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

Bundchungal:

That has to be, flat out, THE funniest ID I have ever seen on Chowk. Bravo.

Regards,
Irfan Hamid.

This article is a clone of

http://mumbai.indymedia.org/newswire/display/107/index.php

with author Rajat Sharma.

This is a very good article, especially the factual parts. I do think it is much to kind to Gandhi and other Congress leaders who consorted and supported islamic fundamentalists.

Shah Wali Ullah stands out as a specially troubling figure. WHen you read about figures such as these, Naipaul`s theories and the general questions about muslim converts suffering from some kind of ``Stockholm Syndrome`` become quite relevant.

Here is some of what I learnt about Shah Walli Ullah (all of it is from Pakistani sources, so please don`t screaming RSS, RSS at me):


http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A021

[quote]
Shah Wali Ullah tried to reconcile the basic differences amongst the different sections of the Muslims and considered the government as an essential means and agency for regeneration of the community. He wrote to Ahmad Shah Abdali; ``...give up the life of ease. Draw the sword and do not to sheath it till the distinction is established between true faith and infidelity...``.

His efforts resulted in the defeat of the Marhattas at the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdali and Najib-ud-Daula, in the third battle of Panipat in 1761.
[end-quote]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EC12Df01.html
[quote]
In the 18th century, Shah Wali Ullah wrote a letter to Shaikh Ahmed Sarhandi, alias Hazrat Mujadded Alf Sani, and the Mughal monarch, suggesting and advising Hindus to either embrace Islam or be ready for execution, said Dr Mubarak Ali. Shah Wali Ullah also invited Nadir Shah of Iran and Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan to invade India when the Mughal monarchy became weak after Aurangzeb. Shah Abdul Azizi and Shah Ismail, both sons of Shah Wali Ullah, were hardliners. Ismail and Shah Ahmed Badhshah started an armed struggle against the then non-Muslim ruler and refused to join with Hindus and other religious communities. Maulana Abdul Hai was another pioneer of jihad in central India. Haji Shariat Ullah also supported jihadi activities in Bengal and did not include non-Muslims in his struggle.
[end-quote]

Overall, this is a sickening story. Without in any way excusing their violent ways, it provides a background for the history of hindu revivalism (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc).

When the RSS spokesman says that the british merely interrupted a war between fundamentalism islam and hindus, it now makes a whole lot more sense to me.

Bund Chungal: An excellent, well researched article which destroys many myths of the history taught to us in India. The article also provides genuine insight today into our relations with Pakistan, or rather what component of Pakistan we would like to deal with.

It reaffirms my conviction that Gandhi made the wrong choice by choosing to deal with Ali Brothers rather then Jinnah. History would have been different if Jinnah had challenged Gandhi for the leadership of all Indians rather then being satisfied with the leadership of Muslims alone. But again, maybe Indians were not ready for the leadership of Jinnah at the time.

Bund Chungal: An excellent, well researched article which destroys many myths of the history taught to us in India. The article also provides genuine insight today into our relations with Pakistan, or rather what component of Pakistan we would like to deal with.

It reaffirms my conviction that Gandhi made the wrong choice by choosing to deal with Ali Brothers rather then Jinnah. History would have been different if Jinnah had challenged Gandhi for the leadership of all Indians rather then being satisfied with the leadership of Muslims alone. But again, maybe Indians were not ready for the leadership of Jinnah at the time.

Reading articles like this shows how seeming nonsense like TNT was, in the end, not so nonsensical and possibly required. It seems like the writer has taken arugments FOR TNT, and

This article is nothing short of more hindutva nonsense in the garb of a seemingly pro-secular stance. Of course Muslims are going to look after their own interests, and continue to do so. The JUH was a Muslim organization based in what is now India, not an Indian organization for Muslims. There is nothing wrong with that. And fact is, even if it was for benifit of their own community, they did play a role in formation of India. Anything else is worthless emoting over the issue.

If roles were reversed, would Hindus act any differently? Would they want to be dominated by Muslims again, or have seperate polity to run their affairs as they see fit?

Newsflash to clueless writer: politics is about pure convenience and opportunism. The writer probably believes this himself, but sees somthing wrong when Muslims have the same views. The writer seems to want Muslims to disentigrate as a community for the sake of being ``indianized``, or rather ``hinduized`` - fancy words for ``dominated``. Fat chance...

Just look at this nonsense:

``these fanatic clerics never thought to instill among the members of their community a sense of pride in India`s culture, heritage and unity in diverse faiths.... otherwise tolerant and liberal Hindu society. ``

Woo-hoo-hoo...and I suppose Hindu sages are imploring their followers to do what the writer wants Mullahs to do? I suppose by India`s culture, heritage and diversity we need to EXCLUDE Islam which, no matter what you say, is indeed looked on as `foreign` or `alien` to India by hindu facists, or I would even say most Hindus. Hindu-Muslim unity...as if.

Hindu`s would only accept Muslims as former Hindus, never as Muslims. Easy for Hindu`s to demand a secular polity, since they have no history of religious inspired polity, nor do they have any fears of being dominated by another community. A secular polity, then, IS a Hindu polity.

Hindu and Muslim used each other to evict the British. But for some bizzare reason, Hindus insist on having Muslims submit to a secular polity, but at the same time want them to cease having any affiliation with an identiy that goes beyond India. I think this is more of a revenge thing than anything else. Perhaps they get kicks from dominating the once dominator.

As far as a ``tolerant`` hindu socieity, give it a rest. Read the news. In any case, the different between the ``tolerant`` and the ``intolerant`` when talking about suggested threats to one`s society is that one find excuses for their hatred, while the other is simply more open about it. So, to cover for hatred of Muslims, the `tolerant` need to invoke terrorism or Jihadi`s and the need to fight them. The ``tolerant` then carry out actions to this end that make the terrorist seem tame. Wonderful...

Hindu`s like to point to their amorphous philosophy as proof-positive of it`s tolerance...fundemantlism is an impossiblity they argue. True, maybe they can`t make enough sense out of their own religion to act on it, but that`s not to say they are prevented from knowing that Muslims are different enough to show chauvanism towards them. Hindu fundemantalism is not what worries Muslim minority in India, it`s Hindu chauvanism and Hindu facism.

Generally a good article and accurate too except that Hadrat Shah Wali Ullah Muhaditth Delhvi rahmatullah alayhi was NOT a Wahabi at all but rather a Hanafi Sufi who tried (and succeeded) in raising Sunni Muslims from their apathy. The rest of the article is more or less accurate: it was Shah Wali Ullah`s grandson unfortunately Shah Ismail Delhvi wo was responsible for the rise of Wahabism in India by his translation Ibn Abdul Wahab al Najdi`s heretical book Kitab al Tawhid into Urdu as Taqwiyatul Iman. Unfortunately he departed from the teachings of his illustrious grandfather and became a bona fide Wahabi and the Deobandis main scholars like Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Qasim Nanautwi and Ashraf Ali Thanawi followed him in many aspects of his aqaid (beliefs) thus deviating from the Sunni path of their own great Shaykh Hazrat Pir Hajji Imdad Ullah Muhajjir Makki and laying the foundations for the influence of pro-Wahabi Deobandism in India. It was against this new Wahabi trend that great scholars such as Fazl e Haq Khairabadi and Fazl e Rasul al-Badayuni and, most of all, Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida Khan fought with the pen.

A brillaint analysis of Ismail Delhvi`s book Taqwiyat ul Iman and the beliefs therein is given here by a Lebanese scholar Shaykh GF Haddad:

http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/d/tqi_e.pdf




To be fair to Deoband though it HAS produced very many learned scholars but unfortunately a lot of them have been too pro-Wahabism although others have criticised the Wahabis vehemently and are much closer to the Ahle Sunnat Barelvis.

An example of a moderate Deobandi was Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani and Anwar Shah Kashmiri. Unfortunately these anti-Wahabis deobandis were outgunned by the more pro-Wahabi group and nowadays the pro-Wahabist faction has taken over though there is a slow fight back by the other faction too..

Though many of the Deobandis are pro-Wahabi the Wahabis themselves consider the Deobandis as heretics!

I am neither Deobandi nor Wahabi but alhamdulillah am a Sunni.

:-)

vertex, 6

Very impressive and very intelligent.

#6 vertex

Your crude attempts at obfuscation and hiding behind innuendo are transparent. Your inability to recognize the naked use of violence to support islam by ``leaders`` like Shah Walli Ulah speaks volumes. No interpretation is required when ``respected leaders`` call for murder, violence and genocide of the kafir.

These are simple facts stated here, based on direct quotation from the various ``leaders``. You are unable to counter them and are favoring us with a mindless rant about hindus, fascism, hindutva and other blather. You only forgot to bring in Israel etc. Perhaps your next message could include some nonsense about the zionists as well.

This type of garbage play well in the cantonments of Pakistan or perhaps the jihadi academies. But not in an open forum like Chowk.

Mr. Naqsbandi

Hadrat Shah Wali Ullah Muhaditth Delhvi rahmatullah alayhi was a Sufi?

When I read this article, I wondered if the facts had been twisted to suit the agenda of the writers who are obviously not very kind towards the Jamiat, 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.
However, the article is wrong in laying the full blame for the current religious divide in India on the Jamiat alone. The Jamiat may have played its part but the role of the RSS and its various offsprings cannot be ignored. Other than seeking a separate sharia law for Muslims, I dont know if the Jamiat sought any other special powers for itself.

Be as it may, the article makes it quite clear that India was lucky to be partitioned in 1947. Otherwise, Indians would have continued to fight whether they were one nation or two or many within the same country. Seems like Jinnah, a practioner of realpolitik among a bunch of dreamers, was the only one who knew what he was doing.

Bundchungal,

An excellent artcile. Hope history is researched with the intention of laying bare the facts alone.

Vertex # 6,

``Of course Muslims are going to look after their own interests, and continue to do so.``

In this statement is the seed of pathetic mentality seen worldwide. Muslims first, humans last.

I can understand RSS using this argument and the FACTS of genocide perpetrated by many islamic invaders alongwith destruction of temples and forceful conversions to further their bigoted vision. Pray inform us about the argument of your dear mullahs for the need to safeguard their interests in a nation that was ruled by them for centuries.
Why was it so difficult for the same community to live like brothers with the rest after independence. Oh I`m sorry, i forgot, the superior islamic blood cannot live like equals with anyone else. When in power, it crushes the non-ummah, but in minority pleads about human rights and safeguarding its ``own interests`` or else demands separate nation.
I hope such people get a planet of their own and let this world breathe better.
Adios


There has been one partition for the same stupid reason and even now the passions between the two nations have not cooled down. When are you folks going to stop with this nonsense?

godot,

Thank you kindly.

Pmishra2,

``Your crude attempts at obfuscation and hiding behind innuendo are transparent.``

Transparency is always a good thing. Better to be honest then a pretender....

``Your inability to recognize the naked use of violence to support islam by ``leaders`` like Shah Walli Ulah speaks volumes. No interpretation is required when ``respected leaders`` call for murder, violence and genocide of the kafir....You are unable to counter them and are favoring us with a mindless rant about hindus, fascism, hindutva and other blather.``

Interpretation? Who`s calling for interpretation? He was a brutal man. Happy? Just don`t give me this CRAP that he was a brutal man in an otherwise pristine, Hindu environment. That`s idiocy.

And read my original message, I AM countering a statement the author wrote. If I have time, I`ll discuss others - like the need to bring up a 16th century Muslim to discuss current Hindu-Muslim tensions. But, just like yourself, I`m just responding to what got my attention.

``You only forgot to bring in Israel etc. Perhaps your next message could include some nonsense about the zionists as well.``

Talk about Palestine, and I will talk about Zionists. You think I`m something I`m not, so as you will have found out by now, I`m not as easy to bait as a mindless ``Jihadi``.

``When I read this article, I wondered if the facts had been twisted to suit the agenda of the writers who are obviously not very kind towards the Jamiat, 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-mitter)

dear dost -- you are right 100% for the first part of your sentence -- `` When I read this article, I wondered if the facts had been twisted to suit the agenda of the writers who are obviously not very kind towards the Jamiat`` --

this article mixed with some truths more halftruths is mostly a balderdash --

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...


`` 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 ...

The core issue here is the assessment of hate-mongers like Shah Walli Ullah. If such a person is a hero while advocating mass murder of the infidel, then indeed, we are talking about a pol-pot or nazi type of cult. The impressive thing is that all of this takes place in the 1700s. Most of North India is ruled by a muslim kings. Truly a sickening story and one that all right thinking people will find revolting.

Does this mean all of the communal problems in inda originate from this source? No. Does it justify the kind of mob violence that the VHP supports? No. But honesty demands recognition that this individual represents a kind of genocidal hatred for the `other` that is beyond civilization.

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

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