I am just a Muslim – Debunking ‘I am non-Arab Muslim’ Part 2

Written by Abd Al Muhsin al Hindy

The saga is on, and further more here enters the so-called “love” let’s see what more lies are in store for us ahead. And we’ll also see the so-called “emerging realities” and expose these “realities” hence stay tuned with eyes on facts, here.

Satyagni / Agniveer the chronic, consummate liar wrote:

 1. Arab men can marry my daughters and sisters but I cant marry theirs,Now I realized the Islam in practice. The Sharia Law of Saudi Arabia is against marriage of Arab women with non-Arab men.In most parts of Arab society, the father can simply deny to a proposal for his daughter from a non-Arab.Yes, it is true that non-Arabs are considered inferior Muslims.In my case, the story ended with refusal of her father. I was humiliated for daring to marry an Arab woman!My friend was luckier but had to face more turmoils. Her fiancee was able to convince her father to agree to the marriage proposal.To marry a non-Arab, a special permit was to be obtained from government. The laws are different and much more encouraging in case an Arab wants to marry a non-Arab woman. The permit took more than a year. And after that, the husband was refused residency. On contrary a non-Arab wife easily gets the residency.The ordeal was so torturous that finally they decided to leave Arab forever and settle in Canada where Shariat is no more applicable.You can read about their miseriesat:http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article30078.ecehttp://www.altmuslimah.com/a/b/a/3664/I initially tried to reason it out as not a religious issue but a national issue. However when I scratched the surface, my foundation broke completely. Islam was no more the same for me.

Such blatant lies can work on blind-following Hindus and not Muslims or people in search of truth. Let’s expose the chronicly consummate liar –Agniveer.Are so-called non-Arab Muslims considered inferior? Let’s the noble Prophet of Mercy Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) answer this question,

All people are equal, as the teeth of a comb. There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab or a white over a black person or a male over a female.”

 – [ al-Musnad of Imām Aḥmad, Vol. VI, pg. 411,Cairo 1930, also see Musnad of Imām ad-Darīmī]

We think that this single ḥadith is enough to debunk the entire article; this ḥadith clearly refutes all the allegations of non-Arabs are inferior or racism in Islām …etc

Now coming to issue raise with regards to marriage, it’s to be noted that here the two links provided talk about Saudis marrying non-Saudis and the problems they face. Nowhere does the question of issue come up? Agniveer the chronic, consummate liar deceptively makes this a “race” issue but here’s something which will expose the hypocrisy and inconsistency of Agniveer from his own source. The second link provided by Agniveer, that is itself debunks the allegations against Islām:


The second article linked by Agniveer states:

 The Islamic creed gives women the right to choose a spouse and makes no distinction between a Saudi and a non-Saudi Muslim. In his last sermon, the prophet Muhammad said: “Arab has no superiority over non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any over an Arab … except by piety and good action.”
It is evident that these practices are not in sync with the equality Islam espouses.  

Now, this is an Agniveer is caught lying on Islām red-handed! Do our readers need any more proofs? We’ve proven from the Agniveer’s own links that he is a liar and that his allegations are false. Another point is that Saudi Arabia does not  forbid non-Saudis from marrying Saudis , but makes it a very difficult process in order to verify and discourage Saudis(women) from marrying non-Saudis, and one of the reason is the very low-population of the country [see here –Saudi Arabia is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world”. Source –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%5D, which could further decline the population ration, if non-Saudis married Saudi women which eventually leads to their emigration to another countries (husbands country).

Another point which should be is that, here the issue of race has no role to play, as even a Arab would have to go through these difficult and discouraging process , if he is not a Saudi – citizen. Meaning, Yemeni, Libyan, Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Syrian, Qatari, Bahraini, Palestinian Arabs (and those from Emirates, Muscat) all would have to go through such stringent and discouraging process as they are not Saudi nationals. For instance, the report on marriage in Saudi Arabia in year 2008 states that:

2,141 Saudis men married foreign women. Marriages to non-Saudi women include 1,017 marriages to Yemeni nationals followed by 164 to Syrians, 145 to Pakistanis and 104 to Palestinians. The report also said that 1,944 foreigners married Saudi women, including 419 Yemenis, 407 Kuwaitis, 193 Qataris and 176 Syrians. It also stated, marriages among Filipinos were the highest with 323 marriage contracts followed by Yemenis (30) and Pakistanis (28). [Report published 2008]

It’s clear from the report that the number of Saudi women marrying non-Saudi men is quite close to Saudi men marrying non-Saudi women. Also, see the how Kuwaiti, Syrian, Qatari, Palestinian being Arabs had to face the same stringent, discouraging process and are categorized as non-Saudis as there is no law is Saudi that prohibits a non-Arab male from marrying an Arab female, nor a non-Saudi man from marrying a Saudi women (only that non-saudi man marrying Saudi women is discouraged due to the reason stated above).

This exposes Agniveer and his fraudulent and lying nature and makes the equality that Islām provides is unparalleled and unrivaled.

 Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:

 Kafaa’at in Lineage

….the Fuqahaa (Jurists) have stated that among Arabs, a non-Quraishi male is not a match (Kuf) for a Quraishi woman, nor can any person of non-Arab descent be a match for a woman of Arab descent, no matter that he be an Aalim (religious scholar) or even a Sultan (ruling authority). [Sources: http://www.shariahprogram.ca/women-islam/kafaah.shtml and http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask.pl?q=6225&act=view ]The hoax of equality was now exposed.I suddenly realized that this is nothing but slavery where Muslim males can enjoy any of their slaves whom their right hand possesses but any male from the slaves can never be the match to master’s women/sisters/daughters.So as per Shariat and practice, non-Arab Muslims have same status as slaves. The real Islam is for Arabs alone and non-Arab Muslims are merely being fooled to fulfill their political ambitions in garb of religion.THIS WAS THE MOST SHOCKING REVELATION OF MY LIFE. I don’t know how Prophet Muhammad would have felt when he first got the revelations. But for me, this reality was far more shocking and gruesome than the violent history that led me to embrace Islam.I did not want to give up so easily. I still had faith in Religion of Equality. So I went down the rabbit-hole further. And I was destined for some even more rude shocks.

Firstly, let’s understand the Islāmic concept of marriage and expose Agniveer. Begining with exposing some deceptions of the author.Are non-Arabs allowed to marry Arab women?

Yes, and let’s start proving and demolishing the flasity of our opponents claims. Frankly, speaking we were expecting some good “arguments” from Agniveer, instead we found him quoting not from the Qur’ān nor from the Ahadith but from a site , which itself gives no proof for it’s claims.That’s the reason poor why Agniveer was forced to quote what Ibrahim Desai wrote , as Desai himself does not provide any proof for his statements all what he talks , is the right of women to choose a suitable life-partner and in fact in his entire sub-section of “Kafā’ah in lineage” (Compatibility and Suitability in lineage) he hasn’t cited or quoted any Qur’ānic verses or ahadith , as there is nothing like “Kafā’ah in lineage” in entire Qur’ān or ahadith canon. Another interesting point, he quite frequently quotes Darr al-Mukhtār “as appearing in Darrul Mukhtaar” and so did he do in the “Kafā’ah in lineage” sub-section , Darr al-Mukhtār is well-know for its strange content and other things , but that’s another issue which we won’t be dealing with here.

What Mr.Desai gives proof for is choosing a suitable bridegroom for the women by her guardians or she should do so herself.

As stated in the earlier quoted ḥadīth , that no human is superior to another expect by God-consciousness and piety.

The noble Prophet of Mercy Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

“There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab or of a non-Arab over an Arab or of a white man over a black man or of a black man over a white man, except in terms of God-consciousness. The people are from Adam, and Adam is from dust.”  – [Sunan al-Tirmidhī no.3270]

So is the statement Mr. Ibrahim Desai correct? –

 “the Fuqahaa (Jurists) have stated that among Arabs, a non-Quraishi male is not a match (Kuf) for a Quraishi woman, nor can any person of non-Arab descent be a match for a woman of Arab descent, no matter that he be an Aalim (religious scholar) or even a Sultan (ruling authority).”

Well, this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard ever from Mr. Desai and let’s expose the unislāmic-ness of this statement. Whom shall a Muslim prefer in marriage? What are the broad things people look in a women while marriage?  And what is the correct and best thing?

The noble Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

“A woman is married for four things, i.e.,

1) her wealth,

2) her family status (lineage),

3) her beauty and

3) her religion.

So you should marry the religious woman (otherwise) you will be a loser.”  -[Sahīh Al-Bukhārī: Volume 62, Book 07, no. 27. ]

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ تُنْكَحُ عَلَى دِينِهَا وَمَالِهَا وَجَمَالِهَا فَعَلَيْكَ بِذَاتِ الدِّينِ تَرِبَتْ يَدَاكَ

Jabir reported that the Prophet (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) said, “A woman is married for

1)     her religion,

2)     her wealth or

3)     her beauty.

So, it is upon you that you pick one for religion…”

                                       – [Sunan al-Tirmidhī no.1088]

The above quoted aḥādīth, broadly states the major factors which men adopt while determining a potential bride, and Prophet Muḥammad states that a women with religiosity is to be married or you’ll be one of the losers! What if people don’t pick one with religiosity and good character? And the noble Prophet states,

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا خَطَبَ إِلَيْكُمْ مَنْ تَرْضَوْنَ دِينَهُ وَخُلُقَهُ فَزَوِّجُوهُ إِلَّا تَفْعَلُوا تَكُنْ فِتْنَةٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَفَسَادٌ عَرِيضٌ

Abu Hurayrah reported that Allāh’s Messenger (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) said, “When a man proposes marriage and you are pleased with his religion and his character then marry (your daughter) to him. If you do not do it then there would be mischief on earth and much corruption”.

                                                     – [Sunan al-Tirmidhī no.1086, 1087]

Corruption and mischief will spread, as visible today, people who marry for wealth and dowry are found burning their brides, if monetary demands are not met, and these demands continue even after the marriage.Hence as per Islām when a man proposes marriage for a woman and the man is religious and has a good character then there is no reason that they shouldn’t get married (except that the woman disagrees and that’s her right). Hence when a non-Arab man proposes marriage [having the essential qualities (religiousity…etc)] to an Arab women then he should be married or (the guardian should) give the daughter in marriage, that’s what the noble Prophet Muḥammad stated, so lineage or family status does not matter nor profession, as evident.

So is lineage important? Or is a person of non-Arab descent (lineage) barred from marrying a women of Arab lineage (descent)? Well, this is what Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) states about lineage and descent:

“And, if anyone is slack in (doing) his deeds then his lineage will not advance him.

– [Sunan al-Tirmidhī no.2954, Sahīh al-Tirmidhī no.3606, An-Nasā’ī, ibn Mājah]

And Ash-Shaykh al-Allāmah Saif ar-Rahmān Mubārakpuri quoting Shaykh Sultān ibn Ali al-Qāri commented: 

“That is, his shortcomings [in performing good deeds] are not fixed by being of noble lineage among his people, for closeness to Allāh is not through lineage but, rather, through good works. Allāh Most High said, “Verily, the noblest of you to Allāh are the most God-conscious.”

                                     – [Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi bi Sharh Jami` al-Tirmidhi]

Lineage, descent, or anyother factor does not matter what matters is good deeds , hence lineage/descent /family status as a criteria for marriage is not found in Islām.And in fact this is what the noble prophet said about taking pride in your lineage or ancestors, and what Islām had done with regards to it:

Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

“Allāh, Most High, has removed from you the pride of the Pre−Islamic period and its boasting in ancestors.
One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner. You are sons of Adam, and Adam came from dust. Let the people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel in Jahannam (Hell); or they will certainly be of less account with Allāh than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose.

                         –  [Sunan Abī Dawūd, Kitāb al-Adāb, no. 5097, 5116]

Well, these aḥadith debunk the statement of Mr. Ibrahim Desai, as the noble prophet said it’s not your lineage that raises you high but your good action/deeds that does.And boasting about your lineage or ancestor is nothing but a way to hell.Hence in no way lineage can be a condition for marriage and those who think have erred and have no proof from Islām whatsoever.

Moreover how can it be prohibited for a non-Arab to marry Arab women, or how can’t they be a match? When Prophet Muḥammad (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) himself married non-Arab Muslims to Arab Muslim women for instance:

He (sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam) married Bilāl ibn Rabāh to Halah the sister of ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf (An Arab). Bilāl was an ethipian (ex-) slave.

And here’s what Imām Mālik said in regards to Kafā’ah (Compatibility and Suitability), while maintaining that Kafā’ah i.e. compatibility and suitablitiy is only in religiosity and not lineage:

                            “Being similar in terms of religious commitment….”

                                                        – [al-Mawū’suah al-Fiqhiyyah 34/271]

Imām Mālik said Kafā’ah in marriage just refers to being compatible in religious commitment and is seen just in terms of religiousity not lineage, wealth, profession or other things.Hence concludingly we would like state that there is no evidence whatsoever that non-Arabs cannot marry Arabs , or aren’t a match. We in fact challenge Agniveer/Satyagni to prove us from the Qur’ān and Sunnah that non-Arabs cannot marry Arabs.

And lastly, demolishing the conjecture, we would like to quote Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Munnajid:

The ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is that attention should be paid to compatibility in religious commitment first and foremost. So a Muslim woman should not be given in marriage to a kaafir, or a chaste woman to an immoral man. The Qur’aan and Sunnah do not pay attention to any compatibility beyond that. It is haraam for a Muslim woman to marry an evil adulterer. No attention is paid to lineage, profession, wealth, or whether the man is free or a slave.
It is permissible for a lowly slave to marry a free woman of noble birth, if he is chaste and Muslim. And it is permissible for a non-Qurashi to marry a Qurashi woman, and for a non-Haashimi to marry a Haashimi woman, and for poor men to marry rich women.

                                                                                    – [Fatwā no. 84306]

We think this should suffice our readers and expose the falsity of the claims of Agniveer & Co. There is nothing which prevents “inter-race” marriages in Islām, infact such marriages are encouraged so as to unite humanity under truth.Moreover here’s the correct fatwa on the issue:


Can a Muslim Arab woman marry a (non-Arab) Muslim Man?


Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and Blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions. An Arab Muslim woman can marry a non-Arab Muslim man. At the same time, a Muslim Arab man can marry a non-Arab Muslim woman. Because; the fitness in Islam is based only on religion, according to the opinion of the majority of Muslim scholars. Other conditions could be abandoned by guardians. The Prophet Muhammad (Blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) says: “If one of you proposed a woman and you like his religion and character, you should marry him, if you do not marry him, there will be trouble and deprivation”. They said: “If there is something (should we accept him)? He replied; if one proposes to marry a woman and you like his religion and character, you should marry him, the Prophet repeated it three times”. Narrated by Tirmizi. Allah knows best.

 – [Source:  http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=81290 ]

Another fatwa makes the issue more clear and also sufficiently clarifies why people need to go through rigid process


Why is it permissible for Arab men to marry non-Arab women, but a big issue is made when an Arab woman wants to marry a non-Arab man? I read your answer to a question saying there is no distinction between ARAB and NON-ARAB; they are all Muslim. Why should Arab women seek permission from the authorities first?


Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions. 

In fact the preponderant opinion in the view of Sharia is that the  suitability considered for marriage is religion only. Other than religion, every thing else could be neglected. A Muslim man can marry any Muslim woman regardless of their lineage. Prophet Muhammad (Blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said in this regard:
“If a man proposes a girl, had you like his religion and character, you should marry her to him, if you do not do so, there will be trouble and deprivation”.
The practice of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) certify this opinion. Bilal (whose origin was not from Arabs) married the sister of Abdur Rahman Bin Aowf, who was from the leaders of Quraish

As for your question, why a Muslim needs to seek permission from authorities? If you mean by authorities, guardians of a woman, no doubt the guardian of a woman protects herself and her rights from injustice of men. She could be easily deceived by external appearances. If you mean by authorities, the ruler of the country, then we would like to clarify for you that this rule relates to the man-made rules and these rules do not have any relation to the Islamic rules except if there is an Islamic legal reason. For example, the authorities may suspect that a foreigner has no intention of marrying the woman for herself and having a  permanent marriage. He may have other motives. Such a person may be merely using the woman to achieve other goals. This is a very common practice. Thus a woman may in this sitution lose an opportunity for  marriage with a good man of her own country. It is known that the countrymen usually want to marry women to have a permanent marriage. 
Allah knows best.

[Source: http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=82173]

Now coming to some other insinuations alluded to, by Agniveer, he ignorantly states:

 “I suddenly realized that this is nothing but slavery where Muslim males can enjoy any of their slaves whom their right hand possesses but any male from the slaves can never be the match to master’s women/sisters/daughters.”

This “realisation” was a whim which Agniveer obeyed, another hapless accusation nay but a lie, we would ask him to first learn something about slavery instead of blabbering, we wonder what does the above subject have anything to do with slavery, nonetheless we would like to state what Napoleon Bonaparte observed about conditions of slaves in Muslims countries and compared it to the condition of slaves in west:

“The slave inherits his master’s property and marries his daughter.
The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born.”

                                                                 – [Cherfils, ‘Bonaparte et l’Islam’, Paris, 1914]  

We think this should shut the mouths of liars like Agniveer and show the respect and humanity which Islām and Muslims have ordained for slaves and InshāAllāh we’ll be proving more of this in the subsequent passages of this article.Agniveer also makes a passing reference to what the “right hand possesses” we think did Agniveer forget about Niyoga? With regards to Niyoga we can simply state “what the world possesses”, nontheless those interested in learning more about it should read this article – [http://www.answering-christianity.com/right_hand_possession.htm]

Coming to protestant Hindūism, we’ve see the so-called equality talk of Agniveer and also earlier exposed the inequality of protestant Hindūism, but what about marriage? Can every protestant Hindū marry any other protestant Hindū? Or are they barred? Well, we’ll let Mūlshankar answer these questions.

Mūlshakar wrote:

“The men of Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaishya
varnas should marry the compatible girl of their own varna
with the permission of preceptor performing the Samavartan and having systemtically completed the vows of Brahmacharya and attained knowledge.The girl of good qualities who does not fall within the six genelogical orders of the mother and is not of the geneology of the father is legitimately marriageable by the Dvijas.”               – [Ed. Acharya Bhagwan Das, ‘Sanskār vidhi’, pg. 166, Diamond Publisher, 2002]

Simliarly he wrote in his ‘Bible of Hate’:

They should also marry persons of their own Class, namely, A Braahman, a Braahman woman; Kshatriya a Kshatriya woman: A Vaishya, a Vaishya woman, and a Shoodra, a Shoodraa woman. It is then and then only that the people will faithfully discharge the duties of their respective Classes and secure, thereby, perfect harmony.

                                 – [Satyarth Prakāsh Ch. 4, pg. 101, Tr. Chiranjiva]

This is what we call explicit inequality! Why can’t a Shudra marry a Brahman woman? Why this castecism divides humans and stops them from marrying each other? Why even after inter-caste marriage a person won’t full-fill his duty? For instance, if a Kshatriya gets married to a Brahman woman will it, stop him from defending his nation? He will discharge his duties no matter what .Such pretexts for legalizing inequality are grossly illogical and incoherent.So why this inequality? And what about the “six genelogical orders”? Why can’t women who fall within the six genelogical order of parents not eligible to for marriage? Is there any rational explanation, or is it nothing but “practice”? We know Mūlshankar did not have answers to our questions nor does Agniveer; as such beliefs are inherently illogical and irrational, with being inhuman and discriminatory.Is this the equality Agniveer was boasting of? Why don’t the fanatic protestant Hindūs, throw away such beliefs and criticize the Vedas, Manu and Mūlshankar for such inhuman and discriminatory beliefs? Well, answere is their “hypocrisy”.

Just compare the words of Mūlshankar to that of Hitler who just like Mūlshankar was opposed to inter-race marriages:

Just as little as Nature desires a mating between weaker individuals and stronger ones, far less she desires the mixing of a higher race with a lower one, as in this case her entire work of higher breeding, which has perhaps taken hundreds of thousands of years, would tumble at one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrible clarity that with any mixing of the blood of the Aryan with lower races the result was the end of the culture-bearer.”  – [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamf – Complete and Unabridged, pg. 392, New York, 1941]

And further he gives an example of the so-called pure “Germanics” who due to their purity in breed have been the master of that specified continent –

“The Germanic of the North American continent, who has remained pure and less intermixed, has become the master of that continent, he will remain so until he, too, falls victim to the shame of blood-mixing.” – [ibid pg. 392]

Just like Mūlshankar who wants Aryans to rule the world by remaining pure and not intermixing with Shūdras  the ‘impure’ people and the Malechha (barbarians), so does Hitler believe.Same beliefs, shared by two ‘great’
(paragon of racism) people both racist and upholder of “Aryan Supremacy” except that Hitler believed Aryans to be from Europe (North) whereas Mulshankar believes them to be from Tibet. Moving further, Mūlshankar lists down the certain criteria to be followed while chosing a spouse, in his “Bible of Hate”,

In connecting himself with wife, let a man studiously avoid the following
ten families, be they ever so great in political power or rank, or ever so rich in cows, goats, horses, elephants, gold or grain.”MANU 3: 6.

“The family which is not religious, that which is destitute of men of character, that in which the study of the Veda is neglected, that the members whereof have long and thick hair on the body and that which is subject to such diseases as Piles, consumption, Asthma, Bronchitis, Dyspepsia, Epilepsy, Leprosy, and Albinism; because all these faults and diseases are transmitted to the offspring.Therefore both husband and wife should come from good (physically, morally and intellectually) families.” MANU 3: 7.

“Let a man never marry one who is pale and anaemic, nor one who is altogether a bigger and stronger person than himself or has a redundant member, nor one who is an invalid, nor one either with no hair or too much hair or too much hair,nor one immoderately talkative, nor one with redeyes.” MANU 3: 8.”

“Nor one with the name of star, of a tree, or of a river,or of a mountain, nor one bearing a name denoting low origin, or servility, nor one named after a bird, a snake, nor one whose name inspires terror.” MANU 3: 9. These names are despicable and belong to other things as well.

                       – [Satyarth Prakāsh Ch. 4, pg. 86-91, Tr.Chiranjiva]

Nope, there are many more people who’ve been discriminated in protestant Hindūism. Apart from the vile, discrimination of people based in caste, there are many other people who’ve been wronged.Now this is really amazing to see that Mūlshankar states that names of “stars” , “trees”, “rivers” are “despicable”. What rationality states that names of “stars” …etc are despicable? And if they are despicable then why did humans give them such despicable names? Amazingly, Mūlshankar is one of the first humans I’ve seen to have claimed, that names of stars are despicable! And what about the names of rivers and trees, why did the Hindūs then give such beautiful things absurd names? And what about a woman named Ganga or Narmada, Godavari…etc? Why can’t a Hindū marry him? Just because she has a named after a river?

Here are few examples of names which are despicable according to Mūlshankar –

“Ashwani, Rohini, Revati, Tulsi, Gulabi, Champa, Chameli, Ganga, Jamuna, Vindhya, Himalaya, Parvati, Kokila, Mena, Madho (Madhu) dasi, Mira dasi, Chandika, Kali.”

– [See Ch.4, pg.131 of Satyarth Prakāsh, Tr. Durgā Prasād]

Similarly the names are also written in Sanskār vidhi,


                                                 – [Mūlshankar, Sanskār Vidhi, pg.75 footnote, Hindi]

All such illogical beliefs are repugnant to us. Mūlshankar also states that a woman who’s more powerful and stronger to the man is not to ber married! What is this? Is is some sought of Male egoism or gender discrimination and bias? What do the protestant Hindū males fear? This is very similar to what Hitler believed,

       “Just as little as Nature desires a mating between weaker individuals and stronger ones…”

                              – [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamf – Complete and Unabridged, pg. 392, New York, 1941]

In short, we learn that protestant Hindūism is vehemently opposed to equality in marriage, just like Hitler was.Such sort of unequality can only stem from a falsehood.

Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:

2. Arab Muslims call Non Arab Muslims as “Mawali”This word Mawali used by Arabs for non-Arabs is same as the one used in Indian subcontinent derogatorily as “Gunda/Badmash”. Though in Arabic, it means “heirs” as per Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir, but it was used exclusively to mean ‘slaves’ for centuries. This is how the word got its prevalent meaning in this region.The famous Shiite Islamic scholar Mumtaz Ali Tajddin in his “Encyclopaedia of Ismailism” writes-The Shi’ites from Iran were not granted equal status by their Arab co-citizens in the social system of Kufa, and thus they were called mawali (sing. mawla) means clients, a term to indicate inferior social standing, or second-class citizens. [Ref: http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/10590%5DSo if not Kafir, I am a Mawali. Instead of calling me a pig, they call me swine! After all that sacrifice I made to embrace Islam, this is the equality that I received.  I was just a puppet in hands of Arabs all the way.I could not face myself in mirror anymore. I had my family butchered, I had my mothers and sisters raped, I had my traditions destroyed, I refused even to relook at history, and loved my own Qatil (murderers) – all to earn the title of ‘Mawali’ and be termed inferior to their breed!But now I decided to review the history. I reviewed the available Quran translations and tafseer (commentary) by noted scholars and I found that.

The lies and fraud of Agniveer/satyagni continue making things more interesting for those who are interested in learning about the deception and lies of him.Let’s continue our work of exposing the lies of Agniveer, here in this part of his article he goes on to play with the word “Mawālī”. He writes that “Mawālī” is the same Arabic word which is used in the Indian continent to term people as “Gundā/Badmāsh”.Which is an evidence-less statement and provides no proof for his statement in any case, if it’s the same word it should have the same meaning as the word Mawālī in Arabic.We’ll state the meaning of the word Mawālī in the following passages.And as Agniveer claims that the “word Mawali used by Arabs for non-Arabs is same as the one used in Indian subcontinent” then we’ll prove the meaning of the word which will indirectly proove whether or not the word has a derogatory meaning.

Very interestingly, Agniveer in the above quote tries to deceive people in three ways ,using these three unpoven statements,

1)     Firstly, stating that the Arabic word “Mawālī” is the same word used in the Indian sub-continent which has  derogatory meaning (as per Agniveer).

2)     Secondly , stating that the word “Mawālī” “was used exclusively to mean ‘slaves’ for centuries”.

3)     Thirdly, that the word “Mawālī” was used by Arabs for non-Arabs to defame and disparage them.

These are mere lies.So is Arabic “Mawali” the same word used in Indian sub-continent? Well, if it is then it should have the same meaning as the word “Mawali” in Arabic and if it does not have the same meaning than it will only prove that the word is different and not same as the Arabic word.Again let question,  is Arabic “Mawali” the same word used in Indian sub-continent?

A ) Well, this is the most hilarious thing to think of! Firstly, no where in the Indian sub-continent is Arabic language used as a medium of conversation between common people! So how can this word be the same word of urdu language! This is illogicallity and irrationality par excellence. The word “Mawālī” used in Indian sub-continent is not an Arabic word but has been borrowed from Arabic by local languages with changed meaning.

B) The word “Mawālī” in Arabic is a “genitive plural noun”, whereas “Mawālī” in Indian subcontinent is used as a “Singular noun !The singular of Mawālī in Arabic language is “Mawlā” which is “nominative masculine noun”.Hence the word “Mawālī” used in Indian sun-continent and Arabic are totally different grammatically and in meaning, which proves they are like north and South pole.Has anyone in India, heard someone calling a Gundā or Badmāsh as “Mawlā? This itself proves that these two are totally different word, though may sound same with same consonants but are different in meaning.It may be  that the Arabic word was picked-up by Indian sub-continent lexicographers and was corrupted, by giving it a different meaning and localising it for regional use.

Moreover, both the Arabic word “Mawālī” and the word “Mawālī” used in Indian sub-continent are totally different in meaning(which we’ll prove soon). There are thousands of words adopted , adapted from Arabic by various Indian sub-continental languages and then corrupted, and usually the Indian sub-continental meaning of these words,  are very different from the original Arabic.There numerous such words borrowed from Arabic by other languages which are similar in consonants but totally different in meaning, as they were localised with the regional language and were given the whimsical meaning by the local lexicographers.Hence the Indian sub-continent word “Mawālī” is nothing but the product of local lexicographers whimsical works , who took the words Arabic and changed its meaning as per their whims or liking.

Let us make few points clear :

1)     Mawālī isn’t a abusive word in Islāmic society or in Arabic.

2)     Mawālī wasn’t used “exclusively to mean ‘slaves’ for centuries”.

3)     Mawālī was not a word used to term/label the “non-Arabs” as lowly or “Gundās/Badmāsh”.

These three points will be proved in the following passage, with sufficient and evident proofs.

Meaning of Mawālī in Arabic:

Al-Imām Abū al-Fid’ā Ibn Kathir states the meaning of the word and its status in Islām, though Agniveer mentions Imām Ibn Kathir but deceivingly,  he (Agniveer) only mentions a part of the what he wrote, but here’s the full excerpt :

(And to everyone, We have appointed Mawālī) means, Heirs. Ibn `Abbās was also reported to have said that Mawālī refers to relatives. Ibn Jarir commented, “The Arabs call the cousin a Mawlā.”

                                                                                         – [Tafsīr Ibn Kathir]

So Mawālī does not mean Gundā or badmāsh but it means “relatives” or “cousins” in Islām and Islāmic society.Agniveer very deceptively states only a part of what Imām Ibn Kathir wrote, whereas the other part weren’t stated as they expose his lies. Hence “Mawālī” is not an abusive or a derorgatory word but a word which is used to show the brotherhood which Islām endows.

And here’s what the dictionary of noble Qur’ān has to say about the meanings of the word,

Mawālī : Inheritors;Kinsfolk; Clients; Friends;Wards.

  – [Abd al-Manān Umar, ‘Dictionary of the Holy Qur’ān’, pg.622, China]

Here’s what Corpus Qur’ān dictionary has to say about the meaning of it,

And it also says,

Also, here’s what the Sebastian Gunther who seemingly despite quite critical of Islām, has to say on the meaning and use of the word Mawālī in ‘Client and Clientage’,

The legal attachment of a person or group to another person, family, clan or tribe (see family; tribes and clans).The term “client” (mawlā, pl. mawālī) plays, along with “confederate, ally” (alīf) and “protected neighbor, temporary protégé( jār), a prominent role in pre-Islamic Arabia and in early Islamic society and law.”

                           – [Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, ‘Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān’ vol.1, pg.344, Brill]

Agniveer wrote about the historic usage of the word Mawālī “it was used exclusively to mean ‘slaves’ for centuries” Another despicable lie, which we will expose in a second, the word Mawālī wasn’t used for slaves, in-fact the illiteracy of Agniveer is out, the word Mawālī loosely means a close one who’s been given walā meaning protection/security.Hence, freed-men who were ones slaves were called Mawālī as they were freed and , given protection/support by a tribe or  clan, this meaning word commonly used for freed-men in pre-Islāmic Arabia.As a freed-slave was protégé which rendered him free of harm from another tribe, hence the Arabs called them their relatives as they were considered their fellow-tribesmen.But with the advent of Prophet Muḥammad this word’s meaning and usage even deepened in regards to brotherhood and love.Hence the contention of Agniveer is purely false and concocted, here’s some more proof which will make the lie of Agniveer evident.Also , its ironical that Agniveer is labeling slaves as “Mawālī”, when the freed-men or freed-slaves were known to be “Mawālī” due to their walā to a particular tribe or clan.Look the so-called “Arabic Masters” at Agniveer & Co.! Where are the Arabic masters? This again proves the lie promulgated by Agniveer that his team consists of Arabic Masters!

In factuality the words used in Arabic for ‘slave’ is “‘abd” for masculine gender and “amah” for feminine gender, both mean ‘slave’.And both are not abusive words.Even though their non-abusive nature, here’s what the noble Prophet Muḥammad (sallal  lahu alayhi wa sallam) said on calling your slaves,

“…none should say “my ‘abd” (my slave) or “my amah” (my slave-girl) but instead he should say, “my lad”, “my lass”, or “my boy”.

                                          – [Sahīh Al-Bukhārī no.2552, Sahīh Muslim no.2249]

And Ash-Shaykh al-Allāmah Ṣaliḥ ibn Abd’Allāh al-Fawzān comments on the ḥadīth saying,

“The ḥadīth stresses that, one is prohibited from uttering the following words, “my ‘abd”, “my amah” …”

      – [al-Mukhtasar fī sharh Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, pg. 386, Al-Maiman Publishing house, 2005]

Though the word is perfectly non-abusive, Islām prohibited its use for various reasons and one was to show courtesy to our brothers and be humane to them (i.e slaves).This was prohibited by the noble egalitarian prophet Muḥammad which again shows the equality and respect Islām provides to people from every walks of life.This, is the high level of respect Islām commands Muslims to give people, who usually are considered as low in other religions and societies, we’ll expound more on this inherently egalitarian nature of  Islām but a little later.

Meaning and usage of word Mawālī:

Was the word Mawālī used in a disparaging way? Or was it used to debase non-Arabs as claimed by the hate-monger Agniveer? Well, here we’ll provide more details on the meaning and usage of the word. And further we quote various Islāmic scholars expounding on the use word of Mawālī in Islāmic context especially Qur’ānic:

Imām al-Qurṭubī expounds on the what meant to be a Mawālī, and use of the word as,

                                      “Fellow-tribesman (ibn al-‘amm), helper (nāṣir), friend (ṣadīq)

                                             – [al-Qurṭubī, Jāmi’ li-al-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, xvi, 148, Beirut 1985-93]

Imām as-Ṣuyūtī writes:

          “The one to whom one feels connected by closeness or friendship (bi-qarāba aw       ṣadāqa)

                                                           – [al-Tafsīr Jalālayn, pg.377, ed. ‘A. Muḥammad, Cairo 1936]

Hence we, learn that neither is the word Mawālī abusive nor its use was to disparage of debase anybody especially non-Arabs in fact the word Mawālī is a word which the Arabs used for their cousins and relatives!

We’ve established that the word Mawālī is not an abusive or derorgatory word in Islām or Arabic as claimed by Agniveer.Agniveer also quotes an Isma’ilī Shi’ite (Shia) person who he claims to be a famous scholar- Mumtaz Ali Tajddin, incidentally we never came across any Shi’ite scholar with such a name.Nonetheless, we see his deception and lies, owing to the fact that he is a Shi’ite, his lie of “Mawālī” representing inferior status has been evidently exposed. Here’s what Sebastian Gunther, who despite being very critical of the usage and real application of the meaning of the term “Mawālī” writes,

“The qur’ānic conception of clientage, however, seems to reflect the old Arab pattern of collective, egalitarian social relationships of mutual assistance.”

                              – [Ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, ‘Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān’ vol.1, pg.345, Brill]

Well, we think we’ve refuted the claims of so-called Isma’ilī Shi’ite “scholar” sufficiently, but still to add one more point, that the Kufa which he is talking of ,has given Islām numerous great scholars like , al-Imām Hasan al-basri…etc In fact, one of the most famous scholar of Islām , al-Imām Abī Ḥanifah Nu’mān ibn Thābit was a Kufan and an Persian – non-Arab, hence it’s a pure trickery on the part of this Shi’ite writer to allege Islām and Muslims with such lies and concoctions. Though there may be few black sheep who may have been bad but that’s their own actions with no authority from Islām, and even if we agree for the sake of argumentation that historically Mawālī, were not treated equally by Arabs as contended by Mumtaz, still we reach nowhere as such actions of unequality have not authority in Islām nor from any Muslim scholar, which again shows us the irrationality of those who blame Islām for the evil deeds of few bad Muslims, which is illogical and biased. If our readers want to see the real status of Mawālī’s in Islām, we would with pleasure show them the truth,

“The last one of the Sahabāh, ‘Amir ibn Wathilah ibn ‘Abd Allah (Abu Tufayl) died in 100 AH. Thereafter, those who became responsible for issuing Fatawa were the freed men Mawālī ,
most of whom had lived with the Fuqahā’ among the Sahābah, such as: Nafi’, the freed man of Ibn ‘Umar; ‘Ikramah, the freed man of Ibn ‘Abbas; ‘Ata’ ibn Rabah, the Faqih of Makkah; Tawus, the Faqih of the people of Yemen; Yahya ibn Kathir, the Faqih of Yamamah; Ibrahim al Nakha’i, the Faqih of Kufah; Hasan al Basri, the Faqih of Basrah; Ibn Sirin, also of Basrah; ‘Ata’ al Khurasani in Khurasan, and others. Indeed, Madinah was unique in having a Faqih from Quraysh, Sa’id ibn al Musayyab.”

         – [Tahā Jabīr ‘Ulwani, Usūl al-Fiqh al-Islāmi, Ch. 3, Virginia- USA]

This is the status of Mawālī, many Mawālī turned into Islāmic scholars due to their well treatment by their brothers and their love for knowledge and truth.The so-called Isma’ilī Shi’ite “scholar’s” contention is utterly false as Arabs never looked down upon Mawālī as inferior,and this will be evident by the following quote.Mawālī have lofty status in Islām and Islāmic society.Here’s a quote from a very famous Arabic grammarian/scholar Abū’l-Aswad al-Du’ali, and a companion of ‘Ali ibn Abī Tālib (radīAllāhu Anh) who said,

“These Mawālī have formed a desire for Islām, and have converted, so they have become our brothers…”

– [al-Zubaydi, Tabaqat al-Nahwiyyin wa’l-Lughawiyyin; Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist; Ibn Khallikan, al-Wafayat al-A’yan]

This is the place of Mawālī in Islam, they are our brothers and not those who are look down but they are our equal with every Muslim, and a Muslim only raises high with God-consciousness and good actions. The above statement also exposes lies of those who claim that Arabs considered Mawālī as inferior or lowly, interestingly the above statement was made by one of the greatest Arabic grammarian and companion of of ‘Ali ibn Abī Tālib (radīAllāhu Anh), which shows the true status of Mawālī in Islām and Islāmic society.

There is also a very interesting example from the time of the early Muslims, found in the book Zuhoor ul-Basaateen Tareekh as-Sawaadeen (Flowers in the Garden Regardng the History of the Blacks) by Shaykh Moosaa Kamara (raheemahullaah). He quotes a passage from a book by Muhammad Ibn Moosaa Ibn ‘Eesaa Kamaaluddeen ad-Dameeree called Hayaat ul-Hayawaan al-Kubraa.  In Hayaat ul-Hayawaan, ad-Dameeree in turn quotes the Rihlah of Ibn as-Salaah who narrated a report from az-Zuhree, who related as follows:

“I introduced myself to ‘Abdul-Maalik.”

“Where do you come from, Oh az-Zuhree?” he asked me.

I responded, “from Makkah.” “Whom have you left in your place to lead (as Imaams and teachers) their inhabitants?” he asked me.

“‘Ataa Ibn Abee Rabaah,” I answered. “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” he asked.

“A freed slave,” I said. “How can he lead the Makkans?” he asked.

“By Deen (religion) and Sunnah,” I replied.

“Certainly it is suitable that those who possess Deen and Sunnah lead men. But who then leads the people of Yemen?”

“Ta’oos Ibn Kaysaan,” I answered.

He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” “A freed slave,” I responded.

“How can he lead them?” he asked. “In the same way as ‘Ataa,” I responded.

He then said, “It is suitable that people of this kind lead men, but then who will then lead the people of Egypt?” I replied, “Yazeed Ibn Abee Habeeb.” He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” It was the same response as for the others.

Then who will lead and command the people of Syria?” he asked. I said “Makhoot ad-Dimishqee.” He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” I replied, “He is a Nubian that was a slave and released by Hadooyl.”

The same discussion continued, then ‘Abdul-Maalik asked, “Who will then lead (in prayer as Imaams and teachers) the people of ‘Iraaq?” The response, “Maymoon Ibn Mahraam.” He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”

 [The same discussion]

Then who will lead the people of Khurasaan? “‘Ad-Dakhaah Ibn Muzaahin,” I replied.

 He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” “A freed slave,” I replied.

[Same discussion] 

“Then who leads the people of Basrah?” ‘Abdul-Maalik asked. I responded, “al-Hasan Ibn Abi’l-Hasan.” He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” “A freed slave,” I responded.

“And who leads the people of Koofah? Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” ‘An Arab’,” I replied.

Abdul-Maalik said, “Oh az-Zuhree you relieve me. By Allaah the freed slaves rule the Arabs to such an extent that they preach to them from the pulpits whilst the Arabs remain beneath them.”

 “Oh commander of the faithful,” I responded, “such is the will of Allaah and such is the Deen. Whoever practices it is the leader and whoever ignores it shall fall.”

        – [Hayat ul-Hayawan, vol.2, part 1, pp.224-225]

This discussion is enough to show the true place of “Mawālī” or “freed men” in Islām and Islāmic society.This also shows the attitude of Arabs towards the “Mawālī” , for instance look at the attitude of Abd al-Malik when he saidIt is suitable that people of this kind lead menand at last when he said “Oh az-Zuhree you relieve me“.This entirely destroys the speculation and insinuations of Agniveer.

Concludingly, we’ve debunked the contentions of Agniveer and prove the following:That the Arabic word “Mawālī” isn’t the same word used in Indian sub-continent for Gundās or badmāshs.And even if (after providing so many proofs) it is argued that it’s the same word then it simply proves that Indian (Sub-continental) lexicographers and grammarians borrowed the Arabic word and changed its meaning to suit their whims, which makes the word in Indian sub-continent totally different from the one in the Arabic language, hence Indians would need to revise their usage and meaning of the term and try and be more accurate while borrowing words.Nor was the Arabic word “Mawālī”  “used exclusively to mean ‘slaves’ for centuries”.Nor is the Arabic word “Mawālī” abusive or disparaging but simply endows brotherhood, and build relationships.Nor were Mawālī considered inferior or low of status in Islām.And nor was the word Mawālī used by Arabs to defame non-Arabs but instead was used to honour them by tieing them up in relationships like  cousins, brothers, friends and relatives.

We also see Agniveer, ignorantly rattling all allegations of murdering, destroying butchering innocent Hindūs, forgetting the fact that vedas preach all the things named above.He also states, “So if not Kafir, I am a Mawali. Instead of calling me a pig, they call me swine!”  well, we never knew that labeling some one as your brother,relative ,cousin (i.e. Maulā) is despised and likened to labeling a person as “swine and pig” , in the vedic dharma!

Non-Āryan’s (non-Indian) are barbaric, demonic, and rogues:

Now let’s have a brief look upon, the beliefs of protestant Hindūism especially their cult leader Mūlshankar and his words which are quite unknown to common protestant Hindūs and our readers.So what did Mūlshankar write about several nations and their people? Is protestant Hindūism free from racism? What are the beliefs of protestant Hindūs with regards to racism and equality of different race and culture? We’ll let Mūlshankar answer these questions then ponder a bit on the answer,

Mūlshankar wrote:

“Besides, Manu also corroborates our position. He says, “The countries other than Aryavarta are called Dasyus and Malechha countries.” MANU 10:45, 2:23. The people living in the north-east, north, north-west were called Raakshasas.”     – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 8, pg. 266, Tr.Chiranjiva]

 And the same passage is translated by so-called “Swāmi” Durgā Prasād as,

 “Also, the countries other than Aryavarta
are called the countries of the Dasyus & barbarians
, From this text it is plain that the inhabitants of the countries lying in the east, E N., north, N. W , west art called the Dasyus, Malechas (Barbarians) and Asura( demons) ; and the people occupying the countries in the S. B., south, S W., to Aryavarta, are called the Rakshasaas.”       – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 8, pg.251, Tr. Durgā Prasād]

The above passages are quoted from two different translations so as to ease the work of fathoming some very important points. In the above two passages, Mūlshankar’s found indulging in vulgar, derogatory and disparaging talk about non-Āryans [those who aren’t from Āryavarta (India)], here’s his defining of boundaries of Āryavarta.

It is bounded on the North by the Himalayas, on the South by the Vindyachal mountains, on the East and West by the sea. It has also on its West the Sarasvati River (Sindh or Attock) and on the East the Dhrisvati river also called the Brahmaputra which rises from the mountain east of Nepal, and passing down to the east of Assam and the west of Burma, falls into the Bay of Bengal in the Southern Sea (Indian Ocean). All the countries included between the Himalaya on the North and Vindhyachal mountains on the south as far as Rameshwar are called Aryavarta

                                           – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 8, pg.266, Tr. Chiranjiva]

According to Mūlshankar all the other countries except India (Āryavarta) are barbaric/demonic countries! So are the peoples in these countries as these countries belong to barbarians as per Mūlshankar.He believed every non-Āryan (non-Indian) to be un-cultured, scoundrel, rogue, barbarians and demonic.Hence according to this definition , all non-Āryans [non-Indian]  are barbaric, demonic and rogue so are their countries and regions , for instance  America, Japan, China, Iran, Russia, Australia, Malayasia, Indoneasia, N/S Korea, Europe, South America , Ocenia , African and middle-eastern countries (et al) are  Barbaric, demonic.

Let us shed some light on the words used by Mūlshankar to label non-Āryans.Here’s the list of words (Sanskrit) used to denote non-Āryans.

1)   Dasyu,

2)   Maleccha,

3)   Rakhshasa,

4)   Asura.

So what do these words mean? We’ll show the meaning of these words from the creedal text of protestant Hindūs themselves.All these words derogatory racist and vile in nature.

1) Dasyus:

Mūlshankar states:

 “Gentlemen are called Aryas, while rogues are called Dasyus .This country is called Aryavarta because it has been the abode of the Aryas from the very dawn of creation. It is bounded on the north by the Himalayas, on the south by the Vindhyachala mountains, on the west by the Attok (Indus), and on the east by the Brahmaputra. The land included within these limits is Aryavarta and those that have been living in it from times immemorial are also called Aryas.”                                              – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. ‘A Statement of my Belief’, pg. 730, Tr. Chiranjiva]

And the same passage is translated by so-called “Swāmi” Durgā Prasād as,

The ancient usage demands attribution of the appellation, called “Arya” to the best, and “Dasyu”  to the vicious portion of humankind. India is called Aryavarta, because the Aryan branch of the human race has dwelt there since creation. It is bounded on the north by the, Vindhya (the barrier of barbarians], on the west by the Attock (obstruction) or Indus (Luna), and on the east by the Brahmaputra (the son of Neptune). The country within these confines is called Aryavarta Proper, and its permanent inhabitants, the Aryas.”

– [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 14-Author’s Belief, pg. 545, Tr. Durgā Prasād, 1908]

And all these things were written in the section of Satyarth Prakāsh entitled “A Statement of my Belief”! So this was his belief, such racist and anti-human belief, and protetant Hindūs entitle such people with ‘Maharishi’ (great-seer)! It’s a shame on protestant HiIndūs to entitle such people with honorary titles such, but why would it matter to them and why would these protestant Hindūs be ashamed when they themselves have faith in such racist beliefs.

And elsewhere in the book he (Chiranjiva) states dasyus to mean:

Wicked people  – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch.11, pg. 330- foonote, Tr. Chiranjiva].

Further, Mūlshankar goes on to quote Rigveda (2:51, 8) where he defines the characters of Dasyus, as translated by Chiranjiva-

 “”The virtuous, learned, unselfish, and pious men are called Aryas, while the men of opposite character such as dacoits, wicked, unrighteous and ignorant persons are called Dasyus.”

                            – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch.8, pg. 267, Tr. Chiranjiva].

Same passage has been translated by Durgā Prasād as,

“It has already bean mentioned above that the name, Arya, wad given to the virtuous, learned, divine ; & their opponents or the people having qualities contrary to them, were denominated Dasyus or robbers, evil doers, irreligious, ignorant people.”

        – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 8, pg. 250, Tr. Durgā Prasād, 1908]

So we’ve concluded from the above writings that Dasyus are non-Āryans and the word dasyus have the following meanings –

a)     rogues,

b)     vicious portion of humankind (i.e. non-Āryans),

c)     wicked people,

And dasyus have vicious character and are,

a)     dacoits,

b)     wicked,

c)     unrighteous,

d)     Ignorant.

e)     Robbers,

f)      Irreligious,

g)     Evil-doers.

So , this means people living in North America, South America, Europe, Australia.Africa, Ocenia, China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, middle-east, japan, S/N Korea are  Dasyus and have such characterstics! This is what is known as “Racism”!

2) Malechha:

The term Maleccha (Mlechha) is used for all non-Āryan (non-Indian) people and countries, but what does the term signify and mean according to protestant Hindus?

“…barbarians (Malechha)

 – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 11, pg. 326, Tr. Durgā Prasād, 1908]

And Chiranjiva translates it ditto as above in his footnotes to Satyarth Prakāsh,

Malechhas – Barbarians

– [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch.11, pg. 330, Tr. Chiranjiva].

Hence, according to Mūlshankar people from countries except India (Āryavarta) are ‘barbarians’ and so are their countries too.Another show of racism and discrimination.

3) Rakhshasa:

Durgā Prasād translates the term, Rakshasaas’ as,

“The learned are called devas (gods), the ignorant asuras (devils), the vicious rakshasas (fiends), and the hypcrites pishachas (monsters).”

– [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 14-Author’s Belief, pg. 544, Tr. Durgā Prasād, 1908]

And further while talking of flesh-eating (non-vegetarian) humans Mūlshankar wrote,

“Hence it is proper to call them devils (rakshasa).”

– [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 12, pg. 402, Tr. Durgā Prasād, 1908]

And Chiranjiva translates Rakshasa only on one occasion in the entire book, that too in a vague manner,

 “…Asuraas and Raakshasas as (demons)…“.

– [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 8, pg. 265, Tr. Chiranjiva].

Hence according to protestant Hindūism, non-Āryans are –

 a) Fiends,

b) Devils,

c) Demons.

 4) Asura:

The term “Asura” has been translated and defined by protestant Hindūs as following,

                            …the ignorant asuras (devils)

                – [Op.cit, pg. 544, Tr. Durgā Prasād, 1908]

So as per protestant Hindūism, non-Āryans are devils. This is the belief of these cultists people claiming to be Ahinsac, loving and humane!

After analyzing all those words of Mūlshankar we can conclude that racism was the spine of his ideology, according to him all the great scientist like Newton and other non-Āryan scientist were barbarians all the other names and characterstics he (Mūlshankar) labels them with.Such a inhuman and uncultured behaviour from a man who’s claimed to be a “great-seer”.To conclude here’s a little piece from Mūlshankar and his beliefs:

It has already bean mentioned above that the name, Arya, wad given to the virtuous, learned, divine ; & their opponents or the people having qualities contrary to them, were denominated Dasyus or robbers, evil doers, irreligious, ignorant people. Also, the Brahmans, Kshatryas, & Vaishyas were termed Dwija or regenerates and Aryas, and the Shudras, Unaryas or idiots. When such is the authority of the Veda, the discriminating learned men can not believe the whims and suppositions of foreigners. In the war of gods & demons, which took place in the Himalaya mountains between the Aryas and Dasyus, barbarian or devils (Assyrians), Arjuna and Emperor Dasharatha joined from Aryavarta to assist the gods and to ecommpass the defeat of the Asuras (devils). From this it is evident that the people inhabiting the country all around outside Aryavarta to the east E. S., south, S. W., west, W. N., north, N. E. of the Himalayas, were called the Asuras (barbarians). For, whenever the Aryas living in the Himalayan regions, the princes & kings  of this land succoured them in their combats The war fought in the south by Ramachandra, is not called the war of the god and demons, but is called Rama and Ravana war  or the war between the Aryas and the Rakhshasas(barbarians),

      – [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch. 8, pg. 250, Tr. Durgā Prasād, 1908]

No more words are needed to acknowledge the racist nature of Mūlshankar and protestant Hindūism.We wonder why aren’t these beliefs of protestant Hindūism shun by their followers why wasn’t Mūlshankar criticized for his racist views. Well, our reader by now knows the answer to this “Why”.

Satyagni/Agniveer the chronic and consummate liar, hate-monger wrote:

3. Arabs converted Non Arabs into Islam by tying them in chains on their necks

Quran [3:110] says- “Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.”

In this verse, Arabs have been called as best of peoples ever. Many of the Muslims can argue here that “Ye” in this verse has come for Muslims in general and not for Arabs only. But their argument gets flattened when we look into the description of this verse by Ibn Kathir in Tafsir, it says-

“You, Muslims, are the best nation of people for the people, you bring them tied in chains on their necks (capture them in war) and they later embrace Islam.”

This description needs no further clarification. It clearly separates a nation of believers from those of unbelievers whom the formers used to force into Islam by tying them in chains on their necks (capturing them in war). Thus every tribe/people/nation which was converted to Islam through sword of Jihad was/is actually the slave with their necks tied with chains like cattle and dogs.Now I knew why I was a ‘Mawali’. I could never be a true Muslim because I was not born as an Arab. I am actually only a slave who has embraced Islam after having been treated as animals and hence eternally inferior.Thus to distinguish between the masters and the slaves, the term Mawali was/is used.

The lies and deception of Agniveer have constantly continued throughout the article we’ll have to accept that Agniveer is quite consistent in lying and deceiving people! In this part he very deceivingly tries to misnterpret a qur’anic verse, which is typical of him and his likes.The verse in question is 110th verse of 3rd Chapter of the noble Qur’ān.Agniveer alleges that in the verse Arabs have been called as best of peoples ever”! And that the verse refers only to Arabs and calls Arabs best nations ever.So are the speculations of Agniveer true? Well, this will be clear once we quote the complete verse, let us inform our readers of the evil deception of Agniveer.Why didn’t Agniveer quote the entire verse? Here’s the entire verse with correct translation of meanings of the noble Qur’ān,

(true believers in Islāmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] and his Sunnah)
are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma’rūf
(i.e. Islāmic Monotheism and all that Islām has ordained)
and forbid Al-Munkar
(polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe
in Allāh.
And had the people of the Scripture
and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have Faith, but most of them are Al-Fāsiqūn (disobedient to Allāh and rebellious against Allāh’s Command).

                                                 –  [Sūrah Aal-‘Imrān (3) Ayat 110]

So do our readers see the deception of Agniveer! How can this verse be talking exclusively of Muslims when no where in the verse the word Arab occurs! And now the people can see the reason why Agniveer did not provide the entire verse, as it would expose his lies.The verse is talking of entire Muslim Ummah(nation) which was Multi-racial since beginning as earlier related quoting Paul hardy,

Although Islamic society was multi-racial from the beginning…”

                                                                                      – [see op.cit.]

Hence it’s absurd to think that this verse just refers to Arabs as Islamic society since the advent of Prophet Muḥammad was multi-racial.Also after reading the entire verse the lies and deception of Agniveer clear ,as the verse says “And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)… among them are some who have Faith.” So a simple question arises if the verse speaks of Arabs only then why few from the Ahl al-Kitāb i.e. the Jews and Christian, are called Muslims having faith? Or is that according to Agniveer and his Gurukul teachers Jews are Arabs! By stating the entire verse we’ve exposed the lie of Agniveer, but let’s analyse the verse in more detail so that the claims of Agniveer & Co. are demolished like castles of cotton.To, whom does the verse 3:110 in general refer? Ofcourse every Muslim despite his race, ethnicity and colour. But why was the verse revealed and who’s specifically referred in the verse? This question is answered below, which will indirectly expose Agniveer and his claims.

{ كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ ٱلْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْراً لَّهُمْ مِّنْهُمُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُ ٱلْفَاسِقُونَ }

(Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind…) [3:110]. ‘Ikrimah and Muqatil said: “This was revealed about [‘Abd Allah] Ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Mu’adh ibn Jabal and Salim, the client of Abu Hudhayfah. Malik ibn al-Dayf and Wahb ibn Yahudha, both of them Jews, had said to them: ‘Our religion is better than that to which you call us; and we are also more virtuous and better than you’. And Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse as a response to them”.

                                                       – [Al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb Al-Nūzul, verse 3:110]

“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind…” was revelead not for Arabs (only), but for entire Muslim Ummah, and the evidence is quoted above, this quoted passages clearly states that the verse was revealed in general and in specific was revealed about few companions of Prophet Muhammad and those were- Abd’Allāh ibn Masūd, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Mu’adh ibn Jabal and Salim, the client of Abu Hudhayfah! Salim bin Ma’qil was the the client (Mawlā – Singular of Mawālī) of Abu Hudhayfah, who was Persian in origin!  So we learn that the verse in specific was revealed about a Mawlā! We think this should totally debunk the speculations of Agniveer. We think this again shows the lofty and equal status of Mawālī in Islām and Islāmic socities.We think these evidendes are enough to expose the lies against Islām; nonetheless we would like to shed light on some more aspects of the verse.

Moreover Agniveer seemingly has used the translation of meanings of noble Qur’an, as provided by Abd’Allāh Yusuf Ali, had Agniveer dared to read the comments on this verse by the translator he would have saved himself from such embarrasement.

Abd’Allāh Yusuf Ali commented on the verse (3:110):

The logical conclusion to the evolution of religious history is a non-sectarian, non-racial, non-doctrinal, universal religion, which Islam claims to be. For Islam is just submission to the Will of Allah. This implies (1) Faith, (2) doing right, being an example to others to do right, and having the power to see that the right prevails, (3) eschewing wrong, being an example to others to eschew wrong, and having the power to see that wrong and injustice are defeated. Islam therefore lives, not for itself, but for mankind. The People of the Book, if only they had faith, would be Muslims, for they have been prepared for Islam. Unfortunately there is Unfaith, but it can never harm those who carry the banner of Faith and Right, which must always be victorious.”

The comments of Abd’Allāh, make the verse crystal clear and also refute the arrogant claims of Islāmophobes.As stated earlier that the last part of the verse was enough to expose the speculations-cum- lies of Agniveer, we’ll expound more on the last part of the verse so as to make the verse crystal clear and leave no mice holes.So, in specific to which Jews was the last part of the verse referring and was revealed about? Tafsīr al-Jalālayn ET. Al. makes the answer clear,

{ كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ ٱلْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْراً لَّهُمْ مِّنْهُمُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُ ٱلْفَاسِقُونَ }

You, O community of Muhammad (s), are the best community brought forth, manifested, to men, according to God’s knowledge, enjoining decency, and forbidding indecency, and believing in God. Had the People of the Scripture believed, it, their belief, would have been better for them; some of them are believers, such as ‘Abd Allāh b. Salām, may God be pleased with him and his companions; but most of them, the disbelievers, are wicked.

                                          – [Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, verse 3: 110]

“Towards the end of the verse, it has been said about the people of the Book that there are some Muslims among them. This refers to those who had confirmed the prophethood of our Holy Prophet (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as, Sayyidna ‘Abdullāh ibn Salām and others.”

                                          – [Ma’arif al-Qur’ān, vol.2, pg. 160]

The last part of the noble verse (3:110) was revealed referring to Jews like ‘Abdullāh ibn Salām who was a great Jewish scholar, who confirmed the prophecies about Prophet Muhammad in the Torah and converted (reverted) to Islām.This part of the verse indeed destroys the speculations and deceptions  of Agniveer, here Jews are mentioned who aren’t Arabs, hence the speculation of this verse referring only to Arabs holds no water, and has no substance of truth in it.All the proofs and evidences mentioned above should prove our point and expose the deception and cheap trickery of Agniveer by quoting half verse so as to deceive people.

Interestingly Agniveer also quotes al-Imām Abū al-Fid’ā Ibn Kathir’s commentary and provides a quote from it, stating that believers (Muslims) used to force unbelievers into Islām“by tying them in chains on their necks (capturing them in war).” Here’s the quote from Ibn Kathir –

“(You, Muslims, are) the best nation of people for the people, you bring them tied in chains on their necks (capture them in war) and they later embrace Islam.”

As explained earlier that the Muslims referred in this verse, are the entire Ummah and not a specific race, coming to the allegation of so-called “forceful conversions” of unbelievers by Muslims, then it’s another mere and despicable lie of concoction of Agniveer.Were non-Muslims forced into Islam, as speculated by Agniveer? The fact will be clear one’s we quote an Islāmic scholar’s statement on the above quote:

 Al-Imām Ibn al-Jawzī said:

“What this means is that they are captured (in war) and chained as prisoners, but when they come to know the truth of Islam, they enter it willingly and will thus enter Paradise.”

                                                                                              – [Cf. ibn Salih, Fatwā no.21961]

Hence, the speculation of forced conversion is blatant lies, and inorder to provide more proofs let’s us state few other things too which will expose the lies of Agniveer.There thousands of people who converted to Islām observing an learning about its egalitarian and glorious principles, and many of them were from the enemies who fought against Islām and Muslims, but when were captured during war and got a chance to observe and learn about Islām, they willingly converted, and here’s one such incident.

It has been narrated on the authority of Abū Huraira who said:

“The Messenger of Allāh (may peace be upon him) sent some horsemen to Najd. They captured a man. He was from the tribe of Banu Hanifa and was called Thumāmah b. Athal. He was the chief of the people of Yamama. People bound him with one of the pillars of the mosque. The Messenger of Allāh (may peace be upon him) came out to (see) him. He said: O Thumāmah, what do you think? He replied: Muḥammad, I have good opinion of you. If you kill me, you will kill a person who has spilt blood. If you do me a favour, you will do a favour to a grateful person. If you want wealth, ask and you will get what you will demand. The Messenger of Allāh (may peace be pon him) left him (in this condition) for two days, (and came to him again) and said: What do you think, O Thumāmah? He replied: What I have already told you. If you do a favour, you will do a favour to a grateful person. If you kill me, you will kill a person who has spilt blood. If you want wealth, ask and you will get what you will demand. The Messenger of Allāh (may peace be upon him) left him until the next day when he (came to him again) and said: What do you think, O Thumāmah? He replied: What I have already told you. If you do me a favour, you will do a favour to a grateful person. If you kill me, you will kill a person who has spilt blood. If you want wealth ask and you will get what you will demand. The Messenger of Allāh (may peace be upon him) said: Set Thumāmah free. He went to a palm-grove near the mosque and took a bath. Then he entered the mosque and said:
I bear testimony (to the truth) that there is no god but Allāh and I testify that Muḥammad is His bondman and His messenger. O Muḥammad, by Allāh, there was no face on the earth more hateful to me than your face, but (now) your face has become to me the dearest of all faces. By Allah, there was no religion more hateful to me than your religion, but (now) your religion has become the dearest of all religions to me.

                                                     – [Sahīh Muslim, Kitāb al-Jihād was Siyār, no. 4361]

In the above ḥadīth, Thumāmah who was from Banī Hanīfah and the leader of clan Yamama, was captured during an expedition, being brought to Prophet Muḥammad, thus was chained in the mosque.The above ḥadith shows the courtesy of Muslims toward their captives, Thumāmah who hated Prophet Muḥammad was left free, for nothing.Meaning, Thumāmah who offered any amount of wealth in ransom for his freedom was left withouth any demands of wealth or anything else. This courteous act and his observations of Muslims their treatement towards captives, and other issues lead him to embrace Islām.This again proves how Islām attracts people due to its egalitarian nature and truthfulness.Many might be wondering what about capturing him and chains ? Well we’ll explain this too, which will in fact strengthen out point.And did anyone notice that Thumāmah was tied/bounded by chains in a Mosque, wonder why?

Why Captives and Chains?

There are many who might be wondering why, in the first place take captives and why chain them, is this “courtesy”? Well, people to whom facts are unknown usually question and query something similar to this, and Inshā’Allāh we’ll respond to them and show them the practicality and necessity for this.

Taking captives has a very important practical reason which helps in avoiding shedding of blood during wars.Some reasons are very well stated by Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Munnajid:

“The wisdom behind permitting the taking of prisoners is so as to weaken the enemy and ward off his evil by keeping him away from the battlefield so that he cannot be effective or play any role; it also creates a means of freeing Muslim prisoners by trading the prisoners whom we are holding.”

                                                                                          – [Fatwā no. 13241]

Besides from the above reasons there are many practical reasons which help in reducing or atleast limiting, the number of lives lost during wars.For instance, captivating a prisoner saves him from suffering and in many cases dying due to various war-created scenarios like starvation, hunger, malnutrition, lost of shelter, catching disease due to a lost of shelter.Another very noteworthy point is, unlike vedic dharma where the families of enemies are ordered by vedas to be cleaved and brutally annihilated, instead of captivating them , Islām does not allow killing of captives like children, women, sick and old, those who are allowed to  be killed , are so, due to specific reasons like their indulging in war-time crimes and other activities which are harmful to the society.Thus, Islām respects the and acknowledges the right of person to live and is against killing of humans except with a strong reason behind it ,and this makes captivating people a way from saving them from death.So is vedic principle of cleaving and killing  the families  of enemies better of captivating them , then later freeing them or exchanging them for Muslim prisoners is better?

Well, one might think how can those captured be safer, they themselves are in a greater danger than these dangers, as they are in the hands of enemy.Well this might be true about non-Muslim armies who torture captives and do whatever possible to humiliate them and make them suffer, and in most of the cases these captives are killed but Islām is an exception. Islām ask Muslims to treat prisoners of war or captives with kindness, and honour them.During the battle of Badr when few idolators were captivated, Muslims preferred giving them food instead of eating it themselves as narrated by Ibn Abbās (radiAllāh Anh).Here are few facts which would prove how couteous and humanitarian nature of Islām towards the captives:

Abū ‛Azīz ibn ‛Umayr ibn Hāshim, one of the prisoners of Badr, narrates how the Muslims, following the Prophet’s instructions, treated him well during his captivity, in the following words:

 “I was with a number of the Anṣār when they [Muslim captors] brought me from Badr, and when they ate their morning and evening meals they gave me the bread and ate the dates themselves in accordance with the orders that the apostle had given about us. If anyone had a morsel of bread he gave it to me. I felt ashamed and returned it to one of them but he returned it to me untouched.

– [Ismā‛īl ibn‛Umar ibn Kathīr, ‘Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah’, Vol. 3, pg. 307, Beirut: Maktabah al-Ma‛rifah]

 Bread which was hard to be found in Arabia, and was not easily available was given to prisoners to be eaten where as they they (Muslims) ate bare dates! Moreover, Abū al-‛Āṣ ibn al-Rabī‛ and al-Walīd ibn al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah, from the prisoners taken at Badr, also relate that they received the same treatment from their captors.

Also talking about other issues related to prisoner of wars it to be noted that, it’s prohibited in Islām to execute captives except due to some grave reason. Torturing captives is prohibited in Islām, in fact when Imam Mālik was asked about the Islamic ruling on the torture of enemy prisoners to obtain military intelligence about the enemy; he replied that he never heard that this could be islāmically permissible, see Al-Tāj wa al-Iklīl, (Vol. 3, p. 353), by Al-‛Abdarī, for details.

According to Islamic law and practice, captives or prisoners of war, should not be seoparated from their family, son is not to be separated from mother , nor is daughter from father, similar to the provision of Article 82 of the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War during the prisoners’ captivity, members of the same family should not be separated; children should not be separated from their parents or grandparents or siblings, for details on this particular Islāmic law readers should refer to Al-Dhakhīrah (Vol. 12, p. 12) of Al-Qarāfī. Centuries later the ‘modern’ law has provided humanitarian laws, which Islām has legislated centuries ago!In addition , for the benefit of our reader we  would like to state some non-Muslim scholars who’ve admitted the humanitarian nature of Islāmic law and in fact many even stated it to be better and superior to modern international laws.

Troy S. Thomas believes that,

Not only Islamic law generated a legal and moral doctrine, which is conceptually similar to Western constructs, but it also eclipses current international law in several aspects.

Moreover, he concludes,

In many respects, siyar actually supersedes the Geneva Convention.”

   -[Troy S. Thomas, “Prisoners of War in Islam: A Legal Inquiry” The Muslim World, Vol. LXXXVII, No. 1, January, 1997, pp. 44, 52.]

Siyar is the classical juridical theory of international law, by Islāmic scholars in the light of the Qur’ān, the Sunnah.And, Hans Kruse another scholar argues that,

“…the positive international law of Europe had more than eight centuries later not yet reached the high degree of humanitarianization with which the Islamic law of war was imbued.”

– [Hans Kruse ‘The Foundation of Islamic International Law,’ 4, 1956]

Moreover, concerning Islāmic international humanitarian law, Bennoune notes:

“…more than a millennium before the codification of the Geneva Conventions, most of the fundamental categories of protection which the Conventions offer could be found, in a basic form, in Islamic teachings.”  – [Bennoune, ‘Humanitarian Law in Islamic Jurisprudence’, p. 623]

 And Marcel A. Boisard rightly indicates,

“…that the fundamental postulates of the Muslim ‘law of war’ are particularly pertinent, repeating and, sometimes, in their substance, going beyond the norms decreed by the rules of the Hague and the Geneva Conventions.

-[Marcel A. Boisard,  ‘Hamdard Islamicus’, Vol. 1, No. 2, Autumn 1978, p. 13]

Lastly, we’ll quote, Zawati as he concludes that,

 “…the substantive postulates of Islamic humanitarian law exceed the norms decreed by the Hague and the Geneva Conventions

 – [Zawati, ‘Is Jihad a Just War?’ p. 112]

We do not think that any other law in the entire world provides better humanitarian laws than Islām, and this has been admitted by various non-Muslim scholars, still we find there are some people who are in denial. Its Islamic law alone which has this humanitarian legacy and details which none other laws, either provided by any religion or state, has. Hence it’s very important that our readers realize that the speculation of Islāmophobes that Islām is violent, barbaric are all void and evidence-less.Returning to the topic a very important question which arises, here why were chains utilized if Islām was courteous to captives? Isn’t this an argument against, the facts provided by us? Well, no as earlier said people are usually ignorant of Islām and Islāmic history and various facts.Chains were a necessity back then, and this is will be very well understood once we quote a fact usually unknown to people.

 “The prophet and his first caliph had no specific imprisonment space, but placed people in custody in homes, mosques, or a placed over them while they were at homes (house arrest without its military symbols)…Jurists agree thatPrisoners should be given ample food and drink.They should be given clothing suitable for winter and summer.”

– [Ed. David Levinson, ‘Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment’, vol. 4, pg.937, Berkshire Publishing Group LLC, 2002]

 Did our readers know that the noble prophet of mercy Muḥammad never ever ordered constructing a prison! As he never wanted people to be captives or prisoners he always wished that humanity be grateful the the One almighty God and follow truth, love each other and return to the intial state, i.e. become on nation without the notions of race ,state…etc. During the life time of prophet Muḥammad there was no prison nor was there a prison during the time of first caliph,  hence it was very necessary to chain the captives as they could harm people inorder to escape, as they were usually kept in Mosques , houses of Muslims.

Hence chains prevented them (captives) from harming Muslims and near by surroundings.And as said earlier that Islām commands to have humane nature even towards you bitter enemies, captives are to be very well looked after, and their needs are to be met as per Islām. Usually Islām does not allow chaining of prisoners, but when it’s needed they should be so as to avoid any harm and danger.In fact, right from the noble prophet to all companions of his, all were very kind towards prisoners/captives, for instance,’Ali ibn Abī Tālib (radīAllāhu Anh), used to go and meet prisoners enquire about their circumstances, and their needs and other desires. We think this should answer every question related to captives and their treatment in Islām and should make clear the reason and necessity for prisoners being chained.

Coming to some trivial and ignorant, issued stated by Agniveer.He states that “every tribe/people/nation which was converted to Islam through sword of Jihad was/is actually the slave with their necks”. This is but ,another lie and deception thrown to deceive our readers, as explained earlier that those who were chained weren’t forced into Islām as , it’s strictly prohibited by Islām. No one becomes a Muslims by force, Islām has to be affirmed in the heart, articulated by the tongue and executed by limbs (action, good deeds).This deception is very well exposed and refuted above by quoting the explanation of Ibn al-Jawzī and relating the one such incident of Thumāmah. In fact, most of the captives usually converted the egalitarian nature of Islām and its laying importance spirituality and other issues.Moreover, earlier we also quoted the famous Arabic scholar, grammarian stating “These Mawālī have formed a desire for Islām, and have converted…” which again proves that people converted to islam on their own after realizing the truthfulness of it.Nonetheless , we’ll still quote some non-Muslim scholars and academicians who’ve ridiculed and exposed  the claims  of Islāmophobes that Islām was spread with sword.

James Michener writes in an article back in May 1955:

“No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’ān is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.”

-[James A. Michener, ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ – Reader’s Digest, pg. 68-70]

 Lawrence W. Browne, another non-Muslim scholar writes:

“Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.”

– [Lawrence W. Browne, ‘The Prospects of Islam’, pg.14, London, 1944]

 Another non-Muslim scholar wrote:

“Christianity has largely misunderstood the nature of Islamic militancy. The fiction that Islam was preached by the sword
and Christianity by the lamb and the dove appeared early in Christian writings and still exercises a powerful influence upon the popular perception of Islam. Christian polemicists were quick to contrast the idealized life of Christ with that of Muhammad and his followers, who ceased not to go forth in battle and rapine, to smite with the sword, to seize the little ones, and ravish wives and maidens.”
 – [John McManners, ‘The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity’, pg. 174, 1992]

Ira Zepp Jr, who is another non-Muslim author, affirms the following fact:

“It is unfortunate that Islam has been stereotyped as the ‘religion of the sword’ or that Islam was ‘spread by the sword.’ The historical reality is that the expansion of Islam was usually by persuasion and not by military power. In any case, Islam cannot be forced on anyone; if profession of the shahadah [i.e. the declaration of Islam] is forced on someone, it is not true Islam. There is no compulsion in religion says the Quran.”

                                  – [Ira Zepp Jr, ‘A Muslim Primer ‘, pg.96, Wakefield Editions-US, 1992]

Moreover, another famous author and historian named – De Lacy O’Leary, says in his book:

“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

– [De Lacy O’Leary, ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ Pg. 8]

We these scholarly opionions and and facts we provided should be enough to debunk the myths, lies, fictions that Islām has been spread by sword, such inauthentic and inaccurate statement can only be heard from Islāmophobes who value not ‘evidences’ and ‘proofs’ but value and blindly follow their whims .

Another very interesting thing which we noted was the inconsistency of agniveer, thought the whole article in inconsistency and further we’ll prove it, thought here’s something which really made us, wonder whether this article even needs a refutation! Agniveer writes:

 “Thus every tribe/people/nation which was converted to Islam through sword of Jihad was/is actually the slave with their necks tied…”

Here he states that every people/nation/tribe was forced into Islām (‘converted to Islam’) through sword, which we’ve debunked, but interestingly just a few lines past he writes:

 “I am actually only a slave who has embraced Islam…”

Really ridiculous, just a few lines above he (Agniveer) was trying to make our readers believe that everyone was ‘converted to Islam through sword’ and here he himself writes that his ‘saga hero’ himself ’embraced Islam’! Well really chameleon like nature! 

Summarising our points, we would like to state that, the lies of Agniveer hold no water, nor can even be labeled as sensible as they are opposed to facts.We’ve exposed the deception of Agniveer, and shown why he hasn’t quoted the full verse, we’ve proven that the verse (3:110) in question was not revealed about a particular race but about entire Muslim nation , and in-fact one of the specific person the verse was referring to as “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind…” was Salim bin Ma’qil a Mawlā ! We don’t think that any further clarification is to be made.We can see the lofty status of Mawālī in Islam.We’ve also proven the necessity and practicality of chaining captives, also shown the rationale and wisdom behind taking captives.We’ve also exposed the lie of Islām that it was spread with sword, instead we’ve earlier in our article proven that vedas command to spread vedic dharma with sword and subdue and control entire earth.We’ve shown the inconsistency of Agniveer and Inshā’Allāh more of this will be evident from the following passages.

Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:

4. Ummah of Muhammad was made best among all

I always thought that Ummah (Muslim community) of Muhammad is the group of all Muslims in the world and not Arabs alone, so there is no supremacy of Arabs over others in this claim.

But to understand what “Ummah” actually means, I went back to Quran [14:4], which says- We sent not a messenger except [to teach] in the language of his [own] people, in order to make [things] clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

This verse unequivocally states that any group of people gets the messenger in its own language. It means that Quran and Muhammad both being Arabic were sent for Arabs alone. If Quran was meant for non-Arabs, it would have been sent in vernacular languages and not in a language that hardly anyone understands in non-Arab world.

The Ummah of Muhammad was comprised of Arabs alone. Quran [3:110], as shown earlier, claims that Arabs are best of peoples, evolved for mankind. This way all non Arabs are left with no option but to obey the commands of the best of peoples- Arabs.Perhaps Prophet wanted to guide only the Arabs and never even thought of global expansion. But after his death, his followers misused his message. And for generations non-Arab Muslims like me have been fooled despite all our loyalty.

We are quite bored, reading the same old rattlings of Agniveer, which have been refuted earlier, his ignoramusly rattling the so-called supremacy of Arabs, is quite boring and conjectural accompanied with lack of any real evidence.Here Agniveer, is again speculating that the Muslim Ummah consists only of Arabs which was evidently refuted just few passages above.We are wondering,  why agniveer is just blabbering the same evidence-less sentences(conjectures) again and again as if repeating them will make these conjectures , factual! Nonetheless, we’ll continue with our debunking, of such speculations.Here Agniveer, misinterprets another verse from the noble Qur’ān so as to forward his deceptive and un-founded allegations.In fact, this is and the following passage from the whole article of Agniveer are the most novice and amateur in nature, which can easily debunked just by quoting few verses from the noble Qur’ān.This part of the article is a perfect example of misinterpreting Islāmic texts.

The verse in question is,

“And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allāh misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.”

                           – [Sūrah al-Ibrāhim (14), Ayat 4]

Using this verse Agniveer states that, this verse unequivocally states that people get the messenger in their own language which according to him implies that Qur’ān and Prophet Muḥammad was sent only for Arabs as the noble Qur’ān is in Arabic. And the other point raised is that if the Qur’ān was for non-Arabs it should have been in an vernacular language, and not in Arabic as its not understood by non-Arabs.Directly coming to the points raised, the verse stated by Agniveer in fact refutes the speculation that Prophet Muḥammad was sent for non-Arabs, its astonishing to see that Agniveer is using a verse which in reality proves that Prophet Muḥammad was a for entire mankind.Let’s prove our point, and expose the misinterpretation, out-of-context quoting and misuse of the verse by Agniveer.So is Prophet Muḥammad only for Arabs ? Well, such far-fetched claims can be debunked even by a nobrainer. Here’s what the noble Qur’ān says, about the message and Prophethood of Muḥammad:

And We have not sent you (O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner
to all mankind, but most of men know not.” – [Sūrah as-Saba (34):28]

The above verse explicity states the global nature of the message (i.e. Qur’ān) of Prophet Muḥammad, though this should be enough to prove our point we would like to state some more facts , which would demolish the whole speculation and deception of Agniveer.And here’s what al-Imām Abū al-Fid’ā Ibn Kathir writes in his exegesis on 34:28.

﴿وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـكَ إِلاَّ كَآفَّةً لِّلنَّاسِ بَشِيراً وَنَذِيراً﴾

(And We have not sent you except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind,)
i.e., to all of creation.

 Moreover, Ibn Kathir also states,

﴿وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَـكَ إِلاَّ كَآفَّةً لِّلنَّاسِ﴾

(And We have not sent you except to all mankind) meaning, to all the people. Qatadah said concerning this Ayah, “Allah, may He be exalted, sent Muhammad to both the Arabs and the non-Arabs, so the most honored of them with Allah is the one who is most obedient to Allah.

 This leaves no ounce of doubt and also refutes the so-called Arab superiority.And other commentators write:

And We did not send you (O prophet,) but to the entire mankind, as a bearer of good news and as a Warner, but most people do not know. [34:28]

In the present verse, it is being said that the Holy Prophet (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was sent as the Messenger of Allah to all peoples of the world who are there now or will come in the future.

The word: Kaaffah in Kaaffatal-lin-naas: for all peoples, is used in the sense of making something universal and inclusive of all without the exclusion of anyone from it.

The mission of a messenger or prophet assigned to all prophets sent before the Holy Prophet (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was restricted to some particular people and particular geographical area.
It is the peculiarity of the Sayyidna Muhammad al-Mustafa (sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) that his prophetic mission is common and open to all peoples of the world.            – [Ma’arif al-Qur’ān, vol. 7, pg. 130]

 There are numerous such evidence which totally debunk the speculations and allegations of Agniveer but for the sake of brevity we’ve quote only few.We think it’s already crystal clear the prophet Muḥammad was sent for entire creation of the One Almighty God, and not just for Arabs.

Contextual analysis of the verse:

But what about the few points rose by Agniveer? Well, as stated they (speculations of Agniveer) have no head and tail, they are misinterpretations and quotation out of context, so as to fool blind-followers of protestant Hindūism.In fact, the verse quoted by Agniveer (14:4) is pretty clear, when it says : “And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them…”. What here has been stated is that every messenger is sent with his native language, so that he may make the verses clear to his people.Nowhere does the verse state that Prophet Muḥammad was only sent for Arabs? And another very important point which which help us expose the out-of-context quoting done by Agniveer, the verse in question is no.4 verse from the 14 Chapter, let’s see a little bit of context.Here’s the first verse from the same chapter which will debunk the speculation, and show that the verse used by Agniveer in fact proves that prophet Muḥammad was sent for entire creation.

(This is) a Book which We have revealed to you
(O Muhammad [sal-Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
in order that you might lead mankind out of darkness
(of disbelief and polytheism)
into light (of belief in the Oneness of Allâh and Islâmic Monotheism)
by their Lord’s Leave to the path of the All-Mighty, the Owner of all praise.

                                                          – [Sūrah al-Ibrāhim (14), Ayat 1]

The first verse(1), of the Chapter (Sūrah) makes explicit,  the point that prophet Muḥammad was sent for entire creation and not just for Arabs, then in the fourth (4) verse Allāh Azz wa Jall states that , every prophet and Messenger was sent but that he spoke in the language of his people so that he might make the message clear.And here’s where Agniveer bases his speculation , but the fact is that this verse is talking about the all the Messengers and their language, and not the limited scope the message of prophet Muḥammad.Had it be talking about the limited scope of the message of prophet Muḥammad,  it would have been explicitly stated about the scope of the message and ‘mission’ of  prophet Muḥammad .Another very important point is that even if we assume for the sake of argumentation that this verse is talking about the scope of the message, still it’s impossible to deduce that its talking about the scope of the message of Prophet Muḥammad, as  Allāh Azz wa Jall states just in next verse (5) about Mūsā (alayhi Salām) and the signs, proofs he was given.Which only proves that if the  verse was talking about the scope of message it wasn’t talking about the scope of message of Prophet Muḥammad, but that of the earlier sent prophets.It’s to be noted that this verse(5) isn’t talking about the scope about prophet Muḥammad, but about Mūsā (alayhi Salām).

And indeed We sent Mūsā (Moses) with Our Ayāt (signs, proofs, and evidences) (saying): “Bring out your people from darkness into light, and remind them of the Blessings of Allāh. Truly, therein are Ayāt (evidences, proofs and signs) for every patient, thankful (person).”

                                                             – [Sūrah al-Ibrāhim (14), Ayat 5]

Hence concludingly, for the sake of argumentation even if we assume that the verse is talking about the scope of the message of prophets , even then this does not apply to prophet Muḥammad as he is described in the very first verse of this chapter to be the messenger with the message(Qur’ān) for the entire mankind,secondly had the verse in question stating that the Qur’ān and prophet Muḥammad are only for Arabs the verse had made it clear and then the verse 5 wouldn’t talk about the messenger Mūsā(alayhi salām).Thus it is concluded that the verse in question isn’t talking about the scope of the message of prophet Muḥammad but is talking about the messengers and the language. Hence, it’s pretty clear that the verse quoted out-of context and misinterpreted to mean that it talks about prophet Muḥammad being sent only for Arabs.

Yes, Agniveer has more illogical questions, which we’ll be looking at; he writes that “This verse unequivocally states that any group of people gets the messenger in its own language

Let me break down the meaning of the verse in more simple terms so that even kids can fathom the point its talking about, the verse simple means, that no messenger was sent but he spoke in the language of his people so that he might make clear the message.So where does this verse imply that the Messenger is specifically sent to those people only

In order to clear the mist from the verse in question (14:4) we would quote some of the commentaries which would make it clear that the verse in fact proves that prophet Muḥammad was sent for entire creation and not just for Arabs.

“…Prophet Muhammad is a Messenger to all mankind…”

                                     – [Tafsir fi Zilal al-Qur’ān, Sūrah al-Ibrāhim (14), Ayat 4]

As for our noble Messenger(sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), his mission is, in terms of the area of operation, for the whole world and, in terms of the time duration, it is universally applicable right upto the last day of Qiyāmah. No nation or group of people in this world, no matter which country they belong to and what language they speak, could be outside the circle of his mission as a messenger and prophet.”

                                                           – [Ma’arif al-Qur’ān, vol. 5, pg. 243-244]

The commentaries inorder to debunk and show illogicality any such idea that this verse implies that Prophet Muḥammad was just for Arabs state that the verse in fact prove that prophet Muḥammad was sent for entire creation and not for a specific race.

Agniveer further writes: “It means that Quran and Muhammad both being Arabic were sent for Arabs alone”

Well, the first verse of the same chapter debunks this speculation, so does the contextual analysis of ther verses and infact the verse in question itself nowhere states that the noble Qur’an and prophet Muḥammad are sent for Arabs only, Moreover, earlier we provided a verse (34:28) which totally debunks all such speculations, and establishes that the message of prophet Muḥammad is for entire creation.

Agniveer further writes, that “If Quran was meant for non-Arabs, it would have been sent in vernacular languages and not in a language that hardly anyone understands in non-Arab world.

Well, this is an logical fallacy on part of Agniveer, can Agniveer tell us 1432 years back which was the “vernacular language” used by most of the humans on earth? Well, Ofcourse it wasn’t Sanskrit, infact there was no such language which almost every human spoke hence this is nothing but strawman.As for understanding a language then why are we given brains for? Even a child born in India has to learn Hindi, no ones born with the study and mastery of a specific language.

Agniveer then goes on with his rattling and blabbering of the refuted debunked arguments, to be specific he states – “The Ummah of Muhammad was comprised of Arabs alone.”

This statement is nothing but a blatant lie, people with cursory knowledge of Islam would mock at such an statement.We would very briefly expose this lie, as stated earlier the at the Islamic society was multi-racial since beginning and there are no second thoughts or difference about it , and each and every historian  testifies to it.In fact , the earliest converts(reverts) to Islam were non-Arabs! We’ll just enlist the names of few non-Arabs companions of Prophet Muḥammad.

Bilāl ibn Rabah,

Salim bin Ma’qil,

Shu’ayb ar-Rumi,

Salmān al-Fārsi,

Abd’Allāh ibn Salām,

Ṣāliḥ ibn Ady (Shuqran),

Abu Kabasha Salim ad-Dawsi,

Abu Musra Ansa.

We’ve just listed a few, and to state something about these people Bilāl ibn Rabah was and ethopian, Salim ibn Ma’qil was a Persian, Shu’ayb ar-Rumi was a Roman, Salmān al-Fārsi again was a Persian, Abd’Allāh ibn Salām was a Jew! So this was the Ummah which comprised of multitude of race and not only Arabs! We think this issue needs no more clarification, as the above proofs sufficiently refute and unfounded speculations of the Islāmophobe Agniveer.

Further, Agniveer again repeats his unfounded speculations about the verse 110 of chapter 3 from the noble Qur’ān, which we’ve already refuted.Then he goes on with his evidence-less talk where he states that “Prophet wanted to guide only the Arabs and never even thought of global expansion. But after his death, his followers misused his message. And for generations non-Arab Muslims like me have been fooled despite all our loyalty”.

It’s ridiculous to see a person claiming such things , which are totally unfounded, it seems Agniveer is living in his small delusional world where he has’nt faced reality or does not want to.As stated above that Islāmic society since beginning was multiracial and that earliest converts to Islam comprimised of non-Arabs, hence the myth that the message of prophet being just for Arabs is far-fetched with no proofs at all.As for so-called “fooling of non-Arab Muslims” then this mere rhetoric, usually used when no arguments exist.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s