A Movement in Religious Nationalism: Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind

=== 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

Sorry, if I have hurt your ego! I agree, you are the most scholarly, the most knowldgeble and the most ``authentic`` Gnostic ever to be born on this earth.
Happy!!!

#143 by Naqshbandi on November 22, 2003 11:19am PT
The ``Real`` Sufi Impersonants were the followers of Satan with an eye towards the temporal power- those who ``played`` in the courts of moguls.

Sufism is essentially a Path to reach a gnosis of Allah following the teachings of Prophet Muhammad al Mustafa sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam based on the Shariat. Every single Sufi has defined it and practised it as such.

As for Inayat Khan--I have heard of him and do not know enough about him so I will not say anything in case he was one of Allah`s walis. Allahu alam. But I will say this: no real Sufi Shaykh I know or know of has ever mentioned him to me at all either in a positive or negative sense. He only seems to be popular amongst a certain group of people--mostly non- Muslims who have a desire for a new age spirituality.

Dear Ballu Khan,

Generally agree with your sentiments... however... the fact remains that Sufies in large number sided with the league at partition .... and the allies of the Congress were clearly the followers of Aurangzeb.... so this constant attempt to always straitjacket pakistan into this bigoted version of Islam is not right.

Here is what Maulana Madni, the great champion of `composite nationalism ` and ally of the Congress had to say about Aurangzeb:

``If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay`` (Muslim Politics in India - Hamid Dalwai, 1969, page 71). ``According to Maulana, the faith Dara followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. From the above views of Maulana it should be clear what kind of Islam a majority of ``Nationalist Muslims` subscribed to and what in the final analysis, their great goals were`` (ibid). For Madani ``all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and Muslims`` ( Muslim Nationhood in India - Safia Amir, 2000, page 179). ``

So you see it is not always helpful to compartmentalize according to your own preferences... that is historical and intellectual dishonesty.

-YLH

#138 by Naqshbandi on November 18, 2003 3:57pm PT


From what I can gather is that your arrogance about sufism shows your ignorance about sufism- which is about simplicity par-excellence.
I have seen enough of sufi impersonants to see that you may have memorized all the teachings of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Wali Allah, but you have NO ``understanding`` of sufism.
(I have been initiated into the clan of Pir-O-Murshid Hazrat Inayat Khan (may Allah be pleased upon him))
So I would also not prefer to discuss the subject sufism with you at the this juncture of your life>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

#139 by AnOrdinaryHindu on November 18, 2003 9:33pm PT
Please do not get impressed by Naqshabandis reading of the sufi history- the fact is that there were OFFICIAL sufi impersonators attached with all the regimes in the moghul days- there were also numerous others who preferred to practice solitude away from the power brokers - while others talked about Khalwat dar anjuman and mixed with the power brokers gleefully. So forget about what he has to say- listen to others as well.
You must go through the information provided on sufism on this site:--
http://www.uga.edu/islam/Sufism.html

Naqshbandi

Thanks for the information on Sufis.

Ballu,

actually I love the Sufis...belong to a Sufi order myself alhamdulillah....and both Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Wali Allah (may Allah be pleased with them both) were Sufis--and accepted as such by all Sufis--of the first rank.

Shows how much you know about Islam...or about India actually...

**
Mahmud conquered lands but the hearts were conquered by the pirs indeed like Khawaja Muinnudin Chishti of Ajmer Sharif who converted 9 lacs of Hindus to Islam! Both are needed and complimentary. Even Mahmud of Ghazna had Sufi pirs of the Naqshbandi order in his entourage to pray for him. Might have been Hazrat Khawaja Abul Hassan al Kharqani quds sirruhu but not sure who finally prayed for victory for the Sultan and whose prayer was granted. Many of the Sufis themselves took part in jihad.

**
So my advice to you is read books by non-hindutvas first before talking to me about Islam/Sufism or anything.

Ref pmishra2 #135

[There is a difference between the state providing infra-structure and the permit raj of the 60`s and 70`s. What Nehru had to do in the 50`s was one thing.

But by the mid-60`s a lot of basic infra-structure was in place. Yet things didnt change. I still recall a major shoe manufacturer in Calcutta telling me that he would have to go to Delhi to ``negotiate`` his shoe quota in the 70s. In other words, he would have pay some official to allow him to make so-many-shoes !!! Otherwise, if he made too many he was breaking the law. It was lunacy of the highest order.]

The lunacy persists.

I was in a meeting between a VP-Asia of Airfone and a director of RPG Cellular in -- get this -- 2001. (Airfone was an early investor in RPG Cellular and hence the meeting). The RPG guy was bemoaning the fact that when RPG asked for an increase in the number of cell phones, the Central Government granted an increase of 10,000 phones. The size of a cellular exchange is 20,000 lines; RPG ordered a 10,000 line exchange from Nokia; it being a special order wasn`t available for 6 months and cost the same as the standard 20,000 line exchange. This is the kind of madness that was imposed on Indian industries by Congress and its central planning.

Similarly, Hindustan Earthmovers (a Birla company) was licensed to produce 320 pieces of equipment a year -- of 47 different kinds of bulldozers, ditchdiggers, etc.! Caterpillar licensed them the technology and production processes. The company sold all its earthmovers in September of every year as the various PWDs and Border Roads Organization took delivery before they lost the fiscal year`s funding. So, the company manufactured the equipment throughout the year, stored them till September, wasting money on inventory carrying costs. As to 47 different types, Caterpillar was absolutely amazed what the idiots in India were doing. Today, Caterpillar has bought out Hindustan Earthmovers and is the owner of the company. So much for developing Indian technology. By the way, Birla got the land free from the government for the factory on the basis they were bringing in a new factory -- Caterpillar paid zilch to either the Government or Birla for the land!

The babus of various ministries won`t let Arun Shourie get away with privatizing or disinvestment. Even if Arun Shourie succeeds, they will not repeal the earlier license-quota raj because that is where the power is.

#116 by Naqshbandi on November 16, 2003 10:37am PT

typical of fanatic TNT and the PURISTS in the Pure land of faithfuls.
Akbar was the moghul ruler most revered by the hindus- and his popularity was hated by the mullahs because he used to listen to the hindus and tried to break the monopoly of the mullahs like naqshbandi on matters of faith.
The heroes of Pakistani muslim remain the jehadis like Mahmud Ghaznavi but most of the Indian muslims look towards the sufi peers because it was the sufi peers who brought the maximum of hindus into the muslim faith through their exemplary faith. The sword of ghazanavis only brought disgruntled people who converted only to save their lives.


````......They are certainly my heroes and also Allama Iqbal`s heroes as he has praised them in his poetry and his books......Only so Kemalists, atheists, agnostics, modernists, and other such folk will not consider these above 3 names as heroes for the Muslims. Akbar is and was hated by all traditional Muslims of Indo-Pak. In fact I am sure a vast majority of Muslims in India and Pakistan will hate him to this day...........``

Infact Aurengzeb is considered to be a fanatic who did little in the advancement of the good of the poor except for what his mullahs advised him to.

``....... real Islam in Hindustan would have been swallowed up by Hinduism under the guise of Unity...and Pakistan would never have come into being...``

He is right, the REAL Islam that has been monopolized by TNTs like him would never have been seen in the Purest land on this earth....

Sick!!!!

#134 Manto

There is a difference between the state providing infra-structure and the permit raj of the 60`s and 70`s. What Nehru had to do in the 50`s was one thing.

But by the mid-60`s a lot of basic infra-structure was in place. Yet things didnt change. I still recall a major shoe manufacturer in Calcutta telling me that he would have to go to Delhi to ``negotiate`` his shoe quota in the 70s. In other words, he would have pay some official to allow him to make so-many-shoes !!! Otherwise, if he made too many he was breaking the law. It was lunacy of the highest order.

p-mishra,

Well put.

On another note... why does there seem to be a consensus that India will only move forward by shunning Nehruvian socialism... don`t you agree that nehruvian socialism had a lot to do with creating that base from which India has taken off?

-YLH

#128 Mantolives

I wouldn`t waste any cycles on this gujjubania character. He is one of these ``modern`` indians who wants india to progress, get rid off Nehruvian socailism, attract investment BUT also insists that he has the right to belittle and ridicule our muslim (and perhaps other) minorities.

He lacks the common-sense to understand that if you belittle your neighbor and ridicule him, your neighbor will then use the smallest of pretexts to fight with you and ``get back at you``. And then no investor will want to come to your neighborhood.....

ballukhan #131 ``Army or Mafia``

An apt comparison. Perhaps ranks could be changed, so General becomes Godfather, Brigadier becomes Don, and Sipahi becomes Hit Man.

#127 by gujjubania on November 16, 2003 9:25pm PT


gujjubhai calm down yaar.i also gujju.so happy to meet gujju at chowk.but i think you dont understand gandhiji.you should done some research on him.he is man beyond the boundary.he inspired lot of ppl of world.yes nehru deserv what you say.he was the guy who live in his dreamland and not capacity of even run the small city

Army or Mafia?
Those who know something of the political history of Pakistan must have gathered a sense of the situation marked by the Pakistan Army evolving into a political party that has the characteristics of a Mafia. It has become a Mafia that now holds a huge financial and real estate empire in Pakistan and has inseparable political stakes in this country.

From the first martial law (1958) until that of General Musharraf in 1999, the Army has been working on the following three-pronged strategy: (i) It has strengthened its political wings; (ii) it has eliminated the civilian political forces as a threat to its political entity; (iii) it has developed its economic empire and as a regional Mafia ready to play as an agent of the world players.

To get to the stage where it stands today, the Pakistan Army has been gobbling up strategic national resources in the shape of resource allocation (budget) while it has been taking away large chunks of the foreign loans to strengthen its own financial empire. It also used this money to develop its strategic defense assets like modern paraphernalia and technology.

Most of the debt now Pakistan is burdened with, thus owes its use to the Pakistan Army as we see little in the public interest institutions which have rather eroded to the extent over the past about three decades that now they are practically non-existent (schools, hospitals, farm-to-market roads etc).

Army’s political strength has seen only two major threats while evolving into what it appears today: the Bhutto phenomenon and the Nawaz Sharif episode. The Bhutto phenomenon has survived the scheming and devastating attacks on the PPP leadership over the past 20 years. And now this legacy too stands amply weakened but still exists as the only potential threat to the Army’s political power that protects its economic empire and vice versa.

But the most crucial is the Army’s organizational strength, on the basis of which it attacks the Bhutto phenomenon, which poses the danger of existence to its politico-economic might. On the basis of this strength, it became the strongest political force in this country with its enrolled and retired officers, induction of army officers in civilian bureaucracy, payroll politicians and the sizeable chunk of population attached to its financial/real estate empire.

Pakistan Army, now having practically personified Pakistan, is not only incapable of allowing any kind of democracy, but has developed its vital economic interest in a Mafia rule that would be endangered by even a weak manifestation of democratic rule. The readers are here referred to the Nawaz Sharif phenomenon wherein the former premier kicked out one chief of he army staff and was attempting to sack another when the army regrouped against him.

The most painful aspect of this phenomenon is the use of national resources and foreign loans in a way that national development priorities have not been pursued over the past three decades, and only the development of the financial empire of the Pakistan Army became focus of all resource allocation. This has left in dire want the public and national interest institution building, upon which the economy and the social sector thrive. Resultantly, the national economy and social sector have been pushed into prehistoric stages while the empire of a ruling elite of the Army has prospered at their cost. That is a Mafia character and by playing the role of the guardian of national interest, a Mafia can lead a nation only into dangerous situations.

One great danger now facing Pakistan is that its more than 50 percent people are living below the poverty line, and they might even face starvation in the next 10 years. Shall the Pakistanis who have developed a sense of the impending danger only pray for a turnaround, or become part of a struggle to achieve one?

http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec30_jan05_03/opinion_zaheer.htm

Re: Vertex #118,

I thought Akbar, while no saint certainly, was better than the norm as far as exploiting the peasantry, etc, was concerned. Or am I just indulging in wishful thinking because I thought his Deen-e-Ilahi was a good idea for the time?

What a weirdo... this gujjubania character.

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

Ah more insults and personal comments I see... why don`t you counter the arguments instead? Surely insulting someone and then expecting them to be quiet is not happening... ref: `bookish lad` `bookworm` etc

As for Jinnah... obviously he was extraordinary to the likes of Nehru who had very grudging praise for Jinnah , Sarat Chanderbose who called him one of the greatest statesmen ever, and those who mourned his death in the Indian constituent assembly in its session.

Perhaps Hindustan times was not part of the `rest of the subcontinent` when it ran the famous headline on 12th September 1948: `He crossed swords with the best of us and he won` Perhaps Khushwant Singh was a total nincumpoop when he published that Jinnah edition of his magazine on Jinnah`s 100th Birthday... perhaps he was not part of the `rest of the subcontinent` either...

Perhaps you are right.... but if you ask me ... the saddest thing is when people like you choose to speak for the entire `Subcontinent`...

-YLH

Nasah,

Given your definition of `secularism` and `progress`... I am rather cautious about what you are saying. You can`t blame me.

civility is not your cup of tea YLH for long -- you are back to your old form -- Manto miaN

for you Jinnah may be a God -- but for the rest of the subcontinent he was less than extraordinary --

my friend dost-mitter sahib -- don`t worry -- it was all in fun -- I`m still wondering what the argument was about -- I agree with most of the things he says --

I like the kid -- Pakistan future is safe with bright young men like YLH who are so passionate about secularism -- hope he becomes one of the next generation`s most influential leaders -- of a secular democratic Pakistan.....hopefully in my life time....:-)

``SECULAR`` and ``PROGRESSIVE`` agenda of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind....

``The aims and objects of JUH are laid down in its 10-point programme adopted in 1919, the year of its formation and amended in 1939, are as under:

* To guide the followers of Islam in political and non-political matters from a religious point of view;

* To defend on Shariat grounds, Islam, centres of Islam (holy places of Islam and the seat of Khilafat), Islamic rituals and customs, and Islamic nationalism against all odds injurious to them;

* To establish and protect the general religious and national rights of Muslims;

* To organise the Ulama on a common platform;

* To organise the Muslim community and to launch a programme for its moral and social reform;

* To establish good and friendly relations with the non-Muslims of the country to the extent permitted by the Shariat-I-Islamiyah;

* To fight for the freedom of the country and religion according to the Shariat objectives;

* To establish Shariat courts to meet the religious need of the community;

* To propagate Islam in India by way of missionary activities in India, and foreign land

* To maintain and strengthen the bond of unity and fraternal relations (as ordained by Islam) with Muslims of other countries. ``

---

Challenge to Nasah: Fine me any of these clauses in any of the League papers, or Jinnah`s agenda... League was not in the business of `imposing` sharia... as Jinnah said... League had liberated the Muslims from the Mullahs.

-YLH

Dost Mittar,

I am afraid this is not a fight about interpretation... it is about crystal clear and blatant lies by this fellow, Nasah. Look at his posts and mine, he hasn`t even bothered to counter any of the questions with facts... and has merely retorted with lies, nitpicking, and insults.
I am saddened that you have equated me with such a person.


Nasah,

Little knowledge is dangerous.... in your case little knowledge is choking and stifling.

``would you please keep MY Faiz Ahmed Faiz out of this motley crowd...:-) ....Faiz was a breed apart..... ``


Faiz was certainly not yours and this is further illustration of your latent bigotry against Pakistan and Pakistanis. ..You say that faiz should be kept separate from `this Motley Crew`... Why? The fact is that Faiz Ahmed Faiz became the first editor of Pakistan Times in Jan 1947 when Pakistan was still not a reality. Pakistan Times was started by Mian Iftikharuddin and M.A.Jinnah ...and Faiz was appointed the first editor. Why should he be kept separate? His association with Dawn and Pakistan Times is well known... The fact that you want to keep him separate is indicative of that inherent bias and bigotry that is clearly your hallmark. No matter how you try to twist it... the fact remains that Muslims like Faiz were staunchly in the Pakistan camp... in 1947 even Quratulain (who moved back during Ayub`s dictatorship) believed in Pakistan, so much so that she moved to Pakistan and placed at herself at the disposal of the Pakistan government.

`#119 by nasah on November 16, 2003 3:46pm PT
``one camp was a cross section of the Muslim society the western educated barristers, former Congressites, Aligarh educated Youth, businessmen, intellectuals, poets, socialists, capitalists, feminists and Sufi saints... In this camp all sects were represented, there were shiites, Ismailis, Agha Khanis, sunnis, ahmadis, pervaizis, and barelvis .... and this camp had the close support of the scheduled caste hindus... this camp is the league camp and hence according to Nasah `backward`...``(YLH)

......so may I ask -- what happened to that camp in Pakistan? YLH.......can you explain my brilliant student of our Indo-Pak history...... where are they? -- 56 years later? `

What Pakistan is 56 years is a shame... it has not lived up to those lofty ideals that men like Jinnah, Zafrullah, and Iftikharuddin had ....but what are you denying that that was not the combination of people fighting for Pakistan? The logic would make sense if India had lived up to ideals of Gandhi and Nehru... has it? The fact that you would bring this up simply proves that you have no grounds to argue anymore.



``-- are you denying then that -- the secular-to-the bone Mr. Jinnah -- did not use backward Islam to create Pakistan?....``

Jinnah did use `Muslim identity` to mobilize the muslim masses, after Nehru coopted the fanatical religious elements in 1937. Jinnah didn`t use Islam even quarter of what your precious `progressive` JUH people did... What you call Jinnah`s usage of `Islam` was actually cultural expression call and historians define it as `Muslim Nationalism.. No where was his usage of Islam indicative of a theocracy. And Pakistan was a bargaining counter for parity at the center. Read Ayesha Jalal`s book... `The Sole Spokesman` ... it is widely held to be a balanced account... and if you don`t want to read that because according to you she is `tom dick and harry`... how about reading `Secular and Nationalist Jinnah` by Dr. Ajeet Javed of the Jawaharlal Nehru University .... who is a congressite, left wing secularist writer herself.

Or is Jawaharlal Nehru University press also pro-Pakistan according to you?

-YLH

vertex,

``I need not check any references since i know the history of hindukush is speculative``

I forgot, you know everything. And hence no need for checking up reserached and puiblished accounts in the likes of National geographic. Lets forget about the books by indian history professors. For they will be automatically considered biased. After all, if a white man writes history glorifying Alexander ``the great``, its to be believed and never questioned. Thats a different topic though.


`` do you think I am misusing the term hindutva? What does that term mean to you?``

Hindutva feeds upon the fear of truth in india today. Whatever has been done offcicially in india to suppress truth for the sake of harmony is becoming a weapon in the hands of hindutva wadis. They will exploit every such attempt at suppressing truth to create rumours. Its only the truth, that can destroy such forces.
When i was growing up in india, reading the official version of history, there was no mention of the destruction of 100`s of famous temples or other places of worship. Only, later did i realize for example, that a mosque was built using the stones of the destroyed temple at Mathura. And this was no ordinary temple to boot. It was supoosedly the birth place of krishna. Imagine the holiest shrine of islam destroyed and rebuilt as a different faith`s place of worship. A cover up of this fact would be utterly ridiculous as it can be used by anyone to whip frenzy of unimaginable amount.
In rajasthan the most famous jain temples are hidden deep in valleys covered with thick forests. The idols of mahavir jain are dismountable and a secret underground chamber below the temple served as an emergency safe hiding place for the idols. You know why...
There is no mention of many common facts like these in indian history books. Quite a reverse policy is ensued by the gov. of india to hide many unpleasant facts aabout the past. A power hungry group of individuals would salivate at such foolish attempts at cover ups. Thats what hindutva wadis do.
I do not think there is any nation on earth which does not distort history to suit its ideology to a large extent. Thats why Alexander is ``great``, columbus is revered as a great explorer not a greedy, desparate individual seeking a short cut to india. Heck, it took a team of scandinavian scientists to finally prove that columbus was not the first european to reach the americas. It was Leif erricson, as mentioned in the viking ``myths``. It took the best part of last century as well for the european (christian) historians to come out of their bias against the non-christian scandinavian culture. At last they realized that every non-christian literature cannot be dubbed as a myth.
But these nations can afford to distort history to cover up their misdeeds and glorify instead. For their`s is not a composite country/culture like that of India`s. But people in india must be able to face the past in order to live a harmonious tomorrow. The alternative is hindutva wadis. May be its good for india in a way (i.e facing the truth). The presence of alternative views of life provide wonderful checks and balances against any stagnating society. Society, perhaps then develops a tendency to continuously introspect and evolve. Is this why India still remains the oldest living culture in the world? perhaps....

My opinion of hindutva is a force, that is being shaped in the mirror image of abrahamic faiths. An army of followers, who are not to question or reason the ideology of its creators.
No abrahamic faith has shared a nation with another and lived in peace for long. By nature they are mutually exclusive. What the conquistadors/ crusaders/jehadis have striven for is a nation of of one fabric. But india is different precisely for this reason. People who believed in being exclusive created pakistan. But people who believed in being inclusive have india. And todays india faces threat from hindutva wadis similar to that from taimur langs or ghaznavis etc.. And a deliberate cover up of truth by their opponents is their most desirable tool.


Adios

``one camp was a cross section of the Muslim society the western educated barristers, former Congressites, Aligarh educated Youth, businessmen, intellectuals, poets, socialists, capitalists, feminists and Sufi saints... In this camp all sects were represented, there were shiites, Ismailis, Agha Khanis, sunnis, ahmadis, pervaizis, and barelvis .... and this camp had the close support of the scheduled caste hindus... this camp is the league camp and hence according to Nasah `backward`...``(YLH)

......so may I ask -- what happened to that camp in Pakistan? YLH.......can you explain my brilliant student of our Indo-Pak history...... where are they? -- 56 years later?

with all the reverence accorded to your Father of the Nation Mr. Jinnah -- may I ask another question:

-- are you denying then that -- the secular-to-the bone Mr. Jinnah -- did not use backward Islam to create Pakistan?.....

btw -- would you please keep MY Faiz Ahmed Faiz out of this motley crowd...:-) ....Faiz was a breed apart.....

Naqsgbandi,

``Only so Kemalists, atheists, agnostics, modernists, and other such folk will not consider these above 3 names as heroes for the Muslims.``

I take great offence to this. Mahmud Ghaznavi was nothing more than a loot-hungry conquerer who left great bloodshed in his wake. And I am neither a Kemalist, atheist, agnostic or `modernist` (as you would define the term).

I agree with you on Akbar though...he was as brutal as any other tyrant. But, then, I find it strange that we Muslims of this day and age have to identify with these ``rulers``....fact is normal Muslims under their rule were being used and abused. Oh what fools we are...

It pains to see two of my friends, nasah and mantolives, fighting a duel over interpretation of history. There will always be different perspective and interpretations of these events. It is best to agree to disagree and move on to deal with the real enemies of progress and modernism in today`s world.

manto wrote

Ask any alim from deoband what he thinks of Mahmud Ghaznavi and he will tell you, that he considers him a hero. The antecedents for the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind were `Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmed Shah Abdali`..

My criticism of certain of the ulama of deoband is well known and the Ahle Sunnat supporte the Pakistan Movement BUT these three illustrious names are heroes for ALL Muslims not just deobandis. They are certainly my heroes and also Allama Iqbal`s heroes as he has praised them in his poetry and his books.

Only so Kemalists, atheists, agnostics, modernists, and other such folk will not consider these above 3 names as heroes for the Muslims. Akbar is and was hated by all traditional Muslims of Indo-Pak. In fact I am sure a vast majority of Muslims in India and Pakistan will hate him to this day.

``Jadd e man Akbar, akbar neest- akfar ast!`` --these are the words of Hazrat Aurangzeb Alamgir which are in Persian and mean, ``My grandfather Akbar is not akbar [ar: great] but akfar [ar: the biggest kafir]!``

If it wasn`t for people like Sayyidina Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi -may Allah be pleased with him!--and Shah Wali Allah Muhaddith Delhvi (may Allah be pleased with him) real Islam in Hindustan would have been swallowed up by Hinduism under the guise of Unity...and Pakistan would never have come into being...

Though the Ahle Sunnat ulama voted in favour of Pakistan and supported Jinnah they made it clear they were voting for an Islamic State...

Dear Nasah,

I have no desire to quote you anywhere... you are neither impartial nor balanced. I am afraid I can`t argue with someone like you who is utterly closed up, illogical and set in his prejudices and biases, that he is unable to recognize right from wrong... If despite their anti-women stances, their own charter quoted in my last post, their openly expressed hatred for Hindus, their clearly opportunistic aims and objectives in supporting the Congress Party, and their hatred for all things modern, you describe the JUH to be more progressive than Jinnah, League and Aligarh Modernists... then I am sorry your logic is warped.

Your blatantly arrogant statement about Jinnah can`t change the facts. No less a person than your first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru has called Jinnah one of the most progressive Muslim leaders of the time in his book ... history has accorded the title of `advocate and best ambassador of hindu muslim unity` to only one man, and he was certainly not from Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind... and Bulbil-e-Hind, Sarojini Naidu definitely didn`t praise Madni...


Honestly it pains me greatly to learn of your affection and admiration for me. I would rather you had the same contempt for me that you share for the founding fathers of my country... because while I like being called `secular` and `progressive` .... obviously the meaning of those words is totally different for you. Clearly my `progressive` role models like Allama Iqbal, Jinnah, Sir Zafrullah Chaudhry, Mian Iftikharuddin, Abul-Hashim, Khaliquzzaman, Agha Khan and Faiz are not progressive to you since they were part and parcel of the Pakistan Movement ...

---

No matter how much fellas like Nasah will distort history ... the fact remains the Muslims were divided into two camps... one camp was a cross section of the Muslim society the western educated barristers, former Congressites, Aligarh educated Youth, businessmen, intellectuals, poets, socialists, capitalists, feminists and Sufi saints... In this camp all sects were represented, there were shiites, Ismailis, Agha Khanis, sunnis, ahmadis, pervaizis, and barelvis .... and this camp had the close support of the scheduled caste hindus... this camp is the league camp and hence according to Nasah `backward`...

The other camp was the camp of conservative deobandi and ahle-hadith ulema. They hated the Hindus but considered British to be even bigger kafirs... they considered all Shiites and Ahmadis to be Kafir... and they wanted to set up Shariat courts all over India.. they did side with the Congress because for some weird reason the Congress leadership made the biggest blunder of coopting them instead of supporting the league, which had an identical manifesto to the Congress... that blunder cost Congress dearly... the women hating, khilafatist, traditionalist, orthodox, exclusively deobandi Muslims are according to Nasah `Progressive`.

-YLH

my dear YLH -- I was just kidding -- I have not insulted you -- I have a lot of affection and admiration for you and for your scholarship -- and expressed it many times in previous posts -- actually I have told you that one day I want to see you as the secular prime minister of a democratic Pakistan .....

the thing that really surprises me that after I have been posting on Chowk for the past two years -- you think that I am an apologist for a retrograde medieval religious organisation like Jamiat -- that prevailed upon an inexperienced Gandhi kid to make a mess of Shah Bano case -- do you think I support Muslim Personal Law?

-- the trouble is that you don`t read other people post unless you have to start a fight with them.

As I said I agree with whatever you say about the regresive Islamic religious organizations like Jamiat or Jamaat in Pakistan or in India -- they partly or solely ARE responsible for the backwardness of Muslim masses in both India and Pakistan -- their hold on Muslims is a barrier of Himalayan proportion against modernization of muslims masses.

to remind ME as to what the Jamiatis did or do to women is an insult to your intelligence and mine as well -- by now we all know what these religious organizations stand for vis a vis women - secular education sciences etc etc.

what I was trying to correct the notion that the Islam of 40`s was not as virulent and extremist as it is today --

it even tried to keep religion out of politics -- separate Islam from the state -- opposed Islam as the basis of creating Pakistan -- had some of the most cordial relations with the Hindu community -- and they were indeed progressive enough to fight the British Colonials -- not as Jehadis -- but with the mainstream means availble to them at the time --side by side with the Hindus and the Christians --

when you look back considering the Islamists of today -- that coming from a fundamentalist religious organization in 40`s -- was just amazing --

they certainly were NOT fanatics -- they were more level headed and progressive than Mr. Jinnah (and I know now that`s going to raise your temp) to realize with the Indian National Congress -- that mixing Islam with Politics is a dangerously flammatory explosive cocktail -- that will explode one day -- and burn one day both the bartenders as well their clients.....

that is why I wrote that sentence that the Jamiatis of 40`s were more `secular` that many of us Hindus and Muslims of today....

and you can `quote` ME now -- anytime anywhere you like to do so..:-) .......... as an `impartial` authentic eyewitness of one of the most DISGRACEFUL periods in the history of that gorforsaken subcontinent -- the partition of 1947......

Mantolives, Nasah

It seems clear that Muslim views were as complex and multifaceted as Hindu ones. That makes it much easier to look ahead and not be enslaved to any one particular past. The two of you also appear to agree on the kind of future you would like to see for both Pakistan and India. IMHO, that is the most important factor.

(Just in case you choose to ignore this post as you have done so before I am reposting #107 for your benefit, though I know I won`t find a proper answer from you... just more insults, a side of you which we have been exposed to many times.)


Nasah

That post was intellectual dishonesty at its worst. It seems that an `old man` like yourself is completely devoid of any integrity whatsoever... and I explain how:

`my bookish lad YLH -- I did not change my entire tone`

Wonderful... Now we are back to the regular insults... if you can`t prove something then you make up insults. First of all we don`t know if you really were an `eye witness` as you claim to be and secondly It is an important fact that those who are in the heat of the moment are too prejudiced by their own perception to come up with a dispassionate analysis.

``Abdussattar Ghazali (Islamic Pakistan Illusion & Reality)``

You are trying to pass this off as a book ... This is NOT a book... it is an Internet Website and even this which you are now trying to pass off as scholarly work reaches very similar conclusions to what I am saying... that the Ulema who wanted Muslims to remain orthodox were opposed to the Muslim League for being `too westernized` were opportunist enough to stand by the Congress Party despite their latent hatred for Hindus.

`every tom dick and harry`

Yes I suppose books and articles by Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar and Wilfred Cantwell Smith are not much of a historical source... wonderful. While the website historian Abdussatar Ghazali`s quotes out of context are .... Brilliant Nasah ... Brilliant I say.

``The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan.``

I have repeatedly said that there was NOTHING `Islamic` or `theocratic` about the Pakistan idea. It is you who are saying it had a religious basis. It was a Political demand by a number of politicians who had now estimated that they would not get a fair share for their community. Whether they were wrong or right is another matter entirely. Pakistan was theoretically based on South Asian Muslim Nationalism, and not a religious doctrine ... that much is clear. The JUH, as is apparent from their charter, also believed in an Islamic nationalism... which according to them was not limited to Indian Muslims, but the Muslims of the entire world, and this was based on the religious concept of Ummah.


Here are some questions that You the `EYEWITNESS` to history have deliberately avoided:


1) What was the `Progressive` JUH`s view on women`s role in society?

2) What was the view of JUH on intermarriage? Why did its `brilliant progressive` leaders call Jinnah a Kafir for marrying a Parsi?

3) What was the view of JUH on Modern Education? Why had they been opposed to Sir Syed`s legacy and the Aligharh Educational movement?



Here is the `secular` and `progressive` Charter of the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind :

* To guide the followers of Islam in political and non-political matters from a religious point of view;

* To defend on Shariat grounds, Islam, centres of Islam (holy places of Islam and the seat of Khilafat), Islamic rituals and customs, and Islamic nationalism against all odds injurious to them;

* To establish and protect the general religious and national rights of Muslims;

* To organise the Ulama on a common platform;

* To organise the Muslim community and to launch a programme for its moral and social reform;

* To establish good and friendly relations with the non-Muslims of the country to the extent permitted by the Shariat-I-Islamiyah;

* To fight for the freedom of the country and religion according to the Shariat objectives;

* To establish Shariat courts to meet the religious need of the community;

* To propagate Islam in India by way of missionary activities in India, and foreign land

* To maintain and strengthen the bond of unity and fraternal relations (as ordained by Islam) with Muslims of other countries.



Hindu Muslim Amity:


It is true that the opportunist ulema from deoband, due to their latent Hatred for the Muslim modernists of the league, did endorse Congress`s politics for a brief period... but it was this political opportunism on the part of the Ulema for they were well known for their rabidly anti-Hindu views... Ask any alim from deoband what he thinks of Mahmud Ghaznavi and he will tell you, that he considers him a hero. The antecedents for the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind were `Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmed Shah Abdali` .... whereas the League leadership was most impressed by the genuine Muslim hero of the time `Kemal Ataturk`. That alone should be an indication of where these two parties stood in their view of religion.

Here is what your Maulana Madni had to say about Hindus:

``If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay`` (Muslim Politics in India - Hamid Dalwai, 1969, page 71). ``According to Maulana, the faith Dara followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. From the above views of Maulana it should be clear what kind of Islam a majority of ``Nationalist Muslims` subscribed to and what in the final analysis, their great goals were`` (ibid). For Madani ``all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and Muslims`` ( Muslim Nationhood in India - Safia Amir, 2000, page 179).


Like Wilfred Cantwell Smith points out the Ulema of Jamiat-e-ulema Hind were neurotically opposed to any social change... but according to Nasah mere support of the Hindus at one brief period in history made them progressive. Isn`t it ironic when their own charter talks not of `South Asian Muslim Nationalism` but of `PAN-ISLAMIC NATIONALISM`.

---

Also You accuse me of `rewriting history`: Please give specific references how I have rewritten history... Answer these questions:


1) Is it untrue that the League leadership at one point before the great parting of the ways was staunch Secular Indian Nationalist? Wasn`t Jinnah called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity?

2) Is it untrue that the Secular nationalist Leaders like Jinnah amongst Muslims were sidelined by the Khilafat Movement in 1920?

3) Didn`t Nehru bypass the Muslim League which in 1937 had a mirror image manifesto as the Congress Party?

4) Did the Deobandi Ulema (your favorite progressive JUH) not oppose women`s participation in Politics?

5) Did the Deobandi ulema not criticize Jinnah and his ilk for being `Kemalist` in their thinking?


Please do inform me where I have `re-written` history through the works of Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, and Wilfred Cantwell Smith? I am curious to know... but ofcourse I expect you to just repeat this lie as you have been repeating others on this board.

-YLH

Errata

post 110 (General):
That is `Ghazali` not Niazi

Post 109 (General):
The words great and progressive should be in quotation marks.

FURTHERMORE:

(Note to Nasah bhai/uncle ... the following is Quoted from YOUR OWN SOURCE `Abdussatar Niazi`s Islamic Pakistan illusion or reality`)


``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.[22]

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. [23] 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.[24]

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.[25] ``

Finally ... Why was Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind opposed to making of Pakistan ?

The great leader and progressive alim of the JUH, Janab Syedana MAULANA HUSSAIN AHMED MADNI SAYS:

`It is non-Muslims who are the field of action for this tabligh (propagation and conversion activities) of Islam and form the raw material for this splendid activity... we are opposed to the idea of limiting the right of missionary activities of Islam within any particular area (by creating Pakistan). The Muslims have got a right in all nooks and corners of India by virtue of the great struggle and grand duty to maintain that claim and try to widen its scope instead of giving it up``

(Maulana Madni, 1945)

Note: This quote is reproduced from Indian Nationalist Muslim author, Hamid Dalwai`s book `Muslim Politics in India`

At Partition:

There was one party amongst the Muslims, the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, successors of Shah Wali ullah and Syed Ahmed Sirhindi, who considered Akbar to be the worst thing that ever happened to Muslims, and Ahmed Shah Abdali the best thing, whose leadership and ideology historically had been opposed to modernity, who had opposed the Modernizing efforts of Sir Syed, had criticized the Young Turks` Revolution and then the Kemalist Revolution in Turkey, openly incited hatred against Christians and therefore the British, condemned all things western or European, forced women inside the houses, were opposed to any and old participation of women in politics, who stopped Muslims from acquiring trade and commerce skills, and who agitated for a world wide Islamic Khilafat which would dominate the non-muslim world.

According to Nasah they were progressive simply because they opposed the League and sided with the Congress, while League leadership which was the inheritor of Sir Syed`s modernist legacy, educated in the west or Aligarh, who were originally allied with the Congress but had moved away from it, who wanted Muslims to acquire modern education and learn the skills of trade and commerce, who repeatedly put up Turkey as an ideal model for the Muslims to follow, who brought Muslim women to the forefront of politics... were backward, simply because after 20 years of experience, and negotiations they had decided to follow Iqbal`s idea... which was of a Modern South Asian Muslim Majority Republic within or without India.


-YLH

Nasah,

That post was intellectual dishonesty at its worst. It seems that an `old man` like yourself is completely devoid of any integrity whatsoever... and I explain how:

`my bookish lad YLH -- I did not change my entire tone`

Wonderful... Now we are back to the regular insults... if you can`t prove something then you make up insults. First of all we don`t know if you really were an `eye witness` as you claim to be and secondly It is an important fact that those who are in the heat of the moment are too prejudiced by their own perception to come up with a dispassionate analysis.

``Abdussattar Ghazali (Islamic Pakistan Illusion & Reality)``

You are trying to pass this off as a book ... This is NOT a book... it is an Internet Website and even this which you are now trying to pass off as scholarly work reaches very similar conclusions to what I am saying... that the Ulema who wanted Muslims to remain orthodox were opposed to the Muslim League for being `too westernized` were opportunist enough to stand by the Congress Party despite their latent hatred for Hindus.

`every tom dick and harry`

Yes I suppose books and articles by Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar and Wilfred Cantwell Smith are not much of a historical source... wonderful. While the website historian Abdussatar Ghazali`s quotes out of context are .... Brilliant Nasah ... Brilliant I say.

``The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan.``

I have repeatedly said that there was NOTHING `Islamic` or `theocratic` about the Pakistan idea. It is you who are saying it had a religious basis. It was a Political demand by a number of politicians who had now estimated that they would not get a fair share for their community. Whether they were wrong or right is another matter entirely. Pakistan was theoretically based on South Asian Muslim Nationalism, and not a religious doctrine ... that much is clear. The JUH, as is apparent from their charter, also believed in an Islamic nationalism... which according to them was not limited to Indian Muslims, but the Muslims of the entire world, and this was based on the religious concept of Ummah.


Here are some questions that You the `EYEWITNESS` to history have deliberately avoided:


1) What was the `Progressive` JUH`s view on women`s role in society?

2) What was the view of JUH on intermarriage? Why did its `brilliant progressive` leaders call Jinnah a Kafir for marrying a Parsi?

3) What was the view of JUH on Modern Education? Why had they been opposed to Sir Syed`s legacy and the Aligharh Educational movement?



Here is the `secular` and `progressive` Charter of the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind :

* To guide the followers of Islam in political and non-political matters from a religious point of view;

* To defend on Shariat grounds, Islam, centres of Islam (holy places of Islam and the seat of Khilafat), Islamic rituals and customs, and Islamic nationalism against all odds injurious to them;

* To establish and protect the general religious and national rights of Muslims;

* To organise the Ulama on a common platform;

* To organise the Muslim community and to launch a programme for its moral and social reform;

* To establish good and friendly relations with the non-Muslims of the country to the extent permitted by the Shariat-I-Islamiyah;

* To fight for the freedom of the country and religion according to the Shariat objectives;

* To establish Shariat courts to meet the religious need of the community;

* To propagate Islam in India by way of missionary activities in India, and foreign land

* To maintain and strengthen the bond of unity and fraternal relations (as ordained by Islam) with Muslims of other countries.



Hindu Muslim Amity:


It is true that the opportunist ulema from deoband, due to their latent Hatred for the Muslim modernists of the league, did endorse Congress`s politics for a brief period... but it was this political opportunism on the part of the Ulema for they were well known for their rabidly anti-Hindu views... Ask any alim from deoband what he thinks of Mahmud Ghaznavi and he will tell you, that he considers him a hero. The antecedents for the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind were `Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmed Shah Abdali` .... whereas the League leadership was most impressed by the genuine Muslim hero of the time `Kemal Ataturk`. That alone should be an indication of where these two parties stood in their view of religion.

Here is what your Maulana Madni had to say about Hindus:

``If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay`` (Muslim Politics in India - Hamid Dalwai, 1969, page 71). ``According to Maulana, the faith Dara followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. From the above views of Maulana it should be clear what kind of Islam a majority of ``Nationalist Muslims` subscribed to and what in the final analysis, their great goals were`` (ibid). For Madani ``all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and Muslims`` ( Muslim Nationhood in India - Safia Amir, 2000, page 179).


Like Wilfred Cantwell Smith points out the Ulema of Jamiat-e-ulema Hind were neurotically opposed to any social change... but according to Nasah mere support of the Hindus at one brief period in history made them progressive. Isn`t it ironic when their own charter talks not of `South Asian Muslim Nationalism` but of `PAN-ISLAMIC NATIONALISM`.

---

Also You accuse me of `rewriting history`: Please give specific references how I have rewritten history... Answer these questions:


1) Is it untrue that the League leadership at one point before the great parting of the ways was staunch Secular Indian Nationalist? Wasn`t Jinnah called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity?

2) Is it untrue that the Secular nationalist Leaders like Jinnah amongst Muslims were sidelined by the Khilafat Movement in 1920?

3) Didn`t Nehru bypass the Muslim League which in 1937 had a mirror image manifesto as the Congress Party?

4) Did the Deobandi Ulema (your favorite progressive JUH) not oppose women`s participation in Politics?

5) Did the Deobandi ulema not criticize Jinnah and his ilk for being `Kemalist` in their thinking?


Please do inform me where I have `re-written` history through the works of Ayesha Jalal, Wolpert, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayyar, and Wilfred Cantwell Smith? I am curious to know... but ofcourse I expect you to just repeat this lie as you have been repeating others on this board.

-YLH

my bookish lad YLH -- I did not change my entire tone -- you want to rewrite history by quotations from books -- but they still do not mean they are true -- you can prove any point by some quotes from any number of articles from any number of books by any Tom Dick Harry writer -- still they don`t prove that is the history --

a glimpse of history that I gave you was an eyewitness history -- u r too bookish to appreciate that rare priviledge...:-)

any way

to `prove` `My Point` -- something you love to do with the `written words` of others -- that the Jamiatis WERE progressive in terms of Hindu Muslim amity and in terms of opposing creation of Pakistan based on religion in 40`s -- here is a `quote` from a book by a Pakistani writer about Jamiatis of India:

``“The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan.

Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were one nation.

He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens.

Maulana Madani said: ``all should endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam.`` [14] He was of the view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.``

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques.

This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma). ”
Abdussattar Ghazali (Islamic Pakistan Illusion & Reality)......:-)

those who live by quotes die by quotes.....:-)

Nasah,

So now you have changed your enite tone... now JUH is not what you are arguing for, but instead it is your own `dismay` at the `league`. Sadly you haven`t even tried to argue your case. Simply because you say something doesn`t mean we have to accept it. If those were really your assertions about the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, shouldn`t you have proved it through some facts ... Yes it was strange that the religious forces decided to side with the Congress at that point, but it doesn`t prove in the least bit that they were in favor of Hindu Muslim amity. That entire concept is alien to the Deobandi ideology, and the article proves it convincingly.

As for the leaguers... most of them had been part of the Congress Party, and you yourself know that Mohammed Ali Jinnah is the only politician to be called `Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`... infact the league leadership consisted of most of those western educated non-religious Muslims you talk about and claim to be representative of... why did they turn from that to a separatist demand, there already has been a lot of discussion on it. Have you had the opportunity to read Ayesha Jalal`s `The Sole Spokesman`?

The answer lies in the divorce between the modernist Muslims and Hindus at the onset of the Khilafat Movement. For better or for worse, Gandhi coopted the extremist muslim religious element in his freedom struggle, and alienated the educated Muslim political elite. This alienation was complete in 1937 when the very secular Nehru went over the top of the moderate Muslim League and made alliances with the fanatical religious elements of Jamiat-e-ulema-hind.

If I am quarterbacking post-game in the adoration of the `father of the nation`, why don`t you prove me wrong by quoting some facts?

-YLH

Maharana,

I need not check any references since i know the history of hindukush is speculative. The reference I cited is truthful in its assessment, which in part acknowledges as a possibility your interpretation. No amount of tail chasing can change that.

It is telling, though, that the hindutva types (again, you’ll find that crap littered over the web) add that the name of the mountain was chosen by Muslims to remind Hindus of their pending fate. This is complete nonsense, and there is no factual basis to support any possible motivations for naming mountains, if indeed Muslims were the one who called these mountains Hindu Kush. This reading of history is added for obvious reasons...

``Not so. Indian history books do not echo RSS propaganda on any such legacy of muslims.``.

Oh, I know. Its not Indian ``propaganda`` I`m interested in. My qualms are with the RSS types and those who would make excused for them. I am not of the view that India is a lost cause! Far from it! Curious, do you think I am misusing the term hindutva? What does that term mean to you? I’m curious because you seem to think I’m attacking India...

vertex,

``Specific (alleged) incidents ``

Please go through the list of references i`ve provided in #86 about hindukush before you jump to ``alleged``. If that does not satisfy you, some US university history websites will enlighten you. Quoting one encyclopedia which is in contradiction to other researched and published works is not a proof of alleged incident. Bible is included in the list of non-fiction best-sellers. But there is no evidence of its authenticity as a historical document in any researched and published works.

``What is a reworking of history is to suggest that this is the sole legacy of Muslims on the subcontinent.``

Not so. Indian history books do not echo RSS propaganda on any such legacy of muslims. ``Reworking of history`` would be if education boards and universities in india would include RSS version as part of history. As an example of reworking look into pakistani history books. In india and elsewhere, there are groups like KKK, neo nazi`s etc who put up crap on websites. That does not become ``Reworked history``.

Adios

Manto if you want some `lavish praise` from me I would be glad to give it to you -- my point in stating the reality of religious politics involved in prepartition days on the Muslims side was the one I described --

Jameatis were all those you describe they were BUT -- strange as it may sound -- during that historic moment in the history of the subcontinent -- the religious forces of reactionary Islam were on the side of Hindu Muslim amity and were full partners with Hindus in the fight for Independence -- and totally opposed to the creation of Pakistan -- whereas the so called enlightened ones -- had no intention to take on the British -- were sitting on the fence -- some were even helping the Britsh to quel the rebellion --

and most darkly were using Islam and the Hindu Hatred to the hilt for political purposes -- this is what I saw 56 years ago and tried to point out the strange dichotomy of Muslim politics... from my point of view...

you can do all the Monday morning quarterbacking you want -- attribute all the precious secular qualities to Jinnah and the Muslim League -- in adoration of the father of your country --

but as we the secular non-religious Muslims of India knew and saw to our toatl dismay at that time -- that the sword of Islam that was unsheathed by the Muslim League to divide the country and carve out two quarters of a loaf -- of a country -- under so much bitterness rancor and hatred -- will be first raised against your own head --

and the result is right there -- before us -- how Islam the bane of politics in Pakistan tore up Pakistan into pieces...despite such an `enlightened leadership` under Jinnah.....:-)

Manto if you want some `lavish praise` from me I would be glad to give it to you -- my point in stating the reality of religious politics involved in prepartition days on the Muslims side was the one I described --

Jameatis were all those you describe they were BUT -- strange as it may sound -- during that historic moment in the history of the subcontinent -- the religious forces of reactionary Islam were on the side of Hindu Muslim amity and were full partners with Hindus in the fight for Independence -- and totally opposed to the creation of Pakistan -- whereas the so called enlightened ones -- had no intention to take on the British -- were sitting on the fence -- some were even helping the Britsh to quel the rebellion --

and most darkly were using Islam and the Hindu Hatred to the hilt for political purposes -- this is what I saw 56 years ago and tried to point out the strange dichotomy of Muslim politics... from my point of view...

you can do all the Monday morning quarterbacking you want -- attribute all the precious secular qualities to Jinnah and the Muslim League -- in adoration of the father of your country --

but as we the secular non-religious Muslims of India knew and saw to our toatl dismay at that time -- that the sword of Islam that was unsheathed by the Muslim League to divide the country and carve out two quarters of a loaf -- of a country -- under so much bitterness rancor and hatred -- will be first raised against your own head --

and the result is right there -- before us -- how Islam the bane of politics in Pakistan tore up Pakistan into pieces...despite such an `enlightened leadership` under Jinnah.....:-)

re: vertex # 89

Vertex, I will make the same point to you that I made to Godot elsewhere. Hindu response to Muslim rule is much more complex than you appear to understand, at least from your posts here.

Hindus know very well that not all Muslims were genocidal. Which Hindu would have anything but the highest regard for Dara Shikoh? for Rahim? and many other Muslims who worked with Hindus, shoulder to shoulder, sharing their sorrows and dreams as neighbors? Because we understand and appreciate that, large majorities of Hindus do not support extremist agendas that paint all Muslims as villains.

But as you acknowledged (I have to congratulate you for being open to history that stares us in the face - mostly we run into bigots who shut their eyes firm to anything that may break their delusions), genocide of Hindus - as we understand the word today - most probably did occur. As did large-scale destruction of temples and Hindu culture.

If you see Hindu wrath, it is because we find many of the same criminals who were party to the most heinous atrocities against Hindus being idolized as heros by some people. Hindus are willing to put history behind them but are not willing to forget history. Least of all forgive and tolerate those who still dream of Ghoris and Gaznavis.

It is not enough to dismiss such behavior and mindset as `stupid.` The way Hindus interpret it, such behaviors and ideologies do not arise from stupidity, but something very different, very despicable, and very dangerous to everybody.

Since you appear to acknowledge reality, you would accept that for a very long period of time, Hindus were helpless and powerless, relative to their numbers. They had little choice but to put up with whatever others said or, sometimes even, did, including tolerating loss of life, property, and honor.

That situation does not exist anymore. And it is never going to come back. We Hindus are determined to see to that.

Therefore, it is time to acknowledge and respect the role of Hindus and Hinduism. Then it becomes possible to build as progressive and fair a society as our common abilities will allow us.

The good news is that secularism is not antithetical to Hinduism and vice versa. For Hindus that religion-secularism debate has been settled long ago. As ordinary a Hindu as me is deeply committed to secularism, at least in the form of non-discrimination against other communities. So everyone has something good to look forward to.

vertex

Just to continue the previous thought, I have been seeing so many Muslims on Chowk who IMO deserve and would get the respect of any Hindu (leaving out some fringe elements). So Hindu view of Muslims is not all black. If both Hindus and Muslims focus on the positives, and concentrate on what brings them together, almost all our problems can be solved. Even the animosity between India and Pakistan will melt away over time.

Dear PM,

Thankyou as always for your lavish praise ;)

By the way daily times published my letter about the fatso...

-YLH

Great going, Manto!
As always, it`s good to know that we can rely on you to clear up the facts about history-- and in doing so, often expose the prejudices and hidden agendas of others.
So, thank you for gracing chowk.

PS Another acceptable litmus test for `Progressiveness` is the role of women in the movement... Muslim League, and the Pakistan Movement was replete with Muslim women and their role in mass mobilization of 1946 was second to none.

The central working committee of the League had such power figures as Raana Liaqat Ali, Jahanara Shahnawaz, Begum Tassadaq (these women later on were the ones who initiated the legislation on the famous family laws ordinance, which is still the cornerstone of the struggle of every feminist in Pakistan)... Women`s role in the League`s civil disobedience in the early months of 1947 is notable, and their agitation was no less than the men...


How many strong women leaders did the `progressive` Jamiat-e-ulema-Hind have in their `secular` struggle... zilch... The `Progressive` Jamiat-e-ulema-hind believed in keeping women in doors as per the deobandi aqeeda....

This was in sharp contrast to the (as per Nasah `backward`) `brown sahibs` and `sherwani sardars` of the Muslim League who were openly declaring:

``No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of their houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable conditions in which our women have to live. You should take your women along with you as comrades in every sphere of life.``

(M.A. Jinnah Lahore 1944 in the hey day of the Pakistan Movement)

BTW it will interest everyone to know that Maulana Diesel Fazlurrahman (the grand-propagator of Shariat and daddy of the taliban) and his equally Islamist father Maulana Mufti Mehmood were part of the Jamiat-e-ulema-Hind and anti Muslim league and not the faction that had joined the league under Shabbir Ahmed Usmani. They had openly proclaimed that `thank God we were not part of the sin of making this country`.... after 1971`s ignonimous defeat.


This simplistic logic that simply because some muslim group supported the Congress it was progressive can`t have any serious takers... these were the same people who agitated against modern education, against sir syed ahmed khan, called Jinnah a kafir for marrying a parsi, agitated against Kemalist Turkey for having destroyed the Khilafat, opposed the Child Marriage bill, after Pakistan they were part of the agitation in Karachi to make Pakistan an Islamic state...


Like Stuka says in one of his earlier posts.... the greatest mistake that the Congress Party made was to co-opt these reactionary religious elements instead of working with the mainstream political forces of the muslims like Jinnah and then the league who had the same aims and objectives as the Congress Party... you made this mistake then, and after the rousing welcome the prodigal son of the `JUH` Fazlurrahman got from the Indians, and this sort of typical camouflaging of facts as is obvious from Nasah`s attempt, I am tempted to say that you still haven`t learnt that valuable lesson.

PS: Dost Mittar... Sir Syed`s MAO college Aligarh was restricted to Muslims... till the independence of South Asia.

Dost Mittar,

Azad went through a metamorphisis... at one time he had also advocated the `Hijrat` of Muslims from India because it was darulharb and an enemy country. So let us not say that he was always the secular Indian nationalists you want to make out of him.

I think the quotes from the article prove it beyond a doubt that ... Jamiat`s ulema wanted to keep Muslims traditional and orthodox... they were reactionary and against Modern education... to this end they hated the Muslim League and its leadership most of which was western educated or Aligarh educated and was clearly inspired by Turkey`s example. To call them progressive is like calling the Ottoman Empire progressive just because Ottoman Empire was more multicultural and diverse than the almost homogenously Muslim... Turkish Republic.


Dear Nasah,

Instead of putting up emotional nonsense which has no roots in reality ... why don`t you prove your assertions with some facts, some sources, some reliable authors, some historians. You keep repeating the same old same old, but you haven`t bothered to back it up with any sources.

The charter of JUH, the speeches of its leaders including the famous Maulana Madni, and the role of its successors... is infront of you. This article wasn`t written by a Pakistani... it was written by an Indian... and I remember having read a article by Kuldip Nayyar ...

``to me it is the same delusion -- that in order to modernize you have to follow TRUE ISLAM -``

Where did the League say this? Jinnah had shot down the idea of an Islamic state many times,... this true Islam nonsense is directly from the charter of JUH and its leader Maulana Madni... why don`t you use some logic, instead of this useless debate?

The whole Pakistan idea as given by Iqbal in his famous khutba and then in his letters to Jinnah is a Modernist ideal... and it received the most support from the Aligarh University.

I find it amazing that you will call the Leaguers who wanted a Modern Republic, who had been initially part of the Congress, who wanted Modern Western Education for Muslims, who exhorted Muslims to train themselves in fields of science and technology and commerce and finance ... backward... but those like Jamiatis who wanted Muslims to stay in Madrassahs, who cursed out at any thing modern, and who wanted Muslims to be forever concerned with masail-e-fiqh ... to be progressive ... is there no shame in your logic?

Look at the kind of people standing by Jinnah ... people standing by Jinnah were people like Zafrullah Khan, Iftikharuddin (and through him Faiz Ahmed Faiz , first editor of Pakistan Times in Jan 1947), Mian Salahuddin, The Rafis, Suhrawardy, Abul Hashim, Mian Barkat Ali, and even scheduled caste Hindus like Jogindranath Mandal... Most of them including Jinnah were EX-Congressites who were siezed with the desire to forward...


Here are some direct questions ... why don`t you answer them instead of going into another verbiage of utter and total historical ignorance?

1) Did the JUH not condemn the league leadership of being too secular/kemalist and hence not fit for Muslims?

2) Did they not repeatedly attack Jinnah calling him a kafir who married a non-muslim?


3) Did the JUH not use the rhetoric of jehad against the British gov. calling it the rule of infidel and against Islam?


4) Did the Jamiat not have this following charter:

* To guide the followers of Islam in political and non-political matters from a religious point of view;

* To defend on Shariat grounds, Islam, centres of Islam (holy places of Islam and the seat of Khilafat), Islamic rituals and customs, and Islamic nationalism against all odds injurious to them;

* To establish and protect the general religious and national rights of Muslims;

* To organise the Ulama on a common platform;

* To organise the Muslim community and to launch a programme for its moral and social reform;

* To establish good and friendly relations with the non-Muslims of the country to the extent permitted by the Shariat-I-Islamiyah;

* To fight for the freedom of the country and religion according to the Shariat objectives;

* To establish Shariat courts to meet the religious need of the community;

* To propagate Islam in India by way of missionary activities in India, and foreign land

* To maintain and strengthen the bond of unity and fraternal relations (as ordained by Islam) with Muslims of other countries.


5) This quote from Cantwell Smith who is by no means pro-pakistan

``The theologues of the JUH were as anti-British as ever; yet at their 1942 conference instead of attacking the League (Muslim League) in their old style they hoped for Muslim solidarity, and their resolution demanding complete Independence for India asked also for a federal constitution, such as would secure religious, political, and cultural self determination for Muslims. The Azad Muslim Board still made statements for Indian freedom but envisaged within that freedom, the right of secession`` (Modern Islam in India by Wilfred Cantwell Smith, 1946, London, page270). ``


6) Also explain this quote:

From Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind Madni`s address...

``If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay`` (Muslim Politics in India - Hamid Dalwai, 1969, page 71). ``According to Maulana, the faith Dara followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. From the above views of Maulana it should be clear what kind of Islam a majority of ``Nationalist Muslims` subscribed to and what in the final analysis, their great goals were`` (ibid). For Madani ``all non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam and Muslims`` ( Muslim Nationhood in India - Safia Amir, 2000, page 179).


The classical aims and objectives of these Jamiatis were to convert entire India to Islam.. something which they are still involved in today.

-YLH

http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/12/letted.htm#5

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
12 September 2003 Friday 14 Rajab 1424

Who was Abdali?
by GHULAM KIBRIA, Karachi

The ongoing debate on Abdali (Encounter, Aug 30) brought back to my memory an old Punjabi saying, Khada peetalahe dabaqi Ahmad Shahe da. It was heard in my younger days in Lahore. Being curious to know its background and significance I turned to an elderly person. He explained that this saying refers to Ahmad Shah Abdali`s annual
looting spree in Lahore when he would take away everything his army - actually was a gang of looters - could lay their hands upon.

This saying emphasizes the need for spending all one earned during the year and the virtue of not saving anything. For whatever saved would be taken away by Ahmad Shah Abdali.

Lahore was an overwhelmingly Muslim city. Whether Abdali was a ghazi and mujahid or a lotaira is for Islam lovers, academicians and historians to debate, this saying only emphasizes the ground reality.

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-10-2003_pg3_7

Daily Times
Friday, October 10, 2003

Can Musharraf be like Ghaznavi?
By Khaled Ahmed

For us the great Muslim conquerors of history are a constant inspiration. Reverence to them became a part of the process of nation-building in Pakistan after 1947, especially if these conquerors were not favoured by India. If the Indians liked Akbar, we had to condemn him for deviating from true Islam, even though there would be some aspects of his rule worth emulating for us today to nurture a civil society at peace with itself. If the Indians disliked someone, we had to admire him. That`s what happened in the case of Ghaznavi who invaded India a number of times and laid its places of worship waste in the name of Islam. Ironically, the BJP is paying back for what he did. Because the Indians hated Aurangzeb for imposing ``jazia`` on them, we had to admire him although he was cruel to his brothers and persecuted the mystics we otherwise cherish.

Columnist Javed Chaudhry wrote in ``Jang`` (24 September 2003) that when the Afghan king Mahmud Ghaznavi wanted to invade India his commander advised him to first take care of trouble in the north of Afghanistan. Another courtier told him that as a king he was not to ``ask`` a commander whether he should invade India. He should just give an order and leave it to the commander to carry it out. The column said that General Musharraf instead of giving orders to build Kalabagh Dam was waiting for a consensus in the provinces.

While it is true that strategic decisions have to be taken in Pakistan sometimes without popular approval, it would be improper to refer to Mahmud Ghaznavi as an example to induce General Musharraf to take the decision on the Kalabagh Dam in the teeth of the opposition he faces in three provinces. Anything built in the name of Ghaznavi would not be right for Pakistan simply because his medieval rule was completely out of kilter with the requirements of governance today. We sometimes wrongly refer to the Justice of Emperor Jehangir (Adl-e-Jehangir) as a model for our justice system today, which is most embarrassing. Jehangir had a bell outside his palace where citizens would shout their petitions for him to decide. The one decision he famously made about his own queen was a most shabby miscarriage of justice. It was also a blatant violation of the separation of the judiciary in today`s terms. Ghaznavi as a medieval marauder is not a good reference to present to a ruler of today. It simply shows a kind of residual primitiveness in us. General Musharraf may be a military ruler but we cannot ask him to become savage like Ghaznavi who after all didn`t do the horrible thing to his own people. .....

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2003_pg3_4

Daily Times, Pakistan
Wednesday, September 17, 2003

A policy of deceit
by Saad Anis

[Saad Anis is a student at Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Technology]

Our people have rigid and erroneous opinions on serious issues. Instead of being objective and logical, they are irrational and ignorant. Such an attitude is not surprising, considering the flagrant storytelling prevalent in our educational system.

Presenting a distorted version of events to the people is an odious practice but it has been the norm in our country ever since independence. The people are continuously fed propaganda and lies. The objective is to paint a picture that vindicates the stance of the
state on the matter at hand, no matter how unjust and incongruous the reality. The history that is taught in educational institutions throughout Pakistan is a case in point; this version of history is replete with half-truths and, in some cases, blatant fibs.

Innumerable examples can be quoted in this regard. Take the Indo-Pak war of 1965. Even today, almost four decades after the altercation, a large majority of our countrymen still believes, in accordance with the propaganda that it has been fed, that India initiated the conflict. One can still vividly recall the many textual lessons recounting how, one night, our devious enemy slipped into our territory unprovoked, with the treacherous aim of destroying our homeland. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What all such texts fail to mention is the fact that in August 1965, two military operations were launched by the Pakistan government into Indian-held Kashmir. Armed militants infiltrated across the ceasefire line (now the LoC), with the aim of inciting a revolt which would allow the Pakistan army to take Srinagar. It was in reply to these incursions that India launched an offensive on Lahore. It was an act of retaliation, not one of pre-emption. Sadly, we are only told the latter half of the whole affair.

In the same pattern, the Dhaka Debacle, the dismemberment