Khan Abdul Wali Khan: His Fathers Shadow?

Re:manto#129

[...Ranjit,

When my understanding of history is the same as Ayesha Jalal... so why the hell are you telling this ignorant Hindu fanatic Ajeya that he is right on the money? ]

Manto, I was not discussing his views about you. I was discussing Nirad Chaudhuri`s views about hindus and the historical injustices suffered by hindus in which I am in full agreement with Ajeya.

Ajeya,
When you judge people, especially those you haven`t met or known, try to understand what motivated them to do what they did. In the case of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), I could not find worldly motives of success, fame, riches, and power that drive so many of his followers today. For similar reason, I honor Gandhiji over his peers. The man did not obviously have a worldly selfish reason for his own struggles. You would do well to emulate Gandhiji rather than that Modi and Thackeray you seem to defend constantly.

Re:Ajeya

All I am saying is that we have a tendency to believe that everything negative in Islam like killing of Kaffirs, jihad, immutability of Koran were mandated by Prophet Muhammad. And the Saudis dutifully and obediently followed his instructions from that day onwards.

There is evidence that the Saudis hijacked Islam and used it as a tool to further their imperial ambitions. This aspect ought to be researched more but the fact that there were multiple versions of Koran suggests that Prophet Muhammad had a humanitarian message and people were trying to reinterpret it for political purposes.

Ajeya,
My good friend. It is obvious that you have memorized the entire Sword of Truth version of world history and nothing we say will make you think otherwise. Your interest in the Holy Prophet (PBUH) appears to be much more than historical. I think by slandering Mohammed (PBUH) you get a sort of fascination and even some element of vengeance for past atrocities conducted by conquerors who happened to be Muslim. That is not healthy and exposes you as a BJP/RSS/JS/SP/BD/SS stalwart.

You mentioned that these lunatics of the Hindu right are not comparable to the Muslim fanatics of UBL/Alkayda/Tally Ban/JI/JUI/ML/LeT/LeJ/JeM/SS. You might have a point there. Not even these assholes would stoop to raping little girls, mutilating them, killing them, and then burning them. If you defend these types, may you find peace for your yearning to copy them. Ajeya, please turn back from these thoughts before you yourself become one of those half-naked, pitchfork carrying, half ashed lunatics who go around inciting people to kill people.

Re:Ajeya various

While I am no fan of Islam as a faith, I do not want to demonize their prophet. I find it as hurtful as when Manto denigrates Gandhi in vile language. The reason is that you cannot evaluate a man based on a few actions or a few things that he may have said. You have to look at their entire life and evaluate it on the basis of the historical context at that time.

Prophet Muhammad was a product of his times and his geographical region. Arabia has always been a jahil place, full of savage people with a savage mindset. This is true even today as we see the societies of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other middle-east countries. These people are basically very harsh, cruel, violent people with little interest in education, knowledge or humanism. If it is this way today, think what it was in 600 AD.

It is to Prophet Muhammad`s credit that he tried to spread a religious message at all among these savages. The fact that he promoted equality of all races, equality for women, pursuit of education and knowledge in this crowd was in itself an amazing endeavor. Can you imagine someone telling the Saudis to treat women as equal? You cannot do it in 2006, let alone in 600AD.

It is another matter that Islam was codified and propagated by these Saudi savages. These Saudi savages ignored the positive concepts in Islam but interpreted the religion as a means to spread their imperial rule. There is evidence that there were many versions of the Koran and it is the third caliph who designated the official Koran and burnt away all the other copies. It is but natural to assume that the caliph must have selected a version that would help him spread his power and territory. Therefore, some of the harsh aspects of Islam like the immutability of the Koran etc, are latter additions and were not mandated by Muhammad.

So I submit that the harshness in Islam that we witness today is the corruption of the religion by the Saudis due to their savage culture. But Prophet Muhammad was a visionary in those days and was equivalent to Jesus, Guru Nanak and other men of God. Only extraordinary people can come up with these kind of messages.

Re: #150 by ranjit

[The biggest evidence for what I am saying is the secular policy of modern India, in spite of 1947 and partition. The fact that we have maintained that secular outlook is testimony to our willingness to coexist. ]

It is testimony to the HINDUS` willingness to coexist.

If India was a Muslim majority country, India would be an Islamic state.

Re:Ajeya#124

[...Not true at all. Hindus had developed a very justifiable dislike of things Islamic LONG BEFORE the British landed on our shores...]

Ajeya, it was not so black and white. It started out as a purely confrontational relationship no doubt, but it evolved over time to mutual accommodation and coexistence. There was also a lot cultural interaction which started from the times of Mughal-Rajput alliances since the times of Akbar. In 1857, hindus fought against the brits to save Bahadur Shah Zafar`s government.

I am not saying that the two communities were close friends. But they were not bitter enemies either. For instance, there was never any all-out war between all hindus and all muslims, unlike the crusades and jihad in the middle-east. The marathas, rajputs and sikhs, the three major non-muslim powers, never formed a combined alliance to replace muslim rule. If anti-muslim feelings were that strong, we would have seen a concerted effort to eliminate Islam from India. It never happened.

The biggest evidence for what I am saying is the secular policy of modern India, in spite of 1947 and partition. The fact that we have maintained that secular outlook is testimony to our willingness to coexist.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ajeya
I strongly believe that all your posts are irrevelant to the topic at hand. We being matured adults should follow these guidelines.
Thanks

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts