Preventing More Lal Masjids
Pervez Hoodbhoy July 10, 2007
#79 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on July 10, 2007 9:16:21 pm
#75 Zahra :)
How are you? Haven`t talked in a long long time. Good to run into you again.
Salim
How are you? Haven`t talked in a long long time. Good to run into you again.
Salim
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#80 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on July 10, 2007 9:25:35 pm
Dear Chowk Friends,
Other than the needless and horrific loss of life, I have another serious problem with the ill-advised massacre conducted by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the leadership of President General Pervez Musharraf.
The stubborn and fatalistic attitude of the inmates of Lal Masjid may remind some of us when another die-hard rejectionist camped out by the River Euphrates around the year 670 AD. He refused to accept the leadership of the widely-accepted and powerful Caliph sitting in Damascus. The state army of the Caliphate was dispatched to bring the ``illegal`` miscreants into line. There were many women and children in the fanatic leader`s group. They were denied water in the middle of the summer. One by one, the men were slaughtered by the more numerous army of ``true belivers.`` Order was restored, the rebel was beheaded, his head was kicked around by the Governor of the province and then shipped to various cities of Momindom for all to witness.
That single act of barbarism, cruelty, and authoritarianism resulted in a calamity that destroyed the Caliphate of Damascus within 80 years and resulted in the death of every member of the ruling family with very few exceptions. To this day, we are living with the curse of that despot`s cruelty and the schism it caused within Islam. :)
Other than the needless and horrific loss of life, I have another serious problem with the ill-advised massacre conducted by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the leadership of President General Pervez Musharraf.
The stubborn and fatalistic attitude of the inmates of Lal Masjid may remind some of us when another die-hard rejectionist camped out by the River Euphrates around the year 670 AD. He refused to accept the leadership of the widely-accepted and powerful Caliph sitting in Damascus. The state army of the Caliphate was dispatched to bring the ``illegal`` miscreants into line. There were many women and children in the fanatic leader`s group. They were denied water in the middle of the summer. One by one, the men were slaughtered by the more numerous army of ``true belivers.`` Order was restored, the rebel was beheaded, his head was kicked around by the Governor of the province and then shipped to various cities of Momindom for all to witness.
That single act of barbarism, cruelty, and authoritarianism resulted in a calamity that destroyed the Caliphate of Damascus within 80 years and resulted in the death of every member of the ruling family with very few exceptions. To this day, we are living with the curse of that despot`s cruelty and the schism it caused within Islam. :)
#81 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on July 10, 2007 9:40:38 pm
GT # 6
`` i.e. the implementation of the shariat``
Can some one throw light on what is `Shariat`. Everyone keeps repeating this mantra - the educated, the illetrate, the-Mulla, the non-Mulla etc etc.
`Shariat` is nothing more than History. Can History be devine?
NHK
`` i.e. the implementation of the shariat``
Can some one throw light on what is `Shariat`. Everyone keeps repeating this mantra - the educated, the illetrate, the-Mulla, the non-Mulla etc etc.
`Shariat` is nothing more than History. Can History be devine?
NHK
#82 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on July 10, 2007 9:43:37 pm
#60 {``The best way to preclude any more Lal Masjids is to install, cherish, and maintain true secularism, real democracy, and legitimate religious beliefs that proclaim individualism, liberty, diversity, tolerance, love, and compassion. Certainly, the two Islams of the late Mullah Ghazi and Mushy Mushy Muck Muck are both false and doomed to failure and eradication. Even the Islam of Jinnah has no place in our civilized world.``}
Friends,
Before I am lynched on this forum for heresy, blasphemy, and Satanism, allow me to explain why I consider all three exploitations of Islam to be false, insidious, and pernicious. Jinnah used Islam to divide a country at ALL costs (tens of millions uprooted, a million killed, tens of millions separated, thousands raped, looted, and mutilated) merely to satisfy his own thirst for power, his own vanity to be #1, and his devilish jealousy of Gandhiji. Pervez Musharraf is exploiting Islam to stay in power, because no other ideology will allow him to usurp his forcibly-obtained throne forever in Pakistan - certainly no Christian, Hindu, or Sikh general could force his will on the people of Pakistan. Somehow a Muslim dictator makes it all seem kosher. :) Finally, the Mullahs exploit Islam about the same way as OBL, Zarqawi, and Zawahari have (or had) been doing. They use narrow interpretations of the Holy Koran to bulldoze their myopic vision of Islam - a backward uneducated people, unaware of their basic rights, willingly accepting the policing of ``true`` Islam under the power of the slightly educated Mullahs, who of course get all the good food, the choicest virgins, and the best homes - just like the head priests of yesteryear.
The best thing that Kemal Pasha did for Islam was to remove it from the power equation. In Turkey, Islam took hold where it needs to - at the grass roots level, where it is a force of compassion, love, and justice; and not at the top where it becomes an oppressive force. I hope that people understand my rationale.
Friends,
Before I am lynched on this forum for heresy, blasphemy, and Satanism, allow me to explain why I consider all three exploitations of Islam to be false, insidious, and pernicious. Jinnah used Islam to divide a country at ALL costs (tens of millions uprooted, a million killed, tens of millions separated, thousands raped, looted, and mutilated) merely to satisfy his own thirst for power, his own vanity to be #1, and his devilish jealousy of Gandhiji. Pervez Musharraf is exploiting Islam to stay in power, because no other ideology will allow him to usurp his forcibly-obtained throne forever in Pakistan - certainly no Christian, Hindu, or Sikh general could force his will on the people of Pakistan. Somehow a Muslim dictator makes it all seem kosher. :) Finally, the Mullahs exploit Islam about the same way as OBL, Zarqawi, and Zawahari have (or had) been doing. They use narrow interpretations of the Holy Koran to bulldoze their myopic vision of Islam - a backward uneducated people, unaware of their basic rights, willingly accepting the policing of ``true`` Islam under the power of the slightly educated Mullahs, who of course get all the good food, the choicest virgins, and the best homes - just like the head priests of yesteryear.
The best thing that Kemal Pasha did for Islam was to remove it from the power equation. In Turkey, Islam took hold where it needs to - at the grass roots level, where it is a force of compassion, love, and justice; and not at the top where it becomes an oppressive force. I hope that people understand my rationale.
#83 Posted by majumdar on July 10, 2007 10:02:08 pm
Salimbhai,
India got divided becuase the Hindus and Muslims as represented by INC and ML were unable to have the kind of give and take that was necessary for the country to stay together. Yes MAJ (pbuh) accelerated the process. Had he not been around maybe India wud have stayed united but the problems wud have festered till now. In some ways MAJ did the sub-continent a yeoman`s service. Some thoughtful Indians on the chowk (Muthu/Mohar/myself) strongly recommend a Bharat Ratna for him.
Yes, what was not unacceptable was the collosal loss of life that took place. But this was due to poor foresight and lack of preparedness on part of Brit as well Indian/Pak authorities. Not just poor MAJ`s fault.
(his devilish jealousy of Gandhiji)
Please don`t call the old goat as ``ji``. He was a nasty piece of goods as Manto mian rightly says. To MKG belongs the credit of bringing religion-based politics centre stage.
Regards
India got divided becuase the Hindus and Muslims as represented by INC and ML were unable to have the kind of give and take that was necessary for the country to stay together. Yes MAJ (pbuh) accelerated the process. Had he not been around maybe India wud have stayed united but the problems wud have festered till now. In some ways MAJ did the sub-continent a yeoman`s service. Some thoughtful Indians on the chowk (Muthu/Mohar/myself) strongly recommend a Bharat Ratna for him.
Yes, what was not unacceptable was the collosal loss of life that took place. But this was due to poor foresight and lack of preparedness on part of Brit as well Indian/Pak authorities. Not just poor MAJ`s fault.
(his devilish jealousy of Gandhiji)
Please don`t call the old goat as ``ji``. He was a nasty piece of goods as Manto mian rightly says. To MKG belongs the credit of bringing religion-based politics centre stage.
Regards
#84 Posted by bulleya on July 10, 2007 10:43:46 pm
It is a sad day for a country, and a sad state of its citizens, if there is a pitched battle that goes on in the center of its capital and one group of its citizens cheers one side`s killing and another group cheers the other side......
........anyone who thinks that the attack of one govt. agency (military and police) on another govt. agency (auqaf dept), and vice-versa, is something to cheer about has extremely little empathy for those with opposing points of views and for with opposing ideologies......
........killing one`s own citizens, be it by the extreme religious right or by the govt. is not something to be proud of........it is not something that is going to define the birth of a, ``New Pakistan.``...........Only individuals who have fanaticism running in their bloood - to the point where they see the killing of their own citizens as something to cheer about - can hold such views.......
.........Pakistan died another death in the past week..........Not because the govt. attacked the maulvis and not because the maulvis attacked the govt.........but because one Pakistani attacked another........two depts. of the govt. attacked each other........and most of all, because each group had its own cheering squad, hoping for the death of the, ``other,`` without taking into account the fact that the, ``other`` is still, at the end, a fellow Pakistani.......
pro-maulvi and anti-maulvi fanaticism now runs deep amongst many Pakistanis.......both groups need to be sidelined........Such problems will only be magnified by these two groups......
........the lal masjid, ``brigade`` is a social phenomenon, taking birth in poverty and lack of social services.......it is not a religious phenomenon........and it requires the deft touch of a sociologist and the breadth of knowledge of an economist to be solved.........it will not be solved by the blunt instruments of the state or the maulvi.......
if the americans have only increased the agitation against themselves, even with the use of daisy cutters, i am quite sure the pakistani govt. will not be able to solve the problem with mere gernades and machine guns........
.....it is, indeed a sad sad day..........half the country cheering pakistanis killing another group of pakistanis and vice-versa.........
........anyone who thinks that the attack of one govt. agency (military and police) on another govt. agency (auqaf dept), and vice-versa, is something to cheer about has extremely little empathy for those with opposing points of views and for with opposing ideologies......
........killing one`s own citizens, be it by the extreme religious right or by the govt. is not something to be proud of........it is not something that is going to define the birth of a, ``New Pakistan.``...........Only individuals who have fanaticism running in their bloood - to the point where they see the killing of their own citizens as something to cheer about - can hold such views.......
.........Pakistan died another death in the past week..........Not because the govt. attacked the maulvis and not because the maulvis attacked the govt.........but because one Pakistani attacked another........two depts. of the govt. attacked each other........and most of all, because each group had its own cheering squad, hoping for the death of the, ``other,`` without taking into account the fact that the, ``other`` is still, at the end, a fellow Pakistani.......
pro-maulvi and anti-maulvi fanaticism now runs deep amongst many Pakistanis.......both groups need to be sidelined........Such problems will only be magnified by these two groups......
........the lal masjid, ``brigade`` is a social phenomenon, taking birth in poverty and lack of social services.......it is not a religious phenomenon........and it requires the deft touch of a sociologist and the breadth of knowledge of an economist to be solved.........it will not be solved by the blunt instruments of the state or the maulvi.......
if the americans have only increased the agitation against themselves, even with the use of daisy cutters, i am quite sure the pakistani govt. will not be able to solve the problem with mere gernades and machine guns........
.....it is, indeed a sad sad day..........half the country cheering pakistanis killing another group of pakistanis and vice-versa.........
#85 Posted by majumdar on July 10, 2007 10:47:22 pm
Romair sahib,
(it is, indeed a sad sad day..........half the country cheering pakistanis killing another group of pakistanis and vice-versa.........)
Very true. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Regards
(it is, indeed a sad sad day..........half the country cheering pakistanis killing another group of pakistanis and vice-versa.........)
Very true. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Regards
#86 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2007 11:13:03 pm
Re: # 60
Amazing... bash poor Jinnah who warned people like Gandhi against extremist forces again and again ... but don`t mention a word about Gandhi who encouraged Mullah fascists. Lets blame the shias and ahmadis and Ismailis and Barelvis (i.e. ``Children of TNT`` or ``Children of Hate blah blah) for Wahabi extremism even though they warned against it again and again... but lets not mention the machiavellian monster Gandhi who released the Wahabi extremism into South Asian Politics.
Thankfuly history has been recorded for people to know the truth:
Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: `It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE `HIMALAYAN ERROR` of Gandhiji`s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali`s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League`.
and
`Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against `unbelievers` has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by`.
and
A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: `GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?` Dr Anne Besant declared: `The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything`. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.
http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm
Mahatma Gandhi`s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.
Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them
The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.
And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi`s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options ``JEHAD`` or ``HIJRAT``.
The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.
The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.
The Khilafat Movement
In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.
In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”
Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.
Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.
In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.
According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.
The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH`s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a ``Wahabi``... note ``Ahle-Hadith)
Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.
And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi`s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.
.....
Pakistanis buried remnants of Gandhiism and the Cold war in the Red mosque... you can continue to abuse us... but Pakistan will stand stronger now.
Amazing... bash poor Jinnah who warned people like Gandhi against extremist forces again and again ... but don`t mention a word about Gandhi who encouraged Mullah fascists. Lets blame the shias and ahmadis and Ismailis and Barelvis (i.e. ``Children of TNT`` or ``Children of Hate blah blah) for Wahabi extremism even though they warned against it again and again... but lets not mention the machiavellian monster Gandhi who released the Wahabi extremism into South Asian Politics.
Thankfuly history has been recorded for people to know the truth:
Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: `It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE `HIMALAYAN ERROR` of Gandhiji`s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali`s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League`.
and
`Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against `unbelievers` has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by`.
and
A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: `GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?` Dr Anne Besant declared: `The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything`. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.
http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm
Mahatma Gandhi`s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.
Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them
The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.
And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi`s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options ``JEHAD`` or ``HIJRAT``.
The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.
The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.
The Khilafat Movement
In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.
In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”
Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.
Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.
In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.
According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.
The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH`s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a ``Wahabi``... note ``Ahle-Hadith)
Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.
And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi`s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.
.....
Pakistanis buried remnants of Gandhiism and the Cold war in the Red mosque... you can continue to abuse us... but Pakistan will stand stronger now.
#87 Posted by HP on July 10, 2007 11:16:53 pm
Phenomenal article by Pir Hoodbhoy.
However!
“Even after Jamia Hafsa students went on their violent rampages in February 2007, no attempt was made to cut off the electricity, gas, phone, or website – or even to shut down their illegal FM radio station. Operating as a parallel government,”
Setting up CDs on fire and operating an illegal FM radio does not equal to operating parallel government. Incident like this happen in every society which is going thru an ideological turmoil. I would rather not use this analogy but people in the US too have bombed legitimate businesses like abortion clinics.
The problem is that we have fanatics on both sides. Pir Hoodbhoy in this and many other articles appears to be fanatically opposed to the fanatic mullah. His conclusions in the article are mostly on the money but his fanaticism to bring about liberal changes is really reverse fanaticism. Pir Hoodbhoy or should I call him secular or liberal mullah, is as vehement in demanding death to mullah as the mullah is in demanding the same for all the kafroon or munafiqoon.
Pir PH sees lots of problem with burka in his university campus and derogatorily refers the campus to “city of walking tents”. This to me is not the right approach. We have a society where religion in social life has always dominated but Burka is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of the rural roots of the society in Pakistan.
Sindh, Balochistan and parts of Punjab are as conservative as NWFP when it comes to women. In rural areas in most of Pakistan, women observe Purdah and don’t go out of their homes without wearing Burka.
What we need to appreciate is that these burka girls are joining universities and colleges. It is hard for them to leave their rural or the lower middle class background behind but the positive part is that the liberal and progressive persons like pir PH have a chance to talk to them and give them enough knowledge to move beyond Burka or maybe help the next generation remove the veil altogether
There is another contradiction in Pir PH’s narration here. He supports a military action, cutting off Gas, power and water to the people in Lal mosque and then he also laments the army attacks on the tribal areas.
This appears to be just bughaz e mawiya to me. Ideologically, the fanatics in the tribal areas are not any different than the mullahs of the lal mosque.
Both groups are Pakistani citizens. This is unfortunate that some in our society condone the bombardment of the tribal areas but insist on bombing a very small clique of people holed up in mosque.
I mostly agree with Pir PH, but I do think that mullah menace in Pakistan is not going to end by force. Democracy and more democracy will remove this menace from the streets.
In 1979 or 80 when Zia ordered five time azan on TV and the number of religious programs on TV increased exponentially, many including me, feared that Pakistan is headed to an era of religious fanaticism. Over the years we have been proven right. The control of TV and other media allowed the religious fanaticism to increase manifold in the last twenty five years or so, and it will take more than just bombs and artillery fire to reduce that influence. Pir PH should really ponder over some peaceful solutions rather than cutting off gas, electricity and taking the army actions.
#88 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2007 11:18:16 pm
Majumdar,
Captain Clueless from Canada is pathetically out of touch with reality. Its not half the country... its more like above 90% of the country... especially the common man who is cursing the Mullahs.
Captain Clueless from Canada is pathetically out of touch with reality. Its not half the country... its more like above 90% of the country... especially the common man who is cursing the Mullahs.
#89 Posted by harish_hyd on July 10, 2007 11:19:12 pm
Umm..so Achyut Patwardhan, whom Yasser didn`t know until the other day, is the gospel truth now. Amazing how people cherrypick their sources and try to pass it off as the ultimate truth. Must be the desperation.
#90 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2007 11:22:15 pm
Re: # 89
Yes you are right as usual. That is the only person I have quoted in that post.
Yes you are right as usual. That is the only person I have quoted in that post.
#91 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2007 11:31:30 pm
Malik the genius writes:
``1- subsequent events have proved that Abdul Aziz was not escaping death. If he were, he would have taken his wife and daughter and sick mother with him. Also, the fight his younger and considerably mellower brother put up against the state machine only suggests that a more headstrong Abdul Aziz would never have escaped from death``
ROTFL....
But seriously... weren`t you the one who was claiming that ``America`` will save you (i.e. ``the brave anti-imperialist``) from me (i.e. ``the slave of the west``) on the other board... against some alleged threat you felt from my writing on the net... shall we repeat what you said there.
By the way... since everytime you come to Pakistan you express the desire of bashing my head on the pavement to some person or the other... could you actually meet me when you come this time ?
Or are you going to wear the Burqah like your ``headstrong`` auntie Abdul Aziz?
``1- subsequent events have proved that Abdul Aziz was not escaping death. If he were, he would have taken his wife and daughter and sick mother with him. Also, the fight his younger and considerably mellower brother put up against the state machine only suggests that a more headstrong Abdul Aziz would never have escaped from death``
ROTFL....
But seriously... weren`t you the one who was claiming that ``America`` will save you (i.e. ``the brave anti-imperialist``) from me (i.e. ``the slave of the west``) on the other board... against some alleged threat you felt from my writing on the net... shall we repeat what you said there.
By the way... since everytime you come to Pakistan you express the desire of bashing my head on the pavement to some person or the other... could you actually meet me when you come this time ?
Or are you going to wear the Burqah like your ``headstrong`` auntie Abdul Aziz?
#92 Posted by harish_hyd on July 10, 2007 11:36:22 pm
#90 by Yasser
OK, so what about people who blame Jinnah? Aren`t they credible enough to be considered reliable?
OK, so what about people who blame Jinnah? Aren`t they credible enough to be considered reliable?
#93 Posted by HP on July 10, 2007 11:37:57 pm
#87
``This is unfortunate that some in our society condone the bombardment of the tribal areas but insist on bombing a very small clique of people holed up in mosque. ``
It is, ``condemn the bombardment of the tribal areas`` not condone....
``This is unfortunate that some in our society condone the bombardment of the tribal areas but insist on bombing a very small clique of people holed up in mosque. ``
It is, ``condemn the bombardment of the tribal areas`` not condone....
#94 Posted by MantoLives on July 10, 2007 11:44:36 pm
Re: # 92
Dear Harish mian,
If in the future you wish to discuss anything with me, go to your mother and ask her to teach you some manners.
Otherwise refrain from interacting with me.
Dear Harish mian,
If in the future you wish to discuss anything with me, go to your mother and ask her to teach you some manners.
Otherwise refrain from interacting with me.