Javed Ahmed Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmed Parwez.

This is the Muslim predicament. The new millennium has not seen the Muslims moving closer to the modern state but revolting against it. The politicians and the people are scared of discussing the problem but they are privately absorbing the debate. The private channels have done a few good things and a few bad ones, always following the market. They have downgraded religion to a mantra by following the istikhara market, but they have also begun discussing religion and its relationship with the state seriously. Is Pakistan being affected by this discourse? Not yet. Significantly, the politicians are staying away from the debate. GEO (January 1, 2006) discussed Islam and the state in Fifty Minutes, Dr Mubarak Ali said that religion did not mix well with the state. He said talk of ijtihad was meaningless because there was no guarantee that any Muslims would accept it. He said every time someone did ijtihad it gave birth to a new sect. He said the two-nation doctrine was no longer valid in Pakistan. The concept of ummah was equally irrelevant. He said if the Muslims wanted to get together they should create a bloc of states but not based on religion. Religion must remain in the private domain. The nation-state was the reality in our times. It was no longer possible to discriminate against the non-Muslims on the excuse of Islam. He said before 1947 ideology had no reference in what was later called the Pakistan Movement. REFERENCE: SECOND OPINION: Who is listening to the ‘new debate’?— Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review - Daily Times, January 21, 2006 New Debate in Pakistan: Religion and State? Hassan Abbas TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006 http://watandost.blogspot.com/2006/02/new-debate-in-pakistan-religion-and.html

SECOND OPINION: Who is listening to the ‘new debate’?—Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review Tuesday, February 21, 2006 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\21\story_21-2-2006_pg3_3

Ghulam Ahmed Parwez & Mullahs.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3g-uFryvvw

The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure). In none of the writings of the Jama’at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite: “Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all. [Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25] Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: “Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path.” [Reference: The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37] Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi’s writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contrad...ictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: “Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work.” [Reference: Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi- e-Hind aur Mussalman] (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 22-23] He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims ...were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941). However, Maulana Maududi’s stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed at that critical moment. [Reference: Ulema in Politics by Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi , p-368]

"QUOTE"

Takfir or the condemnation of a Muslim by another Muslim as a kafir is strictly prohibited in the Quran, the Hadith, and the writings of many eminent Muslim authorities. This section presents quotes from the Quran, Hadith, and Muslim theologians on the prohibition of Takfir (calling a Muslim as a kafir). Also, the view held by Muslim theologians' that a person cannot be called kafir on the grounds that he differs with a commonly-accepted interpretation of some religious point. One chief argument advanced by our opponents is that Ahmadis are kafir because the leaders of various Muslim groups have issued fatwas (rulings) against them, describing them as kafir. But the fact is that all these sects have also issued fatwas of the same sort against each other. Their fatwas declare Muslims to be kafir on the most trivial grounds. Therefore by this argument, every Muslim in the world can be proved to be a kafir! Ghulam Ahmad Pervez of Lahore is a well-known Pakistani Islamic thinker and writer, representing the Ahl-i Quran tendency, and founder of the Idara Tulu`-i-Islam (Institute of the Dawn of Islam). In the monthly journal of this institute, entitled Tulu`-i-Islam, dated August 1969, there is an extensive article headed Fatwas of Kufr (Rulings of Heresy) quoting fatwas of various Sunni groups condemning one another as kafir. All but the first two and the last section are taken from this article.

"``The non-conformist (ghair muqallid) sect, whose distinctive outward manner [of prayer] in this country is saying Amen aloud, raising the hands [during the prayer], folding the arms on the chest, and reciting the Al-Hamd behind the Imam, are excluded from the Sunnis, and are like other misguided sects, because many of their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. It is not permissible to pray behind them. To mix with them socially and sit with them, and to let them enter mosques at their pleasure, is prohibited in Islamic Shari`ah.''

(This bears the seals of nearly seventy Ulama. Reference the book: Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabis from mosques, p. 8.)

``He who calls conformism (taqlid) as prohibited, and conformists as polytheists, is a kafir according to Islamic Shari`ah, and in fact a murtadd [apostate].''

(Book: Discipline of mosques with regard to the expulsion of mischief-makers from mosques)

``It is obligatory upon the Ulama and Muftis that, by merely hearing of such a thing, they should not hesitate to issue fatwas of heresy and apostasy. Otherwise, they themselves would be included among the apostates.''

(ibid.)

Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, has quoted the beliefs of all sections of the non-conformists, and given the fatwa:

``All these groups are murtadd and kafir. He who doubts their being kafirs, is himself a kafir.''

(Book Hisam al Haramain)"

(Tulu'-i-Islam, August, 1969)

"``Question: What say the Ulama and the Muftis regarding the conformist (muqallid) group, who follow only one Imam [i.e. Hanafis]. Are they Sunnis or not? Is it valid to pray behind them or not? Is it permissible to allow them into mosques, and to mix with them socially?

``Answer: Undoubtedly, prayers are not permissible behind conformists because their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. In fact, some of their beliefs and practices lead to polytheism, and others spoil prayers. It is not correct in Islamic Shari`ah to allow such conformists into mosques.''

(This bears the seals of nineteen priests. (Reference the book: Collection of Fatwas, pp. 54,--,55)

The late Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan wrote:

``The word polytheist can be applied to conformists, and polytheism can be applied to conformism. Most people today are conformists. The Quranic verse, `Most people believe not, they are but polytheists', applies quite well to them.''

(Iqtarab as-Sa`a, p. 16)

Not only Hanafis, but all of them:

``The followers of all the four Imams and the followers of the four Sufi orders, viz. Hanafi, Shafi`i, Maliki, Hanbali, Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, Naqshbandiyya and Mujaddidiyya are all kafirs.''

(Jami al-Shuhood, p. 2)"

(Tulu'-i-Islam, August 1969)

"Fatwa of three hundred Ulama against Deobandis

``The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets, and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is himself a murtadd and kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them, and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grave-yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.'' (See the Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama, published by Muhammad Ibrahim of Bhagalpur)

Deobandis should be declared non-Muslim minority

In March 1953, a poster was put up on walls in Karachi titled:

``Demands: Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority''.

Among other things it said:

``Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.''

After this it was demanded that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 persons

(see Tulu`-i-Islam, May 1953, p. 64).

Fatwa of Deobandis against Barelvis

Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband has, in his book, tried to show that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir, Anti- Christ of this century, murtadd, and excluded from Islam.

(See the booklet Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir.)

The opposite side

Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelvi) has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi (founder of the school at Deoband) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (of Deoband), and then added:

``They are all murtadd [apostate] according to the unanimous view (ijma) of Muslims.''

This fatwa bears the signatures and seals of Ulama of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir :

1.They deny the finality of prophethood;

2.They insult the Holy Prophet;

3.They believe that God can tell a lie.

Hence it is written about them:

``He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.''

(Hisam al-Haramain, pp. 100 and 113)"

(Tulu'-i-Islam, August 1969)

"You will have seen that all the sects, whether Hanafis, Ahl-i Hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi, and all the Sufi orders such as Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, etc., have had fatwas of heresy and apostasy pronounced against them. And not only sects, but the prominent men of these sects have had fatwas directed against them individually.

Maulana Nazir Husain of Delhi (Ahl-i Hadith) was called disputant, doubter, follower of base passions, jealous, dishonest and alterer (of the Quran).

Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalavi, along with the above Maulana, was called devil, atheist, stupid, senseless, faithless, etc. This fatwa bears the seals of 82 Ulama of Arabia and elsewhere.

(Book Nazar al-Haq)

Maulana Sana-Ullah of Amritsar (Ahl-i Hadith) had fatwas directed against him which were obtained in Makka. It is written about his commentary of the Quran:

``It is the writing of a misguided person, one who has invented new doctrines. In his commentary he has collected beliefs such as re-incarnation and the doctrines of the Mu`tazila [an early extreme Muslim sect]. It is neither permissible to obtain knowledge from Maulana Sana-ullah, nor to follow him. His evidence cannot be accepted, nor can he lead prayers. There is no doubt regarding his heresy and apostasy… His commentary deserves to be cut to pieces. In fact, it is forbidden to see it except for the purpose of refuting it.''

(Faisila Makka, pp. 15--20)

Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi):

Referring to an article of his, the weekly Tarjuman Islam of Lahore carried the following extract in its issue for 10 November 1961:

``Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, Deobandi, was a first-rate scholar and servant of Quran and Hadith. He needs no introduction. But one was very shocked by a letter of his which contained the grotesque idea of the denial of Hadith. This concept goes beyond the Mu`tazila, and breaks the records of the ideologies of Chakralvi and Pervez.''

All those whose record is said to be broken by Husain Ahmad Madani, have had fatwas of kufr directed against them. This makes it clear that Maulana Madani too is considered a kafir.

Maulana Maudoodi:

Abul Ala Maudoodi and his party have been the subject of fatwas by Ulama of nearly every sect.

1. Mufti Muhzar-ullah, of Jami Fatehpuri in Delhi, wrote in his fatwa:

``On the very face of it, these things [beliefs of Maudoodi's party] exclude a Muslim from the Sunnis, and lead to divisions among the believers, and is the basis of making a new sect. But looking closely, these things take one to heresy. In this case, they do not make a new sect, but result in one's entry into the group of apostates.''

2. Maulana Hafiz-ullah of Aligarh has written:

``Whatever was the position of the Zarar mosque, similar is the position of this [i.e. Maudoodi's] party.''

[Note: The Zarar mosque was a mosque built by some hypocrite Muslims in Madina during the Holy Prophet's time for the purpose of conspiring against Islam].

The word kufr is used about the Zarar mosque in the Holy Quran. Hence the same word applies to these people.

3. Maulana Izaz Ali, Deobandi, wrote in his fatwa:

``I consider this [i.e. Maudoodi's] party to be even more harmful for the faith of the Muslims than are the Ahmadis.''

4. Mufti Sayyid Mahdi Hasan, President-Mufti of the theological school at Deoband, writes in his fatwa:

``If an Imam of a mosque agrees with the views of Maudoodi, it is a hateful matter to pray behind him.''

5. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi) wrote in a letter to Maudoodi:

``Your `Islamic' movement is against the righteous tradition in Islam. It is like the [extremist] sects of old such as Mu`tazila, Khwarij and Rafiz. It resembles modern sects such as Qadiani, Chakralvi [deniers of Hadith], Naturi [rationalist], and Baha'i [i.e. the Baha'i religion]. It seeks to make a new Islam. It is based on principles, beliefs and practices which are against the Sunnis and Islam.''

6. The Committee of Ulama of Maulana Ahmad Ali wrote in a poster against Maudoodi:

``His reasoning is devilry against the Quran.''

It is then added:

``May God save all Muslims from Maudoodi and the evil and deceit of his so-called Islamic Party.''

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan [prominent Muslim modernist leader and founder of the Aligarh University for Muslims, d. 1898]:

In his biography Hayat-i Jawaid by Maulana Hali, the storm of condemnation and takfir against Sir Sayyid is fully detailed. Read some of these lines:

``Sir Sayyid was called atheist, irreligious, Christian, nature-worshipper, anti-Christ, and many other things. Fatwas that he was a kafir were prepared, and signatures of Maulavis of every town and city were obtained. Even those who remained silent against Sir Sayyid as regards takfir, were called kafir.''

(p. 623)

``All the Muslim sects in India, be they Sunni or Shiah, conformist or non-conformist, the seals and signatures of the known and unknown Ulama and priests of all these are on these fatwas.''

(p. 627)

A fatwa was obtained from Makka, bearing the seals of Muftis of all the four schools, in which it was written:

``This man is an heretic, or he was inclined to unbelief (kufr) from Islamic law in some aspect…If he repents before he is arrested, and turns away from his misguided views, and there are clear signs of repentance from him, then he should not be killed. Otherwise, it is obligatory to kill him for the sake of the faith.''

(p. 633)

Jinnah and Iqbal [revered in Pakistan as fathers of the nation]:

Sir Sayyid had at least expressed views on religious matters. But these people also called Jinnah as ``the great kafir''. Even a true believer like Iqbal had a fatwa of kufr directed against him."

(Tulu'-i-Islam, August 1969)

Ghulam Ahmad Pervez, founder of the movement which publishes Tulu`-i-Islam, from which the last five sections were taken, was himself the subject of fatwas such as these two quoted below:

1. ``Ghulam Ahmad Pervez is a kafir according to Islamic Shari`ah, and excluded from the pale of Islam. No Muslim woman can remain married to him, nor can a Muslim woman enter into marriage with him. His funeral prayers cannot be said, nor is it permissible to bury him in a Muslim grave-yard. This applies not only to Pervez, but to every kafir. It also applies to any person who is a follower of his in these heretic beliefs. As he has become an apostate (murtadd), it is not permitted by the Shari`ah to have any kind of Islamic relations with him.''

``Signed: Wali Hasan Tonki, Mufti and teacher,

``Muhammad Yusuf Banori, Shaikh al-Hadith,

``Madrasa Arabiyya Islamiyya, New Town, Karachi.''

2. An organ of Maudoodi's Jama`at-i Islami gave the following fatwa about Pervez's followers:

``If they say that Shari`ah is only that which is contained in the Quran, and all that is besides this is not Shari`ah, then this is clear heresy. It is the same kind of heresy as the heresy of the Qadianis. In fact it is worse and more extreme than that.'' (article by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi, in the daily Tasneem, Lahore, 15 August 1952, p. 12)

One of the most famous public documents in the history of Pakistan is known commonly as the Munir Report, its official title being: Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. The disturbances referred to were instigated by a number of religious leaders (ulama) in pursuance of their demand that the government officially classify Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority community, and take certain other actions against members of this movement.

The disturbances were eventually quelled by the authorities, and a public court of inquiry appointed with Justice Muhammad Munir as president and Justice Kayani as member to investigate the causes of the trouble. The inquiry went into the underlying issues behind the events, carrying out an incisive analysis of the ulama's concept of an Islamic state. Its 387-page Report, which soon became a historic document, was presented in April 1954.

Referring to the ulama's call for Pakistan to be run as an official `Islamic' state, and to their demands against Ahmadis, the Report says:

``The question, therefore, whether a person is or is not a Muslim will be of fundamental importance, and it was for this reason that we asked most of the leading ulama to give their definition of a Muslim, the point being that if the ulama of the various sects believed the Ahmadis to be kafirs, they must have been quite clear in their minds not only about the grounds of such belief but also about the definition of a Muslim because the claim that a certain person or community is not within the pale of Islam implies on the part of the claimant an exact conception of what a Muslim is. The result of this part of the inquiry, however, has been anything but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be. Below we reproduce the definition of a Muslim given by each alim in his own words.''

(p. 215)

There then follow in the Report the answers given by various ulama to the question, What is the definition of a Muslim. At the end of the answers, the Report draws the following conclusion:

``Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else.''

(p. 218)

After this, under the heading Apostasy, the Report refers to the belief held by the ulama that, in an Islamic state, a Muslim who becomes a kafir is subject to the death penalty. The Report says:

``According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i-Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, if Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri or Mirza Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, or any one of the numerous ulama who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautiful tree in the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 14, were the head of such Islamic State. And if Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi were the head of the State, he would exclude those who have pronounced Deobandis as kafirs from the pale of Islam and inflict on them the death penalty if they come within the definition of murtadd, namely, if they have changed and not inherited their religious views.

``The genuineness of the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 13, by the Deobandis which says that Asna Ashari Shias are kafirs and murtadds, was questioned in the course of enquiry, but Maulana Muhammad Shafi made an inquiry on the subject from Deoband, and received from the records of that institution the copy of a fatwa signed by all the teachers of the Darul Uloom, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi himself which is to the effect that those who do not believe in the sahabiyyat of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and who are qazif of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa and have been guilty of tehrif of Quran are kafirs. This opinion is also supported by Mr Ibrahim Ali Chishti who has studied and knows his subject. He thinks the Shias are kafirs because they believe that Hazrat Ali shared the prophethood with our Holy Prophet. He refused to answer the question whether a person who being a Sunni changes his view and agrees with the Shia view would be guilty of irtidad so as to deserve the death penalty. According to the Shias all Sunnis are kafirs, and Ahl-i-Quran, namely, persons who consider hadith to be unreliable and therefore not binding, are unanimously kafirs, and so are all independent thinkers. The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim. If the constituents of each of the definitions given by the ulama are given effect to, and subjected to the rule of `combination and permutation' and the form of charge in the Inquisition's sentence on Galileo is adopted mutatis mutandis as a model, the grounds on which a person may be indicted for apostasy will be too numerous to count.''

(p. 219)

"UNQUOTE"

Jamaat e Islami Go Amarica Go Exposed On Live Tv دھوکے باز غیرتمند

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

Jamat-e-Islami & Mawdudis' Fatwa of Apostasy against Those who are not in Jamat-e-Islami

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rHDB9lH9xc

A prominent Islamic scholar has launched a blistering attack on Pakistan's blasphemy laws, warning that failure to repeal them will only strengthen religious extremists and their violent followers. "The blasphemy laws have no justification in Islam. These ulema [council of clerics] are just telling lies to the people," said Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a reformist scholar and popular television preacher. "But they have become stronger, because they have street power behind them, and the liberal forces are weak and divided. If it continues like this it could result in the destruction of Pakistan." Ghamidi, 59, is the only religious scholar to publicly oppose the blasphemy laws since the assassination of the Punjab governor, Salmaan Taseer, on 4 January. He speaks out at considerable personal risk. Ghamidi spoke to the Guardian from Malaysia, where he fled with his wife and daughters last year after police foiled a plot to bomb their Lahore home. "It became impossible to live there," he said. Their fears were well founded: within months Taliban gunmen assassinated Dr Farooq Khan, a Ghamidi ally also famous for speaking out, at his clinic in the north-western city of Mardan. The scholar's troubles highlight the shrinking space for debate in Pakistan, where Taseer's death has emboldened the religious right, prompting mass street rallies in favour of his killer, Mumtaz Qadri. Liberal voices have been marginalised; many fear to speak out. Mainstream political parties have crumbled, led by the ruling Pakistan People's party, which declared it will never amend the blasphemy law. Sherry Rehman, a PPP parliamentarian who proposed changes to the legislation, was herself charged with blasphemy this week. Since Taseer's death she has been confined to her Karachi home after numerous death threats, some issued publicly by clerics. Although other Islamic scholars share Ghamidi's views on blasphemy, none dared air them so forcefully. "Ghamidi is a voice of reason in a babble of noises seemingly dedicated to irrationality," said Ayaz Amir, an opposition politician and opinion columnist. Ghamidi's voice stands out because he attacks the blasphemy law on religious grounds. While secular critics say it is abused to persecute minorities and settle scores, Ghamidi says it has no foundation in either the Qur'an or the Hadith – the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. "Nothing in Islam supports this law," he said. Ghamidi deserted the country's largest religious political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, to set up his own school of religious teaching. He came to public attention through a series of television shows on major channels. They were cancelled due to opposition from the mullahs, he said. "They told the channels there would be demonstrations if I wasn't taken off air." Three years ago gunmen fired a pistol into the mouth of the editor of Ghamidi's magazine; last year the police foiled a plot to bomb his home and school. Now the school is closed. The core problem, Ghamidi said, was the alliance between Pakistan's "establishment" – code for the military – and Islamist extremists it uses to fight in Kashmir and Afghanistan. "They are closely allied," he said. The blasphemy debate has exposed painful rifts in Pakistani society. One Ghamidi follower said his father, a British-educated engineer, called him an infidel for attacking the controversial law. "Our society is tearing itself apart," he said. Tariq Dhamial, a lawyer representing Mumtaz Qadri, said more than 800 lawyers had offered to represent the self-confessed killer. "Everyone is behind Qadri. Doctors, teachers, labourers, even police – they believe he did the right thing," Dhamial said.Dhamial said the police intended to hold Qadri's trial in jail but the lawyers wanted it heard in open court. The latest hearing is due next Tuesday. Even when out of Pakistan, Ghamidi features on television shows by phone, often outwitting extremist clerics with his deep knowledge of the Qur'an. But he eschews terms such as "liberal". "I am neither Islamist nor secular. I am a Muslim and a democrat," he said. But even allies question whether religious argument alone can win the sulphurous blasphemy debate. "When you talk about religion, you only provoke the forces of reaction who become more intolerant. Then governments become frightened and retreat," said Amir. "Ghamidi's is a voice for the converted. But that won't solve our problem." • This article was amended on 21 January 2011. The original referred to Jamaat-e-Islami as Pakistan's largest religious political party. This has been corrected. REFERENCE: Islamic scholar attacks Pakistan's blasphemy laws In the wake of Salmaan Taseer's murder, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi declares Islamic councils are "telling lies to the people" Declan Walsh in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 January 2011 16.43 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/islam-ghamidi-pakistan-blasphemy-laws

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1ZruyR8p8g

Barelvism originally emerged as a reaction against the propagation of several new streams of Islamic thought-including, though not limited to, the Deobandis. Ahmed Raza himself painstakingly developed refutations of Deobandism, the Ahl-e-Hadith (whom the Barelvis decry as the "Wahhabis" of South Asia), as well as the minority Ahmadi sect. What has conventionally distinguished the Barelvis from the Deobandis and Ahl-e-Hadith is the latter two's notoriously puritan understanding and austere practice of Islam, which the Barelvis reject as unorthodox. While performing the Hajj in 1906, Ahmed Raza asked the ulemas of Mecca and Medina to endorse his fatwas and refutations of the teachings of Deobandis and other new schools of thought in South Asia. (Mecca and Medina were then under Ottoman rule, and the authority of the religious scholars in these two holy cities was at the time recognized across the Islamic world.) The Arab scholars, according to the Barelvis, agreed fully with Ahmed Raza's propositions, and a total of twenty clerics from Mecca and thirteen from Medina endorsed Hussam al-Harmain, a book of fatwas compiled by Ahmed Raza http://www.nooremadinah.net/UrduBooks/HussamulHaramain/Download/HussamulHaramain.pdf . Most of these fatwas concern what constitutes the proper veneration of the Prophet Muhammad, and by these standards, Ahmed Raza accused the Deobandis of not bestowing sufficient respect upon the Prophet-and thus, found them guilty of heresy. After Ahmed Raza returned from Arabia to India, his anti-Deobandi fatwas began to circulate, and this put the puritan Deobandis on edge. The Deobandi scholars reacted by developing their own refutations of Ahmed Raza's teachings, accusing the Barelvi movement as well of heresy. This launched what came to be known as the "Fatwa War" between the Barelvis and Deobandis. From 1925 until now, it has been claimed, a virtually "uncountable" number of fatwas were issued by Barelvi and Deobandi scholars renouncing the other school of thought for their deviant, "un-Islamic" beliefs and practices. These fatwas have addressed a range of matters-from religion to politics, both great and small-and they have only further divided the two schools of thoughts on nearly every issue. REFERENCE: The Assertion of Barelvi Extremism by Ismail Khan Published on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 ARTICLES Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, Volume 12 http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-assertion-of-barelvi-extremism

Hussam ul Haramain حسام الحرمیں



Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhxC7VuxyFk


ABARAT-E-AKABIR-1


Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msrcce4kRL0

ABARAT-E-AKABIR-2 Fabrications of Deobandi,

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Ghulam Ahmad Parwez - 5


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k81D_lG4GQg

Jamaat Tableegh And The Deobandis

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 3

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent -- Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami -- were politically very active during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they supported the CongressParty's idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema's concept of nationalism as well as the Muslim League's demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims. The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership came almost entirely from the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim state. As a consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over. The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life. It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth century. It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox and traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought, barred them from creative thinking and properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis Islam had to face in the twentieth century. The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of Muslims -- was virtually a secular campaign led by men of politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema. Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with Congress orientation. They stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through the establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to accept under any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed out to the students of the Muslim University Union: "What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other, but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not only social but also political." The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.

The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came to a head during the struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him, faced the opposition of the Ulema. The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar -- seldom mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as "palidistan". The authorship of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading personality of the Ahrar:

Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora

Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam.

(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman, he is a great leader or a great non-believer)

During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the leading personalities of the Muslim League and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in their dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam but an enemy of it. After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organization and advising the Muslims to accept Maulana Azad as their leader and join the Congress Party. The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure). In none of the writings of the Jama'at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were quite definite:

"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all. Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: "Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an obstacle in our path." Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied: "Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in patch work." He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941). However, Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which the Muslims were placed at that critical moment. The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam." He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma). Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that he did not accept Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the sub-continent with safeguards for minorities. He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema that their interests would be better safeguarded under a united India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism. However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis (judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema. REFERENCE: ISLAMIC PAKISTAN: ILLUSIONS & REALITY A comprehensive and detailed political history of Pakistan http://ghazali.net/book1/index.htm 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 BY Abdus Sattar Ghazali

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

AKABIR ULMA-E-DEOBAND KA IJMALI TARUF
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7246714/AKABIR-ULMAEDEOBAND-KA-IJMALI-TARUF


Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 9

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

In his historical statement he(Maulana Maududi) further said: "If we establish an Islamic government in Pakistan, we would not have any objections if the Muslims are treated like Malechhas and Shudras, the laws of Manu are applied to them and they are not entitled to the rights of the citizens and participation in the governance in India." Here Maulana Maududi firstly admits that the reason for his demand for the establishment of an Islamic system in Pakistan is that the non-Muslims have gone from here lending it permissibility for the imposition of Islamic system. It would be noted that the exchange of population or the evacuation of the Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan was not a part of the plan of the partition. People were forced to migrate due to the riots. In this situation, either Maulana Shabbir Usmani is correct who said that Pakistan was established for the imposition of Shariah or Maulana Maududi who said that due to the evacuation of non-Muslims, the permissibility of imposition of Islamic system had arisen. The second point to be noted is that Maulana Maududi is thinking about the West Pakistan only instead of the entire Pakistan because if it was difficult to impose the Islamic system in West Pakistan having a minority population of 26% how was the imposition of Islamic system permissible in East Pakistan having a minority population of 25%.

The 'guiding principles' of Maulana Maududi give birth to a third theory that if the population of the Muslims in a particular place increases to such strength that they can forcefully impose their preferred system, they should go ahead and do that. In the given situation how was Maulana Maududi propagating the government of Allah in India as the Muslim population was only 25% there.

It should be recalled that immediately after his arrival in Pakistan, Maulana Maududi had compared the birth of Pakistan to 'the birth of a beast' in his magazine. Maulana Maududi's admirer Altaf Gauhar forgot the simile and kept repeating the line from Faiz Ahmad Faiz's peom 'Azadi'--- ye dag dag ujala ye shab guzeeda seher.

Putting aside the self conceived notion of democracy of the religious peshwas of Pakistan, the basic principle of democracy is the equality of the citizens and the equal right to participation in the governance The basic demand of the Equality of the citizens is that they should not be discriminated against on the basis of sex, belief, language, culture or caste.

The fact that declaring religion the fundamental factor in the political process and administrative system opens the doors of discriminatory treatment of the citizens is established by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani's demand immediately after the formation of Pakistan that the key posts should be given to the Muslims alone. A few years later, this demand resulted in the demand for the dismissal of the foreign minister Zafarullah Khan.

This is a fact worthy to be noted that Qaid-e-Azam Md Ali Jinnah had appointed Joginder Nath Mandal, a Hindu as the first Law Minister of Pakistan and Zafarullah Khan the Foreign Minister in December 1947. No maulvi had the guts to demand the removal of Joginder Nath Mandal or Zafarullah Khan on the basis of belief during Qaid-e-Azam's life. One interesting aspect of the whole episode is that the ulema's stance was that the foundation of law-making should be laid on Shariah and Mohammad Ali Jinnah was appointing a Hindu as the law minister.

Between 1940 and 1947, Muslim Leagues stand was that the security of the Muslims of India will be guaranteed by the good treatment of Hindus in Pakistan. The supposed harmony in the stances of the Muslim League and the Jamaat Islami led by Maulana Maududi can be guaged by the fact that shortly after arriving Lahore in the government truck sent by Sardar Shaukat Hayat, Maulana Maududi became so oblivious of the Indian Muslims that he did not bother if they were treated like the malechchas or shudras.

As a result of the exchange of population, the change in the proportion of the Muslim and non-Muslim population in both the countries gave the mullah the opportunity to demand to make the Muslim-majority country an Islamic state and thus hijack the whole system of governance.

The change in the stance of the Muslim League about the Muslims left in India after the decision of partition can be ascertained in the excerpts produced below:

Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi was a senior officer at the time of formation of Pakistan. Late he retired as the auditor general of Pakistan. On page 148 of his book " Hungamon mein zindagi' (A tumultuous Life) he writes:

"On May 30 1947, Shujaat Ali Husni invited all the Muslim officers over tea in Delhi with an emphasis on attendance. The reason was not known. On reaching there we saw Qaid-e-Azam, Liagat Ali Khan, Sardar Abdur Rab Nashtar and some others. As the tea was over, it was announced that Qaid-e-Azam will speak. After the speech while replying to a question Qaid-e-Azam said, "From now on, the nationality of Indian Muslims will be Indian. They will have nothing to do with Pakistan." I was shocked to hear this. Five crore Muslims were declared Indians at one go. Until yesterday they were promised a new country which would be an abode of peace for them. They were asked for sacrifices on this ground and they sacrificed their lives and fortune for this cause. Today they were pushed into a virtual hell with two words. What happened to the Two nation Theory? Then I thought that after all Qaid-e-Azam, Liaqat Ali Khan and other leaders were also Indians. Definitely, they will stay back and take care of them, but that was not to happen."

In his book, Pathway to Pakistan, Choudhry Khaliquzzaman writes," Qaid-e-Azam had now realised the dangers facing Muslims left behind in India. On August 1, 1947, before leaving for Karachi, Mr Jinnah invited all the Muslim members of the Legislative Assembly to bid farewell. Mr Rizwanullah asked some unsavoury questions about the status and future of the Muslims left in India. Never before had I seen Mr Jinnah so nervous and at a loss for words because he could clearly foresee how the Muslims were going to suffer. As the situation became really unpleasant I requested my colleagues to stop the discussion. I believe that this last conversation compelled Mr Jinnah to say good bye to the Two Nation Theory on August 11, 1947 as the designated Governor General and the President of the Legislative Assembly." (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution and Secularism—IX By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2682

Musalmano Ka Ehteram Karo + Ulema Deoband ka Mehboob Mashghala aur Deen ka Aiham Fareeza...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7244909/Musalmano-Ka-Ehteram-Karo-Ulema-Deoband-ka-Mehboob-Mashghala-aur-Deen-ka-Aiham-Fareeza

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1TORj6VmlE

It will not be irrelevant to mention here that Rizwanullah was so disgusted with the whole situation that he left both India and Pakistan and settled in Australia. The attitude of the Muslim League towards the Muslims left in India has also been summed up by Maulana Ghulam Rasul Meher in Ashique Hussain Batalvi's book 'Chand Yaden, Chand Tassurat"( Some Reminiscences and Reflections). He says, “One important thing is that the main purpose of the scheme of Pakistan was not only an independent system for the Muslims but also complete arrangements for the security of the Muslim minority to be left in India. After the partition, complete arrangements for the security of the Muslim minority were extremely necessary. I am one of those who could not get proof of any efforts made towards this most important national cause in the whole episode of the partition, nor could I understand the reasons for avoiding this basic purpose.

Apart from the exchange of populations as a result of the large scale riots, the other important factor was the decision to give the employees of the central government the option to choose between India and Pakistan. In his brief address to the Muslim officers at Shuja'at Ali Husni's residence on May 30, 1947, Qaid-e-Azam had said:

"Pakistan's issue has been finalised and now the responsibility of its administration and development has fallen on the shoulders of the Muslim officers who will have to work hard. The employees of the central government will have the option to remain in the Indian government or switch over to the Pakistani government. Religion or place of birth will not be a constraint."

It should be noted here that Qaid-e-Azam did not put religion as a precondition for choosing Pakistan. Probably he could not foresee that the religious peshwas of Pakistan will refuse to give non-Muslims 'key posts' in Pakistan.

As anticipated, a huge majority of the Muslim officers opted for Pakistan. Pakistan was a new country where there was a dearth of experienced and able officers. It was evident that in the new country they would have ample opportunities of promotion. They were also assured of the fact that in Pakistan they would not have to face competition from senior and more experienced non-Muslim officers. The number of Muslim officers coming from areas within Pakistan was limited. Therefore, the expectation of the Muslim officers belonging to Muslim-minority areas that in the new country they will have unlimited opportunities of promotion were not unfounded. It had another angle that the non-Muslim officers coming from areas within Pakistan would understandably opt for India and so the posts rendered vacant by those officers would go to Muslim officials. Moreover, Muslim officers belonging to the Muslim-minority areas knew well that the majority of the Muslim League leadership was inexperienced in administrative affairs and they will soon gain supremacy over the political leadership.

As the news of riots in West Punjab and the subsequent forced evacuations started to pour in, the Muslim officials became increasingly worried about the grand houses, shops, factories and fertile fields the non-Muslim population was leaving behind. It is true that the motives of all the Muslim officials could not be called in question. It can undoubtedly be said that the Muslim officials did not display high moral values. Many intellectuals believe that the political anarchy, moral degradation and corruption in Pakistan started with the plundering of the abandoned properties.

The former President Ayub Khan in his book "Jis rizq se aati ho parwaz me kotahi" wrote:

"Before the partition, the Muslim army officers could at the most expect to retire from the post of colonel or brigadier. But after the establishment of Pakistan every officer thought it would not be worthwhile if he could not become the army chief.

In Ayub's words, speedy promotions generated unlimited lust for power among government officials in Pakistan. Ayub Khan himself had been in the post of Brigadier after 20 years of service in 1947 and just as he was possibly on the verge of being removed for allegedly being romantically involved with the sweetheart of the Maharaja of Patiala, instead of competently discharging his duties in the Punjab Boundary Forces, he was conferred the prestigious post of the GOC of East Pakistan. He did not look back after that. Ghulam Mohammad and Chaudhry Mohammad Ali were unknown officers of the accounts department. In his old age, Ghulam Mohammad became the financial advisor in Hyderabad Deccan. Due to rapid promotions, both men went on to become the Governor General and the Prime Minister respectively. Sikander Mirza was the deputy commissioner of Peshawar in 1947.He got the honour of becoming the first President of Pakistan.

In this context Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehr wrote:"In my view it was the gravest mistake to give the Muslim officers the option to come to Pakistan. In my active political life spanning over 20-22 years, never did I come across a bigger cause of hardships and woes for the Muslims as the government is synonymous with jobs and membership of Parliament (lawmaking and administration). It is strange that with the partition of the country, the Muslim minority (of India) were stripped of every means of security. I wrote articles after articles, pleaded personally with the political masters but nobody gave it a thought. Everyone had only one thing in mind: if the non-Muslims go out from amidst us, they will have more opportunities for promotions. You will agree that it was not the standard criterion to render the national duties." (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution and Secularism—X By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2690

MAUDUDI AUR QURAN
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30712014/MAUDUDI-AUR-QURAN

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Ghulam Ahmed Parwez - 11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StUh47gnuoQ

The basic reason behind the exchange of populations was the riots between the Muslim and the Hindu-Sikh population before and after Partition. Undoubtedly the riots were not a part of the freedom struggle. The oft-repeated sentence –‘won freedom by sacrificing millions of lives’ included in our textbooks are devoid of truth. The decision of the independence had been taken in the last days of 1947 at the conference table and the plan of independence was officially announced on June 3, 1947. Most of the incidents of rioting occurred after that date. Independence was being gained from the British and the riots were raging between different religious groups in India. The connection of the riots of 1946-47 with the freedom struggle is out of the question. This is not the time to fix the fundamental responsibility of the riots. Nonetheless, some facts and views need to be presented so that the student of history can do further research in this light. Hindu-Muslim and Muslim-Sikh riots occurred in different phases. The riots in the Muslim majority region of East Bengal started in Calcutta on August 16, 1946. Riots engulfed Nowakhali of East Bengal on Oct 10, 1946. The majority population there was Muslim. The riots in the adjacent state of Bihar where the Hindus were in majority started on Oct.25, 1946. The riots in the north-eastern areas such as Rawalpindi, Taxila, Wah, Quetta, Jhelum and Gujar Khan started on March 4, 1947 and gradually moved towards central Punjab. The riots in the eastern Punjab started towards the end of June 1947 and continued till September, rather mid-October 1947.In eastern Punjab the Muslims were in minority. In the central provinces of India (such as Delhi, Panipat, Gurgaon, Lucknow, Meerut, Bulandshahr , Budayun, Muzaffar Nagar) where the Muslims were dominant over the Hindus economically and culturally but in minority numerically , the riots started in July-August 1947. It is significant that several southern states in India where the Muslim population was negligible did not see any communal strife.

The Muslim League had announced in its annual convention in Mumbai on July 29 that a country wide campaign in favour of demand for Pakistan would be started. Hussain Shaheed Suherwardi was the Prime Minister of the Muslim League government in Bengal. The capital of Bengal was Calcutta where the Hindus were in majority. Though Qaid-e-Azam had given the hint of a peaceful demonstration while announcing Direct Action, he was in an aggressive mood while replying to the journalists. According to reports, Qaid-e-Azam had said,” We shall have India divided or India destroyed.”

The governor of Bengal Fredrick John Brose, in his confidential letter (IOR:L/P&J/8/655f.f95.96-107) written on August 22, 1946 to the Viceroy Lord Wavell gave some details of the events that occurred August 16, 1947 onwards. According to him the Muslim League had organised a meeting at the Ochterlony Monument in Calcutta at 4 P.M. which was supposed to be addressed by Prime Minister Hussain Shaheed Suherwardi and Khwaja Nazimuddin. However, the reports of tensions had started pouring in in the police headquarters from as early as 10 in the morning. The Muslim League activists were forcing the shops to shut down. Most of the people coming towards the place of meeting were carrying lathis, rods and spears. Muslim League ministers had distributed petrol coupons to the office bearers of the Muslim League so that the houses and shops of Hindus could be burnt. The rations enough for ten thousand workers for a month had been stored.

While addressing the meeting, both Suherwardi and Nazim spoke of peace and riots in the same breath. Suharwardi even made the statement, “We shall not allow the police and the army to intervene.” The illiterate and already agitated mob interpreted it as ‘there will be no one stopping them.” Khwaja Nazim thought it necessary to tell the audience that in the skirmishes since morning, all the injured were Muslims.

As the meeting was over, a one-lakh strong mob spread in the populated lanes and by-lanes of Calcutta. By the end of the day, four to five thousand Hindus had been killed. Prime Minister Suherwardi himself was seated in the police control room. In the presence of the Prime Minister, the commissioner of Police was unable to issue appropriate orders. The Governor John Brose was not in favour of straining relations with the Prime Minister. Finally the army was called in on August 21, 1946.

By then, according to a report in the American weekly Time on August 22, 1946, “The streets of Calcutta were strewn with dead bodies. The drains had become jammed by human blood and pieces of human bodies. Swollen dead bodies were floating in the river Hooghly. The bodies of rickshaw pullers were lying on their rickshaws. Smoke was rising from the dead bodies of the wronged women.”

After the initial fighting, the riots became bilateral. Now, there was no distinction between Hindus and Muslims.

The fire lit by the Direct Action Day kept burning. The next big incident of communal strife took place in Nowakhali ( which is now a part of Bangladesh). The riots which started in this predominantly Muslim area were called “the planned wrath of the Muslim mob” by the newspapers. Soon the fire of the riots spread in Roypur, Laxmipur, Begumganj, Sandip, Faridganj and Chandpur. The Hindu newspapers reported the death toll in thousands. The Muslim newspapers denied the occurrence of any riots in the first place. The official death toll was 200. However, after the riots, a Hindu in Nowakhali was hard to come by. (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: OBJECTIVES RESOLUTION AND SECULARISM—XI By Wajahat Masood http://www.newageislam.com/articledetails.aspx?ID=2694