Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari*

Whosoever has tried to go through a biography of the Prophet Muhammad authored by a Muslim, has noticed that the toughest task these authors face is to explain the Prophet’s marriages. If they take ten pages to narrate his marriages, they use more than hundred pages of justify those marriages. Why the Prophet took so many wives at his declining age? These authors don’t have any plausible reply to this question. The first and foremost duty of these authors is to rule out that sensuality of the Prophet had any role to play in his marriages. The best explanation they furnish is that the Prophet was so kind hearted that he married widows to provide food and shelter for them. In support of their argument they provide evidence that most of his wives were widows. Very nice, the Prophet played a saviour for the widows. But difficulty arises to explain his marrying Zeinab, the wife his adopted son Zeid, with the above argument as she was not a widow and as the incident exposes the indomitable sensuality of the Prophet. Similar difficulty arises in explaining his marrying Rihana as well as Safia.

The explanations they import to explain these marriages may however be acceptable to the blockheads called believers, but horribly unacceptable for the civilized world. But the hardest task these authors face is to explain his marrying Ayesha at the age of 52, while Ayesha was a child of 6. Syed Amir Ali is an Indian author renowned for his book Spirit of Islam. In that book Mr Amir Ali says that the only intention that motivated the Prophet to marry Ayesha was to cement his friendship with Abu-bakr. Perhaps it is known to all that Muhammad and Abu-bakr underwent an unwritten agreement that Muhammad would give his daughter Fatima to Abu-bakr in marriage and Abu-bakr would give his daughter Ayesha to Muhammad. This kind of marriage, called Shighar Marriage, is still in vogue in Muslim society and the reader may recall that Osama bin-Laden married the daughter of Omar, the second man of Al Kaida, and Omar married the daughter of Osama. However, according to the said understanding, Muhammad married Ayesha in the first Hijra at the Abu-bakr’s house in Medina, But Muhammad delayed to perform his part of the agreement. After waiting for months, when Abu-bakr inquired about the delay, the Prophet replied that he was waiting for a command from Allah in the matter and that command never came. So, had Muhammad married Ayesha for cementing his relation with, as mentioned by Mr Amir Ali, Muhammad must have given Amina to Abu-bakr for a better cementing. Hence the argument furnished by Amir Ali does not seem to be tenable.

A Bengali author, M Abdur Rahman, has tried to explain it completely from a different angle. He asserts that, Muhammad married Ayesha to dispose off a great social responsibility. At that time, there  was an urgent need to educate the Muslim women of Arabia about the extremely delicate sexual matters. But he being a male, was not fit to teach such lessons to the women. So he married Ayesha to be used as a vehicle to educate the women in sexual matters. Nice, but why he had chosen a tender girl like Ayesha? To explain this point, Mr Abdur Rahman says that a tender mind is most suitable for receiving education and that was the reason for marrying Ayesha. But it is really surprising that neither Amir Ali nor Abdur Rahman has furnished the most convincing argument, i.e. the will of Allah. Allah sent his divine sanction for marrying Ayesha in the form of dreams. For three consecutive nights the angel Zibrail (Gabriel of the Bible) showed a picture of Ayesha to the Prophet and said, “This is your wife.” For the first two nights, the Prophet could not recognize whose picture it was. But in the third night the he could recognize beyond doubt that it was a picture of Ayesha. So he had no other option but to comply with Allah’s divine instruction as soon as possible.

It should be noted here that whatever might be their arguments, reasoning and explanations, these authors must  have to reach only one conclusion that, Muhammad was the greatest man on earth. If the conclusion deviates even by an inch, their life will be at stake. These authors also face difficulty in explaining some other deeds of the Prophet like massacring the Beni Koreiza at Madina, massacring the Beni Najir at Kheibar, shedding of blood in the holy month of Rajab at Nakhla and so on. It is obvious that it is really a hard task for these authors to explain so many blots and project him as the greatest man on earth. It is needless to say that the task becomes much easier if it can be shown that there are foretelling of Muhammad in established and recognized holy books of other faiths like the Bible, Zend-Avesta, and, most importantly, the Sanskrit texts of the Hindus.

The Rig-Veda is globally recognized and accepted as the oldest book created by man and hence if it could be shown that there is mentioning of Muhammad in that text, it will be immensely helpful to paint the Arabian Prophet as a divine personality. Not only that, it will be helpful to deceive the Hindus and convert them to Islam. So, it does not become difficult to understand what has inspired Dr Zakir Naike to discover mentioning of Muhammad in the Rig-Veda and in other Hindu texts. But as his investigation culminated into a failure, he had no other way but to apply stupid arguments to befool the kafirs.

First of all, we should see what the Rig-Veda says about Muhammad. It should also be mentioned at the outset that two Sanskrit words śaṃsata and narāśaṃsa play the central role in Dr Naike’s arguments. According to him, the word śaṃsata stands for an individual who praises. In Arabic, such an individual is called Ahammad, the other name Prophet Muhammad. Therefore wherever he could have found the word śaṃsata, he took it as the mentioning of their Prophet. According to Dr Zakir Naike, the second word narāśaṃsa means an individual who is to be praised or who is praiseworthy. The Arabic word Muhammad means a man who is praiseworthy.  So, wherever he could have found the word narāśaṃsa, he took it to be a mentioning of Muhammad. It should be mentioned here that, where such silly arguments may lead one to. Every English dictionary contains the word praiseworthy, and, according to Dr Zakir Naike, every English dictionary mentions the name of Muhammad. More dangerously, such foolish arguments may lead one to an extremely ridiculous– goats have beard and Mr X has beard, and hence Mr X is a goat – like conclusion.

In fact, both the Sanskrit words śaṃsata and narāśaṃsa stand for a deity or God, who is praiseworthy. According to Sāyana, the most reputed commentator of the Vedas, the word narāśaṃsa means a deity or a respectable entity (not a man) that deserves to be praised by man.

However, we should have a closer look to see what Dr Zakir Naike has to say. According to Dr Naike, the verses (1/13/3), (1/18/9), (1/106/4), (1/142/3), (2/3/2), (5/5/2), (7/2/2), (10/64/3) and (10/182/2) of the Rig-Veda contain the word narāśaṃsa and hence mention Muhammad and the verse (8/1/1) of the Rig-Veda contains the word śaṃsata (Ahmmad), or the other name of Muhammad. In my earlier submission “Allah in the Vedas: The Treachery of Dr Zakir Naike, I have shown what kinds of dark lies Dr Naike can propagate. Here also he begins with another blatant lie and says that the word śaṃsata stands for a man who praises, the Arabic equivalent of Ahammad and hence mentions Muhammad. The said verse (8/1/1) of the Rig-Veda reads:

Mā cidanyadvi śaṃsata sakhāyo mā riṣṇyata l

Indramitstot ā  vṛṣaṇaṃ   sacā   sute muhurukthā ca śaṃsata ll (8/1/1)

- Glorify naught besides, O friends; so shall no sorrow trouble you. Praise only mighty Indra when the juice is shed, and say your lauds repeatedly. (Translation: R T H Griffith; The Hymns of the Ṛgveda, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi; 1995, p-388). So the word śaṃsata (praiseworthy) in the above verse refers to deity Indra, and not a man who praises (Ahammad) as claimed by Dr Zakir Naike.

We shall now see what the verses containing the word narāśaṃsa say. In  Rig-veda, a verse is refered as (x/y/z), where x stands for Mandala, y stands for Sukta and z stands for the Verse or Ṛk    The verse (1/13/3) of Rig-Veda, as mentioned above, belongs to 13^th Sukta of the 1^st Mandala. It should also be noted here that every Sukta of the Rig-veda is dedicated to a deity. The presiding deity of the 13^th Sukta of the 1^st Mandala is Agni (the God of Fire). The verse says:

Narāśaṃsamiha priyamasminajña upahvaye l

Madhujihvat haviṣkṛtam ll (1/13/3)

- Dear Narāśaṃsa, sweet of toungue, the giver of oblations, I invoke to this our sacrifice (tr: ibid, p-7). As Agni is the deity of the entire 13^th Sukta, there is no doubt that the word Narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in the verse refers to Agni. One should also note that the word Narāśaṃsa does signify a man who is praiseworthy, as claimed by Dr Zakir Naike.

The verse (1/18/9) of the Rig-Veda says:

Narāśaṃsaṃ sudhṛṣṭamamapaśyam saprathastam l

Divo na sadmakhasam ll (1/18/9)

- I have seen Narāśaṃsa , him most resolute, most widely famed, as ‘twere the Household Priest of heaven (tr: ibid, p-11). The 18^th Sukta, to which the verse belongs, is dedicated to Brahmaṇaspati, the Priest of heaven and hence the word Narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to Brahmaṇaspati, the Priest of heaven.

The verse (1/106/4) of the Rig-Veda says:

Narāśaṃsaṃ vajinṃ vajayinniha kṣayadvīraṃ pūṣaṇaṃ summairī mahe l

Rathaṃ  na durgādvasava sudānavo viśvasmānno ahaṃso niṣpipartana ll (1/106/4)

- To mighty Narāśaṃsa, strengthening his might, to Pūṣaṇa , ruler over men, we pray with hymns. Even as a chariot from a difficult ravine, bountiful Vasus, rescue us from all distress (tr: ibid, p-69). The 106^th Sukta of 1^st Mandala, to which the verse belongs, is dedicated to Viśvadevas, and hence the word Narāśaṃsa (praiseworthy to man) in this verse refers to Viśvadevas.

The verse (1/142/3) of the Rig-Veda says:

 śuci pāvako adbhuto madhvā  yajñaṃ  mimikṣati l

Narāśaṃsasthrirā divo devo deveṣu yajñiyaḥ ll (1/142/3)

-He wondrous, sanctifying, bright, sprinkles the sacrifice with mead, thrice, Narāśaṃsa from the heavens, a God mid Gods adorable (tr: ibid, p-98). The 142^nd Sukta, to which the versae belongs, is dedicated to to deity Āprī, and hence the word Narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Āprī. Most of the scholars agree that Āprī  is the other name of Agni and hence the word Narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni, the god of fire.

The verse (2/3/2) of the Rig-Veda says:

Narāśaṃsaḥ prati dhāmānyañjan tisro div prati mahṇā svarciḥ l

Ghṛtapruṣā manasā havyamundanmūrdhanyajñasya sanamaktu devān ll (2/3/2)

- May Narāśaṃsa lighting up the chambers, bright in his majesty through threefold heaven, steeping the gift with oil diffusing purpose, bedew the Gods at chiefest time of worship (tr: ibid, p- 132). Like the earler one, 142^nd Sukta of 1^st Mandal, this present 3^rd Sukta of 2^nd Mandala, is dedicated to the deity Āprī or Agni and hence the word Narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the the Fire God.

The Verse  (5/5/2) of Rig-Veda says:

Narāśaṃsaḥ suṣūdatīmṃ yajñamadābhyaḥ l

Kavirhi madhūhastāḥ ll (5/5/2)

- He, Narāśaṃsa, ne’er beguiled, inspiriteth this sacrifice; for sage is he, with sweets in hand (tr: ibid, p- 240). This 5^th Sukta of 5^th Mandala is also dedicated to Āprī or Agni and hence the word Narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God.     

The verse (7/2/2) of Rig-Veda says:

Narāśaṃsasya mahimānameṣamupa stoṣāma yajatasya yajñaiḥ l

Ye sukratavaḥ  śucayo dhiyandhāḥ  svadanti devā  ubhayāni havyā ll (7/2/2)

- With sacrifice to these we men will honour the majesty of holy Narāśaṃsa – to these the pure, most wisw, the thought-inspires, Gods who enjoy both sorts of our oblations (tr: ibid, p- 334). Again this 2^nd Sukta of 7^th Mandala is dedicated to Āprī or Agni, and hence the word Narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Agni the Fire God. 

The verse (10/64/3) of the Rig-Veda says:

Narā vā śaṃsaṃ pūṣṇamagohyamagni deveddhamabhyarcase girā l

Sūryāmāsā  candramasā  yamaṃ  divi tritaṃ  vātamuṣasamaktumaśvinā  ll (10/64/3) 

- To Narāśaṃsa and Pūṣaṇ I sing forth, uncocealable Agni kindled by the Gods. To Sun and Moon, two Moons, to Yama in the heaven, to Trita, Vāta, Dawn, Night  and A śvins Twain (tr: ibid, p- 578). This 64^th Sukta of 10^th Mandala is dedicated to Viśvadevas, and the word Narāśaṃsa in this verse refers to Viśvadevas.  

The verse (10/182/2) of Rig-Veda says:

Narāśaṃso na avatu prayāje śaṃ no astvanuyajo habeṣu l

Kṣipadaśtimapa durmati hannathā  karadyajamānāya śam ṣoḥ  ll (10/182/2).

- May Narāśaṃsa  aid us at Prayāja; blest be out Anuyāja  at invokings. May he repel the curse, and chase ill-feeling, and give the sacrificer peace and comfort (tr: ibid, p- 650). The 182^nd Sukta of 10^th Mandala, to which the above verse belongs, is dedicated to Vṛhaspati, and hence the word Narāśaṃsa refers to Vṛhaspati, the Priest of the Gods.

Another verse (1/53/9) of the Rig-Veda says,

Tvametāñjanarājño dvirdaśābandhunā suśravasopajagmaṣaḥ l

ṣaṣtiṃ sahasrā navatiṃ nava śruto ni cakreṇa rathyā duṣpadā vṛṇak ll (1/53/9)

-With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra, thou far-famed, hast overthrown the twicw ten Kings of men, with sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers, who came in arms to fight with friendless Suśravas (tr: ibid, p-36). To narrate the incident, Sayana, the renowned commentator of Rig-Veda, says that twenty kings with a force, 60,099 strong, attacked the King Suśrava (Prajapati) and Indra alone defeated them and frustrated their ambition (the Vayu-Purana also narrates the incident).

Most of the scholars agree that Rig-Veda was composed more than 5000 years BC, and hence the incident narrated in the verse (1/53/9) took place more than 7000 years ago. And Muhammad conquered Mecca in 630 AD. But Dr Zakir Naike (perhaps he is a lunatic) has proceeded to link the incident with Muhammad’s capturing Mecca, which any sane man, except a Muslim, feel shy to undertake. To give his mischief a shape,  Dr Zakir Naik has, firstly replaced the word Suśrava with Suśrama and says that the word Suśrama stands for one who praises, and hence equivalent to Ahammad in Arabic, the other name of Muhammad. And he claims that the verse  narrates Muhammad’s conquering Macca, as the then population of the city was about 60,000 and Muhammad had invaded Mecca with 20 of his closest followers. It is not difficult for the reader to discover the absurdity of the claim and the treachery of Dr Zakir Naik.

The verse (8/6/10) of the Rig-Veda says,

Ahamiddhi pituṣpari medhamṛtasya jagrabha l

Ahaṃ  sūrya ivājrani ll (8/6/10)

–        I from my Father have received deep knowledge of the Holy Law: I was born like unto the Sun (Tr: ibid, p- 396).

In this verse the word ahamiddhi stands for “I have received”. But as the word spells like Ahammad, the other name of Muhammad, Dr Zakir Naik claims that the verse mentions Muhammad, which only a lunatic can do. 

Thus we have studied all the verses of the Rig-Veda which, according to Dr Zakir Naike, mention Muhammad. It has been said above that the Sanskrit word narāśaṃsa stands for a deity or God who is praiseworthy to man and not a man who is praiseworthy to other men, as claimed by Dr Zakir Naik. So, to the asinine logic of Dr Zakir Naik, whenever someone uses the word “praiseworthy”, he mentions Prophet Muhammad. But Dr Naik has not given much thought over the matter, what a silly conclusion he has to admit with his asinine logic. If a washerman says that his donkey is praiseworthy, Dr Naike has to admit, that the donkey is Muhammad. If someone says that his pet dog is praiseworthy, then Dr Zakir Naik has to admit that the dog is Muhammad. If someone says that his pair shoes are praiseworthy, then Dr Zakir Naik has to admit that the shoe is Muhammad.

However, the genius of Dr Naike has been able to discover the word narāśaṃsa in other Vedas as well like Atharva-Veda and Yajurveda and is projecting them as mentioning of Muhammad. Though it is sheer wastage of time to deal with the utterances of an insane stupid like Zakir Naik, we hope to discuss those matters in future.

                                 ************************************** 

*Professor, Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta.

            Victim of Bloody Religious Persecution

                       By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari*

At last the Department of State of the Government of USA has admitted through a circular issued on September 14, 2007, that the religious minorities, e.g. the Christians, Buddhists and the Hindus, are being persecuted brutally in Bangladesh by the Muslims. According to a press report appeared in the 17^th September edition of the Kolkata based Bengali daily Bartaman, the circular says that the entire non-Muslim population, belonging to religious communities of Hinduism, Buddhism etc are victims of violent religious discrimition and torture by the Muslims, the majority religious group. The circular also says that, though Dhaka speaks of religious tolerance and freedom of religion, the attack on religious minorities has recently assumed a extremely savage and fierce. These unfortunate people are targeted for all kinds brutal and barbaric atrocities.

The report says that, as a result of this inhuman religious discrimination, minorities are losing their lives and properties. After the formation of independent Bangladesh in 1971, the Government grabbed Hindu land with the help of the so called “Vested Property Act”. Though the said black Act was repealed later on, the minorities did not get back their land snatched away by the Government. By a verdict in 2001, the Bangladeshi Supreme Court had directed the government to return the land, grabbed with the help of the said black Act, to the real owner. In spite of that, few Hindus could get back their land. According to a Professor of the University of Dhaka, nearly 2 million Hindu families have, so far, lost about 40,000 acres of agricultural fertile land. Many are convinced that this is only a tiny tip of an iceberg. In fact, land grabbing is a enshrined policy of jihad against the kafirs as ordained by Allah in Koran. Prophet Mohammad had taught this lesson in his life time by driving away the Jews of Medina, belonging to the Beni Nazir and Beni Kanuika clan and slaughtering the Jews of Beni Koreiza en-masse and acquiring their land and property.

It is difficult for an ordinary individual to guess the social condition of non-Muslim kafirs in an Islamic State. Koran does not consider these kafirs as human beings. Allah has condemned them as godless beasts and has empowered the Muslims to heap any kind of atrocity and torture on them. Not only that, he is alluring such oppressors of rewards in the Paradise. So, an Islamic court in an Islamic Country does not consider such atrocities even a crime at all. And the reality is that, in such a country, judiciary is heavily influenced by the religion of Islam and cannot play neutral in giving verdicts.

That is why the US circular has said that in Bangladesh, the government and its machineries  are heavily influenced by religion and hence they cannot do much to stop all such religious discriminations. Not to speak of Hindus and Buddhists, even the Ahmedias, a sect of Islam, have declared non-Muslims and turning victims of similar religious discriminations.

                                           ***************

*Professor, Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta.

    must not be valid in the Court of Law 

                                             By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari*

On Friday, the 16^th November, a Supreme Court Bench comprising the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Ravindran, ruled that taking oath in the name of Allah, instead of God (Ishwara) as mandated in the Constitution, is also valid. It is really unfortunate that the important personalities like the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court are equally ignorant of Islam, like the common Hindus, and failed to point out the heaven and hell difference between God Almighty (or Ishwara) and the Allah of Islam. In fact, most of the Hindus in this country know little about Islam and, on the contrary, being influenced by the false portrayal of Islam by our religious gurus and by the political leaders, maintain that Islam is more or less a dharma like Hinduism and there is no difference between God of the Hindus and the Allah of the Muslims.  For example, the nonviolent saint from Gujarat and his disciples, out of their utter ignorance of Islam, have composed the song, “Ishwara Allah tere naam” which is more than enough to convince  a commoner that God and Allah are same. Perhaps the Supreme Court Judges themselves have been inspired by that song, mentioned above, to deliver their above ruling.

But the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Ravindran should have the minimum awareness that, Allah does not have the merit to be called Ishwara ( or God Almighty) and hence an oath in the name of Allah can never be equivalent to an oath in the name of Ishwara. Had Allah been the Ishwara of this universe, he would have treated every human being alike, as the Hindu God lord Krishna says, “In my eye, every human being is equal – no one is my favourite and no one is detestable to Me”. (Bhagavad-gita : 9.29).

But in the eye of Allah, all human beings are not equal. He is kind (Rahamanir-Rahim) to the Muslims alone and to the non-Muslim kafirs, he is an extremely cruel despot, an inhuman brute killer. So it becomes evident that such a terrible Allah, who is extremely biased and partial to His children, cannot be the God of the entire creation. So Swami Dayananda Saraswati in his Satyartha Prakash writes, “If the God of Quran had been the protector of all creatures and dispenser of forgiveness and mercy to all, He would not have commanded the Muslims to kill the people of other religions”. He also says that due to this reason “The Quran does not appear to have been made by God”. (Ch. XIV).

In this regard, Swami Vivekananda in his Practical Vedanta wrote that, God who is partial to His children called men and cruel to His children called brute beasts (kafirs) is worse than a demon. So it appears that, Allah is a God only for the Muslims and not for the entire humanity. In this regard, the word Allah deserves a closer look. It has been derived from two Arabic words, ‘al’ (stands for English ‘the’) and ‘ilah’ (stands for a local God in Arabia). And hence the word Allah does not carry the spirit and sense of God Almighty or Ishwara, the ruler of the entire creation, but it stands for a local god of Arabia. On the other hand, from the behavioral pattern of Allah, as reflected in the Koran, it becomes evident that Allah is simply a mafia don or the leader of a criminal gang, who is trying to gain control over the entire world, to establish himself as the God, by means of violence, bloodshed and terror.

It should be mentioned at the outset that Allah divides the entire humanity sharply into two groups, momens and kafirs. It should also be mentioned that the real meaning of Islam is, not peace but, surrender. In the restricted sense, unconditional surrender to Allah’s Koran, and surrender to Allah’s Prophet Mohammad. Those who surrender to Koran and Prophet Muhammad are imandar Mussalmans or momens and those who do not are condemned people and belong to the most despicable species, the kafirs. So, according to Islamic theology, each and every non-Muslim is a kafir. In the eye of Allah, these kafirs are no better than animals and hence he instructs the Muslims to mount any kind of torture and atrocities on them, kill them, burn them and their houses, take their women and children as captives and rape their women, smash their children on the floor and so on.

So the Koran says—-“We have created, for hell, many genii (races) of men, ….and they are like brute beasts” (7.179) ; “Whosoever followeth any religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him in this life, and in the next life he shall be of those who perish” (3.85) ; “I will cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers” (8.12) ; “Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them” (8.13) ; “moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come” (3.56) ; “Allah loves not the unbelievers” (3.57) ; “ they shall suffer a grievous punishment” (3.77). The cruelty and tyranny of Allah becomes more perceptible when he says, “Verily, those who disbelieve our signs, we will surely cast them to be broiled in the hell-fire, so often as their skins shall be well burnt, We will give them new skins in exchange, so that they may taste the sharper torment” (4.56) ;

So it becomes evident, even to an illiterate layman, that the despot called Allah, who is so cruel and heartless killer to non-Muslims, can never be the Ishwara or Lord of the entire creation. In fact, there are so many other reasons that prevent a rational man to equate Allah to God or Ishwara. And those who still attempt to equate Allah to God, are either ignorant of Islam and the true temperament of Allah or motivated. 

A critical study of the period of Muslim rule in Indian history reveals that most of the oppression Hindus suffered was due to their ignorance about Islam. Indeed, in those days it was difficult for the Hindus to go through the text of the Koran written in Arabic. But today, translation of the book is available in almost all the major Indian languages. But it is really unfortunate that Hindu leaders, intellectuals and even the Judges of the Supreme Court are reluctant to take the trouble of going through the Koran and hence to get a proper understanding of the creed of Islam and the true behavioral pattern of Allah. The present author is confident that neither of the two Supreme Court Judges has taken the trouble of going  through the Koran. Had they been aware of the contents of the Koran and the real temperament of Allah, their ruling would have been diametrically opposite.

A few other points are necessary to be highlighted in this context. Ishwara wants people to be well behaved, lawful and truthful. But Allah inspires criminality and motivate his followers to loot, arson, burglary, rape and every other crime against the kafirs, collectively called jihad and furthermore he incites his followers to commit  all such crime by allurement of lucrative rewards including the promise of a nice place in the paradise, sex thousands of heavenly damsels called houris and thousands of young slaves, called Gelemans, for doing sodomy and so on. How can such an Allah, who inspires criminality, be the God or Ishwara? Moreover, Allah advises his followers to be most immoral and says that Muslims can enter into any understanding or treaty with the kafirs and reject the same at an opportune moment (Koran: 9/1-3). It should also be noted here that Allah declares himself to be the greatest conspirator ( Koran: 8/30). Could  such a conspirator Allah be equated to God or the Lord of the Universe?

Islamic scholars around the world agree that jihad is the best form of worship of Allah and any act of cheating, fraud, deception etc. against  the kafirs is also a part of jihad. And hence giving false evidence in the court of law against kafirs is also a kind of jihad, which Allah approves for the Muslims. So it is really amusing to ask a Muslim, standing in the winess-box, to take oath in the name of a god who encourages and approves giving false evidence (Bokhari Sharif, Mina Book House, Dhaka Bangladesh, 2006: pp-420, Hadis Nos. 1710-1712).  The author therefore submits his humble request to the said two Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court to get familiar  about Allah and his creed and then to decide whether an oath in the name of Allah should be treated as valid. And if necessary, mend their ruling accordingly.

*Professor,

Department of Applied Physics,

University of Calcutta.

IN MUSLIM SOCIETY

                          By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari*

One is really shocked to read the news (HINDU VOICE- Jan, 2007) that a 60 year old wealthy Arab married 3 girls, Afreen, Farheena and Sultana, at a single sitting (within ten minutes), in Hyderabad. Though unbelievable, such incidents are not uncommon in Muslim community and only a few of such incidents come to surface. Furthermore, as the Koran allows polygamy and permits a Muslim male to marry 4 wives at a time, the said 60 year old Arab groom could have comfortably added a fourth girl to his list of brides without violating the laws ordained by Almighty and All-knowing Allah. Islamic law or sharia permits two kinds marriages, nikah and mutah. The former does not allow marrying more than 4 wives at a time, while mutah does not impose any such restrictions on the number of wives. So the said Arab could have made his list of brides still longer and married all of them at a single sitting without violating sharia, as his marriages were mutahs. Moreover, mutah marriage is temporary and remains valid only for a few weeks, or a few days, or even a few hours. And hence it is simply prostitution in the garb of a marriage. The fabulously rich, mostly aged, Arabs from the Gulf countries come to India, get access to young girls of Hyderabad by temporary marriage of mutah, of course by paying fat cash to their parents as dowry (mehr), use them and return home as the marriage automatically dissolves after the stipulated time. A specific case of such an incident may be narrated below.

In May 2004, an old man called Muhammad Zafer Yaqub Hassan al Jorani came from Sharjah to Hyderabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh, to undergo a cataract operation. On May 7, he married Haseena Begum, a 19 year old girl and after two days he divorced her. On May 24, he married another 16 year old girl Ruksana Begum. Haseena, ignoring even threat to her life, went to a local police station to narrate her story and within an hour police arrested Jorani. Police also arrested someone called Shamsuddin who was alleged to have played the part of a mediator and received a cash of Rs 40,000 from Jorani and handed over the money to the parents of Haseena as mehr. It is to be mentioned here that Jorani, at his Sharjah residence, had two wives and 11 children.

By interrogating Jorani, police could discover that after a few days, Jorani also divorsed Ruksana and married a third girl. But neither Ruksana nor the third girl dared to report their affairs to the police and hence no step could be taken for those offences. By interrogating Shamsuddin, police also discovered that a criminal gang and a group of qazis (Islamic judges) of Hyderabad were involved in this lucrative flesh trade. The role of the qazis was to solemnise the marriages according to Islamic rites in exchange of lucrative remuneration. Police also arrested Ahmed Sharif, the qazi who conducted Haseena’s marriage with Jorani. Further investigation revealed that Ahmed Sharif acted simply as an assistant of a chief qazi, who had nearly 20 subordinate qazis under his command.

In fact, the task of this team of qazis and criminals starts right from Hyderabad’s Rajib Gandhi International Airport and as soon as an Arab lands at the airport, mediators begin to chase him with photographs of young girls, finalise the monetary matters, fixing the date and place of marriage and so on. All such marriages are temporary marriage called mutah in Islamic law or sharia and lasts for a few weeks, or a few days, or even a few hours. Investigation revealed that there were 35 to 40 such incidents of mutahs occur per year between rich Arabs and young girls in Hyderabad. Many of these Arabs took there newly wed brides to there home abroad, where for the rest of their lives they were forced to live as a house maid or a concubine or simply sex slaves. While commenting over all these affairs, Mr A K Khan, the Additional Commissioner of Hyderabad Police, said, “It is very difficult to stop all these illegal activities with the help of law. What we can do is to observe such fabulously rich Arabs closely so that their illicit activities could be checked.

The real significance of the above comments of Mr Khan is that, the said temporary marriages between the rich Arabs and the unfortunate Indian girls are sanctified by a section of believers, and as, in addition to that, Islamic law allows polygamy, it is not possible for the law enforcing authorities to bring the offenders behind the bar. Legal action can only be taken when the girl in question is below eighteen. In Islam, marriage is simply a social contract and the paper that contains all the terms and conditions of this social contract, is called nikahnama. The central point of a nikahnama is the mehr, or the cash which the groom will have to pay the bride if he divorces her. Men on the groom’s side try to minimise the mehr, while kin of the bride try their best to inflate it. Finally, after tough bargaining, a compromise is made.

According to Islamic law, only the husband enjoys the right to divorce his wife, while the wife is always at the receiving end. The Principle of Mohmedan Law by Mr M Hidyatullah (Tripathy (1980), p-324), in this regard, says, “Whenever the husband utters the word talaq thrice, the divorce becomes  effective at that instant, irrespective of place and time”. The Koran, on this aspect, says, “Ye may divorce your wives twice; and then either retain them with humanity, or dismiss them with kindness. But it is not lawful for you to take away anything of what ye have given them, unless both fear that they cannot observe the ordinances of Allah. And if ye fear that they cannot observe the ordinances of Allah, it shall be no crime in either of them on account of that for which the wife shall redeem herself.  …  But if the husband divorces her a third time, she shall not be lawful for him again, until she marry another husband. But if he also divorces her, it shall be no crime in them if they return to each other, if they think they can observe the ordinances of Allah.  ,,, “ [II: 229,230 – tr by George Sale (word God replaced by Allah)].

So the husband, according to the Koranic injunction, has the right to drive his wife out of his house, like a domestic animal, by uttering the word talaq thrice and at such an instant, as mentioned above, the husband has to pay the money written as mehr in the nikahnama. It should be pointed out here that all these Koranic laws are for nikah alone. For mutah, the contract itself is temporary and dies after a stipulated time, which may either be a few weeks, or a few days, or even a few hours and hence there is no need for the husband to divorce his wife. But if the husband wants to get rid of her within the stipulated time, he will have to divorce her as in the case of a nikah.

Though there is no verse in the Koran where Allah directly permits the believers to enter into temporary marriage with the Muslim womwn, the hadith no. 3243 of the Muslim Sharif says, “Abdullah bin Mas’ud reports: ‘We were on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger and we had no woman with us. We said: Should we not have ourselves castrated? The Holy Prophet forbade us to do so. He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage (with local women) for a stipulated period giving her a garment (for a dowry)’. At this ‘Abdulla felt happy and remembered the Koranic verse: The believers, do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah do not like transgressors (V: 87)”.

A similar hadith of the Muslim Sharif says, “Jabir reports: ‘We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of dates and flour as a dower’ (3249)”. A few other ahadith of the Muslim Sharif may be mentioned in this context.  “Jabir reports, ‘Yes, we  had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, and during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar’ (3248)”. “Iyas bin Salama reports, on the authority of his father, ‘that Allah’s Messenger gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas (i.e. after the Battle of Hunain, A.H. 8) and then forbade it’ (3251).

Regarding this Mutah marriage, T. P. Hughes in his Dictionary of Islam writes that Mut’ah or Usufruct (enjoyment) is “A marriage contracted for a limited period, for a certain sum of money. Such marriages are still legal amongst the Shi’ahs, and exist in Persia to the present day, but they are said to be unlawful by the Sunnis. They were permitted by the Arabian Prophet at Autas, and are undoubtedly the greatest stain upon his moral legislation; but the Sunnis say that he afterwards prohibited a mut’ah marriage at Khaibar (Rupa & co, 2007, pp-424). The Shi’ahs argue that the Koranic verse (IV: 24), that says, “Ye are also forbidden to take to wife free woman who are married, except those women whom your right hand shall possess as slaves. This is ordained for you from Allah. Whatever is beside this, is allowed (for) you; that ye may with your substance provide wives for yourselves, acting that which is right, and avoiding whoredom. And for the advantage (cohabitation) which ye receive from them, give them their reward (i.e. dowry), according to what is ordained: but it shall be no crime in you to make any other agreement among yourselves, after  the ordinance shall be complied with; for Allah is knowing and wise”, as Allah’s sanction for contracting mut’ah or temporary marriage.   

 So in the eye of Islamic jurisprudence, Hassan al Jorani perhaps committed no crime by entering into a contract of temporary marriage (mutah) by paying Rs 40,000 as mehr to the parents of Haseena. On the contrary, his act was once made lawful  by the Holy Prophet. But the Prophet had missed one point- during his lifetime, marrying off minor girls was not illegal. And hence the Prophet committed no crime by marrying Ayesha at the age of 52, when Ayesha was a child of 6. But the wisdom of the Prophet failed to foresee that in future, man himself would make laws and ban marrying minor girls. In India today, marrying a minor girl of below 18 is a criminal offence, and in the eye of law it is simply a rape. And the practice of mutah or marrying off a minor girl, in Muslim community, is nothing but an offence of forcing a minor girl to prostitution.

So it becomes evident that, coming of rich Arabs to India and marrying young Indian girls is simply a kind of prostitution. Sir W. Muir, the renowned biographer of Prophet Muhammad, also held the same view about mutah. Furthermore, since a nikah can also be dissolved at any time by uttering talaq thrice, he also considered even nikah as another kind of prostitution and the mehr as the other name of the fee for hiring a prostitute.

It may be pointed out here that the illegal prostitution which is going on in Hyderabad in the garb of marriage or mutah, began nearly 16 years ago, in 1991, when an 11 year old girl, called Amina Begum, was forcibly married to a nearly 70 years old Arab. Much hue and cry was raised when news came up in the media and as a result, the vice came to a temporary halt, only to restart again at full swing after a few months. While commenting over the affair, Mr Majhar Hussain, the president of the Confederation of Voluntary Agencies, an NGO, said, “This (the Islamic system of temporary marriage) is turning the young Muslim girls into prostitutes”.

There is no doubt that in any civilized society, the said Islamic practice of temporary marriage would be taken simply as rape or prostitution. At the same time, in the eye of law, there must be a difference between raping a minor child and a grown up woman. In Indian Penal Code (IPC), offence of rape comes under the article 375, but unfortunately there is no provision in the said article to treat raping a child and a grown up woman on different footings. Many believe that, there should be harsher laws to tackle the heinous crime like raping a minor girl with the provision of more rigorous punishment, even sentence to death. There is no doubt that the introduction of harsher laws would frighten the illegal traffickers and relieve the minor girls of Hyderabad, to some extent, from the sexual oppression of the rich Arabs of the Middle East.

*The author is a Professor in the Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta                                                    

                   we are following today? (Part-III)

                             By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

My article A Few Questions to Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik was posted in the FFI website on February 17 and till date it is uncertain whether Dr Naik would come forward with his replies. So far, the article has inspired 64 readers to register their valued comments. A devout disciple of Dr Naik commented that he (Dr Naik) is capable of tackling one billion infidels like me. Perhaps he is right. And most probably, it is below the dignity for a great scholar like Dr Zakir Naik to respond to the queries of a humble author like me. But I consider myself lucky enough that a learned believer has tried to enrich me with his extremely instructive replies.

I request to recall the readers that my first question was regarding the age of the earth. Scientific studies assert that this earth is more than 3 billion years old, while following Islamic scriptures one has to conclude that Almighty Allah has created this earth only 4,137 years ago. The above mentioned learned believer commented that the Holy Koran does not say that Prophet Muhammad was 90^th descendant of Adam and hence my calculations are baseless and contrary to Islamic scriptures. Perhaps the said learned believer does not know that every article, before it is published in the FFI website, has to undergo close scrutiny by a board of learned editors. So, not even a single statement in my article is contrary to Islamic scriptures.

My second question was-What was Allah doing before creating this heaven and earth 4,137 years ago? And did Allah exist before his creation? According to the said believer, it was a foolish question as Allah is eternal and hence he has no past, present and future. According to Dr Naik, Allah is best defined by 4 verses of the 112^th Sura (Sura Ekhlas) of the Holy Koran that says – “Say; Allah is one, the eternal Allah. He begot none, nor was He begotten. None is equal to Him” [tr: N J Dawood (word God replaced by Allah as, according to Dr Zakir Naik, the word God cannot be the true translation of Allah]. So, it is better to investigate the real nature of Allah, as narrated in the Koran and reliable Hadith. However, a hadith throws some light on the whereabouts of Allah before he created this heaven and earth. It says, “I asked the Prophet, ‘Where was Allah before His creation?’ Muhammad replied: ‘He was in a cloud with no air underneath or above it” (Tabari I:204 ). But the question remains – Who created those clouds in which Allah took shelter, before Allah had begun his creation?  

As Muslims do not worship the idol of Allah, many believe that Islamic Allah is formless. But the notion is entirely wrong. Islamic Allah has a physical body, which is 60 cubit tall (Shahih Muslim-6809). Furthermore, Allah’s appearance is like a human being, as Allah created Adam in his own image (SM-2872). Another Hadith (SM-6325) says that a Muslim, during a conflict, should not deface another Muslim, as Allah has created every human face like that of his own. This Hadith confirms the notion that the physical appearance of Allah is more or less like human beings, but he is 60 cubits tall and, perhaps, he remain invisible to man. The verse (6:101) of the Holy Koran says that Allah does not have a wife and this confirms that Allah is almost a male human being, but he has extraordinary miraculous power or qudrah. Moreover, Allah is a sexually capable man.

During the life-time of Prophet Muhammad, a debate arose between the Jews and the Christians of Medina, where the Prophet himself was present. In that debate, the Jews were refuting the claim of Christians that Jesus was the son of Allah. The Jews ridiculed the Christians and said – “Did Allah sleep with Maryam?” This could have been a basis for the Christians to establish their claim. But the Prophet was not ready to admit the same as in that case Allah could have been convicted of committing adultery. At last, the Prophet could settle the dispute by saying that, as Allah had created Adam from clay by his extraordinary miraculous power (qudrah), in a similar manner, Allah created Jesus, in Maryam’s womb, with his qudrah. The incident confirms beyond all doubt that Islamic Allah is almost a male human being capable of procreating a baby in the womb of a human lady by sexual intercourse. [The incident has been narrated in KABAR PATHEY (On the Road to Kabaa),Vol-2, p-190) by the reputed Bengali author Mr Abdul Aziz al Aman]. One may note here that, though Allah is a male human being, his masculinity has ever remained unused, as he has no spouse and he does not commit adultery with any other woman. So, it becomes evident that, though Allah is a sexually capable masculine, his masculinity has never been put to use.

In this context, it is important to note that, in one of his lectures on Similarities Between Hinduism and Islam, Dr Zakir tells a naked lie and says that Koranic Allah is genderless. But we have seen above that, Islamic Allah is almost a male human being. However, the present author cannot read Arabic and hence he is unable to say what is written in Arabic Koran. But in all its English translations, the authors have mentioned Allah as “He”. Had Allah been projected genderless in Arabic Koran, they would have used the word “It”, instead of “He”.

 In addition to a 60 cubit tall physical body, Allah has physical attributes like wrathfulness, envy, cruelty and so on. Due to his enviousness, Allah becomes violently angry when a man worships any other God besides Allah. He punishes such a sinner with grievous punishment (azab), either in this world or in with hell-fire in his next life. Moreover, Allah is highly biased or discriminative. He is most merciful (Rahmanir-rahim) only to the Muslims, but a cruel despot, a ferocious demon to the non-Muslims. According to the viewpoint of Hindu theology, such a god with a physical body and physical attributes, is incapable of withstanding the onslaught of time and hence cannot be eternal. Such a God is bound to get older with time and ultimately perish like all other living beings.

It should also be pointed out in this context that in every lecture, Dr Zakir Naik says that Allah of Koran is omniscient and omnipresent. But it is evident that, such an Allah, with 60 cubit tall physical body, can never be omnipresent. In such a case, Allah’s body will be blown into pieces endangering his very existence.

 As I have pointed out earlier, in the said lecture, where Dr Zakir has tried to establish similarities between Hinduism and Islam, the CD begins with the pictures of distant galaxies taken by NASA with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope. This is to impress the viewers that Allah, the creator of heaven and earth, has created those galaxies within 6 days of his creation. At the same time, Dr Zakir Naik tells lies and says that Allah has created this universe. In tune with Dr Naik, A reader of my article A Few Questions to Dr Zakir Naik on Islam has commented that, Allah has created this universe from nothingness. But the wisdom of Allah, as reflected in the Koran, reveals that Allah was ignorant of even the existence of the solar system, existence of other planets and the real nature of the stars and planets, not to speak of the vast universe, of which the earth is a very insignificant part. The Koran only says that Allah has created the heaven and earth and nowhere in that book there is the mentioning of the universe. Moreover, the Koranic earth is flat like a carpet covered by a solid roof (21: 32) called the sky and the sun and the moon revolving round this flat stationary earth (21: 33). The verse (67: 3) of the Koran asserts that, Allah has created the roof and the seven heavens with such perfection that no one is able to find a crack in Allah’s creation. All such revelations obviously reflect very limited knowledge of Allah regarding real nature of this vast universe.

Even for the sake of argument, if one admits that Allah has created this universe with all its distant stars, galaxies and nebulae, one has to admit, according the Koranic descriptions, all these heavenly bodies lie below the solid sky, above which Allah has created his seven heavens. Furthermore, according to modern astronomical data, these distant stars and galaxies are hundreds of thousand or millions of light-years away from the earth. It necessarily implies that the solid sky, as well as, the seven heavens of Allah, is also millions of light-years away from the earth. So it becomes really difficult to comprehend or, to speak frankly, horribly unbelievable that the Prophet, during his journey to heaven (miraj) covered such a distance within a few worldly hours. Dr Zakir Naik may argue that the divine animal Buraq and Allah’s qudrah made this impossible possible.

In the present context, it is necessary to mention a few other extremely ridiculous astronomical knowledge of Allah, as reflected in the Koran and other Islamic scriptures. It has been pointed out earlier that Allah is ignorant of the fact that the earth is spherical in shape. The verse (17: 12) of the holy Koran says, “We made the night and the day twin marvels. We enshrouded the night with darkness and gave light to the day, so that you may seek the bounty of your Lord and learn to count the seasons and the years. We have made all things manifestly plain to you”. The text of the verse is sufficient to prove that Allah is quite ignorant of the diurnal motion of the earth. One can easily understand that it is not possible for Allah to comprehend the rotation of the earth, which according to him is flat like a carpet. The verse (18: 83-86) of the Koran says that the sun sets in a marshy land and the Macedonian Prince Alexander went to the spot where the sun sets. He also observed that the sun was setting in a pond.

A hadidh by Bukhari says, “I walked hand in hand with the Prophet when the sun was about to set. We did not stop looking at it. The Prophet asked, ‘Do you know where the sun goes at sunset?’ I replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.’ He said, ‘It travels until it falls down and prostrates itself underneath the Throne. The angels who are in charge of the sun prostrate themselves, also. The sun asks permission to rise again. It is permitted. Then it will prostrate itself again but this prostration will not be accepted. The sun then says, “My Lord, where do You command me to rise, from where I set or from where I rose?” Allah will order the sun to return whence it has come and so the sun will rise in the west” (Shahi Bokhari: V4B54N421).This hadith helps one to confirm what has been said earlier.

            The texts of some ahadith also imply that Allah is ignorant of the annual movement of the sun and, hence, the real cause of changes of seasons. For example, Tabari ( I:232) says “Gabriel brings to the sun a garment of luminosity from the light of Allah’s Throne according to the measure of the hours of the day. The garment is longer in the summer and shorter in the winter, and of intermediate length in autumn and spring. The sun puts on that garment as one of you here puts on his clothes.” A Bokhari hadith, in this context, says, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hell Fire complained to its Lord saying, “O my Lord! My different parts are eating each other up.” So, He allowed it to take two breaths, one in winter,and the other in summer. This is the reason for the severe heat and bitter cold you find in weather” (V4B54N482). Another hadith mentions an extremely ridiculous thing and says, “The sun and the moon were in eclipse for seven days and nights.” (Tabari I:332).

           From the above narrations, it is not difficult for a reader to understand what kind of treasure of scientific knowledge there is the Koran and other Islamic scriptures.

 But one is astonished to see that the so called Muslims scholars, only to befool the kafirs, writing books on science in the Koran and say Koran mentions Big-Bang theory, nuclear physics, genetic science and every other modern scientific topic. There is not even an iota of doubt that the contents of all such writings are blatant lies and fit for the horde of donkeys called believers.

To conclude, I should say that, I feel pity for Dr Zakir Naik. Being a free citizen of India, he prefers to continue his life as a slave of Arab Imperialism. More importantly, he has set out to sell the decomposing carcass of Arabia, the stink odor of which is making people to vomit. But Dr Naik is saying, “It is the best thing in the world and everyone should adore it”. However, it is not clear what is inspiring Dr Naik, whose routine job is to denounce Hinduism, to use the Hindu surname Naik (perhaps with pride), which is simply a corrupt of Sanskrit  nâyaka (a leader). 

***************************************************** 

                                        By Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari*

It is really strange the Muslim hotels and restaurants in India, or perhaps anywhere in the world, do not offer vegetarian dishes and, on the contrary, most of the preparations of such eating-houses contain meat. The question therefore arises: Why are the Muslims extraordinarily inclined to meat-eating, even in India where vegetables are plenty and cheap? The reply may be traced in the lifestyle of the people of Arabia where the faith originated.

The semi-desert nature of the soil and scanty rainfall make agriculture an impossible task in Arabia. And these two geographical and climatic constraints have forced the Arabian society to remain in the pastoral stage of human civilization and arrested its advancement to an agricultural stage, the next higher level of civilization. As a consequence, the Bedouins of Arabia are still nomadic and pastoral sustaining of dates and meat and the Muslims all over the world, by way of excessive meat-eating, are simply imitating the pastoral culture of the Arabs. It may be pointed out here that due to their pastoral lifestyle, Arabs are able to carry on their day-to-day life following the lunar calendar Hijri ; while a solar calendar is essential for an agriculture society, as the seasons of sowing, reaping and harvesting depend exclusively on the annual movement of the sun. For example, Bangladesh, though it is a Muslim nation, is following the solar Bengali calendar as its people sustain on  agriculture.

The adoption of agriculture was milestone in the history of human civilization. Firstly, it terminated the nomadic and pastoral lifestyle and provide man with permanent settlements, which in turn led to the formation of states and governments with well-defined constitutions and judiciaries. Secondly, with the progress farming, a section of people was able to detach themselves from hard day-to-day labour for earning a living and devote their time on pursuit of knowledge and other cultural activities. So, it can safely be said that agriculture was the womb of modern human civilization. There are infallible evidence that India became agriculture well before the time of Rig Veda. In fact, the Rig Veda mentions different kinds of soil, various kinds of crops like yava (barley), tokman (oat), vrihi (paddy) and so on. For a detailed discussion, one may see Agriculture in Ancient India by Dr. R. Ragahvan. Today’s scholars believe that the Rig Vedic civilization flourished not later than 4500 B.C. But according to to Bhagavat Purana, Emperor Uttanapad, the father of Bhaktaraj Dhruva, ruled the world during the time of Svayambhuva Manu and calculations reveal that epoch occurred 1.97 billion years ago.

After the death of Prophet Mohammad, when a large part of the globe came under Muslim rule, the Arabian invaders started to impose their pastoral culture upon the new converts of the conquered countries. In many of these countries, including India, people were in a much higher level of civilization but after conversion, they were brought down and forced to accept the pastoral culture of Arabia.

In Arabia, killing domestic animals is a daily routine work for survival. But In India, people abandoned meat eating and turned to vegetarianism quite a long ago due to abundance of agricultural produce and hence the doctrine of non-violence could originate in this country alone. But the Indian converts, after embracing Islam, started excessive meat eating as a denial of their ancestral culture. At the same time, they started doing other jobs related to pastoral culture like raising animals, running meat shops, collecting hides, tanning leather and so on.

But despite their all-out efforts to imitate the pastoral Arabian culture, these converts, as they are basically agricultural, are not considered true Muslims by the pastoral Muslims of Arabia and the Middle East. Ind fact, they consider them no better than kafirs and more importantly, they hold similar contempt towards the agricultural Muslims of the East and South East Asian countries. So, the questions naturally arises: Does Islam gets diluted as it moves from West to the East, or form pastoral to the agricultural societies?  Is agriculture a disqualification for becoming a true Muslim? Is the privilege of becoming true Muslims preserved for the pastoral people of the Middle East alone?

There is another striking difference between the pastoral Islam of the Middle East and the agricultural Islam of the East. It is compulsory for the Muslim women in the Middle East to cover themselves form head to foot with hijab or burqa, which is rare in the agricultural East. In fact, it is not physically possible for the women of Bangladesh or Indonesia to work in the paddy fields wearing hijab or veils. Moreover, the women in the East are free to receive education, accept jobs and become economically self-sufficient, which the women in the Middle East cannot even dream of.

During the days of the advent of Islam, both pastoral and agricultural ways of life prevailed side by side in countries like Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, etc. which experienced insufficient rainfall. People living on the banks of the rivers like Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, etc. had irrigation facilities and were mostly agricultural. While the rest, living far away form these rivers, had no other option but to adopt the pastoral way of life. Such a pattern of lifestyle still persists in these countries, including western Pakistan. The people of these countries already having a pastoral elements in their lifestyle, face less difficulty in adopting the pastoral Islamic culture. But serious social disturbance did crop up where the people had abandoned the pastoral lifestyle quite a long ago, giving way to farming.

As mentioned earlier, the pastoral lifestyle requires killing of animals as a daily routine job and it turns a member of this so society extremely harsh and cruel. So far as ferocity and cruelty are concerned, a meek farmer of Bangladesh can in no way be a match for a Bedouin of Arabia.

Today, there is another manifestation of the said cultural difference. Rich Islamic governments of the Middle East are spending colossal amounts of money for funding the fanatic militant groups and terrorist organizations to carry out subversive activities. Money is also being spent on building new mosques, or on renovating old ones, in the vast stretch of land strating form Philippines to USA. These governments, obsessed with the idea of ‘Pan Islamism’, are less careful about issues like nation building by way of education the masses, enlightening them with modern science and technology and improving their economic conditions by expanding trade and commerce.

It is really encouraging that presently the militant Islam of the Middle East is gradually being overshadowed by a tolerant, peaceful and constructive Islam of the agricultural East, though in some pockets in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Philippines, the ugly face of fanaticism and terrorism, inspired by the doctrine of Jehad and financed by the pastoral Islam of the Middle East, becomes visible. The agricultural Islam is busy in educating the masses, upgrading their standard of living by expanding trade and commerce, and setting up manufacturing industries with financial and technical help from even the West, which is considered baneful but the pastoral Islam of the Middle East. Among these countries, the success story of Malaysia is most spectacular. Here, the per capita real income has more than doubled during the past 16 years of rule by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad and today, it has emerged as one of the best dynamic countries and the 17^th trading nation in the world. The Muslims of the adjacent Indonesia are also closely following the footsteps of Malaysia. Most strikingly, the women of both the countries are free and  not veiled.

In fact, one can disown one’s religion and embrace another overnight, but it is not so easy to change one’s lifestyle and age-old habits. So, many believe that the said conflict between the pastoral Islam of the Middle East and the agricultural Islam of India, Bangladesh and the Far East would persist. While expressing his views, the Indonesian cleric Mohammad Amien Rais, a Ph. D. degree holder from University of Chicago, says, “They (Arabs) sell themselves as the protector of Islam. We cannot accept this. We want to compete in goodness, not in wars. We don’t want to waste time and energy talking about stupid issues. We must have a democratic system here. Our objective is to build a harmonious Indonesia with Christians, Hindus and others.” Shri Siddiq Fadil, a professor at the National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, says “The holy cit will forever by Mecca, but the center of civilization may shift. The tiem of the Middle East to lead the Muslim-world may be over.” Says Abdur Rahman Wahid, and Indonesian scholar, “In Indonesia, Islam is at peace within the framework of a neutral sovereign State. We do our things, you (Arabs) do your things.”

In fact, Islam could be and extremely tolerant, peace-loving and constructive faith, it is followers put more and more emphasis on the tolerant ‘Makki’ revelations of the Quran and discard the violent and terrible ‘Madani’ counterparts. It is these ‘Madani’ revelations that inspire Jehad and ask Muslims to kill the non –Muslim kafirs and set up an empire of Islam or to bring the entire world under the banner of Islam. So, one may hope that the Agriculture Islam of South-East. Asia would, in near future, win a victory over the intolerant, aggressive and pastoral Islam of the Middle East, and lead the world community of Muslims to peace and prosperity, by following the ‘Makki’ verses of the Quran.

                                                              *******

*Professor,

Department of Applied Physics,

University of Calcutta.

                By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

Razia Bibi was a resident of the village Gobramari, under the Canning police station in South 24-Parganas, West Bengal and Moulana Mohiuddin Sardar was a resident of the nearby village Moukhali, under the same police station. As a professional moulabi, Mohiuddin had to stay in the village Palta, in the district of Nadia, under the police station Dhubulia. For a few years, he worked also as a teacher in a madrasa in the Karajgram village, under the Police Station Katwa, in the district of Bardhaman. Last year, he had to go Gobramari to conduct the Id prayer as the Imam and to put up with the family of Razia Bibi and thus came in close and sexual contact with Razia Bibi.

When the news came to surface, the villagers of the Gobarmari and the family members of Razia Bibi forced Mohiuddin to marry Razia under allegation  that he had made Razia pregnant. Later on, it came out that the allegation was false. The development made Mohiuddin angry. He was also not satisfied with the marriage as the complexion of Razia was dark and she was of delicate health. The developments, especially the false allegation of pregnancy that compelled him to marry Razia pregnant, made Mohiuddin extremely angery. On October 18, Mohiuddin went to his father-in-law’s house and on the pretext of a short visit to Dhubulia, he took Razia to Karajgram, a comparatively lonely place suitable for committing a crime.

There he and Razia put up at a lodge and at night he suffocated Razia to death with her scarf and then tried to behead her with a kitchen knife, he collected at the Howrah railway station by ten rupees. But he found the knife inadequate for the job. To become doubtless about her death, he then tore the head from the body by placing a foot on Razia’s chest. The next day, on 23^rd October, police discovered the dead-body of Razia, body and head completely severed, beside a canal in Karajgram.

Mohiuddin, after committing the crime, returned to Kolkata and then to Canning and took shelter in a lodge. The Canning police, at night, went to that lodge to investigate another case, entered the room of Mohiuddin by mistake, when Mohiuddin cried out, “I have committed a mistake. Please leave me. I shall not commit such a mistake again.” The police then took him to the Canning police station and could know the episode after interrogating Mohiuddin. Then the Katwa police was informed and a force from Katwa came to Canning to arrest Mohiuddin.

Under police interrogation, Mohiuddin confessed that on 22^nd October, he set out from Gobramari with Razia and roamed the entire day on the streets of Kolkata. In the evening they boarded a Katwa local at Howrah and reached Katwa at night. Then they walked 15 kilometres to reach the Mouli Setu near Karajgram. Interrogation further revealed that Mhiuddin at first strangled Razia with her scarf and then he tried to sever her head with the kitchen knife. But failing to do so, with the fragile kitchen knife, he finally put his left foot on Razia’s chest, caught hold of her hair and tore the head off from her body.

 There are a few points to notice in the above incident. It was not difficult for Mohiuddin to get rid of Razia. Firstly, he could easily divorce Razia by pronouncing triple talaq. Secondly, he could also marry a second wife of his choice as, according to Muslim law, he could have kept four wives at a time. So it seems that a brutal murder, as mentioned above, was not essential. So, one has to come to the conclusion that Mohiuddin resorted to the above cruelty only to avenge the wrong done to him by forcing him to marry Razia on a false allegation.

It is more necessary to investigate why only Muslims are seen commit such horrible acts of brutality? The present author is fully convinced that it is the creed of Islam that inspire the Muslims to commit such horrid acts of violence. Islam has originated in Arabia where, still today, pastoral life-style persists. Its semi-desert character of land and paucity of rail fall have compelled it remain in the pastoral stage of human civilization and arrested  its advancement into an agricultural one, the next higher stage of human civilization.

In a pastoral society meat is a staple food and hence killing animals and letting blood is a daily routine matter. This pastoral cruelty is overwhelmingly reflected in the Koran, where Allah asks the Muslims to mount such cruelties on the kafirs. Moreover, Allah himself scares the kafirs with various types of extremely cruel punishments in the hell. As a follow up, one finds the Muslim rulers in India to resort to punish the kafirs with horribly cruel acts, during the Muslim rule that continued for nearly 700 years in this country. One may recall that by the order of Aurangzib, three disciples of Guru Govind Singh were murdered with extreme cruelty. Bhai Moti Dass was sawed alive like a log, Bhai Dyala was boiled alive and another disciple was burnt alive. Firstly he was wrapped with cotton and linen, soaked the cotton with oil and then setting fire to it.

It was a normal practice for the Muslim rulers to kill the kafirs, arrested for any pretext, with extraordinary cruelty. Smashing the head under the foot of an elephant, or under a heavy log, tearing off the limbs by pulling them by elephants etc. were very common as well as amusing. There were people who could invent newer kind of cruelties like flaying a child in front of a mother, flaying the husband in front of his wife and force her eat the flesh of her husband, cutting a child into pieces on his or her mother’s back and so on.

The Prophet Mohammad, in his life time, had taught his followers many such pastoral brutalities and it will be relevant to narrate one of them in the present context. In one occasion eight people, belonging to the Ukl clan, came to Medina and embraced Islam and hence became very dear to Mohammad. But the climate of Medina did not suit them and hence they fell ill. Mohammad prescribed camel-milk as food and camel-urine as medicine for the recovery and hence they were shifted to stable of camels. Within a short time, they recovered from their illness. But after that they committed an unpardonable crime. They murdered the stable keeper, fled with the camels and deserted Islam. They were soon captured by Mohammad’s men and brought to Medina.

They committed three very serious crimes. Firstly, they murdered the stable keeper. Secondly, they stole the camels of the stable. And thirdly, they abandoned Islam. The first and the third crime deserved death sentence, while the second crime was enough to chop their right hands off. Mohammad decided to punish them with exemplary punishments and that too by his own hands. He took two iron rods, made them red hot and then pushed the rods into the eyes of the victims. Then he chopped the limbs of the victims off and kept them lying on the hot sand under mid-day sun with the faces up. Within a couple of hours, all the eight victims died. If the Prophet could have exhibited such examples of cruelty, what one can expect from his followers? The most important part of the episode is that, Muslims around the world quickly pick up this pastoral cruelty, after conversion to Islam, through Koran and Hadis, and the teachings of the Imams of the mosques. And it is needless to say that Islam has instilled the said pastoral cruelty into Mohiuddin of Moukhali village in West Bengal.

                        **********

*Professor,

Department of Applied Physics,

University of Calcutta. 

Allah in the Vedas Treachery of Dr Zakir Naik

Author: Dr. R. Brahmachari on Friday, April 18, 2008 – 01:21 AM Printable page   Email to a friend

By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari*

Islam is a creed that cannot survive without lies. Any so called Islamic scholar, whenever presents a discourse on Islam before a non-Muslim civilized audience, begins with a blatant lie that Islam means piece. While, in fact, Islam is just the opposite of that called peace. Though it is well-known that Islam treats women no better than domestic animals- simply as objects for satiation of lust and a machine for procreation of children, these scholars say that the Koran has given dignity to women and Islam provides equal rights for men and women. While the Koran clearly states that each and every non-Muslim is a kafir, but these scholars, solely to confuse the entire non-Muslim population in the world, tell lies and say the word kafir stands for an atheist. The Koran clearly states that, jihad is the all-out war, which is to be waged against the non-Muslim kakirs to slaughter them en-masse by bloody massacre and bring the entire world under the banner of Islam, these scholars tells lies and say that jihad is a mental war between good and bad in a man.

As a matter of fact, Islam considers telling lies to infidels or to give false testimony against them in the court of law for the benefit of Islam and for the benefit of jihad, a religious duty for every Muslim. Furthermore, the practice is called taqiyya or holy deception. Allah admires attaches merit to such a liar and rewards him profusely on the the day of last judgment (Qiyamah). Recently, a Muslim commentator has clarified that on three occasions, like (i) in war, (ii) or to win over a women’s heart and (iii) or for deceiving the infidels, lying is not a sin for the Muslims. So it is evident that Dr Zakir Naik will also be profusely rewarded by Allah for deceiving the infidels with his lies.

It has been said earlier that this author has several video CDs containing lecture sessions of Dr Zakir Naik and in two of them Dr Naik tries to establish similarities between Hinduism and Islam. As usual, the lecture begins with condemnation of Hinduism and he says that name Hindu has only geographical significance and the term has been imported by outsiders or foreign invaders to identify the people of India and their culture. But the holy book of Islam, or Koran mentions Islam as a religion in several places such as verses 19, 85, 119 and 185 of the Sura Al Imran (the 3rd Sura). Moreover, Koran mentions Musalman in the verse 64 of the same Sura. Hearing his words the audience, mostly Muslim blockheads, is seen to be jubilant. But no one audience pointed out that a religion should be judged not by the name, but by the message it carries. However, Dr Naik , later on, clarifies and says that the real name of Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, or Eternal Religion. Though there is no English word equivalent to the Sanskrit word Dharma, the word religion is usually taken as the English equivalent of Dharma.

Dr Naik then clarifies that Islam is not a new religion originated by Prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago, and it came into being as soon as Allah created the first human being Adam in heaven. In my previous article “A Few Questions to Dr Zakir Naik on Islam”, I have shown that Allah created Adam not earlier than 4,127 years ago, and hence Islam, according to Dr Naik’s claim, cannot be older than the same number of years. But how old are the Vedas? Dr Naik admits that, according to Western scholars, the Vedas are the oldest literature of the mankind. But then ridicules the Hindus and says that they are polytheists and worship many Gods, while Muslims worship only one God Allah.

But it seems that Dr Naik is not aware that Hinduism is the oldest monotheist religion in the world. Apparently it appears to a commoner that Hinduism is polytheistic as Hindus worship idols of many deities. But whosoever has tried to delve into it has found that Hinduism is absolutely monotheistic. In Hinduism, God (or Îúvara) is one, but deities are many. Even a Hindu child knows that, all these deities are the manifestations of one God (Iúvara or Brahman). So the seers of the Vedas say,

Ekṃ sadviprâ bahudhâ vadanti Agniṃ Yamaṃ Mâtariúvânam âhuḥ -RV (1/164/46). (God is one but people call Him by many names like Agni, yama, Mâtariúvâ etc.) or

Suparṇ Viprâḥ kavayo bacobhirekaṃ santaṃ vahudhâ
kalpayanti- RV (10/114/5). (Him
(With fair wings though there is only One (bird), sages imagin
many).
So, when Dr Naik designates Hinduism a polytheistic religion and ridicules Hindus for worshiping many Gods, he exposes his ignorance of even a b c of Hinduism.

According to Dr Naik, Islam is the only religion that is strictly monotheistic, as its followers worship only one God Allah. But it seems, from Koran and other Islamic scriptures, that Allah is not confident that he is the only God in the world (not in the universe as Allah is aware only about heaven and earth).

Had Allah been the only God, it would not have been possible for man to find another God to worship. And had Allah been confident that there is no other God except him, he should not have been jealous of another God. For example, let us imagine a village where there is only one well as the source of fresh water. Hence there would not have been any difference whether the villagers drink water from a glass or from a pitcher, or from a jug. And as there is not an alternative source, it must have been derived from that lone well. In a similar manner, if Allah knew that there is no other God, he would have been confident that people will not find another God to worship.

But the behavioral pathern of Allah suggests that he is not confident that he is the only God. He seems always to be suspicious that there may be another God and people may worship that God instead of him and thus they may create a partner to him. So the scared Allah warns man not to worship another God or create a partner to him and says, “Say, ‘people of the Book, let us come to an agreement: that we will worship none but Allah, that we will associate none with Him, and that none of us shall set up mortals as deities besides Allah” (3: 64) [tr: N J Dawood (only the word God replaced by Allah].

In this context, it should be mentioned here that, as the Hindu God is confident that He is the only God in this universe, He does not become jealous of another God and says,

Ye api anya devatâ bhaktâ yajante úraddhayânvitaḥ z
Te api mameva kaunteya yajantyabidhipûrbakam zz Bhagavadgitâ (9: 23)

“O Kaunteya (Arjuna), even those who worship other gods with devotion (bhakti), they do really worship Me, though the rite differ from the norm” (tr: R C Zaehner). The Hindu God does not become angry and say, “you have committed the foulest sin by worshiping other gods or associating partner (shirk) with Me and I shall throw you in hell fire as a punishment for this sin, because He is confident that He is the only God, and no one could find another God to worship.

To speak the truth, Allah is not a god at all. Allah is a cruel tyrant, a barbaric killer and a violent despot. In fact, the Islamic Umma is the biggest criminal gang on earth and Allah is leader and guide of that criminal gang and is trying to establish himself as the God of the world (not of the universe) with the help of the mujahidin through terror and bloodshed. He is therefore always scared that a member of his gang may slip out of his grip and start to worship that real God, the real ruler of the universe. So he has enforced strict law that if any one of his gang tries to desert the gang, he should immediately be declared an apostate and put to death. One should also notice that, this is the standing rule of every other underworld criminal gang. If any member of the gang leaves the gang, even with the intention of leading a decent life, the other members of the gang murder him instantly due to the reason that he may disclose the secrets of the gang.

Allah in the Ṛgveda:

It has been mentioned earlier that the lectures of Dr Zakir Naik are full of naked lies. The reader should also recall that, the most merciful and all knowing and all observing Allah has given clean chit to these people like Zakir Naik to tell any lie, to do any mischief and play any deception with the kafirs, if it helps to influence them and bring them under Allah’s fold or for propagation of Islam. And Dr Zakir Naik makes unrelenting use of that command of Allah in all his lectures. So, his claim that Allah is mentioned in the Ṛgveda is also a pure lie. Dr Naik says that the verses (2/1/11), (3/30/10), (9/67/30) and (1/13/9) of the Ṛgveda contain mentioning of Allah. When I opened the Ṛgveda, I was really dumbfounded that a man like Dr Zakir Naik, the president of a recognized institute like the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) in Mumbai, could propagate such blatant lies and that too in open gatherings.

The reader should recall that the word Âllâh has been derived from two Arabic words âl (the) and ilâh (anobject of worship). In Ṛgveda, there is a word iḷâ, with a completely different meaning. But Dr Naik, whenever could find the Sanskrit word iḷâ in the Ṛgveda, he, as his sacred duty of holy deceiption (taqyya), has declared it as mentioning of Allah, without a second thought.
For example, the verse (2/1/11) of Ṛgveda says,
Tvamagne aditirdeva dâúuṣe tvaṃ hotrâ bhâratî
bardhase girâz
Tvamiḷâ úatahimasi dakṣase tvaṃ bṛtrahâ vasupate
sarasvatî zz

“Thou, God (Agni), art Aditi to him who offers gifts: thou Hotrâ, Bhâratî, art strengthed by the song. Tthou art the hundred-wintered Iḷâ to give strength, O Lord of wealth! Vṛtra-slayer and sarasvatî” [tr: ibid]. According to Sâyana, the most celebrated commentator on the Vedas, iḷâ is the other name of Agni (the deity of fire). Furthermore, the entire Hymn (2/1) has been dedicated to God Agni and hence there is no doubt that the word iḷâ in the verse stands for Agni.

The word iḷâ also occurs in the verse (1/13/9) of the Ṛgveda, that reads,

Iḷâ, sarasvatî mahî tisro devîrmayobhuvaḥ z
Varhiḥ sîdantasridhaḥ zz

“Iḷâ, Sarasvatî and Mahî, three godesses who bring delight, be seated, peaceful, on the grass”. In this verse, Iḷâ is a godess and, according to Sâyana, Iḷâ in this verse may stand for earth, or cow, or vâc (speech).

In a similar manner, there is another word Alâ in the Ṛgveda that refers to various deities. The verse (3/30/10) contains the word and says,

Alâtṛṇo vala Indra vrajo goḥ pura hantorbhayamano byâra z
Sugatpatho akṛṇonniraje gaḥ prâvanvâṇîḥ purahûtaṃ
dhamantîḥ zz

“He who withheld the kine, in silence yielded in fear before thy blow, O Indra. He made paths easy to drive forth the cattle. Loud-breathing praises helped the much-invoked One” [tr: ibid]. Here, Alâ is the other name of Indra. The entire Hymn (3/30) has been dedicated to Indra and this confirms that the word Alâ in the verse refers to Indra. But, as the word Alâ sounds like Allah, Dr Zakir Naik, like a fool, has taken it to be a mentioning of Allah.

The word Alâ also occurs in the verse (9/67/30) of the Ṛgveda that says,

Alâyasya paraúurṇâúa tamâ pavasva deva soma z
Âkhuṃ cideva deva soma zz

– “O, deva Soma, we pray to you so that the battle-axe of our enemy gets broken- Alâ, you descend and kill our irretating enemy”. Though the Hymn (9/67) has been dedicated to both Soma and Agni, scholars believe that the word Alâ in this verse refers to Soma or the Moon (or Soma) .

According to Dr Zakir Naik, every Sanskrit dictionary contains the word Allah and says that Allah is the God. In the most authentic Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Monier Williams (A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Motilal Benarasidass, Delhi,1981), the present author could not find the word Âllah. The words, this author could find that sound like Allah are; Al (to be competent or able), Ala (the sting in the tail of a scorpion), Alât (a firebrand or coal) and Âla (spawn, any discharge of poisonous matter from a venomous animal). Another authentic Sanskrit-English Dictionary (The Student’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Vaman Shivaram Apte, Motilal Benarasidass, Delhi, 2005), there is a word Allâ and says that it stands for mother.

Conclusion:

From the discussions presented above, it becomes evident that, all the utterences of Dr Zakir Naik regarding mentioning of Allah in the Ṛgveda and in the Sanskrit dictionaries are pure lies. But the question remains: Why Dr Naik is hell bent on to discover mentioning of Allah in Sanskrit literature? It has been mentioned earlier that Allah is most merciful and kind (Rahmanir Rahim) only to the Muslims. But for the non-Muslim kafirs, Allah is cruel beast and a barbaric killer. And most importantly, Allah is not at all the God or Lord of this creation and Dr Naik is striving hard to dignify Allah and to establish him as the God by discovering his name in the Vedas. His efforts are nothing but finding a pedigree for Allah.

                                                                              *****************

    By Dr. R. Brahmachari*

On April 10, President APJ Abdul Kalam was presenting the Indian Music Academy awards to maestros like Ali Akbar Khan, Dr Balamurali Krishna, Girija Devi, Asha Bhonsle and Illyaraja (music director) at a function at New Delhi. While speaking to the audience, Honourable President said, “The nation is grateful to various exponents of music in India for the great contribution you are making in preserving music and promoting unity of minds among the billions of people of this nation of multi-religion, multi-culture and multi-language”. He also said, “Indeed music is a great integrator of minds of people of Indian origin settled in various parts of the planet”. While our President was speaking all these words to praise and encourage music, he perhaps overlooked the fact that the religious creed he follows, forbids music.

Nearly 10 days later, the cleric Maulana Abdul Ajiz of famous Lal Masjid in Peshawar, Pakistan ,issued a Fatwa to enforce Sharia (Islamic Law) immediately in Pakistan and declared any kind musical pursuit, including singing and dancing, un-Islamic. He asked Pakistani singers and dancers to go to India and perform their arts there. His fatwa also promulgated that doing business in any thing related to music is un-Islamic and asked people who are running shops of audio and video CDs and tapes, to close their shops. As a consequence of these religious Fatwas, a group of fanatics blew off 3 shops in Swabi, a small town at about 100 km north-west of Peshawar.

A question naturally arises – Why Islam forbids music? In fact, Islam forbids, not only music but any kind of artistic pursuit like singing, playing musical instruments, dancing, drawing pictures, sculpting figures and so on, including even photography. To get into the root of this Islamic attitude towards music, one has to delve into the matter a bit. At the onset, it should be made clear that the creed of Islam has nothing to do with spiritualism and its ultimate goal is to turn the entire world into an Islamic empire, either by converting or by eliminating the entire population of non-Muslim kafirs and jihad is the means to achieve that goal. Hence jihad, the military component of Islam, is the greatest virtue of the creed. It is therefore compulsory participate in jihad to win a victory over the world of non-Muslims.

Islamic scholars agree that, jihad is the best form of worship in Islam, better than even pilgrimage to Mecca or hajj not to mention lower merits like prayer (namaz) or fasting (roza). So Allah makes jihad compulsory for every able Muslim and says, “Fighting against the kafirs is beyond one’s personal likings and dislikings as Allah has commanded to fight the pagans and all those who ascribe partners (shirk) with Allah” (Koran-2.216). “Go on fighting against them till the rule of Allah is not established (Koran-8.39).” And In plain words, jihad means indiscriminate killing of kafirs, plundering their wealth, occupying their land and other properties by sword, fire and rape.

Almighty Allah, to inspire the Muslims to participate in jihad, or wage war against the non-Muslim kafirs, has made war booty (or the property or wealth of the kafirs occupied by robbery and loot) legal for the jihadis.  The non-Muslim women captured in jihad are also war booty and Allah has permitted every Muslim to have sex with non-Muslim women of any age or of any status. So jihad stands for  indiscriminate killing of non-Muslim kafirs, looting their properties, raping their women in front of their kins, chopping off their breasts, maiming the kafir males and chopping off their genitals, smashing their children on stones or cutting them into pieces in front of their parents, or in short, mounting any kind of  extremely barbaric and beastly torture on kafirs.

So it becomes evident that the intention of Islam is to turn every Muslim into a cruel beast, a brute killer. Or to turn into a cruel beast that will not hesitate to do any type cruelty or brutality on the non-Muslim kafirs. And more importantly, he will not feel any repentance or any sense of guilt, for committing such violent atrocities on the kafirs. A few examples may make the point clear. To narrate the barbarity committed on the Hindus in Bangladesh during

the War of Liberation in 1971, Mr. Anwar Shaikh, in the Preface of his book This is Jihad, writes, “Brutalities committed on Hindus in East Bengal in 1971 are without parallel in human history. In many cases a whole community was encircled. Mothers and daughters were raped on mass scale, in presence of brothers and fathers. Breasts of elderly ladies were chopped off. Pregnant women were disemboweled, children’s heads were smashed on the floor. Then followed chopping off of genitals, gouging out of eyes, and finally, chopping off of heads of male members. As a grand climax everybody was put in a house and the house was set on fire.”

In 1360 AD., Firoz Shah Tughlaq invaded Orissa and desecrated the temple of Lord Jagannath and threw the idol in the Bay of Bengal. On his return journey, when he was passing through Jajnagar, it was brought to his knowledge that nearly 120,000 Hindus had taken shelter at an offshore island. Firoz Shah then went to that island with his men and butchered those 120,000 Hindus on a single day.

Ulugh Khan (later on Sultan Ghiasuddin Balban), when he was serving sultan Nassiruddin (brother of Sultana Rizia) as a commander, went to the Gahrwal, on the foot hill of the Himalayas, and promised his men that he would reward them with one rupee for bringing the head of a slain Hindu and two rupees for bringing a Hindu alive. Like hungry dogs his army set out for the hunt of kafir Hindus. The massacre went on for three long weeks and several hundreds of thousands of Hindus were slain. Ulugh Khan then built high-rise bastions with the heads of the slain Hindus.

When Maharana Sangram Singh was defeated in the battle of Khanau, Babar ordered general massacre, and his chief commander Mohammadi and other commanders massacred 1,00,000 Rajput prisoners of war and another 1,00,000 civilian Hindus. Such large scale slaughter of Hindus went on unabated during the entire period of Muslim rule that lasted for about 700 years.

A press report on 22^nd April says that a Pakistani boy of 12,

trained by Taliban leaders, has beheaded a man suspected to be a spy of George Bush, the US President, in a remote village on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, near Peshawar. The report also says that the boy has done the job with the simple knife and while denouncing the blind-folded spy with his high pitched voice. After severing head of the victim, the boy cried out, “Allahu Akbar”.

After the Battle of Panipat on 5^th November, 1556, when the

defeated Emperor Vikramaditya Hemraj (a.k.a. Himu) was brought before Akbar, hardly a boy of 14, his guardian Bairam Khan asked Akbar to behead  Himu, so that he could earn the title of Ghazi (slayer of infidel). The boy readily smote Himu on the neck and beheaded the already half-dead victim with his scimitar. These two examples are sufficient to show what Islam wants every Muslim to turn into.

But it is evident that a soft hearted man is utterly unsuitable for such barbaric and beastly acts and Islam forbids music because music, or pursuit of any form of art, softens one’s heart. Islam forbids even making love with women because love also makes one’s heart soft. According to Islam, women are to be raped, not loved.

 *******

*Professor, Department of Applied Physics,

    University of Calcutta.

                    .