Orya Maqbool Jan Negotiates with Orya Maqbool Jan.

TTP considering Ansar Abbasi, Orya Maqbool Jan as negotiators February 03, 2014 PESHAWAR: Spokesman of the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Monday said two more names are likely to be finalized soon for its committee tasked to hold talks with the four-member government-appointed panel. He said the names of senior journalist Orya Maqbool Jan and Investigation Editor, The News International, Ansar Abbasi which were being considered for the Taliban committee in the past are still being reviewed for nomination. The TTP spokesman regretted the decision of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) of choosing not to be a part of the dialogue process, saying Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman does not even have confidence in his own self. Reacting to the Taliban’s claim, Ansar Abbasi talking to Geo News said he had never had any contact with the Taliban over his becoming part of the talks process. However, he said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had sought his advice in connection with the dialogue and also offered him to join the government-appointed panel. “I expressed my willingness to offer my cooperation as a journalist but I don’t want to join in as committee member,” said Abbasi, adding, he can be part of such a committee that points out mistakes on the part of the government and the Taliban. He said if the Taliban and government accept an impartial committee he could join the same. REFERENCE: TTP considering Ansar Abbasi, Orya Maqbool Jan as negotiators February 03, 2014 - Updated 2115 PKT http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-136547-TTP-considering-Ansar-Abbasi,-Orya-Maqbool-Jan-as-negotiators

ISLAMABAD, July 8: Eminent historian and thinker Dr Mubarak Ali says the history written in Pakistan had been “dictated” by the ruling Establishment and represents its wilful perversion of facts “to accord with a fabricated ideology”. “No authentic history has yet been written about Pakistan and its independence. There is a lot of confusion among the so-called pro-Establishment historians and educationists. Whatever has been written so far is distortion of history and entirely unbalanced,” Unless the distortions were removed and facts told as they existed, the nation could not hope to make any real progress, he said, adding: “This is the lesson history has taught us”. Dr Ali, who was interviewed over the weekend after he gave a lecture on the subject at Safma Media Centre the other day, said writing history in an ideological state was a problem. “We project the deeds of our leaders out of proportion and ignore their crimes and blunders. Our modern history is also in a quagmire of confusion as our historians do not know the direction their work should take. They were unmindful of society’s need for truth and confused whether Pakistan’s history begins from the Indus civilization, or from Mohammad bin Qasim’s attack on Sindh or from 1947 the year it was born. “Historians like Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, S.M. Ikram and Moinul Haq wrote history, as dictated by dictators like Gen Ayub Khan, on two premises: the two-nation theory and greater national unity. There writings are more anti-Hindu than about British colonialism. “Some historians negated our ancient Indian and South Asian roots and tried to establish our links with Central Asia or with the Middle East which was historical and intellectual dishonesty,” said Dr Ali. Fanciful novels written by Maulana Abdul Haleem Sharar, Naseem Hijazi and the likes were taken for history. REFERENCE: History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak 2008-07-09 00:00:00 http://www.dawn.com/news/310892/history-is-different-from-farce-dr-mubarak

Importance of Sex Education, Orya Maqbool Jan & Ansar Abbasi.

 
Importance of Sex Education, Orya Maqbool Jan... by SalimJanMazari

On the eve of Eid-ul-Azha, I was asked by some of our rationalist society friends to do a gentle surgery of the claims made by Orya Maqbool Jan in one of his Urdu writings. The rebuttal from our respected friend came swiftly with a tinge of venom. I was declared "Jahalat ki faseel mein qaid daanishwar" (an intellectual imprisoned in the fortress of ignorance). I have no qualms about accepting the charge up to "imprisonment in ignorance" bit but the burden of being a "daanishwar" is too heavy and better be left in the exclusive domain of Jan and his tribe. Like my fellow rationalist members, from Socrates I have learnt to ask questions of the knowledgeable ones, and from Julius Fuchik acquired an inspiration to paint life on the walls of the gallows. We never claim to know it all but we are never afraid of asking questions when they crop up in our minds. It is our belief that stating a half-truth is more dangerous than a blatant lie and hence must be properly scrutinised. Jan repeated the same references that due to obscurity are not readily available to a common reader. While extolling the virtues of the Mughal rulers, especially Aurangzeb and the rulers of Bengal, he conveniently ignores well-researched and highly respected works, e.g. of Sheikh Muhammad Ikram on the rise and fall of the Mughal Empire. I do not want to become an advocate for the British colonists. The East India Company (EIC) was a business venture of London-based merchants and the British traders had come to the East Indies in search of corporate profits and not for charity. Just like any other nation, they had many self-enriching crooks and some thrill-seeking adventurists. My problem, however, is viewing history as pure black and white, as we need to be objective in our reading of past events. An important fact must not be missed that the European nations were then often at war in Europe, which had a spillover effect in the Indian subcontinent as well. They, therefore, fortified their trading positions and gradually got involved in the local wars of succession that were frequently happening among Indian rulers and were supported by rival European traders. A dispassionate analysis of history would help us learn why the British were able to conquer the whole of India with just a few thousand soldiers. Jan fondly uses some references to build a thesis that prior to the arrival of the EIC, India was teeming with knowledge and that there were thousands of educational institutions. The chief references that Jan relies upon for this bold assertion are quotes from Will Durant's Story of Civilisation and Major Basu's use of Max Muller's quotation in his book on Indian history. Using Durant and Muller for establishing the claim of a highly developed educational system in medieval India is just like using a quote from Charles Darwin to support the Intelligent Design theory of creationists. While Durant views Muslim rulers as a bunch of barbarians who did not miss a chance of looting the treasures of an advanced civilisation of those times, Muller, a German philologist, was a popular critic of the Hindu belief system and advocated its cleansing by Christian reformers. When they mention village schools, they refer to the elaborate system of Brahmin-led theology teaching in ancient India. Alexander Hamilton is also quoted as a main reference by Jan. Hamilton, a merchant and a ship's captain in the Far East, covers the period of 1688-1723 in his travelogue A New Account of the East Indies. He mainly narrates the local weather and other cultural traits of various inhabitants. There is only one mention of educational institutions when he discusses Hindu theology and its teaching in village schools of Thatta. Hamilton mentions meeting a professor of Indian history who tells him that Alexander the Great had attacked India with magical beasts due to which Porus was unable to defeat him. Perhaps Jan has taken too much inspiration from this type of interpretation of history, and hence, has translated Hamilton's account as an elaborate arrangement for teaching of 'uloom-o-funoon' in India. Perhaps the readers can judge for themselves if half-baked truths should be taken as accounts of history. REFERENCE: OVER A COFFEE : History telling the Nasim Hijazi way by— Dr Haider Shah December 01, 2012 http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/01-Dec-2012/over-a-coffee-history-telling-the-nasim-hijazi-way-dr-haider-shah

Conniving Jihadi Mullahs of the Sub-Continent http://www.scribd.com/doc/204165831/Conniving-Jihadi-Mullahs-of-the-Sub-Continent

Conniving Jihadi Mullahs of the Sub-Continent by Aamir Mughal

Taliban Journalists of Bolta Pakistan (10 January 2011)

 
Taliban Journalists of Bolta Pakistan (10... by SalimJanMazari

The conclusion of our analysis is that OMJ cites various historical sources in a sweeping way to substantiate his argument. Known as what is called 'cherry picking' in research, he selectively picked up sentences from a number of sources to create an impression for an unwary reader that India had an elaborate scheme of education under the Muslim rulers and that the British in a very cunning way destroyed all institutions as part of some deep-rooted conspiracy. Due to paucity of space, it is not possible to discuss all the references OMJ quoted in his piece. I would restrict it to only one main source to illustrate that intellectual honesty was wanting in his piece of writing. For sake of clarity a full paragraph from Will Durant's voluminous Story of Civilization is reproduced here from which OMJ picked up a quotation: "Writing continued, even to the nineteenth century, to play a very small part in Indian education. Perhaps it was not to the interest of the priests that the sacred or scholastic texts should become an open secret to all. As far as we can trace Indian history, we find a system of education, always in the hands of the clergy, open at first only to the sons of Brahmans, then spreading its privileges from caste to caste until in our time it excludes only the Untouchables. Every Hindu village had its schoolmaster, supported out of the public funds; in Bengal alone, before the coming of the British, there were some 80,000 native schools — one to every four hundred population. The percentage of literacy under Ashoka was apparently higher than in India today." Will Durant in this section was discussing the education system in ancient India but OMJ picked up a Bengal-related sentence and forcibly linked it with the Mughal period to create a misleading impression. Intellectual honesty demanded that OMJ should have also told his readers what Will Durant wrote in the same book about the Muslim rulers in India. For instance, Durant writes about our hero idol-smasher: "Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richer than before." We are told that the idol breaker would sometimes spare the population of the ravaged cities and "took them home to be sold as slaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could be found to offer more than a few shillings for a slave." Similarly referring to other rulers of the pre-Mughal era, Durant writes, "There was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging the victims and putting them to death in crowds." OMJ fondly mentions Firoz Shah about whom Durant writes, "Firoz Shah invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves." Similarly, Sultan Ahmad Shah is said to have feasted for three days whenever the number of defenceless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached 20,000. Based on such numerous examples, Durant says, "The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." Durant in his work appreciates the art and sculpture of India. However, he laments, "We shall never be able to do justice to Indian art, for ignorance and fanaticism have destroyed its greatest achievements, and have half ruined the rest." OMJ in his concluding lines makes a passing reference to Lord Cornwallis, accusing him of establishing a religious seminary in 1781 to destroy educational system of Muslim rulers. Interestingly, in 1781, Major General Cornwallis was in America with a mixed record against rebel colonists culminating in the capitulation of his force at Yorktown and came to India in 1786. Cornwallis, however, is credited with establishing an institution that OMJ never found detestable: the Indian Civil Service. Hope our former deputy commissioner would be more careful with both dates and facts of history. REFERENCE: OVER A COFFEE : Postcard for Orya Maqbool Jan BY— Dr Haider Shah October 27, 2012 http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/27-Oct-2012/over-a-coffee-postcard-for-orya-maqbool-jan-dr-haider-shah

Meher Bukhari, Orya Maqbool Jan & Saleem Bukhari Justify Salman Taseer Murder (AAJ TV 2011)





Meher Bukhari, Orya Maqbool Jan & Saleem... by SalimJanMazari

The Jihad Under East India Company http://www.scribd.com/doc/184920698/The-Jihad-Under-East-India-Company

The Jihad Under East India Company by Aamir Mughal

2009 Islam does not allow democracy or elections MINGORA: Tehrik Nifaz Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Maulana Sufi Muhammad has warned the government to wind up its judicial system within four days and establish the appellate court of Darul Qaza for the Malakand division, or he will re-launch his protest campaign. Addressing a mammoth public meeting at Grassy Ground here on Sunday, he made it clear that the government must set up Darul Qaza before lower Qazi courts, which, he said, was the first step towards the implementation of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation in letter and spirit. TNSM’s Nazim-e-Aala Maulana Safiullah, Sheikh Waliullah Kabalgrami, Maulana Salar Khan, Maulana Samiullah, Maulana Abdul Haq, Maulana Badshah Zeb and Maulana Fayyaz also addressed the meeting. Unprecedented security arrangements were made for the rally as 300 armed volunteers guarded the venue. In Mingora city, all shops, markets and business centres remained closed, as the TNSM had earlier made an appeal to traders and shopkeepers to keep their business shut to facilitate the participants during the rally. Maulana Sufi Muhammad urged the government to appoint Tehsil and district Qazis in the seven districts of the Malakand division and Kohistan district of Hazara division within a month. Failure to do so, he warned, would bring his followers on the streets. He said a system of justice based on Shariah was the only way out of the present unrest. “If our demands were not met within the set deadline, then we will not be held responsible for any violence in the area,” the TNSM chief warned. He said all the criminal and civil cases would be heard and decided in the Qazi courts. He added that the judgment given by the Qazi courts could not be challenged in the provincial high courts or the Supreme Court. “I consider Western democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections,” he opined, adding that he would never accept the system of justice of the non-Muslims. Sufi Mohammad said the implementation of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation would restore peace in the Malakand division, particularly Swat. He said the Taliban militants had promised to lay down arms after the enforcement of the Nizam-e-Adl. REFERENCE: End judicial system by April 23, demands Sufi Claims Islam does not allow democracy or elections BY Essa Khankhel Monday, April 20, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=21615&Cat=13&dt=4/20/2009

Sufi’s public meeting lifts climate of fear in Swat BY Rahimullah Yusufzai Monday, April 20, 2009 PESHAWAR: By holding a big public meeting in Mingora in the restive Swat district on Sunday, Maulana Sufi Muhammad contributed to overcoming the climate of fear still prevailing among the people and inspiring them with hope. However, he added to the uncertainty by reverting to his familiar tactic of setting deadlines for his demands to be met. Two deadlines were set, April 23 for doing away with the existing courts manned by civil judges and May 19 for setting up Qazi courts under the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation in all seven districts of Malakand division and Kohistan district of Hazara region. In addition, May 19 would also serve as the one-month deadline for establishing Darul Qaza, or appellate court, for Swat and rest of Malakand division. Having brought peace to Swat and obliged the government, Sufi Muhammad now feels justified in demanding Shariah-based system of justice. This has been his goal for almost three decades and he is convinced that there can be no better opportunity for pushing his agenda. The government once again has little choice but to accept his demands and that too within the stipulated time. Journalists at the Grassy Ground, the venue for the Tehrik Nifaz Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) public meeting, estimated the crowd at 20,000 to 25,000. The TNSM members and supporters claimed a much higher attendance. But all agreed that it was an impressive show of strength by Maulana Sufi Muhammad, who returned to the central town of Mingora after having packed up his “peace camp” there and left Swat along with hundreds of his followers on April 9 in protest against the delay by President Asif Ali Zardari and the federal government in signing the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation. It was a triumphant return for the maverick Maulana who eventually forced the president to sign the law. Maulana Sufi Muhammad has held bigger gatherings at the Grassy Ground, which is used by young men from the twin towns of Mingora and Saidu Sharif for sports activities. His 1994 public meeting, held prior to an armed uprising for enforcement of Shariah in Swat and other parts of Malakand division, at the Grassy Ground was much bigger. But the one held on Sunday had greater importance as it was organized at a time when Swat is slowly recovering from two years’ of violence and bloodshed. For so many Swatis and participants from other adjoining districts, particularly from Upper Dir and Lower Dir, to gather at one place despite the fear of suicide bombing was truly remarkable. Political parties, which due to insecurity in the NWFP now hold gatherings in closed premises, would surely envy Sufi Muhammad’s fearlessness and his crowd-pulling capability. Sufi Muhammad, ageing and in poor health, spoke inarticulately for about 45 minutes in Pashto and reporters faced difficulty in understanding his words. As expected, he repeated his assertions about democracy and existing courts in Pakistan being un-Islamic. It wasn’t the first time that the cleric from Maidan in Lower Dir district generated controversy. He manages to do so whenever he speaks. Maulana Sufi Muhammad has his own simplistic vision of Shariah. If he had his way, he would force the judges, or Qazis as they are known in Malakand division, to sit on the floor and hear cases brought to them by litigants. Lawyers have no business in his scheme of things and Qazis ought to be made accountable if they delay judgements in cases pending in their courts. Shariah for him revolves round dispensation of justice. Education, health, socio-economic issues hold secondary importance for him. The Qazi courts that are being set up under the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation might start delivering speedy justice but this isn’t the only demand and expectation of the people of Swat and elsewhere in Malakand division. They expect a lot more from the Shariah that Sufi Muhammad is insisting would henceforth be the supreme law in the area. REFERENCE: Sufi’s public meeting lifts climate of fear in Swat BY Rahimullah Yusufzai Monday, April 20, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=21616&Cat=13&dt=4/20/2009

Jihad Movement of Maulvi Ismail & Maulvi Syed Ahmed in NWFP http://www.scribd.com/doc/187741825/Jihad-Movement-of-Maulvi-Ismail-Maulvi-Syed-Ahmed-in-NWFP

Jihad Movement of Maulvi Ismail & Maulvi Syed Ahmed in NWFP by Aamir Mughal

Jang Group on the Death of Osama Bin Laden (Capital Talk 02 May 2011)



Jang Group on the Death of Osama Bin Laden... by SalimJanMazari

Paid Mullahs in British India http://www.scribd.com/doc/184671101/Paid-Mullahs-in-British-India

Paid Mullahs in British India by Aamir Mughal

‘Swat Taliban to welcome Osama’ Wednesday, April 22, 2009 MINGORA: The spokesman for the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, which controls the valley, told The Associated Press he would welcome militants bent on battling the US troops and their Arab allies if they want to settle there. “Osama bin Laden can come here. Sure, like a brother they can stay anywhere they want,” TTP spokesman Muslim Khan said in a two-hour interview on Friday, his first with a foreign journalist since the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation was imposed. “Yes, we will help them and protect them,” he added. The Taliban spokesman counted among his allies several groups on the UN and the US terrorist lists. “If we need, we can call them and if they need, they can call us,” Muslim Khan said. He said his forces would go to help the Taliban in Afghanistan if the United States and Nato continued to fight there. “You must tell (the Americans) if they want peace ... to withdraw their forces, keep them on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean,” he added. Pakistan reacted with alarm to his comments, saying it would never let him shelter the likes of bin Laden. “We would have to go for the military operation. We would have to apply force again,” said Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira. “We simply condemn this. We are fighting this war against al-Qaida and the Taliban,” he added. Meanwhile, Afrasiab Khattak, a leader of the Awami National Party, conceded: “We lost the war. We negotiated from a position of weakness.î He said the region’s police force was too underpaid, under trained and under equipped to take on the militants. US officials said they would work with Pakistan to make sure militants were not safe anywhere. “With regard to Mulla Omar and Osama bin Laden, this is not a place where they should be welcome. We believe ... that violent extremists need to be confronted,î State Department spokesman Robert Wood said. Reiterating America’s viewpoint on this, Wood said, “Violent extremism needs to be confronted not just by Pakistan, but the entire international community.” Asserting that the US would continue to work with the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan to try to help root out these violent extremists, Wood said they were a threat to democracy and stability in the region. “We call on all those who are interested in bringing about stability to that region to work with us to root out violent extremism,” Wood said. REFERENCE: ‘Swat Taliban to welcome Osama’ Wednesday, April 22, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=21662&Cat=13&dt=4/22/2009

The myth of history By Prof Shahida Kazi.

Before you read Prof. Shahida Kazi's excellent reasearch [translation in Urdu is in the end courtesy Mr. Awais Masood] I would like to add the following:

Pakistani recruiters claimed difficulty in securing volunteers in East Pakistan. West Pakistanis held that Bengalis were not "martially inclined"--especially in comparison with Punjabis and Pathans, :REF Library of Congress Country Studies http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy :@field(DOCID+bd0139) - NOW READ: Pakistani author Hasan-Askari Rizvi notes that the limited recruitment of Bengali personnel in the Pakistan Army was because, the West Pakistanis, "could not overcome the hangover of the martial race theory". Ref: Military, State and Society in Pakistan by Hasan-Askari Rizvi. Late. K K Aziz in his magnum opus "Murder of History " had opined that every Reforme Movement or Resistance Movement against Imperialism, and against Feudal Lords were started in Bengal. [Do watch the Conversation with IDRC President David M. Malone, historian Romila Thapar, widely recognized as India's foremost historian challenged the colonial interpretations of India's past, which have created an oversimplified history that has reinforced divisions of race, religion, and caste. Courtesy: IDRCCRDI http://www.youtube.com/user/IDRCCRDI

The myth of history By Prof Shahida Kazi

History is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in Pakistan. As a result, the subject has been distorted in such a way that many a fabricated tale has become part of our collective consciousness. Does mythology have anything to do with history? Is mythology synonymous with history? Or is history mythology?

Admittedly, the line between the two is a very fine one. From time immemorial, man has always been in search of his roots. He has also been trying to find a real and tangible basis for the legends of ancient days - legends that have become a part of our collective consciousness. As a result, we witness the quest for proving the existence of King Arthur, the search for whereabouts of the city of Troy, and many expeditions organized to locate the exact site of the landing of Noah’s Ark.

During the ’60s and the ’70s, there was a worldwide movement to prove that the ’gods’ of ancient mythologies did actually exist; they came from distant galaxies; and that mankind owed all its progress to such alien superheroes. Several books were written on the subject.

We, in Pakistan, are a breed apart. Lacking a proper mythology like most other races, we have created our own, populated by a whole pantheon of superheroes who have a wide range of heroic exploits to their credit.

But the difference is that these superheroes, instead of being a part of a remote and prehistoric period, belong very much to our own times. A seemingly veritable mythology has been created around these heroes, their persona and their achievements, which is drummed into the heads of our children from the time they start going to school. So deep is this indoctrination that any attempt to uncover the facts or reveal the truth is considered nothing less than blasphemous.

Here are some of the most common myths:

Myth 1

Our history begins from 712AD, when Mohammad bin Qasim arrived in the subcontinent and conquered the port of Debal.

Take any social studies or Pakistan studies book, it starts with Mohammad bin Qasim. What was there before his arrival? Yes, cruel and despotic Hindu kings like Raja Dahir and the oppressed and uncivilized populace anxiously waiting for a ’liberator’ to free them from the clutches of such cruel kings. And when the liberator came, he was welcomed with open arms and the grateful people converted to Islam en mass.

Did it really happen? This version of our history conveniently forgets that the area where our country is situated has had a long and glorious history of 6,000 years. Forget Moenjo Daro. We do not know enough about it. But recorded history tells us that before Mohammad Bin Qasim, this area, roughly encompassing Sindh, Punjab and some parts of the NWFP, was ruled by no less than 12 different dynasties from different parts of the world, including the Persians (during the Achamaenian period), the Greeks comprising the Bactrians, Scthians and Parthians, the Kushanas from China, and the Huns (of Attila fame) who also came from China, besides a number of Hindu dynasties including great rulers like Chandragupta Maurya and Asoka.

During the Gandhara period, this region had the distinction of being home to one of the biggest and most important universities of the world at our very own Taxila. We used to be highly civilized, well-educated, prosperous, creative and economically productive people, and many countries benefited a lot from us, intellectually as well as economically. This is something we better not forget. But do we tell this to our children? No. And so the myth continues from generation to generation.

Myth 2

Mohammad Bin Qasim came to India to help oppressed widows and orphan girls.

Because of our blissful ignorance of history, we don’t know, or don’t bother to know, that this period was the age of expansion of the Islamic empire. The Arabs had conquered a large portion of the world, comprising the entire Middle East, Persia, North Africa and Spain. Therefore, it defies logic that they would not seek to conquer India, the land of legendary treasures.

In fact, the Arabs had sent their first expedition to India during Hazrat Umar Farooq’s tenure. A subsequent expedition had come to Makran during Hazrat Usman’s rule. But they had been unsuccessful in making any in-roads into the region. Later on, following the refusal of the king to give compensation for the ships captured by pirates (which incidentally included eight ships full of treasures from Sri Lanka, and not just women and girls), two expeditions had already been sent to India, but they proved unsuccessful. It was the third expedition brought by Mohammad Bin Qasim which succeeded in capturing Sindh, from Mansura to Multan. However, because of the Arabs’ internal dissension and political infighting, Sindh remained a neglected outpost of the Arab empire, and soon reverted to local kings.

Myth 3

The myth of the idol-breaker.

Mahmood Ghaznavi, the great son of Islam and idol-breaker par excellence, took upon himself to destroy idols all over India and spread Islam in the subcontinent.

Mahmud, who came from neighbouring Ghazni, Central Asia, invaded India no less than 17 times. But except Punjab, he made no attempt to conquer any other part of the country or to try and consolidate his rule over the rest of India. In fact, the only thing that attracted him was the treasures of India, gold and precious stones, of which he took care and carried back home a considerable amount every time he raided the country. Temples in India were a repository of large amounts of treasure at the time, as were the churches in Europe, hence his special interest in temples and idols.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not the kings, the Central Asian sultans who ruled for over 300 years and the Mughals who ruled for another 300 years, who brought Islam to the subcontinent. That work was accomplished by the Sufi Sheikhs who came to India mainly to escape persecution from the fundamentalists back home, and who, through their high-mindedness, love for humanity, compassion, tolerance and simple living won the hearts of the people of all religions.

Myth 4

The myth of the cap-stitcher.

Of all the kings who have ruled the subcontinent, the one singled out for greatest praise in our text books is Aurangzeb, the last of the great Mughals. Baber built the empire; Humayun lost it and got it back; Akbar expanded and consolidated it; Jahangir was known for his sense of justice; Shahjehan for his magnificent buildings. But it is Aurangzeb, known as a pious man, who grabs the most attention. The prevalent myth is that he did not spend money from the treasury for his personal needs, but fulfilled them by stitching caps and copying out the Holy Quran. Is there any real need for discussing this assertion? Anyone who’s least bit familiar with the Mughal lifestyle would know how expensive it was to maintain their dozens of palaces. The Mughals used to have many wives, children, courtiers, concubines and slaves who would be present in each palace, whose needs had to be met. Could such expenses be met by stitching caps? And even if the king was stitching caps, would people buy them and use them as ordinary caps? Would they not pay exorbitant prices for them and keep them as heirlooms? Would a king, whose focus had to be on military threats surrounding him from all sides and on the need to save and consolidate a huge empire, have the time and leisure to sit and stitch caps? Let’s not forget that the person we are referring to as a pious Muslim was the same who became king after he imprisoned his won father in a cell in his palace and killed all his brothers to prevent them from taking over the throne.

Myth 5

It was the Muslims who were responsible for the war of 1857; and it was the Muslims who bore the brunt of persecution in the aftermath of the war, while the Hindus were natural collaborators of the British.

It is true that more Muslim regiments than Hindu rose up against the British in 1857. But the Hindus also played a major role in the battle (the courageous Rani of Jhansi is a prime example); and if Muslim soldiers were inflamed by the rumour that the cartridges were laced with pig fat, in the case of Hindus, the rumour was that it was cow fat. And a large number of Muslims remained loyal to the British to the very end. (The most illustrious of them being Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.)

Furthermore, the Muslims did not lose their empire after 1857. The British had already become masters of most of India before that time, having grasped vast territories from both Hindu and Muslim rulers through guile and subterfuge.

The Mughal emperor at the time was a ruler in name only; his jurisdiction did not extend beyond Delhi. After 1857, the Hindus prospered, because they were clever enough to acquire modern education, learn the English language, and take to trade and commerce. The Muslims were only land owners, wedded to the dreams of the past pomp and glory, and when their lands were taken away, they were left with nothing; their madressah education and proficiency in Persian proved to be of no help. As a matter of fact, it was a hindrance in such changing times.

Myth 6

The Muslims were in the forefront of the struggle against the British and were singled out for unfair treatment by the latter.

Not at all. In fact, the first ’gift’ given to the Muslims by the British was in 1905 in the form of partition of Bengal (later revoked in 1911). The Shimla delegation of 1906 has rightly been called a ’command performance’; the Muslims were assured by the viceroy of separate electorates and weightage as soon as their leaders asked for them. After that, he Muslim League came into being, established by pro-British stalwarts like the Aga Khan, Justice Amir Ali, some other nawabs and feudal lords. And the first objective of the Muslim League manifesto read: "To promote feelings of loyalty to the British government."

The Muslim League never carried out any agitation against the British. The only time the Muslims agitated was during the Khilafat Movement in the early ’20s, led by the Ali brothers and other radical leaders. Not a single Muslim League leader, including the Quaid-i-Azam, ever went to jail. It was the Congress which continued the anti-British non-violent and non-cooperation movement in the ’30s and ’40s, including the famous ’Quit India’ movement, while Muslim League leaders continued to denounce such movements and exhorted their followers not to take part in them.

Myth 7

The Muslim League was the only representative body of the Muslims.

It is an incontrovertible fact that it was only after 1940 that the Muslim League established itself as a popular party among the Muslims. Prior to that, as evident in the 1937 elections, the Muslim League did not succeed in forming the government in any of the Muslim majority provinces. In those elections, out of the total of 482 Muslim seats, the Muslim League won only 103 (less than one-fourth of the total). Other seats went either to Congress Muslims or to nationalist parties such as the Punjab Unionist Party, the Sind Unionist Party and the Krishak Proja Party of Bengal.

Myth 8

Allama Iqbal was the first person to come up with the idea of a separate Muslim state.

This is one of the most deeply embedded myths in our country and the one which has been propagated by all governments. In fact, the idea that Muslim majority provinces of the north-west formed a natural group and should be considered a single bloc had been mooted by the British as far back as 1858 and freely discussed in various newspaper articles and on political platforms. Several variations of the idea had come from important public personalities, including British, Muslims and some Hindus. By the time Allama Iqbal gave his famous speech in 1930, the idea had been put forward at least 64 times. So, Iqbal voiced something which was already there, and was not an original ’dream’. After his speech at Allahbad was reported, Allama Iqbal published a ’retraction’ in a British newspaper that he had not been talking of a separate Muslim sate, but only of a Muslim bloc within the Indian federation.

Myth 9

The Pakistan Resolution envisaged a single Muslim state.

The fact is that none of the proposals regarding the Muslim bloc mooted by different individuals or parties had included East Bengal in it. The emphasis had always been on north-western provinces, which shared common frontiers, while other Muslim majority states, such as Bengal and Hyderabad, were envisaged as separate blocs. So, it was in the Pakistan Resolution. The resolution reads: "The areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states, in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign."

Leaving aside the poor and ambiguous drafting of the entire resolution, the part about states (in plural) is very clear. It was only in 1946, at a convention of the Muslim League legislators in Delhi, that the original resolution was amended, which was adopted at a general Muslim League session and the objective became a single state.

Myth 10

March 23, 1940 is celebrated because the Pakistan Resolution was adopted on that day.The fact of the matter is that the Pakistan Resolution was only introduced on March 23 and was finally adopted on March 24 (the second and final day of the session).

As to why we celebrate March 23 is another story altogether. The day was never celebrated before 1956. It was first celebrated that year as the Republic Day to mark the passage of the first constitution and Pakistan’s emergence as a truly independent republic. It had the same importance for us as January 26 for India. But when Gen Ayub abrogated the constitution and established martial law in 1958, he was faced with a dilemma. He could not let the country celebrate a day commemorating the constitution that he had himself torn apart, nor could he cancel the celebration altogether. A way-out was found by keeping the celebration, but giving it another name: the Pakistan Resolution Day.

Myth 11

It was Ghulam Muhammad who created imbalance of power between the prime minister and head of state, and it was he who sought to establish the supremacy of the governor-general over the prime minister and parliament.

When Pakistan came into being, the British government’s India Act of 1935 was adopted as the working constitution. And it was the Quaid-i-Azam himself who introduced certain amendments to the act to make the governor-general the supreme authority. It was under these powers that the Quaid-i-Azam dismissed the government of Dr Khan Sahib in the NWFP in August 1947 and that of Mr Ayub Khuhro in Sindh in 1948.

Besides being governor-general, the Quaid-i-Azam also continued as president of the Muslim League and president of the Constituent Assembly.

It was these same powers under which Mr Daultana’s government was dismissed in Punjab in 1949 by Khawaja Nazimuddin, who himself was dismissed as prime minister in 1953 by Ghulam Mohammad.

However, in 1954, a move was started by members of the then Constituent Assembly to table an amendment to the act, taking away excessive powers of the governor-general. It was this move which provoked the governor-general, Ghulam Mohammad, to dismiss the Constituent Assembly in 1954, and thereby change the course of Pakistan’s history.

These are some of the myths that have been drummed into our heads from childhood and have become part of our consciousness. There are scores more, pervading our everyday life. And there are many unanswered questions such as:

• What is Pakistan’s ideology and when was the term first coined? (It was never heard of before 1907.)

• Why was Gandhi murdered? (He was supposedly guarding Pakistan’s interest.)

• What is the truth about the so-called traitors, Shaikh Mujeeb, Wali Khan, and G.M. Syed?

• What caused the break-away of East Pakistan?

• Why was Bhutto put to death?

• Are all our politicians corrupt and self-serving?

• Why does our history repeat itself after every 10 years?

The answers to all these questions require a thorough study of history, not mythology. But history unfortunately is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in our country. It’s time things changed. REFERENCE: The myth of history By Prof Shahida Kazi Posted: Mar 28, 2005 Mon 01:12 am http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/38007/35925 [The Article had appeared in Daily Dawn in 2005] The myth of history By Prof Shahida Kazi March 27, 2005 http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/050327/dmag1.htm
Romila Thapar: India's past and present — how history informs contemporary narrative

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8HhLJzpx3Y

In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands.” In this poem, Kipling urged the U.S. to take up the “burden” of empire, as had Britain and other European nations. Published in the February, 1899 issue of McClure’s Magazine,The White Man’s Burden”: Kipling’s Hymn to U.S. Imperialism http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/

Take up the White Man’s burden—

Send forth the best ye breed—

Go send your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild—

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child

Take up the White Man’s burden


تاریخ کی دیو مالا ز پروفیسر شاہدہ قاضی

تاریخ ایک ایسا شعبہ تعلیم ہے جسے پاکستانیوں نے کبھی سنجیدگی سے نہیں لیا۔ نتیجہ یہ ہے کہ اس شعبے کو اس بری طرح مسخ کردیا گیا ہے کہ بہت سی گھڑی ہوئی کہانیاں ہمارے اجتماعی شعور کا حصہ بن گئی ہیں۔

کیا سچ میں دیومالا کا تاریخ سے کوئی تعلق ہے؟ کیا دیومالا اور تاریخ ایک ہی چیز کے دو نام ہیں؟ یا تاریخ ہی دیومالا ہے؟

بلاشک ان دونوں میں بہت نازک سا فرق ہے۔ زمانہ قبل از تاریخ سے ہی انسان ہمیشہ اپنی جڑوں کی تلاش میں رہا ہے۔ وہ عہد گزشتہ کے افسانوی کرداروں کے بارے میں حقیقی اور ٹھوس معلومات کی تلاش میں بھی رہا ہے، وہ کردار جو ہمارے اجتماعی شعور کا حصہ بن چکے ہیں۔ نتیجتًا ہم دیکھتے ہیں کہ کنگ آرتھر نامی کسی بادشاہ کی تاریخ میں موجودگی ثابت کرنے کی جستجو کی جاتی ہے، افسانوی شہر ٹرائے کی باقیات تلاش کی جاتی ہیں، اور نوح علیہ السلام کی کشتی کے رکنے کا مقام تلاش کرنے کے لیے کئی مہمات وضع کی جاتی ہیں۔

ساٹھ اور ستر کے عشروں میں عالمی سطح پر ایک تحریک چلائی گئی تاکہ دیومالائی داستانوں میں موجود ’خداؤں‘ کی موجودگی ثابت کی جائے؛ کہ وہ دوسری کہکشاؤں سے آئے تھے؛ اور یہ کہ انسانیت کی ساری ترقی ان اجنبی فوق البشر ہیروز کی مرہون منت ہے۔ اس موضوع پر کئی ایک کتابیں لکھی گئیں۔

ہم، یہاں پاکستان میں، الگ ہی مزاج کے حامل ہیں۔ دوسری قومیتوں کی طرح کوئی باقاعدہ دیو مالا نہیں تو کیا ہوا، ہم نے اپنی دیومالائی داستانیں بنا لیں، جن میں ایسے ایسے ہیروز کی یادیں ہیں جن کے ساتھ بے شمار کارنامے منسوب ہیں۔

لیکن فرق یہ ہے کہ ہمارے افسانوی ہیرو قبل از تاریخ اور بہت پرانے دور کے نہیں بلکہ ہمارے آج کے دور سے ہی تعلق رکھتے ہیں۔ ان ہیروز کے گرد بالکل حقیقی لگنے والی دیومالا کھڑی کی گئی ہے، ان کی شخصیت اور کارنامے، جو کہ ہمارے بچوں کے کانوں میں اس وقت سے انڈیلنا شروع کردئیے جاتے ہیں جیسے ہی وہ سکول جانے کے قابل ہوجائیں۔ یہ تلقین اتنی گہری ہوتی ہے کہ حقائق سے پردہ اٹھانے یا سچائی کا چہرہ دکھانے کی ہر کوشش کو ہرزہ سرائی سے کم پر محمول نہیں کیا جاتا۔

ذیل میں ایسی ہی کچھ بہت عام سی دیومالائیں موجود ہیں:

دیو مالا 1

ہماری تاریخ 712 عیسوی سے شروع ہوتی ہے جب محمد بن قاسم برصغیر میں آیا اور اس نے دیبل کی بندرگاہ کو فتح کیا۔

کسی بھی معاشرتی علوم یا معالعہ پاکستان کی کتاب کو اٹھا لیں،وہ محمد بن قاسم سے ہی شروع ہوتی ہے۔ اس کی آمد سے پہلے کیا تھا؟ جی ہاں، راجہ داہر جیسے ظالم و جابر ہندو حکمران اور پسی ہوئی غیر تہذیب یافتہ آبادی جو کسی ’نجات دہندہ‘ کی آمد کی شدت سے منتظر تھی تاکہ وہ انھیں ظالم حکمرانوں کے پنجوں سے نجات دلائے۔ اور جب نجات دہندہ آیا، تو اس کا کھلی باہنوں سے استقبال کیا گیا، اور شکرگزار لوگ جوق در جوق اسلام میں داخل ہوگئے۔

کیا ایسا ہی ہوا تھا؟ تاریخ کا یہ ورژن بڑی آسانی سے نظر انداز کر دیا جاتا ہے کہ وہ علاقہ جہاں ہمارا ملک واقع ہے کی بڑی شاندار 6000 سالہ تاریخ ہے۔ موہن جودڑو کو بھول جائیں۔ ہم ان کے بارے میں بہت زیادہ نہیں جانتے۔ لیکن معلومہ تاریخ ہمیں بتاتی ہے کہ محمد بن قاسم سے پہلے، اس علاقے میں، جو تقریبًا پنجاب، سندھ، سرحد پر مشتمل ہے پر کم سے کم بارہ مختلف بادشاہوں نے حکومت کی جو دینا کے مختلف حصوں سے تعلق رکھتے تھے، جیسے کہ خسرو سے داریوش تک کے ایرانی حکمران، یونانی جن میں بیکتیریائی، سچیانی، پارتھئین، چین سے کشانا، اور (اٹیلا کے خاندان سے تعلق رکھنے والے) ہُن جو چین سے ہی آئے تھے، یہ ان ہندو خاندانوں کے علاوہ تھے جن میں اشوک، چندر گپت اور موریا جیسے عظیم حکمران شامل ہیں۔

گندھارا کے دور میں اس علاقے کو دنیا کی سب سے بڑی اور اہم یونیورسٹی کا وطن ہونے کا اعزاز حاصل رہا، ہمارا شہر جسے ہم آج ٹیکسلا کہتے ہیں۔ ہم اعلٰی تہذیب یافتہ، پڑھے لکھے، آسودہ حال، تخلیقی اور معاشی طور پر زرخیز لوگ رہے ہیں، اور بہت سے ممالک نے ہم سے علمی اور معاشی دونوں طرح سے فیوض حاصل کیے۔ یہ ایسی چیز ہے جو ہمیں بھولنی نہیں چاہیے۔ لیکن کیا ہم اپنے بچوں کو یہ سب بتاتے ہیں؟ نہیں۔ چناچہ یہ دیو مالا نسل در نسل چلتی ہے۔

دیو مالا 2

محمد بن قاسم ہندوستان آیا تاکہ وہ مظلوم بیواؤں اور یتیم لڑکیوں کی مدد کرے۔

تاریخ سے ہماری خوش فہمانہ چشم پوشی کی وجہ سے ہم جانتے ہی نہیں یا جاننے کی کوشش ہی نہیں کرتے کہ وہ دور اسلامی سلطنت کو وسعت دینے کا دور تھا۔ عربوں نے دنیا کا بڑا حصہ فتح کرلیا تھا، جس میں پورا مشرق وسطی، فارس، شمالی افریقہ اور سپین شامل ہیں۔ چناچہ منطقی لحاظ سے یہ نہیں کہا جاسکتا کہ انھوں نے ہندوستان جیسے روائتی خزانوں کے ملک کو فتح کرنے کا نہ سوچا ہو۔

حقیت یہ ہے کہ عربوں نے ہندوستان کی طرف اپنی پہلی مہم حضرت عمرؓ کے دور میں بھیجی تھی۔ اسی کے تسلسل میں ایک مہم حضرت عثمانؓ کے دور میں مکران بھی آئی۔ لیکن وہ اس علاقے میں کوئی حکومت قائم کرنے میں ناکام رہے تھے۔ بعد میں راجہ کی جانب سے سمندری قذاقوں کے ہاتھوں اغوا شدہ بحری جہازوں (جو اتفاقًا عورتوں اور لڑکیوں کے ساتھ ساتھ سری لنکا کے خزانوں سے بھی بھرے ہوئے تھے) کا معاوضہ دینے سے انکار پر دو مہمات پہلے ہی ہندوستان روانہ کی جاچکی تھیں لیکن وہ بھی ناکام رہی تھیں۔ یہ تیسری مہم تھی جو محمد بن قاسم کی قیادت میں سندھ بھجی گئی اور کامیاب ہوئی جس کا مقصد منصورہ سے ملتان تک کے علاقے کو قبضے میں کرنا تھا۔ تاہم عربوں کی اندرونی رنجش اور سیاسی رسہ کشی کی وجہ سے سندھ عرب سلطنت کا نظراندازشدہ کنارہ بنا رہا، اور جلد ہی اس پر مقامی حکمران قابض ہوگئے۔

دیو مالا 3

بت شکن کی دیو مالا۔

محمود غزنوی، بیک وقت اسلام کا عظیم بیٹا اور عظیم بت شکن، نے پورے ہندوستان سے بت شکنی کا بیڑہ اٹھایا اور برصغیر میں اسلام کو پھیلا دیا۔

محمود، جو کہ قریبی ریاست غزنی وسط ایشیا سے آیا تھا، نے انڈیا پر کم از کم 17 بار حملہ کیا۔ لیکن پنجاب کے علاوہ اس نے ملک کے کسی اور حصے کو فتح کرنے یا ہندوستان کے دوسرے حصوں پر اپنا اقتدار مضبوط کرنے کی کوئی کوشش نہ کی۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ اسے صرف ہندوستان کے زر و جواہرات نے للچایا، سونا اور قیمتی پتھر، جن کا اس نے خیال کیا اور ہر بار اپنے حملے کے بعد ان کی اچھی خاصی مقدار اپنے ساتھ واپس لے کر گیا۔ ہندوستان کے مندر اس وقت زر و جواہر اور خزانوں کا مخزن تھے، جیسا کہ یورپ میں کلیسا کا کام تھا، چناچہ مندروں اور بتوں میں اس کی خصوصی توجہ کا مرکز یہی زر و جواہر تھے۔

عام عقیدے کے برعکس، نہ یہاں پرحکومت کرنے والے بادشاہوں، وسط ایشیا کے سلاطین جنہوں نے 300 سال حکومت کی، اور نہ ہی مغل جنہوں نے بعد کے 300 سال حکومت کی، نے یہاں اسلام متعارف کرایا۔ یہ کام ہندوستان آنے والے صوفی بزرگوں نے کیا جو اپنے وطن میں بنیاد پرستوں کی ایذارسانیوں سے تنگ آکر ہندوستان چلے آئے تھے، جن کے اعلٰی اخلاق ، انسانیت کے لیے محبت، دردمندی، رواداری اور سادہ طرز زندگی نے تمام مذاہب کے لوگوں کے دل جیت لیے۔

دیو مالا 4

ٹوپیاں سینے والے کی دیو مالا

برصغیر پر حکومت کرنے والے تمام بادشاہوں میں سے، جس کی تعریف ہماری کتابوں میں سب سے زیادہ کی جاتی ہے وہ اورنگزیب ہے، مغلوں کا آخری عظیم تاجدار۔ بابر نے سلطنت بنائی؛ ہمایوں نے گنوائی اور پھر واپس حاصل کی؛ اکبر نے اسے پھیلایا اور مستحکم کیا؛ جہانگیر اپنے عدل کی وجہ سے جانا جاتا تھا؛ اور شاہجہاں اپنی عظیم تعمیرات کی وجہ سے۔ لیکن اورنگزیب جسے ایک متقی انسان سمجھا جاتا ہے سب سے زیادہ توجہ کا مستحق ٹھہرتا ہے۔ پائی جانے والی دیومالا یہ ہے کہ وہ خزانے میں سے اپنے ذاتی خرچ کے لیے رقم نہیں لیتا تھا، بلکہ وہ اپنی ضروریات ٹوپیاں سی کر اور قرآن کی کتابت کرکے پوری کرتا تھا۔ کیا اس دعوے کو بار بار دوہرانے کی کوئی خاص ضرورت ہے؟ کوئی بھی جو مغلوں کے طرز زندگی سے تھوڑی سی واقفیت رکھتا ہے یہ جانتا ہوگا کہ درجنوں کے حساب سے محلات کو چلانے کا خرچ کتنا تھا۔ مغلوں کی کئی بیویاں، بچے، مصاحب، داشتائیں، اور غلام ہوا کرتے تھے جو کہ ہر محل میں ہوا کرتے ہونگے اور جن کی ضروریات بھی پوری کرنا ہوتی ہونگی۔ کیا ایسے اخراجات ٹوپیاں سینے سے پورے ہوسکتے تھے؟ اور اگر بادشاہ ٹوپیاں سیتا بھی تھا تو کیا لوگ انھیں خریدتے تھے اور عام ٹوپیوں کی طرح پہنتے تھے؟ کیا وہ ان کے لیے بہت زیادہ رقم خرچ نہیں کرتے ہونگے اور بطور مقدس ورثہ نہیں سنبھالتے ہونگے؟ کیا ایک بادشاہ، جس کی نظر اپنے اردگرد موجود جنگی خطروں اور ایک عظیم سلطنت کو محفوظ اور مستحکم رکھنے پر رہتی تھی، کے پاس اتنا وقت ہوگا کہ وہ آرام سے بیٹھ کر ٹوپیاں سی سکے؟ یہ نہ بھولیے کہ وہ شخص جسے ہم متقی مسلمان کہہ رہے ہیں اپنے ہی باپ کو اپنے محل کی ایک کوٹھڑی میں قید کرکے اور اپنے بھائیوں قتل کرکے برسر اقتدار آیا تھا تاکہ وہ اس کے اقتدار کے لیے خطرہ نہ بن سکیں۔

دیو مالا 5

یہ مسلمان تھے جو 1857 کی جنگ کے ذمہ دار ہیں؛ اور یہ مسلمان ہی تھے جنہوں نے جنگ کے بعد ایذارسانیاں اور تکلیفیں برداشت کیں، جبکہ ہندو انگریزوں کے قدرتی اتحادی تھے۔

یہ سچ ہے کہ ہندوؤں کی نسبت زیادہ مسلمان رجمنٹوں نے 1857 میں علم بغاوت بلند کیا۔ لیکن ہندؤں نے بھی لڑائی میں اہم کردار ادا کیا (جھانسی کی رانی اس کی بہترین مثال ہے)؛ نیز اگرمسلمان فوجی اس افواہ پر برافروختہ ہوگئے تھے کہ کارتوسوں کا سرا خنزیر کی چربی سے بنا ہے تو ہندو بھی اس افواہ پر کہ کارتوس کا سرا گائے کی چربی سے بنا ہے پر آپے سے باہر ہوگئے تھے۔ اور مسلمانوں کی بڑی اکثریت انگریزوں کے ساتھ آخر تک وفادار بھی رہی۔ (ان میں سب سے زیادہ مشہور سرسید احمد خان ہیں۔)

مزید یہ کہ مسلمانوں نے 1857 کے بعد اپنی سلطنت نہیں کھوئی تھی۔ انگریز اس سے پہلے ہی ہندوستان کے بہت سے علاقے کے آقا بن بیٹھے تھے، مسلمان اور ہندو حکمرانوں سے حیلے بازی اور فریب کاری سے بہت سا علاقہ ہتھیا چکے تھے۔

اس وقت مغل بادشاہ کی موجودگی برائے نام ہی تھی؛ اس کی عمل داری دہلی سے باہر نہیں تھی۔ 1857 کے بعد ہندوؤں نے تیزی سے ترقی کی، چونکہ وہ جدید تعلیم حاصل کرنے، انگریزی زبان سیکھنے، اور کامرس و تجارت میں آگے بڑھنے میں تیز نکلے۔ مسلمان صرف جاگیر دار تھے، ماضی کی عظمت اور شان و شوکت کے خوابوں سے بندھے ہوئے، اور جب ان کی جاگیریں ضبط کرلی گئیں تو ان کے پاس کچھ بھی نہ رہا؛ ان کی درس نظامی کی تعلیم اور فارسی میں مہارت ان کے کچھ کام نہ آسکی۔ یہ حقیقت ہے کہ یہ سب بدلتے ہوئے زمانے کے ساتھ بدلنے میں رکاوٹ تھا۔

دیو مالا 6

مسلمان انگریزوں کے خلاف جدوجہد میں سب سے آگے تھے اور بعد میں ان سے خصوصًا ناانصافی پر مشتمل سلوک کیا گیا۔

بالکل بھی نہیں۔ بلکہ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ مسلمانوں کو پہلا ’تحفہ‘ انگریزوں نے 1905 میں بنگال کی تقسیم کی شکل میں دیا (جسے 1911 میں واپس لے لیا گیا) 1906 کے شملہ وفد کو صحیح طور پر ’حکمیہ کارکردگی‘ کا حامل کہا جاتا ہے؛ مسلمانوں کو ان کے رہنماؤں کے مطالبے پر وائسرائے نے بلا تاخیر جداگانہ انتخاب اور رائے دہندگی کا یقین دلایا۔ اس کے بعد مسلم لیگ وجود میں آئی، جسے انگریزوں سے قرب رکھنے والے رہنماؤں جیسے آغا خان، جسٹس امیر علی، کچھ دوسرے نوابین اور جاگیر داروں نے قائم کیا۔ اور مسلم لیگ کے منشور کا پہلا مقصد کچھ یوں ہے:”برطانوی حکومت کے بارے میں وفادارانہ خیالات کو فروغ دیا جائے۔”

مسلم لیگ نے برطانیہ عظمی کے خلاف کبھی بھی تحریک نہ چلائی۔ اکلوتا موقع جب مسلمانوں نے تحریک چلائی 20 کے عشرے کی تحریک خلافت تھی جس کی قیادت علی برادران اور دوسرے بچے کھچے رہنماؤں نے کی۔ مسلم لیگ کا ایک بھی رہنما، قائد اعظم سمیت، کبھی بھی جیل نہیں گیا۔ یہ کانگرس تھی جس نے برطانیہ مخالف عدم تشدد اور عدم تعاون پر مشتمل تحریک 30 اور 40 کے عشرے میں جاری رکھی جس میں مشہور زمانہ ’ہندوستان چھوڑ دو‘ تحریک بھی شامل ہے، جبکہ مسلم لیگی رہنماؤں نے ان تحریکوں کی مذمت کرنے اور اپنے پیروؤں کو ان میں حصہ لینے سے روکنا جاری رکھا۔

دیو مالا 7

صرف مسلم لیگ ہی مسلمانوں کی نمائندہ جماعت تھی۔

یہ ناقابل تردید حقیقت ہے کہ1940 کے بعد مسلم لیگ نے مسلمانوں میں مقبول ترین جماعت کے طور پر اپنا تشخص قائم کرلیا۔ لیکن اس سے پہلے، 1937 کے انتخابات سے یہ ثابت ہے کہ مسلم لیگ کسی بھی مسلم اکثریت والے صوبے میں حکومت نہیں بنا سکی تھی۔ ان انتخابات میں، 482 مسلم نشستوں میں سے مسلم لیگ کو صرف 103 ملی تھیں (جو کہ کل میزان کے ایک چوتھائی سے بھی کم ہے۔) دوسری نشستیں یا تو کانگریس کے مسلمانوں کو مل گئیں، یا پھر دوسری قوم پرست جماعتوں جیسے پنجاب یوننیسٹ پارٹی، سندھ یونینسٹ پارٹی اور بنگال کریشک پوجا پارٹی کو چلی گئی تھیں۔

دیو مالا 8

علامہ اقبال پہلے انسان تھے جنہوں نے الگ مسلم ریاست کا خیال پیش کیا۔

یہ ان گہری راسخ شدہ دیومالاؤں میں سے ہے جن کا پروپیگنڈہ ہر حکومت نے کیا۔ حقیقت میں، شمال مغربی علاقے کے مسلم اکثریتی صوبے ایک قدرتی گروپ بناتے ہیں اور انھیں ایک اکائی تصور کیا جانا چاہیے کا خیال 1858 سے برطانویوں کے ہاں زیر بحث تھا اور اسے مختلف سیاسی پلیٹ فارمز اور اخباری مضامین میں بھی اکثر زیر بحث لایا گیا۔ اس تصور کی مختلف صورتیں اہم عوامی شخصیات نے پیش کیں، جن میں برطانوی، ہندو اور مسلمان سب شامل ہیں۔ جب علامہ اقبال نے اپنا 1930 کا مشہور خطبہ پیش کیا، اس وقت تک کم از کم 64 بار یہ تصور پیش کیا جاچکا تھا۔ چناچہ اقبال نے جو کچھ کہا وہ پہلے ہی سے موجود تھا، اور یہ کوئی طبع زاد ’خواب‘ نہ تھا۔ ان کے الہ آباد کے خطبے کی اشاعت کے بعد، علامہ اقبال نے ایک برطانوی اخبار میں ایک ’تردید‘ شائع کروائی کہ ان کا مقصد الگ مسلم ریاست کا مطالبہ نہیں تھا، بلکہ ان کی مراد ہندوستان کے وفاق میں رہتے ہوئے ایک مسلم بلاک سے تھی۔

دیو مالا 9

قراردادِ پاکستان نے ایک متحدہ مسلم ریاست کا تصور پیش کیا۔

حقیقت یہ ہے کہ مسلم بلاک کے بارے میں پیش کردہ مختلف تصورات میں ،جو انفرادی اور اجتماعی طور پر پیش ہوئے، مشرقی بنگال شامل نہیں تھا۔ ہمیشہ شمال مشرقی صوبوں پر زور دیا جاتا رہا، جن کی سرحدیں مشترک تھیں جبکہ دوسری مسلم اکثریتی ریاستوں جیسے بنگال اور حیدرآباد دکن کو الگ بلاک خیال کیا جاتا تھا۔ چناچہ یہ تھی قراردادِ پاکستان۔ جس کے مطابق: “علاقے جہاں مسلمان عددی اکثریت میں ہیں جیسا کہ ہندوستان کے شمال مغربی اور مشرقی علاقے، کو آزاد ریاستوں میں بدل دینا چاہیے، جہاں متعلقہ اکائیاں خودمُختار اور حکومت سازی میں آزاد ہوں۔

پوری قرارداد کے ادنی اور مبہم مسودے کو پرے رکھتے ہوئے، ریاستوں (جو کہ جمع ہے) والا حصہ بالکل واضح ہے۔ یہ صرف 1946 میں، مسلم لیگ کے نمائندوں کے اجلاس منعقدہ دہلی میں ہوا کہ قرارداد میں ترمیم کی گئی اور اسے مسلم لیگ کے ایک عمومی اجلاس میں اپنا لیا گیا اور مقصد ایک متحدہ ریاست کا قیام قرار پایا۔

دیو مالا 10

23 مارچ 1940 اس لیے منایا جاتا ہے کہ قراردادِ پاکستان کو اس دن نصب العین قرار دیا گیا۔ حقیقت حال یہ ہے کہ قراردادِ پاکستان 23 مارچ کو صرف پیش کی گئی تھی جبکہ اس کو منظور اور اپنایا 24 مارچ کو گیا تھا ( جو کہ اس اجلاس کی دوسری اور حتمی نشست تھی)۔

یہ ایک الگ کہانی ہے کہ ہم 23 مارچ کیوں مناتے ہیں۔ یہ دن 1956 سے پہلی کبھی نہیں منایا گیا۔ اس سال یہ پہلی بار یوم جمہوریہ کے طور پر منایا گیا تھا چونکہ ہمارا پہلا آئین منظور ہوا تھا اور پاکستان ایک حقیقی آزاد جمہوریہ بنا تھا۔ ہمارے لیے اس کی اہمیت ایسے ہی ہے جیسے ہندوستان کے لیے 26 جنوری کی۔ لیکن جب جنرل ایوب خان نے 1958 میں آئین منسوخ کرکے مارشل لاء نافذ کیا تو اسے اس دُبدھا کا سامنا کرنا پڑا۔ وہ ملک کو ایک ایسا دن نہیں منانے دے سکتا تھا جو اس آئین کی یادگار تھا جس کی اس نے خود دھجیاں اڑائی تھیں، اور نہ ہی وہ اس جشن کو روک سکتا تھا۔ چناچہ حل یہ نکالا گیا کہ جشن کو جاری رکھا گیا، لیکن اس کا نام بدل دیا گیا: قراردادِ پاکستان کا دن۔

دیو مالا 11

یہ غلام محمد تھا جس نے وزیر اعظم اور ریاست کے سربراہ کے مابین اختیارات کا عدم توازن پیدا کیا، اور وہی گورنر جنرل کی فوقیت کو وزیراعظم اور پارلیمنٹ پر مسلط کرنا چاہتا تھا۔

جب پاکستان وجود میں آیا تو ابتدا میں برطانوی حکومت کا 1935 کا ہندوستانی حکومت کا ایکٹ بطور عبوری آئین اپنایا گیا۔ اور قائداعظم نے بذات خود اس ایکٹ میں ایسی ترامیم متعارف کروائیں جس کی وجہ سے گورنر جنرل بالادست اور مقتدر ہوگیا۔ انھی اختیارات کی رو سے قائد اعظم نے اگست 1947 میں سرحد میں ڈاکٹر خان صاحب کی حکومت اور 1948 میں سندھ میں مسٹر ایوب کھوسو کی حکومت کو برطرف کیا۔

گورنر جنرل رہنے کے ساتھ ساتھ قائد اعظم مسلم لیگ کے صدر اور قانون ساز اسمبلی کے صدر بھی رہے۔

یہی اختیارات تھے جن کے تحت پنجاب میں 1949 میں مسٹر دولتانہ کی حکومت کو خواجہ ناظم الدین نے برطرف کیا، جن کی حکومت کو 1953 میں غلام محمد نے برطرف کیا تھا۔

تاہم 1954 میں اس وقت کی قانون ساز اسمبلی کے اراکین کی طرف سے ایک تحریک چلائی گئی تاکہ ایکٹ میں ترامیم کرکے گورنر جنرل سے اضافی اختیارات واپس لے لیے جائیں۔ اسی تحریک نے گورنر جنرل غلام محمد کو مشتعل کیا اور اس نے قانون ساز اسمبلی 1954 میں توڑ دی، اور پاکستان کی تاریخ کا دھارا بدل ڈالا۔

یہ کچھ دیومالائی داستانیں ہیں جنہیں بچپن سے ہی ہمارے کانوں میں انڈیلا جاتا ہے اور جو ہمارے شعور کا حصہ بن جاتی ہیں۔ ایسے بے شمار اور افسانے ہماری روزمرہ کی زندگی میں سرایت کیے ہوئے ہیں۔ اور یہاں بہت سے سوالات ہیں جن کے جواب موجود نہیں جیسے:

• نظریہ پاکستان کیا ہے اور یہ اصطلاح سب سے پہلے کب ایجاد ہوئی؟ (یہ 1907 سے پہلے کبھی نہیں سنی گئی۔)

گاندھی کا قتل کیوں کیا گیا؟

(چونکہ وہ شاید پاکستان کے مفادات کا تحفظ کررہا تھا۔)

• نام نہاد باغیوں شیخ مجیب، ولی خان، اور جی ایم سید کی حقیقت کیا ہے؟

• سقوط مشرقی پاکستانی کی وجہ کیا تھی؟

• بھٹو کو کیوں موت کے حوالے کیا گیا؟

• کیا تمام سیاستدان کرپٹ اور مفادپرست ہیں؟

•ہماری تاریخ ہر 10 سال بعد اپنے آپ کو کیوں دوہراتی ہے؟

ان تمام سوالات کے جوابات دیو مالا کی بجائے تاریخ کے مکمل مطالعے کے متقاضی ہیں۔ لیکن بدقسمتی سے تاریخ ایک ایسا شعبہ تعلیم ہے جسے ہمارے ملک میں کبھی بھی سنجیدگی سے نہیں لیا گیا۔ یہ وقت ہے کہ چیزوں کو بدلا جائے۔
Courtesy: Mr Awais Masood http://roshnipk.com/blog/?p=130

Website: http://secularpakistan.wordpress.com/ http://awaismasood.wordpress.com/

Dr. Zakir Naik and Tragedy of Karbala - 3

Dr. Zakir Naik, Indian Muslim Scholar

New Age Islam wrote:

Unity among Muslims and Dr. Zakir Naik’s Evil: A Point of View by Dr. Maulana Abbas Ali Naqvi Translation from Urdu by: Syed Raihan Ahmad Nezami

http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1077

The History of Karbala Abu ‘Ammar’s History of Karbala being published below is bound to prove controversial.

http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1105
==================================================================

Dear Ansari Sahab,

As per my poor knowledge answers for your queires are inserted after every query:

There is nothing new in it. The same old parrot like repeating about Karbala. The following questions need answers from the author, if he believes that there was indeed bloodshed of the kind narrated above:

- Why did Imam Hussein not heed to the advice of the elders including Sahabis of Rasool saww against going to Kufa? [Ayub Ansari]

Aamir Mughal: Fate - Destiny [Qaza - Qadar]

-If his mission was so sacred to unseat Yazeed for his atrocities, why did the people of Kufa, Medina, Mecca rise in revolt?

Aamir Mughal: Hazrat Hussain Bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was a Human and to err is human and Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] was not free from mistake.

-If he has embarked on a mission to Karbala, why didn't people join him in large numbers on the way as he had crossed several villages, towns and cities during his long journey to Kufa?

Aamir Mughal: Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] wasn't going on a War, people dont take their Women and Children to war.

- Did it mean the Muslims of the era were coward and over awed by the Yazeed army? Unbelievable?

Aamir Mughal: You have answered your own question by writing "Unbelievable".

- Kufans betrayed Imam Hussein, was it an act of berayal or a trap laid to entice Imam Hussein to Kufa?

Aamir Mughal: Yes they betrayed Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] like they betrayed Hazrat Hasan Bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], like they betrayed Hazrat Ali Bin Abi Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] and if you dont believe me then read Nehjul Balagha [alleged sermons which are attributed to Hazrat Ali - May Allah be pleased with him]

-If he has any intention of fighting a Jihad, why did he carry along with him 17 members of his family? Did this happened anytime during several Jihads fought by Muslims during the period of the Prophet saww?

Aamir Mughal: Never.

-If he is a spiritual head, why did he aspire for worldly power like Khilafat?

Aamir Mughal: Hazrat Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] didn't aspire for power but these Historians and their lies narrated History in such a blasphemous way as if Ali, Hasan and Hussein were power hungry. These Lofty Companions of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] i.e. Ali, Hasan and Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] were free from such vices due to the pious training and pure company they enjoyed.

-If he was killed in the battle of Karbala and Yazeed army had committed so much atrocities against the family of the Prophet saww, why did the people including those Sahabas did not rise in revolt immediately, there should have been mass uprising as the one who was killed was no ordinary person, but a grandson of the Prophet saww?

Aamir Mughal: Did people revolt when Hazrat Omar - May Allah be pleased with him [Father In Law of Prophet Mohammad - PBUH and Son-In-Law of Hazrat Ali - May Allah be pleased with him] was murederd? Did people reovlt when Hazrat Uthman - May Allah be pleased with him [Son-In-Law of Prophet Mohammad - PBUH] was murdered after many days of siege within his own house in Medina and water and food supply were also stopped by the miscreants? Did people revolt when Hazrat Ali - May Allah be pleased with him [Son-In-Law of Prophet Mohammad - PBUH, Father-in-Law of Hazrat Omar]. Why didn't they revolt because Islam doesn't encourage Rebellion and Revolts:

Post is in 3 parts:


1- Obeying the Ruler [Quran and Hadith].


2- Conditions for Rebellion [Khurooj] against Rulers.


3- Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah on Rebellion Against the Rulers and A Discussion of the Khurooj Made By the Early Salaf .


1- Obeying the Ruler [Quran and Hadith]:

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.[AN-NISA (WOMEN) Chapter 4 Verse 59]

The Necessity of Obeying the Rulers in Obedience to Allah Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah,

(Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority.) "Was revealed about `Abdullah bin Hudhafah bin Qays bin `Adi, who the Messenger of Allah sent on a military expedition.'' This statement was collected by the Group, with the exception of Ibn Majah At-Tirmidhi said, "Hasan, Gharib''. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ali said, "The Messenger of Allah sent a troop under the command of a man from Al-Ansar. When they left, he became angry with them for some reason and said to them, `Has not the Messenger of Allah commanded you to obey me' They said, `Yes.' He said, `Collect some wood,' and then he started a fire with the wood, saying, `I command you to enter the fire.' The people almost entered the fire, but a young man among them said, `You only ran away from the Fire to Allah's Messenger. Therefore, do not rush until you go back to Allah's Messenger, and if he commands you to enter it, then enter it.' When they went back to Allah's Messenger , they told him what had happened, and the Messenger said,

(Had you entered it, you would never have departed from it. Obedience is only in righteousness.)'' This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. Abu Dawud recorded that `Abdullah bin `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(The Muslim is required to hear and obey in that which he likes and dislikes, unless he was commanded to sin. When he is commanded with sin, then there is no hearing or obeying.) This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. `Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "We gave our pledge to Allah's Messenger to hear and obey (our leaders), while active and otherwise, in times of ease and times of difficulty, even if we were deprived of our due shares, and to not dispute this matter (leadership) with its rightful people. The Prophet said,

(Except when you witness clear Kufr about which you have clear proof from Allah.)'' This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. Another Hadith narrated by Anas states that the Messenger of Allah said,

(Hear and obey (your leaders), even if an Ethiopian slave whose head is like a raisin, is made your chief.) Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith. Umm Al-Husayn said that she heard the Messenger of Allah giving a speech during the Farewell Hajj, in which he said;

(Even if a slave was appointed over you, and he rules you with Allah's Book, then listen to him and obey him.) Muslim recorded this Hadith. In another narration with Muslim, the Prophet said,

(Even if an Ethiopian slave, whose nose was mutilated...) In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my commander, obeys me, and whoever disobeys my commander, disobeys me.) This is why Allah said,

(Obey Allah), adhere to His Book,

(and obey the Messenger), adhere to his Sunnah,

(And those of you who are in authority) in the obedience to Allah which they command you, not what constitutes disobedience of Allah, for there is no obedience to anyone in disobedience to Allah, as we mentioned in the authentic Hadith,

(Obedience is only in righteousness.)

The Necessity of Referring to the Qur'an and Sunnah for Judgment

Allah said,

((And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger). Mujahid and several others among the Salaf said that the Ayah means, "(Refer) to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.'' This is a command from Allah that whatever areas the people dispute about, whether major or minor areas of the religion, they are required to refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah for judgment concerning these disputes. In another Ayah, Allah said,

(And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah). Therefore, whatever the Book and Sunnah decide and testify to the truth of, then it, is the plain truth. What is beyond truth, save falsehood This is why Allah said, u

(if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day.) meaning, refer the disputes and conflicts that arise between you to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment. Allah's statement,

(if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. ) indicates that those who do not refer to the Book and Sunnah for judgment in their disputes, are not believers in Allah or the Last Day. Allah said,

(That is better) meaning, referring to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes is better,

(and more suitable for final determination.) meaning, "Has a better end and destination,'' as As-Suddi and several others have stated while Mujahid said, "Carries a better reward.''

2- Conditions for Rebellion [Khurooj] against Rulers.

‘Ubaydullaah ibn ‘Adiyy ibn Khiyaar reports: I went to ‘Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu), whilst he was being besieged and I said to him: You are the ruler of the Muslims in general and you see what has befallen you. We are being led in prayer by a leader of insurrection and we are afraid of being sinful. So ‘Uthmaan said, “The prayer is the best of actions which people do so, when the people do good deeds, do good along with them. When they do evil, avoid their evil.” Reported by al-Bukhaaree.

Imaam Al-Barbahaaree Says in his Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah To hear and obey the rulers in that which Allah loves and is pleased with. Whoever becomes Khaleefah through the consensus of the people and their being pleased with him, he is the ‘Chief of the Believers’ (Ameerul-Mu’mineen) .

It is, therefore, not permissible for anyone to spend a single night thinking that he has no Imaam over him, whether he (the Imaam) be righteous or wicked.

The Hajj and Jihaad are to be carried out under his leadership. Jumu’ah prayer behind them (i.e. the wicked rulers)

Imaam Al-Barbahaaree Says in his Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah: Whoever rebels against a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims and has contradicted the narrations and dies a death of the days of ignorance (Jaahiliyyah)


It is permissible to fight the Khawaarij if they attack the Muslims.

It is permissible to fight the Khawaarij if they attack the persons, property or families of the Muslims,[Refer to Saheeh al-Bukhaaree] but, if they desist and flee, they may not be chased, nor are their wounded to be killed, nor set upon, nor may those taken captive be killed, nor are those who flee to be followed.

The Khawaarij are a group who first appeared in the time of ‘Alee (radiallaahu anhu). They split from his army and began the grave innovation of Takfeer (declaring Muslims, rulers or the ruled, in their view guilty of major sins, to be disbelievers).The Prophet warned against them in many authentic ahaadeeth: “The Khawaarij are the dogs of the Fire.” Reported by Ahmad and it is saheeh. He also informed us that they would continue to appear until the end of this world, saying, “A group will appear reciting the Qur’aan, but it will not pass beyond their throats. Every time a group appears, it is to be cut off, until the Dajjaal appears within them.” Reported by Ibn Maajah and it is hasan. Refer to Silsilatul-Ahaadeet h as-Saheehah.

Imaam Al-Barbahaaree Says in his Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah: It is neither permissible to fight the ruler or to rebel against him, even if he oppresses.

This is due to the saying of the Messenger of Allah to Abu Dharr al-Ghifaaree, “Have patience, even if he is an Abyssinian slave” [Muslim] and his saying to the Ansaar, “Have patience until you meet me at the Pool.”[Reported by al-Bukhaaree] from the hadeeth of Usayd ibn al-Hudayr) There is no fighting against the ruler in the Sunnah. It causes destruction of the religion and the worldly affairs.

Hudhaifah (radiallaahu anhu) reports, in a longer hadeeth, that the Messenger of Allah said, “There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance and will not follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans.” He (Hudhaifah) asked, “What shall I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I reach that?” He eplied, “You should hear and obey the ruler, even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth, then still hear and obey.” Reported by Muslim.

Al-Khallaal reports, in as-Sunnah that: Abu Bakr related to us, saying, “I heard Abu ‘Abdullah (Imaam Ahmad) ordering that bloodshed be avoided and he strongly forbade rebellion.”

It is also related by Ibn Sa'ad in Tabaqaatul Kubraa A group of Muslims came to al Hasan al Basree (d.110H) seeking a verdict to rebel against al Hajjaaj. So they said, "O Abu Sa'eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that?" So al Hasan said, "I hold that he should not be fought. If this is the punishment from Allah (Ta'aala), then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allah (Ta'aala), then be patient until Allah's Judgement comes, and He is the best of Judges."

So they left Al Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al Hajjaaj - so al Hajjaaj killed them all.

Hajjaaj wasath Thaqafee, and is well known. Adh Dhahabee said in Siyar A'lamin Nubalaa at the end of his biography, "We revile him and do not love him, rather we hate him for Allah (Ta'aala). He had some good deeds, but they are drowned in the ocean of his sins, and his affair is for Allah!"

About them al Hasan used to say, "If the people had patience, when they were being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah (Ta'aala) will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left to their swords. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good."It is related by Ibn Sa’d in at-Tabaqaat, and by Ibn Abee Haatim in his Tafseer.

And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan Gani (radiallaahu' anhu), some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid (radiallaahu' anhu), "Will you not speak to 'Uthmaan?" So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate."

It is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah Muhammad (salallaahu' alayheewasallam) in the Ahaadeeth of 'Iyaad Ibn Ghunum who said, "The Messenger of Allaah Muhammad (salallaahu' alayheewasallam) said, "Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not, then he has fulfilled that which was a duty upon him." (Reported by Ahmad and Ibn Abee 'Aasim with a Saheeh isnaad.)

And when they (the Khawaarij) opened up the evil in the time of 'Uthmaan (radiallaahu' anhu) and rejected 'Uthmaan openly, the fitnah, the killing and the mischief, which has not ceased to affect the people to this day, was brought about. And this caused the fitnah to occur between 'Alee and Mu'aawiyyah and 'Uthmaan (radiallaahu' anhu) was killed for these reasons.

(Futhermore) a large number of Companions and others besides them were killed due to this open rebellion and the open proclamation of the faults (of the ruler), until the people began to hate the one charged with authority over them and killed him. We ask Allah for success." [These were the words of the Shaykh Abdul Azeez Ibn Baaz, (hafidhahullaah) . Taken from Al-Ma'loom min Waajib il-'Ilaaqah bain al Haakim wal-Mahkoom, .]

Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar (d.852H) – Rahimahullaah – said in Fathul-Baaree (1/138): “The advice to the leaders of the Muslims is to aid them upon that by which they will become established. And it is to warn them against negligence, and to correct their deficiency when they slip, and to unite the word upon them, and to reject the hearts that have enmity towards them. And the greatest advice is to prevent them – by using that which is good – from oppression.”

Imaam Al-Barbahaaree Says in his Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah: When fitnah occurs, remain in your house When turmoil (fitnah) occurs, remain within your house [1] and flee from the neighbourhood of tumult. Beware of blind following and every case of fighting between Muslims for this world is discord and a trial. Fear Allah, who is alone, having no partner. Do not go out in it, do not fight in it, do not take part in it, do not take sides in it, nor incline towards either (side) and do not have love for any of their affairs, since it is said, “He who loves the deeds of a people, good or bad, is just like the one who commits them.” May Allah grant us and you those things pleasing to Him and keep us away from disobedience to Him.

Ibn az-Zubayr narrates: My close friend, Abul-Qaasim (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) advised me, “If you reach anything of the tumult (fitnah), go to Uhud and blunt your sword upon it, then remain in your house.” Reported by Ahmad in al-Musnad. Its isnaad is hasan, as has been mentioned by Shaikh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) in as-Saheehah.

Behaving well towards the oppressive ruler and praying behind him

Imaam Al-Barbahaaree Says in his Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah Know that a ruler’s oppression does not reduce or remove anything that Allah has made obligatory upon the tongue of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). His oppression is upon himself. Your acts of obedience and good deeds, along with behaving well towards him, are complete, if Allah, the Most High, wills. Accompany them in all acts of obedience, such as the congregational and Jumu’ah prayers [and Jihaad alongside them] for you have your independent intention in that.

Shaikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) says in Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa , “The rulers are not to be fought due to committing sins. Even though a person may be killed for some sins, such as adultery and the like. However, it is not permitted to fight the rulers for doing things for which a person may be killed, since the corruption caused by this fighting is far greater than the corruption of a major sin committed by the ruler.”

Imaam Al-Barbahaaree Says in his Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah If you find a man making supplication against the ruler, know that he is a person of innovation. If you find a person making supplication for the ruler to be upright, know that he is a person of the Sunnah, if Allah wills. Fudayl ibn ‘Iyaad said, “If I had an invocation that was to be answered, I would not make it except for the ruler.” It was said to him, “O Abu ‘Alee, explain that to us.” He replied, “If I made an invocation for myself, it would not go beyond me. Whereas, if I make it for the ruler, he is corrected and, through that, the servants and the land are set in order”.

Ibn al Mubaarak Rahimahullaah said (in reference to the above saying of al-Fudayl), "O teacher of goodness, who would show boldness towards this besides you?"

Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d.241H) – rahimahullaah – said “Verily I supplicate for the ruler, for his correctness, success and support – night and day – and I see this as being obligatory upon me.’’ Refer to as-Sunnah of Aboo Bakr al-Khallaal.

We are ordered to make supplication for them (the rulers) to be upright. We have not been ordered to make supplication against them, even if they commit tyranny and oppression, since their tyranny and oppression reflect only upon themselves, but their rectitude is good for themselves and the Muslims.

Some important ahaadeeth regarding Rulers

The Prophet (salallaahu' alayheewasallam) Whosoever sees something from his leader of sin, then let him hate whatever occurs from sin. And let him not remove his hand from obedience, since whoever removes his hand from disobedience and splits off from the Jamaa’ah (united body), then he dies the death of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islaamic times of ignorance)’’ Related by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim.

The Prophet (salallaahu' alayheewasallam) said ‘‘The person must obey in whatever he loves, and in whatever he hates, in ease and in hardship, in willingness and un-willingness; except if he is commanded to disobey Allaah. So if he is commanded to disobey Allaah, then he should not listen, not should he obey.’’ Related by al-Bukhaaree.

The Companions asked him: O Messenger of Allaah! When you mentioned that there will be rulers, ‘you will approve of some things from them, and disapprove of others things.’ They said: So what do you command us to do? He said: ‘‘Give them their right, and invoke Allaah, since He is with you.’’ ’Ubaadah (radiyallaahu ’anhu) said: ‘‘We gave the oath of allegiance to the Messenger of Allaah that we would not oppose the command, not its people.’’ He said: ‘‘Except if you were to see clear disbelief (kufran bawaahan) about which you have a proof from Allaah.’’ Related by Muslim

3- Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah on Rebellion Against the Rulers and A Discussion of the Khurooj Made By the Early Salaf .

All praise is due to Allaah and may the prayers and peace be upon the Messenger. To proceed:

These are some words of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah that are worthy of being written in gold, as they are far reaching, explain the great wisdom contained in the Sharee’ah commands concerning those in authority, and expose what is with the contemporary groups of destruction, from the Khawaarij and other than them, who bring about nothing but mischief and corruption, in the name of rectification.

The Shaykh, Fawzee al-Atharee, in his excellent book, “Irshaad ul-Anaam Ilaa Kaifiyyat Naseehat il-Hukkaam”, quotes the following statement of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, from his Minhaaj us-Sunnah (4/527-):

“For verily Allaah the Exalted sent His Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) for the attainment of the benefits and perfection of them, and for the negation of the harmful things and their reduction. And when one of the khaleefahs took authority, such as Zaid and ‘Abdul-Malik and al-Mansoor and others, then either it was said: It is obligatory to prevent him from this authority and to fight him until someone else is given authority - as is held by those who consider it rightful to use the sword.

And this view is corrupt, for the corruption in this is greater than the benefit. And there is hardly anyone who revolted against a leader with authority except that what arose from his action of evil, was actually greater than whatever good came from it, such as those who rebelled against Yazeed in Madeenah, or like Ibn al-Ash’at1who revolted against ‘Abdul-Malik in ‘Iraaq, or like Ibn al-Mihlab also, who revolted against his son in Khurasaan, and like those who revolted against al-Mansoor in Madeenah and Basrah, and the likes of them.

And their goal is that they are victorious or they are defeated, then their rule (dominion) ceases, and so they do not have any end-result. For Abdullaah bin Alee and Abu Muslim, they are the ones who killed a great number of people, and both of them were killed by Abu Ja’far al-Mansoor. And as for the people of [the occurrence of] al-Harrah (in Madinah) and Ibn al-Ash’at and Ibn al-Mihlab, and others, then they were defeated, and their associates were also defeated. So they never established the deen and nor did they allow the dunyaa (worldly life) to remain (as it was)And Allaah, the Exalted, does not order something on account of which rectification of the deen and the dunyaa is not attained – even if the one who does that is from the Awliyaa of Allaah, the Pious ones (Muttaqeen), and from the People of Paradise.

For they are not more superior than Aa’ishah and Talhah and az-Zubair and others, and alongside (what they did), they did not praise what they fell into of fighting, and the likes of these are of greater rank and position in the sight of Allaah, and of better intention than those besides them…

And al-Hasan al-Basri used to say, “Verily al-Hajjaaj is a punishment of Allaah, so do not repel the punishment of Allaah with your hands, but you must (repel it) with humility and submission”.

And the most superior of the Muslims (from the early Muslims) used to forbid revolting and fighting in the times of tribulation, such as ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Umar and Sa’eed bin al-Musayyab, and ‘Alee bin al-Hasan and others, all of them used to forbid, during the year of Harrah, from the revolt against Yazeed, and just as al-Hasan al-Basree and Mujaahid and others used to forbid from revolt during the tribulation of Ibn al-Ash’at.

And it is for this reason that it is firmly established with Ahl us-Sunnah to abandon fighting in times of tribulation due to the authentic ahaadeeth that are established from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), and they began to mention this matter in the course of (authoring their works) on their aqeedah, and they would command with patience towards the oppression of the leaders, and the abandonment of fighting against them – even if a fair portion of the people of knowledge fought against them during the tribulation…

And whoever reflects upon the authentic ahaadeeth that are established from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) concerning this topic, and also considers with the consideration of those with insight and deep knowledge, will know that that which the Prophetic Texts have come with is from the best of all affairs.

And for this reason, when al-Husayn (radiallaahu anhu) desired to revolt against the people of ‘Iraaq, they wrote many letters to him, as has been indicated by the people of knowledge, such as Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbaas, ‘Abu Bakr bin Abdur-Rahmaan bin al-Haarith bin Hishaam, that he should not revolt, and their overwhelming belief was that he would be killed… and they were actually desiring to give sincere advice to him, and were seeking what was beneficial and better for him, and for the Muslims in general, and Allaah and His Messenger, verily, they only command with rectitude, not with corruption. However, the opinion can sometimes be correct and can sometimes be wrong.

So it has become clear that the correct affair was what they had said, and there was not to be found in the revolt any rectification or benefit for the deen and nor for the dunyaa. Rather, those oppressive wrongdoers were able to overcome the grandson of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) until they killed him as one oppressed, a martyr. And in his revolt and his fighting (against them) was such corruption and mischief that would not have occurred had he sat and remained in his own town.

For whatever he intended of the attainment of good and repelling of evil, then nothing from it occurred. Rather, only evil increased by his revolt and his fighting, and the goodness diminished on account of that. And that was also the cause of a great deal of evil, and the killing of Husayn itself was what brought about the tribulations, just as the killing of ‘Uthmaan was from that which brought about tribulations.

And all of this is what explains that whatever the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded of patience towards the tyranny of the Rulers and abandonment of fighting against them and revolting against them, that this is of the most beneficial and rectifying of affairs, in both this life and the next, and that whoever opposes this deliberately, or due to an error, then no rectification is attained by his action, rather only corruption.

And for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) praised al-Hasan with his saying, “Verily, this son of mine is a leader (sayyid) and Allaah will bring about reconciliation through him between two great factions from amongst the Muslims”, but he did not praise anyone on account of fighting in the time of tribulation, and nor on account of revolting against the leaders, and nor on account of withholding from obedience, or separating from the Jamaa’ah.

And the ahaadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) that are established in the Saheeh, all of them indicate this... and this explains that the reconciliation between the two parties was praised and was loved by Allaah and His Messenger, and that what was done by al-Hasan in bringing this about was from the greatest of his excellencies and his stations, on account of which the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) praised him. And if fighting had been obligatory or reccommended - and the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) never praised anyone for the abandonment of that which is obligatory or reccommended - and for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) did not praise anyone on account of what happened of fighting on the Day of the Camel, and Siffeen, let alone what occurred in Madinah on the Day of Harrah, and whatever happened in Makkah in the besieging of Ibn az-Zubayr, and what happened in the fitnah of Ibn al-Ash'at and Ibn al-Mihlab and other such tribulations.

Rather, it has been successively narrated (tawaatara) from him that he commanded fighting against the Khawaarij, the Renegades, those whom the Chief of the Believers fought against, Alee bin Abee Taalib (radiallaahu anhu), at Nahrawaan, after they had revolted against him at Harooraa. For the narrations (sunan) from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) were in abundance (i.e. spread, known) concerning the fighting against them (the Khawaarij), and when Alee (radiyallaahu anhu) fought against them, he rejoiced with fighting against them, and he also narrated the hadeeth concerning them, and the Companions also agreed upon fighting them.

And similarly the people of knowledge after them, this fighting (against the Khawaarij) was not like the fighting of the people of the Camel and Siffeen and other than them, from those matters in which no text of Ijmaa' has come, and neither any praise of the noble ones who entered into it. Rather, they were remorseful about it, and also returned (i.e. recanted) from it.

And this hadeeth (i.e. concerning al-Hasan) is from the signs of the Prophethood of our Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), when he mentioned about al-Hasan whatever he mentioned, and praised him for what he praised him. So whatever he mentioned and whatever he praised was in agreement with the truth that actually occurred after more than 30 years... as occurs in the authentic hadiths, and also despite what has been reported about them in the hadeeth of Abu Umaamah, collected by at-Tirmidhi and others that they are “the most evil of those who are killed under the sky and how excellent is the one killed by them”. Meaning that they are more harmful to the Muslims than others, for there are none which are more harmful to the Muslims than them, neither the Jews and nor the Christians. For they strived to kill every Muslim who did not agree with their view , declaring the blood of the Muslims, their wealth, and the slaying of their children to be lawful, while making takfir of them. And they considered this to be worship, due to their ignorance and their innovation that caused to stray…”

Minhaj us-Sunnah 5/248.

Ibn Hubairah concerning the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree, “In this hadeeth is proof that fighting the Khawarij comes before fighting the pagans, mushrikeen. And the wisdom in that is that in fighting against them is a preservation of the capital of Islaam, whereas in fighting the people of Shirk there is the seeking of increase (in capital). So preserving the capital comes first.” Fath ul-Bari 12/301.

‘Asim bin Shumaikh said, “So I saw him – meaning Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree (who reported the hadith about the killing of the Khawarij) – after he had grown old and when his hands began to tremble, saying, ‘Fighting them – meaning the Khawarij – is greater to me than fighting an equal number of the Turks”. Ibn Abi Shaybah 15/305 and Musnad Ahmad 3/33. And fighting the Khawaarij is in all times, and it is obligatory to repel them, by way of the pen, tongue or sword as they will never cease to emerge until in the midst of the last of them appears the Dajjaal. The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, “A group will appear reciting the Qur’aan, it will not pass beyond their throats, every time a group appears, it is to be cut off, until the Dajjaal appears within them”. (Reported by Ibn Maajah and it is Hasan. And see Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah of al-Albaanee, no. 2455).

And the two main features of the Khawaarij are takfir by way of major sins and adopting revolt and rebellion as a methodology of reform. And a new band of Khawaarij has emerged in contemporary times under the influence of teachings, doctrines and works of their pole and axis, Aal Qutb – who have aided in the proliferation of the aqeedah and manhaj of the Khawaarij.

And this very thing is the actual wisdom that the legislator (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was attempting to bring about and nurture in his prohibition of revolting against the rulers, and he taught abandonment of fighting in times of fitnah - even if those who fell into this considered that their intent is to enjoin the good and forbid the evil.

And it is actually from this angle (i.e. intending the enjoining of good and forbidding of evil) that the Khawaarij made lawful the (raising of the) sword against the people of the qiblah, until they killed Alee and others from the Muslims. And similarly, those who agreed with them in revolting against the Rulers, with the sword, in general terms - such as the Mu'tazilah, the Zaydiyyah, and the Fuqahaa (Jurists), and others. Such as those who revolted alongside Muhammad bin Abdullaah bin Abdullaah bin Hasan bin Husayn, and his brother, Ibraaheem bin Abdullaah bin
Hasan bin Husayn and others.

For the people of the religion are from the likes of these (i.e. those who revolted), but they err from two angles:

The first: That what they considered to be from the deen is not actually from the deen, such as the viewpoint of the Khawaarij and other than them from the people of desires. For they believe in an opinion that is an error and an innovation, and then they fight the people over it. Rather, they declare as disbelievers those who oppose them. Hence, they become errant in their opinion and also in fighting those who opppose them, or making takfir of them and cursing them.

And this is the condition of the People of Desires in general, such as the Jahmiyyah who called the people to the rejection of the realities of the Beautiful Names of Allaah, and His Lofty Attributes. They say: Verily, He does not have speech except the speech which He created in others (besides Himself), and that He will not be seen, and other such things. And they also put the people to trial, when some of the rulers inclined towards them (i.e. towards the Jahmiyyah), and so they would punish whoever would oppose them in their opinion, either with death, or with imprisonment, or with banishment and prevention of sustenance. And the Jahmiyyah did this on more than one occasion (in history), and Allaah supports His believing Servants against them.

And the Rafidah are more evil than them, when they gain authority, for they are loyal to the Kuffaar and aid them, and they show enmity towards all those from the Muslims who do not agree with their viewpoint. Similarly, those who have something within them of innovations, either the innovation of the Hulooliyyah. .. or the innovation of the Negators (of the Attributes) or those who exaggerate in affirmation (of the Attributes), or the innovation of the Qadariyyah, or that of Irjaa', or other than that. You will find him believing in corrupt beliefs, and then declare as a disbeliever or curse whoever opposed him. And the Khawaarij Renegades are the Imaams of all of these in making takfeer of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah and in fighting them.

The second:

The one who fights based upon his belief in a viewpoint to which he calls the one who opposes the Sunnah and Jamaa'ah, such as the People of the Camel, and Siffeen, and al-Harrah, and al-Jamaajim and others. However, he thinks that the desired rectification and benefit will be attained by way of this fighting, but this fighting attains no such thing. Rather, the corruption and harm becomes greater, much more than what it was initially. And then what the legislator (i.e. the Prophet) actually indicates and direct towards (of what entails true rectitude) finally becomes clear to them at the end of the affair.

And from that which is desirable to be known is that the causes of these tribulation are actually mixed, shared. For certain states and conditions come over the hearts that prevent them from knowing the truth and desiring it, and thus they resemble the state of Jaahiliyyah. Since, in Jaahiliyyah there was no knowledge of the truth and nor the desiring of this truth. And then Islaam came with beneficial knowledge and the righteous action, which is the knowledge of the truth, and desiring it.

So it is agreed that some of the rulers commit oppression by way of monopoly, control (i.e. being authoritarian and misappropriating) , and then the souls do not show patience over his oppression. And it is not possible for them to repel his oppression except by what is even greater corruption than it (i.e. his oppression). However, for the sake of the love of a person, so that his due legal right can be given, and that oppression can be repelled from him, he does not look at (and consider) the general corruption, mischief that would arise on account of his action.

And for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, “Verily, you will face hardship, so have patience until you meet me at the Hawd”, and it is likewise established in the Saheeh, that he said, “Upon a Muslim is to hear and obey, in times of difficulty and in ease, in the disliked things (to which one disapproves of) and in likeable things (to which one shows zeal), and when he preference is given (to other than him)”.

For the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) ordered the Muslims that they should be patient when they are controlled, monopolised (in oppression), and that they should obey those who in charge of their affairs, even if they (the rulers) give preference to themselves over them (the subjects), and that they should not contend for authority. And many of those who revolted against those in authority, or the vast majority of them, then they revolted so that they may contend with them (for authority), alongside their misappropriation, monopoly, over them, so they did not show patience upon this... and the one who fights remains thinking that he is only fighting him so that there is no more fitnah and so that the deen, all of it is for Allaah, and yet the greatest of that which actually motivated him (mobilised him) was seeking his portion, either of leadership, or of wealth.

Just as Allaah, the Exalted said, “If they are given part thereof (of alms), they are pleased, but if they are not given thereof, behold! They are enraged!” (At- Tawbah 9:58) and in the Saheeh from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) that he said, “There are three whom Allaah will not speak to, nor look at on the Day of Judgement, and nor will he purify them, and they will have a tormenting punishment.. . and a man who gives the pledge of allegiance to a leader (imaam)

and he does not do so except for the sake of the world, if he is given from it, he is pleased, and if he is prevented from it, he is enraged...” And he ordered having patience upon their misappropriation, and prohibited fighting against them, and contending with them (for authority), alongside their oppression. Because the corruption, mischief that arises from fighting during fitnah, is greater than the corruption in the oppression of those in authority.

Thus, the lighter of two evils is not to be removed by the greater of the two. And whoever reflects upon the Qur'aan and the Sunnah that is established from Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and considers it will find it to be in agreement with what he finds in his own soul.”

End of Shaykh ul-Islaam’s words.

"UNQUOTE"

- Is mourning permitted in Islam? If even mourning should be observed, it is permitted for just three days. Why then year after year Moharram is observed as a month of mournig, while Prophet saww had observed fast on 9th and 10th day of Moharram. Is it not a month when Allah had created the world?

Aamir Mughal: No it is not allowed to mourn after three days and it is even more objectionable and sin to mourn over the death of a Martyr or Martyr and Hazrat Hussain and his Ahl Al Bayt [May Allah be pleased with all of them] were martyrs and that is beyond doubt.

- Why the Muslims of today are still stuck up with life in 600 AD and are not alive to the problems of the Muslim Ummah in 21st century?

Aamir Mughal: That is the tragedy and Hope Allah will guide us. Amen.

You said in your reply that Hazrat Umar was killed. What was the name of this killer and his fate after he was killed? -You also said that Hazrat Usman house was encricled for days together and the rebels did not supply food and waater to the Kalifa? He was eventually killed by them? If so, was it not a similar or more henious crime against Zinnorein and Kalif of Islam? Where was Ali, May Allah be pleased with him? Why he did not go to the rescue of Hazrat Usman? -Who killed Hazrat Usman and how many of them were caught and hanged? [Ayub Ansari]

Dear Ansari Sahab,

Answers as per my humble and poor knowledge:

1 - Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Abu Lulu Feroze Majoosi [Zoroastrian] and he committed suicide after injuring/martyring several Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}

2 - Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Kanana Bin Bashir Tajeebi, Umro Bin Hamaq, Umair Bin Zabi, Saudan Bin Imran, Ghafiqi bin Harb Akki, Qateera, Zaid Bin Safwan, Malik Ashtar Nakha'i, Ziyad Bin Nasar, Abdullah Bin Al Asim Amri, Hakeem Bin Jubla Abdi, Zarbaj Bin Ibad, Bashir Bin Shareeh Qaisi, Ibn Al Marhash, Harqoos Bin Zahir Sa'adi and Ibn Adees {These Anarachists were leading the Deviant Mob of 2500 from Basra, Kufa and Egypt}. This may please be kept in mind that majority of the people in those fateful days were on Hajj to Makkah. {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.

3 - Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] and his immediate family members rather his [May Allah be pleased with him] i.e. sons [May Allah be pleased with all of them] were offerring the duty to protect Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] and with them Mohammad Bin Talha and Abdullah Bin Zubair [May Allah be pleased with him] and these Great Personalities were sent back by Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] to their homes because he didn't want bloddshed and anarchy in Medina. Hazrat Ali and his sons [May Allah be pleased with them] were free from any kind of allegation of taking part in the Martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him], even to think that Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with] was involved in Uthman's Murder is a Sin. The only difference between Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiyah [May Allah be pleased with both of them] was the method of Qisas for Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] and that was it. Hazrat Ali's only problem was that most of those who took part in Hazrat Uthman's murder, joined and accepted him as Caliph and Hazrat Ali was surrounded by anarchist and waiting for the right moment to do the needful regarding Qisas of Hazrat Uthman whereas the opposing Camp was demanding immediate action.{Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.

4 - Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Abdul Rahman Ibn Muljam Muradi [Khariji] and he was killed in Qisas by Hasan Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], keep in mind that Ibn Maljam was earlier in Hazrat Ali's Army [in Jamal and Siffin] {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.