalifa' or caliph of the entire Moslem world. He thus did not give his recognition to the caliph of Turkey who had been Considered by many as the temporal leader of all Moslems. It Is an inscrutable twist of fate that several centuries later, a Hindu named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, born and brought up among the Moslems of Gujarat, would declare his faith in the caliph of Turkey as the temporal leader of all Moslems, when most of the Islamic world had already renounced their allegiance to this potentate.

This Afghan Moslem invader attacked India and destroyed the Hindu holy city Mathura once again after all the ravages done by his predecessors. His sacking of Mathura, the Bethlehem of the Hindus, is worth recounting. After having killed thousands of Hindus on his way, he finally arrived at the holy city. The invader had issued his orders to sally and plunder (March 3, 1757 A.D.). His soldiers were assured that everyone would be allowed to keep whatever plunder he took and would be paid Rs 5 (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head brought in. It was midnight when the camp-followers went out to attack. One horseman mounted a horse and took ten to twenty others, each attached to the tail of the horse preceding it, and drove them just like a string of camels. When it was three hours after sunrise they were seen to come back. Every horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves. The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain and placed on the heads of the captives...Then the heads were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief minister for payment. It was an extraordinary display! Daily did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped, deafened the ears of the people...All those heads that had been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off. These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was any part of the country spared. . .Ahmed Shah Abdali also destroyed the holiest temple of the Sikhs in Amritsar. To desecrate the holy Golden temple, he slaughtered hundreds of cows and filled the sacred tank of the temple with the cows' blood.

Tipu was another Moslem ruler who claimed to be a good believer and so quoting f rom the Koran used to carry out abhorrent practices such as whipping in public, cutting away limbs of kafirs and burying them alive, stoning to death and beheading on the slightest pretext.

Tiputs well-known boast was: "I am the chosen servant of prophet Mohammed, predestined in the eternal book of fate to root out the infidels from India and cast them into the bottomless pit of hell." He used to capture the children of the Europeans and when he felt the urge, he ordered them out of the dungeons into his private chamber. There, he defecated and urinated upon them, lashed them, hung them over slowburning fires, and having drugged thern to insensibility, murdered each by decapitation. Sometimes he would employ a pair of Abyssinian slaves who would twist the children by the heads and legs to death.

Tipu forcibly circumcised thousands of Hindus and compelled them to eat cow-meat, a monstrous act of impiety. He once seized two thousand Nair women and delivered them to his troops as prostitutes. His rule became unbearable to the nonkloslem population living in his kingdom.

At the age of twenty years Siraj-ud-daula had already made the life of his Hindu subjects quite miserable. It was at the hands of the British that this 'lion of Islam' met with defeat and made an attempt to escape in disguise. He was captured and brought to Murshidabad, where the British, unlike the Hindus, cut him to pieces and paraded his remains through the streets on an elephant before throwing them to the dogs in the street. Thus ended the uneventful Islamic rule of fifteen months headed by this young king.

Only recently the Islamic government of Pakistan enacted similar dramas in Bangladesh, erstwhile East Pakistan. It was 1971 A.D. and while negotiations were still in progress between the two wings of Pakistan, the Moslem government of West Pakistan UNLEASHED A SURPRISE ATTACK ON THE UNARMED POPULATION OF EAST PAKISTAN.

Throughout the long night three battalions of soldiers (one infantry, one artillery and one armored) killed defenseless Dacca Bengalis with bayonets, rifles, machine guns, mortars, artillery pieces, rockets, flame throwers and tanks. The targets were: Dacca University, the police barracks, Sheikh Mujib's home, the radio station, offices of pro-Mujib newspaper and of course HINDU HOMES. Several hundred young men, the cream of the country were mowed down at the Dacca University. AT THE HINDU STUDENTS' DORMITORY, THE STUDENTS WHO SURVIVED THE ATTACK WERE FORCED TO DIG GRAVES FOR THEIR SLAUGHTERED FELLOW STUDENTS, EXACTLY LIKE THE 800 JEWS OF QURAYZA, AT THE TIME OF MOHAMMED, THE PROPHET OF ISLAM. Then they too were shot and stuffed into the graves dug with their own hands. THOUSANDS OF HINDUS DIED THAT NIGHT. MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED MOSLEM TROOPS ATTACKED THE GIRL STUDENTS OF ROCKEY HALL, DACCA UNIVERSITY. STRIPPING THEM NAKED, THE TROOPS RAPED, BAYONETED, AND MURDERED LOVELY BENGALI GIRLS. Dozens of girls jumped to their death from the roof of the building rather than suffer the fate of their sisters.

Simultaneously with the attack in Dacca, other units of the Islamic Pakistani army smashed into cities and towns across the country. They followed the same scenario now perfected over the years: kill, rape, loot and burn. THE SECOND ATTACK LAUNCHED AFTER A CALCULATED WAIT BY THE PAKISTANI ARMY IN ANOTHER COLD-BLOODED ORGY OF KILLING, RAPE, PLUNDER AND ARSON, SMASHED THE COUNTRY'S .VIAIN POPULATION CENTERS. WORKING FROM CAREFULLY PREPARED LISTS, SPECIAL COMMANDO UNITS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE HUNTED DOWN AND EXTERMINATED ALL BENGALI LEADERS, INTELLECTUALS, PROFESSORS, STUDENTS, DOCTORS, LAWYERS, JOURNALISTS AND HINDUS, THE PRIME TARGET OF ALL. THE TALES OF BUTCHERY AND BRUTALITY WERE ENDLESS.

As the killings continued on land, Pakistani jets strafed and rocketed defenseless villages. Strong mechanized units moved out to execute a different kind of raid or 'ghazzua' making them 'ghazis' too. The message of the Koran was interpreted in a devious way. One would say that Allah did not like this conduct from His followers and so eventually victory was

snatched away from the hands of Islamic Pakistan. The kafirs of India not only defeated the Pakistanis but captured 90,000 of these ruffians passing off as soldiers. And, the soft-hearted kafirs did not even try these murderers and punish those among them who were guilty of such heinous crimes against humanity, but let them go scat free, without even making a few go to jail for a day. This act of misplaced kindness stands in great contrast with the treatment meted out to helpless, unarmed Hindu prisoners, hundreds and thousands of them, who were summarily butchered by the Moslem kings, in the name of Islam. The few Hindu and Sikh prisoners that Pakistan had captured were of course liquidated right away for Pakistan failed to return them saying that they had no Hindu prisoners in their hands, worth the mention.

That Allah did not listen to the prayers of the believers after this dastardly incident is also proven by the fact that the main actor in the drama, Zulfikhar All Bhutto, was himself hanged later by his own countrymen. And the then president of Pakistan, a general named Yahya, was dismissed and died a death devoid of glory or satisfaction because the land of Islamic Pakistan became very much reduced as a result of the diabolical enterprise of imperialism, slaughter, loot, arson and murder undertaken by Pakistan.

Moslems in India and elsewhere have been led to believe by mullahs and Moslem 'historians' that the conquest of India by Islam started with the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 A.D.; it was resumed by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1000 A.D. and completed by Mohammed Ghori when he defeated the Chauhans of Ajmer-Delhi and Gahadvadas of Kanauj in the last decade of the 12 century.

Moslems of India have been persuaded to look back with pride on those six censures, if not more, when India was ruled by Islamic kings. In this make-belief, the British rulers are treated as temporary intruders who cheated Islam of its Indian empire for a hundred years, and the kafir Hindu, who succeeded the British in 1947 A.D., as usurpers of what rightfully belongs to Islam.

If we compare the Arab struggle on the frontiers of India with their record elsewhere we will see some difference. Within eight years of their prophet's death, they had conquered Persia, Syria and Egypt. By 650 A.D. they had advanced up to the Oxus river and the Hindu-Kush range. Between 640 and 709 A.D. they had reduced the whole of North Africa. They had conquered Spain in 711 A.D. But it took them 70 long years to secure the first foothold on the soil of India. No historian worth his name should have the cheek to say that the Hindus have always been an easy game for the invaders. THE HINDUS' HUMANITARIANISM PLAYED A GREAT PART IN GIVING UNNECESSARY ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE MOSLEMS AND THE INDO-PAKISTAN WARS, ALL THREE OF THEM PROVED THAT THE KAFIR CAN HOLD HIS OWN AGAINST ANY ISLAMIC INVADER.

SPAIN, GREECE AND ITALY HAVE ALL THROWN THEIR MOSLEM INVADING POPULATIONS OUT AND THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WILL NOT HAPPEN ON THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT IF THE SITUATION SO DEMANDS. Times have changed but the lessons of history should not be forgotten. The past is not only history; it is also a prophecy.

1. Compare this with the liberation of 90,000 Pakistani soldiers that committed incredible crimes in East Pakistan. 2. The word Hindu-kush stems also from the fact that many Hindus were butchered by the Moslems on that Himalayan range at the time

Around 1689 A.D. the Hindu king Shambhaji, son of Shivaji, was captured by Aurangzib's men. The Hindu king was murdered along with his minister Kavi Kalash. There are many ways of killing a defeated foe. Freeing a defeated foe after the battle, like the Hindu kings used to do or the Indian government did when they freed without trial the criminal elements of the Moslem Pakistani prisoners captured in the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), was of course unthinkable in Islamic ethics and more so if the foe was a kafir, an enemy of Allah and the prophet Mohammed. Kafirs were killed in a more sophisticated way, the way prescribed by the Koran. Chopping a kafir's head off at a single stroke of the sword or crushing his head in a single blow was considered too mild. The idea was to make the pain last, as long as possible. Thus in Islam's hell, a kafir burns but his skin goes on growing to be burnt continuously so that the pain becomes everlasting. Death is the termination of all pains and so it must be delayed to teach a lesson and to prove without fail the greatness of Allah's religion.

SHAMBHAJl WAS FIRST BLINDED AND KAVI KALASH'S TONGUE WAS PULLED OUT. ON MARCH ll, 1689, THEY WERE PUT TO A CRUEL AND PAINFUL DEATH. THEIR LIMBS WERE HACKED OFF ONE BY ONE AND THEIR FLESH THROWN TO THE DOGS.

It was in the year 1669 A.D. that the Hindu king Gokla was Captured by Aurangzib. THE HINDU KING'S LIMBS WERE HACKED OFF ONE BY ONE ON THE PLATFORM OF THE POLICE STATION OF AGRA, THE CITY OF TAJ MAHAL. HIS WHOLE FAMILY WAS FORCIBLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM.

One might think that such gruesome murders committed in accordance with the injunctions of the Koran are a thing of the past. But it is not so. The following incident proves it.

Bengal in pre-partition India was then being ruled by Suhrawardy, the Muslim League leader. Suhrawardy had laid a diabolical plan to destroy the Hindu city of Calcutta. One Mr. Haren Ghosh, a music teacher who used to give lessons in music to the girls of Suhrawardy's family, came to know of the plot and he informed the authorities. Calcutta was saved at the nick of time and eventually Suhrawardy came to know that his plans were divulged by his music teacher. Mr. Ghosh was kidnapped, his limbs were hacked off one by one and his cut up body was found in a box that was left in a Calcutta street. And this happened in the 1940's. Islam has not changed and those who think otherwise only fool themselves.

Even today the Sheikhs of Arabia make sick jokes when they ask their non-Moslem friends if they had a choice which one would they choose for their death: death by a single stroke severing the head or death by chopping their limbs off one by one.

The chapter on the Koran and Moslem women gives us some idea on Islam's injunctions on Moslem women. They should cover their bodies from head to foot. Khomeini's Iran forces the women to go under the 'chador'. They must not go outside to work where other men might see them. They may not be rulers or judges in an Islamic state. Women lawyers are frowned upon in today's Pakistan which is an Islamic state.

But such regulations are valid for Moslem women only. The non-Moslem or kafir women are to be handled differently, as the Islamic codes are not birding on them. The kafir women are considered to be the property of Moslems; they are their 'slaves'' and the wife or daughter of a 'zimmi' can be molested by a Moslem with impunity in a Moslem state ruled by the 'Sharia' or Islamic jurisprudence. The idea comes from the treatment meted out to kafir women who were captured in the battlefield. The first fifth of all booty went to the prophet or the caliph or whoever happened to hold the position of the amir-ul-mominin. It could be the Moslem king of the land or even a petty chieftain. This so called leader 'examined' all booty, inspected and sometimes 'felt' by touching it. The women, all of them were paraded in front of the leader, naked or scantily clad, so that the leader could make his choice. These women were NOT brought in front of the 'amir-ulmominin' dressed in 'chadors'. It was thus that the prophet himself used to inspect his captives and chose Rehana and Juwairiya' both Jewish women whose male relatives were all killed by the Moslems. Juwairiya eventually gave up her religion and married the prophet and became one of the ten or eleven wives of his harem. Rehana was a courageous lady and she did not give up her Jewish faith and so was turned into a concubine of the prophet. She thus took her place on the side of Mary, another slave woman, and a Christian, who after Khadija gave birth to a male child fathered by the prophet.

Although the number of legal wives for Moslems is limited to four, there is no limit to the number of concubines a faithful servant of Allah could have. The practice eventually gave rise to immense seraglios or 'harems' in Islamic lands. IN INDIA, THE CAPTIVE WOMEN OF THE KAFIRS WERE INSPECTED BY THE MOSLEM KINGS IN WOMEN'S MARKETS CALLED MINA BAZAARS (MARKETS OF PEARLS) WHERE NO MALES OTHER THAN THE KING AND HIS PALS WERE ALLOWED ENTRY. They used to choose their favorite girls for the night and then let them circulate among their Moslem friends.

These unfortunate women had usually a very sad end. Anyone who has visited the Mughal palaces and forts in India must have seen the steep tunnels from the 'harem' opening on to the waterway below. The women, once they were no longer required, were dropped through these tunnels the head first. Near the bottom of the tunnel, just above the waterline, is a big boulder which is supposed to be struck by the head when the body gets to the bottom. The kafir woman died then and there and later the body floated out at high tide.

In 1947 A.D. at the time of partition of India, the Moslems on the Pakistani side killed the Hindus and Sikhs of West Punjab. They then forced the Hindu and Sikh women to come out in the streets completely naked and took out a procession. No chadors or veils for kafir women. When the terrible news arrived in East Punjab, the Moslems of India had to undergo the same treatment and this put a stop to such dastardly behavior by the followers of Allah.

In Bangladesh, during the genocide of kafirs there perpetrated by the soldiers of Islamic Pakistan, Hindu women were taken captives and kept in the army barracks without clothes for the enjoyment of the 'believers'. Kafir women are to be treated as slaves of Moslems and the treatment is clearly indicated in the Koran and the Hadis.

Kidnapping of Hindu women by Moslem gangs was once a common feature in India. This led to many riots and many lives were lost. In Bangladesh today, it is practically impossible for Hindu girls to go out alone in the streets to attend to daily chores without being teased, insulted or kidnapped by the Moslem ruffians. The recent Hindi movie entitled Umrao Jan depicts the life of a singer named Umrao Jan. She sings very well and is a kind of high class prostitute. The movie features a number of songs and also shows how the inglorious life of Umrao Jan started. She was kidnapped by a bunch of Moslem ruffians who sold her to a Moslem woman brothel-keeper. Umrao Jan was shown to be a Moslem girl in the movie however. (But in real life most of the kidnappers were Moslem ruffians and the kidnapped were kafir women.)

A number of cases have happened where Moslems have dressed up as Hindus and then followed Hindu girls on their way to the river for the holy bath. On the way, they pounced upon these girls, kidnapped them, raped them and in some cases killed them. In many instances such incidents were unreported for fear of shame and loss of face.

Many battles were fought in Rajasthan in Northern India. The Moslem hordes attacked the Rajput kingdoms many times and the Rajputs fought back heriocally and defeated the Moslems over and over again. There never was any attack on the Moslem womenfolk or the non-combat/ants by the Rajputs. On the other hand, if the Rajputs lost in the battle, the Moslems let loose terror on the entire population. The Rajputs' houses of worship were destroyed, their women raped and carried away, their children taken away as bonded labor and all non-combat/ants murdered.

The Rajputs soon came to know the way of the Moslems. If it appeared that the battle could not be won, then they themselves killed their women and children, Masada style, and then went to fight with the Moslems until death. In many cases, the Rajput women took their own lives by taking poison and then jumping into a deep fiery pit. This was called the Jauhar Vrat or 'sacrifice of fire'. The men of course went out to fight and died to a man.

Now, the question is why did the women jump into the fire to be burnt alive when they were going to die of the poison anyway? The answer is simple. If the Moslems got hold of the dead bodies of the kafir women after victory in the battle, they would then rape even the dead bodies of these women. It was to prevent such 'desecration' of their own bodies after death by poison that the Rajput women used to jump into the pits of fire. Thus, when the Moslems finally came to the city, they did not find a single woman's body, dead or alive. A great disappointment!

Showing disrespect to a dead body is a typically Islamic trait. Displaying the cut off head, or cut up body to the public to generate terror in the minds of the public is an effective method of subduing an otherwise rebellious population. In Islamic states, one is forced to witness an execution often done in public. Lashing of men and women is also often displayed to the public and now-a-days in Pakistan they arrange a microphone near the mouth of the victim of such torture so that people at a distance could hear his cries.

Stoning to death of course has to be in public as otherwise all the furniture would get damaged.

Afzal Khan was a notorious womaniser and he had a 'haremful' of Hindu or kafir women. No one exactly knew how many women he had in his harem. It is estimated that he had some 300 Hindu women as slaves or concubines, not counting the legal Moslem wives that he wedded and divorced from time to time.

Afzal had to meet the great Hindu king Shivaji in a mortal encounter. Afzal eventually died in the hands of Shiveji and his forces were routed. It is said that Afzal Khan had a premonition about his death in the hands of Shivaji who was a great fighter. He decided to murder all his concubines before he set out to meet the Hindu king. He himself beheaded a great number of these unfortunate women.

When someone asked him, what if he returned safe and sound from his meeting with the Hindu king, this Moslem chief replied that he could procure for himself the same number of kafir women for his 'harem' on his return, perhaps even a great number and more beautiful ones in the bargain.

The Koran says in Surah IV, Verse 15 that guilty women should be confined to their house till death overtakes them. It is also called the punishment of 'char-diwari' or the ~four-walls'. In Islamic lands this is a well-known punishment.

The Mughal king Akbar once suspected a young dancer called Anarkali (pomegranate flower) of romance with his own son, Salim. He disapproved of this relationship as the old man wanted the girl for himself. He had to punish her as he would not even dare to punish his own son for this was his only Son fathered after many tries and at the specific blessing of a holy man called Salim Chisti. But someone had to be punished and so it was the poor girl.

The girl was bricked in and left there to die a slow death Even today one can visit the place where Anarkali was murdered in this brutal manner. Her tomb is in Lahore Pakistan.

Dahir, the Hindu king of Sindh was defeated by the Moslems The women of the royal family were all raped and carried away by the ruffians after a merciless carnage. However, the two young daughters were safely taken to West Asia for the Moslem king who had stayed back in his capital. The girls were presents from the general who had conquered Sindh.

The girls were supposed to be virgins which they were. But to spite the cruel, old sex-fiend, the girls said that they were no longer virgins and that they were made to have sex with the general before being sent to the king. The enraged king got his general murdered but later discovered that the girls had lied. They were punished by being placed inside a thick wall where they were left to die.

The Sikh Guru Gobind Singh who was eventually murdered by the Moslems had his two sons captured by the Mughals. These two boys were murdered the same way.

In order to terrorise the kafirs they were murdered in other ways too with a view to generating mortal fear in the minds of the infidels. Akbar, after a victory on the battlefield, used to get hold of the more prominent members of the kafir society and impale them publicly. Any visitor visiting the dead city of Sikandra once built by Akbar, will notice structures on either side of the road leading to Sikandra, on top of which lances were placed for impaling the kafirs. The great pain and the shrieks of the unfortunate victims scared the hell out of the Hindus who were forced to watch the gruesome scene, While the Moslems howled for joy.

Another method was to flay alive the victims. In fact, this ractice is very much in vogue even today in the Moslem POuntry of Afghanistan. In Islamic Turkey too this practice was widely followed. In Islamic Pakistan, the practice has given rise to the common threat: "I will skin you alive". Truly inscrutable are the ways of the faithful!

During the reign of Abdul Hamid II, called the 'great assassin', the Turks were responsible for the torture, robbery, slaughter and rape of thouands of Armenians. The marauding Bashigazouks of this mad sultan were notorious for running down and ravishing women and girls while on horse-back. All Christian males that fell into their hands were forcibly circumcised and sodomized.

The great festivity in El-Obeid upon the defeat of Hicks Pasha's infidel army is noteworthy. The mad Messiah, E1Mahdi, built a pyramid of the skulls of the Christian army. In a well near by, they threw the sex organs of the infidels. About ten thousand Christian soldiers were thus butchered.

During the Crusades too, the Christian soldiers who fell into the hands of the followers of Allah, had their penis cut off for every true believer had to destroy the generative power of the infidel before he could gain admittance into Allah's paradise. Castration of the infidel was not only an act of piety for the Moslems but one of shame to the kafir. The infidel's head was severed and placed between his thighs, the seat of dishonor.

During Mughal rule in India, captive Hindus were also tortured by infibulation or artificial phimosis (mobri, muzzling), elongation of the prepuce or foreskin and constriction of the orifice, a painful punishment. With the Hindu women captives, often their vulva was sewed up. Other practices involved mutilation of the uterus by means of iron prongs, burning the breasts and excision of the clitoris. A VERY PAINFUL PUNISHMENT WAS SPLITTING THE PENIS OF A HINDU. THIS WAS CALLED SUB-INCISION.

Guru Arjun Dev, the Sikh Guru was murdered by the Mughal king Jahangir by forcibly making him sit on a red hot iron plate and then pouring hot sand over him.

The murder of Guru Tegh Bahadur was no less horrendous reminding one of the sceres of hell described in the holy Koran. Tegh ahadur was asked by the Moslem king to renounce his religion, the faith of Guru Nanak or Sikhism. He refused. Moslems tried to Irighten him. They brought him to the prison in a cage like he was a wild animal. Three of his disciples were murdered in front of him. One was cut in two by sawing alive as shown in the picture on page 42. Another was boiled alive in a big cauldron (See page 46). And the third was wrapped up in a blanket and then set on fire (See page 44). The last fits the Koranic injunction prescribed in Surah XXII, Verses 19-22.

The Koran tells us of boys graced with eternal youth who will attend the faithful in paradise. The practice of sodomy is frowned upon in the Koran if the act takes place between two Moslems. There is nothing mentioned about a Moslem sodomising an infidel. This seems to have the silent approval of Islam. Many European travelers and Christian missionaries, unfamiliar with sodomite propensities of many Moslems, suffered sexual molestation in Persia in the hands of even government officials.

During the Napoleonic war in Egypt, Marshal Jaubert wrote to General Bruix that: "Les Arabes et les Mameloukes ant traite quelque~uns de nos prisonniers comme Socrate traitait, diton, Alcibiade. 11 fallait pe'rir ou passer". (The Arabs and the Mamelukes have used some of our men captured by them like they say Socrates used Alcibiades. It was a case of letting them do it or die.)

Sheikh Nasr, the governor of Bushire, once said to an English missionary: "I stopped a caravan of Jews bound for Afghanistan, penetrating all forty of their females in one night. They protested that such action was an outrage, but I said the outrage was justified in that all of their offspring would be Moslems".

During the Crusades, the Christians had a rough time. Their humanitarianism made them an easy prey to the Moslem spies that had infiltrated into Christian ranks as Armenian Christians. No secret could thus be kept from the invading Saracen armies. The situation became so serious that the Christians had to take drastic action. The Christians had to employ the same cruel methods of the Moslems to get rid of the false Armenians.

One evening at dinner time, a bunch of Turkish prisoners were killed by slitting their throats. They were then spitted and the cooks set about roasting them. The camp was informed that some spies had been caught and they were being roasted on the skewer. The whole camp came running up to see if it was really true for the Moslems did not believe that the Christians, followers of the dictum of turning the other cheek, could really kill the spies that way. But behold! Nothing could be more true: the Turks were truly cooking over a hot fire. The next morning, all the spies had disappeared in horror, even without waiting for their wages.

The diabolical nature of the attack on the US embassy became apparent after the fact. Some Moslems had attacked the holy shrine at Mecca and this enraged the Moslems of Pakistan against all non-Moslems. They just assumed that the attack was organised by the Americans. The following extract from Masurashram Patrika of India dated March 1982 will make one shudder in horror:

"A typical Pakistani Islamic reaction reported in American papers was that while some Pakistanis themselves mounted an attack on the Kaaba, their compatriots back home, apparently angered by the assault, caught hold of some helpless American women and urinated in their mouths, obviously believing that they were in fact discharging an Islamic obligation against the kafirs and an oblation to Allah".

Related Articles:

Fatwa: Coming to a Country Near You--Islamic death bounties ain't hard to find
Source: FrontPageMagazine.com; Published: December 6, 2002; Author: David Harsanyi
Why we are losing the war
Source: Guardian Unlimited; Published : December 1, 2002
Islam - Green Wall Of Silence - III
Source: PakToday : Published: November 25, 2002; Author: Tashbh Sayyed
Black Muslims Create 'Explosive Mix' in Terror War, Says Author
Source: CNSBNEWS.com; Published: November 14, 2002; Author: Marc Morano
Of course, the great majority of Muslims are peaceful -- so what?
Source: Jewish World Review; Published: November 5, 2002; Author: DENNIS PRAGER
Ramadan: A Month of Peace?
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: November 4, 2002; Author:| Alan Caruba
The Seamless Garment Of Hate: The Beltway Sniper Shootings And Islam/Nation of Islam
Source: Toogood Reports; Published:| November 1, 2002; Author: Nicholas Stix
Barbara Stanley: American Jihadist Terrorism - Conversion And Recruitment
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: October 28, 2002; Author: Barbara Stanley
Jihadis in the Hood: Race, Urban Islam and the War on Terror
Source: Middle East Report; Published: Fall 2002; Author: Hisham Aidi
The Radical Islamic Mind (lengthy exposé from Christian perspective)
Source:Spiritual Counterfeits Project; Published: Sept 2002; Author: Aleesha Khan
Naming The Evildoers: Militant Islam Reaches America
Source: New York Times BOOK REVIEW; Published:| September 29, 2002; Author: Judith Miller
DEPRIVING THE ARABS OF THEIR PREY
Source: WINSTON MID EAST ANALYSIS & Published: September 13, 2002; Author: Emanuel A. Winston
A Hatred Beyond Understanding
Source: Sierra Times; Published: September 9, 2002; Author: Alan Caruba
Saving Islam from bin Laden [Christopher Hitchens]
Source:The Age (Melbourne); Published: September 5 2002; Author: Christopher Hitchens
Muslim leaders pledge to 'transform West': 'If Islamic state rises, we will be its army'
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: August 13, 2002; Author: Jon Dougherty
WHAT went wrong with the Arab world?
Source: Economist; Published: July 10, 2002
Today's Criminal Will Become Tomorrow's Islamic Terrorist
Source: CNSnews.com; Published: June 25, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi
David Horowitz: Know The Enemy (And What He Believes)
Source: FrontPage magazine; Published: June 24, 2002; Author: David Horowitz
Four Myths About Muslims
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 13, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi
Trying To Find A `Moderate' Islam Is A Quixotic Quest
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 20, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi
The Islaming of Europe
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 20, 2002; Author: Alan Caruba
Why Islam Can't Join the Modern World
Source: FrontPageMagazine.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: Jamie Glazov
It's The Attitude, Stupid [re: Palestinians]
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: May 14, 2002; Author: Philip Safran
Reports of Moderate Islam's Existence Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 22, 2002; Author: C.T. Rossi
It's time to snap out of Arab fantasy land {Steyn}
Source: National Post; Published: April 19 2002; Author: Mark Steyn
HOROWITZ: A MIDDLE EAST HISTORY PRIMER
Source: News and Opinion.com; Published; April 10, 2002; Author: David Horowitz
Arafat Must Go!
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 10, 2002; Author: Alan Caruba
Netanyahu speaks before US Senators
Source: http://netanyahu.org/netspeacinse.html; Published: April 10, 2002; Author: Benjamin Netanyahu
20 Suppressed Facts About Israel, Islam
Source: Koenig's International News; Published: April 9, 2002; Author: Jim Bramlett
They Live to Die (Islam Martyrdom)
Source: Wall Street Journal; Published: April 7, 2002; Author: Reuel Marc Gerecht
Moral Fortitude Vs. Vacillation
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: April 01, 2002; Author: Alan Caruba
Terror's Homebase, All Over The Map -- Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam
Source: Wall Street Journal-- Book Review; Published: | March 29, 2002; Author: Adrian Karatnycky
Islam Vs. The World
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Alan Caruba
Arab World Poverty -- Whose Fault?
Source: Capitalism Magazine; Published: 11/18/01; Author: Larry Elder
Will the Real Islam Please Stand Up!
Source:Van Jenerette Editorial Comment, Various Publications;
Published: October 14, 2001; Author: Van Jenerette
Civilization Envy
Source: National Review Online; Published: September 28, 2001; Author: Jonah Goldberg
What We Are Up Against: Islamic Jihad Factories
Source: New York Times Magazine; Published: July 25, 2000; Author: Jef

The Muslim Conquest of Palestine

From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.

In the year 4374* (614) there lived in Medina, in Arabia, Mahomed ibn Abdallah, descended from Keder, son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13), who had taken possession of Arabia and the neighbouring countries. Mahomed had two secret counsellors, who assisted him in the construction of his new system of doctrines and belief; these were Allman Mam Ali, of Jewish descent, and Turchman, a Christian; hence it resulted that the Koran contains many rules bearing analogy to Jewish ideas, for they were derived from Mam Ali.

* It is not easy to give the precise year of the Chadjra (the flight of Mahomed), since all authorities are not agreed in this respect. In general, the year of the text is assumed. In a Hebrew work, out of which I have drawn largely, the year 4384 (621) is given. The Mahomedans reckon this year 5605 (1845) as the 1261st of the Chadjra. If we now calculate their years in general at 355 days, as they have no leap year, we shall have only about 1226 solar years, which would give us the year 4379 (619 of the Christian Era) as the year of the Chadjra.

Mahomed had an astrologer at his court called Bucheran, who was a very great enemy of the Jews, and urged the prophet constantly to persecute and exterminate them entirely, so that Mahomed at length listened to the proposition, since he had without this already a hatred towards them, because they had not aided him in his campaigns according to his expectation; wherefore the whole Jewish population under his rule, ran great danger of being entirely cut off. Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, perceiving this dreadful predicament, went to Mahomed, and offering him his submission, friendship, and services, endeavoured to enter with him into a friendly compact. Mahomed accepted his proposition with pleasure, conceived a great affection for him, and took his daughter, a handsome young girl, for wife; he made him also a general in his army, and gave him the name of Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, literally: The father of the maiden, the descendant of the righteous; this means, that of all his wives, who were either widows or divorced women, this one was the only one who had never been married before, and then she was the granddaughter of the celebrated chief of the captivity; therefore, the descendant of the righteous. This occurrence induced Mahomed to give up his terrible intention to destroy the Jews in his country, and thus did Rabbi Shallum save his people.

Abu Bachr and Aliman now resolved among themselves to remove the dangerous enemy of the Jews, Bucheran. One evening Mahomed, Bucheran, Aliman, and Abu Bachr, were drinking together; the latter two soon saw that Mahomed and the astrologer were strongly intoxicated, and lay stretched out in a deep and profound sleep. Abu Bachr thereupon drew the sword of Mahomed from its scabbard, cut off therewith Bucharan's head, and put the bloody sword back into its receptacle, and both then lay themselves down quietly near Mahomed to sleep. When Mahomed awoke and saw his friend lying decapitated near him, he cried out in a fury: "This terrible deed has been done by one of us three in our drunkenness!" Abu Bachr thereupon said quite unconcernedly: "Let each one draw his sword, and he whose weapon is stained with blood, must needs be the murderer!" They all drew their swords, and that of Mahomed was completely dyed with fresh blood, which proved thus clearly to his satisfaction that he had murdered his friend. He was greatly grieved at this discovery; cursed and condemned the wine which was the cause of this murder, and swore that he never would drink any more, and that also no one should do so who wishes to enter heaven. This is the cause why wine is prohibited to the Mahomedans.

At a later period, Mahomed learned the whole transaction, and that his father-in-law was the perpetrator of the bloody deed; wherefore, he lost his favour, and he would not permit him to come before him. Abu Bachr went thereupon and conquered sixty places, which had not yet submitted to Mahomed, and presented them to him, through which means he became again reconciled to him, was received in favour, and remained thereafter at court.

Mahomed urged his conquests to the north and west; made war against Heraclius and his son Constantine, captured the country around Antiochia, Armenia, a part of Asia Minor (Anatolia), and Palestine. Jerusalem, however, continued in possession of the Greeks. Mahomed reigned 11 years, and died in 4385 (625); he was succeeded by his father-in-law, Abu Bachr, but he survived him but two years, when he also died.

In 4387 (627), another father-in-law, Omar ibn Kataf, ascended the throne. In the tenth year of his reign (4397) he appeared before Jerusalem with a large army. He besieged it, and after producing great distress thereby in the city, it surrendered to his arms. He then made a treaty with the Greek inhabitants of the city, that they should pay him a ransom for their lives, and send an annual tribute. He commanded to rebuild the temple, and appropriated several pieces of ground, the proceeds of which were destined to defray the expenses and keep it in repair, which is continued to be done to this day. He built, accordingly, the great Mosque al Sachara, of which I have spoken above. He also conquered the whole country around Damascus and Ispahan, which is a part of Persia.

Egypt was taken by his general Omar ibn Aleaz, as also the city of Alexandria, where he burnt the celebrated library, through which learned posterity suffered an irreparable loss. This conquest of Egypt put an end to the government of the Mameluks, and it came under the rule of the Califs, and so it remained till the country was conquered by the Tartars in 4502 (742). In 4400 (640), Omar built the present al Mazr and called it Al Kairo, which means, "care, pains, sorrow;" since this building cost him much trouble, care, and labour. In the town of Pastat, the ancient Zoar (for which see the Appendix), he prohibited and prevented a terrible ancient custom, which was prevalent among the Greeks of that place. They used, on the day when the Nile begins to rise, to take a handsome young woman, to dress her in the most costly and brilliant attire, to lead her to the river under accompaniment of music and dancing, and then to throw her into the water; since, according to their opinion, the Nile would, in reward for this beautiful sacrifice, rise higher and higher, and scatter its rich blessings over the land. Omar reigned 15 years.

In the year 4402 (642), Osman (or Othman) ibn Afan assumed the government. He was a son-in-law of Mahomed. In the year 4406 (646), he took the island of Rhodes, and in 4413 (603) the island of Cyprus, from the Greeks.

In 4413 (653), the Calif Ali ibn Abu Talbih, also a son-in-law of Mahomed, who had slain his predecessor Osman, succeeded to the throne. The Persians, and many other Mahomedans, regard this Ali also as a prophet, equal to Mahomed. Even at the present day there are two sects of Mahomedans; one is composed of those who only believe in and acknowledge Mahomed as a prophet, and the other of those who ascribe the same honour to Ali. These two sects always are inimical towards, and persecute each other. In Syria and on the Lebanon there are likewise several Mahomedans who belong to the sect of Ali.--Under him the Mahomedans conquered the whole of Anatolia, and penetrated as far as Africa and Spain. He was succeeded, in 4419 (659), by his son, Calif Chazan ibn Ali.

Calif Maevia ibn Sefian began his reign in 4434 (674). Under him there were constant wars and contests among the great men of the state, concerning the califate, and it was always doubtful whether he should be able to maintain himself on the throne or not.

In 4435, Calif Abd al Maleki assumed the government. He made a treaty with the Greek Emperor of Constantinople, Justinian II. He built the city of Ramla, and several other towns in that neighbourhood. The district of Abu Gosh (see above, Kirjath-Jearim), is to this day called Belad Beni Amaleki, perhaps in allusion to this Calif. In his time, in 4459 (699), there ruled in Iraq and Babel yet another Calif, Chadjadj ibn Jusif. Abd al Maleki was succeeded in 4467 (707) by his son, Calif Walid I., ibn Abd al Maleki.

In 4502 (742), the country was invaded by innumerable hordes of Tartars, from the vicinity of the Caspian Sea. They were called Turkemans ; hence the name of Turks. These conquered the whole of Syria, Cappadocia, and Palestine, and caused everywhere terrible devastations. The Arab Califs made war against them, and drove them out of the country; they, however, came back a third time, as I shall relate hereafter, till at length the Arabs and Turks became united, by the latter assuming the Koran and the Mahomedan religion, and formed, as at this day, but one nation, only that the former are called Arabs or Ishmaelites, and constitute the greater portion of the inhabitants of Palestine; whilst of the others, called Turks, but few are in our country, whereas in Turkey, in Europe, the population is mostly composed of them.

In 4523 (763), there reigned the Calif Al Mansur, who built Bagdad, the modern Babylon.

In 4546 (786), the Calif Harun al Rashid (i. e. the just) became ruler, and reigned till 4569 (809). He completed the building of the city of Bagdad, commenced by Al Mansur. In 4557 (797) there arose a terrible war between the Saracens and the Arabic tribes in Palestine, through which means Gazza, Ashkelon, Sarifea צריפין and Beth-Gubrin were entirely destroyed.

In 4572 (812), the Mahomedans attacked and slew the ecclesiastical chiefs of the Christians in Jerusalem.

In the year 4573 (813), ruled Calif Almamans ibn Harun, until the year 4603 (843).

In 4628 (868), there reigned Sultan Ibn Achmad ibn Tulun over Egypt. In that year the Tartaric hordes made another irruption, and conquered Palestine and Egypt. Sultan Ibn Achmad had constant wars with them: he reigned till 4644 (884).

In 4729 (969), there reigned the Calif Ma'ez, of the Fatimite family. This name was borne by the Califs of Kairuan, a country to the west of Egypt, in the neighbourhood where Carthage formerly stood (see Appendix). He conquered Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, and had his seat in Cairo (Al Mazr).

Calif Al Chakim, the third of the Fatimite family, became sovereign in the year 4756 (996). He was a great enemy to the Christians, and persecuted them everywhere.

In the year 4776 (1016), he advanced with a large army against Jerusalem, and drove away the Tartars, who yet occupied the same. He also destroyed totally the church which Constantine had built over the socalled place of Jesus’s sepulchre. His reign extended till 4781 (1021).

The pilgrims who came from the west (Europe) to Palestine, and beheld these persecutions, painted them in strong and glaring colours on their return to their native countries, and moreover calumniated the Jews, as though these had contributed much to produce the enmity and persecution of the Christians on the part of Al Chakim. These and still other falsehoods and calumnies increased the hatred and the persecution towards the Jews in European countries; and when at a later period the pious crusaders from the west went eastward, to snatch the Holy Land from the power of the Mahomedans, they found ample opportunity to execute a pious and holy vengeance on these poor Israelites, as I shall relate somewhat more circumstantially hereafter.

In 4781 (1021), his son Calif Dahir ibn Chakim became sovereign. He was a friend to the Christians, and permitted them to rebuild their destroyed church.

In 4800 (1040), the Tartaric hordes made a third irruption under their leader Seldjuk, who was of the tribe Hildokiao. This chief was uncommonly successful in his conquests: he made war against the Egyptian Calif, and conquered Syria, and Jerusalem with its environs. He bitterly persecuted the Christians in the Holy City, and they had to endure terrible exactions, and were compelled to submit entirely to his arbitrary will.

In 4859 (1099), the Arabs under the Egyptian Calif again acquired Jerusalem and the surrounding country, and drove the Tartars away from there, and thought themselves secure in possession of the city, when suddenly a new enemy came over them, with whom they had to wage a long and bloody strife. This enemy was the Europeans of the West, who in that very year entered the land of Palestine and conquered it.

A Short Review Of This Period.

There exist but few documents concerning the situation of the Jewish literati and literature in Palestine of this period. But at the time of Mahomed, the most distinguished and learned person amongst the Jews, Rabbi Yizchak Ha-Gaon, resided in Babylon. The title of Nahssi had at that time been given up for that of Gaon.

In 4521 (761), there arose a serious contest in Babylon between the Resh Gelutha, and the celebrated Rab Acha, of Shabecheh, the author of the She'elthoth שאלתות through which cause the latter was not chosen as Gaön, wherefore he quitted Babylon and repaired to Palestine, where he ended his days.

In 4543 (733), there lived in Beth-Zur, a town not far from Hebron, a man by the name of 'Anan ענן a scholar of the then Gaon, Rabbi Yehudai, of Babylon. He had observed in his scholar that he had neither affection for, nor faith in our tradition as an exposition of the written law; wherefore he ('Anan) could not be chosen either as Resh Gelutha or Gaon. He returned, therefore, to his native country, Palestine, and formed a new sect, the leader of which he became, by openly preaching against our system of tradition. The sect of the Sadducees, who only adopted the written law and rejected the tradition, had gradually fallen entirely into decay after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and had become nearly dissolved. But the appearance of 'Anan gave them new life, and they soon increased and spread extensively in Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa. In Palestine, they had yet another learned chief, Sheich Abu al Ferag, who wrote a work, bearing his own name, concerning the principles of his sect, and which contains much that is absurd and blasphemous. He is the same Abu al Ferag who is frequently mentioned in the Opinions of Maimonides תשובות הרמב״ם. Anan had a wife who was called Al Me'alma, i. e. the learned, the instructress, who was acknowledged chief of his sect after the death of her husband, and was consulted in all cases of doubt; and as everything was decided according to her opinion and practice, it came to be customary to ask among the sect, "How did Al Me'alma on that occasion? or what was her practice in that case?" and every one looked up to her for guidance. When, at a later period, Rabbi Joseph Ben Ali became Nahssi in Africa, he used every effort to suppress this sect in all directions,--so that it was nearly dissolved, and but few vestiges are found thereof at the present time; since all that is left are the few Caraites קראים who only acknowledge the written law, are partly descended from the ancient Sadducees, and are found in several places in Asia and Egypt. We find mentioned in Abn Ezra's Commentary on the Pentateuch, several ridiculous expositions of many passages of Holy Writ ascribed to a certain Anan; it would, therefore, appear that he also had composed a commentary on the books of Moses.

In general the situation of the Jews, under the rule of the Mahomedans, was quite favourable, and considerably better than under the Greeks, since the former are naturally more favourably inclined to Judaism;--so that scarcely any persecution took place in this whole period. Only when the Calif Omar ibn Kataf banished, in the year 4398 (638), the Christians from Tiberias, the same fate was soon meted out to the Jews, and they also had to quit this place.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.