Because of his Sword, instead of idols and temples in the land of unbelief now there are mosques, mihrãb and mimbar. In the land where there were the sayings of the idol-worshippers, there is the sound of ‘Allãhu Akbar’.
That is how or Mîr Khwurd has described Moinuddeen Chishti, whose tomb is at Ajmer. This iconoclast has been refferred to as a sufi saint by secular propagandists.
Hardly the kind of description that would fit a saint or what is known as 'sufi'.
Anyway, what would you think of a man who has taken a young woman from a dacoit as a gift for 'marriage'?
A pervert? Rapist? Monster? or a saint?
Well, here is more on Moinuddeen Chishti.
According to historian Sita Ram Goel, in 'Hindu temples - What happened to them (part 2)'
Mu‘în al-dîn had a second wife for the following reason: one night he saw the Holy Prophet in the flesh. The prophet said: ‘You are not truly of my religion if you depart in any way from my sunnat.’ It happened that the ruler of the Patli fort, Malik Khitãb, attacked the unbelievers that night and captured the daughter of the Rãjã of that land. He presented her to Mu‘în al-dîn who accepted her and named her Bîbî Umiya
Howzzat for a saint ?
The prophet comes in a dream and tells him to keep a hapless woman, who has been snatched away from his father, probably after killing him, and then rape her in the name of marriage.
Try to imagine a young woman, brought up in an environment where meat eating is considered a sin and beef eating is considered to be the worst possible deeds. She is kidnapped from these safe environs and handed over to an old man, who takes pride in eating of cow flesh.
If we believe the marxists, she converted to Islam and was named Bibi Umiya.
You do not have to trust me or this respected and honest historian, verify it for yourself from the official website of the 'dargah'. Here is the link. The only difference between the above mentioned version and the one mentioned in the site is whether she was first or second wife. For me the order is not significant.
What kind of pervert will consider such a man to be holy, I really can not fathom.
The extent of horror will be more clear if you understand the real meaning of the statements. Now, look at the alleged statement of the prophet, which I have underlined for the readers convenience.
'depart from sunnat'?
Most of you will not understand it. These are euphemisms of Islam. The prophet of Islam, Mohammad, is said to be the role model for all Muslims. He has to be emulated in every respect. It is mentioned in Quran and the verse of Quran which says so can be read here.
The behaviour of his 'sunnat' or practice here is to marry kaafir women. Mohammad in his life time had married many women after killing their husbands. They were given the choice to convert to Islam. Those who converted, were 'married' to Mohammad and those who had a little more spine and did not convert were kept as his concubines (रखैल). Either way, they had to be there for the carnal pleasures of Mohammad.Two such wives of Mohammad were Juwairiya (Another one for prophet) and Safiya (kill husband, get the wife).
So, this 'pious' man called 'Khwaja Moinuddeen Chishti' 'married' the poor woman. Muslims, as well as Hindus visit his tomb, as if it was some sort of a holy place. That is a legacy of Nehruvian secularism, which has uprooted all sense of pride and rationality from the collective psyche of our nation.
Hate for Hindu temples
The opening quote of this post has been taken from 'SIYAR AL AQTAB' written by a pious Muslim. He further gives us an insight into the mind of this 'sufi'
Although at that time there were very many temples of idols around the lake, when the Khwaja saw them, he said: ‘If God and His Prophet so will, it will not be long before I raze to the ground these idol temples.And the secularists want us to believe that sufis were not bigots and were responsible for the भक्ति movement. So thorough has been the brainwashing that a large number of our citizens have internalised the lie as truth. What they do not know is that the term 'movement' used here, in itself, is a misnomer.
Aim of Sufis
In fact, historians, (that is, the real historians, not from NCERT or AMU or JNU) tell us that sufis were sent into regions as information gatherers so that the Islamic invaders can have a first hand knowledge of the target localities. That is why, wherever they went, Islamic invaders followed.
Many sufis were sent in all directions by Nizãmu’d-Dîn Awliyã, the Chistîyya luminary of Delhi; all of them actively participated in jihãds against the local population. Nizãmu’d-Dîn’s leading disciple, Nasîru’d-Dîn Chirãg-i-Dihlî, exhorted the sufis to serve the Islamic state. “The essence of sufism,” he versified, “is not an external garment. Gird up your loins to serve the Sultãn and be a sufi.
History of sufism in India by S.A.A. Rizvi, pp 189, Vol. 1
Muslims (?) are they really Muslims?
The irony is that those, who were suppressed the most by these bigots, are the most vocal supporters of sufis. Today, the missionary education system, combined with secularists propaganda has robbed the power of reasoning from most of the products of this system. This was predicted by these very sufis, albeit in a different context.
The descendants of those who were converted to Islam in this land will live until the Day of Judgement; so too will those who bring others into the fold of Islam by the sword of Islam. Until the Day of Judgement these converts will be in the debt of Shaykh al-Islãm Mu‘în al-dîn Hasan Sijzã and these people will be drawing closer to Almighty Allãh because of the auspicious devotion of Mu‘în al-dîn.
The Shrine and Cult of Mu‘in al-Dîn Chishtî of Ajmer, P.M. Currie pp 30
The Muslims who go there do not know that they are paying homage to a deranged criminal who would have been responsible for the rape and murder of ancestors of these very Muslims, who were originally Hindu.
Today, the times have changed, therefore, the Maulavis have changed like a chameleon. The tough talk of 'sword of Islam' has been replaced by 'Islam is the religion of peace' and 'all religions are same'. Most of us have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
The only religion which says that we all are part of God and God resides in us is Hindu religion, which Gandhi called सनातन धर्म and swami Dayanand Saraswati आर्य धर्म. The statement
How this sufi saint treated this view is very clearly mentioned in Siyar Al Aqtab:
That is how fanatic he was. No understanding of sublime ideology of Vedic dharm. Pure bigotry and fanaticism. Also notice how idol worshipping is being abhorred and still Kaba is being praised. Is it not idolatory?The other miracle is that before his arrival the whole of Hindustan was submerged by unbelief and idol-worship. Every haughty man in Hind pronounced himself to be Almighty God and considered himself as the partner of God. All the people of India used to prostrate themselves before stones, idols, trees, animals, cows and cow-dung. Because of the darkness of unbelief over this land their hearts were locked and hardened.“All India was ignorant of orders of religion and law. All were ignorant of Allãh and His Prophet. None had seen the Ka‘ba. None had heard of the Greatness of Allãh.“Because of his coming, the, Sun of real believers, the helper of religion, Mu‘în al-dîn, the darkness of unbelief in this land was illumined by the light of Islam.
Dargah is a Hindu temple
In fact the dargah is built on the site of a grand Hindu temple:
There is evidence, more reliable than the tradition recorded in the Siyar al-Aqtãb, to suggest that this was the case in Ajmer. Sculpted stones, apparently from a Hindu temple, are incorporated in the Buland Darwãza of Mu‘în al-dîn’s shrine. Moreover, his tomb is built over a series of cellars which may have formed part of an earlier temple… A tradition, first recorded in the ‘Anis al-Arwãh, suggests that the Sandal Khãna is built on the site of Shãdî Dev’s temple
The records in Siyar Al Aqtab are:
That has been a practice throughout the Islamic period. The local population was terrorised by acts which were considered unthinkably cruel. Cow killing was considered to be the worst. This 'sufi saint' used cow slaughter to assert Islamic supremacy. How saintly? How compassionate? I feel like paying a visit to Ajmer.It is said that among those temples there was one temple to reverence which the Rãjã and all the infidels used to come, and lands had been assigned to provide for its expenditure. When the Khwãja settled there, every day his servants bought a cow, brought it there and slaughtered it and ate it…“So when the infidels grew weak and saw that they had no power to resist such a perfect companion of God, they… went into their idol temples which were their places of worship. In them there was a dev, in front of whom they cried out and asked for help
The story furthe states that:
“…The dev who was their leader, when he saw the perfect beauty of the Khwãja, trembled from head to foot like a willow tree. However much he tried to say ‘Ram, Ram’, it was ‘Rahîm, Rahîm’ that came from his tongue… The Khwãja… with his own hand gave a cup of water to a servant to take to the dev… He had no sooner drunk it than his heart was purified of darkness of unbelief, he ran forward and fell at the Heaven-treading feet of the Khwãja, and professed his belief…“The Khwãja said: ‘I also bestow on you the name of Shãdî Dev [Joyful Deval]’…
“…Then Shadî Dev… suggested to the Khwãja, that he should now set up a place in the city, where the populace might benefit from his holy arrival. The Khwãja accepted this suggestion, and ordered one of his special servants called Muhammad Yãdgîr to go into the city and set in good order a place for faqîrs. Muhammad Yãdgîr carried out his orders, and when he had gone into the city, he liked well the place where the radiant tomb of the Khwãja now is, and which originally belonged to Shãdî Dev, and he suggested that the Khwãja should favour it with his residence…Thus, the temple was usurped and converted into a slaughtering place for cows.
That is how the truth stands folks.
On the same topic
Sayyid Ali Hamdani