Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Misuse of Islam.

MANSEHRA: Gunmen in military uniform forced people going from Rawalpindi to Gilgit to disembark from buses in Kohistan’s Harban area on Tuesday and gunned down 16 of them after checking their names on their ID cards which invoked protests all over the country. “Sixteen people were killed in the incident. The bodies were handed over to the deputy commissioner of Chilas after autopsy at Shitial hospital,” Mohammad Ilyas, district police officer, Kohistan, told reporters. According to foreign news agencies, this was a sectarian attack as confirmed by a man claiming to be spokesman for the Jandullah faction of Taliban. He said the 16 were killed by ‘Mujahideen’ because they were Shias. A large number of people came out on roads in protest against the killings. They burned tyres at different chowks. Shops and markets were closed. The district administration imposed Section 144 in Gilgit city and announced closure of offices and schools for three days. According to officials, the attackers intercepted four buses on the Karakoram Highway, asked the passengers to get off, shot 16 people dead after checking their ID cards and escaped. DPO Mohammad Ilyas said 117 passengers were on the buses. Police took the bodies to the hospital. Harban is about four kilometres from Tangier and Darail areas where security forces have been attacked for several times in recent past. MPA Abdul Sattar Khan, who belongs to Dasso tehsil, said the carnage was apparently related to recent sectarian clashes in Gilgit. Senior officials of the Kohistan district administration were tight lipped about the nature of the killings. “We have registered an FIR and started investigation and everything will be clear after completion of preliminary investigation,” Mr Ilyas said. Farman Ali Baltistani adds from Skardu: Seven victims were from Baltistan division, four from Nagar, two from Astore and one from Gilgit. The bodies of the other two could not be identified. Meanwhile, two people were injured in incidents of firing in Sakwar village. They were identified as Zulfiqar and Abdul Mannan, residents of Gilgit. Gilgit-Baltistan Governor Pir Karam Ali Shah and Chief Minister Syed Mehdi Shah condemned the Harban killings. They said the culprits would soon be arrested. REFERENCES: Passengers hauled off buses and gunned down:16 killed in Kohistan sectarian attackNisar Ahmad Khan Sectarian violence: Jundallah claims responsibility for Kohistan bus attack By Web Desk / Agencies / Farman Ali Published: February 28, 2012

18 killed in Kohistan bus attack (GEO TV 28 Feb 2012)

Our correspondent adds from Shangla: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ameer Haider Khan Hoti called Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Minister Syed Mehdi Shah and condemned the incident. He termed it a cowardly and brutal act and said the elements involved would be brought to book whether they belonged to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Gilgit-Baltistan. AP adds: According to lawmaker Abdul Sattar the victims were Shias. He said eight gunmen were involved in the ambush, and all were wearing military uniforms, presumably to make it easier to stop the buses. Officials initially said 18 people had been killed and that just one bus was involved. Mr Sattar and Sher Khan, an official at the Rawalpindi bus station, said attacks had been feared on travellers after an incident last month in which an unknown number of Sunnis were killed in the Gilgit region. Sher Khan said buses were travelling in convoy as a security measure. Aamir Yasin adds from Rawalpindi: Private transporters running buses from Rawalpindi to Gilgit-Baltistan suspended operation after the incident. More than 50 buses for Gilgit and Skardu run on the route. Due to insecurity, people mostly use air route to go to Gilgit. The transporters said they would not resume the bus service unless the government took adequate security measures and ensure safety of passengers. “The government should take serious steps to stop such attacks,” said Nisar Ali, the owner of Mashabroom Tour Operators. He said that most of the passengers on the buses were pilgrims returning from Iran and some army officers and personnel. “Luckily, 47 pilgrims remained safe because their bus had departed one hour late,” he said. REFERENCES: Passengers hauled off buses and gunned down:16 killed in Kohistan sectarian attackNisar Ahmad Khan Sectarian violence: Jundallah claims responsibility for Kohistan bus attack By Web Desk / Agencies / Farman Ali Published: February 28, 2012

Ayesha Siddiqa on Shia target killing in Kohistan 28 Feb 2012 (BBC URDU)

شاید اب ہوش آجائے‘
آخری وقت اشاعت: منگل 28 فروری 2012 ,‭ 15:54 GMT 20:54 PST
ہر حادثے پر گماں ہوتا ہے کہ شاید اب ہوش آ جائے انٹرویو ڈاکٹر عائشہ صدیقہ


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.

Pakistan came into being through a Horse !  Allama Zamir Akhtar Naqvi - Zuljinah and Father of Nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Founder of Pakistan)

Leader of Nation “Liaquat Ali Khan” too was a "Shia" ! Allama Zamir Akhtar Naqvi

Funeral (Janaza) of Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Under The “ALAM” of Ghazi Maula Abbass (Prince of Princes)

[PAKISTAN: Behind the Ideological Mask (Facts About Great Men We Don’t Want to Know) by Khaled Ahmed, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. The Murder of History: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan by K.K. Aziz, published by VANGUARD Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad].

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

Wednesday, February 22, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 29, 1433 A.H.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 21, 1433 A.H.

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Misuse of Islam - 1 (Samaa TV)

Similarly, the renowned researcher and historian of the sub-continent Ahmad Salim has tried to cover the human aspects of the division of India and later the division of Pakistan ( Independence of Bangladesh) in two volumes. The title of the first volume is ‘The Land of Two Partitions and beyond’ whereas the 2nd is titled “Reconstructing History”. However, the authors included in both the volumes have put primary emphasis on the tradition of tolerance and harmony among different communities and the scope for peace and brotherhood in future Instead of political analysis and historical reality. This aspect, despite being lofty is not helpful in historical objectivity and political analysis. While narrating the riots in the west Punjab Sindh and Pakhtunkhwa, an objective approach has not been adopted on either side of the border. The former Principal of Layllpur Khalsa College, Sardar Gurbachan Singh Talib had published an important book titled ‘Attacks on Hindus and Sikhs in the Punjab in 1950’ on the riots in West Punjab and Frontier Province. Due to the fact that the book was published by the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and that it had included the tales of only affected Hindus, excluding the violence unleashed on Muslims, it can be said that the book does not fulfil the criterion of objectivity.

Nevertheless the official statistics and the important excerpts from contemporary newspapers given in the book cannot be ignored. Moreover, the most important part of the book is the supplement which contains date-wise details of the incidents of violence with the help of the police records. The 100-page supplement covering the incidents from December 1946 to the end of August is a n important historical record which contains details of incidents and the religious identities of the attackers and the victims. If the details of persecutions and victimisations of the Muslims of the east Punjab was also documented in the same way, it would not be difficult to prove that beliefs had nothing to do with the barbarism committed in the name of religion.

Masood Khaddarposh is remembered in certain sections in Pakistan, especially in the Left circles and among the flag bearers of the politics of Punjabi language as Masood Bhagwan. He is famous for his services to the Bhil tribe and for his contradictory note on the Bari Committee. He was the deputy collector of Nawab Shah in 1947. He had learnt that some of his family members had been killed in east Punjab. He was dying for revenge. During the entire span of the riots, only one train carrying non-Muslim refugees was attacked in which not a single passenger survived. The attack was carried out at Nawab Shah Sakrand meter gauge line, and according to official reports, the attacks had the covert support of deputy collector Masood Khaddarposh.

The distinguished historian Hamida Khuhro, the daughter of the first chief minister of Sindh, Ayub Khuhru has narrated the incident in detail in the biography of her father titled “Md Ayub Khuhro : A life of courage in politics”. The famous social activist of Sindh Ruchi Ram is still alive and a witness to the incident. The illustrious historian Ahmad Salim based on his own observations and analysis, even goes on to declare Masood Khaddarposh the man behind the riots in Karachi on January 6, 1948.

Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi in his book ‘Hungamon mein zindagi’ (A tumultuous life) has chronicled the heart wrenching tales of blood and gore:

“Coming out of the office I would see the red sky due to the flames rising from the burning houses of the Hindus. The caravans of the Muslims were fleeing the east Punjab, being killed or burying the dead on the way. On reaching Pakistan they would fall to the ground half dead. On the other side, hordes of Hindus were fleeing. For both, the roads were closed. The Boundary Force, instead of protecting them would fire at them. The army was picketed at the station. I would visit the place every day in order to take care of the treasury.

Within half an hour of a particular day, I saw forty one people getting killed by firing while on the run to escape death. The dead bodies would be dragged aside and dumped. I wanted to save them but did not know how. I was helpless. I tried to convince some soldiers that it was against the dignity of a Muslim to fire at unarmed people fleeing to save their lives, but nobody listened since I was not an army officer. The soldiers would not even want to talk to me.

I saw some people writhing and went over to them. A Sikh was asking for water in a feeble voice. I rushed to the office and came back with a glass of water. But before water could go down his throat, his eyes froze. Qaid-e-Azam had declared that non-Muslims would be secured in Pakistan. The accounts department needed them badly. Some of them stayed back depending on my promises and assurances. They were killed along-with their women and children. I managed to save only two of them.”

In the concluding part of this narration, Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi writes:

“We had assured the Hindus that they would live with us as ‘zimmies’ (wards). But those who believed in our assurances and stayed back were killed along with their women and kids. When the Muslims were being massacred in Delhi, Jawahar Lal Nehru would run around in the streets of Delhi madly. I did not find any Muslim League leader even wagging a finger in an attempt to protect the ‘zimmies’ when they were being slaughtered in Pakistan.”

I do not question Jawahar Lal’s concerns over the riots, but Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi has gone wrong here. There was at least one person in the Muslim League about whom we can say without being at the risk of repudiation that he was deeply traumatised by the riots and manifestations of barbarism in the religious differences on both sides, and tried to quell the riots as well as maintain fundamental civic tolerance between Muslims and their compatriots—Hindus and Sikhs. And the leader was Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. After the riots of the east Punjab in March 1947, at the initiative of the Viceroy Lord Mount Batten, Mahatma Gandhi and Qaid-e-Azam had issued a jointly signed appeal for peace which was broadcast on the AIR. Gandhiji had signed in English as well as in Urdu in the appeal. The copies of the appeal were circulated in large numbers in the affected areas. However, the appeal was issued so belatedly that by that time, non-Muslims in the affected areas had almost been wiped out. (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution and Secularism - 15 By Wajahat Masood

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Misuse of Islam - 2 (Samaa TV)

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Misuse of Islam - 3 (ARY 2005)

A big disadvantage of a public gathering is that if anti-social elements find a little room in it, they inflict such an irreparable damage that humanity goes centuries back. The greatest challenge before humanity is that the forces of hatred and schism should be fought everywhere -- in Israel, India, Pakistan, Iran, China, Vietnam, America, Russia and Rwanda. The precondition is that we should hate injustice and all kinds of misdeeds. There is no justification for opposing someone’s religious, linguistic, ethnic or national identity. My family had arrived in Pakistan from Ludhiana after sacrificing a 17-year old son. My grandmother lived for 27 years after the establishment of Pakistan, but she never wanted to sleep inside the house. She used to cover herself with a black chadar and sleep in the courtyard under the open sky. She had the belief that her son, who had been caught by his hockeystick-weilding class-fellows in the Ludhiana government college ground, had not been killed, but had gone missing and would return any day. If he came back late in the night, knocked at the door, and did not get any response, he might go back. It was therefore, necessary for her to sleep close to the door in the courtyard. My age must have been two or three years then. Mother would sit me on her knees and talk to the birds returning home as if she talked to her son whose uncremated body had turned to dust a quarter century ago. She was a mother. To understand the pain of this mother, we need to understand the pain of those hundreds of mothers, who had crossed the raging rivers of fire and blood flowing on both sides of the border, after loosing their loved-ones, homes and assets. Our family will ever remain grateful to the Sikh neighbour who confronted another Sikh of the locality and gave the hapless family an opportunity to escape to safety.

A student of Urdu who did not claim to be a poet, had written on the situation:

Many things have been lost but the fist of memory is still closed,

Many familiar voices, countless painful scenes,

Birds were on their migratory flights,

But they still regarded the leaves of grass left behind as their homes

Where, the children’s toys, dreams of tomorrow

Had been kept safely

The principle adopted in this writing is that facts and objectivity will be preferred over emotionality. Nonetheless, it shoud be kept in mind that the foundation of the highest political discourse is laid on the values of human compassoin, Justice, peace, civic freedom and human welfare. The concept of an independent political point of view is impossible without human ethics. Politics is not synonymous with a series of conspiracies and hypocritical legerdemains. The roots of lofty political wisdom are entrenched in practicable ethical perspectives.

The living proof of the rays of humanity remainig bright even in the worst of circumstances are the short literary sketches titled “Siyah Hashiye” (dark fringes) written by Manto shortly after the partition. Here’s a small incident narrated by Sri Prakash:

“When two Sikh army officers informed the IG, West Punjab, Qurban Ali Khan in the presence of the Indian High Commissioner Sri Prakash, of the possible conspiracy of killings in Shekhopura, he banged his fist on the desk angrily and said, “Shame on your India and Pakistan! Was the partition of the country done for the welfare of the people or for this savagery and bloodshed?” According to Sri Prakash, the police officer immediately set out for Sheikhopure and was able to prevent the bloodshed in the nick of time. Reports suggested that a similar situation prevailed in the east Punjab.”

The Muslim India of the 20th century had hardly produced a better Muslim than Dr. Zakir Hussain is terms of knowledge, moral character, intelligence and vision. He was one of the founding teachers of Jamia millia.

After doing his doctorate from Germany, he taught at Jamia Millia on a monthly salary of Rs 200. After the partition, he became the vice- Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University. He was also appointed as the Governer of Bihar. He was elected the first Muslim vice-President and later President of independent India. In the turbulent summer of 1947, Dr Zakir Hussain was travelling to kashmir by train in connection with an educational conference and was deeply submerged in his study. The rioters stopped the train at Amritsar railway station specifically pulling down apparently Muslim passengers with an intent to kill. A goondah came up to Dr Hussein and asked, “Are you a Mussalman” ? Without betraying any nervousness, he replied, “ Alhamdulillah, main Mussalman hoon, “(By God’s grace I am”).

It should be remembered that in party-based politics, Muslim league leadership questioned the purity of the faith of anyone who disagreed with political point of view of the Muslim League. Getting Dr Hussein’s reply, the rioter gestured to a truck waiting close-by and told him to get on it. Armed soldiers were guarding the truck headed to the ‘slaughter-house.’ Without saying a word, Dr Zakir Hussain walked with unfaltering steps towards the truck headed for the abbatoir. In the meantime, a soldier among the rioters made out from the appearance of Dr. Hussain that he was not an ordinary man and became apprehensive of the consequences. He said to the soilders, “ Mia bhai (Muslim) seems to be a big a catch. I want to behead him with my own hands.” The rioters would have no objection. The soldier brought Dr. Zakir Hussain to the residence of the Sikh deputy commissioner of Amritsar in his official jeep. The name of the deputy commissioner was Kunwar Mahendar singh Bedi. Mr Bedi recognised Dr Zakir Hussain; gave him a friendly dressing-down for fearlessly playing with death and made arrangement for his stay at his residence untill his safe return to Delhi was made sure.

The famous author of India, Khushwant Singh was a practising lawyer at Lahore before partition. The son of Seikh Abdul Qadir, Manzoor Qadir (later the foreign minister of Pakistan) was his close friend. During the bedlam that followed partition, Manzur Qadir played the role of a friend in a highly commendable way. In his memories, Khushwant Singh has written about his magnanimity in such glorifying words, that the head of every Pakistani becomes high with pride. In short, bright manifestations of humanity were still visible on both sides of the dividing line of religion. However, according to Mushtaque Ahmad Wajdi, incidents of knavery were more glaring. (Translated from Urdu by Sohail Arshad) REFERENCE: Objectives Resolution and Secularism- Part 17 By Wajahat Masood

Jinnah, Mullahs, Pakistan & Misuse of Islam - 4 (ARY 2005)

In Pakistan, Iqbal has been given the status of a hero and often garlands of sanctity are hung around his portrait. For decades the State has been projecting him as symbol of nationalism and as a founding father of the country second only to Jinnah. Iqbal is also regarded as the ‘national’ poet of Pakistan. His grave in Lahore is a national monument that witnesses ceremonies like changing the guard on state events and festivals. Smartly dressed soldiers and cadets of the armed forces guard the shrine round the clock. With equal zeal and commitment, the Punjabi dominant Pakistani State guards the very fantasized and over exaggerated heroic personality of Doctor Muhammad Iqbal. In books of the primary school words like ‘Rehmatulla Alih’ (May God have Mercy upon him), which are often used as suffixes to names of saints and religious elders, are used with the name of Iqbal. An overwhelming number of TV anchors and journalists also aid this state sponsored marketing of the person of Iqbal. In textbooks of secondary and higher secondary school, Iqbal is depicted as a brilliant philosopher, a revolutionary poet, a charismatic leader and a brave and true practising Muslim or a ‘’Mard-e-Momin’’ as termed in the urdu language. The current generation of Pakistanis that make a large fraction of the population has grown up reading the same books. Many post- partition writers have written on the topic of Iqbal but unfortunately a very few of them have remained unbiased and just. As per my study and research, A.K Aziz and Sheikh Abdul Majid have done fabulous work and must be patted on the back. The majority sticks to the Mard-e-Momin version and the rightist rants of bracketing Iqbal with the theology of Jihad etc When it came to idealizing and popularizing, Retired Justice Javed Iqbal, Dr.Iqbal’s son was also found attributing statements to the Doctor which had nothing to do with the life of his father. For instance in his book ‘Zinda Rood’ the retired judge of the Pakistani Supreme Court stated that Iqbal distanced himself from his elder brother Ata Muhammad because he was a ‘Qadiani’ (Ahmadi Muslim). The fact of the matter is that this was certainly not the case. Instead, Iqbal gave the guardianship of his children to his nephew and the son of Mr. Ata Muhammad.

Mister Rtd. Justice also on one occasion stated that his father was against taking up of service under the English Government because he considered it against the spirit of ‘Tauheed’ (Belief of the unity of God) to serve the establishment of ‘Kufr’ (Disbelief). I was astonished to see how Javed Iqbal has brought his daddy in-line with the Madudian thought. It was the Madudi faction of the Mullah Cult that started to preach beliefs like these, but after the conception of Pakistan. In the pre-partition India, they have held these theories but never publicized it. In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Javed did the right thing, he lied about his father to save his popularity and after all this was in the greater interest of the Khudaad Mumlikat. Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal on the other hand was desperately looking for a means of income after his ‘Qadiani’ brother, as Javed recalls his uncle, retired. Turn back a few pages of history and you’ll find a ‘job-searching’ Iqbal travelling as far as Hyderabad Deccan to meet Sir Akber Haideri, asking his assistance in securing him a post in the government. He also approached the Chief Justice Shadi Laal for the same reason. The Hakeem-ul-Ummat also accepted a donation from Sir Aga Khan for his son, Javed’s educational expenses. This donation lasted for years and a major part of the Justice’s primary and secondary education was sponsored by Sir Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of the Ismaili Community. Sometime later, Iqbal in a letter to Syed Sulieman Nadwi wrote,

“Iran is under the ideological and theological threat from the Babis and here (India) my concerns are about the Ismaili Movement lest it revives itself”

In his sittings and drawing room chats with the Deobandi Mullahs and their disciples, Iqbal often backed their narrow views about and Ismailis and reffered them as heritics and Kafirs and a deviated lot. In the harsh pursuit of bread and butter, Iqbal’s struggle did not limit to the British Govt or Sir Aga Khan only. He also asked donations from the Nawab of Bhopal. Then in another letter to Sir Ross Masud, the grandson of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan Iqbal wrote,

“The matter of donations of Sir Aga Khan must not come into the knowledge of Nawab of Bhopal”

Iqbal has always been painted as a revolutionary who stood against the British imperialism holding the torch of freedom and independence. I fail to understand this, given that Iqbal accepted the honorary title of ‘Sir’ soon after the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh by the English military where brutal force was used against unarmed Indian civilians. The whole of India, then was in anger, angst and sorrow. Rabindranath Tagore refused to take this title as a protest and also as a gesture against the British Raj and in favour of the aspirations of ordinary Indians. Sir Iqbal never let this chance pass. Today I see goons like Zaid Hamid, Orya Maqbool and Faisal Qureshi ruining the prime time on many television channels preying like vultures on the corpse of a dead Iqbal and offering the flesh as an antidote of contemporary Pakistani dilemmas. REFERENCE: [Abstract Analysis] The Real Iqbal | Naeem Shamim October 1, 2011

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Jinnah, Pakistan, Mullahs & Deoband.

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

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

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

Wednesday, February 22, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 29, 1433 A.H.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 21, 1433 A.H.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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;

Deobandis are Anti-Pakistan - Part - 4

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