Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: 'It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE 'HIMALAYAN ERROR' of Gandhiji's leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali's speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League'.
and
'Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against 'unbelievers' has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by'.
and
A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: 'GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?' Dr Anne Besant declared: 'The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything'. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.
http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm
Mahatma Gandhi's attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.
Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them
The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.
And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi's right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".
The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo'tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.
The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the "caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari'a", it became "necessary by revelation, is of God's institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded".
The Khilafat Movement
In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a 'ghayr taqleedi' (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.
In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: "first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places."
Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, "the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God's word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power". Maulana Azad had no doubt that "without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death".
Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: "Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this".
In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, "There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara'id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws".
According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, "The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently".
The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas 'in favour of migration (hijra)' from India.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH's note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)
Maulana Abdul Bari's fatwa said, "every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat". Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, "expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat". The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.
And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi's encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 11:25 pm
Here is an old post that is RELEVANT in this regard: Gandhi is the father of politicized religion mind you... not just Hinduism (read Farzana Versey's "Mahatma's Progeny") but also the deobandi Islam really which came into the forefront of South Asia's religious politics because of Gandhi:Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: 'It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE 'HIMALAYAN ERROR' of Gandhiji's leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali's speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League'.
and
'Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against 'unbelievers' has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by'.
and
A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: 'GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?' Dr Anne Besant declared: 'The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything'. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.
http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm
Mahatma Gandhi's attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.
Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them
The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.
And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi's right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".
The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo'tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.
The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the "caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari'a", it became "necessary by revelation, is of God's institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded".
The Khilafat Movement
In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a 'ghayr taqleedi' (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.
In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: "first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places."
Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, "the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God's word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power". Maulana Azad had no doubt that "without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death".
Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: "Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this".
In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, "There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara'id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws".
According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, "The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently".
The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas 'in favour of migration (hijra)' from India.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH's note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)
Maulana Abdul Bari's fatwa said, "every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat". Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, "expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat". The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.
And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi's encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Indeed this is all very twisted on part of adam khan.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 10:48 pm
PS. Which brings me to my next question... If Adam Khan is fairminded why doesn't he first attack those who put up that twisted logic like Jayp and Bj before I respond with what he feels is equally twisted logic? Why does he try and put up the same twisted logic to show the alleged twist in my logic only after I have demolished the original twisted logic.Indeed this is all very twisted on part of adam khan.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
My contention is that there is a lot more evidence and supporting logic to blame Gandhi...
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 10:42 pm
Adam is right when he says that it would be twisted logic to blame Jinnah ... Such twisted logic is deployed by the other side.My contention is that there is a lot more evidence and supporting logic to blame Gandhi...
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
My whole Gandhi thing has always been in reaction to people who wish to establish the idiotic connection between Pakistan's creation and islamist groups in NWFP.
The historic antecedents of the Islamist terrorists have nothing to do with Pakistan or its creation ... They were in bed with Gandhi.
Even the Manki sharifs and niazis who were marginal figures never resorted to militancy or supported militancy of any kind.
Meanwhile right from the Moplahs to Faqir of Ipi and majliseahrar types that Gandhi supported, encouraged and egged on directly or indirectly were violent. Gandhi even defended their violence ...
This is all I am saying.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 10:38 pm
Gandhi did not merely "ally" himself with the islamists or give them shelter. He made them a major factor in Indian politics because he trusted them more than secular politicians.My whole Gandhi thing has always been in reaction to people who wish to establish the idiotic connection between Pakistan's creation and islamist groups in NWFP.
The historic antecedents of the Islamist terrorists have nothing to do with Pakistan or its creation ... They were in bed with Gandhi.
Even the Manki sharifs and niazis who were marginal figures never resorted to militancy or supported militancy of any kind.
Meanwhile right from the Moplahs to Faqir of Ipi and majliseahrar types that Gandhi supported, encouraged and egged on directly or indirectly were violent. Gandhi even defended their violence ...
This is all I am saying.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Btw even Niazi was a Barelvi... (Ref: your excuse that Faqir of Ipi was allegedly barelvi).
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 10:06 pm
Btw even Niazi was a Barelvi... (Ref: your excuse that Faqir of Ipi was allegedly barelvi).
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
So I am afraid that even that last bit is a stretch.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 09:57 pm
The people in Swat creating violence are Deobandi fundamentalists ... Deobandi Fundamentalists were brought into politics by Gandhi...as established earlier.So I am afraid that even that last bit is a stretch.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Sorry no can do. You have now gone from lying to absurdities. I detect a deviousness which is clearly chowk-induced.
The way you are trying to make it about Jinnah is rather ironic. Abdus Sattar Niazi was a small time leader at Jinnah's time. Infact Jinnah had taken note of Niazi's Islamic state rhetoric and reprimanded him after which Niazi had remained distant from Jinnah. Jinnah's man was Sir Zafrullah Khan and there are clear statements by Jinnah that put people like Niazi firmly in their place when Jinnah clearly said that Ahmadis were Muslims and no one would be allowed to expel them from the League. . Did Gandhi ever make a straight statement like that against deobandi fundamentalism?
By 1960s Niazi joined Jamiat Ulema Pakistan ... It is like saying that all faults of Qayyum Khan including the so called Barbara massacre is Bacha Khan's fault because Qayyum had been Bacha's boy earlier.
In any event, I established a clear link between Deobandi Islamists wreaking havoc on NWFP and Gandhi... I also established support of Gandhi's boys for faqir of ipi. It is tad bit more than a mere claim that Niazi was once in the Muslim League. Niazi was given a shut up call by Jinnah and he did not dare open his mouth on the Ahmadi issue while Jinnah was alive. Bacha Khan and Faqir of Ipi were doing what they did during Gandhi's lifetime. Wahabi and Deobandi extremist supporters of the Congress did what they did during Gandhi's life time. Majlis-e-ahrar which called ahmadis kafir through out ...were allied to Gandhi till his death. Did Gandhi ever tell them to refrain from it? Never.
No matter how you put it, Gandhi's linkage to Islamists of NWFP is much more profound and long-standing than
Also I referred you to primary sources about Zalmay pakhtoon and how Dr. Khan sb gave them arms licences ...It was a terrorist organization that carried out bomb blasts and assassinations - including the famous Sherpao assassination.
But how long are you going to raise these tangential issues and jump from Manki to Niazi. Give credit where it is due ...Gandhi made Deobandi Islam a political force to reckon with ... Deobandi Islam today is giving both India and Pakistan nightmares.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 09:51 pm
Adam khan,Sorry no can do. You have now gone from lying to absurdities. I detect a deviousness which is clearly chowk-induced.
The way you are trying to make it about Jinnah is rather ironic. Abdus Sattar Niazi was a small time leader at Jinnah's time. Infact Jinnah had taken note of Niazi's Islamic state rhetoric and reprimanded him after which Niazi had remained distant from Jinnah. Jinnah's man was Sir Zafrullah Khan and there are clear statements by Jinnah that put people like Niazi firmly in their place when Jinnah clearly said that Ahmadis were Muslims and no one would be allowed to expel them from the League. . Did Gandhi ever make a straight statement like that against deobandi fundamentalism?
By 1960s Niazi joined Jamiat Ulema Pakistan ... It is like saying that all faults of Qayyum Khan including the so called Barbara massacre is Bacha Khan's fault because Qayyum had been Bacha's boy earlier.
In any event, I established a clear link between Deobandi Islamists wreaking havoc on NWFP and Gandhi... I also established support of Gandhi's boys for faqir of ipi. It is tad bit more than a mere claim that Niazi was once in the Muslim League. Niazi was given a shut up call by Jinnah and he did not dare open his mouth on the Ahmadi issue while Jinnah was alive. Bacha Khan and Faqir of Ipi were doing what they did during Gandhi's lifetime. Wahabi and Deobandi extremist supporters of the Congress did what they did during Gandhi's life time. Majlis-e-ahrar which called ahmadis kafir through out ...were allied to Gandhi till his death. Did Gandhi ever tell them to refrain from it? Never.
No matter how you put it, Gandhi's linkage to Islamists of NWFP is much more profound and long-standing than
Also I referred you to primary sources about Zalmay pakhtoon and how Dr. Khan sb gave them arms licences ...It was a terrorist organization that carried out bomb blasts and assassinations - including the famous Sherpao assassination.
But how long are you going to raise these tangential issues and jump from Manki to Niazi. Give credit where it is due ...Gandhi made Deobandi Islam a political force to reckon with ... Deobandi Islam today is giving both India and Pakistan nightmares.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
www.gandhism.net
Slight spelling mistake.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 08:44 pm
Actually the website is:www.gandhism.net
Slight spelling mistake.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
One of the emails forwarded me a website called www.gandhiism.net
even has a "gandhi kit" to educate people about the insidious nature of Gandhi and his true legacy.
It is quite remarkable really but a lot of people have begun to make a lot of noise.
It kind of affirms my faith in the saying ...truth does come out eventually.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 08:43 pm
PS...eversince this morning, I have been bombarded with emails from Dalits, Sikhs, Indian christians and other people around the world congratulating me for writing part 1 of the Gandhi series in The News today One of the emails forwarded me a website called www.gandhiism.net
even has a "gandhi kit" to educate people about the insidious nature of Gandhi and his true legacy.
It is quite remarkable really but a lot of people have begun to make a lot of noise.
It kind of affirms my faith in the saying ...truth does come out eventually.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
I have already discussed these issues in detail and have answered all these questions on several boards. I don't think I need to repeat myself.
The issue here is not Jinnah nor is saying "not in conflict with sharia" the same as promising sharia. You may revisit my articles on the issue.
As for Pir of Manki ...how ironic that for Faqir of Ipi you argue that he was a barelvi and therefore suddenly he was liberal. But Pir of Manki the arch Barelvi is suddenly conservative. Your double-speak is ironic.
Unlike Pir of Manki Sharif (who welcomed women out of Purdah and did not wage an insurgency war against Pakistan), Faqir of Ipi was the forerunner of the high intensity islamist insurgency that Behtullah Mehsud and taliban type fellows exhibit. He was supported by Bacha Khan, the Frontier Congress, Jamiat e ulema Hind etc.
So isn't it ironic that while Gandhi's own boys the Deobandis take the portion of the blame and his other boys the KK/ANP types were supporting Islamist insurgency in Waziristan ... And while it is the ANP that has imposed Sharia in Malakand ... you are attacking some letter which said that laws would not be in conflict with sharia to a barelvi leader like Manki who in any event was more liberal in his approach to Islam than both Faqir of Ipi and Gandhi's Deobandi boys.
You've yourself blamed radicalization of the tribal areas on Deobandis ... And the chief amongst these Deobandis is Fazlurrahman who is excessively proud of his father having opposed Pakistan and having supported Gandhi.
Unlike the so called "leaguer mobs", Zalmay Pakhtoon organized terrorist organization which was funded and financed by Dr. Khan sb then PM of NWFP and Ghani Khan Bacha Khan's son. I have already written in detail and quoted Primary sources in my NWFP series. You may visit that series... I have given unimpeachable sources in that.
Here let's stick to the issue of Gandhi. Which reminds me check out my article in The News today.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 08:23 pm
Adam mian,I have already discussed these issues in detail and have answered all these questions on several boards. I don't think I need to repeat myself.
The issue here is not Jinnah nor is saying "not in conflict with sharia" the same as promising sharia. You may revisit my articles on the issue.
As for Pir of Manki ...how ironic that for Faqir of Ipi you argue that he was a barelvi and therefore suddenly he was liberal. But Pir of Manki the arch Barelvi is suddenly conservative. Your double-speak is ironic.
Unlike Pir of Manki Sharif (who welcomed women out of Purdah and did not wage an insurgency war against Pakistan), Faqir of Ipi was the forerunner of the high intensity islamist insurgency that Behtullah Mehsud and taliban type fellows exhibit. He was supported by Bacha Khan, the Frontier Congress, Jamiat e ulema Hind etc.
So isn't it ironic that while Gandhi's own boys the Deobandis take the portion of the blame and his other boys the KK/ANP types were supporting Islamist insurgency in Waziristan ... And while it is the ANP that has imposed Sharia in Malakand ... you are attacking some letter which said that laws would not be in conflict with sharia to a barelvi leader like Manki who in any event was more liberal in his approach to Islam than both Faqir of Ipi and Gandhi's Deobandi boys.
You've yourself blamed radicalization of the tribal areas on Deobandis ... And the chief amongst these Deobandis is Fazlurrahman who is excessively proud of his father having opposed Pakistan and having supported Gandhi.
Unlike the so called "leaguer mobs", Zalmay Pakhtoon organized terrorist organization which was funded and financed by Dr. Khan sb then PM of NWFP and Ghani Khan Bacha Khan's son. I have already written in detail and quoted Primary sources in my NWFP series. You may visit that series... I have given unimpeachable sources in that.
Here let's stick to the issue of Gandhi. Which reminds me check out my article in The News today.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
You are welcome to spar with anyone you want. However you are wrong that I dont want discuss anything with you...I would love an honest exchange of views. It is just that you've confessed already that you don't even wish to notice my posts etc so I don't see any point.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 02:35 am
Harish mian, You are welcome to spar with anyone you want. However you are wrong that I dont want discuss anything with you...I would love an honest exchange of views. It is just that you've confessed already that you don't even wish to notice my posts etc so I don't see any point.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
I never accused adam of harboring hatred for me. I am glad that you too contend that you don't hate me.
:) ... Aur how is the weather in your neck of the woods.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 7, 2008 01:18 am
Harish mian, I never accused adam of harboring hatred for me. I am glad that you too contend that you don't hate me.
:) ... Aur how is the weather in your neck of the woods.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 6, 2008 11:50 pm
Ps. Kindly desist from personal attacks if you can't argue on facts.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Adam's questions have been answered in detail. No one has questioned his motives. Perhaps you can point out where I questioned his motives...
Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they haven't been answered.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 6, 2008 11:47 pm
Harish mian,Adam's questions have been answered in detail. No one has questioned his motives. Perhaps you can point out where I questioned his motives...
Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they haven't been answered.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
That also creates ideological affinity between MMA, Majlise Amal, ahrar, zia and Gandhi.
Later gentlemen.
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 6, 2008 08:39 pm
PS: There is also a fourth one ;) ... Zia ul haq's own family was from the Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-islam - a fascist Mullah group that remained allied with the Congress till after Pakistan was created and which launched a movement against the Ahmadis in Karachi in 1953 under the name "majlis-e-Amal".That also creates ideological affinity between MMA, Majlise Amal, ahrar, zia and Gandhi.
Later gentlemen.
Living Gandhi and King Today: Unbroken Historic Continuity
Posted by
MantoLives
Oct 6, 2008 08:34 pm
Errata: Fazlurrahman's role in the creation of taliban ... - MantoLives
- Interacts: 8928
- iLogs: 1034
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 150695
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Jul 25 2003
- Last signin: Oct 14 2009
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
