FOLLOW US:

Books and Documents
Islamic History (12 Feb 2010 NewAgeIslam.Com)
Sheikhul Islam Hazrat Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani

TOTAL COMMENTS:-   6
  • Anarchy of Zaid Hamid and Misinterpretation of Ghazawa-e-Hind [Where the Scholars are sleeping]




    Zaid Hamid

    Hafiz Ibn Kathir [Author of Tafseer Ibn Kathir] in his another book “Al Bidaya Wan Nihaya” [From the Beginning to End]’s last Volume “Al Nihaya Wal Bidaya” had discussed this Hadith of Ghazwa-e-Hind and in total had given names of more than one such Islami Military Campaigns on Hind [many Deobandis and other Mullahs in India and Pakistan too are now being apologetically say that many campaigns were not for the sake of Islam - what a joke] . The commentary by Ibn-e-Kathir [Mohaddis] on that “Ghazwa-e-Hind Hadith is worth reading and he interpreted that Hadith [with Historical References and Health of the Narrators' Chain] and clearly written that all those Islamic Armies who launched expedition on Hind [Ibn Kathir was an Scholar of Hadith and History and his School of Thought was of same which is now followed in Saudi Arabia and Wahabi Belt] were Jihad and he included Mohammad Bin Qasim and Mahmood Bin Subugtagin [Mehmood Ghaznavi] and many other Turks Kings. He included China and Central Asia while interpreting these Hadiths. [Reference: Authenticity of Hadiths anc Narrators get Al Taqreeb by Ibn Hajar Asqalani.]

    And before Muhammad Bin Qasim’s Army.

    Abdullah Shah Ghazi is considered to be patron saint of Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. The dargah of Abdullah Shah Ghazi is located in Clifton neighborhood of Saddar Town in Karachi. The real name of Abdullah Shah Ghazi was Abdulla bin Nahban and he was a General in Umayyad Army who died at Debal while trying to conquer Sindh in 711 CE. This army was led by Abdulla bin Nahban and Badil bin Tuhfa, respectively and were both defeated at Debal. According to Dr. Daud Pota the tomb of Abdullah Shah at Clifton in Karachi is of this General, Abdulla bin Nabhan. [Nuzahat ul Khawatir by Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi Former Head of Daul Uloom Deoband and his father Abdul Hai Nadvi]

    Hadith of Ghazawa-e-Hind is narrated by Hazrat Thuban [May Allah be pleased with him] in Sunnan Nisa’i Chapter Ghazwatul Hind] wherein Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had said

    “QUOTE”

    “Muslims would wage a Jihad in Hind and if it happens in my [PBUH] life then I [PBUH] will spent my [PBUH] life and money and I [PBUH] am martyred then I will be “Chief of Martyr” and If I return alive then I will be like Abu Huraira [May Allah be pleased with him] who is free from Hell.

    “UNQUOTE”

    All narrators in the chain of narration are truthful [in Arabic Term for Hadith Narrator is "Thiqqa and Saduq"] but one narrator’s background is unknown “Majhool ul Hal” and his name was Abu Bakar Al Zubaidi. [Al Taqreeb by Asqalani, Al Kashif by Imam Zahbi, Sahih Jameh As Sagher by Albani with the reference of Musnad Ahmed, and Imam Muqdasi's Zia Mukhtara] – Read two comment wherein I have quote Haifz Ibn-e-Kathir and his commentary on this Hadith to clear the confusion.

    Note: Any mistake in literal translation would be unintentional and regretted, if I am wrong somewhere please correct me.

    Another View:

    Basically some Shias murdered the Ummayad’s Governor of Mekran and took shelter in Sindh with Raja Dahar hence the campaign against Sindh launched by Hajjaj Bin Yousuf [Governor Basra] and Father In Law as well as Paternal Uncle of Muhammad Bin Qasim and when Hajjaj died the next Caliph called Muhammad Bin Qasim back and imprisoned him and tortured him to death in Wasit Prison of Iraq [Tareekh Ibn-e-Khladun] – The only ancient source on Sindh History is Chach Nama but there are many versions by different names Fateh nama Sindh, Tarekh-e-Hind wa Sindh, The Chach Nama was written by Kàzí Ismáíl . Kází Ismàíl was appointed the first Kází of Alór by Muhammad Kásim after the conquest of the place. Translation is as under:
    More in The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/416177/The-ChachnamaAn-Ancient-History-of-Sind

    Please keep one thing in Mind that First Islamic Army rather a Trade Delegation had arrived in South India [Malabar] during the Rule of Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] – The first ship bearing Muslim travelers was seen on the Indian coast as early as 630 AD. H.G. Rawlinson, in his book: Ancient and Medieval History of India claims the first Arab Muslims settled on the Indian coast in the last part of the 7th century AD.

    Reference :

    Ancient and Medieval History of India by H.G. Rawlinson

    Sturrock, J.,South Canara and Madras District Manual (2 vols., Madras, 1894-1895)

    Cultural Heritage of India Vol. IV

    In September 2000, eminent Pakistani historian Mubarak Ali wrote an article, “How Many Qasims, Ghaznavis, and Ghoris Do We Need?” analyzing the valorization of Arabs and Turks who ravished the land that is now Pakistan, in school textbooks. Ali observed that Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazni and Shihabuddin Ghori emerged as powerful symbols in Muslim politics in the context of the 1930s’ communal atmosphere in India, but their continued aggrandizement had disastrous consequences for Pakistan.

    Back to present days:

    Zaid and other Mullahs [they misinterpret Ghazaw-e-Hind Hadith and this misinterpretation was started by Maulana Akram Awan before the start of Kargil to hound Nawaz Shairf - Akram Awan's party accept disciples in their Jamat after they take approval from Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and that too after arranging a meeting of would be disciple with Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) just imagine Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is dead and dead don't come back]. Let me tell you one more thing Akram Awan have two more important member in his Jamat i.e. Major General (R) Zahirul Islam and Brig {R} Mustansir Billah [both were fixed in a false case of Treason by a Former General and DG of MI i.e Ali Quli Khan]. Ali Kuli Khan wanted to become COAS therefore he designed this whole conspiracy case against Abbasi and Billa that they are paving way for Islamic Revolution in the country [go through the newspapers/magainzens (Pakistani) from 1990 to 1994] but Al Quli Khan couldn’t become COAS. These Officers had also approached Mufit Nizamuddin Shamzai [May Allah have mercy on his soul - Chief of Binnori Town Karachi] for his help and also Mawlana Yousuf Ludhiyanvi [May Allah have mercy on his soul] and asked for help for Islamic Revolution and both of these officers got a very befitting replies from both the Scholars In their own words

    “QUOTE”

    “Yeh Aap Logoon Ko Islami Inquilab Ka Khayal Us Waqt Kiyon Aata Hai Jub Wardi Utar Jati Hai” [Why is it so that you came up with the idea to bring in Islamic Revolution after you are no more in Uniform]

    “UNQUOTE”

    Here is Sheikh Muhammad Akram Awan of Ghazwa-e-Hind and his website:http://www.naqshbandiaowaisiah.com/index.htmlhttp://www.ghazwatulhind.com/
    Note: In the first URL that there is A SEAL of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] is pasted on the left side of the website [Copy of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)'s Seal is engraved] whereas Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] had stopped us to remake that seal [Bukhari].

    I wonder since when Sufis of Naqshabandi Owaisi Order started talking in the term of
    “Strategic Depths”?

    Can he prove Sufism through Quran and Hadith because the word itself a Bida’at [Innovation] and appeared 2 centuries after the death of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH].
    ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????
    Shaikh Silsilah Naqshbandiah Owaisiah
    http://owaisiah.com/

    These nincompoops often forget that Siljoq, Tughlaq, Ghaznavis, Lodhis, Behman, Mughals invaded/occupied/ruled parts of India and some of them large parts of India and ruled over India successfully particularly the Mughals ruled India with impunity for more than 200 years. What would be the status of their Armies and their War. They are least bothered to even pay attention to the word in that Hadith “Ghazwa” – Ghazwa are those battles wherein Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] participated. Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] is dead hence such battles cannot be called “Ghazwa”. Version of Zaid Hamid and Akram Awan is not supported If we carefully read the original text of that Hadith what to talk of commentary of Ibn Kathir on the Hadith of Ghazwa-e- Hind which completely refute the bunkum of Zaid Hamid and Akram Awan.


    Zaid Hamid, a Leader in the making! Would be a nightmare Posted by Dr. Mohsin AnsariFebruary 2, 2010 http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2010/02/02/zaid-hamid-would-be-a-nightmare


    A brief, and incomplete, historical context to Zaid Hamidism – by Khawer A. KhanFebruary 5th, 2010 http://criticalppp.org/lubp/archives/5383


    By Aamir Mughal -
  • MULLAH FACTORY OF DEOBAND???

    Masood Azhar, right, accompanied by leader of Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen Mufti Nizamuddin, speaks at Karachi press club on Friday
    Masood Azhar, right, accompanied by leader of Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen Mufti Nizamuddin, speaks at Karachi press club on Friday. — PTI  http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000206/world.htm

    “QUOTE”

    He also extended support to the Taliban government in Afghanistan. He issued a Fatwa against the US when it launched an invasion of Afghanistan. In February 2001, he, along with the late Maulana Yousuf Ludhyanvi, pledged his loyalty to Maulana Masood Azhar of the Jaish-i-Mohammad. Maulana Shamzai remained associated with many religious parties, including Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Fazlur Rahman group), Aalami Khatm-i- Nabowwat and Mufti Mahmood Academy. Maulana Shamzai leaves behind his widow, three sons and five daughters. Life-sketch of Shamzai By Our Staff Reporter 31 May 2004 Monday 11 Rabi-us-Saani 1425 http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/31/nat7.htm

    “UNQUOTE”


    “QUOTE”

    This view is reinforced by the contradictory statements of Pakistani officials. On December 7, Pakistani authorities issued a statement that Azhar, the founder of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, had been placed under house arrested at his Bahawalpur residence in Punjab. But on December 17, first the Pakistan envoy to New Delhi and then Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi stunned everybody by saying that Azhar was at large and not in Pakistan. Azhar, a firebrand orator in favor of jihad although he has never been a combatant, was arrested in India in 1994 over his connections with the Kashmiri separatist group Harkatul Mujahideen. In December 1999, Azhar was freed along with separatist guerrillas Mushtaq Zargar and Omar Shiekh (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) by the Indian government in exchange for passengers on the hijacked Indian Airlines Flight 814 that was held hostage in Kandahar, Afghanistan, under Taliban control. In 2000, Azhar, claimed by Pakistan to have never entered Pakistan, announced the formation of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, at a press briefing at the Karachi Press Club, along with the now slain Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai. Jaish was banned in 2002 under US pressure, but Azhar remained close to the Pakistani establishment, mainly because he refused to support al-Qaeda against the Pakistan military. Why Pakistan’s military is gun shy
    By Syed Saleem Shahzad South Asia Dec 24, 2008 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JL24Df03.html

    “UNQUOTE”


    “FROM DAILY DAWN 2000?

    “QUOTE”

    Hijackers get three freedom fighters released Week Ending : 01 January 2000 Issue : 06/01 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/01jan00.html

    KANDAHAR, Dec 31: The eight-day hijacking of an Indian airliner with 160 people on board came to a sudden end on New Year’s Eve after India bowed to demands to release three Kashmiri freedom Fighters. After five days of intense negotiations, the five hijackers gave up peacefully just after Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh arrived in Kandahar with the three Mujahideen whose release had been demanded by the hijackers. Wearing masks and armed with pistols, the five hijackers descended from the Airbus A300, got into a van and were driven away from the airport.

    Shortly afterwards the passengers, trapped and blindfolded for long stretches inside the plane since Dec 24, began to emerge. The 160 passengers and crew were immediately driven in buses to two waiting Indian aircraft and flown to India. Those released included the widow of the only fatality during the hijacking – a newlywed Indian who was stabbed to death, apparently for peeking at the hijackers through his blindfold when the plane was seized on Christmas Eve en route from Kathmandu to New Delhi. The plane eventually landed in Kandahar, the Taliban headquarters, on Saturday after crisscrossing South Asia and the Gulf. “As a result of the negotiations with the Taliban and the hijackers, there has been an agreement for the release of all the hostages in exchange for three militants,” Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra told reporters in New Delhi.

    He identified the three Mujahideen as Maulana Masood Azhar, Mushtaq Zargar and Ahmad Umar Syed. One of the key issues in the negotiations had been the fate of the hijackers. But Singh scotched rumours they would be given political asylum by the Taliban in Afghanistan, saying they had just 10 hours to leave the country. It was not immediately clear what had happened to the three Kashmiris freed from Indian jails when they arrived in Afghanistan. Azhar, a charismatic scholar arrested in held Kashmir in 1994, was a senior leader of the Harkat-ul-Ansar, one of several hardline Muslim groups fighting Indian occupation forces in Kashmir. India has accused the Harkat of staging the hijacking. Zargar is described by Indian officials as one of the founding fathers of “militancy” in held Kashmir.-AFP

    “UNQUOTE”


    Masood Azher: An Apt Pupil/Khalifa of Leftist Humanist Deobandi Scholars Yousuf Ludhiyanvi, Mufti Rasheed, Nizamuddin Shamzai and many others:

    “QUOTE”

    He released a letter written in June 1996 by former interior minister Gen (retd) Naseerullah Babar, to the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad seeking Masood’s release on humanitarian grounds. In the letter, Khan described Masood as a young “Pakistani journalist… (who) travelled to India in February 1994 on a Portuguese passport under the name of Essa bin Adam. Apparently he had gone to India to see the conditions in Jammu and Kashmir himself for some report for his magazine”. REFERENCE: Indian plane’s hijacking: Pakistan seeks Nepalese findings Week Ending : 8 January 2000 Issue : 06/02 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/08jan00.html

    Rubin further said Pakistan must assure the safety of US citizens, Indians and all foreigners in their country. “We would hold the government of Pakistan responsible for Masood’s activities which threaten the lives of our citizens. Masood Azhar is the secretary general of the renamed ‘terrorist’ organization. REF: US warns Pakistan over Azhar’s threats. Week Ending : 8 January 2000 Issue : 06/02 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/08jan00.html

    “QUOTE”

    News item – “Leaders of religious organizations have said that Khatam-i-Nabuwat conference shall be held today at Mosque Aisha, Sector 11-B North Karachi, under any circumstances. And today evening, in an emergency meeting, central office bearers of Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam, Sipah-i-Sahaba, Pakistan Shariat Council, Sawad-i-Azam Ahl-i-Sunnat, International Khatam-i-Nabuwat, Tanzeem Ulema-i-Pakistan, Jaish Muhammad, Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami shall declare strategy for resisting mosque demolition.

    “Deputy Secretary General of Pakistan Shariat Council and head of Tehrik-i-Ansar-ul-Islam, Maulana Abdul Rasheed Ansari, has said in his statement that in the eyes of Mohtasib, liquor stores are sacred instead of mosque. Mohtasib has issued directions on the advice of English newspaper columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee and minorities member of dissolved Sindh Assembly, Mehromal Jagwani. He said that his crime was that some weeks back he had taken a strong stand and made a speech against Cowasjee in a local hotel and asked Mohtasib Haziq-ul-Khairi to cancel licence of liquor stores established in Muslim neighbourhoods and the selling of liquor to Muslims.

    “Mohtasib Sindh was given video film of liquor being sold to Muslims and was told that employees of these stores not only sold liquor to Muslims but these Hindu employees supply illegally to local five-star hotel. Cowasjee got out demolition order for Mosque Aisha by using his influence over Mohtasib Sindh, but licences for these liquor stores have not been cancelled; instead these stores remain open on Shab-i-Barat also. “Moulana Abdur Rashid Ansari has said that today, November 13, in Khatam-i-Nabuwat conference, prominent religious scholars Maulana Manzoor Ahmed Chinioti, Maulana Fida-ul-Rehman Darkhuasty, Maulana Ajmal Qadri, Maulana Asas Thanvi, Maulana Qari Sher Afzal, Maulana Asfandyar, Maulana Ikram-ul-Haq Khairi, Qari Saeed Qamar Qasmi and other shall address the gathering. Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, Maulana Azam Tariq and Maulana Masood Azhar have decided to come to Karachi. We want a peaceful demonstration but if administration creates any trouble, then it shall be responsible for any consequences.” REFERENCE: Man bites dog Ardeshir Cowasjee DATED Week Ending : 25 November 2000 Issue : 06/45 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/nov2500.html

    “UNQUOTE”



    By Aamir Mughal -
  • Effects of Spiritual Guidance of Deoband


    Even Much before 911:

    In 1995, the Unocal oil company signed a tentative agreement with the Turkmenistan government to research the possibilities of constructing an oil pipeline to Pakistan by way of Afghanistan.

    As the project developed, Unocal began to seek the agreement of the Taliban, who had seized power in Kabul in September 1996. On two separate occasions, in February and December 1997, Taliban officials were flown to the US to meet with, and be wined and dined by, Unocal executives.

    Up until 1998, when it became clear that the Taliban were in alliance with the al Qaeda terrorist network, Clinton administration officials actively lobbied Taliban officials on behalf of Unocal.

    In 1997, Zalmay Khalilzad, at that time a consultant with Cambridge Energy Research Associates, conducted risk assessments for Unocal on their proposed 1440 kilometre pipeline project to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan.

    A member of the Project for a New American Century lobby group set up by current US Vice-President Dick Cheney and US war secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 1997, Khalilzad was appointed by President George Bush in December 2001 to be the US Special Envoy to Afghanistan, supervising the creation of Karzai’s regime.

    “QUOTE”

    The following chronology tracks Unocal’s involvement in the pipeline project:

    October 1995 Unocal and Turkmenistan signed an agreement to give Unocal the right to buy natural gas, transport it to Pakistan, and market it. Unocal and Turkmenistan also signed an agreement in 1995 to develop an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

    August 13, 1996 Unocal and Delta Oil Company announced they had signed a memorandum of understanding with Gazprom and Turkmenrusgaz as additions to a consortium to build a pipeline that would cost an estimated $2 billion. Unocal and Delta were to hold 85 percent of the project.

    September 26, 1996 Taliban forces took the capital city of Kabul. The United States initially expressed optimism about the possibility of new stability in the country, with a State Department spokesman reportedly expressing hope that “the new authorities in Kabul will move quickly to restore order and security and to form a representative interim government that can begin the process of reconciliation nationwide.” The State Department backed away from this position within days, calling the situation “quite murky.” Similarly, a Unocal executive reportedly told wire services that the pipeline project would be easier to build with the Taliban’s control of Kabul; Unocal quickly retracted this statement. Sources: Elaine Sciolino, State Dept. becomes cooler to the new rulers in Kabul, New York Times, October 23, 1996. Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press, 2001).

    February 1997 Taliban representatives visited Washington D.C., where they met with State Department officials and Unocal. Source: Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press, 2001).

    October 1997 The Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium was formed, with Unocal serving as its development manager. Source: here.

    November 1997 Taliban representatives met with Unocal in Houston. According to a report by Caroline Lees of the Telegraph, the Taliban representatives visited the Houston zoo, NASA space center, a Super Target store, and the home of a Unocal vice-president. Source: Caroline Lees, “Oil barons court Taliban in Texas,” Sunday Telegraph, December 14, 1997

    August 1998 The United States launched a cruise missile attack against a training camp affiliated with Osama Bin Laden. Immediately afterwards, Unocal announced that it had suspended all activities involving the proposed pipeline project, citing “sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region.” “We have consistently informed the other participants that unless and until the United Nations and the United States government recognize a legitimate government in Afghanistan, Unocal would not invest capital in the project. Contrary to some published reports, Unocal has not – and will not – become a party to a commercial agreement with any individual Afghan faction.”

    December 4, 1998 Unocal announced that it had withdrawn from the CentGas consortium for “business reasons” and that it “no longer has any role in supporting the development or funding of this project.”

    February 16, 1999 Unocal reiterated that it had no role with CentGas.

    May 20, 2002 Unocal’s chairman reiterated that it had no plans to become involved in any projects with Afghanistan.

    Source: Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press, 2001). Elaine Sciolino, State Dept. becomes cooler to the new rulers in Kabul, New York Times, October 23, 1996. Caroline Lees, “Oil barons court Taliban in Texas,” Sunday Telegraph, December 14, 1997. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s report on Afghanistan is on-line here.

    “UNQUOTE”


    Pakistan: The Myth of an Islamist Peril By Frederic Grare Publisher: Carnegie Endowment Policy Brief #45, February 2006 – Click on link for the full text of this Carnegie Paperhttp://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/45.grare.final.pdf

    “How Afghanistan’ s Stern Rulers Took Power,” by JOHN F. BURNS and STEVE Levine, New York Times, December 31, 1996 [LINK IS DEAD]

    When neighbors came to Mullah Mohammed Omar in the spring of 1994, they had a story that was shocking even by the grim standards of Afghanistan’ s 18-year-old civil war.

    Two teen-age girls from the mullah’s village of Singesar had been abducted by one of the gangs of mujahedeen, or ”holy warriors,” who controlled much of the Afghan countryside. The girls’ heads had been shaved, they had been taken to a checkpoint outside the village and they had been repeatedly raped.

    At the time, Mullah Omar was an obscure figure, a former guerrilla commander against occupying Soviet forces who had returned home in disgust at the terror mujahedeen groups were inflicting on Afghanistan.

    He was living as a student, or talib, in a mud-walled religious school that centered on rote learning of the Koran.

    But the girls’ plight moved him to act. Gathering 30 former guerrilla fighters, who mustered between them 16 Kalashnikov rifles, he led an attack on the checkpoint, freed the girls and tied the checkpoint commander by a noose to the barrel of an old Soviet tank. As those around him shouted ”God is Great!” Mullah Omar ordered the tank barrel raised and left the dead man hanging as a grisly warning.

    The Singesar episode is now part of Afghan folklore. Barely 30 months after taking up his rifle, Mullah Omar is the supreme ruler of most of Afghanistan. The mullah, a heavyset 38-year old who lost his right eye in the war against the Russians, is known to his followers as Prince of All Believers. He leads an Islamic religious movement, the Taliban, that has conquered 20 of Afghanistan’ s 32 provinces.

    Mullah Omar’s call to arms in Singesar is only part of the story of the rise of the Taliban that emerged from weeks of traveling across Afghanistan and from scores of interviews with Afghans, diplomats and others who followed the movement from its earliest days in 1994. It is a story that is still unfolding, with the Taliban struggling to consolidate their hold on Kabul, the capital. The city fell three months ago to a Taliban force of a few thousand fighters, who entered the city with barely a shot fired.

    But the Taliban, despite their protestations of independence, did not score their successes alone. Pakistani leaders saw domestic political gains in supporting the movement, which draws most of support from the ethnic Pashtun who predominate along the Pakistan-Afghanista n border.

    Perhaps more important, Pakistan’s leaders, in funneling supplies of ammunition, fuel and food to the Taliban, hoped to advance an old Pakistani dream of linking their country, through Afghanistan, to an economic and political alliance with the Muslim states of Central Asia.

    At crucial moments during the two years of the Taliban’s rise to power, the United States stood aside. It did little to discourage support for the Afghan mullahs both from Pakistan and from another American ally, Saudi Arabia, which found its own reasons for supporting the Taliban in their conservative brand of Islam.

    American officials emphatically deny the assertion, widely believed among the Taliban’s opponents in Afghanistan, that the United States offered the movement covert support. American diplomats’ frequent visits to Kandahar, headquarters of the Taliban’s governing body, the officials insist, were mainly exploratory.

    In fact, American policy on the Taliban has seesawed back and forth. The Taliban have found favor with some American officials, who see in their implacable hostility toward Iran an important counterweight in the region. But other officials remain uncomfortable about the Taliban’s policies on women, which they say have created the most backward-looking and intolerant society anywhere in Islam. And they say that the Taliban, despite promises to the contrary, have done nothing to root out the narcotics traffickers and terrorists who have found a haven in Afghanistan under the mujahedeen.

    In its most recent policy statement on Afghanistan, the State Department called on other nations to ”engage” with the Taliban in hopes of moderating their policies. But the statement came as the Taliban were tightening still further their Islamic social code, particularly the taboos that have banned women from working, closed girls’ schools, and required all women beyond puberty to cloak themselves head to toe in garments called burqas that are the traditional garb of Afghan village women. The result, so far, is that not a single one of the member countries of the United Nations has recognized the Taliban government and none have come forward with offers of the reconstruction aid the Taliban say will be needed to rebuild this shattered country. In the words of Mullah Mohammed Hassan, one of Mullah Omar’s partners in the Taliban’s ruling council, ”We are the pariahs of the world.”

    On the Rise

    Catching the Tide Of Discontent

    How the Taliban succeeded in pacifying much of a country that had spent years spiraling into chaos is not, as their progress from Singesar to Kabul attests, primarily a question of military prowess. Much more, it was a matter of a group of Islamic nationalists catching a high tide of discontent that built up when the mujahedeen turned from fighting Russians to plundering, and just as often killing, their own people. By 1994, after five years of mujahedeen terror, the Taliban was a movement whose time had come.

    One man who has seen more of the Taliban than any other outsider, Rahimullah Yusufzai, a reporter for The News in Pakistan, put it simply: ”The story of the Taliban is not one of outsiders imposing a solution, but of the Afghans themselves seeking deliverance from mujahedeen groups that had become cruel and inhuman. The Afghan people had been waiting a long time for relief from their miseries, and they would have accepted anybody who would have freed them from the tyranny.”

    In any case, Mullah Omar contends that the decision to act at Singesar was not, at the time, envisaged as a step toward power.

    Although he is universally known in Afghanistan as mullah, or giver of knowledge, he is a shy man who still calls himself a talib, or seeker after knowledge. He has met only once with a foreign reporter, Mr. Yusufzai. Mullah Omar said at their meeting in Kandahar that the men at Singesar intended originally only to help local villagers.

    ”We were fighting against Muslims who had gone wrong,” he said. ”How could we remain quiet when we could see crimes being committed against women, and the poor?”

    But appeals were soon coming in from villages all around Kandahar. At about the time the two girls were being abducted in Singesar, which is in the Maiwand district 35 miles to the west, two other mujahedeen commanders had confronted each other with tanks in a bazaar in Kandahar, arguing over possession of a young boy both men wanted as a homosexual partner.

    In the ensuing battle, dozens of civilians shopping and trading in the bazaar were killed. After the Taliban took control of Kandahar, those commanders, too, ended up hanging from Taliban nooses.

    With each new action against the mujahedeen, the Taliban’s manpower, and arsenal, grew. Mujahedeen fighters, and sometimes whole units, switched sides, so that the Taliban quickly came to resemble a coalition of many of the country’s fighting groups. The new recruits included many men who had served in crucial military positions as pilots, tank commanders and front-line infantry officers in the Afghan Communist forces that fought under Soviet control in the 1980’s.

    After a skirmish in September 1994 at Spinbaldak, on the border with Pakistan netted the new movement 800 truckloads of arms and ammunition that had been stored in caves since the Soviet occupation, there was no force to match the Taliban. Moving rapidly east and west of Kandahar in the winter of 1994 and the spring of 1995, they rolled up territory. Sometimes, using money said to have come from Saudi Arabia, Taliban commanders paid mujahedeen commanders to give up.

    But mostly, it was enough for Taliban units to appear on the horizon with the fluttering white flags symbolizing their Islamic puritanism. ”In most places, the people welcomed the Taliban as a deliverance, so there was no need to fight,” recalled Mr. Yusufzai, the Pakistani reporter, who has spent more time with the Taliban than any other outsider.

    Another event in September 1994 gave the Taliban their most important external backer. Naseerullah Babar, Pakistan’s Interior Minister, had a vision for extricating his wedge-shaped country from the precarious position in which it was placed when it was created in 1947 by the partition of India from territories running along British India’s frontiers with Afghanistan.

    Mr. Babar saw a Pakistan linked to the newly independent Muslim republics of what had been Soviet Central Asia, along roads and railways running across Afghanistan. He believed that stability in Afghanistan would mean a potential economic bonanza for Pakistan and a strategic breakthrough for the West. ”It was in the West’s overall interest,” he said in an interview in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. ”Unless the Central Asian states have an opening to the sea, they will never be free from Russia.”

    With the rise of Taliban power around Kandahar, Mr. Babar spied a chance to prove the vision’s practicability. Using Pakistan Government funds, he arranged a ”peace convoy” of heavily loaded trucks to run rice, clothing and other gifts north from Quetta in Pakistan, through Kandahar, and onward to Ashkhabad, the capital of Turkmenistan.

    But outside the American-built airport at Kandahar, a mujahedeen commander guarding one of the thousands of checkpoints that had made an obstacle course of any Afghan journey seized the convoy, demanding ransom. Once again, the Taliban intervened, freeing the convoy and hanging, again from a tank barrel, the commander who hijacked it.

    Mr. Babar’s subsequent enthusiasm for the Taliban gave rise to a widespread belief among the the group’s opponents that they were a Pakistani creation, or at least that their growing military power was sustained by cash, arms and ammunition from Pakistan. Because of Pakistan’s close ties with the United States, it was a short step for these Taliban opponents to conclude that Washington was also backing the Taliban.

    After Kabul fell in September, Americans venturing into non-Taliban areas north of Kabul faced a common taunt from soldiers of the ousted Government of President Burhanuddin Rabbani. ”The Taliban are American puppets!” they said.

    But while that was not accurate, there were ties between American officials and the growing movement that were considerably broader than those to any other Western country.

    From early on, American diplomats in Islamabad had made regular visits to Kandahar to see Taliban leaders. In briefings for reporters, the diplomats cited what they saw as positive aspects of the Taliban, which they listed as a capacity to end the war in Afghanistan and its promises to put an end to the use of Afghanistan as a base for narcotics trafficking and international terrorism.

    Unmentioned, but probably most important to Washington, was that the Taliban, who are Sunni Muslims, have a deep hostility for Iran, America’s nemesis, where the ruling majority belong to the rival Shiite sect of Islam.

    Along the way, Washington developed yet another interest in the Taliban as potential backers for a 1,200-mile gas pipeline that an American energy company, Union Oil Company of California, has proposed building from Quetta, in Pakistan, to Turkmenistan, a former Soviet republic that sits atop some of the world’s largest gas reserves, but has limited means to export them.

    The project, which Unocal executives have estimated could cost $5 billion, would be built in conjunction with the Delta Oil Company, a Saudi Arabian concern that also has close links to the Taliban. Among the advisers Unocal has employed to deal with the Taliban is Robert B. Oakley, a former American Ambassador to Pakistan.

    American officials, however, denied providing any direct assistance, covert or otherwise, to the Taliban. Similar assurances were given to Russia and India, as well as indirectly to Iran, countries that were involved in heavy arms shipments of their own to the Taliban’s main opponents, the armies of Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum and President Rabbani that control the 12 northern provinces that continue to resist the Taliban.

    ”We do not have any relationship with the Taliban, and we never have had,” David Cohen, the Central Intelligence Agency official who directs the agency’s clandestine operations, told Indian officials in New Delhi in November.

    Mr. Babar offered similar denials, asserting that ”there has been no financial or material aid to the Taliban from Pakistan.” But Western intelligence officials in Pakistan said the denials were a smokescreen for a policy of covert support that Mr. Babar, a retired Pakistani general, had extended to the Taliban after the convoy episode at Kandahar airport.

    That support, the intelligence officials said, apart from ammunition and fuel, included the deployment at crucial junctures of Pakistani military advisers. The advisers were easy to hide, since they were almost all ethnic Pashtuns, from the same tribe that make up an overwhelming majority of the Taliban.

    Gaining Support To U.S. Diplomats A Rosy Picture

    American officials like Robin Raphel, the top State Department official dealing directly with matters involving Afghanistan, have placed heavy emphasis on the hope that contacts with the new rulers in Kabul will encourage them to soften their policies, especially toward women.

    They also say that the United States sees the Taliban, with its Islamic conservatism, as the best, and perhaps the only, chance that Afghanistan will halt the poppy growing and opium production that have made Afghanistan, with an estimated 2,500 tons of raw opium a year, the world’s biggest single-country source of the narcotic. A similar argument is made on the issue of the network of international terrorists, many of them Arabs, who have set up bases inside Afghanistan.

    But as the Taliban consolidate their power in Kabul, the signs of cooperation are not strong. In the week before Christmas, as bitterly cold winds from the 20,000-foot Hindu Kush mountains swept down on Kabul, senior Taliban officials seemed to be in a more pugnacious mood than in October, when a counteroffensive by the Rabbani and Dostum forces came within 10 miles of Kabul.

    The attacking forces have since been driven back beyond artillery range, allowing the Taliban to concentrate on tightening their grip on Kabul’s restive population of 1.5-million.

    The sense that those Taliban leaders now give is that they see little reason to accommodate the West. Reports from United Nations officials monitoring drug flows suggest the Taliban have done nothing to impede the trafficking and that in the key provinces of Helmand and Nangarhar — accounting for more than 90 per cent of the opium production — they are in league with the drug producers, taxing them, and storing some of the opium in Taliban-guarded warehouses.

    Turning Away Elusive Positions On West’s Concerns

    Confronted with these reports, Taliban leaders have a stock response. ”We intend to stop the drug trafficking, because it is against Islamic laws,” they have said. ”But until we can rebuild our economy, there are no other jobs, so now is not the time.”

    The Taliban position on those who support international terrorists is still more elusive. According to Western intelligence estimates, as many as 400 trained terrorists are living in areas under Taliban control, some of them with links to the groups that mounted the bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993 and other major attacks, including the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in Ethiopia in 1995 and attacks in France by Algerian militants.

    One of the most-wanted men of all, Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian businessman who has been called one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremists in the world by the State Department, has been spotted within the past month at a heavily guarded home in the Afghan city of Jalalabad, held by the Taliban since early September.

    But it is on their treatment of women that Western governments’ attitudes seem most likely to hinge, and on that matter the Taliban show no sign of relenting. After a Taliban radio bulletin earlier this month celebrated the fact that 250 Kabul women had been beaten by Taliban in a single day for not observing the dress code, an Australian working as a coordinator for private Western aid agencies in Kabul, Ross Everson, visited one of the city’s top Taliban officials, Mullah Mohammed Mutaqi, to appeal for a turn toward what Mr. Everson called ”the doctrine of moderation that the Islamic faith is famous for.” Mullah Mutaqi stood up and waved his fist in Mr. Everson’s face. ”You are insulting us,” he said, Then, snuggling back into the blanket that Taliban officials wear around their shoulders for warmth in the unheated offices of Kabul, he made his clinching argument. ”I must ask you, are you the Muslim here, or am I?” he said. ”If you Westerners want to help us, you are welcome. Otherwise you are free to leave Afghanistan. You may think we cannot survive without you, but I can tell you, God will provide the Taliban with everything we need.”


    By Aamir Mughal -
  • This is how Deobandis are used [and they never knew what hit them]!

    Before 911:

    Four months ago, U.S. officials announced that Washington was giving $43 million to the Taliban for its role in reducing the cultivation of opium poppies, despite the Taliban’s heinous human rights record and its sheltering of Islamic terrorists of many nationalities. Doesn’t this make the U.S. government guilty of supporting a country that harbors terrorists? Do you think your obsession with the “war on drugs” has distorted U.S. foreign policy in Southwest Asia and other regions?

    When the CIA was busy doling out an estimated $2 billion to support the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were hailed as anti-communist freedom fighters. During the cold war, U.S. national security strategists, many of whom are riding top saddle once again in your administration, didn’t view bin Laden’s fanatical religious beliefs as diametrically opposed to western civilization. But now bin Laden and his ilk are unabashed terrorists. Definitions of what constitutes terror and terrorism seem to change with the times. Before he became vice president, Dick Cheney and the U.S. State Department denounced Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress, as a terrorist. Today Mandela, South Africa’s president emeritus, is considered a great and dignified statesman. And what about Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who bears significant responsibility for the 1982 massacre of 1,800 innocents at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. What role will Sharon play in your crusade against international terrorism?

    13 Questions for Bush about America’s Anti-terrorism Crusade By Martin A. Lee, AlterNet. Posted September 28, 2001.


    By Aamir Mughal -
  • A Different Kind of Deobandis with a Twist:)

    Darul Uloom Deoband of India & General Pervez Musharraf [Before 911 Pro Taliban - US Backed Military Dictator of Pakistan - 1999 - 2008]

    Comprehensive Coverage of the Three-day Deobandi Conference Held in Pakistan on April 9, 2001 April 25, 2001

    An estimated half a million delegates recently attended the International Deoband Conference at Taro Jaba near Peshawar. While the bulk of the delegates came from madrassas in Pakistan, there were also a number of them from Afghanistan and India.

    The conference was organised by the Jamiat Ulema-I-Islam of Pakistan headed by Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a cleric from the North West Frontier Province. Libya had sent a high-ranking envoy, Abdullah Jibran, to the conference. He read out a special message from Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. According to reports from Pakistan a number of Deobandi leaders from India attended the conference including the highly respected Maulana Asad Madni and the vice-chancellor of the Dar ul Uloom, Deoband, Maulana Marghoob-ul-Rahman.

    The organisers of the conference, the JUI, have a continuing history of support for terrorist groups made up of fundamentalist, religious fanatics. They came into prominence during the CIA and ISI-supported struggle against Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

    They were somewhat marginalised by General Zia-ul Haq, who extended greater support to groups close to the Jamat Islami, then headed by a relative of General Zia — Mian Tufial Ahmed. But, when the Benazir Bhutto government decided to arm and train a new force for the ISI’s Afghan jehad in 1996, they turned to their coalition partner Maulana Fazlur Rahman to provide the cadres and leadership of the Taleban from the madrassas the JUI controlled in the NWFP and Baluchistan. The Taleban emerged from these madrassas to take control of most of Afghanistan with the active support of the ISI that provided arms, training and even officers and men from the Pakistan army, to participate in its military operations. The JUI has not confined its activities to supporting the Taleban alone. When the ISI decided that secular groups like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front had to be sidelined in Jammu and Kashmir, it started supporting fanatical Jehadi terrorist groups like the Harkat-ul Ansar, which is now known as the Harkat-ul Mujahideen. It is well known that the supporters of the Harkat are linked to the JUI and that they have camps in Pakistan and in Taleban controlled areas of Afghanistan.

    The hijacking of IC-814 to Kandahar was organised by the Harkat-ul Mujahideen. The detained Harkat leader Maulana Masood Azhar, who was released and taken to Kandahar in the wake of the hijacking, of IC-814, was and is a close friend and associate of Maulana Fazlur Rahman. The hijackers including the brother of Maulana Masood Azhar were all supporters and members of the Harkat. Azhar has now set up a new terrorist outfit called the Jaish-e-Mohammad. The UP police recently gunned down three terrorists of the Jaish near Lucknow. Maulana Rahman has also made no secret of his sympathy and support for Chechen separatists and their jehad against Russia. Thus, the conference near Peshawar was organized by people who are internationally known as being religious extremists, given to supporting Jehadi causes and terrorism across the world.

    The highlight of the three-day conference near Peshawar from April 8 to April 11 was the prominence given to the messages of Colonel Qadhafi, the Taleban leader Mullah Omar and the international terrorist, Osama bin Laden. In his message read out by Taleban Deputy Foreign Minister Mullah Ahsan Akhund, Mullah Omar slammed the United Nations as a western tool and claimed that Muslims were being oppressed in Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya. He asserted that Muslim countries were being subjected to all forms of aggression by non-Muslim powers, with the United Nations doing nothing to help Muslims and Muslim countries. Osama bin Laden described Mullah Omar as a “champion leader” because of his actions like the destruction of the statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan and for resisting armed attacks from “anti-Muslim elements”. The delegates from India quite obviously did not want to be drawn into the controversies that were bound to arise because of the rhetoric of Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden and Maulana Fazlur Rahman. Maulana Asad Madni, who was the chief guest at the concluding session, confined himself to praying for Allah’s religion to be observed by Muslims. Maulana Marghoobul Rahman made a scholarly speech referring to the educational, literary and political achievements of Dar-ul-Uloom in Deoband. He urged Muslims to refrain from aggression so that they are not labeled as terrorists or fundamentalists. In marked contrast, their host Maulana Fazlur Rahman strongly criticised the United Nations for its alleged hostility to the Muslim world. He poured venom on the United States and voiced support for the “oppressed Muslims” in Kashmir, Palestine, Bosnia and Chechnya.

    The resolutions adopted by the International Deoband Conference have far reaching implications. One resolution expressed concern over the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia and called on the Saudi government to expel the troops of the US and its allies from the Muslim holy land. This is a demand that has been consistently been voiced by Osama bin Laden. The conference thus became a tool of extremists who would not hesitate to criticize and destabilize the governments of Gulf Arab States. Another resolution called for the formation of a united Muslim bloc outside the United Nations to “liberate” Palestine and Jerusalem. Given the close association of the JUI with virulently anti-Shia groups like the Sipah-e-Sahiba in Pakistan and the Taleban in Afghanistan, even Iran is not going to welcome the causes espoused by the conference, despite its strongly anti-American overtones. More importantly, such a conference could never have been held in Pakistan that is ruled by a military dictatorship, without the support and encouragement of the military government itself.

    General Pervez Musharraf’s government has, after all, banned political gatherings and even prevented foreign travel by political leaders whenever it found it necessary to do so. The permission accorded to the JUI to host the conference clearly indicates that General Musharraf has signaled to people in Pakistan that he understands and supports the causes espoused by the Taleban and Osama bin Laden. Despite the rhetoric of Mullah Omar and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the resolution on Kashmir adopted by the conference is balanced. This resolution merely calls on the political leadership of India and Pakistan to find a peaceful and just solution to the Kashmir problem to save the sub-continent and Asia from nuclear confrontation. This resolution must have been something of a disappointment to the organizers, the fundamentalist Jehadi groups in Pakistan and to General Musharraf and his government. It is quite obvious that neither Maulana Madni nor Maulana Marghoob-ul Rahman would have countenanced the sentiments voiced by their hosts and Mullah Omar about Kashmir being reflected in the conference resolution. It is to their credit that this was made abundantly clear to their hosts.

    The Dar-ul-Uloom and the Deobandi leadership are held in high regard not only in India, but also throughout their world, primarily because they have sought to emphasise the egalitarian and spiritual values of Islam. Their role during India’s struggle for independence when they rejected proposals for partition of the country gives them a place of honour
    and respect in India. But the leaders in Deoband would have to ask themselves honestly whether it is not a fact that religious bigots like Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden have tarnished the name of Deoband and the tenets of Islam, by their practices and the policies they espouse. Was not the name of Deoband hijacked by such people to organise a conference that extolled bigotry and violence and seriously sought to undermine the policies of governments in friendly Arab countries like Saudi Arabia? It is time for those who cherish the values that Deoband has consistently stood for and espoused, to openly disassociate themselves from the resolutions passed and the extremist and bigoted views expressed at the conference they attended.


    ‘Muslims suffering due to West’s conspiracies’ The News International, Pakistan By Rahimullah Yusufzai Tuesday, April 10, 2001 — Moharram Ul Harram 15,1422 A.H

    PESHAWAR: Speaking at a largely-attended conference dedicated to the achievements of Darul Uloom Deoband in India during the past 150 years, religious scholars from Pakistan and abroad said Muslims were suffering all over the world due to disunity in their ranks and on account of Western conspiracies against Islam. The three-day conference, which began here on Monday in a huge open ground at Taru Jabba town near Peshawar, is being attended by members and supporters of Maulana Fazlur Rahman’s Jamiat Ulema-i-Islami (JUI) from all the provinces. A huge tented village has sprung up in the sprawling, under-construction Wapda Colony where the event is being staged. Vehicles flying the JUI-F flags brought thousands of party workers, many carrying their beddings, to the venue even after the formal opening of the conference.

    Elaborate arrangements for seating and feeding the participants were made by the organisers, who claimed rather unconvincingly that the attendance was one million strong. Also attending are delegations from India, Afghanistan, Iran, UK, UAE, Libya and Saudi Arabia. The Indian delegation included Darul Uloom Deoband’s head Maulana Marghoobur Rahman and his deputy Qari Mohammad Usman and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind leader Maulana Asad Madni. Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban were represented by a deputy minister Mulla Mohammad Hussain and Badghis province governor Mulla Abdul Mannan. An Iranian delegation comprising Maulana Ishaq Madni and Syed Mohammad Rizvi, both advisers to President Mohammad Khatemi, as well as Peshawar-based consul general Abbas Ali Abdullahi, also attended the conference. Among Pakistani politicians, only Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) president Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan and Maulana Samiul Haq, who heads a rival faction of JUI, were invited to speak. Others like Jamaat-i-Islami leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad, National Awami Party Pakistan president Ajmal Khattak, Tanzim-i-Islami head Dr Israr Ahmad and former ISI chief Lt Gen (Retd) Hamid Gul sat on the stage listening to the large number of speakers.

    Almost all known Ulema and JUI politicians were present at the conference but only Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, Maulana Hasan Jan, Maulana Mohammad Amir Bijlighar, Maulana Dr Sher Ali Shah, Maulana Mohammad Khan Sherani, Maulana Izzatullah Shah, etc got the opportunity to speak on the opening day. The different sessions were presided by Maulana Marghoobur Rahman from India, the JUI-F patron Maulana Khan Mohammad Kundian Sharif and the party’s NWFP head Maulana Amanullah.

    Narrating the services of Darul Uloom Deoband, Maulana Fazlur Rahman said its ulema and students were in the forefront of the freedom struggle against the British Raj and in spreading the light of religious education in the subcontinent. He said the Ulema of Deoband set up madaressah to educate Muslims and defend Islam.

    Criticising the US-led Western countries, he said Muslims were at the receiving end in all conflict zones in the world such as Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc and they were justified in fighting back to protect their rights. Other JUI leaders said it was due to the struggle and sacrifices of Deoband Ulema and their followers that India and Pakistan won freedom from the British colonialists, the Tableegh movement was launched and the Taliban captured power and enforced Shariah in Afghanistan. Qari Mohammad Usman, deputy head of Darul Uloom Deoband, reminded that it was due to the campaign by Ulema and students of Deoband that the Qadiani movement couldn’t succeed. He said Deoband graduates spread all over the world were busy serving Islam and Muslims. Iran’s Maulana Ishaq Madni regretted that Muslims and the Islamic countries were never so weak and vulnerable despite the big increase in their numbers and the accumulation of resources and military hardware by the Muslim states. He made an impassioned plea for unity in Muslims ranks and the shunning of factionalism and sectarianism to combat the conspiracies against Islam by anti-Islamic forces. Nawabzada Nasrullah also praised the contribution by Darul Uloom Deoband in the freedom struggle in undivided India. However, he soon reverted to his favourite subject by demanding holding of elections in Pakistan to elect a popular government that is capable of solving the problems of the people and fighting American imperialism.

    Analysis: Muslim radicals flex muscles Monday, 9 April 2001 21:44 (ET) By ANWAR IQBAL

    WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) — Weeks after destroying Afghanistan’s Buddhist relics, the Taliban and their supporters are meeting other Muslim radicals in Pakistan this week to seek a greater alliance of Muslim activists. The conference began with a major success for the organizers; bringing together the Taliban and their Iranian adversaries to discuss options for removing their differences. The Taliban belong to the Deobandi school of Muslim jurisprudence, named after a small town in northern India, while the Iranians are Shiites. The two groups have major theological differences that have often led to violent clashes in the past. The Deobandis lead Pakistan’s Sipah-i-Sahaba group which has killed thousands of Shiites during the last five years. The Iranians provide weapons and financial assistance to the rebels fighting the Deobandi Taliban in Afghanistan.

    The conference also brings another radical Muslim group, the Jamaat-i-Islami, face to face with the Deobandi clerics, who otherwise strongly dislike the Western-educated Islamists of the Jamaat. “They have certainly been encouraged by, what they see as, the Taliban’s victories against the West,” says Farhat Huq, who teaches political science at the Monmouth College in Illinois. “Although not all of them endorse the Taliban decision to demolish Buddhist statues, they admire the way the religious militia ignored the Western demand to stop the destruction.” The 150-year old Deoband seminary in India has trained hundreds of thousands of Muslim clerics in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who vehemently reject “Western cultural and social influences over the Islamic world,” says Nasir Zaidi, a Pakistani journalist flogged in the early 1980s for demanding a free press in Pakistan.

    “Stop your aggression against the Muslims or face the consequences,”warned Maulana Fazlur Rahman of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Islam party which organized the conference. The former chief of Pakistan’s military intelligence, General Hameed Gul, urged the participants “not to allow the West to destroy the Taliban” as the West hated the religious militia “for enforcing an Islamic code of life in Afghanistan.” To strengthen their demand for replacing Pakistan’s Western-inspired judicial system with the Islamic courts, the conference has set up its own courts to deal with the crime committed during the three-day meeting.

    “If the Muslims adopt the real spirit of Islam, there is no reason why they remain behind any other nation in the world,” said Maulana Ishaq Madni, an adviser to the Iranian president who came especially from Iran to attend the conference. Delegations have also come from Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territory and other Muslim countries and those representing Muslim minorities in the West. Food kiosks are observing a ban on American products, signs advertising Coca-Cola have been painted over and posters depicting burning U.S. flags are on sale. The boycott is said to be in protest at U.N. sanctions imposed on the Taliban over its refusal to hand over suspected Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden.

    “The powers responsible for the oppression of Muslims in the Middle East, Chechnya, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Kashmir should realize that the Muslims are beginning to understand their game,” said Rahman, one of the leaders responsible for gathering various Muslim sects at the conference. “If their aggressive trend persists, we have the full right to defend ourselves against their aggression,” he said. The organizers also endorsed Rahman’s demand for the creation of an Islamic state in Pakistan similar to the Taliban’s regime.

    Thursday, April 12, 2001 — Moharram Ul Harram 17,1422 A.H

    Deoband moot ends condemning US hegemony The News International, Pakistan By Rahimullah Yusufzai 

    PESHAWAR: The three-day international Deoband Conference on Wednesday concluded after adopting resolutions challenging the hegemony of US and its allies in world; demanding end to UN sanctions against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and early withdrawal of US-led Western troops from Arab lands. The conference called for formation of a united Muslim block outside the “pro-Jewish” UN to liberate Al-Quds and rest of Palestine from Israeli occupation and protect the rights of Muslims. Another resolution urged the political leadership of India and Pakistan to find a peaceful and just solution to the Kashmir problem to save the subcontinent and Asia from a nuclear confrontation. The sixth resolution accused international media of being biased and anti-Islam and called upon the Muslim Ummah to establish its own information network to break free from the Jewish-controlled medias. The resolutions were read by JUI leader Maulana Abdul Majeed Nadeem in the concluding session of the conference, and were adopted. The anti-US and anti-West tone of the conference, which continued all three days, peaked on Wednesday when US was described in one of the resolutions as “man-eater” who for the first time dropped atomic bomb on another country.

    The resolutions demanded end to US hegemony on weapons in the world so that humanity could be saved from such exploitative forces. The conference was declared closed after a 20-minute prayers led by Darul Uloom Deoband’s deputy head Qari Mohammad Usman during which he sought Almighty’s blessings for Muslims. Earlier, Dastarbandi of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) leader Maulana Fazlur Rahman was performed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Maulana Syed Asad Madni and Darul Uloom Deoband head Maulana Marghoobur Rahman. Several JUI office bearers were also honoured by tying turbans on their heads in recognition of their efforts to successfully organise the conference.

    On the concluding day, the largely-attended conference at Taru Jabba town near Peshawar was addressed by Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Maulana Asad Madni, Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, former Afghan mujahideen leader Maulvi Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi, Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Pakistan Mulla Abdul Salam Zaef, Maulana Ajmal Khan, Maulana Gul Nasib Khan, Maulana Niamatullah Azmi and Mufti Habibur Rahman Khairabadi. The last-named two were from India, as were Maulanas Madni and Marghoobur Rahman.

    A taped message of the Pashto-speaking Taliban supreme leader, Mulla Mohammad Omar, was read out at the conference and simultaneously translated into Urdu. Mulla Omar condemned the UN Security Council sanctions against Afghanistan as unjust and unwarranted and alleged that the Taliban were being punished for enforcing Shariah in their country. He complained that the good deeds of the Taliban like restoring peace in Afghanistan and banning opium poppy-cultivation were ignored while human rights issues were wrongly and deliberately highlighted to malign the Taliban. He argued: “The infidels consider Islam a threat to their worldwide interests. So every effort is made to weaken Muslims. In Afghanistan we control 95 per cent of the country but we are referred to as one of the factions and denied recognition.” He stressed the Taliban-led Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan would never abandon Islamic principles and would accept no compromise if it clashed with their religious beliefs. Maulana Asad Madni, who was chief guest during the concluding session, excused himself from making a speech by saying he wasn’t a fire-spitting orator. He just prayed for Allah’s religion to be enforced on Allah’s land.

    The 80-year old Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, who wasn’t feeling well, haltingly read out part of his long speech and later allowed a colleague to complete it for him. His was a scholarly speech and it focused on the educational, literary and political achievements of Darul Uloom Deoband. He said the Deoband religious school in India had 3,500 students, 80 teachers and 250 other staffers and its yearly annual budget pooled through donations was Rs 52.4 million. The Maulana urged the Muslims to refrain from aggression as preached by the Deoband Ulema so that the anti-Islam forces are unable to describe them as terrorists and fundamentalists. Maulana Fazlur Rahman noted that the mammoth gathering of Muslims at the Deoband Conference was a clear signal to the world, especially to the US and its allies, to either accept the hands of friendship extended to them by the Muslims and give up the policy of confrontation against Islam or be ready for the consequences.

    “In case the US continues to speak in the language of force, the Muslims would be constrained to fight back and defend themselves,” he warned. The Maulana, who claimed the Deoband Conference attracted between one million to 1.5 million, stressed the need for constituting an Islamic coordiation council to jointly struggle for Islamic causes and against West’s anti-Islam conspiracies and non-governmental organizations. He said the UN sanctions imposed against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were unjust and cruel and, therefore, unacceptable. Reuters adds: Condemning international sanctions against Muslim nations and demanding immediate withdrawal of Western forces from Saudi Arabia, the conference also slammed the United States and its allies as being “anti-human”.

    “This meeting condemns the anti-human and anti-peace cruel attitude of the United States and its allies,” its resolution, approved by people waving their hands in the air, said. “Sanctions against Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are open aggression against Muslims; they should be immediately lifted. “The presence of American and European armed forces in Saudi Arabia is the biggest tragedy of our times. We demand of our Arab brothers to arrange an early removal of these forces,” the resolution concluded.

    “UNQUOTE”


    By Aamir Mughal -
  • ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES

    Yoginder Sikand is Indian writer-academic and the author of several books on Islam-related issues in India.[Courtesy: Wikipedia / http://yogindersikand.blogspot.com/]


    The 'United Nationalism' of Maulana Madni - i By Yoginder Sikand Dated Published in the 1-15 Aug 2004 print edition of MG

    http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Aug04-Print-Edition/011508200434.htm

    Wrongly reviled today as the ‘epicentre’ of ‘Islamic terrorism’, the Dar ul-‘Ulum in Deoband, one of the largest madrasas in the world, played a leading role in spearheading India’s freedom movement. The active involvement of many Deobandi ‘ulama in the struggle against the British is today a little-remembered story. Indian school textbooks refuse to mention it, probably deliberately in order to reinforce the stereotypical, yet misplaced, image of Muslims as congenitally ‘anti-national’. At the same time, however, they extol the alleged exploits of Hindutva activists in the fight against the British, while records have proven beyond doubt that leading Hindutva spokesmen, in the Congress, the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, actually collaborated with the British and worked against the freedom movement. In this they played a similar role as that of the Muslim League.

    One of the leading figures of India’s freedom movement was Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni (1879-1957). Madni served for decades as the rector of the Deoband madrasa and as head of the Deobandi-dominated Jam’at ul-‘Ulama-I Hind (‘The Union of the ‘Ulama of India’). Madni was also a leading Muslim political activist, and was closely involved in the Congress Party in pre-1947 India. At a time when the Muslim League under Jinnah had raised its demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan, based on the so-called ‘two nation’ theory, Madni came out forcefully as a champion of a free and united India. He insisted, arguing against the claims of both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha (which, too, subscribed to a ‘two nation’ theory of its own version), that all the inhabitants of India were members of a ‘united nationality’ (muttahida qaumiyat) despite their religious and other differences. Hence, he argued, Muslims, Hindus and others must join hands to work for an independent, united India, where all communities would enjoy equal rights and freedoms.

    Madni elaborated on his theory of ‘united nationalism’ in a book penned in the early 1940s as a reply to Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s critique of his own political position. By this time, Iqbal had turned into an ardent pan-Islamist and had clearly distanced himself from his earlier nationalist stance. Madni’s book ‘Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam’ (‘United Nationalism and Islam’) was published before 1947, and long remained unavailable after that, being only recently reprinted by the Jami’at ul-‘Ulama-i Hind’s headquarters in Delhi.

    Madni’s central argument is that Islam is not opposed to a united nationalism based on a common motherland (vatan), language (zaban), ethnicity (nasl) or colour (rang), which brings together Muslims and non-Muslims sharing one or more of these attributes in common. In the Indian context, a united nationalism that embraces Muslims and other peoples is, therefore, he says, perfectly acceptable Islamically. In making this argument he stridently opposed Iqbal and the Muslim League, as well as radical Islamists such as Sayyed Abul ‘Ala Maududi, founder of the Jama’at-i Islami.

    As a Muslim religious scholar, Madni naturally sought to justify his argument in Islamic terms. He marshalled support from the Qur’an and from records of the practice (sunnat) of the Prophet in support of his thesis. He noted that the word ‘qaum’, which is used as synonymous with ‘nation’, appears some 200 times in the Qur’an. It is sometimes used in the Qur’an to refer to the ‘people’ of a particular prophet, such as the ‘qaum’ of Noah or the ‘qaum’ of Abraham, and in these contexts it applies to all the members of these communities, including both the followers as well as opponents of these prophets. In other words, these Qur’anic verses suggest that the prophets and their followers as well as those among their own people groups who opposed them were considered to be part of the same ‘qaum’, owing to a common land, language or ethnicity. This is further evident from the fact that the Qur’an mentions various prophets as addressing those among their own people who rejected them as members of their own ‘qaum’, exhorting them to heed God’s word. From this, Madni argues, it is clear that, in contrast to the claims of the Muslim League and Maududi, Muslims and non-Muslims cannot be considered to be members of two different ‘qaums’ if they share a common ethnicity, language or motherland. If they share these traits in common they can be said to belong to the same ‘qaum’. The ‘two nation’ theory (do qaumi nazariya) of the Muslim League, therefore, has no Qur’anic basis at all.

    Having thus argued that Muslims and non-Muslims who share the same country or ethnicity should be considered to be members of a single ‘qaum’, Madni suggests that on issues of common concern Muslim and non-Muslim members of a particular ‘qaum’ can, indeed should, work together. This means, he says, that the Indian Muslims must join hands with non-Muslim Indians, on the basis of belonging to the same ‘qaum’, and work together for the unity, freedom and prosperity of the country. In seeking proper Islamic legitimacy for this argument, Madni draws upon the practice of the Prophet. When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, he writes, he entered into an agreement (mu’ahada, mithaq) with the Jewish tribes of the town. According to the terms of the treaty, the Muslims and Jews of Medina were to enjoy equal rights, including full freedom of religion. They were also to jointly work for the protection of Medina from external foes. Interestingly, the treaty identified the signatories to the treaty, the Jews and Muslims of Medina, as members of a single community or ‘ummat’. This suggests, Madni argues, that Muslims and non-Muslims of a particular state or country could be considered to be members of a common ‘ummat’ if they entered into a similar treaty.

    ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES

    The ‘United Nationalism’ of Maulana Madni-ii By Yoginder Sikand Dated Published in the 16-31 Aug 2004 print edition of MG

    http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31Aug04-Print-Edition/163108200472.htm

    Each individual, Madni writes, has multiple identities. One can be a Muslim, an Indian, a trade unionist or a politician at the same time without these various identities being regarded as contradictory to each other in any way. While Islam binds together Muslims all over the world, this does not negate the 'national' or 'qaumi' particularity of different Muslim groups that binds them to non-Muslims from the same 'qaum'. Following the example of the treaty of Medina, Muslim and non-Muslim members of the same 'qaum' can work together for the overall social, educational, economic and political progress of their common homeland, as well as for defending their country. The Jews and Muslims of Medina were, under the joint treaty that they entered to, required to jointly defend the town from external enemies. In the Indian case, both Muslims and non-Muslims face a common external enemy — the British —and hence, following the sunnat of the Prophet, they must jointly struggle to oppose them, based on a commitment to and consciousness of belonging to the same ‘qaum’ and ‘millat’.

    By thus stressing the 'Islamicity' of his demand, Madni forcefully interrogates his Muslim opponents who claim that his theory of 'united nationalism' would result in Muslims losing their separate religious and cultural identity, and being absorbed into the Hindu fold in the name of a homogenous Indian nationalism. As elsewhere, here, too, Madni argues in strictly 'Islamic' terms to press his case. The British, he writes, are the greatest enemy of Islam and the Muslims. Most Muslim lands, he notes, have been occupied by the British, whom he also blames for having overthrown the Ottoman Caliphate. In India, the British deposed the last Mughal Emperor and brought centuries of what he (erroneously) calls 'Muslim rule' to an abrupt end. To add to this, British education and culture, he says, are exercising a pernicious influence on many young Muslims, causing them to abandon their faith and culture. In this sense, then, Britain is the greatest enemy of the Muslims the world over, including in India. This being the case, the future of Islam and the Muslims crucially depends on the Muslims' ability to challenge British imperialism. In the Indian context, the British can be overthrown only if Muslims join hands with other Indians in a joint struggle. No single community can effectively challenge the British on its own. Hence, the necessity of Muslims joining hands with other Indians, based on a commitment to a 'united nationalism', to rid India of the British and thereby protect and promote what Madni sees as the larger interests of Islam.

    Since 'united nationalism' is important not simply in itself, but also for the cause of Islam, Madni charges those Muslims, such as members of the Muslim League, who oppose his thesis as playing, inadvertently or otherwise, into the hands of the British, the most inveterate foes of Islam, and thereby working against the interests of their community and religion. The British, he says, are deliberately seeking to create confusion and scare Muslims into imagining that in a free India Muslims would lose their separate identity, and be absorbed into the Hindu fold. In this way, they aim at de-politicising the Muslims, weaning them away from the struggle for independence. Ultimately, this serves to further protect and entrench British imperialism. Hence, he suggests, the ‘two nation’ theory and the demand for Pakistan, which is supported by the British to divide the anti-imperialist movement, cannot be said to be ‘Islamic’ at all.

    Madni insists that the fear that the advocates of Pakistan play on—the absorption of Muslims into the Hindu fold in a Hindu-dominated united India—is not warranted. He writes that when Muslims first came to India, they were very few in number. Yet, they did not fear being absorbed into the Hindu fold, and rather than abandoning the country, they stayed here and rose to the position of rulers. Today, he says, Muslims are much larger in number, and so the possibility of losing their identity if they live in a united India alongside other communities is even more remote. Taking a dig at the advocates of a separate Pakistan, he says that a Muslim majority state is no guarantee that Muslims would be able to preserve their Islamic identity. Egypt is a Muslim-majority country, but yet it is being swept by the winds of 'irreligiousness' and 'atheism'. It is thus not the communal composition of the population of a country that can guarantee its religious identity. Muslims will be able to preserve their Islamic identity only if they make organised efforts to do so. This applies in the case of both Muslim-majority as well as Muslim-minority countries. It would, Madni says, apply equally to Muslims living as a minority in a united India as it would to Muslims living in the proposed Muslim-majority state of Pakistan to which he is firmly opposed.

    In the united India that Madni envisages, communities would be defined essentially on a religious basis. Each community would be allowed full freedom to follow its own religion and personal laws and to preserve its culture, within the bounds of general morality and social peace. All communities would enjoy equal rights and no one would be discriminated against on the grounds of religion. While religious communities would, therefore, be culturally autonomous, in matters of common this-worldly concern their members would work together for the overall benefit of society. Madni argued that this was perfectly acceptable according to his understanding of Islam. The shar'iah, he wrote, had left several spheres of life open to new rules depending on changing conditions. In some other spheres, the rules that it lay down, such as punishments of certain crimes, were applicable only in an Islamic state, and could not be enforced in the absence of such a state. Hence, he argued, it was possible, even from the point of view of the shar'iah as he conceived it, for Muslims to live in a secular, united India as co-citizens, instead of rulers, along with people of other faiths. In such a state, Muslims need not fear the prospect of losing their identity. Since they would have full freedom of religion, they could set up organizations and schools of their own to preserve and promote their religion and culture and to ensure that these were transmitted to their children.

    Six decades after Madni penned his plea for a united India much has changed, but much more seems to have remained the same. Despite Madni's pleas, India was partitioned, thus fulfilling the dreams of the Muslim League and its Hindu counterparts, who were equally opposed to a common Indianhood. Far from solving the communal 'problem', Partition only exacerbated it by converting what was till then a domestic issue into an international one. In India itself, the Medina model of interfaith faith entente remains a far cry, with the rise of Hindutva fascism and Islamist militancy in Kashmir. And what could be a more telling sign of the way that we have headed that while in Pakistan Madni is remembered as a vehement foe, in India we have completely erased him from our history books? (Concluded)

    Reagrds

    Muhammad Aamir Mughal

    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/


    By Aamir Mughal -

Compose Your Comments here:

Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the below text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.