Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c12.s4: Muslim Fundamentalism

The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c12.s4

Language
English

Muslim Fundamentalism

c12.s4.1

Iconoclasm, proselytization, *tabligh* and Islamization in general have been due to Muslim fundamentalism. Muslim fundamentalism finds no virtue in any non-Muslim culture, it only believes in destroying every other culture and superimposing Muslim culture.

c12.s4.2

It is, therefore, necessary to understand the meaning of the word fundamentalism because it is loosely and unintelligibly applied to both Hindu and Muslim faiths and their followers are unwittingly called fundamentalists day in and day out. The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines fundamentalism as maintenance, in opposition to modernism, of traditional orthodox beliefs such as the inerrancy of scripture and fundamental as base or foundation, essential, primary, original. Hindus and Muslims can both be fanatics, but it is only Muslims (and Christians) who can be fundamentalists. For the Muslim sticks to the traditional orthodox belief that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet. No Muslim can question this belief. As Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi says: The Quran is believed by every Muslim to be the Word of God revealed to his Prophet Muhammad.³⁴ This Word of God cannot be amended, it cannot be changed, because Not even the Prophet could change the revelation.³⁵ There are no local variations of the Muslim Law.³⁶ It is this which is fundamentalism. There is nothing compared to it in Hinduism where every thing can be questioned and all kinds of religious innovations and digressions are accepted. This (Muslim) Law was the sovereign in Muslim lands: no one was above it, and all were ruled by it.³⁷ Under Islamic law a non-Muslim could not be accorded full citizenship of the state. Only against payment of *Jiziyah* could he receive protection of life.³⁸ *Jiziyah* also seems to have been an instrument of humiliation for the *Zimmis* (non-Muslims).³⁹ Muslim rulers not only followed the Islamic law to the best of their own ability and the knowledge of the Ulama, they kept the non-Muslims under all kinds of disabilities and thraldom.

c12.s4.3

It is not widely known that the Turco-Mughal Muslim rule saw to it that Muslims should not come closer to the Hindus, and that the one should dominate the other.⁴⁰ Ziyauddin Barani the historian, Ibn Battuta the foreign traveller and Vidyapati the poet did not fail to notice the insulting attitude of the Muslims towards the Hindus.⁴¹ The inferior status accorded to the non-Muslims under Islamic law kept the Hindus and the Muslims apart. For example, although monotheism, iconoclasm and proselytization have no spiritual sanction or superiority, the Muslim rulers turned temples into mosques and converted people to Islam by force. But the Hindus were not permitted to convert *Muslims to Hinduism*. Such was the policy of the Muslim rulers in this regard that even if a Hindu proclaimed or preached that Hinduism was as good as Islam, he was awarded capital punishment.⁴² This was the general policy. Only Akbar was liberal insofar as he permitted those Hindus who had been forcibly converted to Islam and wished to return to their original faith, to go back to Hinduism. But only Akbar, not even all his officers in his extensive empire. Jahangir did not permit people to embrace Hinduism even of their own free Will.⁴³ Under Shahjahan, apostasy from Islam had again become a capital crime, and so also any critical comment on Muhammad.

c12.s4.4

Inter-communal marriages would have encouraged equality but these were partially banned in the medieval period, partially insofar as that while Muslims married Hindu women freely, the rulers would not permit Muslim girls to marry Hindus. Contrary to general belief, Hindus have had no inhibitions about marrying women of other nationalities and religions. There is the well-known instance of Chandragupta Maurya marrying the daughter of Seleucus Nikotor. Of course, Chandragupta was a king and kings used to contract such alliances. But throughout the medieval period, Hindus used to marry non-Hindus and foreigners without prejudice in Southeast Asia or countries to which they migrated. Even today Hindus marry in America, Britain, Germany and other countries which they visit or to which they migrate. Similarly, they had no hesitation in marrying Muslim women in the medieval period. As has been pointed out on many occasions earlier, handsome women captives were kept mainly for sex. They were known as *kanchanis*, *kanizes* and concubines. Their exchange among Muslim nobles too was common. Even Hindu nobles were glad to take Muslim women. According to *The Delhi Sultanate*, quoting Nizamuddin Ahmad, Musalman women were taken by the Rajputs and sometimes taught the art of dancing and singing and were made to join the *akharas*.⁴⁴ Muslim women from the palace of Malwa Sultan entered, between 1512-1518, the household of his *nayak* or captain Medini Rai. Sultan Mahmud Sharqi (1436-58) was accused of handing over Muslim women to his *kafir* captains. Similarly, the Muslim ruler of Kalpi and Chanderi, shortly after 1443, had made over Muslim women to some of his Hindu captains. Clearly Malwa was not an exception. In Kashmir, according to Jonraj, Shah Mir had gone to the extent of marrying his daughters to his Brahman chiefs.44 This shared pleasure cemented the bonds of friendship.

c12.s4.5

But Muslim rulers were more strongly entrenched, and they, from the very beginning, discouraged Hindus from taking Muslim women. Even Sher Shah, who is considered to be a liberal king, broke his promise with Puran Mal of Raisen because of the latters gravest of all offences against Islam in keeping some Muslim women in his harem.⁴⁵ The Mughals freely married Hindu princesses, but there is not a single instance of a Mughal princess being married to a Rajput prince, although so many Mughal princesses died as spinsters. Akbar discouraged all types of inter-communal marriages.⁴⁶ When Jahangir learnt that the Hindus and Muslims intermarried freely in Kashmir, and both give and take girls, (he ordered that) taking them is good but giving them, God forbid. And any violation of this order was to be visited with capital punishment.⁴⁷ Shahjahans orders in this regard were that the Hindus could keep their Muslim wives only if they converted to Islam. Consequently, during his reign, 4,000 to 5,000 Hindus converted in Bhadnor alone. 70 such cases were found in Gujarat and 400 in the Punjab.⁴⁸

c12.s4.6

Sometimes Hindus took back Hindu girls forcibly married to Muslims.⁴⁹ Many Hindu Rajas and elite kept Muslim women in their seraglios, sometimes as a reprisal as it were. Hindus continued to take Muslim women wherever they felt strong. Such were the Marathas. Khafi Khan and Manucci both affirm that the Marathas used to capture Muslim women because, according to them, the Mahomedans had interfered with Hindu women in (their) territories.⁵⁰ So did the Sikhs. But marriages are not made this way. The dominance of the Muslims kept matrimonial engagements a one-way traffic. There was no option for the Hindus but to scruplously avoid marrying Muslim women. How long could they go on suffering humiliation on this account? With all their weaknesses, the Hindus have after all been a proud people.⁵¹ Centuries of Muslim rulers policy brought rigidity in Hindu behaviour also. He stopped marrying Muslim women and shut his door to reentry of Muslim converts. Today it is observed that the Hindu has a closed mind. He does not marry a Muslim woman for even if he does so, she would not be welcome in his family. The genesis of this situation is the result of centuries of Muslim rulers practice of prohibiting Hindus from marrying Muslim girls.

c12.s4.7

In short, the policy of Muslim rulers was to keep the Muslim minority in a privileged position and see to it that there was no integration between the two communities. Muslim rulers were so allergic to the prosperity of the Hindus that they expressed open resentment at the Hindus dressing well,⁵² riding horses or travelling in palanquins like Muslims.⁵³ Many rulers of the Sultanate and Mughal time enforced regulations requiring Hindus to wear distinguishing marks on their dresses so that they may not be mistaken for Muslims.⁵⁴ Qazvini say that Shahjahan had ordered that Hindus should not be allowed to dress like Muslims.⁵⁵ The *Fatawa-i-Alamgiri* also recommended that the Hindus should not be allowed to look like Muslims.⁵⁶ Many local officers also issued similar orders in their *Jagirs*.⁵⁷ All these regulations were in accordance with the tenets of Islam. The order of the Prophet was, Do the opposite of the polytheists and let your beard grow long.⁵⁸

Cites (1)