Monday, February 27, 2012

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 1

The First Saudi State: In the early 18th century, a Muslim scholar and reformer named Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab began advocating a return to the original form of Islam. Abdul Wahhab was initially persecuted by local religious scholars and leaders who viewed his teachings as a threat to their power bases. He sought protection in the town of Diriyah, which was ruled by Muhammad bin Saud. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud formed an agreement to dedicate themselves to restoring the pure teachings of Islam to the Muslim community. In that spirit, bin Saud established the First Saudi State, which prospered under the spiritual guidance of bin Abdul Wahhab, known simply as the Shaikh. By 1788, the Saudi State ruled over the entire central plateau known as the Najd. By the early 19th century, its rule extended to most of the Arabian Peninsula, including Makkah and Madinah. The popularity and success of the Al-Saud rulers aroused the suspicion of the Ottoman Empire, the dominant power in the Middle East and North Africa at the time. In 1818, the Ottomans dispatched a large expeditionary force armed with modern artillery to the western region of Arabia. The Ottoman army besieged Diriyah, which by now had grown into one of the largest cities in the peninsula. Ottoman forces leveled the city with field guns and made it permanently uninhabitable by ruining the wells and uprooting date palms. The Second Saudi State: By 1824, the Al-Saud family had regained political control of central Arabia. The Saudi ruler Turki bin Abdullah Al-Saud transferred his capital to Riyadh, some 20 miles south of Diriyah, and established the Second Saudi State. During his 11-year rule, Turki succeeded in retaking most of the lands lost to the Ottomans. As he expanded his rule, he took steps to ensure that his people enjoyed rights, and he saw to their well-being. Under Turki and his son, Faisal, the Second Saudi State enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity, and trade and agriculture flourished. The calm was shattered in 1865 by a renewed Ottoman campaign to extend its Middle Eastern empire into the Arabian Peninsula. Ottoman armies captured parts of the Saudi State, which was ruled at the time by Faisal’s son, Abdulrahman. With the support of the Ottomans, the Al-Rashid family of Hail made a concerted effort to overthrow the Saudi State. Faced with a much larger and better equipped army, Abdulrahman bin Faisal Al-Saud was forced to abandon his struggle in 1891. He sought refuge with the Bedouin tribes in the vast sand desert of eastern Arabia known as the Rub’ Al-Khali, or ‘Empty Quarter.’ From there, Abdulrahman and his family traveled to Kuwait, where they stayed until 1902. With him was his young son Abdulaziz, who was already making his mark as a natural leader and a fierce warrior for the cause of Islam. The Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: The young Abdulaziz was determined to regain his patrimony from the Al-Rashid family, which had taken over Riyadh and established a governor and garrison there. In 1902, Abdulaziz, – accompanied by only 40 followers – staged a daring night march into Riyadh to retake the city garrison, known as the Masmak Fortress. This legendary event marks the beginning of the formation of the modern Saudi state. After establishing Riyadh as his headquarters, Abdulaziz captured all of the Hijaz, including Makkah and Madinah, in 1924 to 1925. In the process, he united warring tribes into one nation. On September 23, 1932, the country was named the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an Islamic state with Arabic as its national language and the Holy Qur’an as its constitution. REFERENCE: The History of Saudi Arabia http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/history.aspx

Dr. Zakir Naik, Two Nation Theory & Pakistan.

video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxX8-NBtepc



Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed have been trying their best so construct a bridge between Secular Jinnah & Deobandi Scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi to Islamize Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Pakistan, and each time Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed create/concoct a lie to achieve the desired result ends up in more confusion. Pakistani Scholars are strange, they have several version of Ideologies/Islam to concoct Alleged Islamic Ideologies of Pakistan e.g. on Blasphemy Law they follow Traditionalists, while executing/implementing the Blasphemy Law these ideologues target the most marginalized section of the society i.e. Minorities whereas spare Blatant Blasphemers within the Mullah Community (Deobandi, Barelvi, Shia books are riddled with Blasphemy and their Mullahs often resort to worst kind of Blasphemy in the name of respective Fiqh), same Ideologues adopt a criminal silence on the practice of Blatant and Brazen Apostasy/Disbelief e.g. Practice of Sorcery openly in Pakistan & Promoted through Pakistani TV Channels. Above mentioned Alleged Scholars shamelessly quote Apostate Masnoor Hallaj & Blasphemer Ali Hajweri in their Daily Jang Column without any check or any threat of use of Blasphemy Law from any quarter for quoting Blasphemous Sufis. Dr Safdar & Haroon ur Rasheed & their partners in crime e.g. Mujib ur Rehamn Shami (Dunya TV) and Irfan Siddiqui (Daily Jang) take one more giant step they often praise Mawdudi (Founder of Jamat-e-Islami) whose Blasphemous Views on Prophets (Peace be upon them) & Companions of Prophet Mohammad (May Allah be pleased with all of them) are not a secret. Irony is that Dr Safdar/Haroon ur Rasheed are praising Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi & Jinnah's alleged connections, conveniently forget about the Religious Edicts (Fatwas), Books, even Fatwa of Apostasy issued by the very same Deobandi Scholars on Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami. It is requested that Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed would also reveal the Fatwa of Apostasy against Jinnah and Fellow Alleged Founders of Pakistan, and Fatwas were issued by Barelvi, Deobandi, Jamat-e-Islami Scholars.


Wednesday, February 22, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 29, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/feb2012-daily/22-02-2012/col2.htm





Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 21, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/feb2012-daily/14-02-2012/col2.htm



Wahabbi or a Deabandi: Barelvi leader Ahmad Raza Khan stated that both these groups are 'murtadd and kafir according to the unanimous view of Muslims and whoever doubts their being such is himself a kafir. Hisam al Haramain Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi. The Barelvi leader had some grounds to state this since such a fatwa was issued against the Deoband and the Wahabbi groups by some three hundred Sunni ulama of the entire Muslim world. They are stated to: 'have given this fatwa unanimously that the Wahabbia/ Deobandi sects are among extreme apostates and infidels. Indeed they are infidels of such hue that any one who does not regard them as infidels is also counted among the infidels and his wife will become automatically divorced in such a situation. Any progeny from such a marriage will be illegitimate and can claim no inheritance under Muslim law.' In a similar fatwa issued by the Mufti and Imam of the Ka'aba and the Muftis of Medina, the Wahabbis have been declared disbeliveers and apostates. The edict issued by them declares:

'The Wahabbis, in the unanimous opinion of the divines of Mecca and Medina are disbelievers and apostates from Islam such that anyone who comes to know of their cursed writings and speeches and still doubts in their being disbelievers himself becomes a disbeliever. Reference: Fatwa Saniyyah.

The Wahabbis and Deobandis have jointly been censured in yet another edict of apostasy and idolatry issued by Muslim divines. It has been stated:

'They stand condemned as the worst and most dangerous, far more dangerous than idolaters and maggians. Reference: Akhram a Shariat Mukamal, Abhoh al Muzanb.

Maulvi Abul Ala Maududi has been condemned as a heretic and one of the thirty dadjaals prophesied by Hadhrat Muhammadsa. Hence, an edict issued against him declared:

'There is no doubt that he is amongst those who have been led astray. I strongly urge Muslims to keep themselves aloof from his beliefs and ideology. They should not regard him a servant of Islam and should not be under any illusions. The Holy Prophetsa declared that before the appearance of the Dadjaal, thirty other Dadjaals would be born to pave the way for him. As I understand it, Maududi is one of these thirty dadjaals'. Reference: Haq Parast Ulema ko Maududiat say Narazghi ke Asbab by Maulvi Muhammad Siddiq

However, if he is neither of these but belongs to the other camp, then the Deobandi and Wahabbi ulama have issued similar fatwas against the Barelvis. For instance, Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband denounced Ahmad Raza Khan, the leader of Barelvi's as 'a murtadd, a dadjaal of the century and a great kafir and excluded him from the pale of Islam. Reference: Radd at Takfir ala I fahash al Tanzir by Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza

Muslim ulama have demanded social and religious segregation from other sects, namely, the Ahle Hadeeth merely on account of the others saying Amen aloud; raising their hands during prayers or folding arms on the chest and reciting Al Hamd behind the Imam while being led in congregational prayers because they are considered to be misguided sects and their practices alleged to be opposed to the Sunnis.

the Ahnafs have had a fatwa issued against them by the Ahle Hadeeth because their beliefs and practices are stated by the Ahle Hadeeth leadership to be against those of the Sunnis and therefore such as to lead to polytheism. In fact, the Ahle Hadeeth leader, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal was of the opinion that 'the word polytheists can be aptly applied to the Ahnafs as could the word polytheism be applied to their practice. Hence, he stated that since most people are mugallid or conformists, more commonly known as the Hanafis or Ahnaf, the Quranic verse, Most people believe not, they are but polytheists, applies quite aptly to them, i.e., to the Ahnafs.' 'Reference: Iqtaraab as Sa'a by Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan

Incidentally, the Ahnafs have also been induded in another edict of kufr which also involves the followers of all four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence - the Hanafi, the Shafi'i the Maliki and the Hanbali as well as the followers of the four Sufi orders - the Chishtiyya, the Naqshbandiyya, the Qadiriyya and the Mujaddiyya. Reference: Jami al Shubood.




Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 1

video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_z6UyVxmHk




A few days ago brother Asif Mahmood raised some questions. He does not raise questions, rather raises a storm. Of late no response has been received from the other side of the political dividing line. The irony is that from among the people on this side, the gentleman has targetted those 'babalog' who do not read Urdu in the first place. It was decided that though I am not the target, I should respond because the voice of conscience should be responded. In his questions he had quoted half a dozen sections and asked if 'the self proclaimed broadminded' people were willing to accept the supremacy of those sections, considering them part and parcel of the Constitution of Pakistan. This humble writer has selected Section 2(a) from the slightly long list. The sub-section A of Section 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan is a gift of the dictatorship of General Ziaul Haque. He had declared the Objectives Resolution approved by the first Legislative Assembly of Pakistan on March 12, 1949 an important part of the Constitution by including the preface to the original constitution of 1973 in it. So, dear gentleman, I regard the Constitution of 1973 as the sole guarantor of Pakistan's sovereignty. Therefore, I abide by everything written in the Constitution including Section 2(a). However, in the light of the established principles of democratic lawmaking, the Constitution of Pakistan is an amendable document which in itself contains the procedures of amendment. In principle I disagree with the Section 2(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan. My political belief is that whenever it is possible to amend the Constitution by two-third majority of Parliament, this undemocratic section introduced by the dictator, should be omitted.

Now the question is why I am opposed to the Section 2(a) of the Constitution. The answer is simple; I consider the Objectives Resolution contradictory to the democratic principles. The Objectives Resolution was presented in the Legislative Assembly by Prime Minister Liyaqat Ali Khan exactly six months after the death of the founder of Pakistan. It generated heated debate in the assembly for the next four days. The opposition leader from the East Pakistan Mr Chattopadhyay had vehemently opposed it. The draft of this Resolution was prepared by Liaqat Ali Khan and Shabbir Ahmad Usmani in the peaceful valley of Marri. No demands for such a Resolution had been made from the Legislature or sections of the people during the first 18 months of the Legislative Assembly. In contrast, the session of the Legislative Assembly held in March 1949 was called in relation with the annual budget. The Objectives Resolution was like the illusion of a pigeon conjured up by the magician to divert the people's attention from the beautiful bird called democracy.

It will not be irrelevant here to tell you that Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was a pesh imam living in ignominy in the Muslim-minority state of Hyderabad Deccan who was best known for his on-demand fatwas on inheritance-related disputes of the Muslim Zamindars. After the formation of Pakistan, he landed up in Pakistan and assumed the title of Shaikhul Islam. He had arrived in Paksitan in way back August 1947 whereas the sultanate of Mir Usman Ali in Hyderabad lasted till September 12, 1948. Apart from giving shape of an Islamic state to the Muslim majority country of Pakistan, his duties included solving the shariah related issues of the rulers of the states of Khairpur (Sindh), Bahawalpur (Punjab), Qalawat and Kharan (Balochistan). My religionist friends often remind me that the Flag of Pakistan was hoisted by Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. But they forget to point out that the first session of the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan in which Qaid-e-Azam Md Ali Jinnah was also present started without a recitation of the Quran.

The differences in points of view between Liaqat Ali Khan and Md Ali Jinnah over the future political shape of Pakistan are history now. Jinnah's destination was a modern democratic state whereas the political temperament of Liaqat Ali Khan was free from democratic shackles.

Before analysing and explaining the text of the Objectives Resolution, it is equally important to pay attention to the document which became a basis for the demand of Pakistan, the movement for Pakistan and the establishment of Pakistan, that is , the basic points of the resolution passed in the annual conference of the Muslim League in Lahore on March 24, 1940 were two. In the first point, the political issue of India was conditioned with such a geographical bandobast with the help of which the Muslim majority areas in the east and west of India could be carved out as separate states. In the second part of the resolution, 'appropriate, effective and binding' reservations were demanded for the religious minorities to come into existence as a result of these geographical alterations. It was understandable that these reservations were being demanded equally for the Muslims of the Hindu majority India and the non-Muslim citizens of the Muslim majority Pakistan. In the Lahore resolution the term 'Islamic state', 'shariah-based system' or 'Islamic system' was not even once mentioned.

In 1946, the elected Parliamentary representatives of Muslim League amended the resolution and replaced the word 'states' with 'state' but even in this final phase of the movement for Pakistan no need was felt to include the concepts like 'mullaism' or 'Islamic system' in the guiding principles of the Muslim League. Albeit, interestingly, addressing the Muslim League convention in Delhi on April 11,1946, Qaid-e-Azam said, "What are we fighting for? Theocracy is not our goal, nor do we want a theocratic state. No one denies the existence of faith, and faith is indeed close to our heart. But there are other things which are equally necessary, such as our social life and our economic life, and how are you going to safeguard your economic life without political power?" Here the Qaid-e-Azam was distinguishing between religion and politics. It is in the knowledge of all that fatwas of kufr (infidelity) issued against Qaide Azam were in reaction to his speech in Lucknow session of the Muslim League in 1938 in which he had advocated the participation of women in public life.(Translated by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM--Part I By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2627







Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 2

video





Muslim League was a political party with a distinct religious identity. It was, therefore, no surprise that in the sessions of the Muslim League organised by the Qaid-e-Azam there were mentions of the bright aspects of the Muslim history and culture. But it will be futile to find out a single speech in which he had spoken of the need to confer political powers on the mullahs. For example addressing the students of the Aligarh Muslim University on November 2, 1941, he said, " Please tell the Hindus and Sikhs that it is totally wrong that Pakistan will be a theocratic state where they will have no rights."

In the light of the views produced above, the address of the Qaide-e-Azam in the first session of the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan as designated Governor General, the President of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Muslim League on August 11, 1947 was an extension of his long political life because Qaid-e-Azam had refused to join the Khilafat Movement 30 years ago as he considered Khilafat Movement a religious movement rather than a political one. The summary of his speech on August 11, 1947 was that Pakistan would have a modern democratic system on the lines of the West where all the citizens of the country would enjoy equal rights without any discrimination on the basis of religion and that religion would have nothing to do with politics. The statement made by the Qaide-e-Azam that religion had no connection with political affairs was the best definition of secularism. In that speech he had also stated the 'Pakistan theory' which said, " we should put all our efforts for the welfare of the citizens especially the poor". The constant improvement in the standards of living of the citizens is the sole accepted purpose of a modern democratic state.

One important angle is that in that historic speech, the Qaid-e-Azam used the word 'community' for the Hindus and the Muslims. He did not call the Hindus and the Muslims of Pakistan a nation since Pakistan had automatically assumed the status of a nation with its formation. Therefore, the Muslims and the Hindus of Pakistan were the part of the nation. In this context, the testimony of the first high commissioner of India to Pakistan, Shri Prakash is also very important. In an official meeting with the Qaid-e-Azam at his residence in September 1947, he said to Qaid-e-Azam, “Even though the division occurred due to religious differences, why should the fact be emphasised that Pakistan is a Islamic state, because if Pakistan is not called a Islamic state repeatedly, the non-Muslim residents will not leave Pakistan". Mr Jinnah replied, "I have never used the word 'Islamic'. You are holding a responsible post, you should tell me when I said that." Sri Prakash then said, “The Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan has said that Pakistan is an Islamic country". Mr Jinnah retorted," Then you should ask for an explanation from him. Why are you quarrelling with me?” Shri Prakash insisted, “In your speech on Radio Lahore on August 31, you had said, "Pakistan is an Islamic state". To that Qaid-e-Azam said angrily, "Please show me the original version."

Shri Prakash writes that after that he studied Qaid-e-Azam's broadcast speech very keenly. Really he had not used the word 'Islamic' even once, though he had used the word 'Muslim' on five or six occasions. Therefore he wrote a letter of apology to the Qaid-e-Azam. Mr Jinnah was a lawyer in the top league and so he knew the meanings of the two words. By Muslim state, such a state is meant where the Muslims are in majority. On the other hand, an Islamic state means a state where the laws are based on Shariah laws. If there was no difference between the two terms, then the Qaid-e-Azam would have said, "Either you call it a Muslim state or an Islamic state, what is the difference"?

In this light it is not difficult to understand why, according to the statement of the editor of the daily Dawn, Altaf Hussain, Khwaja Shahabuddin and other second rung Muslim League leaders had tried to censor Qaid-e-Azam's 11 August speech. When they did not succeed, they tried to launch an attack from another wing. A graduate of Darul Uloom Deoband, the imam of Makki Masjid of Hyderabad Deccan and the pensioner of Nizam of Deccan Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was pushed to the front.

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was initially a member of Majlis-e-Ehrar. Around 1927, he had written a pamphlet titled 'Al Shahab' in which he had taken the stand that the punishment for apostasy was death. When the issue of estates was raised in Oudh, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani issued the edict that laying down life to protect one's estates was martyrdom. He had developed differences with the pro-Congress maulvis of Deoband in 1930s. In October 1945, he accepted president ship of the Jamiatul Ulema, a new organisation of religious scholars supporting the movement for Pakistan. He supported Muslim League during the election campaigns in 1945-46.

This gentleman was even in favour of imposing Jeziya on the zimmees (non-Muslims). He had the view that the non-Muslims of Pakistan had no right to become members of legislative assemblies or policy-making bodies nor they were to be appointed to 'key posts'. The ambiguous but extremely dangerous term "key posts' in the dictionary of the 'infidelity-politics' of Pakistan is a gift of Mr Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. He was elected a member of the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan from Kota in East Pakistan in June 1947. An interesting fact is that shortly after the establishment of Pakistan, in order to wage jihad, Maulvi Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and Maulana Zafar Ali Khan had jointly formed a militant outfit called 'Sarfaroshan-e-Islam' who dreamt of conquering the East Punjab and even hoisting the Islamic flag on the Lal Quila of Delhi. In this context, the daily Zamindar had published an inflammatory article titled " O young Muslims! Join the organisation of God en mass, blurring the difference between East and West Punjab." The article was so inflammatory that the government had to suspend its publication for two weeks as a warning. In other words, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani had also the honour of being the pioneer of non-state militantism in Pakistan. (Translated by Sohail Arshad ) REFERENCE: OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM--PART II By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2631





Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 3

video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NI7T8zNzjA




On September 1, 1947, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani had issued a press release whose every word was a reply to the speech delivered by the Qaid-e-Azam in the Legislative Assembly on August 11, 1947 just 20 days ago. Some sentences are reproduced here: " I want to make it very clear that this resounding victory of Qaid-e-Azam ( the establishment of Pakistan) owes to the discipline and restraint of the Muslims. Muslims are religious by nature and the basis of the Two-nation Theory is also religion. If the Muslim ulema-e-deen (religious scholars) had not joined this movement lending it a religious hue, Qaid-e-Azam or any other leader with however great diplomatic abilities or even the Muslim League would not have been able to generate such degree of passion among the Muslims. Nonetheless, with the joint efforts of the ulema-e-deen and the Muslim leaders, the Muslims woke up and agreed upon one objective. We should now necessarily put all our efforts to prepare the Constitution of Pakistan by keeping before us the natural and universal principles of Islam as they are the sole remedy for the current malady. If we failed to do so, then the western democracy will pervade with all its vices and the destructive nationalism will replace the internationalism of Islam."


Qaid-e-Azam had said in his speech, " In course of time (in Pakistan) the Hindus will cease to remain Hindus and the Muslims will cease to remain Muslims, not with reference to religion as it is an issue of the personal belief of each individual, but in political terms as citizens of the state." Therefore, as a nut in the hands of the anti-democracy lobby in politics, Maulvi Shabbir Ahmad Usmani made it a point to quip, "I want that every Muslim remains a Muslim and every Hindu remains a Hindu even in the most adverse situations."

Addressing the American people on the radio on February 1, 1948, Qaid-e-Azam said clearly, "However, it is obvious that Pakistan will not be a religious country where the mullahs will have the authority to rule in the light of religious objectives. A sizeable population of our country is non-Muslim, such as Hindu, Christian, Parsi etc. but they are all Pakistanis. They will have the same rights and privileges as given to other citizens and they will get an equal opportunity to play their role in the national affairs of Pakistan." On February 19,1948, in a broadcast speech for the Australian people, Qaid-e-Azam announced in no uncertain terms that there would be no place for mullaism in Pakistan.

Now it can be pointed out that the founder of Pakistan says, " the mullahs will have no authority to rule in the light of religious objectives" but after the death of Qaid-e-Azam, the Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan while addressing the Legislative Assembly on March 12, 1949 said, "the state should not play the role of neutral observer where the Muslims will merely have the right to assert and practice their faith because practically the state will adopt such policy as will negate the very doctrines on which the state of Pakistan was demanded.

The neutrality of the state in religious affairs is secularism. If the state assumes the responsibility of imposing religion, then the dominance of religious leadership becomes inevitable. Now the issue was raised as to what were the concepts which led to the demand of Pakistan. The question could be answered from two angles. One angle of the demand for Pakistan was purely political and legal. The Political leadership was aware of the fact but it did not try to clarify that the political demand was being presented to the Muslims in religious 'sugar-coat'. For the last 60 years a line of the poem composed by an educationist from Sialkot, Asghar Saudai "Pakistan ka matlab kya, La ilaha illallah" has been presented to the nation in such a way as if it formed the basis of the Muslim League's policy.

Now let's have a look on the testimony presented by Malik Ghulam Nabi (the former minister for education, Punjab). He was a close associate of Qaid-e-Azam and a member of Muslim League Council. On page no. 106 of his book "Kissa ek sadi ka"(The chronicle of a century) he writes: "The first conference of All Pakistan Muslim League Council in Pakistan was held under the presidentship of Qaid-e-Azam in the Dena Hall, Karachi on December 14, 1947. In the conference, a bearded man came up and said to Qaid-e-Azam, "We had told people, Pakistan ka matlab kya, La ilaha illallah," Qaid-e-Azam said, "Please sit down, neither I nor the working council of All India Muslim League has passed a resolution adopting 'Pakistan ka matlab kya, la ilaha illallah. Albeit you must have raised this slogan to garner votes."

Qaid-e-Azam was not deviating from his original stance because in his mind the Political system of Pakistan was a democratic secular one. In an interview with the representative of the Reuters, Doll Campbell, he had said, "The new state will be a modern democratic state in which the people will be the source of power. Each citizen of the new nation will enjoy equal rights free from any discrimination on the basis of religion, caste or creed."

In this regard we can also get the testimony of Maulana Ghulam Rasool Meher. The maulana was a scholar, researcher and journalist and was the editor of the daily Inquilab. He was also one of the delegates of the Round Table Conference. In his letter to Ashiq Hussain Batalwi after the formation of Pakistan, he writes: "In my view, what Qaid-e-Azam meant by 'Two-nation theory' was that the majority in each area had the right to rule. That is, the demand was not that all the Muslims should be segregated without exceptions. If that were the case, Qaid-e-Azam would be compelled to bring all the Muslims to Pakistan from different areas. In politics, sometimes different affairs are presented in an exaggerated form to impress upon their importance. Qaid-e-Azam was never convinced by the meaning of the 'two-nation theory' as understood by the common man and the leaders. However, Pakistani leaders have always suffered from exaggeration and disarray of thoughts after Qaid-e-Azam, and are still suffering. REFERENCE: OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM--PART III By Wajahat Masood http://newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2635




Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 4

video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e83eOiZW9wg




After the arrival of the British in the sub-continent, their educational, technical and administrative supremacy outplayed the intellectual depth, political vision and administrative capabilities of the Muslim religious leaders. For centuries, the religious scholars had closed the paths of human possibilities by putting a lock of heavenly revelations on knowledge, governance and distribution of resources. The changes rekindled the desire of renaissance of their pomp and retinue in the past among the religious leaders. The arrival of the European colonialists destroyed the interests of the local peshwas. As a result of the scientific discoveries and inventions, the hold of the religious leaders on the the people's mind loosened. The religous peshwas tried to reclaim their hold and influence by criticising the industrial civilisation with the interpretations and representations of historical facts. The military, political and administrative success of the European invaders was indebted to the modern way of thinking and scientific approach. Therefore, the religious leaders reacted against the modernity.

Modern education and industrial productivity gave birth to new social structures. The power of old civilisational values diminished. On the other hand new problems raised their heads. The speed of literacy and alternative social evolution was slower than that of sciences and economy. consequently, threatened by the problems breeding in the transitional period of the old and the new order, sections harbouring hidden interests started showing a love for the old thought models and social structures.

When the Muslim educated section emerged, they too started asserting their political rights following in the footsteps of the Hindus and founded their own political party, the Muslim League. In this way, politics and religion parted ways in the Muslim polity. The new educated section assumed the responsibility of the political leadership while the religious leaders remained responsible for religious affairs. Therefore, the ulemas were sidelined on all the issues of that period such as Shimla Delegation, the establishment of the Muslim League, the Partition of Bengal, the Covenant of Lucknow or the Urdu-Hndi dispute and the political leadership of the Muslims tried to find a solution in the light of political and class-based interests.

In 1907, the Shia Muslims announced their own organisation called All India Shia Conference. In 1914, the Sunni Muslims formed their own organisation called Jamiatul Hind which was rechristened Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind five years later. Maulana Azad too founded Darul Irshad in 1914. The question is why the ulema formed their own bodies when the Muslim League was already in place. The answer is obvious. The noblemen in gaberdine and turban claiming the knowledge of the religious sciences could not accept the leadership of the English-speaking people.

Since the outset of the 19th century, the traditional ulema have opposed the educated Muslims. The skills and educational orientation of the traditional ulema are devoid of the modern sciences and unable to cope with the complexities of the contemporary world. They consider knowledge exanimate. They are oblivious to the social mobility and averse to accepting the invetible changes in the values as a consequence. They opposed Sir Syed tooth and nail. Today every one admits that if Sir Syed's Aligarh College (later university) had not produced a large number of educated Muslim youths, perhaps the movement for Pakistan would not have succeeded and probably the Muslims in the entire India would have remained backward educationally and economically.

Apparently, Sir Syed was opposed on religious basis, but actually the realisation makes them restless that they have been left behind in today's world. Their scholastic views and social approach have been beaten to the ground. Those who likened the railway engine to satanic wheels not very long ago travel in priceless cars and fly in airplanes without any regrets. They send their children to international schools. Those who regarded the telephone as the satan's voice, today propagate their faith or sect on the telephone. The loudspeaker to them was unislamic but today they deliver sermons on the loudspeaker day in and day out. Mosques are fitted with airconditioners. Taliban are not in favour of allowing the common men to watch television or listen to the radio but they are running their own TV channels (mostly illegal). In the ongoing war of terrorism, the electronic media and the internet has been used by them to the optimum level. Those who till the other day pronounced photography haram, send threatening messages to newspapers in order to get their photographs published prominently.

The Khilafat movement played an important role in redirecting the Muslim politics. Different lobbies joined the movement with their own agenda. On the one hand, Gandhiji wanted to test the organisational strength and protesting capabilities of the Congress, and on the other, wanted to strengthen his position as a mass leader of the entire India irrespective of religion by joining this absurd movement. The Muslim religious scholars who had been relegated to the corner during the Aligarh Movement or the issue of partition of Bengal, wanted to hone their inflammatory oratorical skills on this rusted issue. Isn't it surprising that the Hindu religious leaders remained aloof from the Khilafat movement but the Congress took the lead in it. Broadminded leaders like Qaid-e-Azam who were aware of the international political affairs did not show any interest in this movement. Therefore, instead of educated and professional Muslim section, the religious scholars or the ulemas got the opportunity to become the leaders of the Muslims. Dr Mubarak Ali writes, "Through the Khilafat movement, the religious emotions of the Muslims were fomented on such an issue which had no political significance and was going to die its own death."(Translated by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM—PART 4 By Wajahat Masood http://newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2637

1 comment:

Sohaib Ahmed said...

very well written. and these true words needed to be spread widely through out whole Pakistan. so Pakistani people can know the reality of Todays so called contractors of Religion and Pakistan.