The Mullah and the Munir Report

Annual ``British Agents and Traitors`` Awards:

Nomations:


1- The Deoband Movement

Molana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi: ``As I have in fact been obedient to the government, the false accusation [of disloyalty] could not do me the slightest harm. But even if I were to be executed, the government is the master and can do what it likes.``
(Tazkira Rashidiyya, by Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi, vol. i, p. 80. See weekly Al-I`tisam, 2 October 1970, p. 7)

``The Deobandis made sure that they conformed in every way to a posture of loyalty. Rashid Ahmad, for this reason, refused to accept a grant of 5000 Rupees a year from the Shah of Afghanistan for fear that a political link might be suspected. And the school celebrated ceremonial occasions like coronations with appropriate pomp, and observed times of crises, like Queen Victoria`s last illness, with fitting prayers and messages.``
( Islamic Revival in British India, 1860-1900 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982, pages 154-155)

``On 16 September 1884 Maulavi Sami-ullah Khan went on a political mission to Egypt to strenghten British interests in that country, and there he did harm to Jamal-ud-Din Afghani`s Pan-Islamic movement. In recognition of his services, he received the title C.M.G.``
(The book Maulana Muhammad Ahsan Nanotavi by Muhammad Ayub Qadiri, p. 184. See weekly Al-I`tisam, 2 October 1970, p. 6)



2- The Ahl-e-Hadith:

Maulavi Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi: ``Since the criterion of jihad is absent from this land, to conduct jihad here would be a means of destruction and a sin.`` (Fatawa Naziriyya, vol. iv, p. 472)

``Maulavi Nazir Husain is a leading Maulavi in Delhi who in difficult times has proved his loyalty to the British government and in his pilgrimage to Mecca I hope any British Officer whose help or protection he may need will afford it to him as he most fully deserves it.
(Signed) J.D. Tremlett, B.C.S.
Commissioner and Supdt. Delhi Division
August 10th 1883.``
(Isha`at as-Sunna, vol. vi, no. 10, October 1883, p. 294)


3- The Muslim League:

The first and foremost point of muslim league`s creation was:
(a) To promote, among the Musalmans of India, feelings of loyalty to the British Government, and to remove any misconception that may arise as to the intention of Government with regard to any of its measures.

``According to the revised Constitution, the first object of the League is `to maintain and promote among the people of this country feelings of loyalty towards the British Crown`. The substitution of the words `the people of this country` in place of `Indian Musalmans` and `British Crown` in place of `British Government` constitutes a distinct improvement which, I have no doubt, you will unhesitatingly accept. The traditional loyalty of the Indian Musalmans to the Empire, under the banner of which we live in peace and prosperity, does not need to be proclaimed with a flourish of trumpets: nor is it one of those monopolies the successful possession of which depends upon extensive advertisement. The solid foundation of our loyalty rests not upon its profession, but upon deeds the incontrovertible proof of which is writ large upon the pages of history. And the substitution of the words `British Crown` in place of `British Government` in relation to our devotion to the Empire of which India is a component part constitutes a more dignified and faithful expression of our real feelings. . . . It is the British Crown alone which is the permanent and ever-abiding symbol of Empire. It is not to this Government or to that we acknowledge allegiance: it is to the British Crown itself that we owe unswerving and abiding loyalty.
``But what, you will ask, is my conception of loyalty to the British Crown? In my humble judgment, it is the paramount duty of every loyal subject of the King Emperor to abstain from doing anything calculated to impair the permanence and stability of British rule in India.``
( sixth session of the Muslim League, held at Lucknow on March 22-23rd 1913)



5- Sir Syed Ahmed Khan:

``Muslims were living in peace under their government. In no way could they undertake jihad against the government.``
(Asbab Baghawat-i Hind, i.e. `Causes of the Indian Mutiny`, p. 105)

``The British found Aligarh men easy to deal with. They granted the school substantial patronage for secular instruction and served as visitors, chief guests, patrons, and

---

most importantly

---

faculty members. Lord Lytton himself laid the foundation stone of the college in 1877, and guests of such stature were frequent at the school. They tended to see the school as the mark of the end of Muslim opposition to their rule, the end of obscurantism``
(Islamic Revival in British India, by Dr Barbara Daly Metcalf, p. 328)





And the Award goes to: The Deoband Movement !!! *claps* *whistles* *cheers*

Post 73:
This is some priceless material you researched man. You should get it published in a poli. sci. journal with your thesis (which you left out of your post).

good work!

It is not a matter of being right or wrong, black and white, Ahmadis, Muslims, Hindus etc etc etc.

I don`t see where the problem is; there are two fundamental issues here and there is one stemming from these two fundamental issues:

1. One group of people (Ahmadis) insistence for recognition as Muslims

2. The rejection by Muslims to recognize Ahmadis as fellow faithfuls.

In this case the fault lies with Ahmadis, religion as defined is:

n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The above is self-explanatory and needs no explanation. By definition Muslims are well within their rights to denounce anyone who lay claim to be a part of their belief system, when that person or a group of people do not adhere to established and institutionalized system.

HOWEVER,

the stance of both parties in this case leads to one group (Muslims) denouncing and persecuting the other (Ahmadis) and the other group (Ahmadis) taking the moral high ground

First of all Muslims should not feel insecure about their religion, if one recalls there were numerous claims to prophethood made by several individuals following Hazrat Mohammad`s death. Secondly, at any given time, in Pakistan, there are more than one missionary spreading the message of Christ, and in some cases successfully. So if Muslims groan and moan about Ahmadi `tableegh` they should be equally critical of Christian missionaries working in Pakistan. Conversely, how would Muslims feel if America or West was to deny visas to hordes of Muslim missionaries working day in and day out in NA and Europe, and successfully at that. If the gripe about Ahmadis ( as most Muslims have) is about their missionary activities, then that is not a big deal. More power to them, healthy competition I would say. Besides, a few hundred thousands here or there would not really shake the Constitution Avenue, now would it!

In the same vein, I am of the opinion that Ahmadis need to give up their claim to be recognized as Muslims because they do not qualify as per the established belief system of the people who call themselves Muslims. What is wrong with being called an Ahmadi, a non-Muslim. it is not as if you were to become a frequent flyer club member, now does it, given the post 9/11 conditions...

As for eminent scholars and brilliant minds denouncing Ahmadis as traitors, my two cents would be, that we had too many of them, and our Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Pathan/Sindhi brothers outnumbered them by 1000:1... needless to name names here.. we all know who we are talking about

It is a well known fact that Sir Choudhary Zafarullah Khan, the First Foreign Minister, played a critical role in dragging the country into the American-British lap, preventing the non-aligned elements in the Government of Pakistan from shaping a balanced neutral policy for the newly-established country.

I found the entire Munir Report online:

http://aaiil.org/text/books/others/misc/munirreport/munirreport.shtml

Regards.

Urstuly, so its you who makes people sign forms and keep records of who is a Muslim?? Whats your full name? God?

Mantolives

As far as Sir Zafarullah Khan is concerned, I had a detailed debate with you and proved it to you how Zafarullah Khan was absolutely responsible for the annxation of district Gurdaspur to India and as a result of his incompetence not only did Pakistan lost more than half of Kashmir but one million human beings lost their lives in the carnage that followed the Partition.

And it is a news to me that Dr. Abdus Salam received his Nobel prize because he was a Quadiani. I thought he did some resaerch work in theoretical physics.

Mantolives

I am a liar? Isn`t it you who at more than one occassions in the past have announced that one of your parent is a Mirzai and other is a shia? Now you are saying that you are not a mirzai. What should I beleive now? Well if you are not a mirzai then you must express it very explicitly by saying:



I .............................. S/O.............................. Aged................. .Years, adult Muslim, Resident of..................................................................... hereby solemnly declare that :-

(i) I am Muslim and believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the prophets.

(ii) I do not recognise any person who claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever after Muhammad (peace be upon him) or recognise such a claimant as prophet or a religious reformer as a Muslim.

(iii) I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group to be Non-Muslim.



I will only beleive that you are being truthful when you take this oath.

By the way, I never raised an issue that you are a mirzai. That was one of your usual attempt to obfuscate the issue. But now since you brought it up. Would you care to explain how a marriage between a shia and a mirzai is a legal one according to either doctrine. I think it is your house that you should put in order first instead of spewing your venom at the Mullahs. Or is this the reason you spew your venom at the Mullahs?

re: Mantolives

This is just a correction to your earlier post.

The correct name was Paul von Hindenburg, who was the chancellor, when Hitler was elected after winning the majority in the Reichstag during the 1933 elections. At the time of the elections, von Hindenburg was in his 80s and the reason he was the chancellor was that the Germans respected him for his role in the Battle of Tannenberg, when with Erich von Ludendorff, he defeated the advancing Russians armies in the early years of the First World War.

Hitler`s rise to power is a good case study in politics of deception and as to Hitler out foxing von Hindenburg`s advisors, history seems to think that old Hindenburg had no advisors left to warn him against Hitler. Hitler`s Brown Shirts led Ernest Roehm had terrorized the political opposition and those who had not been killed, were in exile. Hitler had also stated, upon winning the elections, that if the chancellorship was not offered to him, he would unleash a civil war in Germany. Hitler did not out smart von Hindenburg as much as he bullied his way into power.

I agree with you that Hitler had a keen political grasp of events, but then I am also of the opinion that his political sharpness was nothing more than the luck of a bully and all his politics was, simply said, a classfication of a schoolyard bully tactics by another name. Hitler was a rable rouser and his keen sense of politics was nothing more than a bully, who could smell the fear in the person in front of him. Hitler did not make himself a fuhrer of Germany as much as the Germans made him into a dictator by their own fear and incapacity to act in their own defense.

The rise of Hitler to power teaches different lessons and what it has taught me is this: loss of freedom, in any sense of the word, comes from the inability of the civil society to reach a consensus and, which can also be defined as an abdication of its political responsibility. This abdication lessens the vigil over democracy, and its ideals, which has to be eternal and this in turn creates the vacuum in the political environment, which is filled with politics of opportunity.

In the case of Pakistan, the rise of mullah happened when the civil society in Pakistan abdicated its responsibility and allowed the politics of opportunity to ply their craven arts in Pakistani politics. There is no group or a political segment, which can be held solely responsible for the rise of theocratic politics in Pakistan, because the blame is national and it must be nationally accepted. The power of the mullah is not eternal; it is temporal and when we, the so-called secularists, allow him the credence of religion or the political space to use religion in politics, we unwittingly bestow upon him the mantle of a religious respectability. The power of the religious groups in Pakistan can be checked and it will be, but not through force and erdication of its supporters, because that is selective genocide and genocide creates indeliable memories, which are more potent. Potent in the sense, that you can kill a political opponent, but you cannot defeat his/her memory and politics has to remain at all times as a tangible rather than an intangible force otherwise the people, will lose their interest and hence, the result will always be the abdication of responsibility by the civil society.

The power of the clergy in Pakistan has to be clipped and there is not too much doubt on that issue, but the contention is on the methodoology of the action, which will realize that goal. The answer differs according to different people and their point of view, and all such differences are valid in their own right. However, the best answer lies in the fact, which does not seek to deny the existence of religion in Pakistan, because anything which smacks of a denial of religion in Pakistan, will be still born. There is a wide gap between lack of religion in politics and the lack of religion per se and unfortunately, we the secularists of Pakistan have not clearly spelled out the distinction. The secular argument that seeks to erase religion proper from Pakistan as prelude to secular politics, will always fail because in their hearts though the average Pakistani might not be overtly religious, s/he still harbors deep religious sentiments and to ask them to deny that facet of their lives would be tantamount to a dictorship of the seculariat.

The absence of religion or its exploitation by the clergy is not answer or even the best manner in which to defang the mullahocracy in Pakistan. A better approach might be to deny that one aspect, which the religious groups use in Pakistan in their identification with the Pakistani people. I am talking about economic empowerment and the removal of the sense of abject despondency, which the average Pakistani suffers from in his/her daily life. The power of the clergy is based on the twin pillars of hopelessness and disappointment and if you remove them, you remove the attraction to the arguments of religion in politics. The mullah did not create these two pillars of dispair, but we the secular and non religious forces in Pakistan did, when we played our games of political self-interests. The mullah, like Hitler, simply played the politics of opportunity at the expense of the secularist`s follies and profitted from our mistake.

YLH, if you are serious about ending this problem in Pakistan and I personally believe that you are, then we have to give the people of Pakistan something more tanigble than religion to hope for in their daily lives and we have to do it in an immediate temporal sense. This means that we the educated classes of Pakistan, have to get our act together and we have to start listening to the people, instead of presuming to tell the people, as to what is good for the people of Pakistan. We have to trust the judgment of the people of Pakistan and unless and until that particular time, when we are capable of trusting the opinion of the people of Pakistan, all our talks about democracy and elections are meaningless, because elections have to accepted and the choice in an election must be accepted and not be denied for any reason.

My own personal opinion is that we, the educated classes of Pakistan, are not yet ready to accept the judgement of the people of Pakistan, because we are still inventing all sorts of arguments to instill a Frankenstinian version of democracy in Pakistan. If the people of Pakistan want theocracy, then Pakistan if it is a true democratic nation, must accept their verdict regardless of what Jinnah might have said about priests with a mission. If their verdict is for a secular Pakistan, then we must be prepared to forget the ideological import of Pakistan`s raison d` etre and become what Jinnah visualized of us.

I hope that you have the patience to hear this being said, given the fact of your esteem for Jinnah, but remember that Pakistan has changed much since Jinnah`s death in 1948. It is for the people of Pakistan to decide, how they wish to interpret the vision of Jinnah and we have to accept their choice reargless of our own personal views. I will remind you of a conversation, which we had over dinner a while back and I told you that I might have no faith in the leaders of Pakistan, but I have an immutable faith in the goodness and decency of the average Pakistani to do what is right. The average Pakistani might be illiterate and s/he might be all that we educated people claim to ourselves in order to deny them political rights, but unlike us, they have an uncanny sense of common sense. It is that common sense, which will save Pakistan in the end and not some debate in the rarified rooms of Pakistan carried over a virtual medium, which is the exclusive premise of a mutally self reinforcing society of intellectual egoists. I am also an egoist of that hallow sort since I engage in a debate of that sorts too :)

I will also remind you of what you said and I was really pleased to hear you say that and I still hope you are true to those words. After the results of the Indian elections were announced, you were talking to me and you said that you were rethinking your opinion on the judgement of the people and on the acceptance of that judgement. The reason, why I admire the Indian process of democracy and why I rue the Pakistani version is, that unlike us the Indians are willing to trust the judgement of their people and accept their choice.

In my misquided opinion and you and anyone on Chowk is free to disagree with it, the problems of Pakistan and they can be any problem, will be solved once we learn to accept the judgement of the people and the day we do that, you and I and all Pakistanis will be pleased to see that democracy is thriving here and that day, the mullah will no longer threaten us and we will feel no need to chase him out of the town with a bamboo pole. We will rejoice that day, because we will no longer need to threaten the mullah with a stick; we will be able to threaten him justice and justice is always more threatening to a bully than a physical show of force.

Best Wishes,

Ciao

---

> Contest Results:


The correct answers are:


Question: ``Many among us, including myself, believe that England at this time possesses the capability of leading the whole of mankind towards this objective. The thinking of the people of that land, their political understanding based on a deep study of human nature, their unshakeable, serious, resolve, their moral superiority over others in many aspects, their astonishing control over material resources, the existence of many movements among them for the welfare and betterment of human beings, and their discipline in every walk of life — all these are things which no outsider can refrain from admiring.” Who said that???

Answer: Allama Iqbal (Harf-i Iqbal, p. 167)



Question: Addressing the King of England: “If there is freedom of speech and writing here, if there is peace between the Temple and the Mosque here, If there is an organised system of business of the various peoples here, if there is strength in the dagger and life in the sword here, Whatever there is, it has been granted by you, O honoured one, this land is alive only because of your existence. I am the tree of loyalty, love is my fruit, a just witness to this statement are my actions. Sincerity is selfless, so is truth selfless, so is service, and so is devotion selfless, Pledge, loyalty and love are also selfless, and devotion to the royal throne is also selfless, But being human the thought which arises naturally is, that your favours are manifest upon India.” Who said that???

Answer: Allama Iqbal (This was published in the paper Akhbar-i Haq, the magazine Zamana of Kanpur, and the book Hindustan aur Jang `Alamgir (‘India and the World War’) by L. Ralya Ram. It was then published in Baqiyyat-i Iqbal, on pages 216 to 219. It was first read out by Dr. Iqbal himself at the Punjab University Hall, Lahore.)




Question: Upon the death of Queen Victoria in 1901: ``“Happiness came, but grief came along with it,Yesterday was Eid, but today muharram (Month of the year associated with the deepest mourning for Muslims) came. Easier than the grief and mourning of this day, Would be the coming of the morn of the day of judgment. Ah! the Queen of the realm of the heart has passed away, My scarred heart has become a house of mourning. O India, thy lover has passed away, She who sighed at thy troubles has passed away. O India, the protective shadow of God has been lifted from above you, She who sympathised with your inhabitants has gone. Victoria is not dead as her good name remains, this is the life to whomever God gives it. May the deceased receive abundant heavenly reward, and may we show goodly patience.”


Answer: Allama Iqbal (Baqiyyat-i Iqbal, Poem runs over pages 71– 90.)



Question: Who qualifies to be called a ``British Agent`` equally well as the Ahmadiyya Community??

Answer: .... mmm.... arrr.... mmm... PASS!!!!



Winners Get 70 Hoories each.

Urstruly...

I am not a Qadiani/Mirzai/Ahmadi... there are many things in the Qadiani version of Islam that I just simply can`t agree with... But I think you will find a lot in common with the Qadianis... despite the hoo haa you want to create it is a fact that the Ahmadi doctrine is a just as `enlightened` as yours is... after all the vision of women in Burqahs is shared by both the communities... if these are the `values` you wish to promote then Qadianis and you are brothers...

I can see that you have read Goebells and his propaganda tactics and are an expert liar... but the fact remains that the Mullahs were the ones opposing Pakistan... whereas the Ahmadiyya Community remained steadfast in its support for the Quaid-e-Azam... you can distort history but the truth will remain the truth...

It is an irony of history... that a sinister hypocrite like you might choose to ignore... but the most eloquent advocate of the Objectives Resolution especially its Islamic content was Zafrullah Khan... whether you like it or not... and it is sad that he did so because it really did come to bite the Ahmadiyya community in its rear.


1) Who drafted the Lahore resolution? An Ahmadi... Zafrullah Khan

2) Who was Pakistan`s most outspoken foreign minister standing up against Israel and India defending the rights of the Palestinian and Kashmiri People? An Ahmadi .... Zafrullah Khan

3) Which religious group went so far as to invest in academic research in geographical survey of Pakistan before it was created? The Ahmadiyya Jamaat... with Dr. Spate I believe....

4) Which community produced Pakistan`s only Nobel Laureate? The Ahmadiyya community...

5) Which community has stayed its ground in Pakistan believing in it despite all the discrimination... while Bhagoras like you sit in the comfort of the west? The Ahmaddiya community...



Now consider this....


1) Who called Jinnah `Kafir-e-Azam`? The Mullahs who now pose to be th be defenders of Pakistan...

2) Who called Pakistan `Kafir-i-stan`? The Anti-Ahmadi Mullahs who you admire so much...

3) Who called the creation of Pakistan a sin? Mufti Mahmood and the Mullahs

4) Who is responsible for the sectarian murders in Pakistan? the Mullahs you love to death.

5) Who cooperated with the military dictators time and again... be it Yahya, Zia or Musharraf? the Mullahs ...

6) Who sold their souls to America for money? The Mullahs...

7) Who went to India and started speaking of re-unification? Mullah Fazlur-rahman



These are the facts... So who has an anti-Pakistan design?

I think you have an anti-Pakistan design... and your Mullahs have an anti-Pakistan design...

-YLH

ardeshir: You have avoided the point I made, and given me a lecture on the this that and the other and the wonders of Indian medicine. I am aware that India is just like Switzerland, complete with chalets and ski resorts (as we can all see in Indian movies). Happy?

Maududi: How is you any different from Ahmedis? You both have chosen to follow other men rather than have confidence in the brain that God gave you (I have my theological differences with Sattar here, but I consider him to be a decent man and respect his view just as I respect the religious persuasion or lack thereof of any individual as long as it is sincere and as long as that individual is fullfilling his responsibilities to his fellow man). There is one difference between Maududiites vs Ahmedis of course: the Ahmedis are no threat to society because they dont seek to gain power in Pakistan through fair means or foul. You Maududiites (by not participating in national elections a few years ago when you knew you would get your traditional thrashing at the voting booth at the hands of the Pakistani people, and by participating in elections only when musharaff tilted them in your favor, and by trying to intimidate Pakistanis with your guns, and with your sectarian attacks) on the other hand are lusting for power.

For Ahmedis, God is the best judge. For Maududiites, the criminal court is the first judge and God will come next. And God wont just judge you Maududiites for following other men (He may even forgive this as resulting from a lack of confidence in themselves which does not do any harm to anyone else), but for sabotaging the serene and peaceful message of Islam and replaced it with your self-serving, hate-mongering ways and for the mischief and evil you have created in this world.

LOL

There you go. Now many of these `liberal` `good insaan` Muslims will stop referring to Ahmadis as Ahmadis :)

Urstruly #66 - You wrote ``Therefore, I must request you to refer to them either as ``Quadianis`` or ``Mirzais`` or ``Lahori Quadianis`` or ``Lahor Mirzais`` but never as ``Ahmadis``. ``

This is an extremely important point you have touched upon. Indeed, Qadiyani is an appropriate term to refer to these traitors who colluded with British to fight the freedom lovers.

Mantolives

So what I gather from this article and the explanations made by you in various interacts of yours is that in Pakistan the debate ``secualists vs Mullahs`` is in fact a debate between ``Mirzais vs. Muslims``. In other words the secularists (i.e. Quadianis) want Muslims (i.e. Mullahs) stripped off their values and traditions which form the basis of the laws and the system of government thru which they want to govern themselves. So the Mullah`s accusation that Mirazais are basically anti-Pakistan has been true all along.