How many times does one come across perceptions that it's only Muslims who are and were always being cruel, wicked and capable of barbarism while it's only non-Muslims while all great men of history have been non-Muslims. That's not quite what true history is about. For an example, The hero of the movie, 'Kingdom of heavens' Saladin was a man ahead of his time and a benevolent man in an era when true nobility was rare. Yes, there were other conflicts, men such as Tamerlane butchered almost the entire population of Delhi, while Mohammed Khilji burnt down the great ancient Buddhist University in Nalanda and everyone inside it. Tamerlane butchered his own religious community. Chroniclers write that: "Timur surpassed all others in the matter of ‘…the murder of peaceful non-combatant Muslims and in a much smaller degree, non-combatant non-Muslims who were beheaded or put to death on his orders in the most original ways.’ And he fancied himself the saviour of Islam. Many believe that he killed only 'kaafirs'.
The true fact of history is that the past cannot just be judged by looking at a few men who are convenient from one’s point of view, but by viewing the total picture. True, some muslim rulers had been dreadful in their way of warfare and when met with resistance to their rule and authority, but to say that all Muslims are cruel and and hence all the Islamic nations should pre-empted and Muslims oppressed is just ridiculous. Each era has its own victors and the vanquished, just as each era has its own oppressors and the oppressed. Look how Americans deal with those who resist their occupation and how Israelis deal with those who defy. Why shouldn't Aurangzeb deal the way he dealt with Shivaji who defied his sovereignity? If we change the name of shivaji in history to someone named "Shuja", I would expect Aurangzeb do deal with him the same way.
Most important of all, I seldom find any Muslim blaming all the non-Muslims for being barbaric.
Unlike many non-Muslims, we don’t go and stigmatise entire communities as barbarians for the sins of a few. Nowhere would the writer find us calling ‘Christian terrorist’, ‘Jew terrorist’, or ‘Hindu terrorist’ for the barbaric acts of a few from their communities, but everywhere we can find prejudiced people like the writer blaming the entire religion for terrorism (just because some people from that religion are supposed terrorists).
The fact of the matter is that all Muslims were/are not like Tamerlane or Mehmood Khilji the way all non-Muslims are/were not barbarians. If you view the total picture of history without any prejudice, you could find the contribution of Islam larger then any other civilisation. When the whole medieval Europe was fluctuating in the realm of the Dark Age, Muslims enlightened them and sowed the seeds of the Renaissance. Our contribution to the betterment of humanity has been written in golden letters in the annals of human history.
True, each era had its own oppressors and the oppressed, and it’s also true that, each era witnessed the oppressed rising against the oppressors and fighting the battle of freedom. The entire perception of the writer looks like he is another victim of the biased western media, and his clotted mind is shrouded with the doctrines of anti-Islamic propaganda. If Muslims defending their religion looks like vitriol to the writer, I would like to know why the writer consumes the vitriol like honey, and returns again and again to bite and howl at the Muslims, given any opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment