Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Maulana Maududi's Role Against Jinnah's Pakistan
Maulana Maududi's Role Against Jinnah's Pakistan
Let me start by saying - as a disclaimer- that opposing Jinnah, the Muslim League or Pakistan is not an unpardonable crime. Support for Pakistan’s creation is not sine qua non for its citizenship. However an exception must be made in the case of Jamaat-e-Islami given its latter day claims about being the guardians of Pakistan’s ideology. Maulana Maududi claimed and his “Jamaat-e-Islami” still claims to be the guardian of Pakistan’s ideological frontiers as it were. They have been at the forefront of religious bigotry against all minority groups of Pakistan. They abuse those who stand for a peaceful settlement of Kashmir dispute and they hurl abuses at groups like Agha Khanis and Ahmadis- the two of the most actively pro-Pakistan groups during partition- and accuse them of being the enemies of Pakistan.
What a turn around. Maududi was the most vociferous opponent of Mr. Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement. I reproduce here some of his referenced works here from his “Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil” (Vol.III) First Edition published from Delhi. Jamaat-e-Islami claims that the whole Two Nation Theory project was derived from Maududi’s writings which is completely untrue. Maududi described the idea of Muslim Nationalism as unlikely as a ”chaste prostitute”. Here he wrote:
” Who are the Muslims you are claiming to be a separate nation? Here, the crowd called Muslims is full of all sorts of rabble. There are as many types of characters in this as in any (other) heathen people”. (Vol. III, P.166)
“If you survey this so-called Muslim society, you will come across multifarious types of Muslims, of countless categories. This is a zoo with a collection of crows, kites, vultures, partridges and thousands of other types of birds. Every one of them is a ‘sparrow’. (Ibid. P.31)
One of Jamaat-e-Islami’s latter day claims has been that Mr. Jinnah wanted an Islamic state. Ironically this is what Jamaat-e-Islami’s philosopher in chief Maulana Maududi was writing back then:
“Pity! From League’s Quaid-e-Azam down to the lower cadres, there is not a single person who has an Islamic outlook and thinking and whose perspective on matters is Islamic“. (Ibid. P.37)
“To pronounce these people fit for leading Muslims for the simple reason that they are experts of Western type politics and masters of Western organizational arts, and are deeply in love with their people, is a manifestation of an unislamic viewpoint and reflects ignorance of Islam”. (Ibid. P.70)
“Even with a microscopic study of their practical life, and their thinking, ideology, political behaviour and style of leadership, one can find not a trace of Islamic character.”
Jamaat-e-Islami now claims claims that the Muslim League won the elections because it promised Pakistan as an Islamic state. Here is what Maulana Maududi said then:
“In no Muslim League resolution, or in a speech by a responsible leader of the League it has it been made clear that their final goal is of establishing an Islamic system of government. Those who believe that by freeing Muslim majority areas rule of Hindu majority, an Islamic government will be established here in a democratic set up, are wrong. In fact what will be achieved will be a heretical government by Muslims, indeed worse than that.” (Ibid. P.130-32)
One of the main arguments in favor of separate federations in India put up by Muslim League was that parliamentary democracy would not work in United India given the permanent minority that Muslims were with their own majority zones. Thus Pakistan – as a separate federation- had to be a democratic state. Jinnah’s vision, as Gandhi concluded after his abortive meetings with Jinnah in 1944, was of a perfect democracy in Pakistan. This vision was rejected by Maulana Maududi and his party. The fact that Jinnah used electoral methods and strengths of numbers for his politics also upset Maulana Maududi quite a bit. He wrote:
“For these reasons, the great numbers (of Muslims) that we find. (listed) in the census records has become worthless for purposes of Islam. Anything done on the strength of these numbers will result in acute frustration.” (Ibid. P.56)
Had these great numbers supported Maududi he would have gladly accepted their strength. In 1947, he moved to Pakistan and brought here with him his cancerous Jamaat-e-Islami too. He remained however a committed opponent of the Pakistani national causes including the Kashmir struggle calling it unIslamic. Today the Jamaat-e-Islami castigates anyone and everyone who wants a peaceful settlement in Kashmir. I suppose Maududi could not call the Kashmir struggle a Jihad because then Ahmadis were involved in fighting there under their Al-Furqan brigade.
A few years later Maududi in cahoots with the old anti-Muslim League and anti-Pakistan group Majlis-e-Ahrar started the anti-Ahmaddiya movement in Pakistan with the main objective of getting Zafrulla dismissed from his post as the foreign minister. This is the same Zafrulla who was the author of the Lahore Resolution and had been appointed by the Quaid to plead Pakistan’s case before the boundary commission and the United Nations. The movement led to a death sentence being handed down to Maulana Maududi which was not carried out.
At the Munir Report hearings the Jamaat e Islami described Jinnah’s vision of the state as expressed on 11 August 1947 as kufr and evil. Today Jamaat e Islami claims that 11th August speech was actually according to Islamic Law. Ofcourse they would never agree to its implementation in letter and spirit but perhaps we could consider this an improvement. Some Jamaat-e-Islami wallahs point to Maududi’s half hearted support to Fatima Jinnah’s bid for presidency as proof of his patriotism and love for democracy. The truth is that Jamaat-e-Islami had nothing against dictatorship and indeed military coup seems to be Jamaat’s preferred method of change of government. What alienated Maududi from Ayub was the latter’s insistence on taking lead in Islam-related matters from Allama Parwez and the modernist Harvard scholar Fazlurrahman instead of him.
The Jamaat-e-Islami expected to sweep into power in 1970 through elections (wait isn’t this a contradiction?). Maududi’s son even visited Ahmaddiya headquarters and told them to vote for Jamaat-e-Islami for “safe passage out of Pakistan”. However the election results didn’t quite turn out the way Maududi wanted it to. So he went about it another way forming Al Badr a militant organization which is distinguished in its role in East Pakistan. Those who accuse Bhutto of being power hungry by collaborating with army should also consider the fact that had Bhutto not played footsie with the dictator, it would have been an abject surrender of both East and West Pakistan, in the East to India and in the West to Maududi.
Given this history and Jamaat-e-Islami’s role in aid of General Zia, all their claims of democracy seem hollow. Had it not been for Aitzaz Ahsan’s sagacious leadership, they would have hijacked the Lawyers’ Movement. We must be on the look out for any meetings between Jamaat-e-Islami’s current chief and the Pakistan Army and the patriots of Pakistan must remember that Jamaat-e-Islami will always persecute those who actually stand for Pakistan. A few years ago they even started a campaign to have Aga Khanis declared Non-muslims. Ofcourse the fact that Aga Khan was the first president of the Muslim League and Jinnah himself was an Agha Khani by birth is too inconvenient for them.
It is therefore in this context that the slander, abuse and lies posted by a third rate newspaper “Daily Ummat” against PakTeaHouse and myself must be read. It is because we speak up for Pakistan, it is because we expose the Fitna-e-Maududiat, it is because we speak for Jinnah’s Pakistan and because we speak for the minorities of Pakistan and because we feel Pakistan deserves a shot. The Fitna-e-Maududiat will never attack those who abuse Pakistan day in day out because that group doesn’t challenge their lies or their claim to speak for Pakistan. We do.
Pakistan Zindabad.
Filed under: Pakistan · Tags: Democracy, Islam, Jinnah, Maududi, Pakistan, truth about jamaat e Islami
80 Responses to "Maulana Maududi's Role Against Jinnah's Pakistan"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim
said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu... - tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
- Skeptic
said Fingolfin,
Why blame the mullahs? The real proble... - PMA
said Dr. Jalal & Dr. Bose both are academician &... - Rex Minor
said Rajtoo,
I have no problems with your statements... - Mubaraka
said Mr. AKB
Can you please point out which article of... - yasser said no comments plz
- Skeptic said I read somewhere that Manto wrote thrice to Ismat...
I remember one hadith always whenever the talk comes to mullahs.
“Allah warned me that a day would come when nothing would remain of Islam but its name. Mosques would be abundant, but worshippers would be scarce. That day, the most evil creatures under the domes of the heavens would be the religious leaders. From them will fitnah arise, and in them will it abide”.
Maulana Maududi’s Two-Nation Theory
Maulana Maududi’s Two-Nation Theory And The Struggle for Pakistan
By Abdul-Majid Jaffry, Garden Grove, CA
The earlier part of the twentieth century has witnessed a turmoil in the Islamic world. The Ottoman Empire was disintegrating. Most of the Muslim countries were under colonial rule. The intellectual and political dominance of the West nearly destroyed the vitality of a Muslim mind and turned it against its own religious, cultural, and historical heritage. Many persons in the different parts of the Muslim world confronted the challenge, and fought to unshackle the Muslim body and mind from Western slavery. In the Indian Subcontinent, a few rose to revive the vitality and confidence of the Muslim people. Among them Maulana Shibli Numani, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Allama Mohammad Iqbal, and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi were the most prominent. They came forward with constructive thought and vision to renew Muslim’s sense of identification with their religion, culture and historical heritage. These vanguards of Muslim India believed that the revival of Islam is the only way to save Muslims from sliding into abyss of the world of self destruction, and to that end they made contributions that left indelible impressions on the people and politics of the region. The forces, moral and intellectual, organized over a period of time by these men, by gradual process of growth, culminated into a movement—Pakistan Movement. Pakistan Movement was based on the theory that Muslims are entirely separate people from Hindus in every respect. They form an ideological community with divine guidance for every field of human life, and it is a dictate of their faith to establish a state where they can rule according to the law revealed by the Almighty. This theory is popularly known as two-nation theory. Under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the movement, in less than a decade gave birth to Pakistan The man who is most credited as an intellectual force behind the two-nation theory and a front against united Indian nationalism is Maulana Abul Ala Maududi. In the following lines, we intend to examine his contributions, as political thinker, in the face of the opposition launched by the nationalists against the two nation theory, Maulana Maududi was one of the most vigor crusaders for the cause of Islam the Muslim world has seen in the recent history. Few men have worked as relentlessly to give the practical shape to the guidance embodied in the Quran and the Sunnah as Maulana has done. He was scholar, reformer, revolutionary leader, and an Islamic thinker. His belief that preaching, printed literature, and even Islamic education is of little avail unless Islam can be implemented practically in a full blooded Islamic state was behind the fervor with which he argued for the two-nation theory. Maulana Maududi’s greatest contribution of the time was that he made Muslims cognizant of their identity and raised in them a fervor to organize their polity on the principles of Islam. While Quaid-i-Azm Mohammad Ali Jinnah was mustering the forces to fight the Hindus and the British for a Muslim homeland, a group of nationalist Muslims were undermining his efforts by pedling the congress’ theme of one country, one nation. Unfortunately, among the nationalist Muslims, there were many ulema. A few of them had selfish reasons, but many were misled by their inability to look at the Hindu-Muslim problem in a thorough and comprehensive way. These ulema came to be known as Congressite ulema. They preached Indian nationalism in their speeches and writings as a gospel of truth. Muslim League, against the outpouring of the “learned and pious”, found itself in the corner with little argument to defend its two-nation theory. Maulana Maududi came to their rescue. Maulana, through his extremely prolific writings, built a conceptual framework for Muslims to analyze the claim of Indian nationalists, He showed that the independence of India will not be the independence of Muslims people. For Muslims, being in minority, independence would only mean a change in masters, British will be replaced by the Hindus and that would be no independence for Muslims. Maulana’s writings had aroused Muslim’s feelings that they were a nation by themselves and cannot be integrated with Hindus. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, a noted historian, writes: “Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi’s careful analysis of the policies of the Indian National Congress opened many eyes. It did not win him too many adherents and followers, but it did serve the purpose of turning sincere and intelligent Muslims away from the Congress who mostly swelled the ranks of the Muslim League as followers of Quaid-i-Azam.” (Ulema in Politics, Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Ma’reef limited, Karachi, 1974, p. 3391.) Here, it would not be inappropriate to briefly outline the background and psychology behind congressite ulema’s wanting in acumen and lack of insight into contemporary affairs which led them to swallow the hook, line and sinker thrown at them by Hindu Congress. They lived in ivory towers, and were oblivious to the changes that were taking place just outside of their Khanqahs secluded life of religious seminaries and an age long observed custom of taqlid (following a certain school of thought) deprived them of dynamism and turned their minds and hearts prisoners of their own doctrines. Religious knowledge and social sciences were separated which led to bifurcation of religious and profane world. As result, the graduates of religious seminaries were impoverished in the knowledge of politics, social sciences, economics, and international relations, which greatly restricted the insight into contemporary affairs. More sadly, mainly due to the shackles of age long traditional thinking, their capacity to apply the Quran and Sunnah to arrive to a solution to a modern problem (ijtihad) became stagnant. However, there were ulema, such as Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanavi among others, who were urbane, knowledgeable, and with insight in the national and international affairs, but they were few and far apart. The task of Maulana Maududi and others who were fighting the ideological war against Congress’ one-nation theory became massive and complex when the “leading lights” of religious seminaries swallowed the sugar-coated doctrine of Indian nationalism and wrote books and gave zealous speeches to convince Muslims to throw their lot with the Indian National Congress and give up their struggle for an independent Muslim state. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni, a great religious scholar of Deoband, was the leader of the Deoband Congressite ulema. He, in support of Indian nationalism wrote a book, “Mutahhedah qoomiyat aur Islam” (united nationalism and Islam). The burden of the preaching of Maulana Madni’s book was that the Muslims living in India were part of the monolithic Indian nation. He juxtaposed Muslims and Hindus into one nation, which brought strong condemnation from Allama Iqbal. He expressed his anger in a couplet in these words: “Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what monstrosity is this? He chanted from the pulpit that nations are created by countries. What an ignoramus regarding the position of Muhammad.” Maulana Madni indulged in “willful distortion” of Quranic verses, prophets traditions, and history to propound his theory of united nationalism. His book proved a boon for Congress to counter Muslim League’s claim to a separate nationhood. Maulana Maududi, an ardent proponent of two-nation theory, wrote a series of article to expose the fallacy of Maulana Madni’s position on “united nationalism”. He exhorted that Muslims were a distinct community and could not be submerged with Hindus without compromising the foundation of their faith. He pointed out that the united nationalism is a trap of deception which would lead to an utter destruction of the collective identity of Muslims. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, impressed by Maulana Maududi’s full dress rebuttal, writes: “In fact Mawlana Mawdudi’s rejoinder was so logical, authoritative, polite, and devastating that it was beyond the capacity of supporter of a united nationhood to counter. Mawlana Mawdudi’s superior s
cholarship, his telling arguments, his logic and his knowledge of modern concepts in political science and law made it impassible for the Jamiat group to answer his contentions. In fact Mufti Kifayat ul-llah who was a faqih (a jurist) “and, of the demand of logic and academic debate and, therefore more cognizant advised his colleagues against any attempt to continue the discussion, because he opined that Mawlana Mawdudi was in right and there was no point in attempting to defend the indefensible.” (see Ulema in Politics, page 351, 352) Muslim League had an attractive slogan of two-nation theory, but had no literature to convince the nationalist Muslims/Congressite ulema, the Hindus, and the British of the validity of its theory. Between 1937-39 Maulana Maududi wrote two remarkable books, “masla-i-quwmiyat” (The problem of nationalism), and “Musalman awr mawjudah siyasi kashmakash” (Muslims and the present political crisis). These two books provided Muslim League with the much needed intellectual ammunition to fight the nationalist movement. Study of these books were once considered a must for the leaders of Muslim League. It can be said with confidence that Maulana’s articles and books were landmarks in the path of struggle for Pakistan.
I also say this that Maulana Maududi’s role is against Jinnah’s Pakistan. Maulana’s thought was Islamic.
Whatever Islami Jamiat Talaba say are false and say lies. They dont have study of Holy Quran and Maulana’s books.
There were not two nations in India. There were six nations and two religions.
Six nations: Britain, Sikh, Hindu etc they all were infidel religions. also a major quantity of Muslims were there.
[...] In 1947, he moved to Pakistan and brought here with him his cancerous Jamaat-e-Islami too. He remained however a committed opponent of the Pakistani national causes including the Kashmir struggle calling it unIslamic. Today the Jamaat-e-Islami castigates anyone and everyone who wants a peaceful settlement in Kashmir. I suppose Maududi could not call the Kashmir struggle a Jihad because then Ahmadis were involved in fighting there under their Al-Furqan brigade. Maulana Maududi’s Role Against Jinnah’s Pakistan Pak Tea House [...]
If pakistan was not meant to be an Islamic state then what does this mean
PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KYA—LA ILAHA ILLALLAH.
[what is meaning of pakistan---there is no god but Allah]
@usafzai: ‘Pakistan ka Matlab kya’ died with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, so then, does your above rhetoric stands a chance to this (il)logic of mine. Go & learn some history, not from books crafted in GHQ but by A-rated Historians!!
It is unimportant to gloat or grumble over what Pakistan should or could have been.
Today it is sunk in a fascist religion. That is what we have to deal with. May be with an iron-fist if necessary. This is what those must realize who live in Pakistan. The time is runing out. USA, China, India, Russia, Iran, Europe – they all must realize this.
The damage caused by the watery floods is minor in comparison to what the fascist religion has caused. How many realize that?
Jinnah categorically ruled out this slogan.
“….who took money from india and Israel and beheaded muslims”
Will some pakistani muslims never get over this mentality (of accusing every evil in Pakistan on …)? Jamil criticizes the jamaat but has the same mentality as the jamaat. Pakistanis do not punish an evil-doer in Pakistan unless after accusing him of geting money from USA, Israel or India. What a perverse-hypocritical mentality you pakistanis have bred in your own children and youth.
[...] on the other hand, have seemed bent on destroying Islam since 1947. Pakistan’s Mawlana Mawdudi and Pakistani-trained Taliban leader Mullah Omar are chief amongst Pakistan’s religious [...]
Jamaati Thaa !!!!!!!!
Ye Qazi Thaa !!!!!!!!
Ghafoora Thaa !!!!!!!!
Ye Mannu Thaa !!!!!!!!
Jamaati Thaa !!!!!!!!
Jamaati Thaa !!!!!!!!
This article has nothing logical but hate against Moududi sb and JAMAAT ISLAMI. In fact Modudi’s vision of Islam is admired by the whole world. Many organisations in the world are the sister organisations of JAMAAT and confirming the vision of Modudi.
Two nation theory not drwoned in the bay of bengal. Fact is that when we put aside islamic teachings from our life and not indentify all as only muslims , we become Bengali,Balochi,Sindhi,Pathan,Punjabi etc..
Moreover, in our democratic country we can go with any party but with arguments, not by slandering and chanting irrational slogans of THAA,THAA.
Khurram mian,
Why did Maududi oppose the creation of Pakistan?
YLH
Madaudi and other Jamat leaders have been taking out their FRUSTRATION on pakistani people after Independence , by making Pakistan a pure Islamic state
Why ? Because of the following
1. The people who opposed the creation of Pakistan did it because creating Pakistan was an acceptance of the FACT that Islam had failed in destroying Hinduism
2. It was also the DESIRE to see the GREEN flag on Red Fort once again
3. The Islamists wanted to Islamise the whole sub continent .
4. Partition meant END of this dream forever
But the realistic Muslims led by Jinnah realised that democracy means Muslims being in a minority and Hindu Kafirs being the majority
People who opposed Pakistan have done everything to destroy Pakistan. Those who called it paleedistan are trying their level best to make it paleedistan.
Not only Jamait-i-Islami but many other religious and political parties united hands with Indian Congress to oppose creation of pakistan. These are jamiat=i=Ulema Hind, Ahrar(called Khaksars), Devbandis, Sarhadi Ghandhi and many invidual civil and political figures. In fact they were not hoping that a man like Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah will be able to get Pakistan. They stood against Mr. Jinnah with the hope that when the English will leave the subcontinent with undivided India we will go to the Indian Congress and get their sympathies that we opposed creation of Pakistan and let us have some share in the Government including financial help. Jamiat-i-Islami who fearing that by sitting in Lahore they cannot oppose Mr. Jinnah or Muslim League shifted their headquarters to Pathankot now in india. After partition they shifted to Lahore and started making trouble for Pakistan. Moudidi said that war in Kashmir is not a Jehad. He was send to jail in 1948 where he remained for 20 months. He was also proceeded against for anti-Pakistan activities and sentenced to death. The Party was also banned for many months. Later on because he got a Vahabi religion, some foriegn governments asked for his pardon and he was released. They have now changed their books, and you cannot find even a single word in their books that they opposed the creation of pakistan. Only they say since the pakistan has been created, we have shifted our offices from Pathankot, india to lahore in Pakistan. Our children have to be told about the deeds of our religious and political parties who joined hands with hindu Indian Congress and opposed pakistan. I appreciate the effort. Thanks
to malik
God allowed Pakistan to be created to demonstrate to mankind that a good human society cannot be founded or maintained on the basis of islam. Pakistanis have fulfilled this proof thoroughly in 60+ years. But some muslim people will continue to keep this experiment going till more destruction takes place. This behaviour is called sadism, cynicism or masochism.
FOR HIOB Then which is the good society on earth today or in the past. Who killed millions of people or who are killing now on the basis of massive military built up. Do you think they do not have any religion or support for their coreligeous people. Was christianity not involved in breaking Indonesia and Sudan. Is judaism not involved in usuping the rights of the pelestinians. Is Hinduism not involved in massive killing of Muslims in Kashmir. Are you a non-believer or a christian. Creating trouble by foreign powers in a country does not mean that it is due to Islam. One has to think about it before critizing Islam.
to malik
The grand claims which islam makes mean that we have to judge islam more strictly than other religions. The grander your claims the more tough the examination that you have to pass. This is fair and just.
Many nations of today were put together by europeans. They drew boundaries as per their european convenience. So breaking up Indonesia or Sudan etc. are no themes of any importance. What affects us is the breaking up of indian/hindu lands and cultural and linguistic units by agents and quislings of islam, an ideology from Arabia. The hindus did not go to Arabia to break up Arabia or decimate arabs. That is the crucial difference
The hindu thinks about the Indian Subcontinent – not about what jews or europeans or muslims or arabs did elsewhere. What we know definitely about the indian subcontinent (ISC) is that the quilsings and agents of islamic, arabic, turkish and british imperialisms attacked, conquered and divided the hindu lands and peoples. For example, the introduction of the arabic script was a big mischief and damage. It partitioned the ISC people so that one did not, or could not, read the other.
Hinduism killing muslims in Kashmir? Once upon a time there were no muslims in Kashmir. There were only hindus, buddhists and related people. It is hindus who have been decimated in Kashmir. Your understanding of history begins as per the convenience of islam and islamic expansionism-imperialism. It is islam and muslims who have decimated hindus in Kashmir over 600 years. Why do you think you have thr right to shorten history to 60 years?
TO HIOB You have started a never ending debate. Now you will go as back as the creation of the universe. You want to teach me history keeping aside what is happening today. What Hindus are doing to muslims in so called secular and biggest democratic country of india is nothing but a revenge in your eyes. What happened in Bihar and what happening in Kashmir and else where in india is correct in your eyes. Burning christians father and child in a car is also justified in yuour eyes because the Egnlish came and ruled you forcibly. If hindus are for hindustan then why are they going and licking the feet of arabs, christians and other nations by working abroad. Why they invading other countries. They should remain in india and work there. Dont be cruel to your minorities. Learn lesson from history. Lest india will break once again.
to malik
1)
You wrote: “Burning christians father and child in a car is also justified in yuour eyes…”
Where do you have that from?
Is it ok to make false accusations? Do my arguments against islam (as a totalitarian fascist ideology) get refuted by making false accusations against my person? In fact your false accusations confirm that islam teaches you to lie and slander in order to win points. That is how fascism functions.
2)
Do only muslims have the right to take revenge? Muslims write and teach history as per the needs of islamic imperialism and muslim claims of greatness, innocence and divine selection.
3)
We don’t have to go back to the creation of the universe to see and solve our problems. Muslims came to Indian Subcontinent (ISC) and brought an alien-arabic, totalitarian-imperialist and finalist-fascist ideology into the ISC. That is the root cause of the problem. We don’t have to go further back than that regarding the hindu-muslim conflict in whatever form it is today.
4)
Hindus go to arab countries only to earn money for their families. They don’t lick arab boots there. That bootlicking is done by muslims in the ISC, esp. in Pakistan. Even many pakistanis say that Pakistan has become a minion and slave of arabs. Giving arabic names to your children is a sign of this bootlicking and of accepting the superiority of arabs.
5)
Minorities like zoroastrians and jews in India are very happy. They have reached the high positions in land and face no discrimination at all. But minorities that bootlick arabs and turks and foreigners are naturally detested and feared in India. The muslims obey the arabs. Muslim-ness is incompatible with tolerance and open-minded-ness.
to Hiob
You are quite ignorant what happened in india in the recent past. World newspapers were full of atrocities being met to the christian and muslim minorities in india. Hindus not only burnt the christians but all attaked churches and muslim mosques including Babri mosque.You propagate muslims as terrorists but your own parties like Vishua Hindu Prashad, Savak Sang (RSS)and people like Balthakery, Ram Sadhu and Narindra Modi are the biggest terrorist on earth. Now as a reward you are going to appoint Modi the killer as prime minister of india, what a democracy?
to malik
Hindu-muslim conflict is a result of a long history. It was started by muslims. That you can never deny. Hence the conflict takes place not in Arabia but in the indian subcontinent (ISC). The arabs and their quislings are the aggressors and the hindus the defenders. You can’t and should not equate the violence used by the defender with the violence used by the aggressor. VHP, RSS etc. are not carrying out acts of violence in Arabia. I do not justify their violence, but nor should you equate it with the aggressor-violence used by muslims in earlier days.
The muslim population in India has increased from 6.5% to 17% in 64 years – this means that muslims continue to be aggressors even today. Attacking christians is not necessary but a mob has the mentality of a mob and is irrational.
I am not ignorant of what is happening in India – I know of the violence in India very well. But the first culprits are still the muslims, even today.
Look at muslims burning churches in Egypt and killing christians. Egypt was christian and non-arab before it became muslim and arabized. And yet muslim propaganda says that christians are alien in Egypt – although Jesus did live in Egypt, but Mohammad never did live in Egypt. This show the evil power of muslim deceits and propaganda.
Everywhere islam came later but is claiming all lands as muslim lands. This is how islam teaches a false or falsified history-narrative to muslims. If muslims take to the path of honesty then islam will collapse and hence honesty is what muslims fear most.
TO HIOB
PERHAPS YOU DONT KNOW THE HISTORY WHY ARABS CAME TO ISB. IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT RAJA DAHIR WHO WAS RULING A PART OF SINDH AT THAT TIME, A HINDU RAJA WHO MARRIED HIS OWN REAL SISTER, HIS MEN CAPTURED SOME MEN, WOMENA AND CHILDREN WHO WERE TRAVELLING BY SEA AND BELONGED TO ARAB COUNTRIES AND HE REFUSED TO RELEASE THEM. THEN MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM CAME TO ATTACK THE HINDU RAJA DAHIR OF DEBAL NEAR KARACHI. ONLY A FEW HUNDRED MUSLIMS CAME TO ISB AT THAT TIME AND THE MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS YOU FIND IN THE ISC NOW ARE ALL CONVERTS. WHY THEY CONVERTED TO ISLAM YOU ALSO KNOW THAT IS BECASE OF YOUR CASTE SYSTEM. EVEN TODAY YOU HATE THE SCHELED CASTE. THEY ARE THIRD CLASS CITIXENS IN INDIA. THEY LEFT HINDU RELIGIONS AND BECASE EITHER SIKHS, CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS. DONT BLAME THE ARABS BLAME YOURWELF AND YOUR CASTE SYSTE. ONLY BRAHINS ARE CONSIDERED THE ELITE CLASS IN INDIA EVEN TODAY.
to malik
You are talking of an India that existed 1200 years ago. Your history writing is managed by those who wish to glorify islam and arabs.
Dahir’s men did not capture any arab women. That was done by some arab pirates. When asked by the kaliph of Baghdad to release the women, Dahir replied that he has no control over the coast of Makran. If islam had been a religion of peace and justice then the kaliph would have offered a joint naval-army operation with him to clear the coast of pirates. Instead the kaliph did what George Bush did ca. 1300 years later. He used that as an excuse to invade Sindh. That is how George Bush also did his politics recently of which you muslims are so angry.
Muslim history-writing is done under the compulsion of glorifying islam and dismissing and insulting non-muslims. You muslims have to come out of that mental prison.
A new ideology or religion always promises equality, brotherhood, justice etc. But no ideology/religion can keep this promise. So too islam. Islam too has failed to keep its promises. But islam kills ex-muslims so muslims do not have the freedom to leave this failed and deceitful fascist-imperialist ideology from Arabia.
Islam has its own caste system, class system , feudalism, priest (scholar) class, fascism etc. etc. Islam kills those muslims who criticize islam and hence there is no critcism of islam from within islam which makes islam fascistic more and more. Internal criticism is crucial. An ideology that makes internal criticism impossible and allows only glorification and flattery ends up as fascism.
@M.A.Malik : You are right…your views are logical and verifiable.
Jin logown k zihan main hay k jamat islami nay pakistan owr jinah ke mukhlafat ke wo sab say bary munafiq owr west ke soch k hamil gandy andy hain jin ke tarbiat ghulaman soch nay ke..jo west k propgandy k shikar hain k nojawanow ko islam say door rakha jay ulam per pakistan na bany ko ilazam laga kar…read these book to see role of jamat in establishing pakistan….http://www.quranurdu.com/books/urdu_books/12%20Tahreek-e-Azadi%20hind%20aur%20Muslman%201.pdf
part 2
http://www.quranurdu.com/books/urdu_books/12%20Tahreek-e-Azadi%20hind%20aur%20Muslman%202.pdf
jamat islami nay pakistan baniya owr wo he ais ke hifzat kary ge inshallah… Molna nay hijrat he pakistan ka laiy ke…
islami jamait talba zinda bad…
Can anyone please share the these books.
1) Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil
2) Turjuman ul Quran