These are great Indian personalities of the past, revered by all Indians. Had they said the same thing about Islam that they had said then, they would never be considered great Indians, but probably curse to India...

Sri Ramkrishna Paramhansa Dev (1836-1886)

Since the independence of India, some people claiming to be the followers of Sri Ramkrishna Paramhansadev (Indian Hindu saint, philosopher and a godly figure lived in nineteenth century), are propagating that by the doctrine ‘all religions are only different paths to the same God’ (that is Jata mat tata path). Sri Ramkrishna endorsed all religions, including Christianity and Islam, as paths to God. But in the first chapter of the twenty fifth part of second volume of Ramkrishna Paramhansa (speeches of Sri Ramkrishna) compiled by Sri Mahendra and published by the Ramkrishna Mission, it is clearly mentioned that on 26^th September, 1884 Sri Vijaykrishna Goswami raised a question to Sri Ramkrishna at the “Brahma Samaj Mandir” of Calcutta that whether the worship of shapeless concept of God is superior to Idol worship. In that context Sri Ramkrishna told that idol worship and shapeless concept of God or monotheism and polytheism all had their values and were different paths to God. Based on that comment the above-mentioned theory of “Jata mat tata path” was laid down. In his several discourses on different occasions Sri Ramkrishna recognized the different methods of worship developed in India from the same Vedic philosophy of tolerance but not the aggressive theologies of the foreign invaders.

Though on one or two occasions Sri Ramkrishna mentioned about Islam and Christianity but he did not actually equate them with the Hindu Philosophy. This will be crystal-clear from his following statement. “Only Hindu religion is the eternal religion. The newer religions you see around you were created at per God’s will and will be abolished by God’s will, but will not last long. So I say salute TO ALL. But Hindu religion existed since eternity and will continue to exist forever”. [Ramkrishna Kathamrita, Chapter 3, Vol. 2, compiled by Mahendra Gupta]

The above and many other discourse of Sri Ramkrishna clearly indicate that he never equated Hindu religion with others and he always used to identify himself as a Hindu.

Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902)

Swami Vivekananda -- a Indian Hindu saint, an authority on Hindu philosophy, patriotic revolutionist and a legendary social reformer, who made Hinduism popular in the Western world and founder of Ramkrishna Mission -- is universally considered as the greatest disciple of Sri Ramkrishna and the highest authority to explain the philosophy of Sri Ramkrishna. Let’s see what Swami Vivekananda have said about Islam.

“Now, the Muslims are the crudest in this respect, and the most sectarian. Their watch-word is: there is one God (Allah), and Mohammed is His Prophet. Everything beyond that not only is bad, but must be destroyed forthwith, at a moment’s notice, everyman or woman who does not exactly believe in that must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism (Islam)!”

[The speech delivered at the Shakespeare club of Pasadena, California, USA, on February 3, 1900. It is complied in’ The great teachers of the world’ in page 126 of volume 4 of the ‘Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, ‘Mayavati Memorial edition, 1990 published by Advaita Ashrama, the Publication division of Ramkrishna Mission, located at 5 Dehi Entally Road, Kolkata-700014].

After this, can the doctrine of ‘all religions are only different paths to the same God’ be considered as a valid doctrine? There is more clarification on Islam from Swami Vivekananda:

“The more selfish a man, the more immoral he is. And also with that race which is bound down to itself has been the most cruel and the most wicked in the whole world. There has not been a religion that has clung to this dualism more than that founded by the Prophet of Arabia (Mohammed), and there has not been a religion (Islam) which has shed so much blood and been so cruel to other men.  In the Koran there is the doctrine that a man, who does not believe these teachings, should be killed; it is mercy to kill him!  And the surest way to get to heaven, where there are beautiful ‘houries’ and all sort of sense-enjoyments, is by killing these unbelievers. Think of the bloodshed there has been in consequence of such beliefs (Islam)!”

[The speech delivered by Swami Vivekananda in London on 18^th Nov.1896. This has been published in ‘Practical Vedanta’ part 4. Pages 352-353 of volume 2 of the previous book]

More sayings of Vivekanda about Islam

 “One religion may ordain something very hideous. For instance, the Mohammedan (Islam) religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in the Koran, “Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans.” They must be put to fire and sword. Now if we tell a Mohammedan that this is wrong, he will naturally ask, “How do you know that? How do you know it is not good? My book says it is.”

[The speech, given in London on 17^th November, 1896, “Practical Vedanta’ Part III, p. 335; vol. 2 of the previous book]

Swami Vivekananda explained Islam as follows:

“In this line the Mohammedans were the best off; every step forward was made with the word the Koran in the one hand and the sword in the other” Take the Koran, or you must die; there is no alternative”. [The speech, delivered in the Universalist Church, Pasadena, California, USA, on 28^th January, 1890]

He further observed:

“Mohammedans talks of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into this brotherhood; he will more likely to have his throat cut.” [ibid, p 380]

Regarding the Muslim invasion and atrocities in India, Swamiji further observed:

“When the Mohammedans first came we were said – I think on the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian – to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions. And then every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more.

“Again the vast majority of the Hindus converted to Islam and Christianity are perverts by sword, or the descendants of these.” [ibid, vol. 5, p. 233]

An interview of Swami Vivekananda, published in Prabuddha Bharat. April, 1899 and compiled under heading ‘On the Bounds of Hinduism’]

Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950)

Sri Aurobindo was a great patriot revolutionist, who turned into a saint, a great philosopher and a godly figure of India. He is universally considered as a great philanthropist and much above petty politics.  Let’s see what his opinion about Islam and Muslims was:

“You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration, but how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate you’? How are you going to have unity with these people (Muslims)? Certainly Hindu–Muslim unity can not be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus should not convert any Mohammedan.

“…You can’t build unity on such a basis. Perhaps, the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them loose their fanatic faith in their religion.”

[Rishi Sri Aurobindo said on July 23, 1923. Evening talks with Sri Aurobindo; recorded by A.B. Puram, published by Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1995, p. 291]

On April 18, 1923 Sri Arobindo told in reply to a question of a disciple:

“I am sorry they (Pandit Madan Mohan Malavya and Chakravorty Rajagoplachari – two contemporary politicians in India under British rule) are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity.  It is no use to ignore facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve their problem. Otherwise we are lutted in to a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.” [ibid, p 289]

On June 29, 1926, a disciple asked Sri Aurobindo, “if it is India’s destiny to assimilate all the conflicting elements, is it possible to assimilate the Mohammedan element also?’ Sri Aurobindo replied’:

“Why not? India has assimilated elements from the Greeks, the Persians and other nations. But she assimilates only when her central truth is recognized by the other party, and even while assimilating she does it in such a way that the elements absorbed as foreign but become part of herself... The assimilation of the Mohammedan culture also was done in the mind to a great extent and it would have perhaps gone further.  But in order that the process may be complete it is necessary that a change in the Mohammedan mentality should come. The conflict is in the outer life and unless the Mohammedans learn tolerance I do not think the assimilation is possible”. On Hindu-Muslim relation Sri Aurobindo said on December 30, 1939.

“I told C.R. Das (in 1923: Chitta Ranjan Das, a great Indian patriot, revolutionist and eminent lawyer) that this Hindu. Muslim question must be solved before the British go, otherwise there was a danger of civil war. He also agreed and wanted to solve it.” [ibid, p. 696]

Guru Nanak Dev (1469-1539)

Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of the Sikh religion, a supreme Indian philosopher, great philanthropist and a godly figure to all Hindus and Sikhs all over the world, spoke about the Islam atrocities.

“Syed Sheikh, Mughols, Pathans all had become very cruel and were torturing Hindus, They have their bodies thrown to vultures. Many (Hindus) were killed by driving nails in their bodies; many others were skinned alive and still others were allowed to be bitten to death by dogs. Those who did not agree to conversion to Islam were tortured in several ways. “Yajna” and “Havan” were forbidden and defiant were made to regret. Beautiful women were abducted and forcibly kept in Muslim homes. The judges took bribe and converted truth into falsehood with their judgments”.

[Nanak Prakash, quoted in p. 80 of ‘Pan-Islamism Rolling back’, by Prem Nath Joshi, Delhi, 1998]


Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar (1891-1956)           

Now let us turn to what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar -- the main architect of Indian Constitution and a minister of Jawaharlal Nehru government and a Buddhist scholar known to be a champion secularist -- said about the Muslim psyche.

"To Muslims, a Hindu and any non-Muslim is a kaffir. A kaffir (nonbeliever in Islam) is not worthy of respect. He is a low born and without status. That is why a country ruled by the kaffir (non-Muslim) is a ‘Dar-ul-Harb’ (i.e. the land of war) to a Muslim, which must be conquered, by any means for the Muslims and turned into ‘Dar-ul-Islam’ (i.e. land of Muslims alone). Given this, no further evidence seems necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu (or for that matter any non–Muslim) Government”. [Thoughts on Pakistan: The partition of India, B.R. Ambedkar, p. 301, Vol. 8: Complete Works of Ambedkar. Govt. of Maharastra publication]

ELSEWHERE AMBEDKAR OBSERVED:

“Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslim and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self government and is incompatible with local self government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Whenever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to the buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.”

“It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment aim and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League.  Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no difference between the two and that the Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims.” [ibid. 330-331]

“It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist Musalmans have any real community of sentiment aim and policy with the Congress which marks them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that there is no difference between the two and that the Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only an outpost of the communal Muslims.”

“The Muslim invades, no doubt, came to India singing a humn of hate against the Hindus. But, theydid not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their ‘shift’ more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners.  Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hinduand Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak.” [ibid, p.65]

“The third thing that thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsters have become a settled part of their strategy in politics.” [ibid, p. 269]

“But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count towards these murders. The murders paid the penalty of law where law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. As an illustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Ali, a Barrister of Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the Muslems is quite understandable; what is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.” [ibid, p. 157]

“From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species.” [ibid, p. 193]

Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries.

“But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal.

“The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan-has very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Shraf and (2) Ajlaf, Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, ‘Ajlaf,’ ‘wretches’ or ‘ mean people’; they are also called Kamina or Itar; base or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, ‘worthless; In some  places a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all, ‘is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque and to use the public burial ground.

“Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one find among the Hindus.

A) Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.

  (1)  Saiads

  (2)  Sheikhs

  (3)  Pathans

  (4)  Moghul

  (5)  Mallik

  (6)  Mirz

B) Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans

   (1) Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do not belong to any functional group  and have not gained admittance to the Ashraf Community, e.g. Pirali and Thakrai.

   (2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.

   (3)  Barhi, Bhathiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kulu Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.

   (4)  Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhat, Chamba, Dagali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Murcho, Nagarchi, Nat, Panwaria, Madaria, Tuntia.

C) Arzal or degraded class.

    Bhanar, Halakhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Mougtra, Mehtar.

“Similar facts from other Provinces of India could be gathered from their respective Census Reports and those who are curious may refer them. Bit the facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mohomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability.” [ibid, p. 228-230]

“The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is relieving feature about them-namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices. It is noteworthy that the Muslims opposed the Child Marriage Bill brought in the Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl was raised to 14 and of a boy to18 on the ground that it was opposed to the Muslim cannon law. Not only did they oppose the bill at every stage but that when it became law they started a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act.” [ibid, p 233]

“Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of the life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not joint the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the Landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner.  He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslims community, for it is there by weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.” [ibid, p. 236]

“According to Muslim Cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not the rulers of it. That being the Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans, but it cannot be the land of the Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.’ Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

“It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims.” [ibid, p. 294]

“It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes “incumbent one a Muslim ruler to extend the rules of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam.

“In fact remains that India, if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the Musalmans according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad.

“Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavor a success.” [ibid, p. 295-296]

“The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not a mere matter of difference, and that this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection.” [ibid, p 329]

“The transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why the Hindus-and the Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by Indians.” [ibid, p. 116]

“The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan-though they are mostly congregated boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.” [ibid, p. 117]

“So much for the problem of boundaries, I will now turn to the problem of the minorities which must remain within Pakistan even after boundaries are redrawn. There are two methods of protecting their interests.”

“First is to provide safeguards in the constitution for the protection of the political and cultural rights of the minorities. To Indians this is a familiar matter and it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it.”

“Second is to provide for their transfer from Pakistan to Hindustan, Many people prefer this solution and would be ready and willing to consent to Pakistan if it can be shown that an exchange of population is possible.” [ibid, p 379]

“Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of any hope of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity up to now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind. Even Mr. Gandhi has given up what he, perhaps, now realizes is an impossible task.”