islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery

Islamic Jihadfrom the mirror of the conscience of the dwellers of these lands,’ goes to the holy Sufi saint SayyidMuhammad, notes Baharistan-i-Shahi. 288Conversion by Sufis in Gujarat: Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–88) had appointed Furhut-ul-Mulk as the governor of Gujarat. Undertaking tolerant policies toward Hindus, notes Ferishtah, Furhut-ul-Mulk ‘encouraged the Hindu religion, and thus rather promoted than suppressed the worship of idols.’ 289 Asusual, this caused revulsion among ‘the learned (Sufis) and orthodox (Ulema) Mahomedans of Guzerat,fearing lest this conduct should be the means of eventually superseding the true faith (Islam) in those parts.’They addressed the Delhi Sultan explaining the liberal Muslim governor’s political views and ‘the danger (itposed) to the true faith, if he were permitted to retain his government.’ After receiving the complaint, SultanFiroz Shah ‘convened a meeting of the holy men (Sufi saints) at Dehly and in conjunction with them appointedZuffur (Moozuffur Khan)’ as the viceroy of Gujarat. 290This Moozuffur Khan—requested as well as chosen by the Sufi saints—soon ousted tolerant Furhutul-Mulkfrom Gujarat and unleashed brutal terror against Hindus, including their forced conversion andgeneral destruction of their temples. In 1395, ‘He proceeded to Somnath, where having destroyed all theHindoo temples which he found standing; he built mosques in their stead and left the learned men (Sufis) forthe propagation of the faith and his officers to govern the country.’ 291This example once again proves that the Sufis were generally intolerant of any tolerance certainkind-hearted and liberal Muslim rulers accorded to non-Muslims. The question further arises: how did theSufis, left behind by Moozuffur Khan in Somnath, propagate Islam among the terror-stricken Hindus after alltheir temples had been destroyed?The Sufis of Gujarat and Delhi wanted the ouster of tolerant governor Furhut-ul-Mulk from Gujaratfor not suppressing idol-worship (i.e., Hindu religion). It should, therefore, leave one with no doubt that theSufis, left behind by Moozuffur Khan, meticulously worked in conjunction with the Muslim officers onenforcing the writ of Islamic laws and suppressing the Hindu religion. That means, the Sufis made it sure thatthe destroyed temples were not rebuilt and that the Hindu religion was not practised to ensure the suppressionof idol-worship. Of course, they might have acted like Sufi saint Shamsud-Din Iraqi of Kashmir—whosefollowers, aided by Muslim soldiers—brought 1,500–2,000 infidels to his khanqah everyday and forciblyconverted them to Islam.The Real Sufi contribution in conversion: If Sufis were to play a major role in the propagation of Islam aspopular notion goes, it must have happened in India; because, the Islamic conquest of India started in realearnest right at the time, when Sufism had become properly organized and widely accepted in Muslimsocieties for the first time. It has been noted that Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti came to Ajmer with SultanMuhammad Ghauri’s army just when Muslim conquest was making a hold in Northern India. As accountedabove, none of the greatest Indian Sufis had a mentality needed for the peaceful propagation of Islam. KhwajaMoinuddin Chisti, Nizamuddin Auliya and Shaykh Shah Jalal came to engage in holy war in India and,indeed, participated in Jihadi wars involving slaughter and enslavement of the Hindus. Nizamuddin Auliyaencouraged Sultan Alauddin’s barbaric holy wars, and expressed obvious delight at victories in his bloodlettingJihad campaigns, and delightfully accepted large gifts from his plundered booty.These are only the stories of the most revered and tolerant Sufi saints of medieval India. Allindications suggest that, instead of taking on a missionary profession for propagating Islam through peaceful288. Ibid, p. 37289. Ferishtah, Vol. IV, p. 1290. Ibid291. Ibid, p397