Mathematical Flaw: [Hinduism- an 8 letter word - Varsha writes - "Especially as 1995's year-end national census showed that while the birth rate of Hindus had declined by 2%, that of Muslims had risen by 3%."]

It is often asserted by those of the Hindutva persuasion that one of the major threats to "freedom" in India is from the increase in numbers of the Muslim population. For decades, they have been predicting an imminent taking over of the Indian polity by Muslims due to this rise and NEVER had anyone asked for any logical explanation based upon simple mathematical calculations given the figures in the census. For instance, they claim that once the Muslim population reaches 25%, another bout of separatism will occur (as in 1947). Currently, the claims are based on the following snippet from the Indian Census of 1991: Total Indian Population in 1991 = 816 million Indian Muslim Population in 1991 = 101 million (12.1% of total) % Increase in Total Population since 1981 = 23.8 % Increase in Muslim Population since 1981 = 32.8 (Source: Census of India 1991, Series-1, Paper 1 of 1995, Religion. These figures do not take into account the state of Jammu & Kashmir, since the 1991 Census could not be conducted there.) In this statistical equation, we make a few rough, order-of-magnitude calculations of the numbers involved and their actual consequences. Using t for time, with origin at 1991, T for total Indian population and M for the population of Indian Muslims, the relevant exponential equations are: T(t)=T(0)exp(0.24t), with T(0)=816mil M(t)=M(0)exp(0.24t), with M(0)=101mil Our first calculation is based on the admittedly ad-hoc assumption that India can't support a population more than double the present one. The time for population to double is obtained by solving T(t)=2T(0), and we get t=2.89. Since we are measuring time in decades, this is about 30 years. Now we find that M(2.89)=262mil, while the total will double to 1632mil, and so the Muslim fraction will be only about 16%. Now let us look at what it would take for the Muslim fraction to reach 25%. The relevant equation is: M(0)exp(0.33t)=0.25T(0)exp(0.24t) Solving for t, we get t=7.81, which is about 80 years. Now, in this time, the total population of India would have increased to 5.3 billion, while the Muslim population would be about 1.3 billion! In other words, India would be supporting as many people as the entire Earth does today, while the Muslim population would equal that of China (currently). It is worth noting that the final numbers really depend only on the 0.33/0.24 ratio of the two growth rates. If the growth rates slowed down, but kept the same ratio, it would take longer to get to the final point, but the final population numbers would be the same! Note: Our assumptions of constant rates of growth for the total and the Muslim populations are clearly contradictory, since, as the Muslim proportion rises, it will cause a change in the rate of growth of the total. If we break down the analysis further as total = Hindu + Muslim, solving the equations takes a little longer but the final numbers hardly change. Courtesy: Amber Habib - IIT Kanpur A Panjab University study indicates that percentage of Hindus (approximately 82) and Muslims (12.5) in India has remained unchanged in the 20th century. The argument was evident from a data in a paper on ‘Demographic Growth and Spatial Spread since Independence’ in reference to minorities in India by Prof Gopal Krishan, Department of Geography at PU. The paper indicates that events took place in a manner that the population change over almost a century culminated in things remaining virtually the same. Various other small religious communities did display some differing tendencies. The paper indicates that members of Hindus has reduced but they would not lose majority even if the current trend carried on for centuries (See our calculations above). Muslim population was increasing “ due to a higher rate of natural increase”. (In other words, more Hindu families practice abortions and female foeticide than Muslims and Christians combine) Courtesy :  'The Tribune', Chandigarh, India published on March 8, 2001

Intellectual Flaw :[Direct lines to God - "The concept of Khilafat, as anyone with a modicum of sense will realize, urges all Muslims to unite into a single nation devoid of geographical boundaries and regional loyalties. In other words, an Indian Muslim must identify more with a Pakistani Muslim than with his own Hindu neighbor."]

'Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) said:" Archangel Gabriel impressed upon me (kind treatment) towards the neighbor (so much) that I thought as if he would confer upon him the (right) of inheritance". On another instance he commanded one of his followers: "Whenever you prepare a broth, add water to it, and have in your mind the members of the household of your neighbors and then give them out of this with courtesy. [Hadeeths Book 032, Number 6354: 6358]  ( Need I mention this to those who seem to possess only 'a modicum of sense', that the neighbor need not be a Muslim?)

Intellectual Flaw : [Direct lines to God - The other Semitic creed propagates that "Idolatry is worse than carnage" - 2:191; "Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme" - 2:193; "As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's wrath. They shall become the fuel of the Fire" - 3:9 (From The Quran translated by NJ Dawood). Such are the core beliefs of Islam and Christianity.]

There is a failure to treat the Qur'an as a whole. We often see this in Muslims who are possessed of an inordinate hatred for our Jewish cousins, or an inordinate hatred of non-Muslims, or who are harshly judgmental towards their Muslims who may understand the Qur'an and sunnah a bit differently than they do.  People like Varsha will then cite verses related to times of war, take them out of context, and disconnect them from the ethos presented by the Qur'an and even maliciously hide/omit the verses preceding or proceeding them. This same error is used by most of those hostile to Islam, in order to portray the Qur'an as advocating things such as aggressive violence and even abuse of women. Let's see for ourselves the deception used by these anti-Muslim writers. Let's read the verses before and after 2:191. 190. Fight in the cause of Allah (with) those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. 191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. 192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. Note: I searched hard for the word 'Idolaters' but failed to find it in most widely read and most authentic, three English translations of Qur'an available online, by Yusuf Ali, Sir Marmaduke Pickthall & Mohd. Shakir and this is no co-incidence. You can refer to my source of English translations of Qurân : Islamic City . With regards to 3:9 quoted by the writer, please read on the proceeding verses of the same chapter: 3:25 But how (will they fare) when we gather them together against a day about which there is no doubt, and each soul will be paid out just what it has earned, without (favor or) injustice? 3:108 These are the Signs of Allah. We rehearse them to you in Truth: And Allah means no injustice to any of His creatures Notice the usage of the words, 'each soul' and also, 'any of His creatures' which by no means, means that Muslims ONLY have the right to be under Allah's mercy. Virtue of Righteousness and justice portrayed by any of His creatures who believes in the Unity and power of that Almighty, will be suitably rewarded and Allah(swt) knows best.  It would be worth pointing out here (and is recorded in EB) that - for the first half of Prophet Muhammad's public career, his followers did not fight back in spite of torture, economic boycott, and all manner of physical and psychological abuse. They truly, and in reality, "turned the other cheek." Muhammad counseled patience and trust in God, as he was commanded to do so, (we believe) by God himself. It was only in the second half of his career, when the Muslims were forced out of their homes and their land due to the murderous intent of the leading tribe, that permission was given to fight back in self-defense. In the words of the Qur'an (the literal word of God for Muslims): "Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged... those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, 'Our Sustainer is God!'" Another passage states, "And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-- for, verily, God does not love aggressors." Islam, contrary to many stereotypes, does not permit aggression on the part of Muslims.

 

Next: Vital Statistics »