Comments on: On Sufi Terror, Personal Terrorism, Jihadi Mindsets and Minarets

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:16:54 +0000

More on Sufism… The other side of Sufism
By R.K. Ohri, IPS (Retd). Some excerpts below:
For centuries the Sufi creed and Sufi music have been tom tomed as great symbols of spiritualism and promoters of peace and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims. The cleverly marketed concept of Sufi spiritualism has been unquestioningly accepted as the hallmark of Hindu-Muslim unity. It is time we studied the history of Sufis, tried to track the narrative of their coming to India and analysed their explicit missionary role in promoting conversions to Islam. More importantly, it needs to be assessed how did the Sufis conduct themselves during reckless killings and plunders by the Muslim invaders ? Did they object to the senseless mass killings and try to prevent unremitting plunder of Hindu temples and innocent masses? Did the Sufis ever object to the capture of helpless men and women as slaves and the use of the latter as objects of carnal pleasure ? These are some of the questions to which answers have to be found by every genuine student of Indian history.

Most Sufis came to India either accompanying the invading armies of Islamic marauders, or followed in the wake of the sweeping conquests made by the soldiers of Islam. At least the following four famous Sufis accompanied the Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India to attack the Hindu rulers, seize their kingdoms and riches and took recourse to extensive slaughtering of the commoners. Almost all Sufi masters were silent spectators to the murderous mayhem and reckless plunder of temples ands cities by the marauding hordes across the sub-continent. Taking advantage of the fact that the Hindu masses are deeply steeped in spiritual tradition and mysticism, the Sufis used their mystic paradigm for applying sort of a healing balm on the defeated, bedegralled and traumatized commoners with a view to converting them to the religion of the victors. The following well-known Sufi masters came to India along with the invading Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India in wave after wave:

Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer had accompanied the army of Shihabuddin Ghori and finally settled down at Ajmer in the year 1233 A.D.

Khawaja Qutubuddin came to Delhi in the year 1236 in the train of Shihabuddin Ghori and stayed on to further the cause of Islam.

Sheikh Faridudin came to Pattan (now in Pakistan) in the year 1265.

Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin came to Delhi in the year 1335 accompanying a contingent of the Muslim invaders.

Additionally, the famous Sufi Shihabuddin Suhrawardy of Baghdad was brought to India for carrying out the missionary work of conversions by Bahauddin Zakariya of Multan several decades after the Hindu ruler had been defeated and the kingdom laid waste after repetitive plunder and manslaughter. Like all Sufi masters, his main task was to apply the balm of spiritual unity on the traumatized Hindu population and then gradually persuade them to convert to Islam.
Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and wreckless plunder, nor to the destruction of temples, nor for that matter to the ghoulish enslavement of the so-called infidel men and women for sale in the bazaars of Ghazni and Baghdad.
…
Another important objective of the spiritual and mystic preachings of the Sufi masters was to blunt the edge of Hindu resistance and prevent them from taking up arms to defend their hearth and home, their motherland and their faith, through the fa?ade of peace and religious harmony.
…
The well known Sufi Saint of Punjab, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634) held that the execution of the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory. He believed and openly proclaimed that Islam and Hinduism were antithesis of each other and therefore could not co-exist. Even the Chishti Sufi, Miyan Mir, who had been a friend of Guru Arjun Dev, later on turned his back on the Sikh Guru when the latter was arrested by Jahangir and sent for execution.

…
In the above mentioned treatise on Sufi philosphy, Fuwaid al-Fuad (translated by Bruce B. Lawrence, Paulist Press, New York, 1992), a very interesting instance of enslaving the kaffir Hindus for monetary gain has been cited which shows how another Sufi, Shayakh Ali Sijzi, provided financial assistance to one of his dervishes to participate in the lucrative slave trade. He had advised the dervish that he should take “these slaves to Ghazni, where the potential for profit is still greater”. And it was confirmed by Nizamuddin Auliya that “the Dervish obeyed”. Obviously therefore, neither spiritual ethics and nor justice to all, including the infidels, were the strong points of Sufi saints.

If the narrative of the preachings and acts of Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer are taken as indication of his religious philosophy and deeds, he emerges as a sufi master who nursed a deep hatred against the infidel Hindus and showed utter contempt for their religious beliefs. As elaborated by S.S.A. Rizvi in “A History of Sufism in India”, Vol. 1 (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978, p. 117), there is a reference in the book, Jawahar-i- Faridi, to the fact that when Moinuddin Chishti reached near the Annasagar Lake at Ajmer, where a number of holy shrines of Hindus were located, he slaughtered a cow and cooked a beef kebab at the sacred place surrounded by many temples. It is further claimed in Jawahar-i-Faridi that the Khwaja had dried the 2 holy lakes of Annasagar and Pansela by the magical heat of Islamic spiritual power. He is even stated to have made the idol of the Hindu temple near Annasagar recite the Kalma. The Khwaja had a burning desire to destroy the rule of the brave Rajput king, Prithviraj Chauhan, so much so that he ascribed the victory of Muhammad Ghori in the battle of Tarain entirely to his own spiritual prowess and declared that “We have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of Islam”. [Source: Siyarl Auliya, cited by Rizvi on page 116 of "A History of Sufism in India"].

…
Unfortunately due to relentless colonization of the Hindu mind during 1000 years long oppressive Muslim rule, the Hindu masses till date have failed to realise that the so-called Sufi philosophy of religious harmony is a one-way street. This trend of Hindus praying at tombs and dargahs has been nurtured by the strong undercurrent of belief in spiritualism among Hindu masses, even educated classes. That is the crux of the matter. Deeply steeped in their traditional belief in spirituality and mysticism, the Hindus have developed the custom of visiting dargahs and continue to pray at the tombs of Sufis, no Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of Hindu Gods and Godesses..

By: Moderator

Moderator — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:22:27 +0000

*** COMMENT by MALAVIKA ***

Al Ghazali is considered the prominent ‘Sufi’. Lets’s see what he has to say about Kaffirs,Dhimmis and the hated ‘other’. Here is an excerpt from W.M. Watt.

The eminent Islamic scholar W.M. Watt stresses Al-Ghazali’s Muslim orthodoxy. He says that Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity…He brought orthodoxy and mysticism into closer contact…the theologians became more ready to accept the mystics as respectable, while the mystics were more careful to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.”[1]

Here is Al-Ghazali, evidently with no intention of departing either from Sufism or Muslim orthodoxy, writing about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples:

O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book - primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need…

[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D. Emphasis added.)

1. Watt, W.M. [Translator]. The Faith and Practice of Al-Ghazali, Oxford, England, 1953, p. 13.
2. Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. [English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:52:00 +0000

Placing these two links here (re. Sufis) for the record (thanks to Sid and Ashwani for these):

http://greatbong.net/2010/08/24/the-ground-zero-mosque/#comment-852373

http://folks.co.in/2009/12/demystifying-the-sufis/

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:46:52 +0000

Excerpts from Let Shahmira Oad’s body rest in peace by Anees Jillani*

…We all feel the pinch when something happens to a Muslim and an Islamic symbol, like the mosque but we have no qualms about the religious feelings of others. Almost every Muslim in the world was saddened by the destruction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992. But we don’t even think for a second about the conversion of innumerable Hindu and Sikh temples in the whole of Pakistan to schools, police stations, offices and sometimes even for keeping cattle. We cannot imagine such a thing happening to a mosque but have no objection to treating the religious places of others with utter contempt.

We all resent the recent ban on minarets in Switzerland; many of the Swiss and Europeans themselves are saddened by this development. But have we ever thought about the complete ban on construction of churches and temples in the whole of Saudi Arabia and in most of the Gulf countries? Non-Muslims are not even permitted to enter the cities of Mecca and Medina and we consider it our human right to even get elected to the parliaments of the so-called Christian countries, and acquire as much property as we can.

When will we in Pakistan learn to remember the basic truth that whatever we give to others, good or bad, it comes back, many times? Shouldn’t then we give more and more of what we want for ourselves to others so that the same will come back to us in greater quantities?

* Anees Jillani is a prominent Pakistan Supreme Court lawyer.
Thanks to Suresh for alerting me to this.

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:52:02 +0000

@ Sameer: First things first. Re.“This was indeed my first post and I was unaware that it would somehow reduce eligibilty.

You misunderstood me…I was simply making a point about keeping the comemnts relevant to the post/thread.

Re. “plenty of Muslim majority states that have secular laws”, perhaps there are…but law is one thing and practice is another…(as you have yourself pointed out in your comment re Saudi Arabia).

I would honestly like to be enlightened about “secular” Islamic societies…That does not mean they do not exist..rather that they are in a minority and worse – becoming increasingly radicalised.

One example is Turkey and the AKP (also you may find this somewhat dated link interesting. And this post from my blog may be somewhat tangential but interesting: Of Turkey, Secular States and Religion.

As for Egypt, Wikipedia informs me that “The Constitution provides for freedom of belief and the practice of religion; however, the Government places restrictions on this right…Islam is the official state religion, and Shari’a is the primary source of legislation; religious practices that conflict with the official interpretation of Shari’a are prohibited”

I would love to hear of the “dozens of states that can certainly be called a Muslim majority state…(of whihc) only a few could indeed be qualified as islamic”

In the north of Africa, we have Libya..In the east you have Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia and nearby is Yemen….Are these countries “secular”?

In south east asia, you have Malaysia (you must be aware of the destruction of Hindu temples there) and Maldives – just to pick up two exmaples…and of course Indonesia – which is increasingly becoming radicalised.

As for “None of these so-called ‘Islamic states’ have had anything remotely resembling what india saw in Gujarat 2002, Mumbai 1992, Delhi, Bhagalpur and Nellie in the 80s and so on” might it be because they do not have any significant minorities? Note that I am *not* covering up for the riots in India merely suggesting a point to you…

We do need to look inwards – India is hardly bereft of problems…but that does not mean we have to stay mute on everything outside.

***

@ Pinky: Thats funny!…and you seem to love the word “intellectual”! By the way, did the comment at #2 embarrass you so much that you are posting under a different name now? or are you two different people with similar writing styles? Just wondering.
Anyways, stay on topic if you don’t want your comments to be deleted.

***

@ All: Pl. note that this post is not about Sudheendra Kulkarni’s article.