The 3-day 34th Conference organised by the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind concluded with the Islamic leaders doing what they do often – furthering Islamic supremacist tropes dressed up as rhetoric furthering syncretic culture between different faiths in India. There was one key difference this time, however. The rhetoric which often goes unchallenged and hailed as an example of peaceful coexistence and mutual faith was contested vehemently by other faith leaders. Jain Acharya Lokesh Muni took strong exception to the Islamic supremacist rhetoric by the Madanis and staged a walkout, along with other faith leaders.
Right before Jain Muni Lokesh staged a walkout, Maulana Arshad Madani, the president of JUH (Arshad Madani faction) had taken to the stage to insult Sanatan Dharma. Madani said, “When there was no one (no Gods), the question is who did Manu worship? Some say that he worshipped Shiva. Very few people know that when there was nothing in the world, Manu would worship Om. I asked, ‘Who is Om’. Some said Om has no colour, no shape. Like the air, it is everywhere. It made the skies and the earth. I said this is what we call Allah. You call the same thing Ishwar. This means that Manu, as in Adam, used to worship Allah, that is Om. No one can prove that Manu did not (worship) that Allah who created the Earth. Sabse pehle Manu ne Om ki ibaadat ki hai (in the beginning, Manu worshipped Om); Om ek hai, Allah ek hai (Om and Allah are one).”
Madani claimed, “Both the first and last prophets, Adam in India and Mohammad in Arabia, were sent down by Allah. He is referred to as Manu by Hindus and Adam by us. The sound of ‘La ilaha illaah’ first descended in India. Adam worshipped the same Allah as Manu did when he revered the Om. Allah and Om are one.” He continued, “Manu is our ancestor and you tell us to return home (revert to Sanatan Dharma). We will die but never forget our Allah.” Maulana Arshad Madani also rejected Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagawat’s statement on ghar wapsi and said, “We (Muslims) have coexisted with non-Muslims for approximately 1400 years. We’ve never forced anyone to convert. Forceful conversions, in our opinion, can’t sustain for very long.” “Even though the superpower (America) used every conceivable measure in Afghanistan, Allah hu Akbar can still be heard resonating in the mosques. I want to assert that those who (RSS) make such statements (ghar wapsi) are ignorant of both their faith and the history of the nation (India),” he added.
Notably, Madani also said, “it is only under the BJP government that we heard that 20 crore Muslims should revert to their home. By this, they meant conversion to Hinduism. These people don’t know anything about India’s history,” the senior Jamiat leader alleged.
On the 2nd day of the conference, Mahmood Madani peddled similar tropes to claim that Islam is the oldest religion and that the first prophet of Islam landed in India first.
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind chief Mahmood Madani stated that India is the first homeland of Muslims and that believing that the religion of Islam has come from outside here, is wrong and baseless. “Islam is the oldest religion among all religions. India is the best country for Hindi Muslims,” he said while addressing the crowd at the 34th General Session held at the Ram Lila ground in New Delhi. He also said that the speciality of India for Muslims lies in being the land of the first Paigambar named Abul Bashar Sayyed Adam. “This is his land. This is the birthplace of Muslims. This is Muslim’s first land. Saying that Islam is a religion that came from outside is totally wrong and baseless. Islam is the oldest religion among all religions. India is the best country for Hindi Muslims,” he said. In his statement, Madani also said, “This land (India) is the legitimate progeny of Islam”. Further, he said that Islam is the oldest religion of all four religions in the country. “India is our country. As much as this country belongs to Narendra Modi and Mohan Bhagwat, equally, this country belongs to Mahmood. Neither Mahmood is one inch ahead of them nor they are one inch ahead of Mahmood,” Madani stated.
Protesting against these statements, Jain Acharya Lokesh Muni staged a walkout, saying that other faith leaders had been called to talk about brotherhood and peace, however, the statements of Arshad Madani insulted the great Sanatan culture and other faiths. Taking strong exception to the Islamic supremacist rhetoric, Acharya Lokesh staged a walkout along with other faith leaders, saying that other faith leaders echoed his resentment towards the statements made by Madani.
What lies at the heart of the statements by Madanis
At the heart of the arguments made by Arshad and Mahmood Madani, are the following assertions:
- India is the progeny of Islam, therefore, Bharat was born out of Islam.
- The first Prophet of Islam came to India first.
- That India is the land for Islam
- That Islam is the oldest religion, older than any other religion including Hinduism
- Allah is the original ‘God’, older than Lord Shiva and therefore, what Hindus believe to be the origin of their faith is the same as the origin of Islam. The argument extends to essentially say that Hindus worshipped Allah too, they just call it by a different name.
- Manu in Hinduism is the archetypal man and the progenitor of humanity. While every faith would interpret the beginning of humanity differently, Arshad Madani has claimed that Manu worshipped Allah – which essentially means that Hinduism has no religious existence and identity of its own and all Hindus, who are the children of Manu theologically, are children of Allah (Islam). This is when Islam is the youngest religion in the world and Sanatan, is provably, the oldest.
- When Arshad Madani says that “We are children of Manu and we will never leave Allah” while referring to ghar wapasi, he essentially says that even Hindus followed Islam. By extension, that argument would mean that it is actually the Hindus who need to convert to Islam if they want to honour Manu. This statement by Arshad Madani also plays into the statements made by Mahmood Madani who said India is the land of Abul Bashar Sayyed Adam – the first Prophet who is considered to be the ‘father of humanity’.
These statements coupled together have dangerous consequences when one analyses the history of Islam and its violent conquests. The Islamic ideology essentially asserts that any nation where Islam does not reign supreme is Dar ul Harb and it is the duty of every Muslim to turn it into Dar Ul Islam – The house of peace, where Islam is the dominant and reigning religion.
While the Madanis packaged their statements as a statement of syncretism and the Leftists would be more than happy to submit to that interpretation, saying that he spoke about the Gandhian philosophy of how every religion is the same and therefore, we are all brothers, the implications of these statements put India as a Sanatan civilisation at risk. Packaged as syncretism, the statements by the Madanis, in essence, further the foundational principles of Islam which negate the right of every other faith to exist and calls all other Gods false Gods, declaring Allah to be the one true god, Islam to be the only true religion and Muhammad to be the only Prophet.
The sinister nature of what the Madanis were saying was expressed aptly by author and commentator Divya Kumar Soti. “Prophet” Mohammed alleged that Kaaba was originally built by the Islamic “Prophet” Abraham and that Meccans usurped it. He used this narrative to take over Arabia by force and convert Kaaba into an Islamic shrine. Madani is signalling something similar. Don’t take him lightly”, he tweeted.
In pre-Islamic times, it is said that The Kaaba was a simple sanctuary, which was later turned into the Islamic holy site after the violent takeover of Arabia. Soti said that the rhetoric by Madanis plays into that phenomenon where they are claiming that Bharat originally belonged to Islam. If that rhetoric gets normalised, then the violent takeover of India, just like Arabia, would also be theologically justifiable.
Why Acharya Lokesh Muni’s protest and walkout were significant for Sanatanis
Acharya Lokesh Muni, before staging a walkout along with other faith leaders, expressed his displeasure and stated that every other religious person spoke of peace and love at the conference and they don’t share Madani’s sentiments. “We only agree with living in harmony and brotherhood, but all the stories regarding, Om, Allah and Manu are rubbish. The tales he weaved, I can narrate even better stories than that. You are like my father. I invite you to come to Delhi for a discussion with me, or even I can come to visit you in Saharanpur”, Acharya Lokesh Muni said.
The Jain Muni added, “It should be remembered that Mahavir was the twenty-fourth Jain Tirthankar. There was Lord Parshvanath before him. Arishtanemi was Lord Krishna’s cousin. The foremost Jain Tirthankar was Rishabhanatha, and his sons were Bharata and Bahubali, on whose name this country ‘Bharat’ was named. You can’t erase this history. None of us agrees with his statements. He completely spoiled the atmosphere of the session.”
Essentially, Acharya Lokesh Muni publicly and vocally denounced the Islamic supremacist rhetoric even though it was packaged as a lesson in syncretism. So far, rhetoric about “all religions are the same” has been normalised and accepted as statements necessary to maintain a semblance of co-existence between Islam and Hinduism, two religions that have historically been at odds, given Islam’s violent conquests against Hindus.
Notions of religious pluralism, which is the mother ideology of the ‘all religions are the same’ philosophy, assume that not only do all religions claim that their truth is the ‘only truth’ that exists, but that all religions are based on the principles of Universal Truths and thus, these are the two tenets that need to be dealt with if religions are to co-exist peacefully. Religious Pluralism essentially says that firstly, all religions must acknowledge that certain truths exist in other religions as well, thereby declaring that it is not only their own religion that is the ‘only truth’. Further, it says that all religions must acknowledge that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have been taught since before the advent of religion itself. When one delves into the principles of religious pluralism as a construct that can enable religions to co-exist without sectarian violence, it becomes important to ensure that all religions are brought down to the same surface level and hence, the claim that all religions are the same takes a beastly proportion where cultural context is often lost.
While faith leaders attended the conference to further the understanding of such religious pluralism, what they seem to have gotten in return was Islamic supremacist rhetoric packaged to sound like religious pluralism. This sleight of hand is certainly not new and Sanatanis have often got supremacist rhetoric in return when they have spoken of religious pluralism and peaceful co-existence.
Acharya Lokesh Muni’s vocal denouncement of the Madanis rhetoric finally breaks that vicious cycle and asserts, “thus far and no further”. What Acharya Muni managed to accomplish with his walkout is perhaps one of the greatest services one could do for Sanatan Dharma and the civilisational soul of this nation – to say that we believe in peaceful co-existence but it cannot come at the cost of our history, self-respect and religious identity and cultural truths. While syncretism is the ultimate aim, the path to peaceful co-existence cannot be laden with Hindus giving up their identity and their faith to please a supremacist ideology that believes that no other faith has the right to exist. Perhaps with the courage and integrity displayed by Acharya Lokesh Muni, the average, comatose Hindu, and those belonging to other Dharmic faiths, would finally realise that the cost of peace cannot be our civilisational identity and the brutal end of the very faith that forms the foundation of our nation – a land where the ashes of our ancestors, who fought for this very religious identity, lie.
