Taqiyyah is a concept in Islam, which according to the Dictionary of Islam means ‘Guarding Oneself.’ It originated in Shi’ah Islam and was used by early Shi’ah Muslims to protect themselves against Sunni radicalism. But Sunni Muslims adopted this concept subsequently.
Taqiyya allows Muslims to lie to smooth down or deny the peculiarities of their religious belief, in order to save themselves from persecution. Another similar concept in Islam is “Kitman” which means “keeping secret.” It allows Muslims to hide or conceal facts about Islam to protect their faith from attack.
Although, it is widely held that Taqiyya and Kitman are used only in case of persecution, but radical Islamists have, all throughout history, used them to deceive non-Muslims in order to spread Islam.
One of the earliest incidents of the use of Taqiyya and Kitman to deceive Hindus is evidenced by an inscription from the city of Prabhas Patan in Gujarat. The inscription, which is written in Sanskrit and Arabic, is dated AD 1264 and it records the construction of a Mosque by a Muslim sea merchant in the city.
The Sanskrit version of the inscription is now fixed in a wall of a Hindu temple in a nearby town of Veraval. It mentions that the mosque was constructed by a ship-owner named Nuru’d-Din Piruz, a native of Hormuz. It mentions the Hindu ruler Arjundeva of the Vaghela dynasty and other Hindu dignitaries who helped with the construction and the upkeep of the mosque and praises them. It further mentions the source of income of the mosque and that the surplus income was sent to Mecca and Medina.
Ziauddin Desai, an eminent epigraphist associated with the Archaeological Survey of India has translated the first seven lines of the Arabic version of the inscription which were published in the Epigraphia Indica- Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1961. The lines are as follows:
1. Allãh the Exalted may assign this (reward) to one who builds a house in the path of Allãh [This auspicious mosque was built].
2. On the twenty-seventh of the month of RamaDãn, year [sixty-two].
3. and six hundred from migration of the Prophet (23rd July AD 1264), in the reign of the just Sultãn and [die generous king].
4. Abu’l-Fakhr (lit., father of pride), Ruknu’d-Dunyã wa’d-Dîn (lit., pillar of State and Religion), Mu’izzu’l-Islãm wa’l-Muslimîn (lit. source of glory for Islãm and the Muslims), shadow of Allãh in [the lands],
5. one who is victorious against the enemies, (divinely) supported prince, Abi’n-Nusrat (lit., father of victory), Mahmûd, son of Ahmad, may Allãh perpetuate his….
6. and may his affair and prestige be high, in the city of Somnãt (i.e. Somnath), may God make it one of the cities of Islãm and [banish?].
7. infidelity and idols…
The difference between the two versions of the inscriptions is startling. On the one hand, the Sanskrit inscription mentions and praises the contemporary Hindu ruler and other persons of importance who helped with the construction of the Mosque; but on the other hand, those people find no mention in the Arabic version of the inscription. And, the most disturbing difference between the two versions is the fact that the Sanskrit one mentions no ill will towards the Hindus and idol worship, but the Arabic one explicitly invokes Allah to banish infidelity and idol worship from the city of Somnath and convert it into a city of Islam.
In other words, this inscription is a textbook example of the Jihadi agenda, which calls for the conversion of Dar-ul-harb or “a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam” to Dar-ul-Islam or “land of Islam.”
And, to actualise this agenda the classical tactic of “Kitman” or “Islamic deception” has been used. The issuer of the inscription has deceived Hindus by praising them and hiding his contempt for idolatry in the Sanskrit version. But, on the other hand, he has exposed his true intentions in the Arabic version by invoking Allah to wipe infidelity out of Somnath, because he was fully aware that the Hindus of Gujrat cannot read Arabic.
The Hindus, unaware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, could not see the true nature of radical Islam. A few years later, in CE 1299, the Vaghela-ruled Kingdom of Gujrat was invaded by Ulugh Khan, and plunder ensued thereafter. The very city of Prabhas Patan or Somanath, from where the inscriptions discussed were recovered, was sacked by Ulugh Khan’s army and the famous Somnath Temple was destroyed.
Even after centuries, nothing has changed. In fact, things have become worse. Now radical Islamists are aided by leftist Islam apologists in their practice of Taqiyya and Kitman. Any attempt to expose the truth is immediately labelled as Islamophobia. It is about time that the truth about radical Islam is brought forth into public discourse and a solution is figured out. Else, the modern civilisation may face devastating consequences, examples of which can be seen throughout history whenever and where ever radical Islam surfaced.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of SatyaVijayi.