This is the last book of Toynbee, before he died, and while he has made other books. What’s the title of this book? Mankind and the Mother Earth. I see. But in the other books… He’s a very good writer. He is very good, of course. He’s an authoritative historian. In the tribute has been said that he’s one of the greatest historians of this century. But he made some very, say, complimentary remarks to Islam in other books. Civilization at Trial. That’s right.
But here, he has made certain observations, which even could be tenable by history, goes counter to the concepts of Islam. For he says that where it is true that in the beginning, the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, was able to weld the heterogeneous tribes of Arabia into a homogeneous community of the believers. But later on, the Arabs never had the same idea of ummah, which later on developed it. He said the Arabs thought themselves… He’s quite right. He said the Arabs thought themselves the first recipient of the message of Allah, of God, and then those non-Arabs were converted.
First of all, Arabs tried to Arabize it, wherever they went. Syria, no Arabic language. He said they changed them completely, Arabized, completely, in total. But Persia refused to be Arabized in the sense that, say, language, they did not leave their language, their culture. And then he said that when they came, later on, the Turks, and particularly the Mughals, the Mughals gave a very devastating, say, stroke to the Muslims. And it was… But the Mughals, he says, they became Muslim later on.
And then they were converting in Islam so much that whereas the Arabs were calling the non-Arab Muslims as Mawali. He said, they said, yes, you are… The message is universal of Islam, but the word, the concept of Ummah, he said it developed later on because they were called Mawali. But then the other majority of the non-Arabs became so much, and they were much more zealous about the, say, propagation of Islam. Then they say, no, it is Ummah, and everyone is there on equal footing. No question of Mawali, that you are the friends of… It is a patronizing attitude.
And then he said, then came the idea, universal Ikhwah, say, Ikhwah to Muslims. But he is partially right, mostly right, I should say, but here he is also wrong. When he says that the Arabs deviated from Rasul-e-Karim, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam’s instructions and practice after his demise, and then they started roaming about in various directions, finding their identity, which they could not find, you know, not in every experience, the same identity emerged. But with different experiences, different identities emerged, and they became into clash with each other, and there was no concept of Ummah left. So they were a divergent people.
But later on, when Islam spread farther, and became larger and global, then the Arabs started conceiving a much wider concept of Ummah than ever before it was conceived. Is that the argument? No, he said the concept of Ummah was proposed and propagated by the non-Arab Muslims. That is also wrong. Because in the very first statement he has admitted that that Ummah was created by the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, in which there was no geographical, racial difference involved, and whoever believed became one with him. He begins with that statement.
So what he should have said, I mean, was this, that through long experience, ultimately, the Ummah found its identity with the introduction of non-Arabs later on, and they rediscovered themselves to be the Ummah created by the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. That statement would be the perfect, complete statement. Yes, yes. But once he said that the Arabs discouraged the conversion of the Muslims, that’s because of the jaziya. This I can’t understand how the Arabs would say. This is wrong. This is wrong.
In fact, Arabs remained in the forefront of the preachers, all the preaching movements, for a long time to come. For the first few centuries, they played the leading role. And I have forgotten the title of the book, only recently published, in which, for the first time, a very honest and serious attempt is made to dissociate the spread of Islam with the spread of the political power of Islam. And it is a very well-documented book, which presents exact facts from various periods of Islamic history, from various countries, that despite the fact that the Muslim rule was fully, firmly established for many hundred years in certain countries, yet the Muslims remained in minority.
And no effort was ever made to convert people through the force of sword. And at the same time, there were parallel current movements, along with the, you know, with the political flow, there were parallel movements of preachers, who had absolutely no asthipar. And they continued preaching, and through preaching they continued converting people. And so, he proves, I think it’s, I don’t remember the name of the author, but I have got, I may be able to lay my hand to it, I’ll, if I get, I’ll send you the book. But you can find out from some librarian, any book recently, within the last few years, published on this title. I’m very bad at remembering titles, you know, and the names. But I remember the subject matter all right.
So, this is what is proved in that book, and it’s a very authentic presentation of facts. And the author who has done, worked, I mean, worked it out, is a Christian author. So, you better have access to that book, you’ll find it very interesting.
