Indus Priest King
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 583
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
~ Muslim Pakistan vs Islamic Pakistan ~
“Pakistan was made in the name of Islam” is a phrase that we’ve all heard time and time again in countless debates and arguments. No matter what the debate might be on, it seems to always be used to essentially curtail debate and stop people from asking more questions. But is it actually true? As Joseph Goebbels once famously said, “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth”. Nowhere is this quote more appropriate than for this phrase.
Let’s put this into perspective shall we – lets assume that Pakistan was indeed “made in the name of Islam”. Why then were Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam and Jamaat-e-Islami all opposed to Pakistan? Why did they refer to Pakistan as “Najistan” and Muhammad Ali Jinnah as “Kafir-e-Azam”? Have any of our fake nationalists (Al Bakistanis) ever dared to answer this question? Of course not – they do what all other brainwashed sheep do. They simply ignore the obvious.
~ Islamic country vs Muslim country ~
Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Quaid-e-Azam) and the Muslim League were Muslim nationalists and not Islamists. There is a big difference between a MUSLIM country and an ISLAMIC country. Many people around the world seem to get the two concepts confused, and I don’t blame them. However, there are clear distinctions:
An Islamic country, or "Islamic Republic", is a nation whereby civil and common laws are based strictly on the Islamic Sharia code, and imposed forcibly on its citizens. All matters relating the economic, religious and cultural matters are handled through an appointed Mullah or an elected council of Mullahs. Personal independence of individuals is significantly curtailed in these countries and consumption and sale of alcohol, idol-worship, western clothing, blasphemy and apostasy would be considered illegal. Such countries that mimic this concept include Saudi Arabia and Iran.
A Muslim country is a nation whereby civil and common laws are based loosely on Islamic values and principles - hence Sharia is not imposed forcibly on its citizens. Modern democratic values are promoted and entertained in matters concerning economic, religious and cultural matters while personal independence of individuals is respected. Such countries that mimic this concept include Turkey and Malaysia.
So what definition does Pakistan fit into? Read my concluding remarks at the end for that. Now that we’ve cleared up the differences, we now need to understand the purpose of the Muslim League.
~ British Rule ~
By the mid 1800s, the British had conquered much of the subcontinent except the territories of the Indus Valley. Sindh was the first to fall in 1842, followed by Kashmir in 1846, Punjab in 1849 and the territories forming Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from 1876 to 1880. In between conquering this territory, the 1857 War of Independence took place but was sadly crushed by British forces. Following the establishment of “British India” in 1857, the British were now the sole rulers of the entire subcontinent. The British saw little value in anything Muslim – naturally many in London had become very untrustworthy of the Muslim population of India, as they viewed the 1857 "uprising" as a Muslim led event. Many British commentators insisted that to prevent another uprising and protect the integrity of the new colony, the British would have to form a political alliance with the Brahmin Hindus.
~ British-Brahmin Alliance Forms ~
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This ancient proverb suggests that two opposing parties can or should work together against a common enemy. The earliest known expression of this concept is found in a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, the Arthashastra, which dates to around the 4th century BCE, while the first recorded use of the current English version came in 1884. Both the British and Brahmins needed one another.
From a British perspective, there were three main reasons for the alliance to be established. The first was obviously that Hindus were the vast majority of the population, and hence keeping the majority happy meant keeping the entire colony relatively happy. Secondly, using the inbuilt caste system by empowering Brahmins was seen as a mechanism to project British power through the complex prism of caste and tradition. Thirdly, by empowering the Brahmins both politically and economically, Muslim sentiment could be curbed, as Muslims were the largest opposition to British rule. The Brahmins similarly echoed these reasons, as they wanted to prevent Muslim rule from reestablishing itself in India. Primarily the British were seen as a vessel by which the much-fantasized “Akhanda Bharata” could be established. From the Brahmin point of view, the British had already done the hard work by forcibly uniting the subcontinent into one big colony through the policy of “divide and rule” – by allying with the British, it was argued that one day the British would no longer to be able control the colony and would be handed over to them to rule. Hence both parties had much to gain from the other.
~ Discrimination of Muslims and Anti-Muslim sentiment ~
Prior to British rule, Persian was the lingua franca and a widely used official language of South Asia, primarily under the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire which had introduced the language to the region. Persian held official status in the court and the administration within these empires and was heavily influencing many of the local languages, particularly Khariboli which led to the formation of Urdu. Persian also strongly influenced Balochi, Pashto, Punjabi and Sindhi languages and cultures. Persian was most importantly seen as a unifying symbol of the Muslims of the subcontinent. It was used in courts, education and a mode of official communication. When British rule was established in 1857, the banning of Persian was deemed necessary as to psychologically destroy the Muslim community. Persian's official status was replaced with English as early as 1835 and after 1857, Persian was outright banned. English gradually replaced Persian in all walks of life. Coupled with this, Madrassas were forced to close down and replaced with state schools. This also had a very detrimental effect, as many Muslims would refrain from sending their children to British state run schools, as they were deemed untrustworthy. This further hampered the development of the community – while the Brahmins were being educated and being brought out of the medieval ages, the Muslims were increasingly becoming isolated and remained stuck in the medieval age. By the turn of the late 1800s, the Muslims had essentially become 2nd class citizens through institutionalized discrimination. The British rulers as well as the Brahmin elite saw Muslims as uneducated, violent and untrustworthy. This idea would eventually trickle down towards the rest of the Hindu community. An unhealthy environment had been created.
~ Muslim response ~
By the mid 1800s the Muslim community had all but collapsed into disarray. They were divided, isolated, uneducated and increasingly paranoid against British rule. The community was in distress, and in times of distress, humans tend to turn towards religion. Many Muslims turned towards the Masjid for help, support and guidance – this included many moderate and secular Muslims as well, who might not have been particularly religious, but were seen as part of the “Muslim problem”. One common misconception that Pakistanis have today is that the term "Muslim" only meant religious people. This is wrong...from a British perspective, every Muslim was viewed as an enemy of the state, despite the fact if they were conservatives, moderates or liberals. Even secular and non-practicing people with Muslim names were not spared from this institutionalized discrimination. Keep this in mind for later.
~ Social Power of Mullahs ~
One of the biggest benefactors of this distrust and fear was the Mullahs. As the British continued to support the Brahmin elite into power, Muslims continued to alienate themselves. This indirectly began giving large amounts of influence and power to Mullahs in local Muslim communities. In many cases, the Mullahs actually promoted the divide between the Muslims, British and Hindus. From the Mullah point of view, keeping the communities apart was socially and economically beneficial.
~ Muslim awakening ~
The movement for a Muslim self-awakening and identity was started by the Muslim modernist and reformer Syed Ahmad Khan. People like Sir Syed were witnessing how the Hindu community had, in some form, embraced British rule and were being rewarded for it, while Muslims had rejected British rule and were being punished. His strong advocacy for British education and political activism had inspired a large section of moderate and liberal Muslims. He hosted the Muhammadan Educational Conference in 1886 in a vision to uplift the cause for British education especially science and literature, among Muslims. The conference, in addition to generating funds for Sir Syed's Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), also motivated the Muslim upper class. The conservative Muslims led by the Mullahs opposed this concept outright and a divide began forming between the conservatives led by Mullahs and moderate led by Sir Syed. In turn, this new awareness of Muslims helped stimulate a political consciousness, which would help to establish the Muslim League in 1906, much to the despise of the Mullahs.
~ Muslim League Established ~
In December 1906, the Muslim League was established in Dhaka. Attended by 3000 delegates, its original political goal was to define and advance Muslim civil rights, which had been denied to them under the British-Brahmin alliance. Furthermore, the Muslim League attempted to “build bridges” between the Muslim community and British government, which had severely been dented during following the events surrounding 1857. In addition, the Muslim League wanted to forge good relationships with the Hindu majority and the Indian National Congress party. After World War 1 broke out, there was a degree of unity between Muslim and Hindu leaders, as typified by the Khilafat Movement. Relationships cooled sharply after that campaign ended in 1922.
~ Pakistan Movement ~
In 1928, communalism grew rapidly, forcing the Muslim League and Congress apart. At the leadership level, the proportion of Muslims among delegates to Congress fell sharply, from 11% in 1921 to under 4% in 1924. The League also rejected the Nehru Report, arguing that it gave too little representation (only one quarter) to Muslims, established Hindi (Devanagari) as the official language of the colony, and demanded that the colony turn into a de facto unitary state, with residuary powers resting at the centre – the League had demanded at least one-third representation in the legislature and sizeable autonomy for the Muslim provinces. Jinnah reported a "parting of the ways" after his requests for minor amendments to the proposal was denied by Congress leaders (dominated by Brahmins). Relations between the Congress and the League began to sour and the idea of an independent country was gaining traction. The poet philosopher Muhammad Iqbal provided the philosophical exposition and Barrister Muhammad Ali Jinnah translated it into the political reality of a nation-state. Allama Iqbal's presidential address to the Muslim League on 29 December 1930 is seen by some as the first exposition of the two-nation theory in support of what would ultimately become Pakistan.
~ Opposition ~
Congress naturally opposed Pakistan, but what’s more interesting is that Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam and Jamaat-e-Islami also opposed Pakistan. As mentioned earlier, a division had occurred in the late 1800s whereby moderate Muslims went on to form the Muslim League, while conservative Muslims remained isolated. In the 1930s and 1940s, some of those conservative Muslims became politicized and formed several different political parties to try and siphon off support from the Muslim League. They opposed the Muslim League and hence opposed Pakistan. An independent Muslim majority country would spell an end to the bitter conflict between Muslims and Hindus, and hence the power of the Mullah in Muslim communities would evaporate. With no “existential threat”, Muslims were free and it was argued would no longer need the Mullah or the Masjid.
~ Post Independence ~
Following Pakistan’s independence, we were established as a MUSLIM country. This wasn’t by accident – the Muslim League had no intention of wanting to create a nation based on an ideology (Islamism), which opposed it in the first place. It should be noted that some members of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam and Jamaat-e-Islami left those parties to support Pakistan’s independence. But it should be stressed that those were individuals, and not representatives of those parties. Between 1947 to 1977, a political conflict occurred between the moderate forces and conservative forces.
~ Death of Jinnah ~
The death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the biggest blow to Pakistan. He could have saved the ideology of the country had he been around for a few more years and given the nation concrete steps to follow forward. Instead as soon as Jinnah died, Mullahs saw this as an opportunity to takeover and take back what they had lost. Within 10 years, the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" was established in 1958. However, things remained relatively stable as progressive minded politicians kept the Mullahs at bay. However, coupled with the refusal of the military to allow democracy to mature, many Pakistanis began getting disillusioned with the immature democratic setup and "moderate forces". In the mid 1970s, political Islam would also begin spreading throughout the Muslim world, including Pakistan. In 1977 when General Zia ul Haq took over in a western backed military coup to overthrow Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, a leftist socialist, it spelled the end of Muslim Pakistan. Zia ul Haq is a man credited for all the problems of Islamic extremism we have today. He pandered to the Mullahs and specifically backed the Wahabi doctrine - the rest they say is sadly history.
~ Today: We Want Jinnah's Pakistan ~
When we say “we want Jinnah’s Pakistan”, it’s not because we’re delusional…it’s because Jinnah’s Pakistan has been stolen from us. In 1977, power was literally handed over to the same group of people whose forefathers opposed Pakistan. What good could possibly come from that? At present we're at a crossroads - we've seen what Islamism has done to Pakistan in the past decade and I believe people are waking up.
Me personally I have a completely different view on the two-nation theory. I've always argued that Pakistan should revert to an Indus nationalist ideology. However, I do understand the difficulties in this happening in my lifetime. That being said, when given the choice between the two, I would choose a Muslim Pakistan over an Islamic Pakistan any day of the week. A Muslim country would guarantee me personal independence and a right to believe in anything I want, including an Indus nationalist ideology which I strive for.
Bring back Jinnah's Pakistan.
For those interested in my Indus nationalist ideology, please read
“Pakistan was made in the name of Islam” is a phrase that we’ve all heard time and time again in countless debates and arguments. No matter what the debate might be on, it seems to always be used to essentially curtail debate and stop people from asking more questions. But is it actually true? As Joseph Goebbels once famously said, “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth”. Nowhere is this quote more appropriate than for this phrase.
Let’s put this into perspective shall we – lets assume that Pakistan was indeed “made in the name of Islam”. Why then were Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam and Jamaat-e-Islami all opposed to Pakistan? Why did they refer to Pakistan as “Najistan” and Muhammad Ali Jinnah as “Kafir-e-Azam”? Have any of our fake nationalists (Al Bakistanis) ever dared to answer this question? Of course not – they do what all other brainwashed sheep do. They simply ignore the obvious.
~ Islamic country vs Muslim country ~
Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Quaid-e-Azam) and the Muslim League were Muslim nationalists and not Islamists. There is a big difference between a MUSLIM country and an ISLAMIC country. Many people around the world seem to get the two concepts confused, and I don’t blame them. However, there are clear distinctions:
An Islamic country, or "Islamic Republic", is a nation whereby civil and common laws are based strictly on the Islamic Sharia code, and imposed forcibly on its citizens. All matters relating the economic, religious and cultural matters are handled through an appointed Mullah or an elected council of Mullahs. Personal independence of individuals is significantly curtailed in these countries and consumption and sale of alcohol, idol-worship, western clothing, blasphemy and apostasy would be considered illegal. Such countries that mimic this concept include Saudi Arabia and Iran.
A Muslim country is a nation whereby civil and common laws are based loosely on Islamic values and principles - hence Sharia is not imposed forcibly on its citizens. Modern democratic values are promoted and entertained in matters concerning economic, religious and cultural matters while personal independence of individuals is respected. Such countries that mimic this concept include Turkey and Malaysia.
So what definition does Pakistan fit into? Read my concluding remarks at the end for that. Now that we’ve cleared up the differences, we now need to understand the purpose of the Muslim League.
~ British Rule ~
By the mid 1800s, the British had conquered much of the subcontinent except the territories of the Indus Valley. Sindh was the first to fall in 1842, followed by Kashmir in 1846, Punjab in 1849 and the territories forming Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from 1876 to 1880. In between conquering this territory, the 1857 War of Independence took place but was sadly crushed by British forces. Following the establishment of “British India” in 1857, the British were now the sole rulers of the entire subcontinent. The British saw little value in anything Muslim – naturally many in London had become very untrustworthy of the Muslim population of India, as they viewed the 1857 "uprising" as a Muslim led event. Many British commentators insisted that to prevent another uprising and protect the integrity of the new colony, the British would have to form a political alliance with the Brahmin Hindus.
~ British-Brahmin Alliance Forms ~
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This ancient proverb suggests that two opposing parties can or should work together against a common enemy. The earliest known expression of this concept is found in a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, the Arthashastra, which dates to around the 4th century BCE, while the first recorded use of the current English version came in 1884. Both the British and Brahmins needed one another.
From a British perspective, there were three main reasons for the alliance to be established. The first was obviously that Hindus were the vast majority of the population, and hence keeping the majority happy meant keeping the entire colony relatively happy. Secondly, using the inbuilt caste system by empowering Brahmins was seen as a mechanism to project British power through the complex prism of caste and tradition. Thirdly, by empowering the Brahmins both politically and economically, Muslim sentiment could be curbed, as Muslims were the largest opposition to British rule. The Brahmins similarly echoed these reasons, as they wanted to prevent Muslim rule from reestablishing itself in India. Primarily the British were seen as a vessel by which the much-fantasized “Akhanda Bharata” could be established. From the Brahmin point of view, the British had already done the hard work by forcibly uniting the subcontinent into one big colony through the policy of “divide and rule” – by allying with the British, it was argued that one day the British would no longer to be able control the colony and would be handed over to them to rule. Hence both parties had much to gain from the other.
~ Discrimination of Muslims and Anti-Muslim sentiment ~
Prior to British rule, Persian was the lingua franca and a widely used official language of South Asia, primarily under the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire which had introduced the language to the region. Persian held official status in the court and the administration within these empires and was heavily influencing many of the local languages, particularly Khariboli which led to the formation of Urdu. Persian also strongly influenced Balochi, Pashto, Punjabi and Sindhi languages and cultures. Persian was most importantly seen as a unifying symbol of the Muslims of the subcontinent. It was used in courts, education and a mode of official communication. When British rule was established in 1857, the banning of Persian was deemed necessary as to psychologically destroy the Muslim community. Persian's official status was replaced with English as early as 1835 and after 1857, Persian was outright banned. English gradually replaced Persian in all walks of life. Coupled with this, Madrassas were forced to close down and replaced with state schools. This also had a very detrimental effect, as many Muslims would refrain from sending their children to British state run schools, as they were deemed untrustworthy. This further hampered the development of the community – while the Brahmins were being educated and being brought out of the medieval ages, the Muslims were increasingly becoming isolated and remained stuck in the medieval age. By the turn of the late 1800s, the Muslims had essentially become 2nd class citizens through institutionalized discrimination. The British rulers as well as the Brahmin elite saw Muslims as uneducated, violent and untrustworthy. This idea would eventually trickle down towards the rest of the Hindu community. An unhealthy environment had been created.
~ Muslim response ~
By the mid 1800s the Muslim community had all but collapsed into disarray. They were divided, isolated, uneducated and increasingly paranoid against British rule. The community was in distress, and in times of distress, humans tend to turn towards religion. Many Muslims turned towards the Masjid for help, support and guidance – this included many moderate and secular Muslims as well, who might not have been particularly religious, but were seen as part of the “Muslim problem”. One common misconception that Pakistanis have today is that the term "Muslim" only meant religious people. This is wrong...from a British perspective, every Muslim was viewed as an enemy of the state, despite the fact if they were conservatives, moderates or liberals. Even secular and non-practicing people with Muslim names were not spared from this institutionalized discrimination. Keep this in mind for later.
~ Social Power of Mullahs ~
One of the biggest benefactors of this distrust and fear was the Mullahs. As the British continued to support the Brahmin elite into power, Muslims continued to alienate themselves. This indirectly began giving large amounts of influence and power to Mullahs in local Muslim communities. In many cases, the Mullahs actually promoted the divide between the Muslims, British and Hindus. From the Mullah point of view, keeping the communities apart was socially and economically beneficial.
~ Muslim awakening ~
The movement for a Muslim self-awakening and identity was started by the Muslim modernist and reformer Syed Ahmad Khan. People like Sir Syed were witnessing how the Hindu community had, in some form, embraced British rule and were being rewarded for it, while Muslims had rejected British rule and were being punished. His strong advocacy for British education and political activism had inspired a large section of moderate and liberal Muslims. He hosted the Muhammadan Educational Conference in 1886 in a vision to uplift the cause for British education especially science and literature, among Muslims. The conference, in addition to generating funds for Sir Syed's Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), also motivated the Muslim upper class. The conservative Muslims led by the Mullahs opposed this concept outright and a divide began forming between the conservatives led by Mullahs and moderate led by Sir Syed. In turn, this new awareness of Muslims helped stimulate a political consciousness, which would help to establish the Muslim League in 1906, much to the despise of the Mullahs.
~ Muslim League Established ~
In December 1906, the Muslim League was established in Dhaka. Attended by 3000 delegates, its original political goal was to define and advance Muslim civil rights, which had been denied to them under the British-Brahmin alliance. Furthermore, the Muslim League attempted to “build bridges” between the Muslim community and British government, which had severely been dented during following the events surrounding 1857. In addition, the Muslim League wanted to forge good relationships with the Hindu majority and the Indian National Congress party. After World War 1 broke out, there was a degree of unity between Muslim and Hindu leaders, as typified by the Khilafat Movement. Relationships cooled sharply after that campaign ended in 1922.
~ Pakistan Movement ~
In 1928, communalism grew rapidly, forcing the Muslim League and Congress apart. At the leadership level, the proportion of Muslims among delegates to Congress fell sharply, from 11% in 1921 to under 4% in 1924. The League also rejected the Nehru Report, arguing that it gave too little representation (only one quarter) to Muslims, established Hindi (Devanagari) as the official language of the colony, and demanded that the colony turn into a de facto unitary state, with residuary powers resting at the centre – the League had demanded at least one-third representation in the legislature and sizeable autonomy for the Muslim provinces. Jinnah reported a "parting of the ways" after his requests for minor amendments to the proposal was denied by Congress leaders (dominated by Brahmins). Relations between the Congress and the League began to sour and the idea of an independent country was gaining traction. The poet philosopher Muhammad Iqbal provided the philosophical exposition and Barrister Muhammad Ali Jinnah translated it into the political reality of a nation-state. Allama Iqbal's presidential address to the Muslim League on 29 December 1930 is seen by some as the first exposition of the two-nation theory in support of what would ultimately become Pakistan.
~ Opposition ~
Congress naturally opposed Pakistan, but what’s more interesting is that Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam and Jamaat-e-Islami also opposed Pakistan. As mentioned earlier, a division had occurred in the late 1800s whereby moderate Muslims went on to form the Muslim League, while conservative Muslims remained isolated. In the 1930s and 1940s, some of those conservative Muslims became politicized and formed several different political parties to try and siphon off support from the Muslim League. They opposed the Muslim League and hence opposed Pakistan. An independent Muslim majority country would spell an end to the bitter conflict between Muslims and Hindus, and hence the power of the Mullah in Muslim communities would evaporate. With no “existential threat”, Muslims were free and it was argued would no longer need the Mullah or the Masjid.
~ Post Independence ~
Following Pakistan’s independence, we were established as a MUSLIM country. This wasn’t by accident – the Muslim League had no intention of wanting to create a nation based on an ideology (Islamism), which opposed it in the first place. It should be noted that some members of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam and Jamaat-e-Islami left those parties to support Pakistan’s independence. But it should be stressed that those were individuals, and not representatives of those parties. Between 1947 to 1977, a political conflict occurred between the moderate forces and conservative forces.
~ Death of Jinnah ~
The death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the biggest blow to Pakistan. He could have saved the ideology of the country had he been around for a few more years and given the nation concrete steps to follow forward. Instead as soon as Jinnah died, Mullahs saw this as an opportunity to takeover and take back what they had lost. Within 10 years, the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" was established in 1958. However, things remained relatively stable as progressive minded politicians kept the Mullahs at bay. However, coupled with the refusal of the military to allow democracy to mature, many Pakistanis began getting disillusioned with the immature democratic setup and "moderate forces". In the mid 1970s, political Islam would also begin spreading throughout the Muslim world, including Pakistan. In 1977 when General Zia ul Haq took over in a western backed military coup to overthrow Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, a leftist socialist, it spelled the end of Muslim Pakistan. Zia ul Haq is a man credited for all the problems of Islamic extremism we have today. He pandered to the Mullahs and specifically backed the Wahabi doctrine - the rest they say is sadly history.
~ Today: We Want Jinnah's Pakistan ~
When we say “we want Jinnah’s Pakistan”, it’s not because we’re delusional…it’s because Jinnah’s Pakistan has been stolen from us. In 1977, power was literally handed over to the same group of people whose forefathers opposed Pakistan. What good could possibly come from that? At present we're at a crossroads - we've seen what Islamism has done to Pakistan in the past decade and I believe people are waking up.
Me personally I have a completely different view on the two-nation theory. I've always argued that Pakistan should revert to an Indus nationalist ideology. However, I do understand the difficulties in this happening in my lifetime. That being said, when given the choice between the two, I would choose a Muslim Pakistan over an Islamic Pakistan any day of the week. A Muslim country would guarantee me personal independence and a right to believe in anything I want, including an Indus nationalist ideology which I strive for.
Bring back Jinnah's Pakistan.
For those interested in my Indus nationalist ideology, please read
