Indian Muslims: Who Are They c8.s1: Conversions
Indian Muslims: Who Are They c8.s1
- Language
- English
Conversions
c8.s1.1
Islam has spread in many parts of the world through wars and campaigns. In the medieval Indian chronicles the sovereign is always mentioned as the king of Islam, the territories of his empire are referred to as the land of Islam, its armies as soldiers of Islam, and its religious and Judicial head as Shaikh-ul-Islam. The monarch was committed to make Islam the true basis of private and public life through the enforcement of the Shariat and to convert the people to the true faith. In India the Muslim rulers keenness to obtain converts in war is vouched by many chroniclers. The *Tarikh-i-Muhammadi* gives a clear idea of the psychology of the rulers in this regard. Its author was a contemporary of Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud, the son of Firoz Tughlaq. He says that while fighting Rai Subir (Sumer) in the vicinity of Iraj, the Sultan thought: If I will give orders to the army to fight (outright), they will not leave even a trace of the Kafirs in the region, but if I shall advance slowly, then probably these people will agree to embrace Islam.³ What professor Mohammad Habib writes concerning the Mongol applies equally to Turkish expeditions. In 1330 the country was invaded by the Mongols who indulged in arson, rape and murder throughout the Valley (of Kashmir). The king and the Brahmans fled away but among the inhabitants who remained Muslim ways of life were gradually adopted by the people as the only alternative⁴ Thus warfare brought captives, and captives were made Musalmans. Such was not the situation only in the North; in South also such methods of conversion prevailed, especially during wars between Bahmani and Vijayanagar kingdoms. Throughout the medieval period such wars were common, and forcible conversions helped in the rapid growth of Muslim population.
c8.s1.2
The rulers used force and persuasion in equal measure. Their resources were great. They could give jobs, honours, and titles and many other economic concessions and status benefits as inducements to conversion, and many people would have taken advantage of these facilities. We have referred to Mubarak Khaljis encouragement to Hindus to accept Islam by presenting the convert with a robe and a gold ornament. People used to be converted in this fashion right up to the reign of Aurangzeb and perhaps even thereafter. There were other methods too. The Banshasmriti of Satya Krishna Biswas states that in Bengal the Rajas and Zamindars who could not deposit land revenue by a certain date had to convert to Muhammadanism. The *Banshasmriti* narrates an isolated incident, but as this regulation of the thirteenth century had been revived by Murshid Quli Khan, or had continued right up to his times, many local Rajas and Zamindars would have been converted in the course of four centuries, for full payment of land tax by due date was not always possible. Firoz Tughlaq (1351-88) instructed his revenue collectors to convert Hindus to Islam.⁵ He rescinded the Jiziyah to lure people to become Muhammadans, and this measure brought large additions to Muslim population. In his *Fatuhat-i-Firoz Shahi*, Sultan Firoz Tughlaq candidly writes: I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the prophet and I proclaimed that everyone who repeated the *Kalima of tauhid* and became Musalman should be exempt from Jiziyah Information of this came to the ears of the people at large, and great number of Hindus presented themselves, and were admitted to the honour of Islam. Thus they came forward day by day from every quarter, go on coming to this day, and adopting the faith, are exonerated from the Jiziyah, and are favoured with Khilats and presents.⁶
c8.s1.3
Side by side the governments efforts was the proselytizing activity of the Muslim Sufis. It is however not clear how far Sufi and other Mashaikh were interested in the work of conversion and what amount of success they achieved in this regard. Following in the footsteps of T.W. Amold,⁷ Titus, Aziz Ahmad and Mujeeb assert that conversions to Islam were mainly a result of the labours of the mystics.⁸ Perhaps the idea is to prove that the conversions were voluntary. On the other hand Mohammad Habib and S.A.A. Rizvi say that Sufi Mashaikh were not engaged in effecting conversions. Prof. Habib says, The Musalmans have no missionary labours to record *We find no trace of any missionary movement for converting non-Muslims* (italics by the author himself). Medieval Islam was a converting creed, but it failed to develop any missionary activity So far as our country is concerned we have to confess frankly that no trace of a missionary movement for the conversion of non-Muslims has yet been discovered. In a footnote he adds: Some cheap mystic books now current attribute conversions to Muslim mystics on the basis of miracles they performed. So in order to believe in the conversions one has to believe in the miracles also. But all such books will be found on examination to be latter-day fabrications.⁹ Prof. Rizvi arrives at the same conclusion. He simply says that the early mystic records (*Malfuzat and Maktubat*), contain no mention of conversion of the people to Islam by these Saints.¹⁰
c8.s1.4
From the hagiological literature also it is evident that Sufi Mashaikh were not organized for propaganda work in any modern way.¹¹ Sufi Shaikhs and scholars are not known to have preceded but always followed the armies of invasion.¹² They mostly lived in metropolitan cities, in their respective Khanqahs or monasteries, basking in the sunshine of royal favour, and do not appear to have moved about in the countryside for propaganda work. The whole atmosphere in the Khanqah was Muslim: not many, if any, Hindus ever visited them, not to speak of their coming in large numbers for being converted.¹³ The two greatest Chishti Mashaikh of the medieval period were Muin-ud-din Chishti and Nizam-ud-din Auliya Rizvi rightly says that Shaikh Muin-ud-din Chishti was neither a missionary nor a miracle monger. He did not work among the masses¹⁴ In the *Fawaid-ul-Fuad*, a biographical memoir on Shaikh Nizam-ud-din Auliya, there is mention of conversion of only two Hindu curd-sellers. Similarly during the reign of Iltutmish, Khwaja Qutubuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki and Qazi Hamid-ud-din Nagori were two prominent saints in Delhi but no proselytizing activity is attributed to them.¹⁵ Indeed the Mashaikh sometimes resented governments appeals to do proselytizing work; and Muhammad bin Tughlaq, who wanted to employ this class on missionary work, met with lot of opposition from them.¹⁶
c8.s1.5
In brief, while it would not be safe to declare that hardly any conversions through peaceful methods were effected by the Sufi Mashaikh in India, it has also to be admitted that not many reliable references to their proselytizing activity are available in genuine hagiological works. They may have helped those who showed an inclination to become Muslim. Occasionally they restored to force also to convert people.¹⁷ But the Mashaikh were probably responsible only for stray and individual conversions and their contribution to the growth of Muslim population may not have been much. Saiyyad Muhammad bin Nasiruddin Jafar Makki al-Husaini , the Khalifa of Nasiruddin Chiragh-i-Delhi held that there were five reasons which led the people to embrace Islam:
c8.s1.6
(1) Fear of death,
c8.s1.7
(2) fear of their families being enslaved,
c8.s1.8
(3) propagation (of Islam) on the part of Muslims,
c8.s1.9
(4) the lust for obtaining *mawajib* (pensions or rewards) *ghanaim* (booty), and
c8.s1.10
(5) Tassub (bigotry or superstition?).¹⁸
c8.s1.11
Thus according to Saiyyad Muhammad, propagation of Islam by Muslims did not necessarily involve missionary activity of Sufi Mashaikh. Prior to its introduction in India, Islam had spread in many other countries like Arabia, Persia and Syria. No names of missionaries or Sufi saints have come down to us as having been instrumental in spreading Islam in those countries. It is only about India that such a theory is put forward.
c8.s1.12
Today many classes or groups of people who were originally Hindu are found to belong to the Muhammadan faith, and their conversion can be traced to medieval times. An oft-repeated reason for such conversions is said to be the tyranny of the Hindu caste system. Arnold, Titus and Aziz Ahmad give credit to the democratic social system of Islam¹⁹ for the conversion of low caste Hindus to win a degree of social freedom because for the lower Hindu castes acceptance of Islam meant an escape from the degraded status they had in the Hindu society.²⁰ Dr. Wise thinks that the Muhammadan Julaha (Jolha or Momin) weaver class of Bengal and Bihar belonged to a despised Hindu caste who in a body became converts to Muhammedanism. Ruben Levy also talks of the coarse rabble or Ajlaf in Bengal, who formed the functional groups such as weavers, cotton carders, oil pressers, barbers, tailors etc., as well as converts of originally humble castes in Bengal.²¹
c8.s1.13
However, contemporary writings of Persian chroniclers nowhere mention caste as a factor leading to conversions. Muslim historians of medieval India were surely aware of the existence of the caste system in Hindu society; Alberuni, Abul Fazl and emperor Jahangir, to mention a few. And yet no one mentions even once tyranny on the low caste people as cause for conversion. Their evidence shows beyond doubt that conversions in India were brought about by the same methods and processes as seen in Arabia, Persia, Central Asia, etc. India was not the first country where Islam was introduced in medieval times. It had spread in Persia, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and North Africa before it came to India. There was no caste system in these countries and yet there were large-scale conversions there.
c8.s1.14
Therefore, a little reflection off the beaten track would show that the reason behind the conversion of some groups *en masse* was not due to the assumed oppression of the caste system but to escape oppressive taxes and other disabilities. Conversion also provided new avenues of employment and economic advancement in the Muslim regime and society. Naturally large numbers of poor people were attracted to Islam as the following Table, prepared on the basis of U.P. Census Report of 1931, indicates.
c8.s1.15
Table Showing Some Muslim Low Castes of U.P.²²
c8.s1.16
| Per cent of caste Members adhering to | Per cent of each caste in Total Religious |
c8.s1.17
| | Hindu Religion | Membership |
| Julaha | 95.5 | 14.7 |
| Faqir | 93.0 | 12.9 |
| Dhunia | 93.5 | 5.4 |
| Teli | 25.1 | 3.4 |
| Nai (Hajjam) | 26.9 | 3.3 |
| Darzi | 69.5 | 2.3 |
| Qassab | 100.0 | 2.2 |
| Dhobi | 14.0 | 1.5 |
| Manihar | 96.4 | 1.4 |
c8.s1.18
Like U.P. functional groups many occupational groups in other parts of the country, especially in northern India, too went over to Islam in large numbers in medieval times. Now, did the ancestors of the above Muslim castes convert in medieval times because of the tyranny of the caste system? Let us take the Faqirs first. In Hindu society there is no caste of beggars. But any number of beggars would be born if they could get free food without doing any work. It is stated in almost every chronicle that in medieval times food was very cheap, even then, many idlers would have avoided to do work if they could get free food just for a change of name - religion of the poor being the proverbial bread. Muslim regime provided it and Faqirs flocked to it and to Islam. The number of Faqirs had grown so large by the time of Ghayasuddin Tughlaq (1320-25) that the sultan wanted to put a stop to a free treat to them and wanted them to take up some work, but his attitude was resented and the sultan maligned.²³ According to Ahmad Abbas 40, 000 beggars used to be fed by Ghayass successor Muhammad Tughlaq.²⁴ Muhammad Tughlaq sometimes even attended the funeral of Faqirs.²⁵ The Faqirs were so well paid under Firoz Tughlaq²⁶ that some nobles, who used to recommend them to the liberality of the sultan, did not fail to take a bribe out of their gains.²⁷ Generosity of kings and nobles towards Faqirs never slackened even during the Mughal period. A good number of people would have converted in medieval times to become Muslim Faqirs to form a caste in the Muslim social order in modern times.
c8.s1.19
Similar was the position with regard to the Qassab. Arab geographers of the ninth to twelfth centuries found most Indians vegetarians. Some Hindus ate hunted game but not flesh of animals and animals were not slaughtered for providing meat.²⁸ By many Hindus meat is still called shikar (game). The Hindu Gorkhas call it only by this name. Therefore, while it could be difficult to categorically state that Hindus in the pre-Muslim period did not do the work of meat-selling, there does not seem to have been a caste of Hindu butchers which went over to Islam because of the oppression of caste system. The few Hindu butchers might have become Musalmans because their vocation found a flourishing and sympathetic clientele among Muhammadans but many others who were not butchers by profession would have found in cutting and selling of meat a new avenue of employment in a new society and joined it to form a Muslim caste of hundred per cent Qassab.
c8.s1.20
In the case of *darzis* or tailors, their employment chances lay more with the Muslim community. Muslims dressed elaborately,²⁹ and the sartorial habits of Arabs and Turks would point to even some tailors having come from abroad, and converted Hindu tailors joining their ranks.
c8.s1.21
The requirements of the Sultan,³⁰ the elite, and even the common Muslims would have needed the services of a whole tribe of tailors, who, passing the whole day in the palace workshops or catering to the needs of the patronizing Muslim society would have found it profitable and convenient to become Muslim. The interdependence of cotton-carders, weavers, (*dhunia*, *julaha*) and tailors would have induced the former to embrace Islam, and once some people of this class converted to Muhammadanism, others followed suit because of class affiliation and vocational compulsions. Cotton-carders, weavers, and tailors were there both in the urban and the rural areas; only in the urban they were more skilled and produced fine quality stuffs required by the Muslim nobility and elite, and conversions seem to have occurred mostly in the urban areas; and many village *julahas* have remained Hindu. A Hajjam does not enjoy a better status in Muslim society than a Nai in Hindu, but the Hajjams profession provided greater avenues of economic betterment in Muslim society; he did the work of circumcision and other minor surgical operations.
c8.s1.22
Such instances need not be multiplied, but some other cases not included in the above Table may also be mentioned in passing. Many elephant drivers (mahauts) are today Muslims. It is on record that Muslim rulers were extremely fond of elephants. Mahmud of Ghazni had an *elephant corps of 2,500 all collected from India*.³¹ Minhaj Siraj affirms that during Bakhtiyars Bengal campaign, many elephants were captured with their drivers.³² He also writes that Sultan Ruknuddin Firoz Shah (son of Iltutmish), was very fond of elephants, *and all the elephant drivers were much benefited by his bounty* (italics mine).³³ Ferishtah says that by the time of Bahram Shah (C.E. 1240), the sultans had monopolised the privilege of keeping elephants.³⁴ Being in the employment of Muslim rulers and nobles, living in the palace or Sultans forts all the time, and benefiting from their bounty, it was but profitable for them to convert to a faith in which advantages of service and profession lay. On the contrary those professional groups, which had a mixed Hindu-Muslim clientele, but whose business would have been adversely affected by losing the Hindu customers if they had converted to Islam, like the *panwaris* (betel sellers), *halwais* (sweetmeat sellers), *banias*, goldsmiths etc., did not convert and have remained Hindu through the ages.
c8.s1.23
Besides, not all low-caste Muslims have converted from low caste Hindus. Many foreign Muslims also would have been relegated to low caste on marrying low-caste women. The sultans and Amirs usually married in the families of the Rajas and Zamindars they defeated. But the common soldiers or common Musalmans would have married either in their own religious group, that is among the newly converted, or among the low-caste Hindus.³⁵ And as class distinctions crystallized in medieval Indian Muslim society, these people would have been given only a low caste status, having obtained it through their wives.³⁶ Needless to say that such Muslims, originally of foreign extraction, would have swelled the ranks of low-caste Muhammadans.
c8.s1.24
Thus the few low-caste groups which converted to Islam did so not to escape from the tyranny of the caste system because they have remained at as lower a rung in Muslim society as they were in Hindu, but because of new professional and vocational opportunities in a changed society. Such conversions took place mostly in urban areas. Artisans, mechanics, handicraftsmen were loyal to their guilds and their castes. Where guilds were loosely knit or contained many occupational groups, chances of conversions were more. There was a greater possibility of such a situation in the urban areas and port-towns where there was concentration of Muslim clientele and influences of Muslim religious, political and economic leadership. In the conversions at port-towns, for example, foreign Muslim merchants played a great part. From what we know of their contribution in the conversion of South-East Asia,³⁷ it stands to reason that their propagandism for Islam in India too would have been very effective. The Zamorin of Calicut, for instance, encouraged the fishermen of Malabar to become Musalmans in order to man his warships; and to this end ordered that, in every family of fishermen in his dominions, one or more of the male members should be brought up as Muhammadans.³⁸ Either in deference to the wishes or specific condition of his Arab or other Muslim captains and crew, or to see that the men working on the ships under Muslims should have no caste inhibitions, the Zamorin may have issued such orders. But the fact is that today many boatmen and fishermen in Bengal and other parts of the Indian seacoast are Muhammadans. Similarly some mercantile groups like Khojas and Bohras also converted to Islam under the influence of foreign merchants, although legendary accounts attribute their conversion to saints.
Cites (1)
- Fawāʾid al-fuʾād — Amīr Ḥasan Sijzī Dihlavī