Tyrant Sufis Hindus Revere: Time to Introspect: Lalit k kaul

 

The Tyrant Sufis Hindus Revere: Time to Introspect & Shun Mazaars & Sufis                                                                                                                   Lalit K Kaul

History may not be an interesting subject to study, but when a religious entity/group is in midst of an emerging challenge to its very existence, then there is this compulsive need to revisit its traditions and beliefs founded on inter-religious connect that may have evolved due to some historical reasons centuries ago long forgotten down the line. The reasons could be mutual respect for each other's religious thought or they could be forced submission of a conquered people into such practices.

When sloganeering like “Sar Tan Sae Juda" rent the air and are implemented with impunity then there arises the desperate need to understand the religious thought/ doctrine of the religion to which these beheaders belong.

Never understood the rationale behind the practice of bowing one's head in reverence to a rotting skeleton inside the grave; that too by Sanatan Dharmis and yet never questioned such irrational acts, but now the time has come to put a stop to such practices by Hindus and if that mission has to succeed then history is the best friend, guide and motivator.

So, let's see how these Indian Sufis were like.

Ref: “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery" , by M A Khan

Publisher: iUniverse, Revised Edition Jan 26, 2009

The following lines are unedited version of the text as found in the referred book. The author has cited many references in support of his research and the curious minds may read the book in its totality.

The Indian Sufis:

When the central Asian Turks established direct Muslim rule in India (1206), Sufism, the Ghazzalian orthodox Sufism to be accurate, had gained wide acceptance in Muslim societies. Following the trail of Muslim invaders, the Sufis poured into India. The great Sufi saints of India—namely Nizamuddin Auliya, Amir Khasrau, Nasiruddin Chiragh, Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti and Jalaluddin et al.—held rather orthodox and intolerant views. They held the Ulema, the orthodox scholars of Islam, in great esteem and advised their disciples to follow their rulings in religious laws and social behavior. Influenced by the unorthodox, controversial doctrines and practices of famous Arab-Spanish Sufi ideologue Ibn Arabi (d. 1240),

Moinuddin Chisti and Nizamuddin Auliya were the most unorthodox and liberal amongst India’s Sufis. Annoying the orthodox, they had adopted musical sessions (sama) and dancing (raqs) in their rituals. However, when it came to the real question of Islam, they never took a stand against classical orthodoxy; they always put the Ulema ahead of them in religious matters.

The Sufis of India had no contradiction with the Ulema; both had a common goal—the interest of Islam, but to be achieved through different methods. Auliya used to say, ‘What the Ulema seek to achieve through speech, we achieve by our behavior.’ Jamal Qiwamu’d-din, a long-time associate of Auliya, never saw him miss a single Sunnah of the Prophet. Other prominent Sufis held even more orthodox views. The

great Sufi saint Nasiruddin Chiragh, for example, purged and purified deviant aspects of the Sufi practices. According to Prof. KA Nizami, he prohibited all deviant (from Sharia) rituals and practices that had entered the Sufi community, saying, ‘‘Whatever Allah and His Prophet have ordered, do it and whatever Allah and His Prophet have forbidden you against, you should not do.’’ Nizami adds: ‘He brought Sufi institution in

harmony with Sunnah. Wherever there was a slightest clash, he proclaimed the supremacy of the Sharia Laws.

Views of Sufis:

Ghazzali, the greatest Sufi ideologue, held rather orthodox and violent views on Jihad. He advised fellow Muslims that, ‘…one must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them… One may cut down their trees… One must destroy their useful book (Bible, Torah etc.). Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…’ About the protocol of the payment of jizyah in humiliation by a dhimmi, he wrote:

‘…the Jews, Christians and the Majians must pay the jizyah… On offering up the jizyah, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits on the protuberant bone beneath his ear.’

The prominent Indian Sufis did not leave behind a comprehensive commentary about their ideas of non-Muslims or on issues, like Jihad. However, their isolated comments on such issues, whenever opportunities arose, give a good deal of idea about their views on these subjects. In general, their views on infidels and Jihad were of the mould of Ghazzali, the greatest Sufi master.

Nizamuddin Auliya (1238–1325):

Toeing the orthodox line, condemned the Hindus to the fire of hell, saying: ‘The unbelievers at the time of death will experience punishment. At that moment, they will profess belief (Islam) but it will not be reckoned to them as belief because it will not be faith in the Unseen… the faith of (an) unbeliever at death remains unacceptable.’ He asserted that ‘On the day of Resurrection when unbelievers will face punishment and affliction, they will embrace faith but faith will not benefit them… They will also go to Hell, despite the fact that they will go there as believers.’ In his khutbas (sermons), Nizamuddin Auliya condemned the infidels as wicked, saying, ‘He (Allah) has created Paradise and Hell for believers and the infidels (respectively) in order to repay the wicked for what they have done. He did not only believe in warring with the unbelievers or Jihad, he came to India with his followers to engage in it. He participated in a holy war commanded by Nasiruddin Qibacha in Multan. When Qibacha’s army was in distress facing defeat, Auliya rushed to him and gave him a magical arrow instructing: ‘‘Shoot this arrow at the direction of the infidel army.’ …Qibacha did as he was told, and when daybreak came not one of the infidels was to be seen; they all had fled!’

The Auliya used to accept large gifts sent by Sultan Alauddin from the spoils plundered in Jihad expeditions and proudly displayed those at his khanqah (lodge).

Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti (1141–1230):

 Probably the second-greatest Sufi saint of India after Nizamuddin Auliya, demonstrated a deep-seated hatred toward Hindu religion and its practices. On his arrival near the Anasagar Lake at Ajmer, he saw many idol-temples and promised to raze them to the ground with the help of Allah and His Prophet. After settling down there, Khwaja’s followers used to bring every day a cow (sacred to Hindus) near a famous temple, where the king and Hindus prayed, slaughter it and cook kebab from its meat—clearly to show his contempt toward Hinduism. ‘In order to prove the majesty of Islam, he is said to have dried the two holy lakes of Anasagar and Pansela (holy to Hindus) by the heat of his spiritual power.’ Chisti also came to India with his disciples to fight Jihad against the infidels and participated in the treacherous holy war of

Sultan Muhammad Ghauri in which the kind and chivalrous Hindu King Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated in Ajmer. In his Jihadi zeal, Chisti ascribed the credit for the victory to himself, saying, ‘‘We have seized Pithaura (Prithviraj) alive and handed him over to the army of Islam.

Amir Khasrau (1253–1325):

Shaykh Nizamuddin Auliya’s exalted disciple, is lauded as the greatest liberal Sufi poet of medieval India. Describing Muslim victories against the Hindu kings, he mocks their religious traditions, such as ‘tree’ and ‘stone-idol’ worship. Mocking the stone-idols, destroyed by Muslim warriors, he wrote: ‘Praise be to God for his exaltation of the religion of Muhammad. It is not to be doubted that stones are worshipped by the Gabrs (derogatory slang for idolaters), but as stones did no service to them, they only bore to heaven the futility of that worship.’ Amir Khasrau showed delights in describing the barbaric slaughter of Hindu captives by Muslim warriors. Describing Khizr Khan’s order to massacre 30,000 Hindus in the conquest of Chittor in 1303, he gloated:

‘Praise be to God! That he so ordered the massacre of all chiefs of Hind out of the pale of Islam, by his infidel-smiting swords… in the name of this Khalifa of God, that heterodoxy has no rights (in India).’ He took poetic delight in describing Malik Kafur’s destruction of a famous Hindu temple in South India and the grisly slaughter of the Hindus and their priests therein. In describing the slaughter, he wrote, ‘…the heads of brahmans and idolaters danced from their necks and fell to the ground at their feet, and blood flowed in torrents.’ In his bigoted delight at the miserable subjugation of Hindus and the barbarous triumph of Islam in India, he wrote:

The whole country, by means of the sword of our holy warriors, has become like a forest denuded of its thorns by fire? Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the Law granted exemption from death by the payment of poll-tax, the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have been extinguished.

One can go on and on and expose the barbarism of Sufis in India, but for limitation of space.

Hindus ought to wake up from their deep slumber:

The “Sufi" Mazaars make revenue in billions of rupees because Hindus visit them; stupidly though. Even if the Sufis were truly saintly person, it never made any sense to worship their graves. With the money they made, their Muslim followers and associated Muslim organizations have become a force to challenge the integrity of India and shown the audacity to behead for factual speaking & that too on provocation of insulting Hindu Gods. The mindset that Hindu is Kafir is being empowered by the Hindu funding of the Mazaars of their tormentors.

It's not about Islam; not about its apologists, critics and followers. It's about a choice to be made between civilized and barbaric society. It's about more than 10,000 years old Indian civilization and its ethos. Hindus, though enslaved for nearly 1300 years have valiantly fought the Muslim and British oppressors under very difficult and unfriendly situations. That resistance to barbarism and oppression is what being Hindu is all about.

“Sar Tan Sae Juda" is a precursor for events to come in future; the acts of barbarism inspired by a certain thought and world view are bound to happen and to annihilate such mindset is and should be the prime Dharm of every Hindu & every such person who lives by civilized behaviour and abhors barbaric acts. Hindus need to lead in this fight against barbarism.