Akbar Ahmed and the “Mama Mia Ibn Taymiyya Syndrome”

Andrew Bostom comments on Tony Blankley's "Journey Into Islam," about which I wrote here.

His conclusion: Due to both misjudgments by the United States and regrettable developments in Muslim attitudes, "The poisons are spreading so rapidly that without immediate remedial action, no antidote may ever be found." And Dr. Ahmed has always been an optimist. ....Ajmer represents peaceful Sufi mysticism, Aligarth represents the instinct to modernize without corrupting Islam, Deoband represents non-fatalistic, practical, action-oriented orthodox Islam. It traces to Ibn Taymiyya, a 14th-Century thinker who lived when Islam was reeling from the Mongol invasions. He rejected Islam's prior easy, open acceptance of non-Muslims.

Despite his laudable (if very belated) acknowledgement of the current dismal and dangerous state of global Muslim attitudes, Mr. Ahmed continues to insist upon a completely ahistorical apologetic, including what I have called the "Mama Mia Ibn Taymiyya Syndrome"—the reductio ad absurdum blaming of the institution of jihad on one 14th century jurist from the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, a school which was in fact unimportant in India. India was dominated by the Hanafi and Shafi'ite schools through the 1000-year period of the brutal jihad conquests, colonization, and imposition of the Sharia on the Indian subcontinent. No Muslim school of jurisprudence ever fostered an “easy, open acceptance of non-Muslims.” All sanctioned jihad and jihad-imposed dhimmitude, with the greatest degradation to be imposed upon the idolatrous Hindus, Animists etc.

Indeed, it was by dint of their vast numbers alone that the Hindus were even granted dhimmi status, as they should have according to Islamic law simply been given the option of conversion or death, but this proved impractical (although their dhimmi status remained a point of contention amongst Muslim jurists for centuries as prominent Shafi'ites, including Sufis favored conversion or death). Sir Jadunath Sarkar, for example, a pre-eminent historian of Mughal India, wrote the following in 1920 regarding the particularly debasing imposition of the Koranic poll-tax (cf. Koran 9:29) upon the indigenous Hindus of the Indian subcontinent.

As the learned Qazi Mughis-ud-din declared, in accordance with the teachings of the books on Canon Law: ‘The Hindus are designated in the Law as ‘payers of tribute’ (kharaj-guzar); and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By these acts of degradation are shown the extreme obedience of the zimmi [dhimmi], the glorification of the true faith of Islam, and the abasement of false faiths. God himself orders them to be humiliated , (as He says, ‘till they pay jaziya) with the hand and are humbled…The Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive…No other religious authority except the great Imam (Hanifa) whose faith we follow, has sanctioned the imposition of jaziya on Hindus. According to all other theologians, the rule for Hindus is ‘Either death or Islam’.

The late (d. 2002) scholar K.S. Lal records this translation, ‘…and should the collector choose to spit into his mouth, opens the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it..’ Lal notes, further that , “Actual spitting in the mouth of the non-Muslims was not uncommon”. Lal cites a poem by Vijaya Gupta (1493-1519 C.E.), which includes the line, ‘The peons employed by the qazis tore away the sacred threads of the Brahmans and spat saliva in their mouths’.

Also, one wonders what to make of Ahmed’s silly, meaningless categorization of "Ajmer" Islam etc. And US "misjudgments" and "regrettable developments" sounds like Ahmed's way of blaming the US, and simultaneously denying the legacy of jihad and dhimmitude that imposed Islam upon the indigenous Hindus and Buddhists of India, wiping out the latter's civilization altogether in Northern India. Regardless, “Ajmer Islam” is not a constructive model, nor is the "ecumenism" of prominent Indian Sufi Jurists/Theologians, such as Sirhindi and Shah Walli Allah. Below are additional extracts from my compendium, “The Legacy of Jihad”.

The Conquest of Ajmer by Muhammad Ghauri (1192 C.E.)

The victorious army on the right and on the left departed towards Ajmer…When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing impetuously down the face of a mountain of blue…The army of Islam was completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Hindus swiftly departed to the fire of hell…He destroyed (at Ajmer) the pillars and foundations of the idol temples, and built on their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established….

Muhammad Ghauri launched his first expeditions against Multan and Gujarat (in 1175 and 1178 C.E., respectively). By 1191-92 C.E., following Ghauri’s defeat of a Rajput confederation under Prithviraj Chauhan (and Prithviraj Chauhan’s death),

Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram, and Hansi were captured in quick succession with ruthless slaughter and a general destruction of temples, and their replacement by mosques. The Sultan then proceeded to Ajmer which too witnessed similar scenes. In Delhi an army of occupation was stationed at Indraprastha under the command of Qutub-ud-din Aibak who was to act as Ghauri’s lieutenant in Hindustan. Later on Aibak became the first Sultan of Delhi….

Under Aibak most of Hindustan from Delhi to Gujarat, and Lakhnauti to Lahore, was brought under the sway of the Turks. In his time a large number of places were attacked and many more prisoners were captured than for which actual figures are available. Figures of slaves made during campaigns of Kanauj, Banaras (where the Muslims occupied “a thousand” temples), Ajmer (attacked thrice), Gujarat, Bayana and Gwalior are not available. Similar is the case with regard to Bihar and Bengal. About the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century, Ikhtiyaruddin Bakhtiyar Khalji marched into Bihar and attacked the University centres at Nalanda, Vikramshila and Uddandpur.14 The Buddhist monks and Brahmans mistaken for monks were massacred and the common people, deprived of their priests and teachers, became an easy prey to capture and enslavement. But no figures of such captives are known. Ibn Asir only says that Qutbuddin Aibak made ‘war against the provinces of Hind… He killed many, and returned with prisoners and booty.”15 In Banaras, according to the same author, “the slaughter of the Hindus was immense, none was spared except women and children,”16 who would have been enslaved as per practice. Habibullah writes that Muslim sway extended from Banaras through the strip of Shahabad, Patna, Monghyr and Bhagalpur districts,17 and repeated references to the presence of Muslims in this tract from the early times indicates that taking of slaves and conversion was common in the region. Fakhr-i-Mudabbir informs us that as a result of the Turkish achievements under Muizzuddin and Aibak, Eleven poor (Muslim) householder became owner of numerous slaves.”

Like Balban other slave commanders of Iltutmish, or the “Shamsia Maliks of Hind” were marching up and down the Hindustan, raiding towns and villages and enslaving people. This was the situation prevailing from Lakhnauti to Lahore and from Ajmer to Ujjain. The Hindus used to reclaim their lands after the Muslim invaders had passed through them with fire and sword, and Turkish armies used to repeat their attacks to regain control of the cities so lost. But the captives once taken became slaves and then Musalmans for ever. The exact figures of such slaves have not been mentioned and therefore cannot be computed. All that is known is that they were captured in droves. Only one instance should suffice to convey an idea of their numbers. Even in the reign of a weak Sultan like Nasiruddin, son of Iltutmish, the ingress of captives was so large that once he presented forty heads of slaves to our chronicler Minhaj Siraj to send to his “dear sister” in Khurasan.

Finally, the imposition of Islamic law upon the Hindu populations of India, i.e., their relegation to dhimmi status, beginning with the advent of Muslim rule in 8th century Sindh, had predictable consequences during both the Delhi Sultanate period (1206-1526 C.E.), and the Mughal Empire (1526-1707 C.E.). A.L. Srivastava highlights these germane features of Hindu status during the Delhi Sultanate:

Throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi, Islam was the religion of the State. It was considered to be the duty of the Sultan and his government to defend and uphold the principles of this religion and to propagate them among the masses…even the most enlightened among them [the Sultans], like Muhammad bin Tughlaq, upheld the principles of their faith and refused permission to repair Hindu (or Buddhist) temples…Thus even during the reign of the so-called liberal-minded Sultans, the Hindus had no permission to build new temples or to repair old ones. Throughout the period, they were known as dhimmis, that is, people living under guarantee, and the guarantee was that they would enjoy restricted freedom in following their religion if they paid the jizya. The dhimmis were not to celebrate their religious rites openly…and never to do any propaganda on behalf of their religion. A number of disabilities were imposed upon them in matters of State employment and enjoyment of civic rights…It was a practice with the Sultans to destroy the Hindu temples and images therein. Firoz Tghlaq and Sikander Lodi prohibited Hindus from bathing at the ghats [river bank steps for ritual bathers] in the sacred rivers, and encouraged them in every possible way to embrace the Muslim religion. The converts were exempted from the jizya and given posts in the State service and even granted rewards in cash, or by grant of land. In short, there was not only no real freedom for the Hindus to follow their religion, but the state followed a policy of intolerance and persecution. The contemporary Muslim chronicles abound in detailed descriptions of desecration of images and destruction of temples and of the conversion of hundreds and thousands of the Hindus. [Hindu] religious buildings and places bear witness to the iconoclastic zeal of the Sultans and their followers. One has only to visit Ajmer, Mathura, Ayodhya, Banaras and other holy cities to see the half broken temples and images of those times with their heads, faces, hands and feet defaced and demolished...

Sirhindi (d. 1624)

Excerpts from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim revivalist movements in northern India in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Agra, Lucknow : Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co, 1965, pp. 247-250; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: an outline of his thought and a study of his image in the eyes of posterity. Montreal, McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971, pp. 73-74.

Shariat can be fostered through the sword.

Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existence between these two contradictory faiths is unthinkable.

The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonours the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honour in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm’s length like dogs….If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.

The real purpose in levying jizya on them (the non-Muslims) is to humiliate then to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya , they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It in intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.

[To Lala Beg he wrote] Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jizya but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice.

The execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal [Sikh leader] is an important achievement and is the cause of great defeat of the accursed Hindus. 1 Whatever might have been the motive behind the execution, the dishonour of the kafirs is an act of highest grace for the Muslims. Before the execution of the kafirs I had seen in a vision that the Emperor had destroyed the crown of the head of Shirk. Verily he was the chief of the Mushriks and the leader of the kafirs.

Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.

Notes

1. Friedmann offers this summary assessment of Sirhindi’s attitudes towards the Hindus:

Sirhindi follows up his utter rejection of the beliefs and practices of Hinduism with an equally outspoken statement of his attitude regarding the position of the Hindus in the Mughul empire. The honour of Islam demands the humiliation of the infidels and their false religion. To achieve this objective, jizyah should be mercilessly levied upon them, and they should be treated like dogs. Cows should be slaughtered to demonstrate the supremacy of Islam. The performance of this rite is, in India, the most important symbol of Islamic domination. One should refrain from dealing with the infidels unless absolutely necessary, and even then treat then with contempt. Islam and infidelity are two irreconcilable opposites. One thrives upon the degradation of the other. Sirhindi’s deep-seated hatred of the non-Muslims can be best illustrated by his rejoicing at the execution in 1606 of Arjun, the fifth guru of the Sikhs.

Shah Wali-Allah (d. 1762)

It has become clear to my mind that the kingdom of heaven has predestined that kafirs should be reduced to a state of humiliation and treated with utter contempt. Should that repository of majesty and dauntless courage (Nizam al-Maluk) gird his loins and direct his attention to such a task he can conquer the world. Thus the faith will become more popular and his own power strengthened; a little effort would be profoundly rewarded. Should he make no effort, they (the Marathas) would inevitably be weakened and annihilated through celestial calamities and in such an event he would gain no credit…As I have learnt this unequivocally (from the divine) I spontaneously write to draw your attention to the great opportunity laid before you. You should therefore not be negligent in fighting jihad.

Oh Kings! Mala a’la urges you to draw your swords and not put them back in their sheaths again until Allah has separated the Muslims from the polytheists and the rebellious kafirs and the sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless.

In his testament to ‘Umar, Abu Bakr had informed him that if he feared God, the entire world would be frightened of him (‘Umar). Sages and declared that the world resembled a shadow. If a man ran after his shadow it would pursue him, and if he took flight from the shadow it would still pursue him. God has chosen you as the protector of the Sunnis as there is no-one else to perform this duty, and it is crucial that at all times you consider your role as obligatory. By taking up the sword to make Islam supreme and by subordinating your own persona needs to this cause, you will reap vast benefits.

We beseech you (Durrani) in the name of the Prophet to fight a jihad against the infidels of this region. This would entitle you to great rewards before God the Most High and your name would be included in the list of those who fought jihad for His sake. As far as worldly gains are concerned, incalculable booty would fall into the hands of the Islamic ghazis and the Muslims would be liberated from their bonds. The invasion of Nadir Shah who destroyed the Muslims left the Marathas and Jats secure and prosperous. This resulted in the infidels regaining their strength and in the reduction of the Muslim leaders of Delhi to mere puppets.’

When the conquering army arrives in an area with a mixed Muslim-Hindu population, the imperial guards should transfer the Muslims from their villages to the towns and at the same time care for their property. Financial assistance should be given by governments to the deprived and the poor as well as to Sayyids and the ‘ulama. Their generosity would then become famous with prompt prayers for their victories. Each town would eagerly await the arrival of the Islamic army (‘that paragon of bounty’). Moreover, wherever there was even the slightest fear of a Muslim defeat, the Islamic army should be there to disperse infidels to all corners of the earth. Jihad should be their first priority, thereby ensuring the security of every Muslim.

Notes

1. Rizvi’s analysis of Shah Wali-Allah doctrine of jihad [Shah Wali-Allah and his times, pp. 285-286] is summarized below:

According to Shah Wali-Allah the mark of the perfect implementation of the Shari’a was the performance of jihad. He compared the duties of Muslims in relation to the law to those of a favourite slave who administered bitter medicine to other slaves in a household. If this was done forcefully it was quite legitimate but if someone mixed it with kindness it was even better. However, there were people, said the Shah who indulged in their lower natures by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Muhammad. If one chose to explain Islam to such people like this it was to do then a disservice. Force, said the Shah, was the much better course – Islam should be forced down their throats like bitter medicine to a child. This, however, was only possible if the leaders of the non-Muslim communities who failed to accept Islam were killed; the strength of the community was reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting Islam. The Shah pleaded that the universal domination of Islam was not possible without jihad and by holding on to the tails of cows. Not only would this be humiliating but it would make other religions more powerful.

Shah Wali-Allah was pessimistic about the real depth of faith of those converted by the sword. Such converts were in reality hypocrites and on the Day of Judgment they would be thrown to the very deepest part of Hell, together with the infidels. Islamicization by the sword, added the Shah, did not remove doubts from the minds of newly converted Muslims and it was always possible they might revert to infidelity. The Shah believed that Imams (here meaning rulers) should convince the people through rational argument. They should preach that other religions were worthless since their founders were not perfect, and that their practice was opposed to divine law, interpolations having made them unbelievable. The superiority of Islam should be explained in positive terms and it should be brought home to converts that Islamic laws were perfectly clear and easy to follow. What appeared confusing (literally, night) in reality was clear (literally, day).

Another means of ensuring conversions was to prevent other religious communities from worshipping their own gods. Moreover, unfavourable discriminating laws should be imposed on non-Muslims in matters of rules of retaliation, compensation for manslaughter and marriage, and in political matters.

By the time of Shah Wali-Allah’s death no power in the disintegrating Mughal empire had been left to convert Hindus to Islam, but it would seems that the rising Baluch and Afghan zamindars and the military adventures converted Hindus to Islam in their respective areas of influence. Shah Wali-Allah’s son Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz claims to have Islamicized hundreds of Hindus. They might have been Hindus living between Phalit and Delhi. However, the proselytization programme of Shah Wali-Allah only included the leads of the Hindu community. The low class of the infidels, according to him, were to be left alone to work in the fields and for paying jizya. They, like beasts of burden and agricultural livestock, were to be kept in abject misery and despair.

Posted by Robert at June 20, 2007 1:36 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |