In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth

#412 by Folio on May 4, 2007 2:26pm PT
Punjab was not the hodbed of resistence to British rule, then why they needed a stooge in the form of Mirza Ghulan Ahmed? If at all they needed, they`d have needed one in UP and Delhi. Mirza didnt preach in UP.

Even the Pak movement was spearheaded by UP (Aligarhites) Muslims. When did Muslim Paunjabis become politically aware and active (collectively)? Political resistence is alien to them. Wasnt it? For an evidence we shud see the post-47 history of Pakistan. They are very good stooges to powers-that-be. Eg. leaders working for Musharraf.

Punjab was not the hodbed of resistence to British rule, then why they needed a stooge in the form of Mirza Ghulan Ahmed? If at all they needed, they`d have needed one in UP and Delhi. Mirza didnt preach in UP.

Even the Pak movement was spearheaded by UP (Aligarhites) Muslims. When did Muslim Paunjabis became politically aware and active (collectively)? Political resistence is alien to them. Wasnt it? For an evidence we shud see the post-47 history of Pakistan. They are very good stooges to powers-that-be. Eg. leaders working for Musharraf.

Urstruly:
Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become.

---

Well said



MiTTee kee muhabbat meiN, hUm aashuftaa saroaN neiN
voh Qarz chuukaa-eN haiN, jo vaajib bhee naheeN thhay

tr:
In our love for the earthly-dust, we the crazy headstrong ones
have been paying off the debts, which were not even legit.

iftikhar arif

---

Beware of the Raushan-khayals & moderates...the westoxicated scum.

Oh How the Munafiquoon Musharraf has turned Raushan-khayal into a four-letter word.

Re: # 406

Khurram`s comment lacked the basic background of the ``emergence` of Mirza Sahib as the Mahdi, Issa, and miscelleneous. The missing fact is that that at that time british Empire was facing a formidable challenge in Africa at the hands of Mohammad Ahmad Mahdi Sudani, who organized a global Jihad against British Empire in Sudan. He proclaimed himself as the promised Mahdi and organized an army of Jihadists that decimated British in Sudan. Unfortunately, Sudani died (a natural death) soon after he had established Mumlikat-e-Islamia. After his death british re-occupied Sudan with the help of enlightened moderate Egyptians. But the Empire learned a lesson in ideological strength of Islam and especially the concept of promised Massiah in it. In order to close this ``Messiah`` chapter forever, British promoted Mirza sahib who was very well versed in not only Islam but also Christianity as well. British needed a pacifist ``Messiah`` who would not challenge their authority anywhere and yet keep the general Muslim population under control. Mirza Sahib had all those qualities. Don`t forget that before he proclaimed his ``Prophethood` (and other innanities) he was the rising star in the religious circles of India because of his aggressive style with which he used to counter Christian Missionaries in the debates (munazras). But when he switched sides he became even more aggressive to prove his loyalty to his new masters. Not only did he proclaimed to be the Mahdi but Jesus Reincarnate (Masih Mo`ood) as well. He should have chosen to be one of them, criminy! because according to the Prophecies Mahdi and Masih are two different personalities.

Re: # 393

Yes of course Punjabis might have ``accepted`` British as a lesser of two evils. But the point is that they ``accepted``.

Your rest of analysis relates to later periods. I agree to it however.

Re: # 404


Yes because Mutazillah ideology was philosophical type and was bit difficult for general public to comprehend and adopt. Actually Sir Syed had written some letters which are the proofs that he was trying to collect necessary information about the basic points of Mutazzillah faith. In one of the letters, he writes that only Mutazillah`s points were worthy of merit for his task.

Urstruly#402:

Yes, it is the same song. No wonder it was popular in Lyallpur during my childhood.

khuram (#392),

This is correct from what I also know. This is also in accord with the hadith that Issa will break the cross … meaning that he will convincingly refute the fundamental Christian doctrine (just wanted to rub this in onto our ullema here – grin).

+++

Urstruly (#401),

I remain unclear regarding your claim that … ”khuram’s argument is good but it contradicts historical facts”.

In #392 khuram discussed debates between Mirza Sahib and Christians. How does your post #401 negate it?

#401 by Urstruly,

Excellent post. Thanks.

Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become.

Indeed. So we must not compound the sins of our forefathers. Enough has been enough I guess .. and the caravan moves on ... :)

#397 by khuram.

Khuram, you have brought out an interesting correlation of Syed Ahmed with the Mutazillah faith which didn`t survive long. But have you taken into account why?

It was because Mutazillah was an elitist faith, limited to the ruling class of the time, professing that Qura`an had descended but was not eternal. And they sought to attach interpretations to it. That was its downfall alongwith the entire Abbasid dynasty.

Does anyone think anything has changed now?

Regards.

khuram (#385, 391),

Good write up. It is easy to quote something without the context. And in most cases, context makes all the difference … for example, whether Quran is asking to kill disbelievers or to kill disbelievers who are actively engaged in violent hostilities against Muslim community (from Surah-e-Taubah, I think)

From what I also know, pre-British Sikh rule in places in Punjab was quite brutal towards Muslims. In some places Muslims were not even allowed to give azaan.

When the British took over, Muslims gained freedom to freely practice Islam. This struck out the need for fighting jihad against the British. Addressing social, economic grievances against the British was a different issue, which did not require fighting jihad.

It seems several Muslim leaders were content with British government’s stance on religious issues, alhough some ullema wanted to wage fighting jihad. There were perhaps on-going discussions along these lines with not much consensus.

Yes, Mirza Sahib did participate in open discussions against Christian clergy. He also wrote books and pamphlets in order to highlight superiority and completeness of Islam. He was indeed considered a champion of Islam by Muslims (perhaps non-Muslims too). It was his claims of prophethood that turned ullema against him.

Heck, once even Urstruly agreed on Mirza Sahib’s services to cause of Islam!!

Re: # 398 Dost

To the best of my knowledge based mostly on childhood stories told to me by my grandmother, jagga was a Muslim, but I cannot say for sure. My grandmother was from Lyallpur Jhang area, which was the traditional Jagga terrotory. In those stories Jagga used to kill oppressive angraiz and his toutes and helped poor and helpless. The name Jagga has now gained notoriety because of its association with extrotion and racketeering which is usually referred to as Jagga tax. A variant ``Jaggi`` is a popular nickname in rural areas of Punjab.

Here is a modern version of a tribute to Jagga. May God bless his soul regardless of whether he was a Muslim or not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha6AwUYEwtE

Khuram and Zeemax

Re: # 392

Khurram`s argument is good but it contradicts the historical facts. The truth of the matter is that about 50 years before the war of independence in 1857 there was a sort of invasion of Christian evangelist missionaries in the subcontinent. They did have some success in southern coastal parts of India which were essentially Portuguese and French occupations and hence mostly Catholic conversions. The British started from Bengal (a Muslim dominant region and had control of most of Northern India (mostly Hindu dominated). They were not successful in conversions as compared to their Portuguese & French counterparts. But close to about 15 years near 1857 they became very aggressive as British had gained decisive control over Delhi and the Emperor.

At this stage they started challenging Muslims to the debates (Munazras) with a cheering crowd of Hindus. As the tradition continues to this day those debates were usually just insults hurled at Islam and Holy prophet (pbuh). A missionary wrote sometime in early 19th century with utter disappointment that 200 years of their presence in Hindustan and they could not convert more than 500 Muslims.

But British missionaries - even though the East India Company, was enjoying complete cooperation of Hindu business class who had complete control over Muslim nobility finance and accounting - did not spare Hindus either. A Hindu living under Muslim rule for 1000 years never suffered such aggressive invasion on his religion before. This created resentment in both Hindus and Muslims alike and erupted into the First War of Independence in 1857. Syed Ahmad Khan in his Asbaab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind has pointed out to the core reason of ``mutiny`` to the fact that missionaries were attacking local religions. East India Company, as a business concern raised the issue with British government and later passed a parliamentary act in 1869, based on the recommendations of people like Sir Syed and local British, and abolished the state sponsorship of propagation of Christianity.

But between 1857 and 1869, the era was really bad for Muslims. When British took over, they nationalized all schools, colleges and universities. These institutions throughout the history of Muslims were funded by private donations and income from trusted properties. They were never owned by any government. British not only nationalized them but confiscated their trusted property as well. Tens of thousands of institutions across the land withered and closed and only those survived which were the nationalized ones.

At that time Christian missionaries became very aggressive against Muslims and most of their Munazras were now held in the public school grounds where they insulted Islam and Prophet with no holds barred. The Muslim ulemma first try to engage them in those debates but then soon realized that the purpose of those debates was not an exchange of dialogue but it was one sided attack on Muslim faith with pot shots just like it happens today. So Ulemma advised Muslims to keep their kids away from those schools. It was a double edged sword from Muslims - damned if you do and damned if you don`t. In those 10 years a whole generation of Muslims fell victim to the merciless military, political, and ideological aggression of British imperialism.

So if we give Sir Syed the benefit of doubt, the Muslims really did not have a choice. Had Sir Syed not done it, some other Muslim would have. Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become. Iqbal has captured those debates of Mehdi, Issa (pbuh), and resurrection in these immortal words:

Quomon ki hayat unkay takhayyul pay hai moqoof
Yeh zouq Sikhata hai adab murgh-e-cahman ko

Majzoob-e-Farangi nay ba-andaaz-e- farangi
Mehdi kay takhayyul say kiya zinda watan ko

Ay tu kai jo Mehdi kay takhayyul say hai bey zaar
Nomeed na kar ahu-e-mushkeen say khatan ko

Ho zinda kufan posh to murda ussay samjhein
ya chak karein mardak-e-nadaan kay kufan ko