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

saminshah #51 thanks. i googled shourie and see that he is a controversial bjp journalist. no wonder this is the first time i have heard anyone refer to sir syed referred to as anything other than a promoter of modern (british style) education among indian muslims.

Ref Urstruly #42

[They (JUH) were your allies for crying out aloud. You Hindus didnt even spare them. I hope now after 50 years JUH will be able to see why Pakistan was inevitable. And why another Pakistan is inevitable.]

In case you have forgotten, the other Pakistan is called Bangladesh.

#43 by tahmed32 on November 12, 2003 12:39pm PT
saminshah #41 you write ``Two nation theory first propounded by Sir Sayeed Ahmedkhan


Arun Shouri`s book ``controvercies in modern india first published in 1991
this book dedicated som 60 page on Sir Sayeed and his lactures and with lot of references

#48 vertex

[quote]
These movements are in lands that are viewed as ``Muslim`` areas, not only by the Muslims themselves but by non-Muslims as well.
[end-quote]

oh, yeah and how do ``muslim lands`` get defined? By murder and ethnic cleansing of minorities? Any region of the world where there are two or more muslims?

Silly statements of this sort expose your two-facedness and hypocrisy. You carefully ignore the roots of islamofascism (such as this Shah Walli Ullah and his many followers, even in this day) but you are happy to justify violence and murder for any muslim group that feels it should be independent. As Tom Friedman has aptly remarked, this sense of islamic superiority unsupported by fact underlies many of the conflicts that muslims face with their neighbors.

#48 vertex,

``Oh give it a rest. For one, I`m not even Pakistani.``


Congrats Romair!!

Yaar, you should at least inform, No. Citizenship papers all cleared. Proud Canuck now, eh?!

33 is actually mine, so I will respond:

pmishra2,

``We are focusing instead on ideologies and belief systems. These have a much long life-time and impact than any king`s depradations. The ideology of a Shah Walli Ullah is a hateful one. All should repudiate it. Sarvarkar`s proposal that non-hindus have differential rights in a free india is wrong. All should repudiate it.``

Shah Walli Ullah`s idelogy, whatever the heck it was (as if he was some big shot political theorist), is a non-player in this day and age. Get with the times. He was a loyal subject supporting his empire. It`s already been established that the likes of JUH were not rallying around any particular political discourse invented by the man, so why keep picking on him?

``So sometimes even old news can be quite important in the current context. Would you not say that rejecting Hitler`s views is quite important today?``

Sure, but when no one is even mentioning Hitler - never mind his views- why bring him up?

maharana,

``1. In case you missed ``bigoted`` for RSS vision. ``

I saw it, and how you ``understood`` them. Sympathy for bigots makes you what?

``2. Yeah, the point i made is even after having a country of your own, youth of your nation still come to die in my country.``

Oh give it a rest. For one, I`m not even Pakistani. And even then, understand that many of India`s youth are sitting in Kashmir. And no, they`re not all looking at the scenery when they are there...there`s a reason why Pakistani youth are going to KASHMIR (it`s debatable if that`s part of your country, but you won`t let them decide...is that any way to treat your ``brothers`` and ``sisters``?).

``In case you did not notice, the world over Muslims demand a separate nation. Is it fear of persecution? Have they been persecuted in the past? ``

Muslims demand separate nations - or even autonomy - for a good reason. These movements are in lands that are viewed as ``Muslim`` areas, not only by the Muslims themselves but by non-Muslims as well. I think they should have every right to determine their own destiny, and not be subjected to the whims of any outside force who will force the Muslims to adapt to their idea of how to live.

There is no fear of persecution, persecution is a fact. Treatment of Chechnya’s Muslims, and Xinjang Muslims is not too good...again, read the news. Kashmir is better, I will admit, but Indians are being heavy handed. Philippine struggle makes sense, since the Moros have little to do with Philippinos.

The world over, non-Muslims are drooling over Muslim lands but don`t want to deal with Muslims...they`d rather subjugate them (i.e. make them a minority against their will - wanting to strip them of their association with Muslim and foist some phoney nationalism on them) .

Here`s a radical thought: how about letting the Muslims decide if they want to stay or not!
For example, if India held a referendum in Kashmir, and a clear vote was made in favor of staying with India, then that means they have accepted their minority status. India has no right to force herself on the Kashmiris, though!

But for people like you that`s not good enough. You talk brother-brother on the one hand, but on the other you are all too willing to be domineering.

A good summary of the works and life of Shah Wali Allah (to the person who asked if he was a Sufi too! Its like asking is the pope a catholic?!)

http://www.cis-ca.org/voices/s/shahwaliallah_mn.htm

***

Ustruly is right. Most of the JUH were actually anti-Partition. Most of the ulama (but not all) of the Ahle Sunnat were pro-Pakistan although some also were not. It is not right to blame the JUH for that. They have been pro-India. One of them once remarked, ``Hum pehlay Hindustani hain aur baad mein Musulmaan hain!`` The irony is that even then, as Urstruly has noted, they are not spared by the bania.

In the 1857 War of Liberation though many of the prominent Deobandi ulama such as Rashid Ahmad Gangohi fought *alongside the British Government* and against the Muslims! They have admitted this in the book , eg, Tazkiya e Rashid, a biography of Gangohi written by one of his disciples.

To be fair too, on the issue of whether India was Dar al Islam or Dar al Harb both the main scholars of the Deobandis (Ashraf Ali Thanavi) and of the Ahle Sunnat (Imam Ahmad Riza Khan) agreed that India was Dar al Islam and they opposed the so called movement for jihad. They were NOT pro-British in any sense (Ala Hazrat`s grandfather had fought in the 1857 jihad against the Brits) but argued that since the British were Ahle Kitab they were religiously closer to the Muslims than the Hindus and thus the Muslims should prefer British rule over Hindu rule. Also, the British by and large gave the Muslims (and Hindus) freedom of religion and did not interfere in their personal religious lives.

Ala Hazrat rahmatullah alayhi especially never let any political gains or possible advantages sway him from the rulings of the Shariah. For him (and his sons) the rule of Shariah was paramount and he never budged from his principles. Usha Sanyal`s book is an excellent study of his life and attitude to the British.

Having read the whole article again it is clear that the author is not happy that Muslims -whether Sunni or Shia or Deobandi (though it concentrates on Deoband) want to retain their islamic values and culture! For him only Muslims who remain Muslim in name only but are actually Hindu-ized (what they actually mean when they say Indianised) are nationalit, patriots!

This is just anti-Muslim propoganda in a more sophisticated form--poison coated in honey!
I dread the future of Muslims in Hindustan...

The ulama were right...Muslims in British India were much free-er than they will be in Hindutva India.

Vertex # 21,

Problems with reading comprehension? Or were your pants on fire before you read my reply.

1. In case you missed ``bigoted`` for RSS vision.
2. ``Well, how about their own country? That is, after all, what they wanted...and in some sense, got. Yet, you guys still feel betrayed by TNT?`` Yeah, the point i made is even after having a country of your own, youth of your nation still come to die in my country.
In case you did not notice, the world over muslims demand a separate nation. Is it fear of persecution? Have they been persecuted in the past? By that token, the jews should seccede from every nation, where they have sizeable numbers and create a new one.

Adios

saminshah #41 you write ``Two nation theory first propounded by Sir Sayeed Ahmedkhan ``

What is the source of your information?

I thought Sir Syed focus was on education along modern lines as introduced by the british and breaking free from the traditional madrassah style education. Not in starting a political movement. And his main opposition was the mullahs of the time, who were the spiritual forbears of the JUH; who then spawned maudoodi; who then spawned islamic fundamentalism in egypt (by influencing syed qutb who read his books translated into arabic while languishing in Nasser`s jail) and in pakistan (through the jamaat i islami).

Kind of a reverse Darwinism, with humans evolving first into apes (under JUH) and then into bacteria (under the religious parties).

This is the most dishonest and intellectually bankrupt thesis that I have ever seen. Bund is actually trying to prove that crows are white. Vertex has correctly pointed out to this attempt at obfuscation whereas Nasah and Dost mitter are too kind to this non sense. Asif has pointed out to the factual inaccuracies around which Bund has tried to build his Muslims-are-unpatriotic-Indians case.

They (JUH) were your allies for crying out aloud. You Hindus didnt even spare them. I hope now after 50 years JUH will be able to see why Pakistan was inevitable. And why another Pakistan is inevitable.

#24 by vertex on November 11, 2003 10:15pm PT
”An article from HindustanTimes, quite informative.

Hindutva manufactured
Khushwant Singh
June 29

Ask any Indian or Pakistani: “Who first propounded the two-nation theory?” The immediate response will be “Mohammed Ali Jinnah”. Not correct. The first man to talk of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations was V.D. Savarkar who coined the word ‘Hindutva’ in a book with the same title in 1923. Other Hindu leaders who accepted………………..”


Khushwant singh is wrong or he prefers to ignore the fact. Two nation theory first propounded by Sir Sayeed Ahmedkhan

What Shah Walli Ullah said or did 200 years ago has little relevance. The irony is that the progeny of the Marathas is now seeking alliances with the progenies of Abdali and Nadir Shah to corner the Muslim ``kingdom`` on the subcontinent!

Ref nasah #18

[being no maulana lover myself -- I can say with my personal knowledge -- that Most of the Jameatis were all for Hindu-Muslim unity and amity -- keeping Islam out of politics into the masjid and building Muslim religious character and piety -- never heard them spouting bigotry and fanticism...]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for setting the record straight.

The Independence Movement in India -- contrary to Pakistani history books -- included EVERY right-thinking Indian. While there may have been individuals who saw an opportunity to get a political following -- and exploited it in the name of Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, the Dravidians or the Untouchables -- the vast majority accepted the leadership of the Congress in its demand for complete independence.

[`` but I am willing to take most of it at face value after reading Naqshbandi`s comments. He is generally well read about the history of Islam, especially the Deobandi and Bareilvi schools of Sunni Islam on the subcontinent.``(dost)

Naqashbadi? -- what that newborn knows about Indian Islam of 30`s, 40` and 50`s -- the Jameatis were true nationalists -- in fact the Jameatis of 30`s and 40`s were more secular than the Hindus of 70`s and 90`s --

they fought the British shoulder to shoulder with the Hindus -- and considered them their brethren -- and that was their undoing -- they had hardly any following among the Muslims masses of those days....dreaming about a separate homeland for the Muslims ... ]

How true! The intransigence of a few -- Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, and the Muslim League that was hijacked by them -- has tainted the broad masses of Indian Muslims in the minds of other Indians. Similarly, those in NWFP, Sindh and Punjab who fought alongside the Nationalists were sidelined by the Pakistani ruling classes and are now officially non-persons.

What a great tragedy!

#33 _digit

[quote]
LOL, repeating a deceptive argument doesn`t make it much more palatable. Fact is, no one really cares for Shah Walli Ullah`s letter to Ahmad Shah Abdali what`s-his-face anymore. That`s old news.
[end-quote]

No one is claiming that Hindu kings were better than Muslim Kings. The marathas were also well known for their thuggery and looting. Abdali may have been a mass murderer and looter but so were many other indian kings.

We are focusing instead on ideologies and belief systems. These have a much long life-time and impact than any king`s depradations. The ideology of a Shah Walli Ullah is a hateful one. All should repudiate it. Sarvarkar`s proposal that non-hindus have differential rights in a free india is wrong. All should repudiate it.

So sometimes even old news can be quite important in the current context. Would you not say that rejecting Hitler`s views is quite important today?