Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India
It was a typo; I meant ‘Hindi’; as for English, yes of course, the British did impose this; they needed their loyal subjects to be good clerks and secretaries, and the promotion of English was necessary to that end; it was also important because language is one of the hall-marks of culture, and by promoting English above and beyond indigenous languages, the British left a legacy that manifests itself to this day in the inferiority complex we in the Subcontinent have towards anything ‘gora’/English.
But my point is in focusing on the preference the British gave to various populations within British India to the exclusion of others (i.e. Muslims). It follows naturally; when the British came to the Subcontinent, it was being primarily ruled by the Muslim Mughals; they were the biggest threat to the British, and the ones most viciously dealt with. The British employed ‘divide and conquer’ to great effect, and of course, it is the fact that divides were already there that they could be exploited (case in point are the Iranians, who are a fiercely united people and hence almost immune to external sabotage).
One pertinent example of this bias against Muslims is seen in the aftermath to the 1857 rebellion. Although the mutiny had almost equal Hindu and Muslim participation, Muslims were the ones primarily blamed. So much so that:
a) The then British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, wrote to the Viceroy of India (Lord Charles Canning) on 9th October 1857: “every civil building connected with Mohammaddans should be leveled to the ground without regard to antiquarian veneration or artistic predilection.”
b) A British historian (James Macintyre) went so far as to recommend “seizing and leveling to the ground the temple and Caaba [sic] of Mecca, and carrying away as trophies the sacred black and white stones.” [Reference: Macintyre J. J. A Plan for the Military Seizure and Occupation of the Temple and City of Mecca, as a Defensive and Offensive Measure for the War in Asia. London: Charles Westerton and Edward Stanford, 1858]
You need to realise that in the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in the early 1920s, any movement promoting Muslim exclusionism/nationalism/pan-Islamism was seen as a threat to colonial interests.
As for your last statement (“I would rather not comment on your “Qadiani” conspiracy comment, as it is an insult to all Ahmadi Muslims”): Ahmedis are not Muslims; saying so isn’t bigotedness, it’s not discrimination, it’s a simple fact. You need to stop with the whole ‘you’re insulting Ahmedi Muslims’ attitude, because this is not something I’ve pulled off the top of my mind. This is a consensus that Muslim ulema have reached. Once again, refer to my comments about why Muslims are so strict about who can or cannot call themselves a Muslim.
No random individual can just start up a group and call it Islam. Criteria have to be met; the difference of opinion from the mainstream view has to be established and proven based on evidence from the Quran, the Sunnah, ijma (consensus) and qiyas (reasoning) (or aql (intellect) if you are a Shia’). Please bear in mind that Islam is not Christianity, where anyone can start their own church and denomination. Islam has a very rigorous methodology for establishing the truth. Valid difference of opinion will arise, and Islam allows for this, but falsehood cannot be concealed behind the excuse of ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion).
One or two examples don’t prove anything; do you think these individuals would have made it to the position they did if they had not been thoroughly screened and vetted for their beliefs? You need to realise that only a particular brand of Indian Muslims can ever succeed in India and they are those who put their Indianess before their Musalmaniyyat, which is what I told you in my previous post.
Take this Maulana for example: some of the views he’s propagating are so wholly unIslamic it beggars belief. Yet you cite him as an example of a Muslim who’s made it to the Indian Parliament. I’m sorry; no sincere Muslim could hold the beliefs that this Maulana Sahib does. Islam calls one Muslim the brother of another Muslim; the Prophet (PBUH) said that “whoever does not take an interest in the affairs and problems of the Muslims, he is not of them” – now unless Maulana Sahib has declared takfeer on the 170 million Muslims of Pakistan, the fact is, he’s essentially asking Pakistani Muslims to forget Indian Muslims and encouraging Indian Muslims to rely on Hindu Indians to solve their problems and issues. This is a position contrary to Islamic belief; I’m sorry. This is what I was saying to you before: for an Indian Muslim to succeed in India he has to become Indian first and Muslim second, and when he does that, his position within Islam becomes untenable. As a Muslim Pakistan, I thank Allah again and again and again that we have our own country where we don’t have to become de facto Hindus to succeed.
The trouble with posting YouTube videos in support of your arguments is that I can do the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQq9pGWfj34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRGTlIdNLB0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcfzQPiEsmU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn99gU_z49Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOFovFHcmSw
You see? It proves nothing.
Any Muslim not believing in Islamic brotherhood has severely deviated from the correct path. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) felt so strongly about the issue of assabiyah (nationalism) that he said whosoever in his Ummah practised it would not be one of the Muslims. He (PBUH) also declared that “the Muslims are like the limbs of a man, where if the eye hurts the whole body feels pain and if the head hurts, the whole body feels pain and suffering.” So one Muslim is to another Muslim as a brother; an Indian Muslim to a Pakistani Muslim should be a brother. A Pakistani Muslim to a Turkish Muslim should be a brother. And under the strict admonition of the Prophet (PBUH) any who compromise that brotherhood is not one of the Muslims.
So you see, Islamic brotherhood isn’t just a political statement; it’s a religious obligation. Pakistani Muslims are under a religious obligation to defend their Muslim brothers in Kashmir and in India and in the Xinjiang-Uyghur region. The fact that Pakistan doesn’t is yet another proof that Pakistan isn’t an Islamic State. Insh’Allah, a sincere government in Pakistan fulfilling the glorious principles of Islam would not tolerate India’s atrocities in Kashmir or China’s oppression of Uyghur Muslims. The fact that Indian Muslims are, for the most part, silent on Kashmir is yet another indication of the restrictions that Indian Muslims, as a generality, have placed upon them. Even in Pakistan, we have protests for the sake of Iraqis/Palestinians as well as the Uyghurs – whether or not our government does anything is a different matter, but at least Muslims in Pakistan are free to show their solidarity with their brothers anywhere in the world and not have to worry about repercussions from Hindutva terrorist groups.