‘Had Islam been a religion of terrorism, Hindus would not have been living in India today,JIH chief

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

Hyderabad: Jamat-e-Islami Hind president Syed Jalaluddin Umri said solutions to all problems faced by the humanity lie in following the path shown by Islam.

Addressing the public meeting on ‘reconstruction of the society and our responsibilities’ organised by JIH here on Saturday night, he said following the path shown by Islam will change the destiny of India.

He pointed out that the concept of freedom of thought has been borrowed from holy Quran, which makes it clear that there is no compulsion in Islam.

There is not a single incident in Islamic history of forcible religious conversion, he sai

Speakers at the event said Muslims as equal partners in the country have a special role in its reconstruction, and urged them to adhere to the teachings of Islam to discharge their responsibility as the best ‘ummah’ for entire mankind.

Shankaracharya Omkarananda Saraswati said had Islam been a religion of terrorism, Hindus would not have been living in India today.

Stating that Muslims can never be separated from India, he said Muslims and Hindus are like two hands of a body.

“(Prime Minister Narendra) Modiji is visiting the world for global peace negotiations but I want to tell him that such a dialogue will have no meaning if there is no peace at home,” he said.

Organised as part of the national conclave of JIH, the meeting brought together leaders of various religions, sects and Islamic schools of thought on one platform.

Zafar-Ul-Islam, president, All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, said Muslims should raise their voice against injustice and exploitation and all issues related to their non-Muslim brethren.

Mujtaba Farooq, member, Majlis-e-Shura, JIH, claimed that Modi’s countdown had begun as evident from the way the country stood up unitedly to the incidents of growing intolerance.

Supreme Court advocate Mehmood Paracha said false charges of terrorism against Muslim, Dalits and tribals were a conspiracy against the country. “There is no need to be on backfoot because of these false charges,” he said.

Stating that numbers never mattered for Muslims, he said the community which constitutes 15 percent of India is capable of protecting the country and playing a significant role in the reconstruction.

Qasim Rasool Ilyas, president, Welfare Party of India, said even after 68 years of independence, India is lagging behind in all parameters of human development index.

He said the Welfare Party was striving for value based politics in the country. Voicing concern over growing intolerance, he said there was serious threat to the democracy.

Telangana’s Deputy Chief Minister Mohammed Mahmood Ali lauded JIH for clearing misconceptions about Islam among non-Muslim brethren by publishing Islamic literature in various Indian languages.

He also hailed the role played by Jamaat in the movement for separate Telangana state.

Former MP Mohammed Adeeb, All India Muslim Personal Law Board vice president, Maulana Kalbe Sadiq and leaders of various organisations addressed the meeting.

'Had Islam been a religion of terrorism, Hindus would not have been living in India today' - Shankaracharya; Solutions to all humanity's problems lie in Islam - JIH chief - The Siasat Daily

 

[ranjeet]

"Jamat-e-Islami Hind president Syed Jalaluddin Umri said solutions to all problems faced by the humanity lie in following the path shown by Islam."

I'll drink to that.

 

[Anuj Tagra]

Razakar toh mar gaye aur chale gaye,lekin apne poonch chodke chale gaye.

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

This mullah need to understand:

1. The traditional boundary of India began from Kabul region.In traditional boundary of India, Islam is close to 40%, aided and abetted by massacre of Hindus in Afghanistan and forced conversion in Pakistan. Pashtuns livin today in Afghanistan-Pakistan region has no history in that area before 10th CE. /they have origin in Koh-Suleiman range and the settled in West Afghanistan after Ghaznavids cleared west Afghanistan of Hindus. Bangladesh to large extent was tabula rasa , and there proportion of forced conversion were less.This is due to fact that Hoogley was main distributary of Ganga before 13th century and most of water of Ganga was discharged into Hoogly, and thus West Bengal was main settled area of Bengal and center of Hinduism, while Bangladesh was a low population density backwater which become fertile quite late. Here Population growth was a consequence of population explosion due to improvement in Agriculture, which happened during Muslim rule.

2. The mullah need to understand how military in old times worked, and how massacres and ethnic cleansing occurred.
Before advent of modern warfare, war, was a linear phenomenon. A pack of riders on horseback could traverse through open fields, but a large slow moving conscript army need to stick to roads in order to maintain cohesion. So a conquest ,or a massacre happened in a line. When Timur lame invaded, he did not go village to village to kill people. He only killed those who were in his path. In this was first main cities fall, then authority on secondary towns is established, then come turn of villages. This is important in Indian context as:

India had a large population so much more effort was required to change its religious character as its population was not agglomerated in few cities. This imposed serious limitations on Muslims as they now needed to garrison every small town and need to sally forth everyday in order to bring change to religious character. This was imply too much effort, and dangerous too as it would thin out military power of Muslims, making them vulnerable to defeat in detail. Also large population mean that a rebellion would draw more resources of state. In a way, problems associated with converting large population tempered Jihadi fervor of Muslims.

The reason why Persia/Zorastarianism fell so easily to Islam was that, Persia being largely a Desert and Plateau, with only few areas viable for Agriculture had high agglomeration of population, So when Islam won few stripes of land and major cities, it could easily force Persians to accept Islam. Zorastarianism ,on account of Persia having agglomerated population with low areal spread, make it easy for Islam to persecute and convert.

This is also a case with Pakistan where persecution worked better than UP. Pakistan ,before Britishers introduced canal system, was a semi-arid area of low and agglomerated population, and thus more prone to be intensively persecuted.


3. Muslims had a tenous hold over India, and for very short period of time. Western Sindh (west of Indus) has been held by Islam for longest for around 1200 years now (since Bin Qasim) , and rest of Sindh for around 1000 years. Western Afghanistan for some 1000 years since defeat of Hindushahi/Kabulshahi dynasty, Punjab for some 900 Years, Haryana, UP, Bihar, and Bengal for some 400 years, Rajputana for 140 years, And South India for 0-100 years in various locations. In areas where Islam was prevalent for longest, It did committed an ethnic cleansing succesfully.

4. Jihadis never had a proper administrative structure and control,until Mughals, to subjugate anything. Gates of capital Delhi ,even during time of strongest Sultanate ruler ,Allaudin-Khilji, were closed after Afternoon prayers as people travelling even a short distance from Delhi were under threat of being robbed (No one was allowed to go in or come inside Delhi after Afternoon), and Balban has to cut down whole swathes of forest in western UP to get rid of insurgency.Thus until quite late, Islam did not had organisational strength to subjugate anything.

4. Some rulers saw Dhimmis as a source of revenue and did not took interest , and sometime even discouraged, proselytization. This is not unique to India . Even ottomons discouraged conversions, and North African caliphates did not provided equal status to Berbers and extracted Jaziya from converted Muslims.

 

[SrNair]

And we also wont say that is a religion of peace.Two examples .One is ours that happened in past and next can be seen in current ME.
In ours case .
We had lost a large portion of our land for partition and still they are remain as a nuisance.
So much for path.

 

[Riyad]

Jamaat-e-Islami Hind ! Is it Indian branch of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami?

 

[bongbang]

Jamaat-e-Islami Hind? Is it Indian branch of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami?

Its different. Jamaat e Islami Hind opposed creation of Pakistan. While Jamaat e Islami Bangladesh worked for creation of Pakistan before partition.

 

[Sipahi]

Its different. Jamaat e Islami Hind opposed creation of Pakistan. While Jamaat e Islami Bangladesh worked for creation of Pakistan before partition.

No, its Not the case... Jamat e Islami was a one identity before partition and they opposed the creation of Pakistan and they did most damaged done to Pakistan after partition. i.e Bhutto case, Afghan Jihad and many other issues.

And by the by ... We hate you too Hindus

 

[bongbang]

No, its Not the case... Jamat e Islami was a one identity before partition and they opposed the creation of Pakistan and they did most damaged done to Pakistan after partition. i.e Bhutto case, Afghan Jihad and many other issues.

My mistake, I was moved with an interview of Golam Azam. He talked this way that JI worked for creation of Pakistan. These guys are so much liar that I shouldnt have taken him seriously. Im taking back my words.

 

[ZeusMK]

The statement is some what true but mostly it applies to the whole world.
It can be said that Had Islam been a religion of Terrorism, the whole world's population would have been annihilated centuries ago for Islam accounts for almost 2Bn population world wide.

 

[I S I]

True that.

 

[livingdead]

More like '.. muslims would not have been living in India today...'

 

[Sharpshooter12]

Right on Maulana sahib.

2. The mullah need to understand how military in old times worked, and how massacres and ethnic cleansing occurred.
Before advent of modern warfare, war, was a linear phenomenon. A pack of riders on horseback could traverse through open fields, but a large slow moving conscript army need to stick to roads in order to maintain cohesion. So a conquest ,or a massacre happened in a line. When Timur lame invaded, he did not go village to village to kill people. He only killed those who were in his path. In this was first main cities fall, then authority on secondary towns is established, then come turn of villages. This is important in Indian context as:

India had a large population so much more effort was required to change its religious character as its population was not agglomerated in few cities. This imposed serious limitations on Muslims as they now needed to garrison every small town and need to sally forth everyday in order to bring change to religious character. This was imply too much effort, and dangerous too as it would thin out military power of Muslims, making them vulnerable to defeat in detail. Also large population mean that a rebellion would draw more resources of state. In a way, problems associated with converting large population tempered Jihadi fervor of Muslims.

The reason why Persia/Zorastarianism fell so easily to Islam was that, Persia being largely a Desert and Plateau, with only few areas viable for Agriculture had high agglomeration of population, So when Islam won few stripes of land and major cities, it could easily force Persians to accept Islam. Zorastarianism ,on account of Persia having agglomerated population with low areal spread, make it easy for Islam to persecute and convert.

This is also a case with Pakistan where persecution worked better than UP. Pakistan ,before Britishers introduced canal system, was a semi-arid area of low and agglomerated population, and thus more prone to be intensively persecuted.

See we can all find reasons for why not all of India was converted to Islam but this one is not really the right one.

History showed that during the dark and medieval ages whenever a state decided to ethnically cleanse a land of non-believers, whether its population was agglomerated in few places or not, it was able to do that.

Take Spain for example, Muslims ruled some part of it for more than 700 years but they were not able to completely convert the Iberian peninsula. But once the ReConquista was completed, it took the Catholics less than a century to wipe out Muslims and Jews of the whole peninsula. The reason is the intent here, Moors never wanted to wipe out non-believers so we don't see an Inquisition style purge of non-believers by them. Even in highly urbanized areas like Gharnata (Granada), Ashbilia (Seville) or Qurtaba there were significant non-muslim populations. But after the Inquisition was set in motion, Muslims in the regions that were mountainous and rural did not survive for long.

The reason which I believe is behind the survival of Hinduism in India is that most of the Muslim rulers did not have an intention of converting locals to Islam. Perhaps it was because of Jizya or they just did not care about it at all.

During the Ummayad period conversion was one of the top priorities of the state, so we see Sindh and some part of southern Punjab like Multan converted swiftly. Ghaznawi while not that crazy about converting locals did brought some Mubhaligs along with him, like Ganj Bakhsh in Lahore, and they were quite successful in converting some parts of Punjab to Islam, so Punjab as a whole was a Muslim majority state in united India.

Later rulers were Muslims yes but they did not had spreading Islam high on their agendas, they were all conquerors and kings let it be the Delhi Sultanates (Ghulaman, Tughlak, Saddat, Khilji or Lodhis), Mughals or Deccan sultanate.

And it's a shame really as of all the lands that Muslims conquered India was perhaps the most ripe for conversion with its caste system and all. The equality and brotherhood promoted by Islam would have been an awesome selling point. If only these rulers were true followers of Islam and believed that a Turk and Afghan is equal and so is a new Hindi convert in the eyes of ALLAH, and they treated them equally, people would have converted in mass.

Having said that we are still about 550-600 million Muslims in Sub-continent compared to 900-950 million Hindus, so I'll say not bad, not bad at all.

 

[Shankranthi]

The statement is some what true but mostly it applies to the whole world.
It can be said that Had Islam been a religion of Terrorism, the whole world's population would have been annihilated centuries ago for Islam accounts for almost 2Bn population world wide.

 

[war&peace]

Totally true but the ignorant, dishonest and ungrateful people won't acknowledge and appreciate it.