Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation

[lovely_pk]

I can quote several morons who even predicted the end of this world but their theories died like them and still nothing happened to the world. I would count this mulana as one of them....Alot of hindus predicted the end of Pakistan within the 30 years of it's independence but Pakistan is still alive on the world Map. I would highly recomend my brother to wait for some years and this prediction of mulana will be dead soon like him......

What about my prediction that soon Hindus will change their Master from Soviet to America.? Oh sorry, i think it already happened and i think it was too late to disclose this prediction.. I want to apologize everyone..... This is really happening.....

Let me give me one more prediction, as soon as American evacuate from Afghanistan, these terrorists will take next flight and come right into India and kick your butts and then don't blame Pakistan..

I was just gossiping yaar like Mulana .. don't take it personal and take it easy ..... But i hope it won't come true bcz you never know......

 

[Unicorn]

visionary mulaney ne gujrat fasadaat ka nhi btaya ??????????

na hi babri masjidmk barey me kuch frmaya????

agar itna hi visionaery he to usko follow kion nhi krtey tu m.

Yes he did, Just listed to his speech.

 

[Doctorplato]

Undoubtedly Abul Kalam was one of the most insightful visionaries of the 20th century!

 

[TruPakistani]

You want me to believe on the Predictions with Zardari in Power . . . . :13:

All predictions have a time to become effective.
In 1937, no one could have even thought of a muslim country being created in the sub-continent which was controlled by the British Empire and hindus, but just after 10 years, Pakistan was created.

When the time comes... you will witness yourself.

Corruption has come up out in the open to be eradicated.
Now we have corruption everywhere and these corrupt people are exposing themselves. (e.g. Zulfiqar Mirza, Jamshaid dasti, altaf hussain etc...)

As we now know who is corrupt and who is not, it will be easy to wipe them out. Don't worry Zardari will the first one to be wiped. !!!
I'm sure you won't have to wait very long.

 

[Boota]

Maulana like many other clergy wanted Maulanas to control muslims of subcontinent. No wonder most maulanas were agaisnt the creation of Pakistan. As Maulana himself says, in Pakistan muslim youth will become part of non-religious movement.

Whenever there are communal tensions, people usually turn to clergy who then become their political masters, peopel also become more religious when there is discrimination based upon religion. Pakistani youth now free from fear of hindu dominance and discrimination exercised agaisn them by hindus have now better chance to become progressive and enlightened.

 

[Scorpion]

All predictions have a time to become effective.
In 1937, no one could have even thought of a muslim country being created in the sub-continent which was controlled by the British Empire and hindus, but just after 10 years, Pakistan was created.

When the time comes... you will witness yourself.

Corruption has come up out in the open to be eradicated.
Now we have corruption everywhere and these corrupt people are exposing themselves. (e.g. Zulfiqar Mirza, Jamshaid dasti, altaf hussain etc...)

As we now know who is corrupt and who is not, it will be easy to wipe them out. Don't worry Zardari will the first one to be wiped. !!!
I'm sure you won't have to wait very long.

Dear,

Just read the wonderful book Sufaid Jazeera by Naseem Hijazi written in 1958 . . . . I think your clock has sticked . . . .

 

[TruPakistani]

Maulana like many other clergy wanted Maulanas to control muslims of subcontinent. No wonder most maulanas were agaisnt the creation of Pakistan. As Maulana himself says, in Pakistan muslim youth will become part of non-religious movement.

Whenever there are communal tensions, people usually turn to clergy who then become their political masters, peopel also become more religious when there is discrimination based upon religion. Pakistani youth now free from fear of hindu dominance and discrimination exercised agaisn them by hindus have now better chance to become progressive and enlightened.

Totally agree with your comments...

 

[usm100]

Wow this is a new one. We have never been told about moulana azad in our histroy or our text books. I wonder why they dont want us to know him.
So much thought provoking views by himand exact to the point ideas. Great vission.

 

[usm100]

Well it cant be true because in a united subcontinent muslims wouldnot have been in majority. Rather that has happened in pakistan where mullahs are spreading hatred and religeous intolerance. That is a menace and he was true to speak up at that time.

Maulana like many other clergy wanted Maulanas to control muslims of subcontinent. No wonder most maulanas were agaisnt the creation of Pakistan. As Maulana himself says, in Pakistan muslim youth will become part of non-religious movement.

Whenever there are communal tensions, people usually turn to clergy who then become their political masters, peopel also become more religious when there is discrimination based upon religion. Pakistani youth now free from fear of hindu dominance and discrimination exercised agaisn them by hindus have now better chance to become progressive and enlightened.

 

[TruPakistani]

Dear,

Just read the wonderful book Sufaid Jazeera by Naseem Hijazi written in 1958 . . . . I think your clock has sticked . . . .

So you base your perceptions on just one book !!!

You please read the following:
1. Shahab Nama by Qudratullah Shahab. شہاب نامہ
2. Alakh Nagri by Mumtaz Mufti. الکھ نگری
3. Rodad-e-Safre Hijaz by Dr. Nasir Ahmed Naseer. روداد سفر حجاز

And I'm sure that all these writers are far more credible and learned than Naseem Hijazi.

 

[Geek]

The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri's Maulana Azad Hoax
​

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Some people believe that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Making the rounds on the internet these days is a suddenly discovered interview of Maulana Azad which he allegedly gave to Agha Shorish Kashmiri of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam in April 1946.

Well I hate to break it to all of you Agha Shorish Kashmiri was a fraud and the interview itself was most probably cobbled together through excerpts from Azads book India Wins Freedom and his famous address to the Muslims left behind in India in Jamia Masjid- both easily available texts. Before I come to the actual nature of the forgery, let us re-cap for a second what this creature Majlis-e-Ahrar was and just how deep its motivation ran in discrediting Pakistan and the leadership of Mr. Jinnah who Majlis-e-Ahrar considered an outright Kafir. Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a group of Islamic fanatics closely allied to the Congress party, was one of the most rabid anti-Pakistan movements around.

Their leaders Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar and Maulana Ataullah Shah Bukhari were foul mouthed bigots who resorted to choicest abuses from the pulpit against the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah. The elections of 1946 resulted in their complete rout and after Pakistan was created, this group was in the forefront of the conspiracies against the state. Agha Shorish Kashmiri was one such Ahrari remnant who was in the forefront of anti-Ahmaddiya rioting in Pakistan and whose hatred for Pakistan was boundless. The internal struggle in Islam has always pitted liberal Muslim leadership against the clergy especially in the subcontinent. The difference in the closing days of the Raj was that through a freak chance, liberal and secular Muslim leadership in form of Jinnah was isolated from the Hindu leadership i.e. Gandhi and Nehru led Congress which in turn used the fanatical Muslims making common cause with them against British raj.

Maulana Azad was the blue-eyed boy of the Ulema who opposed the Muslim League. Azad was a religious scholar of renown, a salafi who followed Ibn-e-Taimiyya. He commanded respect amongst the Ahraris and he was admired by the nationalists. That Azad was a smart politician is evidenced from his support for the Cabinet Mission Plan, where he alone in the Congress was ready to work it to its logical conclusion. He was also an intelligent man who did predict the separation of Pakistans Eastern Wing in his book India Wins Freedom as dictated to Humayun Kabir in 1957. He did not however make the predictions that are being attributed to him in the so called interview.

Now let us see the obvious gaping holes in this so called interview:

1. First of all the interview finds no mention in any of the official works on Azad. It is only found in Agha Shorish Kashmiris book on Abul Kalam Azad which was financed and published by Kashmiri himself.

2. Azad says H S Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in esteem. Jinnahs relationship with Suhrawardy soured in late 1947 but in April 1946 there were no such signs. Till 1947, Suhrawardy was tipped to be Pakistans firs t Prime Minister. Infact in his book India Wins Freedom Azad hints that Jinnah sidelined Nazimuddin because Nazimuddin was not the loyalist others (presumably Suhrawardy) were.

3. Azad is quoted as saying that East Pakistans confidence will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan are alive. This is a rather odd statement on three counts. One in April 1946 no one used the term East Pakistan, secondly Liaqat Ali Khan just did not enjoy the kind of importance that is being attached to him and third that while Jinnah was ageing and was expected to die sooner or later, Liaqat Ali Khan was relatively young, and certainly younger than Azad. This sounds eerily similar to something our established Pakistan Studies books would say about Quaid-e-Azam and Quaid-e-Millat.

4. Azad is shown to speak about the assertion of the subnational identities of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and please note- Balochistan. There was no Balochistan issue till the annexation of Kalat. Balochistan did not exist as a proper province, let alone register as a possible hotbed in April 1946. All of Baloch grievances revolve around the purported events of March 1948 and the annexation in 1956. There is no way Azad could have spoken about Balochistan in April 1946.

5. Then Azad is quoted as saying incompetent leadership will pave way for military dictatorship as has happened in many Muslim countries. Till April 1946, there were no known coups in Muslim countries. Perhaps Azad was referring to Turkey but then Turkey was not a military dictatorship as Ataturk had retired from the military and was the elected though autocratic president of Turkey. His prime ministers, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayer, had followed suit.

6. Azad then looks into his crystal ball and speaks of heavy burden of foreign debt. Foreign debt was an unknown and unlikely creature in Pakistan till the 1960s when Pakistan financed the building of a new capital. In April 1946, there were no apprehensions of foreign debt. Pakistan no doubt asked for military aid from the US soon after independence but that was hardly debt. Unless ofcourse Azad knew that the Congress planned on withholding Pakistans share of the treasury- another unlikely proposition since in April 1946 it wasnt even clear that there would be a partition (except maybe in the note sent from V P Menon to George Abell on January 23rd 1946 which demarcated Pakistan exactly and precisely).

7. Azad is lavish in his praise of Jinnah as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, something he misses out completely in his book India Wins Freedom. Other than this purported interview Azad has never acknowledged Jinnahs contributions to the Congress. It was just not Azads style. The description itself seems to follow the passages on Jinnah by Dr. B R Ambedkars Pakistan or Partition of India. Granted that this book was in circulation at the time but my bet will be that it was Kashmiri and not Azad who read it.

8. Azad then goes on to say In the battle of Jamal, Qurans were displayed on the lances. How strange and ironic that a learned Islamic scholar and authority would make such a major error? It was Jang-e-Sifin between Muawiyah and Ali- where the Qurans were displayed on the lances. I for one cannot believe that Maulana Azad would say something like that given that this was his bread and butter. Had this been suggested about Jinnah or even Nehru or Iqbal it would have been believable but certainly not Azad.

My objective in posting this is to counter the lie and propaganda that Ahrari crook Agha Shorish Kashmiri is carrying out posthumously with the help of those who want to see Pakistan disintegrated. That this was translated by an Indian MP and published in a magazine that calls itself Covert only adds to the mystique of it, since the timing couldnt be better. But as they say in Punjabi/Saraiki Naqal kan aqal chaidee. The planners and executors of this third rate attempt at forging this interview and enhancing Maulana Azads credentials as Indias Nostradamus have done the ex-Congress president a disservice.

On our part it is time we stopped being impressed with such trickery.

http://pakteahouse.net/2009/12/01/t...nterview-shorish-kashmiris-maulana-azad-hoax/

 

[Boota]

Well it cant be true because in a united subcontinent muslims wouldnot have been in majority. Rather that has happened in pakistan where mullahs are spreading hatred and religeous intolerance. That is a menace and he was true to speak up at that time.

If you read the interview, he says muslims in minority states are more religious than in majority states and the goes on to say that muslim youth in Pakistan will becoem part of non-religious movement. As for the present rise of intolerance, i think its an aberration. It has resulted from the influence from outside, initially from Zia's plans to use our youth as fuel in war in Afghanistan and now due to spill over of global war on terror into our territories (thanks to be tied to an unstabe and ingovernable neighbour).

 

[TruPakistani]

The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri's Maulana Azad Hoax
​

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Some people believe that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Making the rounds on the internet these days is a “suddenly discovered” interview of Maulana Azad which he allegedly gave to Agha Shorish Kashmiri of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam in April 1946.

Well I hate to break it to all of you – Agha Shorish Kashmiri was a fraud and the interview itself was most probably cobbled together through excerpts from Azad’s book “India Wins Freedom” and his famous address to the Muslims left behind in India in Jamia Masjid- both easily available texts. Before I come to the actual nature of the forgery, let us re-cap for a second what this creature Majlis-e-Ahrar was and just how deep its motivation ran in discrediting Pakistan and the leadership of Mr. Jinnah who Majlis-e-Ahrar considered an outright Kafir. Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a group of Islamic fanatics closely allied to the Congress party, was one of the most rabid anti-Pakistan movements around.

Their leaders Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar and Maulana Ataullah Shah Bukhari were foul mouthed bigots who resorted to choicest abuses from the pulpit against the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah. The elections of 1946 resulted in their complete rout and after Pakistan was created, this group was in the forefront of the conspiracies against the state. Agha Shorish Kashmiri was one such Ahrari remnant who was in the forefront of anti-Ahmaddiya rioting in Pakistan and whose hatred for Pakistan was boundless. The internal struggle in Islam has always pitted liberal Muslim leadership against the clergy especially in the subcontinent. The difference in the closing days of the Raj was that through a freak chance, liberal and secular Muslim leadership in form of Jinnah was isolated from the Hindu leadership i.e. Gandhi and Nehru led Congress which in turn used the fanatical Muslims making common cause with them against British raj.

Maulana Azad was the blue-eyed boy of the Ulema who opposed the Muslim League. Azad was a religious scholar of renown, a salafi who followed Ibn-e-Taimiyya. He commanded respect amongst the Ahraris and he was admired by the nationalists. That Azad was a smart politician is evidenced from his support for the Cabinet Mission Plan, where he alone in the Congress was ready to work it to its logical conclusion. He was also an intelligent man who did predict the separation of Pakistan’s Eastern Wing in his book “India Wins Freedom” as dictated to Humayun Kabir in 1957. He did not however make the predictions that are being attributed to him in the so called interview.

Now let us see the obvious gaping holes in this so called interview:

1. First of all the interview finds no mention in any of the official works on Azad. It is only found in Agha Shorish Kashmiri’s book on Abul Kalam Azad which was financed and published by Kashmiri himself.

2. Azad says “H S Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in esteem”. Jinnah’s relationship with Suhrawardy soured in late 1947 but in April 1946 there were no such signs. Till 1947, Suhrawardy was tipped to be Pakistan’s firs t Prime Minister. Infact in his book “India Wins Freedom” Azad hints that Jinnah sidelined Nazimuddin because Nazimuddin was not the loyalist others (presumably Suhrawardy) were.

3. Azad is quoted as saying that “East Pakistan’s confidence will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan are alive”. This is a rather odd statement on three counts. One in April 1946 no one used the term “East Pakistan”, secondly Liaqat Ali Khan just did not enjoy the kind of importance that is being attached to him and third that while Jinnah was ageing and was expected to die sooner or later, Liaqat Ali Khan was relatively young, and certainly younger than Azad. This sounds eerily similar to something our established Pakistan Studies’ books would say about Quaid-e-Azam and Quaid-e-Millat.

4. Azad is shown to speak about the “assertion of the subnational identities of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and – please note- Balochistan”. There was no Balochistan issue till the annexation of Kalat. Balochistan did not exist as a proper province, let alone register as a possible hotbed in April 1946. All of Baloch grievances revolve around the purported events of March 1948 and the annexation in 1956. There is no way Azad could have spoken about Balochistan in April 1946.

5. Then Azad is quoted as saying “incompetent leadership will pave way for military dictatorship as has happened in many Muslim countries”. Till April 1946, there were no known coups in Muslim countries. Perhaps Azad was referring to Turkey but then Turkey was not a military dictatorship as Ataturk had retired from the military and was the elected – though autocratic – president of Turkey. His prime ministers, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayer, had followed suit.

6. Azad then looks into his crystal ball and speaks of “heavy burden of foreign debt”. Foreign debt was an unknown and unlikely creature in Pakistan till the 1960s when Pakistan financed the building of a new capital. In April 1946, there were no apprehensions of foreign debt. Pakistan no doubt asked for military aid from the US soon after independence but that was hardly debt. Unless ofcourse Azad knew that the Congress planned on withholding Pakistan’s share of the treasury- another unlikely proposition since in April 1946 it wasn’t even clear that there would be a partition (except maybe in the note sent from V P Menon to George Abell on January 23rd 1946 which demarcated Pakistan exactly and precisely).

7. Azad is lavish in his praise of Jinnah as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, something he misses out completely in his book “India Wins Freedom”. Other than this purported interview Azad has never acknowledged Jinnah’s contributions to the Congress. It was just not Azad’s style. The description itself seems to follow the passages on Jinnah by Dr. B R Ambedkar’s “Pakistan or Partition of India”. Granted that this book was in circulation at the time but my bet will be that it was Kashmiri and not Azad who read it.

8. Azad then goes on to say “In the battle of Jamal, Qurans were displayed on the lances”. How strange and ironic that a learned Islamic scholar and authority would make such a major error? It was Jang-e-Sifin – between Muawiyah and Ali- where the Qurans were displayed on the lances. I for one cannot believe that Maulana Azad would say something like that given that this was his bread and butter. Had this been suggested about Jinnah or even Nehru or Iqbal it would have been believable but certainly not Azad.

My objective in posting this is to counter the lie and propaganda that Ahrari crook Agha Shorish Kashmiri is carrying out posthumously with the help of those who want to see Pakistan disintegrated. That this was translated by an Indian MP and published in a magazine that calls itself “Covert” only adds to the mystique of it, since the timing couldn’t be better. But as they say in Punjabi/Saraiki “Naqal kan aqal chaidee”. The planners and executors of this third rate attempt at forging this interview and enhancing Maulana Azad’s credentials as India’s Nostradamus have done the ex-Congress president a disservice.

On our part it is time we stopped being impressed with such trickery.

http://pakteahouse.net/2009/12/01/t...nterview-shorish-kashmiris-maulana-azad-hoax/

This pretty much wraps up the discussion. Still if we don't believe who is right and who is wrong... Its our own decision.

 

[Temojin]

The thing here is that people simply shunned his theories and his decision to be with congress and went for Pakistan. A simple reality. Those who couldn't migrate, didn't do it because of many reasons other than they liked to stay in that part of the subcontinent. Moreover, Azad and his fellows were funded by the same authorities who still fund games like alqaida and whenever they want to intrude into any country's business more than they already are, alqaidah starts doing what they are best at. Make grounds for these powers to intervene to the fullest.

The funding now isn't hidden anymore and the house of saud does it openly to make its masters happy.

 

[Boota]

The Man Who Forged An Interview: Shorish Kashmiri's Maulana Azad Hoax
​

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Some people believe that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Making the rounds on the internet these days is a “suddenly discovered” interview of Maulana Azad which he allegedly gave to Agha Shorish Kashmiri of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam in April 1946.

Well I hate to break it to all of you – Agha Shorish Kashmiri was a fraud and the interview itself was most probably cobbled together through excerpts from Azad’s book “India Wins Freedom” and his famous address to the Muslims left behind in India in Jamia Masjid- both easily available texts. Before I come to the actual nature of the forgery, let us re-cap for a second what this creature Majlis-e-Ahrar was and just how deep its motivation ran in discrediting Pakistan and the leadership of Mr. Jinnah who Majlis-e-Ahrar considered an outright Kafir. Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a group of Islamic fanatics closely allied to the Congress party, was one of the most rabid anti-Pakistan movements around.

Their leaders Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar and Maulana Ataullah Shah Bukhari were foul mouthed bigots who resorted to choicest abuses from the pulpit against the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah. The elections of 1946 resulted in their complete rout and after Pakistan was created, this group was in the forefront of the conspiracies against the state. Agha Shorish Kashmiri was one such Ahrari remnant who was in the forefront of anti-Ahmaddiya rioting in Pakistan and whose hatred for Pakistan was boundless. The internal struggle in Islam has always pitted liberal Muslim leadership against the clergy especially in the subcontinent. The difference in the closing days of the Raj was that through a freak chance, liberal and secular Muslim leadership in form of Jinnah was isolated from the Hindu leadership i.e. Gandhi and Nehru led Congress which in turn used the fanatical Muslims making common cause with them against British raj.

Maulana Azad was the blue-eyed boy of the Ulema who opposed the Muslim League. Azad was a religious scholar of renown, a salafi who followed Ibn-e-Taimiyya. He commanded respect amongst the Ahraris and he was admired by the nationalists. That Azad was a smart politician is evidenced from his support for the Cabinet Mission Plan, where he alone in the Congress was ready to work it to its logical conclusion. He was also an intelligent man who did predict the separation of Pakistan’s Eastern Wing in his book “India Wins Freedom” as dictated to Humayun Kabir in 1957. He did not however make the predictions that are being attributed to him in the so called interview.

Now let us see the obvious gaping holes in this so called interview:

1. First of all the interview finds no mention in any of the official works on Azad. It is only found in Agha Shorish Kashmiri’s book on Abul Kalam Azad which was financed and published by Kashmiri himself.

2. Azad says “H S Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in esteem”. Jinnah’s relationship with Suhrawardy soured in late 1947 but in April 1946 there were no such signs. Till 1947, Suhrawardy was tipped to be Pakistan’s firs t Prime Minister. Infact in his book “India Wins Freedom” Azad hints that Jinnah sidelined Nazimuddin because Nazimuddin was not the loyalist others (presumably Suhrawardy) were.

3. Azad is quoted as saying that “East Pakistan’s confidence will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan are alive”. This is a rather odd statement on three counts. One in April 1946 no one used the term “East Pakistan”, secondly Liaqat Ali Khan just did not enjoy the kind of importance that is being attached to him and third that while Jinnah was ageing and was expected to die sooner or later, Liaqat Ali Khan was relatively young, and certainly younger than Azad. This sounds eerily similar to something our established Pakistan Studies’ books would say about Quaid-e-Azam and Quaid-e-Millat.

4. Azad is shown to speak about the “assertion of the subnational identities of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and – please note- Balochistan”. There was no Balochistan issue till the annexation of Kalat. Balochistan did not exist as a proper province, let alone register as a possible hotbed in April 1946. All of Baloch grievances revolve around the purported events of March 1948 and the annexation in 1956. There is no way Azad could have spoken about Balochistan in April 1946.

5. Then Azad is quoted as saying “incompetent leadership will pave way for military dictatorship as has happened in many Muslim countries”. Till April 1946, there were no known coups in Muslim countries. Perhaps Azad was referring to Turkey but then Turkey was not a military dictatorship as Ataturk had retired from the military and was the elected – though autocratic – president of Turkey. His prime ministers, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayer, had followed suit.

6. Azad then looks into his crystal ball and speaks of “heavy burden of foreign debt”. Foreign debt was an unknown and unlikely creature in Pakistan till the 1960s when Pakistan financed the building of a new capital. In April 1946, there were no apprehensions of foreign debt. Pakistan no doubt asked for military aid from the US soon after independence but that was hardly debt. Unless ofcourse Azad knew that the Congress planned on withholding Pakistan’s share of the treasury- another unlikely proposition since in April 1946 it wasn’t even clear that there would be a partition (except maybe in the note sent from V P Menon to George Abell on January 23rd 1946 which demarcated Pakistan exactly and precisely).

7. Azad is lavish in his praise of Jinnah as the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, something he misses out completely in his book “India Wins Freedom”. Other than this purported interview Azad has never acknowledged Jinnah’s contributions to the Congress. It was just not Azad’s style. The description itself seems to follow the passages on Jinnah by Dr. B R Ambedkar’s “Pakistan or Partition of India”. Granted that this book was in circulation at the time but my bet will be that it was Kashmiri and not Azad who read it.

8. Azad then goes on to say “In the battle of Jamal, Qurans were displayed on the lances”. How strange and ironic that a learned Islamic scholar and authority would make such a major error? It was Jang-e-Sifin – between Muawiyah and Ali- where the Qurans were displayed on the lances. I for one cannot believe that Maulana Azad would say something like that given that this was his bread and butter. Had this been suggested about Jinnah or even Nehru or Iqbal it would have been believable but certainly not Azad.

My objective in posting this is to counter the lie and propaganda that Ahrari crook Agha Shorish Kashmiri is carrying out posthumously with the help of those who want to see Pakistan disintegrated. That this was translated by an Indian MP and published in a magazine that calls itself “Covert” only adds to the mystique of it, since the timing couldn’t be better. But as they say in Punjabi/Saraiki “Naqal kan aqal chaidee”. The planners and executors of this third rate attempt at forging this interview and enhancing Maulana Azad’s credentials as India’s Nostradamus have done the ex-Congress president a disservice.

On our part it is time we stopped being impressed with such trickery.

http://pakteahouse.net/2009/12/01/t...nterview-shorish-kashmiris-maulana-azad-hoax/

Bingo................................

 

[Night_Hawk]

Who is this Yasser Latif Hamdani.
I was trying to find out about this guy, just to know who is this guy this is what I am getting "
[h=2]Blog not found[/h] Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist.

 

[Night_Hawk]

I was reading some of the comments on that website this is what someone said,
" am impressed with the knowledge and research of Mr. YLH. With his powerfull strong arguments about history and religion, he really made me believe that this interview is “questionable” interview. My only point is if the ” Chattan” was not published back then and nobody has any proof of this interview was ever published than how can we assumed that Sorish Kashmiri forged this interview. Wouldn’t you wonder that Mr. MP forged this? Mr. Shorish is not here to take the credit or responsibility that he did this interview with Mulana Azad. So why blame or accuse him?"

 

[ahmadalikhan]

Excellent Article related to this topic by abdul qadir hassan today

 

[Scorpion]

So you base your perceptions on just one book !!!

You please read the following:
1. Shahab Nama by Qudratullah Shahab. شہاب نامہ
2. Alakh Nagri by Mumtaz Mufti. الکھ نگری
3. Rodad-e-Safre Hijaz by Dr. Nasir Ahmed Naseer. روداد سفر حجاز

And I'm sure that all these writers are far more credible and learned than Naseem Hijazi.

I ve read the first one . . . . And it has shown the same sliding down . . . .

 

[Asif Ali]

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew the Future of Pakistan Before Its Creation by Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan,

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It was a time when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Delhi[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to Shorish Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any book so far neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches except for Kashmiris own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for many years and translated the interview for COVERT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Dont you think that in this situation the birth of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has become inevitable?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A: If [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islams growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] were a little over 22.5 million that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and Muslims in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot], when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] Q: Maulana, what is wrong if [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] becomes a reality? After all, Islam is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Karbala[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]If [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself if he agrees to some new proposal.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] alone, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In this situation it will not be possible for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]West Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. What promise [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will be still more dangerous for them. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnahs attention is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bengal[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. He does not know that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bengal[/FONT][FONT=&quot] disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Rajkot[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bengal[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The confidence of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]East Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]East Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to stay with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]West Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]East Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] are totally different from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]West Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The moment the creative warmth of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]East Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot], whenever it happens, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]West Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Punjab[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sind[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I feel that right from its inception, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will face some very serious problems:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In this situation, the stability of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Hejaz[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. But the Islam that came to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. What do the cultural centres of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot], like [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Delhi[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lucknow[/FONT][FONT=&quot], represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence a figment of their imagination.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The Holy Prophet has said, God has made the whole earth a mosque for me. Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]border states[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of Hindu Raj. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The question is often raised that if the idea of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In future [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Aligarh[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On [/FONT][FONT=&quot]3 October 1925[/FONT][FONT=&quot], in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pakistan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress ones conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is home to many people the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Asia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Africa[/FONT][FONT=&quot] largely depends on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]India[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters []. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Courtesy: Covert Magazine[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]URL of this Page: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamBooksAndDocuments_1.aspx?ArticleID=2139[/FONT]