Irony and paradox

[Kasrkin]

"What is needed is to find a middle way in between the two extremes and that is what Jinnah envisioned..."

In order to find the 'middle way' qsaark we first need to identify the 'extreme' polarities. I don't think there is any threat of 'liberal fascism' in Pakistan. The term itself is contradictory, a facist person is not a 'liberal', in fact he is the opposite. He is a totalitarian, anyone who makes fun of his views or disagrees with him is a dead man. I see a threat from one polarity and you, with respect, are inventing another polarity to dilute the completely abominable nature of what we are up against.

Take this for example:

"Neither lashing people for not saying prayers nor making fun of those who like to say their prayers is correct..."

'Making fun' of someone is not the same as tying someone up and lashing him until his body gets disfigured. You fail to understand that both 'crimes' are hardly worthy of the comparison of the nature you are making. Someone makes fun of you when you're praying? To hell with him, but you can hardly claim he is the same level of 'threat' to the nation and our people as our body mutilating international terrorists and their Pakistani protectors.

Another one:

"Neither forcing people to wear all-white shalwar suit with black turban nor making people wear boxers is right..."

Again no liberal makes anyone wear boxers because he claims its ‘mandatory’. I on the other hand I have had numerous individuals dispute my right to wear shorts (not that I lash out ofcourse, but kindly explain that since they fall below the knees I see no reason for dispute on Islamic grounds).

At the end of the day I agree with you, the middle path is the best path. But I feel you are misrepresenting the issues here. Not because what you say is wrong, but because what you imply does not exist and is therefore a waste of our theatrical energies AS WELL AS a giver of legitimacy to those who hate Pakistan on the basis of 'insufficient' Islamic credentials.

 

[Bane Blade]

The term itself is contradictory, a facist person is not a 'liberal', in fact he is the opposite.

The Problem may lie within the fact that we are starting to declare certain people as liberal and if you don't fall in that criteria you are not liberal hence defeating the purpose itself.

 

[qsaark]

In order to find the 'middle way' qsaark we first need to identify the 'extreme' polarities. I don't think there is any threat of 'liberal fascism' in Pakistan. The term itself is contradictory, a facist person is not a 'liberal', in fact he is the opposite. He is a totalitarian, anyone who makes fun of his views or disagrees with him is a dead man. I see a threat from one polarity and you, with respect, are inventing another polarity to dilute the completely abominable nature of what we are up against.

The extremes are very obvious; you just chose not to see them.

A liberal fascist is a person who goes or wants to go to any extreme to make people think or act in the favor of “openness and reform”. Liberal fascist is a person who recognized no boundaries or restrictions whether from the society or from the religion. A liberal fascist wants to live his life the way he pleases to and wants others to do the same.

'Making fun' of someone is not the same as tying someone up and lashing him until his body gets disfigured. You fail to understand that both 'crimes' are hardly worthy of the comparison of the nature you are making. Someone makes fun of you when you're praying? To hell with him, but you can hardly claim he is the same level of 'threat' to the nation and our people as our body mutilating international terrorists and their Pakistani protectors.

Again no liberal makes anyone wear boxers because he claims its ‘mandatory’. I on the other hand I have had numerous individuals dispute my right to wear shorts (not that I lash out ofcourse, but kindly explain that since they fall below the knees I see no reason for dispute on Islamic grounds).

The level of threat is same if it comes from a liberal fascist who claims him to be a Muslim. This person is deliberately going against the law of Allah hence he is worst than a non-Muslim liberal fascist who makes fun of those who perform religious duties. It is all about how much respect you want to give to your religion and how much the order of Allah and his Rasool carries weight for you.

At the end of the day I agree with you, the middle path is the best path. But I feel you are misrepresenting the issues here. Not because what you say is wrong, but because what you imply does not exist and is therefore a waste of our theatrical energies AS WELL AS a giver of legitimacy to those who hate Pakistan on the basis of 'insufficient' Islamic credentials.

I can say the same just by changing few words “AS WELL AS a giver of legitimacy to those who hate Pakistan on the basis of 'insufficient' non-Islamic credentials.

 

[Kasrkin]

A liberal fascist is a person who goes or wants to go to any extreme to make people think or act in the favor of “openness and reform”. Liberal fascist is a person who recognized no boundaries or restrictions whether from the society or from the religion. A liberal fascist wants to live his life the way he pleases to and wants others to do the same.

Well now we know that 'liberal fascist' is just a term you made up. Clearly you haven’t even thought through what the word 'liberal' means, let alone 'fascist' which is a historical term with very specific connotations. There are no more ‘liberal’ fascists than they are ‘innocent murders’. Even apart from the semantics your argument is inherently flawed because:

”A liberal fascist is a person who goes or wants to go to any extreme to make people think or act in the favor of “openness and reform”…

Such people simply don’t exist in Pakistan and this view is little more than the paranoid ramblings of insecure and troubled souls desperately looking for confrontation with others in the name of Islam. We have proof of people who go to extreme lengths for what they claim is their Islam. But where are these equally destructive ‘secular’ enforcers you speak of? Sure there are a lot of naïve idiots around on both sides, but where are the ‘liberals’ who are tearing people’s throats open and raining down missiles and bullets on the heads of our soldiers as an opposite polarity to the ones we obviously do know about?

”The level of threat is same if it comes from a liberal fascist who claims him to be a Muslim. This person is deliberately going against the law of Allah hence he is worst than a non-Muslim liberal fascist who makes fun of those who perform religious duties.”

Did you read nothing of what I said? There will always be people who don’t agree with your beliefs…ALWAYS, you have to learn to get over that if you want to advance as a society. But why are you intent on putting those whose petty natures and petty actions are not worth mentioning with those who are working to ruin our country as we speak? Isn’t that nonsense?

We can’t afford to lash out at shadows, evaluate the situation properly but if you can’t then remember you are not helping.

”I can say the same just by changing few words “AS WELL AS a giver of legitimacy to those who hate Pakistan on the basis of 'insufficient' non-Islamic credentials…”

You can obviously say a lot of inconsequential baby-talk as we can see but the difference is that people proving my version of the sentence exist and their denunciation of Pakistan and subsequent insurrection in the name of ‘Islam’ is flashing on your TV screen if you’d open your eyes. But where is your version of the fascist enforcers? Only in your mind…

 

[qsaark]

Well now we know that 'liberal fascist' is just a term you made up. Clearly you haven’t even thought through what the word 'liberal' means, let alone 'fascist' which is a historical term with very specific connotations. There are no more ‘liberal’ fascists than they are ‘innocent murders’.

Obviously you don’t read else you would have never said that I have made up this term. Don’t tell me the meanings of liberal and fascists. My English is not as bad as you think it is. Let’s try it again.

Liberalism is derived from the word ‘Liberty’. ‘By definition, Maurice Cranston points out, “a liberal is a man who believes in liberty”. Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man, Society or Religion”

Fascism is a term thrown around by the political left to mean anything or anyone they disapprove of, simply to discredit their foes and silence debate…...

Now combine the two words and you get a personality who believes in ‘liberty’ and recognizes no restrictions whether from the society or from the religion and disapproves anything or any other idea other than what he believes in and discredits his opponents. Religion (any religion) is poison for such a person for religion restricts him, which is apposite to what he believes in, that is ‘liberty’.

Such people simply don’t exist in Pakistan and this view is little more than the paranoid ramblings of insecure and troubled souls desperately looking for confrontation with others in the name of Islam. We have proof of people who go to extreme lengths for what they claim is their Islam. But where are these equally destructive ‘secular’ enforcers you speak of? Sure there are a lot of naïve idiots around on both sides, but where are the ‘liberals’ who are tearing people’s throats open and raining down missiles and bullets on the heads of our soldiers as an opposite polarity to the ones we obviously do know about?

Liberal fascist exist in every country and they also exist in Pakistan, black skinned but with European souls. They are the people who believe and want others to believe that Pakistan was never envisioned as an Islamic state. Who believe that Pakistan should be a secular state (even though Jinnah or AIML never said that Pakistan is going to be a secular state) where they should be allowed to do whatever they want. If Pakistan was never envisioned as in Islamic state than why the Muslims of India struggled for a separate homeland? What was the basis of the two nation theory? Which ‘force’ was defining the Muslims and Hndus as two nations? What they wanted to do in the separate homeland that they thought was not possible to do in a Hindu-dominated society? Of course, it was the freedom to practice their religion and the way of life that was defined by their religion. What would be laws of a state with more than 95% of Muslims? Secular laws? What would be norms of a society comprised of 95% Muslims? Night clubs? Bars? Casinos? People roaming around in skimpy cloths? You said you have the proof of people who go to any lengths for what they claim as their Islam………I say I also have the proof of the people who go to any lengths to prove that Islam and Islamic way of living life is nothing but non-sense. Haram and halal are the things of the past and those who follow religion are un-civilized and backward.

And the ones you are dealing with today, the so-called Islamists, are the direct result of the adventures and failed policies of the Military dictators. So don’t blame Islam (not you, but the liberal fascists), blame those military dictators who created them, and nurtured them. The solution of the problem is not to defame Islam in copying the west, but to separate Islam from those who are using the name of Islam for their selfish ambitions.

 

[muse]

Liberal fascist exist in every country and they also exist in Pakistan, black skinned but with European souls. They are the people who believe and want others to believe that Pakistan was never envisioned as an Islamic state. Who believe that Pakistan should be a secular state (even though Jinnah or AIML never said that Pakistan is going to be a secular state

Who are facists readers can distinguish - what manner of UNDERSTANDING of Islam is it that sees it only in bizarre and inhumane punishments, that claims to respect women such that they put on a pedestal (and that pedestal secured in a cage) What understanding of Pakistan and Jinnah is that denies Pakistan as a home for all who would love and be faithful to it and not the Takfiri - who are the facists, readers can distinguish - Raab ul Alamein and not Raab al Muslimeen this is the creed of Pakistan and Jinnah, who are the facists, reader can distinguish.

 

[qsaark]

Who are facists readers can distinguish - what manner of UNDERSTANDING of Islam is it that sees it only in bizarre and inhumane punishments, that claims to respect women such that they put on a pedestal (and that pedestal secured in a cage) What understanding of Pakistan and Jinnah is that denies Pakistan as a home for all who would love and be faithful to it and not the Takfiri - who are the facists, readers can distinguish - Raab ul Alamein and not Raab al Muslimeen this is the creed of Pakistan and Jinnah, who are the facists, reader can distinguish.

What is described in Quran, is bizarre and inhumane to you? Who knows better, Allah or you?

The rights of the women are described in Quran in detail (sura Nisa), they look like putting the women on pedestal secured in a cage to you?

You only see Raab ul Alamein, what about the duties he wants his 'khalq' to perform?

Indeed, who are the fascists, reader can distinguish.

 

[muse]

Readers will distinguish who chooses to hide their political affiinity by using Quran as if it was a mask - and readers will distinguish who are fascists, those whopresume to speak to the rest of us if they were gods and use Quranic verses as if we could understand TEXT out of CONTEXT and those who seem never to recall that Allah describes Himself as RAHMAN and RAHEEM more than any other characterization - and it is the ethic of the Pakistani that he is moved by Rahman and Raheem over bizarre sadistic perverted punishments some insist are "divine" and therby negating the role of men in creating these.

Let readers distinguish who are the fascists, those who argue that Pakistan and Pakistanis is best served by the light of Mercy and Compassion upon ALL, or those who mask their bitterness and perversion by arguing that Quran and Islam are dead, that Quran and Islam died in the 7th century in Arabia and that society must now reflect a reality of a tribal society in 7th century Arabia as they imabg9ine it.

Readers can distinguish who are the facists, who make such claims or that Pakistan and Pakistanis who are humble and true in FAITH to the God of All FAITHFUL, that Pakistan which distinguishes between that Deen and Duniya and struggles to achieve a harmonious balance or one which has imposed on it the ideas of radicals .

Readers can distinguish who are fascists, those Who seek to impose and force or those who delight in the commandment of God, to INVITE to salvation, to be patient, for it is God that holds the key to unlock a heart astray and in darkness, no amount of coersion by men who make of FAITH an ideology, will fill the halls of heaven, those halls will fill as is the WILL of God that they be filled. SubhanAllah. Indeed readers will distinguish who are fascists, those who patiently invite or those who do conspire to coerse.



The Hilal above on the Green promise of Resurrection is not just meaningful for Muslims but all men and all women, it captures the longing of the creature for his Creator in whatever way they understand and articulate this reality and Pakistan stands as a guardian of a trust wherein all can enter the invitation as God wills them to, not as perverted men will force, coerse them to. Readers will distinguish who are fascists.

 

[qsaark]

The stress is on one thing: Allah is Rehman and Raheem, therefore we must be allowed to do whatever we want to do. We can drink, we can eat pork, we don’t have to say our prayers, we don’t have to fast, we can establish extra-marital relationships, we can roam around in skimpy cloths, Riba' is OK for us. Basically we can do whatever we want to do, because Allah is Rehman and Raheem.

People can see who is fascists and even a liar who is associating things will Allah which he never meant.

And people say that liberal fascists don’t exist………….

 

[forcetrip]

What was the basis of the two nation theory? Which ‘force’ was defining the Muslims and Hndus as two nations? What they wanted to do in the separate homeland that they thought was not possible to do in a Hindu-dominated society? Of course, it was the freedom to practice their religion and the way of life that was defined by their religion. What would be laws of a state with more than 95% of Muslims? Secular laws? What would be norms of a society comprised of 95% Muslims? Night clubs? Bars? Casinos? People roaming around in skimpy cloths? You said you have the proof of people who go to any lengths for what they claim as their Islam………I say I also have the proof of the people who go to any lengths to prove that Islam and Islamic way of living life is nothing but non-sense. Haram and halal are the things of the past and those who follow religion are un-civilized and backward.

You make a valid point .. There are 2 sides to this story .. You describe anyone asking you to think logically to be Kafir and asking to dance naked in the streets .. which is wrong.. i know u dont see it that way .. but still its mighty close .. being reasonable is important .. let them practice what they want but do not allow those thugs to preach what they want .. what they preach is nothing but hate.. no person or religion spreading this should prosper ..

 

[muse]

Pakistan was always meant to be a free country, a free country inwhich you can practice any religious faith you are persuaded by, with out fear of persecution or coersion by the state or ideologues



War against Taliban

By Tahir Wasti
Thursday, 21 May, 2009 | 08:16 AM PST |


THE battle against the Taliban and extremism will decide the fate of democracy and the future history of Pakistan. Although the Taliban are continuing with their bid to push back the army and create rifts among political parties, there are no signs of demoralisation in the army.

Rather its fighting spirit is an inspiration. Even President Obama seems to be satisfied with its performance. In a recent interview with Jon Meacham of the Newsweek he observed that the Pakistan Army has recognised that the threat from extremism is a much more immediate and serious one than that from India that it had traditionally focused on. However, extremism is not spreading its tentacles only in the Swat valley, it has killed a large number of people in Kurram Agency, Dera Ismail Khan, Dera Ghazi Khan and other places. The Taliban and their ilk should be dealt with throughout the country.

Many Taliban defenders have resurfaced with the argument that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. But can they deny that Jinnah had asked a scheduled caste Hindu Joginder Nath Mandal to be the chairman of the first constituent assembly of Pakistan? Subsequently, he appointed Mandal as the law minister. Open-minded academics are yet to be convinced about how an adherent of the Hindu faith would have helped initially as chairman and later as minister of a law to draft an ‘Islamic’ constitution.

Jinnah had fought for a minority of India and all his words and actions testify that he would not have accepted a law or constitution in the country that would consider minorities as second-class citizens. Mr Mandal’s appointments and Jinnah’s keynote address to the constituent assembly clearly unfolds Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan and its ideology.

That ideology is under threat by the Taliban who largely draw their support from the parties that opposed the creation of Pakistan. If Pakistan were for Islam then all Muslim leaders who supported the Indian Congress would have supported Jinnah. It is only after the creation of Pakistan and the death of Jinnah that the very same leaders assumed the role of spokesmen of the Muslim League and began to say that this country was created in the name of Islam. As columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee reminds the nation time and again Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan is diagonally opposed to the Taliban’s vision of Pakistan.

Historical evidence suggests that even the founding father of a religio-political party that is now backing the Taliban’s slogan for Sharia had said, ‘Why should we foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purpose, but rather prove an obstacle in our path?’ However, later on this stance was revised. Now the party asserts that Pakistan has been achieved exclusively with the object of becoming the homeland of Islam.

It was in 1979 that a head of government declared that Pakistan had been created for the sake of Islam. While introducing the notorious Hudood laws, Ziaul Haq proclaimed that Pakistan had been achieved to become an Islamic state and promised to enforce an Islamic order in the country.

The Quaid had always maintained that the new state would be a modern democratic state, with sovereignty resting in the people, and with every member of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.

As Jinnah himself put it in a radio interview in 1947: ‘Nationality, rather than religion, is the basis for a separate homeland for the Muslims of India.’ The statement often quoted as proof of the ideology that created Pakistan, ‘Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Ilahlah Illallah’ was in fact one that had never been raised from the platform of the Muslim League. An election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet during the 1945 elections to decide the partition of India, it was vehemently opposed by Jinnah himself at a meeting of the Muslim League held under his chairmanship in 1947. The incident is quoted in the memoirs of a member of the council of the Muslim League.

‘During the meeting, a man, who called himself Bihari, put to the Quaid that ‘we have been telling the people Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Ilaha Illallah.’ ‘Sit down, sit down,’ the Quaid shouted back. ‘Neither I nor my working committee, nor the council of the All India Muslim League has ever passed such a resolution wherein I was committed to the people of Pakistan. Pakistan ka matlab, you might have done so to catch a few votes.’

Raja Sahib Mahmoodabad, a leader of the Muslim League and close associate of Jinnah, also cited the incident in his memoirs. Mahmoodabad added his personal experience with Jinnah on the matter of establishing Pakistan as an Islamic state.

‘During 1941-5, we advocated that Pakistan should be an Islamic state. I must confess I was very enthusiastic about it and in my speeches I constantly propagated my ideas. My advocacy of an Islamic state brought me into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah shares my view and that he was asking me to convey such ideas to the public. As I was convinced that I was right and did not want to compromise Jinnah’s position, I decided to cut myself away and for nearly two years kept my distance from him, apart from seeing him during the working committee meetings and other formal occasions.’

A careful study of the Lahore Resolution also bears out that when a demand for an independent state was raised no reference to the establishment of an Islamic state was made. What the religious parties in Pakistan cannot explain is why, if Pakistan was to become a homeland of Islam, all prominent members of the ulema in India at the time of partition opposed the movement for Pakistan.

As Keith Callard in his well-known study argues, the background of the men who organised the campaign was not theology and Islamic law, not Deoband, but Cambridge and the Inns of Courts. He suggests that had the movement for Pakistan been one for an Islamic state it would have arisen from religious schools and would have been led by the ulema.

 

[niaz]

However, this is not fair to drag Ulema Deoban or Jamiat Ulema Hind (JUH) just because they were not in the favor of the creation of a separate Muslim country. It is not important that they were not in the favor, what is more important is why they were not in the favor of a separate Muslim cpuntry? Their argument was that Hindustan was taken by the British from the Muslims, hence British should return it back to the Muslims. In the light of this argument, JUH considered the creation of a separate Islamic country as much lesser a goal......... .

For the record I would like to dispel the notion that British took over India from the Muslims

Moghal Empire went on a roller coaster decline after the death of Aurangzeb at Ahmednagar in South India in 1707. However, even though it took 26 years for Aurangzeb to subdue South India. Within a couple of years after Aurangzeb died, Marhattas went on rampage. By 1758 Marahattas had most of India under direct control or under tribute. Only states not under Marhatta influence were

Bengal (Ruled by Nawabs of Murshidabad but under British subjugation)
Audh. Under independent Nawabs
Hyderabad under Nizam.
Mysore - Mysore was under Wodeyar Dynasty. Haider Ali became ruler of Mysore in all but name in 1763. Power restored to Mysore kings in 1799 after the defeat and death of Tipu sultan.
Sindh and Punjab were under Afghan rule (1757)

It is said that Shah Wail Allah wrote a letter to Ahmed Shah Abdali for help to beat the Marhatta menace which resulted in the third battle of Panipat in 1761.

Sikh Misls had captured Punjab from the Durranis by the time Ahmad Shah died in 1773. Sikh rule ended in 1849.

British therefore did not take over India from the Muslims. Main battles that resulted in the East India Company taking over major part of north and central India were Anglo Marhatta wars (1803 -1805) and when British interceded in the Marhatta succession in 1819. British took over Punjab and NWFP from the Sikhs.

How could British hand over India to Muslims when they captured most of the area from non Muslims?

The argument quoted above is therefore invalid. Majority of Deobandi ulemas were Congress supporters and against the creation of Pakistan.

 

[qsaark]

For the record I would like to dispel the notion that British took over India from the Muslims.................

Until the suppression of the freedom movement of 1857 (the Mutiny) and the death of Bahadur Shah Zafar, Dehli was still considered the capital of Hindustan, and the Mughal Empire. Mughal Empire went on roller costar or not, Hindustan was still ruled by the Mughal Emperor and breaking away from the central government gave no legitimacy to those states that chose to break away. Even when the East India Company established itself in Hindustan, it was from the permission of the Mughal Emperor in Delhi not from the permission of the Deewans or Rajas of individual states. The central ruling power was the Mughal Emperor in Delhi, not the individual rulers of the various states.

Your argument also does not hold water because British on their departure from India did not return the power back to the so-called rulers of the princely states, rather to the Congress and the AIML.

Hence this is not correct to say that Hindustan was not taken from the Muslims.

 

[qsaark]

Pakistan was always meant to be a free country, a free country inwhich you can practice any religious faith you are persuaded by, with out fear of persecution or coersion by the state or ideologues

Please post in regular font and in black color. This bold font and blue color is extremely difficult to read. Besides this article is already posted by Niaz Saheb on the Page 3 of this thread.

As Jinnah himself put it in a radio interview in 1947: ‘Nationality, rather than religion, is the basis for a separate homeland for the Muslims of India.’ The statement often quoted as proof of the ideology that created Pakistan

Let’s start with the definition of "nation": According to The New Oxford American Dictionary, A ‘nation’ is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory. Note there is no ‘religion’ in this definition that defines a 'nation'. If we go by this definition or universally accepted definition of 'nation', than the 'two nation theory' is totally wrong and the whole argument made by the Indian Muslims for a separate homeland gets nullified.

In Hindustan, there existed several dozens of different ethnic groups or nationalities, totally different in their language and cultural setup. These several dozen groups were later divided into two larger groups, or the nations, the Hindus and the Muslims (or the Non-Muslims and the Muslims). What was the argument behind the division of these several dozen ethnic groups into two nations? It was religion. A Bengali is totally different both in linguistically and culturally from a Punjabi, or a Pathan from a Sindhi, or Saraiki from a Baloch, yet all these different groups shared one common trait, and that was the religion Islam, they were following.

Indeed, the nationality was the basis of a separate homeland for the Muslims, but the force that united so many totally different groups or nationalities into one Muslim nation was their common religion, Islam. Hence the statement “Nationality, rather than religion, is the basis for a separate homeland for the Muslims of India” is self contradictory. The Muslim nation itself is defined based on A Common Faith, yet “it is nationality not the religion which is the basis of separate homeland” is not logical at all.

I am surprised (though I should stop getting surprised after reading so much nonsense) how people vomit stuff on the paper (or computer screen) without giving it a second thought whether it makes sense or not.

 

[niaz]

Until the suppression of the freedom movement of 1857 (the Mutiny) and the death of Bahadur Shah Zafar, Dehli was still considered the capital of Hindustan, and the Mughal Empire. Mughal Empire went on roller costar or not, Hindustan was still ruled by the Mughal Emperor and breaking away from the central government gave no legitimacy to those states that chose to break away. Even when the East India Company established itself in Hindustan, it was from the permission of the Mughal Emperor in Delhi not from the permission of the Deewans or Rajas of individual states. The central ruling power was the Mughal Emperor in Delhi, not the individual rulers of the various states.

Your argument also does not hold water because British on their departure from India did not return the power back to the so-called rulers of the princely states, rather to the Congress and the AIML.

Hence this is not correct to say that Hindustan was not taken from the Muslims.

Hon qsaark,

No doubt you are a very knowledgeable and well read person.

Pray let me remind you the Mughal Empire had ceased to exist in all but name by the time of Shah Alam II. Dominant Powers in the Northern India were Marhattas, East India Company and Sikhs in that order.

Supposedly King of the World Shah Alam -2 was under the protection of Nawab of Oudh, Shujaadaula from 1761-1764. After the defeat by the English at the battle of Buxer, he became a virtual prisoner of the English. He returned to Delhi in 1772 after Mahadaji Scindhia had occupied Delhi and Agra and allowed Mughals to keep Delhi. Bu that time Sikhs had captured most of the East Punjab and they entered Delhi three times after Shah Alam’s return until defeat by Mohall general Mirza Najaf Khan.

After the death of the able Najaf Khan, Shah Alam was forced to appoint Ghulam Qadir Rohilla as regent who in turn blinded Shah Alam in 1788 and raped the Moghal princesses. Shah Alam was rescued again by Marathas, however once English took Delhi in 1803, Shah Alam came under the protection of the English.

Shah Alam’s son Akbar Shah and grand son Bahadur Shah had sovereignty only within the Red Fort and were receiving pension from the East India Company. The very reason why Bahadar Shah became king was that the English did not like preferred choice of Akbar Shah (Mirza Jehangir)

Kindly advise when and where Ranjit Singh ever even nominally accepted the suzerainty of the Mughals. In 1857 freedom struggle, Bahadur Shah's name was exploited only because there was no other figure in India who could be ascribed with 300 years of royal lineage.

If you call this sham as Moghul Empire, it is your business. I would call it twisting the historical facts too far in trying to prove your claim that the British took control of India from the Muslims.