RELIGIOUS CONVERSION or PROSELYTIZATION

The Muslim races, however, invaded India for conquest and loot and not to proselytize. Though it is true that in their first conquests in Europe the conquered had in many cases been offered the choice between conversion and death, by the time the sporadic raidings into India stopped towards the end of the twelfth century, when Qutubuddin Aibak established the Slave Dynasty, a significant change had taken place in the Muslim attitude to subject peoples of a different religion. After the first flush of conquest and conversion, “people of the Book,” if they accepted Muslim rule, were permitted to retain their own faith after the payment of jaziya. This permission had been granted long before to the Hindus of Sindh. Later, when the raiders had been replaced by rulers, it was generally extended in order to preserve the existing social and economic structure as far as it was conducive to continuous and orderly administration. But below the sensible administrative superstructure was an orthodox theological infrastructure, and to be one of the ulema was to be a missionary. These considered it their religious duty to convert the local idolators, and idolaters the Hindus must have been since, due to the doctrinal monopoly of Brahmins, they were ignorant that behind the concrete idol was the impersonal Brahman.

The Muslim missionaries were too proud of their own faith to give time to study of Hinduism, as the Christian missionaries did later, albeit only with the motive of finding faults in the age-old religion of the Indians. The superficial religion of the common Hindus didn’t reveal the concept of Brahman just as the real religion called Islam cannot be understood by looking at the common day ‘practicing’ Muslims, including several of their so-called ulemas. The fact that perhaps over 90% of Muslim Indians (including those who are now in Pakistan and Bangladesh) are of Hindu origin testifies to their success. In spite of the fact that 90% of the Muslims are not even 10% of the rest of the population, proselytization caused great resentment among Hindus which persists to this day and inhibits cordial relations between the two communities. It is therefore desirable that it is seen in proper perspective. To see a clear picture is, however, impossible due to its being obscured by the conflicting traditions of Hindu and Muslim propaganda. But what objective research discloses is that while compulsory conversion certainly took place, Hindu critics who insist that Islam in India was propagated “by the sword” are as incorrect as Muslim apologists who contend that Islam spread in the same way as Buddhism and Christianity.

Apart form the Arab Mohammad bin Qasim, to whose paternalism reference has already been made, the early invaders were more marauders than Muslim. A good example is Mahmud of Ghazni whose very name arouses hostility among Hindus. Mahmud gave every cause for such hostility but it is hoped that Hindus will learn to think of him as the marauder he was and not as the Muslim he professed to be. (No one thinks of General Dyer as a Christian) Nehru understood him correctly and in ‘The Discovery of India’ wrote:

“About 1000 A.C. Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni in Afghanistan, a Turk, who had risen to power in Central Asia, began his raids into India. There were many such raids and they were bloody and ruthless and on every occasion Mahmud carried away with him a vast quantity of treasure . . . Mahmud was far more a warrior than a man of faith and like many other conquerors he used and exploited the name of religion for his conquests. India was to him just a place from which he could carry off treasure and material to his homeland. He enrolled an army in India and placed it under one of his noted Generals, Tilak by name, who was an Indian and a Hindu. This army he used against his own co-religionists in Central Asia.”

But the Arab urge for conquest, and to buttress their conquests by conversion, evaporated in due course, and the non-Arab raiders of India were concerned only with plunder. During the raids Hindu shrines were destroyed and looted, and as meat-eaters, the invaders slaughtered vast numbers of cattle - acts indescribably offensive to Hindu religious sensibility. While, no doubt, these raiders perpetrated unimaginable atrocities against Hinduism, it was only for loot. Since they had every intention to return home laden with booty, proselytization served no purpose. It became necessary only when Muslim races came to stay in India to build up local loyalty and support.

In contrast to proselytization for political purposes, whether through compulsion or moral pressure, a considerable amount took place due to the influence of Sufi saints. There being so much in common between Sufism and the higher levels of Hindu thought (or in other words, between the real spiritual teachings of Islam and the highest levels of spirituality present in authentic Hindu scriptures) that many Hindus were converted to Islam.

Those Hindus who blame the Muslims alone for this rampant conversion need to look within themselves as well. The real teachings of Hinduism had been forgotten for several hundred years. They must remember that there had been a time in history when rulers like Ashoka had won India thrice for the cause of Buddhism. Fact remains that Ashoka was a Buddhist zealot just as we saw several Muslim zealots later. I fail to understand why we, to this day, label Ashoka as ‘the Great’.  His real aim behind conquests was propagation of Buddhist faith. History describes how the Hindu Brahmans had to hide their scriptures as well as religion. The extent to which proselytization or in fact forceful presentation of one religion at the cost of others took place during this period of Buddhist dominance, never took place during the period of Muslim rule. It was this forceful propagation of religion alone which brought a repulsion which not only led to the downfall of Buddhist supremacy but even a backlash to the extent that only a handful of Buddhists remained after the Hindu resurgence took place.

The true spiritual face of Hindu religion got forgotten during this period and afterwards. It was only after the 10^th century A.D. that attempts were made to reinvent or re-understand Hindu scriptures, which continued till after the British period. The Hinduism of Sri Sri Ravi Shankara or even the Arya Samajis (not to speak of the Sai Bhakts) was unknown to the Hindus of 7^th to 12^th century, who were only following a religion of certain rituals. Casteism and other ills were prevalent in the society. The champions of the religion, the Brahmins, too were far removed from adherence to the real spiritual religion that Hinduism is. A true spiritual religion that created a direct link of the person with God, minus all rituals, was not profitable for Brahmins who had confined the scriptures only to themselves. This was ripe ground for Sufis, still close to the real Islamic teachings of spirituality, to show to the locals how far different this real face of Islam was to the existent pseudo face of Hinduism that was in practice. This enhanced the appeal and attraction of Sufi saints; this appeal can still be seen at the huge gatherings that these Sufi shrines attract to this day.

I have come to conclusion that the real religion of Islam can never come in conflict with the real teachings of Hinduism. This is to be remembered that Sufism was not a caste but a thought process, which retained its roots with real spiritual and mystical aspects of Islamic teachings.

How close Sufism was with mystical Hinduism was well brought out by Dara Shikoh, the Sufi bother of Aurangzeb, who pointed out that the only difference between the Hindu doctrine of advaita and the basic doctrine of Sufism was one of terminology. In fact, the similarity between Sufism and advaita rendered conversion unnecessary, and a most happy humanist situation was developed in which Sufi saints, such as Khwaja Moin-ud-Din Chisti, had and still have Hindu disciples and Hindu saints had and still have Muslim disciples.

In addition to the already mentioned causes there was proselytization due to social reasons and personal ambition. Several Indian Hindus who embraced Christianity during British period converted due to this reason. One example of this is the train drivers and guards. While it was not expected from the British to get into the supposedly lowly profession of driving a train, the British also needed loyal people to be at charge of the trains in which they traveled. Therefore, as an unsaid rule, the job of drivers and conductors was mostly reserved for the Anglo-Indians, who were paid salaries several times more than the Station Masters (to whom these drivers and guards reported) and who were normally local Hindus and Muslims. This tradition continues to this day; the salaries of present day train drivers and guards are still 3-4 times more than the salaries of Station Masters, who are supposedly their bosses.

The lower levels of stratified Hindu society welcomed the social egalitarianism within Islam and a good deal of conversions took place due to this. This writers’ view that the Islam of the present day Indian Muslims is far distorted from the distorted Islam that the early period Muslim occupants brought to India can be seen from the fact that all the social egalitarianism that brought lower caste Hindus to Islamic fold has been replaced by a segregated society within the Muslims. Conversion is not happening anymore but the few people who have lately converted to Islam found great difficulty in marrying their daughters or sons among Muslims. This writer has heard of one person who reconverted back to Hinduism for this reason. Neither the mullahs who claim to be champions of religion nor the Muslims who themselves converted to Islam at some point earlier in history would marry their son or daughter to a neo-convert. That Muslims have gone from bad to worse can be understood from  the fact that not just marriage with a Hindu, a Sunni will not willingly give his or her child in marriage in a Shia family and vice versa. The divisions are also strong as Saiyeds, Pathans, Sheikhs, but not to that extent.

One thing that cannot be denied is that an undetermined number of Hindus embraced Islam only to ingratiate themselves with the Muslim rulers in order to gain favours or preference for employment. It goes without saying that the Muslim rulers, like all foreign imperialists, encouraged any process which strengthened their rule by tying to themselves loyal elements detached from the body of native subjects.

But whatever its prevalence and whatever its form, through proselytization Islam and orthodox Hinduism met head on. Hindu society being a stratified system of social groups, sanctified by the doctrine of karma, proselytization struck at the very core of Hindu doctrine and presented the greatest threat to Hinduism since the virtual suppression of Buddhism. It was therefore inevitable that the forces of eroded Hinduism should launch a counter-attack, and it came in the form of Arya Samaj with its program of re-conversion and cow protection.

Proselytization is sheer spiritual arrogance whereas one should feel humble before the depth and profundity of higher Hindu thought. The section of Muslims who are spending time, money and energy in converting people adhering to other sects to their own respective sects, will be more than willing to convert adherents of other religion to their religion, if they get the opportunity. Fact remains that in regard to conversion, Muslims go to the height of intolerance.

Truly speaking, this is a Muslim mindset and has nothing to do with Islam. Islam believes in self-purity and elevation of the soul. Internal cleansing of an individual is the chief goal, to be followed by that of the community. Practices and rituals too have been prescribed so as to endear one to the Lord. We find that the Prophet of Islam was the greatest champion of adherence to those spiritual teachings and the life of the Prophet and some of his trusted companions reveal the height of spirituality and submission to God. In spite of the Quran saying at one place: “To you be your way, and to me, mine.” Muslims are enjoined to convert non-Muslims, and death is prescribed for Muslims when the opposite takes place.

There are traditions which tell how the Prophet of Islam, despite imparting the teachings of Islam to the Indian Brahmins who wished to know more about his religion, even sent his trusted colleague Abuzar Ghaffari to India, but also told the Indian Hindus not to convert or change their names. Whatever be the Prophet’s reasons for saying so, the fact remains that several Jewish and Christian tribes continued to live in Arabia during the Prophet’s time. The presence of Hindus too is visible; this included the traders who frequented Arabia for selling or purchase of items. A big contingent of Indian Jats too was living in Arabia; records of their presence can be seen at the time of Ali’s caliphate. Yet no attempt was made to convert them to Islam by force.

Muslims who profess the concept of Dar-ul-Harb are living in a fool’s paradise. They should know that they are creating more enemies for Islam than friends. Though conversion through willing acceptance can never be banned, there is no justification for forceful conversion, for whatever reasons. Muslims should know that conversions happen to that religion or thought which is capable of presenting itself as better than the rest of options available. The Muslims of today are incapable of presenting themselves in good light, leave alone presenting themselves as better than others. Yet, they are foolishly naïve to think that their activities would lead to conversions. Truthfully speaking, through their zealous yet misguided support to cause of Islam they have done more harm than good; fact remains that majority of them are merely fulfilling their own material needs, all in the name of Islam!