THUS SPAKE ANWAR SHAIKH
ISLAM and Human Rights
by Anwar Shaikh
Chapter 6
THUS SPAKE ANWAR SHAIKH
Part 1
(Prologue: The following write-up by the intellectual giant, Anwar
Shaikh, has been reproduced from the INDIA POST WEEKLY, 17127
Pioneer Blvd # E, Artesia, CA 90701 of March 13, 1998. The
editorial staff of the SWORD OF TRUTH think that the points raised
by Mr. Shaikh on ISLAMIC DOCTRINE of DIVIDE and RULE would be
quite appropriate for our readers, most of whom are
non-Mohammedans and therefore comparatively ignorant of the
contents of the Koran. In this day and age, this is a great
inadequacy and we need to inform our readers about what is in the
book that motivated even born Mohammedans like Rushdie to call it
THE SATANIC VERSES? That is a legitimate inquiry and if so who can
enlighten us better than a seer like Anwar Shaikh? - Publisher.)
The facts throughout Islamic history demonstrate that Muslims are
the special people of Allah who has bestowed this distinction on
them for hating, hounding and hanging the non-Muslims. The Koran
clearly states (in I.VIII, The Disputer: 20) that the Muslims are
Allah's Party and the non-Muslims are Satan's Party. It is for
this reason that the Koran has declared:
1. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (II, The Cow: 90)
2. The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who
will not believe. (VIII, Spoils of War: 55)
3. Unbelievers are the enemies of Allah and they will roast in
hell. (Fusilat: 19)
4. Oh ye who believe! The non-Muslims are unclean. (IX,
Repentance: 27)
5. Oh ye who believe! Fight the disbelievers...and let them find
harshness in you. (IX, Repentance: 125)
6. Oh believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers as your
friends, they are evil-doers. (IX, Repentance: 20)
7. Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender
and pay tribute. (IX, Repentance: 29)
8. Muslims are hard against unbelievers, merciful to one another.
(XL VIII, Victory: 25)
These references from the Koran explode the Gandhian myth that
Raheem (Allah) and Ram are one. In fact, Allah has permanently
divided mankind into two groups: the Muslims are his party and the
non-Muslims are Satan's party. Since Allah hates non-Muslims and
wants their destruction, a true Muslim must follow this Divine
guideline. Thus, the only relationship between a Muslim and a
non-Muslim is that of ill-will, hatred and animosity. This is the
basis of the Islamic Two-Nation theory, which means that the
Muslims and Hindus cannot live together.
From the above discussion, it is clear that Islam, by its very
nature, seeks to brainwash its adherents with a view to infesting
them with the worst kind of fanaticism, which recognizes no moral
and cultural bounds. If these were not true, the Koran could not
tell the believers to treat their own parents as enemies, if they
did not believe in Islam. To my mind, one's parents are the most
adorable people.
Preaching insouciance, insolence and ingratitude toward one's own
parents, disqualifies Islam as a Divine religion, and turns it
into the biggest tool of Divide and Rule.
The British have been described as the master of the
Divide-and--Rule policy, but Islam uses this weapon so effectively
that the British look like toddlers in this field. The
Divide-and-Rule doctrine of Islam is the practical exposition of
its Two-Nation theory. It is not only India that has suffered the
crushing effects of this Islamic approach to humanity. Yugoslavia,
Russia and China are also experiencing its bite and the United
States of America shall not escape its due share of devastation
when the Black Muslim Movement gathers strength. It is owing to
the Islamic ideology of hatred that the Muslim cannot live with
their non-Muslim countrymen and want to partition their own
motherlands to please the Prophet Muhammad in return for the
paradise swarming with charming young virgins, beautiful boys,
superb wines and choice foods. What a reward for betraying one's
motherland! Such a sordid action is, surely punishable by hell.
This is the result of Islamic brainwashing which makes the bitter
taste sweet, projects the fool as wise and presents the blind as
the visionary.
This Divide-and-Rule attitude of Islam, makes the non-Arab Muslims
think of themselves as One Muslim Nation; it is why, they adore
Arabia, the land of the Prophet Muhammad, and deplore their own
motherlands. What is even more stunning is, they do so with a
sense of pride and elation. In fact, "Islamic
nationhood" is the biggest myth that man ever invented.
Look at Pakistan, which was carved out of India on the basis of
Two-Nation theory. It soon orbit into two independent states and
the magic of Islamic nationhood could do nothing except causing
the death of three million innocent people. Despite this most
terrible blood-bath, both Pakistanis and Bangladeshis still
believe in Islamic nationhood. This is a fine example of
brain-washing.
The Islamic attitude of Divide-and-Rule is, of course, a very
subtle attempt to make the non-Arab Muslims hate their own
motherland to love Arabia. So successful has been this Koranic
ploy that, whereas other conquerors had to use fire and sword for
securing submission of foreigners, the Prophet Muhammad turned the
non-Arab Muslims into moths, which cremate themselves on the flame
of Arab hegemony quite willingly.
How has it been brought about? It ought to borne in mind that in
Islam, Allah is only a figurehead, and the real majesty is
associated with Muhammad.
This is not a blasphemous statement because it is vouched by the
Koran. In every religion, it is man who worships God, but in
Islam, it is Allah, who along with his angels, worships Muhammad
by praying peace to him (XXXIII, The Confederates :55)!
This is the reason that the Prophet shall share the Divine Throne
of Justice, sitting on the right hand side of Allah, and it is his
word which will decide whether a person goes to heaven or hell. As
stated already, it is only the followers of Muhammad, who can
enter paradise, and it matters not even if they were murderers,
rapists, thieves, traitors, blackmailers, cheats, twisters, and so
on.
Qualification for entering paradise is not the virtuous conduct
but treating Muhammad as the Perfect Model of behaviour (XXXIII,
The Confederates: 20) and following him blindly in all walks of
life. Therefore, the true believer is the one, who not only eats
and drinks as did the Prophet, but also thinks, talks and walks
like him; even in sartorial tastes and tonsorial designs, a
follower of Islam must look a copy of Muhammad.
Here lies the crux: the Prophet Muhammad was an Arab therefore, he
naturally followed the Arab cultural traditions. Thus following
him in all details of life means practicing the Arab cultural
traditions. It is nothing but submitting to the Arab cultural
hegemony and neglecting one's own national culture. This is what
makes Islam, the Arab National Movement and destroys its religious
veneer.
Part 2
(Prologue: We, of the Sword of Truth, are pleased to present Anwar
Shaikh's musings on Qaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah Alehe Rahmat,
the Father of Pakistan. This article had appeared in the INDIA
POST WEEKLY of Artesia, CA in its April 3, 1998 issue. The short
write-up is an extract from the author's recent publication titled
The Tale of Two Gujarati Saints. The book is available from A.
Ghosh (Publisher), 5740 W. Little York # 216, Houston, TX 77091 at
$7.50 each, postage and handling included. The book deals with
both the fathers, Gandhi and Jinnah, the father of India and the
father of Pakistan, all at the same time and it is a treat to go
through the reasonings and comments of the Shaikh. - Publisher.)
Jinnah: A Saint at the Expense of Innocent people
" Hazrat Q aid-i-Azam , Muhammad Ali Jinnah Alehe Rahmat"
is the title of the Gujarati Saint, who was born as Mohammed Ali
Jinnah in Karachi in December, 1876.
This description bestows a greater dignity on him than that of a
Muslim saint. It is an outcome of Hindu tradition, which makes
ancestor-Worship an integral part of Dharma, and clearly shows
that the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent share a common culture
with the Hindus and are racially the same people. Without the
unity of background, Jinnah could not have been treated by
Pakistan as if he were one of the spiritual luminaries of Islam. A
title of the Prophet Muhammad is "Hadi-e-Azam" i.e., the
great guide. Jinnah's title: "The Qaid-i-Azam" means
very much the same. Again, the use of "Hazrat" as prefix
and "Alehe Rahmat" as suffix, further add to his
devotional splendour.
He has been honoured as such for being the founder of Pakistan. It
is only the success that should be saluted; failure cannot be
applauded because it eliminates the difference between fortune and
fiasco.
Such a great political hysteria was whipped up during the second
decade of the 20th century that the mutual Hindu-Muslim hatred
assumed inhuman proportions. Using Dr. Iqbal as a scapegoat, the
Muslim League led by Jinnah, claimed that the Hindus and the
Muslims were two separate nations; as they could not live
together, India must be partitioned to create a separate homeland
for the Muslims. This was considered the panacea for all Muslim
ills, religious, economic and political. Should Jinnah be allowed
the saintly title that he has come to possess? This is an honest
question, and can be answered sincerely only if one can establish
objectively that Pakistan has solved the major problems of all the
Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. If it has, then Jinnah was
certainly one of the greatest saints that ever lived, but if it
has not, then his status must be reviewed in the light of the
results that the partition has produced.
To start w ith, let us weigh up the concept of Pakistan itself. It
meant that the Indian provinces (Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, NW
Frontier and Bengal) where the Muslims were in a majority, must be
treated as the Homeland of the Muslims, and separated from India
as an independent state. This was a crazy idea for several
reasons.
1. There was a distance of about one thousand miles between East
and West Pakistan. It was impossible to reach Karachi from Dacca
by Land, Sea or Air without the consent of the Indian government,
which was bound to be hostile for the simple reason that Pakistan
would serve as a symbol of Muslim hatred against the Hindus. This
being the truth, diplomatic relations between the two states could
not remain cordial, and they would exist only to demolish each
other. It also meant that their budgets would be dedicated to
national defense instead of public welfare resulting in poverty
with its concomitant vices such as bribery, nepotism, tyranny,
injustice and mal-administration.
History shows that one can have a far-flung empire, but it is
impossible to think of a homeland whose parts lie a thousand miles
away intercepted by a long hostile territory. The leader, who
thinks of such a plan as the elixir of national ills, does not
know the difference between mirth and misery, fruition and fiasco,
delight and disaster.
Yet, Jinnah insisted on the formation of Pakistan. His followers
have, no doubt, offered mitigating factors to support his
soundness of judgment, but this is an exercise in futility. The
fact is that he did secure Pakistan consisting of Eastern and
Western wings, which in essence, is a proof of political
incompetence. The man, obviously, wanted to be a hero at the
expense of innocent people.
As I shall explain later, nationhood is not founded on religion
but blood ties, a common culture and homeland, yet he insisted
that religion was the cornerstone of Muslim nationhood.
If this were true, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran,
Afghanistan, etc. would have been one state.
As we know, it has never happened, and these countries are as
independent from one another as England is from France and China
from Russia.
However, if Jinnah had some secret knowledge of history or some
special powers to mould the Muslims of Indian into a separate
nation, he should have spent his energies to this effect.
After all, the prophet Muhammad had devoted his life to welding
the various warring Arab tribes into one nation. Genghis Khan had
also spent considerable time in uniting the Mongolian hordes into
one nation.
But Jinnah did nothing to forge one nation out of Muslims
scattered throughout India. Delivering occasional lectures from a
high pulpit, canopied by an unswerving loyalty to the British
Crown, was totally insufficient to accomplish the task. In a
nutshell, he did not go through the laborious rehearsal, which is
absolutely essential before staging the play. Either he did not
realize or deliberately ignored the fact that the secret of
Muhammad's and Genghis Khan's success lay in the fact that their
people were already racially one nation, who had become divided
into clans. Of course, the Muslims of India were racially and
culturally Indian, but Jinnah had undertaken an entiely unnatural
task of splitting it into two nations based on religion. It has
never happened in this world because religion is not the natural
unit of nationhood.
Part 3
(Prologue: This is the third presentation of the Thus Spake Anwar
Shaikh, series. Like the previous two issues, this article too,
has been taken from the INDIA POST WEEKLY of April 10, 1998. No
civilized state can survive without a water-tight legal system
today. People often wonder why is it that only in Islamic
countries, the rule of law does not seem to survive. Pakistan is a
glaring example, Taliban controlled Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria
and Iran follow closely behind. In the present article, Mr. Shaikh
tells it like it is. In short, he is saying that the so-called
Islamic Law is no law at all, if we go by the standards of the
Universal Legal System - Publisher.)
The force of Jinnah's argument for Pakistan was emotional and
exploitative. He used the religious appeal as a bait to bring the
Muslims into the political net. He played upon the religious
susceptibilities of people to make them believe that the Islamic
state was the sure guarantor of peace, prosperity and plenitude,
but he never explained the complexity, nature and purpose of the
Islamic Law, the main vehicle of bringing about this Divine
Revolution. Being a lawyer, it was his foremost duty to do so.
This was the only way to make people realize what was required of
them. The fact that he did not do it makes him less than
honourable.
One must bear in mind that Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim, yet
he advocated the establishment of an Islamic state. On the
contrary, the formidable Muslim divines such as Maulana Abul Kalam
Azad, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni, Sayyad Ata Ulla Shah Bukhari,
Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, and many more, opposed the concept of
Pakistan and the Two-Nation Theory.
There is no evidence whatever that an Islamic state has ever
existed according to the Koranic principles. Nor can it be proved
that Islam required establishment of a single state for all
Muslims to share its bounties, benefits and blessings. The Indian
Muslims boast a good deal about the "Islamic Welfare
State" established by the Second Caliph, Umar the Great. Yes,
he did invent the system of giving social benefits to the Arab
children, but where did the money come from? The finances were
raised by robbing the newly converted Muslims of Egypt and Iran,
whose children cried from hunger and disease. There is no record,
whatever, to show that the Egyptian and Iranian children were
given any stipends from the Arab funds; it was for Arab children
only!
The truth is that the much vaunted Muslim Law falls far short of
the universally accepted legal standards. What is law?
The law is a set of enforceable principles, which seek to
establish rights and duties between person and person, an
individual and society, as well as people and the state. The
following peculiarities give the law its true distinction,
deference and decency:
1. The law is never made for the benefit of one person, an
individual and society. It is enacted for a whole group of people.
2. The law is strictly neutral in its application that is, it
applies to the low and high and great and small with equal force.
Incredible it my seem but the truth is that the Islamic Law has
nothing to do with public good because it revolved round the
convenience of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Koran lays
it down that a Muslim can have no more than four wives at the same
time, but this law did not apply to the Prophet:
And any woman, Believer, if she gave herself to the Prophet and if
the Prophet desires to take her in marriage, for thee, apart from
the believers. (The Confederates, 33:45)
Also bear in mind the following Koranic Law, pertaining to
polygamy:
"....marry such women as seem good to you, two, three or
four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only
one...."(Women, 4:1)
Thus the clause of equity is the pivot of having more than one
wife. It is well-known that the Prophet could not maintain balance
of fairness among his wives. As the Koran witnesses, it led to a
lot of acrimony in the household. Instead of enforcing the clause
of equity, Allah gave Muhammad dispensation from it:
"You (Muhammad) can suspend any of your wives as you will and
receive any of them as you will: and whomsoever you desire of
those whom you have set aside, it is no sin for you." (The
Confederates, 33:50)
In simple English, it means that the Prophet is not bound by the
Law of Equity, the basic condition of polygamy: he can treat his
wives as he thinks fit. Since it is Allah, who makes the law a
play-thing for Muhammad, one wonders if Allah and Muhammad are not
the one and same person. It certainly led me to this conclusion.
The law, which is exclusive to a person for serving his
convenience, or if it is flexible at will, it ceases to be the
law. In this context, I ought to remind the reader that the
Prophet was at liberty to marry the widow or divorcee of another
person, but nobody was allowed to marry his widow (or divorcee).
All his wives were raised to the status of Ummahaat-ul-Momineen
(Mothers of the believers) so that nobody could marry them. When
the Prophet died, his wife Aisha was only 18, and lived to be 73
as a lonely widow!
One can find many more examples to this effect, but I think I have
said enough to illustrate the purpose and nature of the so--called
Islamic Law. However, I may add that the poverty-stricken Muslims
of India believed that the Islamic Law stood for economic
equality. We all were led to think that way. Zulfikar All Bhutto
openly equated the Islamic Law with the Marxist concept of
nationalization, for this reason, whereas the truth is that Islam
allows unlimited accumulation of wealth in any form, including
land and is the only source of feudalism in the modern age.
It is this ambiguity about the Islamic Law, which has become the
bane of Pakistan. Half a century has elapsed but Islamic Law has
not yet been enforced in Pakistan despite the fact that India was
divided for this reason. The truth is that there is no Islamic Law
to be enforced. What is called the Islamic Law is the result of
the far-fetched interpretations of the Koran and the Hadith; it
also includes the vestiges of the legal contrivances that were
developed by the Arab and Turkish rulers to meet the demands of
their times.
If
you enjoyed this article, please visit: http://www.hinduunity.org
|
