Murder of History in Pakistan.

PAKISTAN is a part of India and P.V. Narasimha Rao is the prime minister of the country. This is being taught to school students in some Indian states, according to a member of parliament. S. Semmalai, of the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK), highlighted these monstrosities in Lok Sabha on Wednesday while referring to the controversy over an Ambedkar cartoon in textbooks during a discussion on an amendment bill concerning educational institutions. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, born into a lower caste family, was a crusader for Dalit rights who headed the body that drafted India’s post-independence constitution. “In the textbooks of Karnataka, it is mentioned even now that Pakistan is a part of India. It went on to state that American constitution is based on capitalism. Class-III students of Urdu medium in Andhra Pradesh are taught that P.V. Narasimha Rao is the prime minister of the country,” Semmalai said, evoking laughter all around the house. Finding further fault with the textbooks, he said: “In some textbooks a forest is defined as a group of trees and heavy industry is defined as one where heavy type of raw materials are used.” The member said that only 15 per cent of graduates were suitable for employment. It reflects the poor quality of education at all levels, from primary to higher levels. He lamented: “If this is the quality and stuff that we provide to our students, one can imagine what will be the standard of our students. “Unless we make concerted efforts to allocate six per cent of the GDP to education, our goal will remain unreachable,” he added. REFERENCE: Karnataka textbook says Pakistan part of India http://dawn.com/2012/05/17/karnataka-textbook-says-pakistan-part-of-india/

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad predicting Pakistan


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q7p3_fZCKw

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation by Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore http://www.newageislam.com/books-and-documents/maulana-abul-kalam-azad--the-man-who-knew-the-future-of-pakistan-before-its-creation/d/2139

Most significantly, Allama Iqbal favoured, in his Sixth Lecture, the concept of real ‘ijtihad’ (reinterpretation) on the ‘nas’ (clear edict) of the Quran. That is the only ‘ijtihad’ useful to the Muslims. Nothing has gone right with Islamisation, starting from ‘zakat’ to ‘diyat’ (blood money) and the ‘hudood’. When the Muslims have done ‘ijtihad’ on the ‘nas’ they have done ‘ijtihad-e-ma’akoos’ (retrogressive reinterpretation) as in the case of the Quranic ‘nas’ on the law of divorce . Few will disagree that Allama Iqbal was a great poet. But there is a reaction against him in some circles after the state of Pakistan adopted him as its founding philosopher and selectively hyped up his message. One has to be careful not to lose objectivity over Allama Iqbal. Self-serving politicians and ulema quote him to advance their dubious causes. Finally the greatness of the poet will rest neither in the hype nor in the angry reaction against him. GEO (November 3, 2004) had Ghazi Salahuddin discussing Allama Iqbal with Dr Mubarak Ali on his Main Nahin Manta programme. Dr Mubarak Ali said that Allama Iqbal had no message for the world of today. He wrote poetry for the middle class Muslims and his objective was Muslim ummah which did not exist. He was not a supporter of democracy and it was an exaggeration to call him a national poet. One scholar present in the programme said that Allama Iqbal had defended democracy in his Lectures. Jinnah was finally to take the cue from Iqbal’s address of 1930. Dr Mubarak Ali said that Iqbal was a great poet but it was not fair to call him a national poet. He said his main aim was to create pride among Muslims whom he thought downtrodden at the time. Dr Mubarak Ali’s rather intemperate opinion (to which he was entitled) was rebutted by the audience effectively. If he wanted to win over the audience he failed because he was so extreme in posture as to be inaccurate. In his famous Lectures, Allama Iqbal favoured democracy. Most significantly, he favoured, in his Sixth Lecture, the concept of real ijtihad (reinterpretation) on the nas (clear edict) of the Quran. Those who hold him up as the thinker of the fundamentalist state should be chastened by this. His 1930 speech in Allahabad has been completely misinterpreted through selective reading by the state. His diatribe against the fundamentalist ulema has also been ignored by the state, while his anti-West verse has been exploited by politicians and the ulema to create xenophobia in Pakistan. Allama Iqbal cannot be rejected out of hand. When the ayatollahs of Iran did it, Dr Ali Shariati arose to his defence and told them they were wrong. GEO (November 3, 2004) programme Chchoti Khabar Bari Baat discussed the situation in Lyari saying the criminal mafias had taken over there and the police had become their informers. Lyari Town in Karachi had become impossible to control because of the fight between two rival mafias: Pappu Dakait and Rehman Dakait. In two and a half months 24 people had lost their lives there. The fight was over bhatta (protection money). The town had no water and no law and order. PPP MNA Gabol said that Lyari had fallen on bad times because it was traditionally a PPP constituency. The governments in the past were not interested in allowing any development there because of this factor. He said in 1996 when the PPP was in power there was no crime in Lyari. He said the police was on the payroll of the dacoits. He also said that ministers in Balochistan were backing the dacoits. When pressured he named chief minister of Balochistan, Jam Yusuf. He said many ministers in Sindh government, too, were taking money from the dacoits of Lyari. Police officer Imran Shaukat admitted police weakness but claimed that he was making headway. He said Lyari had only 100 criminals who could be taken care of. He said the dacoits had started ‘gate politics’ which was cutting off localities with no-go gates. He said every street had its small dacoits. He said he had brought 350 commandos and had deployed 240 policemen in the area. But Gabol said mukhbari (informers) was still going on by police and thana officers were changed on the orders of the mafia. And policemen also ran away. Police officer said Lyari could be normalised in one month. Lyari is the microcosm of a state which has gradually surrendered its writ. The involvement of the feudal and tribal politicians in crime through patronage of dacoits is well known in Sindh and Balochistan. This is the alternative state in existence. Their alternative state is opposed by another class which has been empowered by the state through jihad and the consequent surrender of internal sovereignty: the religious parties and their militias. This is armageddon, the big war in which everyone is a satan. GEO (November 5, 2004) had Aniq Ahmad in his Alif programme discussing dialogue among religions with Prof Manzur Ahmad, and clerics from sects plus a Christian priest. One cleric said that the Quran had said the Jews were firm enemies and so were the pagans (India) but the Christians were soft on Islam and there could be dialogue with them. Christians were not proud and were educated too. Prof Manzur said dialogue was not tabligh (proselytising) and Muslims should not approach a dialogue with other faiths in order to convince them to leave their religion and join Islam. Christian Father said that first one will have to decide what kind of minds had been developed in Pakistan. If the mind was inflexible then it will not dialogue with anyone. The Shia cleric said there was no ban on dialoguing with the Jews in the Quran. He said Quran was negative only about the Jews of Madina. Sunni cleric insisted that Quranic verse was daemi (eternal) therefore Jews were enemies even today. Aniq said the Quran ordained that both Christians and Jews were enemies of Islam; how could the Christians be good then? Christian Father said Muslims could do ijtihad whereupon Aniq asked could there be ijtihad on the verse of the Quran? This was a most absurd discussion with Dr Manzur Ahmed alone talking sense. The clerics were unfit for any human dialogue (even with Muslims) because of their intellectual rigidity. The Sunni was divided with Shia over whether to talk to other faiths. If Islam is to talk to other faiths the ulema will have to be kept out of it. Finally, the discussion made shipwreck on the issue of ijtihad: whether a Muslim could reinterpret a clear verse of the Quran. One fallacy among Muslims is that they allow reinterpretation of faith. The truth is that they live in taqleed (imitation) of the fiqh (jurists) of later times. The only ijtihad useful to Muslims would be ijtihad on the nas of the Quran, as proposed by Allama Iqbal in his Sixth Lecture and rejected by General Zia and the clergy. That is why nothing has gone right with Islamisation, starting from zakat to diyat (blood money) and the hudood. When the Muslims have done ijtihad on the nas they have done ijtihad-e-ma’akoos (retrogressive reinterpretation) as in the case of the Quranic nas on the law of divorce. * REFERENCE: SECOND OPINION: The persistent greatness of Allama Iqbal —Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review uesday, December 14, 2004 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_14-12-2004_pg3_5

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUKr3bCaNJY

Text of Prof. Karrar Memorial Lecture on 2 November 2002 in Karachi delivered by Prof. Hamza Alavi On Religion and Secularism in the making of Pakistan by Prof. Hamza Alavi http://www.sacw.net/2002/HamzaAlaviNov02.html

On Religion and Secularism in the Making of Pakistan SACW 2002 Hamza Alavi Nov 2002

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Wu9vrqOD8

Rewriting the History of Pakistan by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar [Source: Islam, Politics and the State: The Pakistan Experience, Asghar Khan (ed.) Zed Books, London, 1985, pp. 164-177.] www.sacw.net | February 6, 2005 http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/1985HoodbhoyNayyar06022005.html

Rewriting the History of Pakistan by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wj92twKzps

Pakistan: Curriculum of hatred in schools Saturday 5 May 2012 Policy Brief - The Continuing Biases in Our Textbooks By Zubeida Mustafa Policy Brief - Jinnah Institute http://www.sacw.net/article2666.html

Pakistan Curriculum of Hatred in Schools by Zubeida Mustafa

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3AhD8KO1L0

History and interpretation: Communalism and problems of historiography in India by Irfan Habib http://www.sacw.net/India_History/IHabibCommunalHistory.html

Communal Ism and Problems of Historiography in India SACW Irfan Habib

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZNawOgi1M

Radicalization of State and Society in Pakistan by Rubina Saigol http://www.boell-pakistan.org/downloads/Chapter_Rubina_Final.pdf

Radicalization of State and Society in Pakistan by Rubina Saigol

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 6


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMTtBq-t2ew

ISLAM is a great and good religion, as are the other major faiths of the world, when interpreted and put into practice by true men of God learned, balanced, fair-minded, sensible, compassionate and benevolent. I am a Zarathushti, a follower of the prophet Zarathushtra. I am not a Parsi by religion, but by race. The origin of the word ‘Parsi’ goes back 1,368 years when a group of Zarathushtis from the province of Pars in Iran arrived to settle on the west coast of Hindustan, then ruled by the benign king, Jadav Rana. It was the Hindustanis who bestowed upon the community the name ‘Parsis’ the men from Pars. Zarathushtra taught his followers that life was a gift of God to be lived to the full, and that they should do unto others as others and they would be done by. He taught them that religion is a matter that rests entirely between man and his God, that intolerance, bigotry and dogmatism are the bitterest enemies of religion as they render it a tyranny and a form of persecution. Bigotry stifles reason, is blind and savage, sectarian bigotry and inter-religious bigotry being equally evil. Man has no right to demand that his neighbour shall address his God as does he, nor that he shall pray, worship, and sacrifice to God in the manner that he does. No thinking man’s idea of God and religion can ever be the same at all times and in all places on earth. True men of religion know that they have no right to impose their way of thinking upon others, that they must remain free from the spirit of sectarianism and fanatic zeal. Zarathushtra’s teachings, as do the teachings of all the great prophets, define cleanly and clearly the difference between religion and religiosity.

The Parsis living in the four provinces of Pakistan inherited this country. They chose to remain in Jinnah’s Pakistan, and with relief and happiness accepted his creed as proclaimed on August 11, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly. He was clear and concise when he told the members that all men are equal, that religion is not the business of the state. Jinnah’s Pakistan died with him. Zarathushti blood was not shed in the making of Pakistan, though Zarathushti support was given unstintingly. Now to Nawaz Sharif. To gain the two-thirds majority necessary for the smooth passage of the Fifteenth Amendment through the National Assembly and (particularly) the Senate, he will have to buy men. He has done it before, and will do it again. The process has already started. This week, Chaudhry Shujaat was sent off to Balochistan. Closely followed by trusted briefcase carrier, Saifur Rahman, to meet my friend Nawab Mohammad Akbar Shahbaz Khan, Tumandar of all the Bugtis, who owns and controls five vital Senate votes. The Nawab has his own perception of Islam, as is his right, which may not necessarily tally with the concept as followed in Raiwind. Towards the end of last year, inspired by the incompetence of Nawaz Sharif’s government, I had a bet with him that Nawaz Sharif would not survive as PM beyond July 31. I lost. When I asked Akbar where I should send my cheque, he told me he did not want it. Being a good Muslim, he cannot accept a Kafir’s money. One must wonder if, had he lost the bet, would he have held, as a good Muslim, that he cannot pay a Kafir?

The day before yesterday, I read in Dawn that the Nawab had acknowledged that he has received a cheque from a Kafir, but since Islam prohibits a Muslim to use money won on a bet he must pass it on. He has done so, to the Quetta Press Club. This is typical, and enjoyable, Akbar Bugti logic. His Islam did not prohibit him from making a bet with a Kafir, only from accepting a Kafir’s money. He has his own views on Zardosht as he calls him, and why not? He must have had fun with Saifur Rahman (I would have loved to have been with them at their meeting). Nawaz Sharif sits within three cabinets. Firstly, in the Raiwind cabinet, headed by Abbaji who is advised by his cardiologist Dr Shahryar, Judge Afzal Lone, Son Shahbaz, and Child Prodigy Hussain. Second is the kitchen cabinet he himself heads, made up of his Mians and Chaudhrys ( ‘Lahore Lahore hai’). The third, in order of importance, is the official cabinet at Islamabad.

Crisis or no crisis, the third cabinet probably meets formally twice or so in a hundred days. It can broadly be divided into three groups. One comprises the gung-ho table-thumpers, who hang on Nawaz Sharif’s every utterance, echoing each one with a ‘Wah-wah, Mian Sahib’ before he has even completed his sentence, pride of performance going to ‘Mushahidsaab’. Then there is the group made up of the sour-faced, grim and silent lot, whose lips remain sealed unless they are specifically urged to speak up on their own specific subjects. To this second group belongs Khalid Anwer, an intelligent man who has proved to be a bitter disappointment. He cannot match his predecessor in office, law champion of all governments, Jadoogar Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, who at least is honest enough to laugh and say. ‘Accept me as I am, with warts, blemishes, briefcases and all. If it were not for all the weak and corrupt governments of Pakistan, I would not be where I am today.’ Sharifuddin never places himself on a pedestal, seldom looks down on a lesser mortal, Khalid Anwar would do well to re-read paragraph 301 of his written statement, filed in the Supreme Court in response to Benazir Bhutto’s petition against her 1996 dismissal:

"The doctrine of collective responsibility has different facets and aspects. At its most basic, the doctrine means that the ministers are collectively, and as a body, known as the cabinet, responsible to the National Assembly. Individual ministers do not have the choice or luxury of agreeing only with some government decisions and not others. However much a minister may disagree with a policy or decision taken by the cabinet, he must in public and in particular before the National Assembly give it his full and unstinting support. If he finds it impossible to accept or abide by the decision or to support it, he must then resign from office. A minister’s choice to remain in the cabinet is tantamount to his accepting responsibility for all cabinet decisions and government policy."

The third cabinet group is headed by those of practical pragmatic minds, such as Ghous Ali Shah, whose decisions are based on the fear of where they would be should Nawaz Sharif fall. Dogged by the misfortunes that have beset them since the death of Jinnah, the people of Pakistan now face the daunting prospect of Nawaz Sharif manipulating his Fifteenth Amendment through Parliament and then declaring himself, Amirul Momineen and Commander of the Faithful for life. His duties, as he presumably sees them, would enable him, inter alia, to:

Pass an Act whereby a constitutional amendment can go through Parliament by a simple majority (at present the Constitution provides for a two-thirds majority).

Declare the Quran and Sunnah to be the constitution and nominate a body of ‘pious’ Muslims to interpret it.

Declare that all state functionaries, including judges, must strictly follow government directives whether they consider them to be right or wrong.

Dissolve the provinces as being contrary to the concept of Millat.

Abolish Parliament, or just the senate, and nominate a Shoora of ‘pious’ Muslims.

Declare opposition to be un-Islamic, hence banned.

Declare that public offices be restricted to ‘pious’ Muslims.

Declare restrictions on the rights of women, thus banning them from holding public office (bye-bye BB).

Declare any sect of Muslims to be non-Muslim and thus minorities.

Declare that minorities have no rights other than the practice of their religion, of their personal laws, traditions and customs, thus depriving them of their right to vote and other fundamental rights. Subject them to payment of Jazya.

Introduce flogging, amputation, lapidation, the death penalty, and public executions for various major and minor offences.

prohibit western education and declare Islamic education to be compulsory.

Restrict communications with the outside world, such as the Taliban -style banning of television.

Declare interest to be haram and thus not payable on international debts.

All this will be done in the name of a good religion as interpreted at Raiwind.

REFERENCE: Not the business of the state Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 12 September 1998 Issue : 04/36 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/12Sep98.html#nott

Najam Sethi, Dr Safdar, Imran Khan & Mullahs on Jinnah.

One can differ with Najam Sethi or anybody else but raising finger on Najam's integrity and that too only because he gave another interpretation of Indo-Pak History and revealed something about Jinnah which is also well documented but when people start worshipping their political leaders then any logical explanation falls on deaf ears. Much greater and pious person than Jinnah i.e. Imam Malik had said: “Everyone’s opinion could be accepted or rejected except that of the one buried in this grave (pointing to the grave of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him). Imam Ash-Shafi`i also said: “If a Hadith proves to be authentic (regarding a certain issue), then accept it and reject whatever religious opinion I may utter (regarding the same issue).” --- Imam Malik said: "Truly I am only a mortal: I make mistakes (sometimes) and I am correct (sometimes). Therefore, look into my opinions: all that agrees with the Book and the Sunnah, accept it; and all that does not agree with the Book and the Sunnah, ignore it." [Ibn 'Abdul Barr in Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm (2/32), Ibn Hazm, quoting from the former in Usool al-Ahkaam (6/149), and similarly Al-Fulaani (p. 72)]

Lets have a look at our Born Again Revolutionary Imran Khan who shamelessly compared Shafqat Mehmood (a known Turncoat) with Jinnah Turncoat (Lota) Shafqat Mahmood with Imran Khan!  http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2011/11/turncoat-lota-shafqat-mahmood-with.html  Anti Pakistan Kamran Khan (Jang) VS EX IB Chief Masood Sharif Khan Khattak  http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2011/12/anti-pakistan-kamran-khan-jang-vs-ex-ib.html ) with Jinnah Swinging Pendulum of Imran Khan & Lota Shafqat Mahmood http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2011/12/swinging-pendulum-of-imran-khan-lota.html

News Night [Imran Khan] with Talat on Dawn News -- 20th Dec 2011 p1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIs9sZFBj1o

In my opinion Pakistan can only be run peacefully if it is to be run et all then it must be run through an Strictly Secular Constitutional System otherwise be prepare for another Yugoslavia of 90s, Lebanon of 70s and 80s or latest Iraq. Those who claim that Jinnah wanted an Islamic State should know about Jinnah that he was an Ismaili [in his early life as per the record of Bombay High Court] and then converted to Shiaism [as per Sindh High Court Record more references are given at the end with excerpts from a books]. - Just assume that Pakistan is going to be an Islamic State [in a literal and real sense] then what School of thought will govern the country [just imagine the mess Deobandis hates Barelvis, Shia and Wahaabis, Wahaabis hate Deobandis, Barelvis, Shias, Barelvis hates Deobandis, Wahaabis but they dont hate Shia as much above all if Jamat-e-Islami is allowed to run then all those mentioned above hate Jamat-e-Islami to extreme]. We are in a soup for big time. Assume that Jinnah wanted Theocratic Country then it would have been a Rafizi Pakistan. I am posting the entire history below read and you all decide tha should Pakistan be run on Secular Ideology or Islamic Ideology? I vote for Strictly and Pure Secular Pakistan. On 24 September 1948, after the demise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, his sister Fatimah Jinnah and the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, submitted a jointly signed petition at the Karachi High Court, describing Jinnah as ‘Shia Khoja Mohamedan’ and praying that his will may be disposed of under Shia inheritance law. On 6 February, 1968 after Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah'’ demise the previous year, her sister Shirin Bai, moved an application at the High Court claiming Fatimah Jinnah’s property under the Shia inheritance law on grounds that the deceased was a Shia. As per Mr. I. H. Ispahani who was a family friend of Jinnah, revealed that Jinnah had himself told him in 1936 that he and his family had converted to Shiism after his return from England in 1894. He said that Jinnah had married Ruttie Bai according to the Shia ritual during which she was represented by a Shia scholar of Bombay, and Jinnah was represented by his Shia friend, Raja Sahib of Mehmoodabad. He however conceded that Jinnah was opposed in Bombay elections by a Shia Conference canditate. Ispahani was present when Miss Fatima Jinnah died in 1967. He himself arranged the Ghusl and Janaza {Funeral Bath and Funeral} for her at Mohatta Palace according to the Shia Ritual before handing over the body to the state. Her Sunni Namaz-e-Janaza was held later at Polo Ground, Karachi after which she was buried next to her brother at a spot chosen by Ispahani inside the mausoleum. Ritualistic Shia talqin (last advice to the deceased) was done after her dead body was lowered into the grave. (Jinnah had arranged for talqin for Ruttie Bai too when she died in 1929). Allama Syed Anisul Husnain, a Shia scholar, deposed that he had arranged the gusl of the Quaid on the instructions of Miss Fatimah Jinah. He led his Namaz-e-Janaza in a room of the Governor General’s House at which such luminaries as Yousuf Haroon, Hashim Raza, and Aftab Hatim Alvi were present, while Liaquat Ali Khan waited outside the room. After the Shia ritual, the body was handed over to the state and Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, an alim belonging to Deoband school of thought known for its anti-Shia belief, read his Janaza according the Sunni ritual at the ground where the mausoleum was later constructed. Other witnesses confirmed that after the demise of Miss Fatimah Jinnah, alam and panja (two Shia symbols) were discovered from her residence, Mohatta Palace. Despite all this Jinnah kept himself away from Shia politics. He was not a Shia; he was also not a Sunni; he was simply a Muslim. REFERENCE: Secular Republic or Islamic Republic of Pakistan http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/secular-republic-or-islamic-republic-of.html

Aapas ki baat - 14th december 2011 part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L20hNEfWSiI

Aapas ki baat - 14th december 2011 part 2

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

Aapas ki baat - 14th december 2011 part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss1s65okLNs

Aapas ki baat - 14th december 2011 part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtU6B488slI

Dr Safdar Mehmood has reacted very sharply on Najam Sethi's Program Aapas Ki Baat Dated 14 Dec 2011 and tired his best to prove that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was actually a Saint and Infallible! It may please be kept in mind that Dr Safdar Mehmood never deter to quote even Blasphemous Sufis to justify the abhorrent Bida'at (Innovation) of Sufism. Dr Safdar Mehmood raises finger on Najam Sethi and conveniently forgets what Mullahs had said rather Issued Fatwa of Apostasy against Muhammad Ali Jinnah and one wonders when would Dr Safdar Mehmood write against such Mullahs whose Fatwas of Apostasy against Jinnah have put the very Ideology of Pakistan in doldrums. Daily Jang & Dr Safdar Mehmood Quote Blasphemous Sufis - Part - 1. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2011/10/daily-jang-dr-safdar-mehmood-quote.html

Wednesday, December 21, 2011, Moharram-ul-Haram 25, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/dec2011-daily/21-12-2011/col2.htm

Thursday, December 22, 2011, Moharram-ul-Haram 26, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/dec2011-daily/22-12-2011/col4.htm

Mawlana Mawdudi & Jamat-e-Islami on Jinnah

Barelvi Scholar's Fatwa Against Jinnah - 1

http://youtu.be/q0VPZ9fJWlQ

ایک ہی ہوں مسلم حرام کی پاسبانی کے لیہ

نیل کے ساحل سے لے کر تابخا کے کاشغر تک “سب کافر ہیں

Barelvi Mullah's Fatwa of Kufr (Apostasy) against Jinnah and others.

Barelvi Scholar's Fatwa Against Jinnah - 2

http://youtu.be/rLSc9oc_8J0

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 1

http://youtu.be/UqzGHWP5Kj8

The Supernatural Deobandis (No Comment just go through Yousuf Binnori's Letter)

Emaan-e-Khalis by Late. Captain (R). Dr Masooduddin Usmani http://www.emanekhalis.com/emanqist1/emangist.htm

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 2

http://youtu.be/Kw64zU2Ajag

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 3

http://youtu.be/KCx2uYlGVaQ

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

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 4

http://youtu.be/XB5TZ_u5aro

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