Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Jinnah, Pakistan, Mullahs & Deoband.

In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups as the Momins and the Shia Conference. Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken. Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their continued existence. This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -- was organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve the real difficulties of the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress. The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among the Muslim masses by carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the Muslim League. However, this Muslim mass contact movement failed. REFERENCE: Chapter II Ulema and Pakistan Movement http://ghazali.net/book1/chapter_2.htm http://ghazali.net/book1/Chapter2a/page_2.html R E F E R E N C E S http://ghazali.net/book1/reference1.htm ISLAMIC PAKISTAN: ILLUSIONS & REALITY BY Abdus Sattar Ghazali http://ghazali.net/book1/index.htm 


It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the demand for Pakistan. Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was worried that the end of British domination should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived through the past experience that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within the same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept the political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent. The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. They did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election. The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life. The conflict between the educated Muslims and the Ulema was not new. It started in the early years of British rule and reached its culmination during the struggle for Pakistan. Since the movement for Pakistan was guided by the enlightened classes under the leadership of a man who was brought up with western education, the prestige of the Ulema had been badly damaged. The Muslims Renaissance in the sub-continent began with Shah Waliullah (1702-63) who started probing into the past and thinking in terms of the future. During the decline of Muslim power, Shah Waliullah emerged as an outstanding scholar-reformer who predicted a return to the original purity of Islam. He was not just a scholar of theology and law, but a social thinker with a keen sense for economic reforms. Without economic justice, he asserted, the social purpose of Islam could not be fulfilled. He emphasized the need for ijtihad, decrying the convention of closing the gates of ijtihad. He criticized the contemporary Ulema for their elaborate rites and rituals, which he believed, were not part of the Shariah, but un-Islamic innovations. Then came Sir Syed Ahmed Khan with his message that the Muslims could not progress without acquiring knowledge of modern sciences and technology. He asserted the simple truth that knowledge is not the exclusive preserve of any nation, it belongs to the whole mankind. Quickly he was dubbed a kafir (non-believer) by a section of Ulema. But Sir Syed Ahmed, in spite of all the calumny that was heaped on him, refused to be browbeaten. He maintained a valiant posture and succeeded in realizing the intellectual energy of a nation. As more and more Muslims got educated in the western sciences the hold of the Ulema over the Muslim community began to weaken. REFERENCE: Chapter II Ulema and Pakistan Movement http://ghazali.net/book1/chapter_2.htm http://ghazali.net/book1/Chapter2a/page_2.html R E F E R E N C E S http://ghazali.net/book1/reference1.htm ISLAMIC PAKISTAN: ILLUSIONS & REALITY BY Abdus Sattar Ghazali http://ghazali.net/book1/index.htm




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


SOME FAMOUS READINGS OF EXPOSITION FROM GREAT MUJADDITH'S OF DEOBAND


1. Do not try to understand the Qur'ân ever. Else, you will go astray. Fifteen “Uloom” (sciences) are required to understand the Book. (“Maulana” Zakaria Kandhalwi, Fazael Amaal, p.2)

2. Do not read the Qur'ân with understanding, you will go astray. (Fazaael Aamal, “Maulana” Ashraf Ali Thanwi, p. 216)

It is mentioned in Aamaal-e-Qur'aani, p. 134 by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi [published by Jasim Book Depot, Urdu Bazaar, Jama Masjid, Delhi] that if a woman has excessive menstrual bleeding, the verse (Surah Al-'Imran: 3:144) should be written on three different pieces of paper, one tied on her right and the other on her left and the third piece of paper with the Qur'ânic verse to be hung below the naval. This verse of the Qur'aan, "Muhammad (sallallahu alaihe wa-sallam) is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful." [Surah Al-'Imran: 3:144]

3. Delaying prayer once will cause a person to burn in the hellfire for 20.88 million years, just because he or she failed to pray on exact time. (“Maulana” Zakaria Kandhalwi, Fazaael Namaz, p.317)


4. Recite the whole Qur'ân in one raka’ah like saints did! [That will amount to more than 50 times of the whole Qur'ân in a single day!] (Fazaael Namaz p.64.) Saints recite 2,000 raka’ahs every day. They keep standing the full one month of Ramadhan reciting the Qur'ân twice a day! (Tableegh-I-Nisab Fazaael Aamal)


5. “Maulana” Ashraf Ali Thanwi separated the way of Salat between men and women in his book “Bahishti Zever.” (Masjid Tauheed, Karachi. Muhammad Sultan)


6. When Shah Waliullah was in his mother’s womb, she said a prayer. Two tiny hands (too) appeared for prayer. She was frightened. Her husband said, "You have Qutubul-Aqtab (Wali of Walis) in your womb (Hikayat-e-Awlia, p. 17 Ashraf Ali Thanwi) What a break-through!

7. Junaid Baghdadi was sitting when a dog crossed by. He merely glanced at the dog. The dog reached such glory that all dogs of the town followed him. Then he sat down and all dogs sat around him in meditation. (Ashraf Ali Thanwi. Imdad-ul- Mushtaq)

8. The holy messenger came to Shah Waliullah (in the 18 century!) and said, “Why do you worry? Your children are the same as mine.” (Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Hikayat-ul-Awlia)

9. The prophet laid the foundation of Darul-Uloom, Deoband, India (in the 19th century) He comes to check accounts of the school. He has learnt the Urdu language. (Mubasshirat-e-Darul Uloom, and Deoband Number of the Darul-Uloom)

10. Mulla Mohammad Qasim Nanotwi saw in his dream that he was sitting in the lap of Allaah. (Biography of Mulla Qasim by Mulla Mohammad Yaqoob Nanotwi)

11. The advent of another Prophet is quite possible. (Mulla Abdul Hai Farangi Mahli and Mulla Qasim Nanotwi, Tahzeer-in-Nas, p.34, Athar Ibn Abbas, p.16)

WHY BLAME MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD QADIANI ONLY?


12. Disrespect to a monk is more perilous than disrespect to Allaah. (Mulla Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Al-Ashraf, p.23, Nov. 1991)

13. Dear reader, now read what p.154 “ Islam or Maslak Parasti” says: According to the Qur'ân anything dedicated to other than Allaah in forbidden. It is our maulvi mind who declare virtuous such things as Koondas of Ja’afar Sadiq, halwa of Shabe barat in the name of Owais Qarni, haleem and sherbet of Imam Hussain and Niaz of the 11th in the name of Jeelani!

14. Risala Tazkara of Darul-uloom Deoband of 1965 claims: Anyone suffering from malaria who took dust from the grave of “Maulana” Yaqoob Nanotwi and tied this dust to his body, found instant relief.

15. Allaah cuts jokes with the Ulama of Deoband. One of them went to a well for “Wudu” (Ablution) He lowered the bucket in the well. It came back full of silver. The Holy man said to Allaah: Don’t kid around! I am getting late for prayers. He lowered the bucket in again and this time it came back full of gold. (Risala Tazkara of Darul-uloom Deoband of April 1965)

16. In the night of Meraj (Ascension) Imam Ghazali rebuked Prophet Moses. Mohammed said, " Respect O' Ghazali!" (Malfoozat Haaji Imdaadullaah Muhaajir Makki, Imdad-ul- Mushtaq) by Ashraf Ali Thanwi.


[Please note that Ghazali was born centuries after passing away of the holy prophet]

17. Take the right arm of a goat after Friday prayers. Be completely naked. Write Sura Yasin and the name of the person you want, then put the meat in the cooking pot. That person will fall in love with you. (Monthly "Khalid" Deoband Darul Uloom)

18. If you want to kill your enemy write A to T on a piece of bread. Recite Surah "RA'AD.” Break the bread into five pieces and feed them to five dogs. Say to dogs, 'Eat the flesh of my enemy'. By the will of Allaah your enemy will have huge boils on his body. (Darul uloom Deoband "Khalid")

19. Say "Fazabooha" before you cut a melon, or any thing else (for that matter), you will find it sweet. (Aamale-Qurani, Ashraf Ali Thanwi)

20. Recite the verse "When the heaven will split.” Write it (on a piece of paper) and tie to the left thigh of any woman in labor, child birth will become easy. Cut the hair of that woman and burn them between her thighs, childbirth will be easier still. (Aamal-e-Qurani, Ashraf Ali Thanwi)

21. During labor pains let the woman hold Mawatta Imam Malik for instant delivery. (Aamal-e-Qurani, Ashraf Ali Thanwi)

22. See what “Hakeemul Ummat” Thanwi says! Keep reciting "Al Mughni" during sex and the woman will love you. (same book, Ashraf Ali Thanwi)

23.The prophet laid foundation of Darul-Uloom, Deoband, India (in the 19th century). He comes to check accounts of the school. He has learnt Urdu language. (Mubasshirat-e-Darul Uloom, and Deoband Number of the Darul-Uloom)

24. When, "Maulana" Zakaria, the father of "Maulana" Yousuf Bannuri would fall sick, the prophet would come. He told the house servant, "Badshah Khan! I (the holy prophet), am also serving Zakaria. (Bayyanat 1975 Ashraf Ali Thanwi p. 7)

25. The prophet said to sister-in-law of Haaji Imdaadullaah Muhajir Makki, "Get up! I will cook meals for guests of Imdaadullaah." (Bayyanat p. 8, Ashraf Ali Thanwi)

26. “Maulana” Yousuf Ludhianwi taught a simple method to make interest (usury) Halal. Borrow from a non-Muslim. (Masaail-e-Jadeedah)

27. The wife of Mullah Jalaaluddin Rumi thought that his sexual desire had vanished. The Mullah came to know of her suspicion in a special trance of revelation (KASHF). That night he went to the wife and drilled her 70 times. (Please excuse the language) So much so that she asked forgiveness. (Manaqib-il-Arifain, p.70, by Shamsuddin Akhlaqi)

Now please witness how far these Mujaddith's of Deoband can go! See what garbage Mulla Ashraf Ali Thanwi is trying to unload. The same Thanwi whom other Mullahs call “Hakeem-ul-Ummat”!


28. He writes on p.110 in “Imdaadul Mushtaq”: There was a true monotheist. People told him if delicious food is part of the person of Allaah and feces too is a part of Him, eat both. Well, the Sheikh first became a pig and ate feces. Then he became a human being and ate food! Isn’t that height of "wisdom" of our wise of the nation!”

29. Here is another pearl of wisdom from him: There was a Pir Sadiq from Ashraf Ali Thanwi’s town. He taught his disciples “There is no God but Allah and Sadiq is His messenger.” {Astaghfirullaah} The wise of the nation Thanwi declared that teaching OK. (Imane Khalis, p.109, Hazrat Masood Uthmani)

30. The holy messenger comes to Mulla Qasim Nanotwi and other big shots of Deoband, U.P to learn Urdu. He also checks accounts of the Madrasah. (Numerous references such as Haqaiq-o-Maarif, Deoband May 1975).


31. "Maulana” Yousuf Bannuri writes: The Prophet told my father, Zakaria! When you fall sick I also fall sick. Hazrat Ali had come to conduct the marriage of my father and mother. (In the 19th century!) (Iman-e-Khalis, pp. 7 and 8, Hazrat Masooduddin Usmani, Fazil Uloom Deenia)








Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 1

video
http://youtu.be/UqzGHWP5Kj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq1TydMYFJc




Two weeks later ‘Noakhali Day’ was observed in the Muslim-minority state of Bihar. On that fateful day, October 25, all hell broke loose on the Muslims of Bihar. What was done to the Muslims of Bihar in the name of religion was also an insult to humanity. Patna, Moonghyr and Bhagalpur districts were also engulfed. After the riots were over, Mahatma Gandhi visited Bihar with Baba Khan and after viewing the scenes of blood and gore came down heavily on the Congress leadership. If Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi was following in the shadow of Mahatma Gandhi from August 1947 to February 1948, it was not because of his love for peace. He hoped that being in the company of Gandhiji would perhaps save him. yet another blood-stream erupted in the northern areas of Punjab. Like the dates of the riots in Bengal and Bihar, the dates of those in Punjab also require special attention. The government of Khizir Hayat resigned on March 2. Instead of inviting the Muslim League to form government, the Governor Jean Kinz imposed governor’s rule in Punjab under the article 93 of the Government of India Act 1935. Shaukat Hayat writes:

“The unfortunate event of forming government in Punjab by ignoring the Muslims became the cause of disturbances in Punjab and riots across the country. ...He (the governor) could not gauge the impending dangerous consequences of the act. As a result, thousands of Muslims were killed in East Punjab while many Hindus were slaughtered in West Punjab.”

Sardar Shaukat Hayat’s memory has failed him here because he did not think it appropriate to indicate that the riots in Wah, Taxila, Quetta, Jhelum, Rawalpindi, Campbellpur and Chakwal started on March 4, 1947 ( that is, two days after the Muslim League could not form government). He did not also explain what the cause-and-effect relation was between the Muslim League not forming government and the riots in the backward and illiterate region of Pothuhar as most of the inhabitants there were not eligible to vote because of their failure in fulfilling the pre-conditions related to tax, education and property. Sardar Shaukat Hayat who was removed from the state ministry in 1943 at the age of 28 on grounds of impropriety himself belonged to the Khad tribe of Wah in Pothuhar region and was the son of the former Prime Minister of Punjab Sikandar Hayat. He was the maternal uncle of the popular leader of the Left wing revolutionaries Tariq Ali. Apparently, Sardar Shaukat Hayat’s hand can be suspected in the riots starting in the first week of March 1947. However, this allegation should not be made merely on the basis of assumptions. Let us see what Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi (then a senior official in the railways) says in this connection in his autobiography:

“(During that period), Sardar Shaukat Hayat called me and told me that serious riots were going to happen for which weapons must be collected. Those would come from the Frontier Province but the co-operation of the railway staff was required. I gathered the Muslims of the line staff. They showed their readiness and swore that they would not retreat even if they had to go to jail or even lay down their lives. A committee was formed and responsibilities were distributed. I gave all the details to Sardar Shaukat Hayat. He told me to go to Delhi at once and apprise Liaqat Ali Khan of the developments. I reached Delhi the following day. Liaqat Ali Khan was the Finance Minister in the Muslim League-Congress coalition government. He probably had before-hand information of my arrival. Seeing my card he called me and listened to all the details attentively. He promised me further instructions and asked me to keep it a secret. During the same time I was appointed the deputy secretary in the Finance ministry and shifted from Lahore to Delhi. I do not know how useful the organisation formed by me was but from the large scale killings that took place afterwards; I can guess that it must have helped to an extent.”

It can be said that such a serious allegation cannot be made against an important political leader merely on the basis of a statement made by a government official. It would be appropriate to get the testimony of Major Gen. (Retd) Shahid Hamid. In his autobiography, he writes:

“The riots against the Hindus and the Sikhs started in Pindi. At that time it was common knowledge that a young Muslim League leader, who was a retired army officer and a scion of a big feudal family, started the ‘work’ in the love of his community and as an Islamic duty. In those days, the Muslims considered this something done in the love of community. When I met Brigadier Noor Ahmad Hussain in connection of the book being discussed, he told me that he had coincidentally met the leader, who was now among the aged politicians, in Londo in 1980s. He had taken him to his flat in Hyde Park. The aged politician neither denied his involvement nor regretted it, nor did he betray any sense of repentance over the riots. Rather, Noor Ahmad Hussain was surprised that even after such a long time he defended it, understandably because he had greatly benefitted from the riots.

Sardar Shaukat Hayat himself writes in his autobiography: “After the massacre in Bihar, the Muslim soldiers who belonged to Rawalpindi division were suddenly sent on leave, in violation of rules and regulations, so that after being witness to the massacre in Bihar they could start looting, killing and raping in this soldier-producing area in retaliation. Sardar Shaukat Hayat atleast admitted that the Muslim soldiers were involved in the killings of non-Muslim population. A notable aspect is that when the Governor of Punjab sent the former President of Punjab Congress Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi to Punjab in order to control the riots, Sardar Shaukat Hayat became agitated. He objected arguing that the Maulana ‘had no reputation’ in the area. However, when Sardar Shaukat Hayat was handed over the task, in his own words, “I got the killings stopped within 24 hours”. Sub-han Allah( Praise be to Allah), what a joke! The fire raging across the length and breadth of the Pothuhar died down within 24 hours whereas when it was needed, the son-in-law of the cashier of Peshawar College could not be controlled. (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolutions and Secularism-XII By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2700




Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 2

video
http://youtu.be/Kw64zU2Ajag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d7EPGEdG0w



It was well said by Maj. General (retired) Shahid Hamid that in those days it was ‘common knowledge’. Well, Gentlemen, it was also common knowledge that the bloodletting in Lahore especially the nude procession of the non-Muslim girls outside the AMO College was orchestrated by the woman who proudly claimed to be the ‘king’s aide’. The famous much-quoted remark by Abdul Majid Salik has now become obsolete. What was the magnitude of the storm that had hit the Punjab in March 1947, and who were those Sikhs? They were the sons and daughters of this soil who had converted to Sikhism in the 16th and 17th century, rejecting the shackles of casteism in Hinduism. These lovers of the soil do not smoke and do not trim their heir for the sake of their identity. They lived life to the full, and still do. They love and hate to the beating of the drum. More than half of the medals won by Indian soldiers during the first and second World War went to the Sikh brave-hearts. They are hardworking, honest and simple-hearted. The land, the rivers, the fields and the seasons of Punjab identify themselves with the followers of Sikhism. The prosperity of Punjab in the 20th century was indebted to the hard work of the Sikh men and women. They erected three-storeyed buildings in small villages. Go around the world and you will not find a friend like a Sikh with a selfless warmth of friendship in his heart. No religious building but the Gurudwara has doors in its four walls. People can enter and exit through whichever door they wish, as the Sikhs have a big heart.

After the resignation of the Khizir government on March 2, 1947, the Muslim League could not form government. It was commonly believed that the riots starting on March 4, 1947 were an attempt to cover up its political failure in forming the government. Sections of the Muslim League had made the Article 93 of the Government of India Act 1935 a ploy, though the governor’s step did not in any way have any connection with the riots in Pindi and Multan.

All hell broke loose on the Sikhs of Pindi, Jhelum, Chakwal, Taxila, Wah and Gujar Khan on March 4, 1947. They were slaughtered and burnt alive; their heir was trimmed; they were circumcised in public; they were forced to convert to Islam. The modesty of Sikh women was enraged. The wells in the Pothuhar region were stacked with the dead bodies of Sikh girls. In Kahuta village alone, 2000 Sikhs were burnt alive.

The Vice-roy Lord Mount Batten had been a witness to the second World War. When he visited north Punjab in 1947, he at once decided that there was no other solution to the problem of India than the partition. Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi had issued a joint appeal to stop the riots in Pothuhar. Tears and drops of blood do not have any religion; they do not distinguish among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. Politics in religion is like the bull in a china shop. It scares humanity away.

In the united Punjab, the population of Muslims was 55%, of Hindus 25% and of Sikhs 20%. The announcement of the bifurcation of Punjab had shocked the Sikhs deeply. One fourth of their total population was rooted in west Punjab while the two-third was in east Punjab. Nevertheless, a large part of the costly urban property and the fertile agricultural land in the western Punjab particularly in Montgomery and Layllpur was occupied by the Sikhs.

Although the leadership of the Muslim League and the Congress had announced their acceptance of the Radcliffe Award, the Sikh leadership did not bind themselves with the agreement. They had the apprehension that their population would be split in 66% and 33% across the two countries. Moreover, they were very desperate to avenge the Pindi riots that lasted for two-three weeks in March and in which the dead were almost 100% Sikhs. Master Tara Singh was an emotional leader who had shouted the slogan “Jo Pakistan mangega, use Qabristhan dia jayega’ (those who will demand Pakistan will get graves)” waving kirpan on the stairs of Punjab Assembly. In the riots in March, Master Tara Singh’s mother was among the women burnt alive near Taxila.

Sikh leadership had opted for the former between India and Pakistan and, therefore, they had the apprehension that the Sikhs left in the west Punjab would not get proper security. The opposition of the Sikhs to the bifurcation of Punjab was illogical and emotional. The demand for the bifurcation of Bengal and Punjab was made by the Congress and not by the Muslim League. Following the division, the division of the Sikh community was now inevitable.

The British government had already decided to grant independence to India in August 1947 instead of June 1948. At this juncture, the opposition of the bifurcation of Punjab by the Sikh leaders was futile. Any change in the plan of the division of Punjab, or of India, for that matter, was not possible in this phase. On the contrary, fiery and inflammatory speeches could only spark riots. Nevertheless, the Sikh leadership was getting more and more desperate due to their political discomfiture to avenge the Rawalpindi massacre.

According to intelligence reports, the Sikhs had made all the preparations for retaliatory actions as early as in May. However, the civil administration and other institutions were active to a great extent till May which helped to expose the conspiracies to kill and loot one after the other. But in the last weeks of July and the first weeks of August the administration had become divided on communal lines. The intelligence system was also in complete disarray. The standards of recruitment in the British civil services had gone down during the second World War as more qualified youths were joining the army. On the one hand, the Muslim and non-Muslim subordinate officers had realised that the British rulers were on their way out and, therefore, there was no hope of getting benefits in the form of promotions, appointments and rewards from them. On the other hand, the British knew that their stay in India was a matter of weeks. Naturally, their efficiency was affected. (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution Secularism-XIII By Wajahat Masood  http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2719



Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 3

video
http://youtu.be/KCx2uYlGVaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esM7e0dTT9Q



One angle of the administrative chaos was that the transfer of a large number of the government officers to Pakistan or India on religious lines had become inevitable. Because of the possibility of migration also there was a decline in the sense of responsibility, discipline or the fear of authorities’ reprimand among the administrative officials. In the united Punjab, Lahore was the administrative centre. The systems of all the important government offices, banks, railways, telephones, radio, and the roads were centralised in Lahore. Unfortunately, Lahore was the centre of communal skirmishes that took place from time to time in the months of May, June and July. In the united Punjab, Lahore and Amritsar were like twin cities. Apart from the geographical proximity between the two cities there was a striking similarity in social, cultural and civilisational approaches there. The only difference was that Lahore was regarded as the centre of Muslim society and culture while Amritsar represented Sikh culture.

After mid-July both the cities became a part of such a communal confrontation that can be called the duet of barbarism. The irresponsible inflammatory oration of the religious leaders of two communities was reaching its crescendo. The cut-off organs of Muslim victims would be sent to Lahore in brass containers (the circumcised organs would indicate the religious identity of the dead). The next day, the brave men of Lahore would despatch a gift of similar nature to Amritsar. A train of Muslim refugees coming from east Punjab was slaughtered in Amritsar, and the next day a whole train of non-Muslim refugees was massacred. When a procession of nude girls was taken out in Lahore, the Muslim girls were meted out the same treatment in the streets of Amritsar the following day. When the Muslim localities were burnt down in Amritsar, the incidents of burning down of non-Muslim localities started in Lahore. A number of Muslim authors have written in their books without any regret or remorse, rather with a little pride that in the non-Muslim locality of Lahore called Shah Almi which was a marvel of architecture, the Hindus had made proper arrangements for protection against the attacks of the rioters. But some Muslim youths sneaked into Shah Almi through underground drains, and the locality comprising beautiful timber framed homes turned into ashes in no time.

With a view to the possible failure of civil administration in controlling the riots, the Chief of the Army of the united India, Field Marshal, Aukin Lake had constituted Punjab Boundary Force which was headed by the renowned commander of the second World War Major General Thomas Winsford Reese. He enjoyed the advisories from Brig. Ayub Khan from Pakistan and Brig. Brar from India. This Boundary Force had been active from August 1, 1947 to August 31, 1947 in 12 districts of Punjab. The 12 distrcits were Lahore, Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Jullunder , Ludhiana, Ferozpur, Gojranwala, Montgomery, Layllpur, Sheikhpura and Sialkot. The total population of these twelve districts was one crore and thirty five lakh and the total area was 37 thousand 600 square miles. These districts located on either side of the proposed Radcliffe Line were the centres of the riots in the later half of 1947.

The report presented by Maj. Gen. Reese to his Supreme Commander on September 1, 1947 after the dissolution of the Punjab Boundary Force, is an eye opener. The original copy of the report is kept in the department of manuscripts of Birmingham University, Britain. At one point, Mr Maj. Gen. Reese writes:

“The 80% of the personnel in the police of the united Punjab were Muslim, but the non-Muslim authorities issued an order to disarm the Muslim jawans. In these circumstances the disarmed Muslim jawans refused to discharge their duties and went over to Pakistan.” Though the partisan attitude of the Muslim jawans might be the reason behind their being disarmed, it should also be considered how the disarmed police could discharge their duties during the riots.

According to Maj. Gen. Reese, “the number of security personnel in the Jullundur Division alone had come down by 7000 from its original strength because the Muslim police personnel had shifted to Pakistan. In Amritsar tehsil, only 200 out of 600 policemen were left. The situation was the same in other districts.”

This aspect should also be kept in mind that after the Second World War was over, the trained Sikh soldiers had come back to their homes. Even the armed police was no match for these battle-hardened soldiers. Ordinary citizens were simply at their mercy. The soldiers were burning with the desire for revenge. Higher Muslim and non-Muslim officials had become completely biased. You have read about the ‘professional impartiality’ of Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi in connection with his dealings with Sardar Shaukat Hayat. The assistant commissioner of Bhagalpur Qudratullah Shahab, in his book, Shahab Nama, has narrated with pride the incidents of his passing of the official correspondence over to Qaid-e-Azam, transgressing his official powers.

Choudhry Md Ali has openly admitted in his book “Emergence of Pakistan” that it was he who had advised the Muslim League leadership to accept the Finance Ministry in 1946 and had vowed that he would make life hell for other ministries. A reading of “Sarguzasht”( A personal account), the autobiography of Zulfiqar Ali Bukhari, a senior officer of the All India Radio, can easily give you an idea of his ‘secular credentials’.

In the given circumstances, it would not be farfetched to assume that the non-Muslim government officials too must have been engaged in similar kind of mischief-mongering with the Congress, particularly with Sardar Vallabh Patel. In this context, the name of Randhawa, the then deputy commissioner of Delhi, has gained proverbial proportions.

The tales of persecutions and oppression committed in the east Punjab are documented in countless books. Among them, Khwaja Iftekhar’s famous book, ‘Jab Amritsar jal raha tha’ (When Amritsar was burning) is an impressive one. In his autobiography, the renowned cartoonist and Punjabi fiction-writer Anwar Ali has penned the details of the horrible days in Ludhiana from the point of view of a humanist. The Oxford University Press has published a book titled “ Common Legacy”, but its contributors—Shaista Ekramullah, Khushwant Singh, Shahla Shibli, Mukhtar Zaman, Aruna Asaf Ali, Brij Kumar Nehru and Pandu Chintamani---are so ‘secular-minded and conscientious’ that a no-holds-barred narration of bitter historical truths cannot be expected from them. (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution and Secularism –14 By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2737

Wrongly reviled today as the ‘epicentre’ of ‘Islamic terrorism’, the Dar ul-‘Ulum in Deoband, one of the largest madrasas in the world, played a leading role in spearheading India’s freedom movement. The active involvement of many Deobandi ‘ulama in the struggle against the British is today a little-remembered story. Indian school textbooks refuse to mention it, probably deliberately in order to reinforce the stereotypical, yet misplaced, image of Muslims as congenitally ‘anti-national’. At the same time, however, they extol the alleged exploits of Hindutva activists in the fight against the British, while records have proven beyond doubt that leading Hindutva spokesmen, in the Congress, the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, actually collaborated with the British and worked against the freedom movement. In this they played a similar role as that of the Muslim League. One of the leading figures of India’s freedom movement was Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni (1879-1957). Madni served for decades as the rector of the Deoband madrasa and as head of the Deobandi-dominated Jam’at ul-‘Ulama-I Hind (‘The Union of the ‘Ulama of India’). Madni was also a leading Muslim political activist, and was closely involved in the Congress Party in pre-1947 India. At a time when the Muslim League under Jinnah had raised its demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan, based on the so-called ‘two nation’ theory, Madni came out forcefully as a champion of a free and united India. He insisted, arguing against the claims of both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha (which, too, subscribed to a ‘two nation’ theory of its own version), that all the inhabitants of India were members of a ‘united nationality’ (muttahida qaumiyat) despite their religious and other differences. Hence, he argued, Muslims, Hindus and others must join hands to work for an independent, united India, where all communities would enjoy equal rights and freedoms. Madni elaborated on his theory of ‘united nationalism’ in a book penned in the early 1940s as a reply to Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s critique of his own political position. By this time, Iqbal had turned into an ardent pan-Islamist and had clearly distanced himself from his earlier nationalist stance. Madni’s book ‘Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam’ (‘United Nationalism and Islam’) was published before 1947, and long remained unavailable after that, being only recently reprinted by the Jami’at ul-‘Ulama-i Hind’s headquarters in Delhi. Madni’s central argument is that Islam is not opposed to a united nationalism based on a common motherland (vatan), language (zaban), ethnicity (nasl) or colour (rang), which brings together Muslims and non-Muslims sharing one or more of these attributes in common. In the Indian context, a united nationalism that embraces Muslims and other peoples is, therefore, he says, perfectly acceptable Islamically. In making this argument he stridently opposed Iqbal and the Muslim League, as well as radical Islamists such as Sayyed Abul ‘Ala Maududi, founder of the Jama’at-i Islami. As a Muslim religious scholar, Madni naturally sought to justify his argument in Islamic terms. He marshalled support from the Qur’an and from records of the practice (sunnat) of the Prophet in support of his thesis. He noted that the word ‘qaum’, which is used as synonymous with ‘nation’, appears some 200 times in the Qur’an. It is sometimes used in the Qur’an to refer to the ‘people’ of a particular prophet, such as the ‘qaum’ of Noah or the ‘qaum’ of Abraham, and in these contexts it applies to all the members of these communities, including both the followers as well as opponents of these prophets. In other words, these Qur’anic verses suggest that the prophets and their followers as well as those among their own people groups who opposed them were considered to be part of the same ‘qaum’, owing to a common land, language or ethnicity. This is further evident from the fact that the Qur’an mentions various prophets as addressing those among their own people who rejected them as members of their own ‘qaum’, exhorting them to heed God’s word. From this, Madni argues, it is clear that, in contrast to the claims of the Muslim League and Maududi, Muslims and non-Muslims cannot be considered to be members of two different ‘qaums’ if they share a common ethnicity, language or motherland. If they share these traits in common they can be said to belong to the same ‘qaum’. The ‘two nation’ theory (do qaumi nazariya) of the Muslim League, therefore, has no Qur’anic basis at all. Having thus argued that Muslims and non-Muslims who share the same country or ethnicity should be considered to be members of a single ‘qaum’, Madni suggests that on issues of common concern Muslim and non-Muslim members of a particular ‘qaum’ can, indeed should, work together. This means, he says, that the Indian Muslims must join hands with non-Muslim Indians, on the basis of belonging to the same ‘qaum’, and work together for the unity, freedom and prosperity of the country. In seeking proper Islamic legitimacy for this argument, Madni draws upon the practice of the Prophet. When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, he writes, he entered into an agreement (mu’ahada, mithaq) with the Jewish tribes of the town. According to the terms of the treaty, the Muslims and Jews of Medina were to enjoy equal rights, including full freedom of religion. They were also to jointly work for the protection of Medina from external foes. Interestingly, the treaty identified the signatories to the treaty, the Jews and Muslims of Medina, as members of a single community or ‘ummat’. This suggests, Madni argues, that Muslims and non-Muslims of a particular state or country could be considered to be members of a common ‘ummat’ if they entered into a similar treaty. REFERENCE: ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES The 'United Nationalism' of Maulana Madni - i By Yoginder Sikand Published in the 1-15 Aug 2004 print edition of MG; http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Aug04-Print-Edition/011508200434.htm

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 4


Each individual, Madni writes, has multiple identities. One can be a Muslim, an Indian, a trade unionist or a politician at the same time without these various identities being regarded as contradictory to each other in any way. While Islam binds together Muslims all over the world, this does not negate the 'national' or 'qaumi' particularity of different Muslim groups that binds them to non-Muslims from the same 'qaum'. Following the example of the treaty of Medina, Muslim and non-Muslim members of the same 'qaum' can work together for the overall social, educational, economic and political progress of their common homeland, as well as for defending their country. The Jews and Muslims of Medina were, under the joint treaty that they entered to, required to jointly defend the town from external enemies. In the Indian case, both Muslims and non-Muslims face a common external enemy — the British —and hence, following the sunnat of the Prophet, they must jointly struggle to oppose them, based on a commitment to and consciousness of belonging to the same ‘qaum’ and ‘millat’. By thus stressing the 'Islamicity' of his demand, Madni forcefully interrogates his Muslim opponents who claim that his theory of 'united nationalism' would result in Muslims losing their separate religious and cultural identity, and being absorbed into the Hindu fold in the name of a homogenous Indian nationalism. As elsewhere, here, too, Madni argues in strictly 'Islamic' terms to press his case. The British, he writes, are the greatest enemy of Islam and the Muslims. Most Muslim lands, he notes, have been occupied by the British, whom he also blames for having overthrown the Ottoman Caliphate. In India, the British deposed the last Mughal Emperor and brought centuries of what he (erroneously) calls 'Muslim rule' to an abrupt end. To add to this, British education and culture, he says, are exercising a pernicious influence on many young Muslims, causing them to abandon their faith and culture. In this sense, then, Britain is the greatest enemy of the Muslims the world over, including in India. This being the case, the future of Islam and the Muslims crucially depends on the Muslims' ability to challenge British imperialism. In the Indian context, the British can be overthrown only if Muslims join hands with other Indians in a joint struggle. No single community can effectively challenge the British on its own. Hence, the necessity of Muslims joining hands with other Indians, based on a commitment to a 'united nationalism', to rid India of the British and thereby protect and promote what Madni sees as the larger interests of Islam. Since 'united nationalism' is important not simply in itself, but also for the cause of Islam, Madni charges those Muslims, such as members of the Muslim League, who oppose his thesis as playing, inadvertently or otherwise, into the hands of the British, the most inveterate foes of Islam, and thereby working against the interests of their community and religion. The British, he says, are deliberately seeking to create confusion and scare Muslims into imagining that in a free India Muslims would lose their separate identity, and be absorbed into the Hindu fold. In this way, they aim at de-politicising the Muslims, weaning them away from the struggle for independence. Ultimately, this serves to further protect and entrench British imperialism. Hence, he suggests, the ‘two nation’ theory and the demand for Pakistan, which is supported by the British to divide the anti-imperialist movement, cannot be said to be ‘Islamic’ at all. Madni insists that the fear that the advocates of Pakistan play on—the absorption of Muslims into the Hindu fold in a Hindu-dominated united India—is not warranted. He writes that when Muslims first came to India, they were very few in number. Yet, they did not fear being absorbed into the Hindu fold, and rather than abandoning the country, they stayed here and rose to the position of rulers. Today, he says, Muslims are much larger in number, and so the possibility of losing their identity if they live in a united India alongside other communities is even more remote. Taking a dig at the advocates of a separate Pakistan, he says that a Muslim majority state is no guarantee that Muslims would be able to preserve their Islamic identity. Egypt is a Muslim-majority country, but yet it is being swept by the winds of 'irreligiousness' and 'atheism'. It is thus not the communal composition of the population of a country that can guarantee its religious identity. Muslims will be able to preserve their Islamic identity only if they make organised efforts to do so. This applies in the case of both Muslim-majority as well as Muslim-minority countries. It would, Madni says, apply equally to Muslims living as a minority in a united India as it would to Muslims living in the proposed Muslim-majority state of Pakistan to which he is firmly opposed. In the united India that Madni envisages, communities would be defined essentially on a religious basis. Each community would be allowed full freedom to follow its own religion and personal laws and to preserve its culture, within the bounds of general morality and social peace. All communities would enjoy equal rights and no one would be discriminated against on the grounds of religion. While religious communities would, therefore, be culturally autonomous, in matters of common this-worldly concern their members would work together for the overall benefit of society. Madni argued that this was perfectly acceptable according to his understanding of Islam. The shar'iah, he wrote, had left several spheres of life open to new rules depending on changing conditions. In some other spheres, the rules that it lay down, such as punishments of certain crimes, were applicable only in an Islamic state, and could not be enforced in the absence of such a state. Hence, he argued, it was possible, even from the point of view of the shar'iah as he conceived it, for Muslims to live in a secular, united India as co-citizens, instead of rulers, along with people of other faiths. In such a state, Muslims need not fear the prospect of losing their identity. Since they would have full freedom of religion, they could set up organizations and schools of their own to preserve and promote their religion and culture and to ensure that these were transmitted to their children. Six decades after Madni penned his plea for a united India much has changed, but much more seems to have remained the same. Despite Madni's pleas, India was partitioned, thus fulfilling the dreams of the Muslim League and its Hindu counterparts, who were equally opposed to a common Indianhood. Far from solving the communal 'problem', Partition only exacerbated it by converting what was till then a domestic issue into an international one. In India itself, the Medina model of interfaith faith entente remains a far cry, with the rise of Hindutva fascism and Islamist militancy in Kashmir. And what could be a more telling sign of the way that we have headed that while in Pakistan Madni is remembered as a vehement foe, in India we have completely erased him from our history books? (Concluded) REFERENCE: ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES The ‘United Nationalism’ of Maulana Madni-ii By Yoginder Sikand Published in the 16-31 Aug 2004 print edition of MG; http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31Aug04-Print-Edition/163108200472.htm

No comments: