Sunday, May 7, 2017

Confidence Again

1. Practice Good Posture

2. Pay Attention to Your Internal Dialogue

3. Put the Focus and Spotlight on Others or the Situation, not on You

4. Boost Someone Else's Self-esteem

5. Don't Dream, Be It!

Monday, April 17, 2017

Ambedkar on Islam: The story that must not be told

 Unlike those who appropriate him, the one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist.
From the Aryans to Aurangzeb, from St Xavier to Shivaji, our historians have chosen what to hide, what to invent, and what to disclose. The singular reason for this is the craving for patronage – of an ideology, a government, an ecosystem, or a clique. And once our historians are done with their contortions, we the readers sit back and enjoy the inevitable fallout – the outing of Hypocrisy.
The Left outs the hypocrisy of the Right and the Right outs the hypocrisy of the Left and great column-yards are churned out as a result of such skirmishes. But we forget – outing of hypocrisy is a virtue so long as it doesn’t turn one into a hypocrite. Well, it does; every single time. Villains are made into heroes and heroes into villains. We like it this way. Gandhi, Nehru, Savarkar, Patel – they are to be worshipped; they are to be made into Gods, into Atlases who carry the weight of our ideologies and our biases on the nape of their necks.
History as myth; myth as History. It conforms to what we really are – unsure of our present, fearful of our future. The Right wing doesn’t want to hear anything about Savarkar or Golwalkar that might put them in bad light; the Left-wing doesn’t want to hear anything about Nehru or Namboodiripad that might put them in bad light; and the Velcro Historians don’t want to write anything about anyone that might put them in solitary confinement, away from all light.
Fear and trembling, that is what this is, and the whole nation chugs along on this dead yet simmering coal. A journey to nowhere; slow, halting, tiring; until you realise what the grand plan always is – to appropriate. And of all the great men and women we have had the honour to call our own, no one has been more appropriated than Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar.
Ambedkar. A hero for all, the Left and the Right – out of genuine admiration, out of genuine fear. This is to be expected, for here was a man like no other in modern world history, one who shone like a star with his intellect and understanding. The most un-Indian Indian. Wisdom so frightening and yet so rooted, that it appealed to all. Where he was allowed to, he never put a foot wrong. His writings have that rare quality of timelessness, and his quotes, if quoted anonymously, can be mistaken as comments on contemporary India. Ambedkar has aged well. In this, he stands alone, afar, above. But there is a side to Ambedkar that is not known, spoken, or written, out of fear by those who have appropriated him.
Ambedkar's criticism of Hinduism, as a religion, as a way of life – call it what you will, everyone is aware of. From his umpteen speeches and numerous scholarly works, we know Ambedkar as someone who fought and exposed the terrible ills of Hinduism, and we applaud him for it. That Ambedkar left Hinduism and converted to Buddhism is in itself a stinging appraisal of the former. Knowing him, nothing more needs to be said as a critique of Hinduism. Such is the trust one can put in the man.
What we don’t know, however, is what he thought of the other great religion of the world – Islam. Because this facet of Ambedkar has been hidden from our general discourse and textbooks, it may come as a surprise to most that Ambedkar thought frequently of Islam and spoke frequently on it. The cold and cruel India of the young Ambedkar, that shaped his views on Hinduism and Hindus – and of which this author has written previously – soon became the cold and cruel India of the old Ambedkar, allowing him, through a study of Islam and Muslims, to make sense of a nation hurtling towards a painful and bloody partition.
A distillate of Ambedkar's thoughts on Islam and Muslims can be found in Pakistan Or The Partition Of India, a collection of his writings and speeches, first published in 1940, with subsequent editions in 1945 and 1946. It is an astonishing book in its scope and acuity, and reading it one realises why no one talks of it, possessing as it does the potential to turn Ambedkar into an Islamophobic bigot for his worshippers on the Left.
Here, then, is Ambedkar on Islam:
"Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin."
This scathing indictment by Ambedkar of Islam never finds a mention in our history books. (Indeed, even in Ambedkar.org, a primary resource site for Ambedkar, the chapter that contains this explosive passage is hyperlinked and, unlike other preceding chapters, not easily visible as a continuation under the sub-heading Part IV. The idea is to skip it, not click it.
But then this is India – a Hero must not be perceived as a Villain even though the misperception is entirely of our making. Well, we know better; he didn’t mean to say those things about Islam; perhaps he was misguided; let us look at the context; damn, no, that's not of any help here; tell you what, let us gag him; for the greater good; for communal harmony; for the sake of IPC Section 295A and our peaceful future.
Selective reading of Ambedkar, by which it is meant reading only his damning (and entirely justified) criticism of Hinduism, has led to a prevalent view that only Hinduism is laden with cultural and religious ills. One can see this even today, when the Left and its ideologues point selectively to the social and religious evils pertaining to Hinduism. As a result, someone who isn’t well-versed with India may get the impression that it is only Hinduism and Hindus who are to blame for every ill and intolerance that plagues us. The reality, of course, is that social and religious intolerance runs in our veins, it always has and it always will, for none other than the holy scriptures of all religions have mainstreamed it. It is Ambedkar himself who, presciently and fiercely, points to this hypocrisy.
"The social evils which characterize the Hindu Society, have been well known. The publication of 'Mother India' by Miss Mayo gave these evils the widest publicity. But while 'Mother India' served the purpose of exposing the evils and calling their authors at the bar of the world to answer for their sins, it created the unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the Hindus were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a progressive people. That, such an impression should prevail, is surprising to those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters."
Ambedkar then proceeds to talk in scathing terms of child-marriage, intolerance, fanatical adherence to faith, the position of women, polygamy, and other such practices prevalent among believers of Islam. On the subject of caste, Ambedkar goes into great detail, and no punches are pulled.
"Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women."
Those who rightly commend Ambedkar for leaving the fold of Hinduism, never ask why he converted to Buddhism and not Islam. It is because he viewed Islam as no better than Hinduism. And keeping the political and cultural aspects in mind, he had this to say:
"Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalise the Depressed Classes. If they go to Islam the number of Muslims will be doubled and the danger of Muslim domination also becomes real."
On Muslim politics, Ambedkar is caustic, even scornful.
"There is thus a stagnation not only in the social life but also in the political life of the Muslim community of India. The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat. The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the programme of the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate is that he should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. In some places a Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast and in other if he agrees to buy votes for so much a piece. With the Muslims, election is a mere matter of money and is very seldom a matter of social programme of general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community and if they do find a place—and they must because they are irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion."
The psychoanalysis of the Indian Muslim by Ambedkar is unquestionably deeply hurtful to those on the Left who have appropriated him. How they wish he had never written such things. They try their best to dismiss his writings on Islam and Muslims by taking refuge in the time-tested excuse of "context". That's right. Whenever text troubles you, rake up its context.
Except that in the case of Ambedkar, this excuse falls flat. Ambedkar's views on Islam – in a book with fourteen chapters that deal almost entirely with Muslims, the Muslim psyche, and the Muslim Condition – are stand-alone statements robustly supported with quotes and teachings of scholars, Muslim leaders, and academics. To him these are maxims. He isn’t writing fiction. The context is superfluous; in fact, it is non-existent. Read the following statements:
The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only.
There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs.
Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.
If you are hunting for a context to the above statements, you have just outed yourself as a hopeless apologist. Well, you are not alone. Some of India’s most celebrated hagiographers, commentators, writers, and columnists, that include Ramachandra Guha and Arundhati Roy – both of whom have written copiously on Ambedkar, through stand-alone chapters or books (The Doctor and the Saint; India after Gandhi; Democrats and Dissenters; Makers of Modern India) – are conspicuously silent on Ambedkar’s views on Islam and the Muslim psyche. Clearly, this is a story the apologists do not want to tell.
The one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist. He spares no one, not even Mahatma Gandhi, who he blasts for giving into the selective bias, of the type one finds ubiquitous today.
"He [Gandhi] has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus."
Ambedkar then goes on to list a few Hindu leaders who were killed by Muslims, one among them being Rajpal, the publisher of Rangeela Rasool, the ‘Satanic Verses’ equivalent of pre-Independence India. We all know what happened to Rushdie. As for Rajpal, he met a fate worse than the celebrated Indian author. Rajpal was brutally stabbed in broad daylight. Again, not many know the assassination of Rajpal by Ilm-ud-din was celebrated by all prominent Muslims leaders of the day.
Ilm-ud-din was defended in the court by none other than Jinnah, and the man who rendered a eulogy at his funeral (that was attended by tens of thousands of mourners) was none other than the famous poet Allama Iqbal, who cried as the assassin's coffin was lowered: "We sat idle while this carpenter's son took the lead." Iqbal is revered in India; Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, recently conferred on him the title of Tarana-E-Hind. “Nation will never forget Iqbal,” she said.
Ambedkar writes: "Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress, much against its will to condemn it. But Mr Gandhi has never protested against such murders [of Hindus]. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages, but even Mr Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives...This attitude to excuse the Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well illustrated by what Mr Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots. The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of "congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion". Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Moplas as the "brave God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious ".
As usual, Mr Gandhi failed to produce any satisfactory response to Ambedkar's serious charge. Mahatmas never do. The conduct of Gandhi during the Mopla riots, and his views on them once the carnage had subsided, remain a blot on the Mahatma. Again, they never form part of our history books.
On the allegiance of a Muslim to his motherland [India], Ambedkar writes:
"Among the tenets one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land."
Quoting the following: "The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…" Ambedkar adds: "This must make anyone wishing for a stable government very apprehensive. But this is nothing to the Muslim tenets which prescribe when a country is a motherland to the Muslim and when it is not…According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-lslam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but it cannot be the land of the 'Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.' Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.
"It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims…It might also be mentioned that Hijrat [emigration] is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-lslam." And just as there are instances of the Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there are instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad.” 
On a Muslim respecting authority of an elected government, Ambedkar writes:
"Willingness to render obedience to the authority of the government is as essential for the stability of government as the unity of political parties on the fundamentals of the state. It is impossible for any sane person to question the importance of obedience in the maintenance of the state. To believe in civil disobedience is to believe in anarchy…How far will Muslims obey the authority of a government manned and controlled by the Hindus? The answer to this question need not call for much inquiry."
This view isn't much different from the views of Jinnah and the Muslim League. Indeed, in the then prevailing climate, engineered or otherwise, these views could be seen as legitimate from the point of view of an anxious minority. However, the reason that Ambedkar gives for this predilection is not at all political but, rather startlingly, religious. He writes:
"To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country which is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender and what to omit…In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race.” 
Ambedkar isn’t done yet. On the lack of reforms in the Muslim community, he writes:
"What can that special reason be? It seems to me that the reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian Musalman is to be sought in the peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment which is predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-musalmanazing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away he is led to insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed and that political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform.
"Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost. The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India.
"Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community."
Then, Ambedkar writes something that would surely confirm him as a certified Islamophobe and a bigot in the jaundiced eyes of those who have appropriated him.
"How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative government can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of Kashmir the ruler is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such States representative government means the transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the Muslims support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it in the other. The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects. The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling community—that in this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in their ranks. If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while the latter are not."
History for us is either to be hidden or invented. We tell and retell what we like of it, and of what we don’t, we scrunch it up and slip it under the mattress, and then perch ourselves cross-legged over it to retell a little more. We are born storytellers. A lap and a head is all we need. As for truth? Well, it is not there; it vanished from view; and so it never happened.
But it did happen. Ambedkar did say these things on Islam and Indian Muslims. In doing so, he gave a choice to us, for he knew us only too well. We could either discuss his views on Islam openly like we do his views on Hinduism, or we could scrunch them up like a plastic bag and slip it under our mattress. He did not live long enough to witness the option that we chose but being the seer that he was he had an inkling. As a preface to his book, he wrote:
"I am not sorry for this reception given to my book. That it is disowned by the Hindus and unowned by the Muslims is to me the best evidence that it has the vices of neither, and that from the point of view of independence of thought and fearless presentation of facts the book is not a party production. Some people are sore because what I have said has hurt them. I have not, I confess, allowed myself to be influenced by fears of wounding either individuals or classes, or shocking opinions however respectable they may be. I have often felt regret in pursuing this course, but remorse never.
“It might be said that in tendering advice to both sides, I have used terms more passionate than they need have been. If I have done so it is because I felt that the manner of the physician who tries to surprise the vital principle in each paralyzed organ in order to goad it to action was best suited to stir up the average Indian who is complacent if not somnolent, who is unsuspecting if not ill-informed, to realize what is happening. I hope my effort will have the desired effect."
What words. What beautiful, forceful, tender words. Here was Ambedkar, trying to goad us as a physician would paralysed organs. But he misjudged us. We remain fearful, indifferent, paralysed.
Nations that fear their past fear their future, and fearful nations worship, never follow its great men and women. Ambedkar is no exception.

Source : Laundry

Friday, April 14, 2017

Sean Cooper on Confidence

1. Compare themselves to others

2. Judge themselves

3. Dwell on the past

4. Waste Time Feeling Sorry for themselves

5. Passively Wait Life To Improve

6. Shy Away From Change

7. Avoid (Calculated) Risks

8. View Failure As The End Of The World

9. Live By Other People's Standards

10. Give Away Power

11. Try To Please Everyone

12. Avoid Rejection

13. Demand Perfection Of Themselves

Friday, March 3, 2017

Journey of Pain

Woh kaun tha jo mujhe gham shanas lagta tha?
Kahan se aaya tha woh? Sehra ki pyas lagta tha

Thaka thaka sa musafir tha gham ki rahon ka
Bahar mein bhi woh aksar udas lagta tha

Where did he come from? He was familiar with pain
Where did he come from? He looked thirty like desert

He was a worn out wayfarer of life full of pain
Even in spring we was mostly full of agony

I can clearly identify myself in these two couplets.

The pain is the pain that every Muslim should feel.
The real pain is the pain of ousting from Jannah.
Pain of Adam is the pain of believers. Muslims.

It might look like worldly pain but in reality it is spiritual pain only.
It looks like worldly pain because you are writhing in pain because of having lost your beautiful house - Jannah.
In reality it is spiritual pain because Jannah is behind the curtain and we believe in it because of our faith.

Sufis call it pain of Allah SWT. The pain of separation from Allah SWT.
This pain is necessary because otherwise we would not have known about, for example, Hazrat Ibrahim AS, Hazrat Musa AS and Rasoolallah SAW.

Rumi RA tells us about the same pain in

Bishnav az nay chun shikayat mikunad
v-az juda'iha hikayat mikunad

Listen to the flute, how she complains
She is explaining the reason of separation

The flute has a painful voice. Why? Because she is rending her heart out because of her separation from the reed.
That is the pain of separation. Maulana Rumi is using this pain as a metaphor for our separation from Allah SWT via our exit from Jannah.

There is another Hindi couplet (Doha) of similar import:

Patta toota ped se
Legayi pawan uday
Abke bichhde kab milein
Door pade hain jaay

The leaf broke away from the tree
The wind blew it away
When will we meet again?
There is vast separation now

This distance and break is simply heart breaking.

If we go to the first two couplets of this note then we realize the significance of the sentiments in them.
We are ina state of pain where we do not even know that we are in pain.
And if we know that we are in pain we do not know the source of this pain.
In such a situation it is such a consolation if we find a fellow traveller.
Who knows and feels the pain.
Who is worn out by the same pain.
You wonder who is he.
You wonder where he has come from.
You do not know him but he is more dear to you than your immediate people because he is familiar with your pain.
He feels the same pain.
The same pain has worn him out.
He is in agony even in spring.
He is suddenly so beloved to you.

And in such asituation if you have the following feeling also then the circle seems like completeing:

Hum aa gaye kahan par
Ye kis ka dayar hai
Pehlu se dil pukara
Ye hee koo-e-yaar hai

Where have we reached?
Whose house it is?
From the side heart assured
This is friend's home.

In this world Sirat-ul-Mustaqeem, the Straight Path, is the home of our friend.
We have to take care of ourselves, our family and the whole Ummah of Rasoolallah SAW.
If Rasoolallah SAW was not free from worldly worries then why should we seek freedom from responsibilities of similar kind?
That is my pain. That is my journey.
All my brothers and sisters are invited to be my fellow travellers.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

William Dalrymple on Bomb Blasts in Pakistan


Last week, only three days after a suicide bomb went off in Lahore, an Islamic State supporter struck a crowd of Sufi dancers celebrating in the great Pakistani shrine of Sehwan Sharif. The attack, which killed almost 90, showed the ability of radical Islamists to silence moderate and tolerant voices in the Islamic world.
The attack also alarmingly demonstrated the ever-wider reach of Isis and the ease with which it can now strike within Pakistan. Isis now appears to equal the Taliban as a serious threat to this nuclear-armed country.
The suicide bombing of the Sehwan shrine is an ominous development for the world, in a region that badly needs stability. It is an Islamic shrine where outsiders, religious minorities and women are all welcomed. Here, 70 years after partition and the violent expulsion of most of the Hindus of Pakistan into India (and vice versa with Muslims into Pakistan), one of the hereditary tomb guardians is still a Hindu, and it is he who performs the opening ritual at the annual festival. Hindu holy men, pilgrims and officials still tend the shrine.
But the wild and ecstatic night-long celebrations marking the Sufi saint’s anniversary were almost a compendium of everything Islamic puritans most disapprove of: loud Sufi music and love poetry sung in every courtyard; men dancing with women; hashish being smoked. Hindus and Christians were all welcome to join in the celebrations.
A radical anti-Sufi movement is growing throughout the Islamic world. Until the 20th century, ultra-orthodox strains of Islam tended to be regarded as heretical by most Muslims. But since the 1970s, Saudi oil wealth has been used to spread such intolerant beliefs across the globe. As a result, many contemporary Muslims have been taught a story of Islamic religious tradition from which the tolerance of Sufism is excluded.
What happens at the Sehwan Sharif shrine matters, as it is an indication as to which of the two ways global Islam will go. Can it continue to follow the path of moderate pluralistic Islam, or – under the pressure of Saudi funding – will it opt for the more puritanical, reformed Islam of the Wahhabis and Salafis, with their innate suspicion (or even overt hostility) towards Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism?
Islam in south Asia is changing. Like 16th-century Europe on the eve of the Reformation, reformers and puritans are on the rise, distrustful of music, images, festivals and the devotional superstitions of saints’ shrines. In Christian Europe, they looked to the text alone for authority, and recruited the bulk of their supporters from the newly literate urban middle class, who looked down on what they saw as the corrupt superstitions of the illiterate peasantry.
Hardline Wahhabi and Salafi fundamentalism has advanced so quickly in Pakistan partly because the Saudis have financed the building of so many madrasas that have filled the vacuum left by the collapse of state education.
Madrasa in Peshawar, Pakistan
‘The Saudis have financed the building of many madrasas that have filled the vacuum left by the collapse of state education.’ Photograph: Mohammad Sajjad/AP
On my last visit to Sehwan a few years ago, the largest madrasa there was located in an old haveli not far from the shrine of Lal Shahbaz Qalander. Saleemullah, who ran the madrasa, was a well-educated young man, but there was no masking the puritanical severity of some of his views. For him, the theology of the dispute between the Sufis and the orthodox was quite simple: “We don’t like tomb worship,” he said. “The Qur’an is quite clear about this ... We must not pray to dead men and ask things from them, even the saints.”
He saw his role as bringing “the idol and grave-worshippers from kufr [infidelity] back to the true path of the sharia”. He said: “Mark my words, a more extreme form of the Taliban is coming to Pakistan.”
Saleemullah claimed most people wanted a return to the caliphate and said Pakistan’s intelligence agencies were on his side. And when the caliphate comes, he said: “It will be our duty to destroy all the mazars [mausoleums] and the dargahs [shrines] – starting with the one here in Sehwan.”
Saleemullah’s organisation alone ran 5,000 madrasas across Pakistan, and was opening a further 1,500 in Sindh. According to one recent study there are now 27 times as many madrasas in Pakistan as there were in 1947 – over 8,000 in total.
The religious tenor has been correspondingly radicalised: many Sufi sites and people have come under attack, including the Data Darbar shrine in Lahore in 2010 and the revered Sufi singer Amjad Sabri, who was assassinated last summer.
With its deep roots in south Asian soil, its gentle message and through the music that carries it, Sufism has become an antidote to Isis-style radicalism, and fundamentalisms of all sorts. One old fakir I talked to in the Sehwan shrine said of the Wahhabi mullahs: “Without love, they distort the true meaning of the teaching of the prophet.”
If only the Pakistani government could finance schools that taught respect for the country’s own indigenous and syncretic religious traditions, rather than buying fleets of American F-16 fighters and leaving education to the Saudis. Instead, Pakistan is increasingly coming to resemble a tragic clone of pre-9/11 Taliban Afghanistan – a place where violent radicals are welcomed with open arms, where groups like Isis are rapidly gaining influence, and where moderate Muslims and religious minorities are subject to persecution and murder.

Source : The Guardian

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Open letter of Nadim Asrar to Shehla Rashid

Nadim Asrar, former AMU Students' Union president has written an open letter to Shehla Rashid, a former JNU Students' Union vice president.

Here I shall quote the original letter in blue and give my response to his perfidy.

 Let me express my deep sense of shock and disgust over an FIR filed against you in Aligarh.

Nadim Asrar

20-02-2017
(1) Here is the background. Shehla Rashid wrote a Facebook post about right wing abuses against beloved Prophet of Islam, may peace and blessings of Allah SWT be upon him.

(2) A lower level official, a girl, of AMU Students' Union filed an FIR against Shehla Rashid.

(3) Then the social media took over. 


Hello comrade,
I insist on addressing you like that - not only because you and many amazing young minds before you in JNU have been my comrades for more than two decades now - but also because the word comes from the root "camaraderie", the idea that defines student politics in general, and the strong bonds that JNU and AMU students have built for a progressive polity in particular.
Despite what has happened, those bonds must endure.
(1) It is true that there is mostly good communication between AMUSU and JNUSU.
(2) In spite of that it should not be and can not be forgotten that the character of JNUSU is mostly leftist and that of AMUSU is Muslim.
(3) Nadim Asrar himself was of leftist disposition.

Let me, therefore, at the outset, express my deep sense of shock and disgust over a first information report (FIR) filed against you in Aligarh by the AMU Students Union, which claims you insulted Prophet Mohammad in a Facebook post - a 1000-word statement that those students, in the age of 140-word tweets and emoticonned Whatsapp conversations, were too ignorant to understand. The other possibility is they are deliberately misreading the post and claiming being hurt to "fix" you for speaking your mind.
(1) The accusation is two fold here. AMU students are seriously hampered by emoticonned texts of Whatsapp and 140 character messages to understand a 1000 word Facebook message. The impression is that AMU students are technically incompetent.

(2) Or AMUSU is deliberately misreading Shehla Rashid to fix her for speaking her mind. The impression is two fold again: AMUSU and hence AMU students and hence Muslims do not like women to have their own opinion and secondly they have ill motivation to fix a girl who dared to speak her mind.
 
 
 The men in Aligarh are not used to women speaking their minds, let alone having one. With you, it becomes worse. It's not only your gender that they despise, it's your left-liberal political persuasion too. Aligarh in general has never been comfortable with liberal and progressive forces, despite being one of the major centres of progressive writers and academics in the country.
(1) The FIR against Shehla Rashid was filed by a girl student. To hurl an accusation against all AMU men is clearly a false premise. The least Mr Asrar is erring on is the inherent assumption that the FIR filing girl is incompetent to make her own opinion. In this case it is Mr Asrar who simply can not take a Muslim woman taking a stand that does not go well with his favourite ideology.

(2) Another accusation in first sentence of the above quoted paragraph is that Aligarh men are not used to women having minds of their own. Clearly by Aligarh men he meant Muslims for Professor Irfan Habib, in spite of being an Aligarh man, will certainly be a paragon of all virtue for Mr Asrar. To be good, right, virtuous and proper you have to be a Marxist. Being a Muslim is a total and complete disqualification if you want to be

That the police complaint against you came only two days after you and other comrades from JNU, Delhi University, and Allahabad University were invited by the same AMU Students Union for a symposium on the role of student leaders in "building contemporary society" is one of the many unfortunate ironies that AMU has long been used to revel in.

In the horribly misinterpreted January 9 post on Facebook, you had attempted a more nuanced understanding of hate speech by asserting a rational mind’s democratic right to ask questions and raise doubts, even if they involve religious figures like Ram or Mohammad. There is difference between inquiry and incitement, you argued in that post, with considerable sensibility and success.

Zia Nomani in youthkiawaaz.com was right. “The post quoted some controversial phrases like "Ram was an asshole" and "Mohammad was a paedophile" to distinguish between hate speech and "hateful" speech. It’s a paradox that the ex-JNUSU vice-president Shehla was accused of hate speech in her Facebook post, which was meant to condemn it in the first place,” he wrote.


However, allow me to put this controversy in some context. Far from being an isolated hounding
Hello comrade,
I insist on addressing you like that - not only because you and many amazing young minds before you in JNU have been my comrades for more than two decades now - but also because the word comes from the root "camaraderie", the idea that defines student politics in general, and the strong bonds that JNU and AMU students have built for a progressive polity in particular.

Despite what has happened, those bonds must endure.
of a Muslim woman studying in another university, it actually fits into a long trope of myopia, misogyny and mindset that defines not only AMU, but even the average Muslim man.

Student politics in Aligarh, unlike your university or most others, is ad-hoc and devoid of affiliations from the mainstream political parties. That emptying of politics from politics per se ends up creating student leaders, whose only claim to electoral positions is the most banal slogan you can ever hear in a university: "tempo high hai".

Please don't ask me what it means. I don't know either and have remained intrigued for long. But it is this singular slogan that has set the agenda and decided student elections in Aligarh for nearly a century now. It is "tempo high hai" that has created leaders from Aligarh, whatever little it has produced.

It is this political and intellectual bankruptcy that has marked student politics in AMU. In the absence of political education and atmosphere that an institution of higher education is supposed to provide, more so in a campus like Aligarh, student leaders are left to fend for themselves. Teachers either don't mentor or are too scared to do it. The administration run by former Army generals or senior bureaucrats does all it can to ensure the campus remains depoliticised.

I don't know if you have noticed, but AMU and Jamia Millia Islamia are the only two central universities in India often run by non-academics. While that trend is set to hopefully stop soon, it's appalling why nobody within the community or outside questioned and resisted it for decades.

Such administrators despise progressive politics, victimise teachers or students who dare to do it, and end up undermining the legitimate and democratic right of students to call elections or form political alliances.

What happens in such a depoliticised campus is that student leaders end up pandering to populist notions of religion, tradition or victimhood. Easy and regressive slogans take over more pressing issues like the recent University Grants Commission gazette notification you also questioned AMU about. Politics of emotion takes over politics of consequence. The FIR against you over alleged disrespect to the Prophet explains that.

"I doubt if AMUSU has any sentiments left, let alone religious!" you said in another angry Facebook post after the police case was filed. I have to agree with you on that. Moreover, religious sentiments have no place in an academic insitution.

If AMU or its student leaders claim a religious right over their campus and dictate who gets to enter it, they are failing the very idea of Aligarh and its long history of liberal and alternate politics.

As you so aptly put it in the same Facebook post: "Pehle insaan baniye, phir musalman banne ka dawa kariye." For me, as long as you are a student, insaaniyat (humanism) is all that matters.

(The author is a former president of AMU Students Union.)

Source : Daily-Something

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Dr Mohsin Raza to Saleem Pirzada on Muslims in Indian Elections

Mohsin Raza 

Assalamoalaikum PeerZada Saheb,

Disagreement accompanied by arguments is OK but sarcasm that Zamanat nahee bacha saktey are not decent words.Actually knowledge of history is essential which our friends dont like to learn.
 
Indian general election,1951-1st Lok Sabha Jansangh prent party of BJP won only 3 seats
Indian general election, 1962 3rd Lok Sabha 14 Increase 10
Indian general election, 1962 3rd Lok Sabha 14 Increase 10 6.44 [5][6]
Indian general election, 1967 4th Lok Sabha 35 Increase 21
Indian general election, 1971 5th Lok Sabha 22 Decrease 13 .It took them over half a century to come to power and lost again until PM Modi's charisma won and took power with 33% votes only....They are destined to lose again and many may not even protect Zamanat.

 
It is a matter of ideology and contribution towards constructive activities,refraining from insulting others.

 
I am not an active participant with Mr Saleem Peerzada,but,I highly appreciate his knowledge,high vocabulary & its delivery with consistency of efforts for over a decade.He may not win,he may loose zamanat in elections but he leaves an impact on the minds of people,both educated and otherwise.

 
Mohammad Adeeb justified his presence in Rajya Sabha,took up several big issues,which none else did in last 3 decades,yet he lost in election.It doesnt mean that he should be teased and insulted for loosing. He remains in high esteem in hearts of people due to his services for community.

 
My dears ,electoral compaigns,victory or losses are temporary;They are events occurring as part of a sequence and incidents which should be considered a period in isolation.

 
PERMANENT;We dont look for permanent solutions of empowerment. We rise for events and then land in deep slumber.
We need a SOCIETAL CHANGE.
I have written earlier on this issue............

 
If some one likes to discuss,please feel free to call me cell 0091 8126039175
Dr Mohsin Raza
Senior Consultant General Surgeon

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

On Productivity, or Lack of it


MuftiSays 887 Posts
Sunni Forum 8000 Posts
An Alig's Armchair 1188 Posts
Thus Spake Hazrat Shaikh 2240 Posts
Kamalat-e-Kalimia : Adjust in Inflating SF Posts


This will be about 12000 posts.

In this the 2240 posts on Thus Spake are really one paragraph posts because these are reporting on the the sayings of my Shaikh. Rest of the posts could be a long article of a few pages or simply a link or a comment or a paragraph. It is difficult to average out these to calculate the amount of the material I have produced myself.

Add to this thousands of posts on the FB in last few years.

If I am allowed to shun humility for a moment then it will amount to prodigious output. It will be like 14000 paragraphs of dense material. Assuming that seven such paragraphs would be enough to fill a page it means that I might have written about 2000 densely packed pages on non-leisure material. Of course this is certainly an under estimation but that is alright.

Of course it amounts to nothing in concrete terms for all of this is either on the net or disappeared even from there (all the SF posts).
I suppose I should write down those 2000 pages in print form. If I had already done that then it would have taken a load off my mind - I would have cheated myself into believing that I have done a part of my duty as a Earthian. Alas that is not true.

So be friendly and push me to do that - write books. Apart from papers, those dry Physics kind papers.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Darul Uloom Deoband’s Fatwa on Maulana Saad Kandhlawi

Due to the letters and questions regarding some of the incorrect ideologies and thoughts and the questionable Bayaans of Janaab Moulana Saad Saheb Kandhelwi received from within the country as well as from beyond, with the signatures of senior Asaatizah Kiraam and the panel of Muftis, an official stance has been taken.

However, before releasing this document, it was brought to our notice that a delegation wishes to come to Darul-Uloom and discuss matters on behalf of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb. Hence, the delegation came and delivered the message on behalf of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb that he is ready to make Rujoo’ (retract). Therefore, the unanimous stance was sent with the delegation to Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb. A reply was then received from him, however, Darul-Uloom Deoband was not satisfied with his reply completely, upon which some explanation was sent to Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb in the form of a letter.
In order to protect the blessed effort of Tableegh started by the Akaabir Ulema of Darul-uloom Deoband from becoming mixed up with incorrect ideologies, to keep it on the pattern of the Akaabir and also in order for its benefit and to keep the reliance of the Ulema-e-Haq upon this effort, it is regarded as a Deeni responsibility to present our unanimous standpoint to the Ahl-e-Madaaris, Ahl-e-Ilm and the unbiased people. May Allah Ta’ala protect this blessed effort in every way and grant all of us the ability to remain ideologically and practically on the path of truth.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين، والصلاة والسلام على سيد الأنبياء والمرسلين، محمد وآله وأصحابه أجمعين. أما بعد:
Recently a request has been received from many Ulema and Mashaaikh that Dar-uloom Deoband present its stance regarding the ideologies of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi. Very recently, letters have been received from the reliable Ulema of Bangladesh and some Ulema from our neighbouring country (Pakistan), together with which various Istiftaas [requests for Fatwas] have come to the Darul-Ifta at Dar-uloom Deoband from within the country.
Without getting involved in the disagreements within the Jamaat and the administrative matters, we wish to say that since the last few years, the ideologies of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi were received in the form of letters and Istiftaas. Now, after investigation, it has been proven that, in his Bayaans, incorrect or unfavourable explanation of the Qur’aan and Hadeeth, incorrect analogies and Tafsir bir Ray’ [interpretations based on self-opinion in conflict with Qur’an and Hadith] are found. Some statements amount to disrespect of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) whilst many statements are such, wherein he moves beyond the bounds of the majority and Ijmaa’ of the Salaf.
In some Fiqhi matters also, without any basis, he contradicts the unanimous Fatwa of reliable Darul-Iftas and emphasises his new view upon the general people. He also stresses upon the importance of the effort of Tableegh in such a manner that other branches of Deen are criticised and belittled.
The method of doing Tableegh by the Salaf is also opposed, due to which the respect of the Akaabir and Aslaaf is lessened, rather, they are belittled. His conduct is in stark contrast to the previous Zimm-e-Daars of Tableegh, viz; Hazrat Moulana Ilyas Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh), Hazrat Moulana Yusuf Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh) and Hazrat Moulana In’aamul Hasan Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh).
Hereunder are some of the quotations we have received from the Bayaans of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb which have been proven to have been said by him:
“ Hazrat Moosa (alayhis salaam) left his nation and went in seclusion to engage in Munaajaat with Allah Ta’aala, due to which 188 000 individuals went astray. The Asl was Moosa (alayhis salaam), he was the Zimme-Daar. The Asl was supposed to remain. Haroon (alayhis salaam) was a helper and partner.”
“Naql-o-Harkat is for the completion and perfection of Taubah. People know of the three conditions of Taubah, they don’t know the fourth. They have forgotten it. What is it? Khurooj! [i.e. coming out specifically for Tabligh]. People have forgotten this condition. A person killed 99 people. He first met a monk. The monk made him despair. He then met an Aalim. The Aalim told him to go to a certain locality. This killer did Khurooj, therefore Allah Ta’aala accepted his Taubah. From this it is understood that Khurooj is a condition of Taubah. Without it, Taubah is not accepted. People have forgotten this condition. Three conditions of Taubah are mentioned. The fourth condition, i.e. Khurooj is forgotten.”
“There is no place for getting Hidaayat except the Masjid. Those branches of Deen where Deen is taught, if their connection is not with the Masjid, then, by the oath of Allah Ta’aala there will be no Deen in it. Yes the Ta’leem of Deen will take place, not Deen.”
(In this quotation, by connection with the Masjid, his intention is not going to perform Salaah in the Masjid. This is because he said this while talking about the importance of the Masjid and talking about Deen only after bringing a person to the Masjid. He said it while speaking about his specific ideology, the details of which is in the audio. His ideology is thus: to speak about Deen outside of the Masjid is contrary to the Sunnah, and contrary to the manner of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) and the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum))
“To teach Deen for a wage is to sell Deen. People who commit Zina will enter Jannah before those who teach Qur’aan for a wage.”
“According to me Salaah with a camera phone in ones’ pocket is invalid. Get as many Fatwas as you want from the Ulema. Listening to and reciting Qur’aan on a camera phone is a disgrace to the Qur’aan, there will be no reward for it. A person will be sinful by doing so. No reward will be attained. Because of doing so Allah Ta’aala will deprive one from the ability of practising on the Qur’aan. Those Ulema who give the Fatwa of permissibility in this regard, according to me they are Ulema-e-Soo, Ulema-e-Soo’. Their hearts and minds have become affected by the Christians and Jews. They are completely ignorant Ulema. According to me, whichever Aalim gives the Fatwa of permissibility, by Allah Ta’aala his heart is devoid of the greatness of the Kalaam of Allah Ta’aala. I am saying this because one big Aalim said to me: “What is wrong with it?” I said that the heart of this Aalim is devoid of the greatness of Allah Ta’aala even if he knows Bukhari. Even non-Muslims may know Bukhari.”
“It is Waajib upon every Muslim to read the Qur’aan with understanding it. It is Waajib. It is Waajib. Whoever leaves out this Waajib act will get the sin of leaving out a Waajib act.”
“I am astonished that it is asked: “With whom do you have Islaahi Ta’alluq?” Why is it not said, that my Islaahi Ta’alluq is with this effort? My Islaahi Ta’alluq is with Da’wat. Have Yaqeen that the A’maal of Da’wat is not just enough for reformation, rather, it guarantees reformation. I have contemplated deeply, this is the reason why those involved in the effort do not stay steadfast. I am saddened over those people who sit here and say that six points is not complete Deen. The person who himself says his milk is sour cannot do business. I was completely shocked when one of our own Saathis asked for leave for a month saying that he wanted to spend I’tikaaf in the company of so and so Sheikh. I said that until now you people have not joined Da’wat and Ibaadat. You have spent at least 40 years in Tableegh. After spending 40 years in Tableegh a person says that he wants leave because he wants to go for one month I’tikaaf. I said that the person who requests leave from Da’wat in order to do Ibaadat, how can he improve his Ibaadat without Da’wat? I am saying it very clearly that the difference between the A’maal of Nubuwwat and the A’maal of Wilaayat, the difference is only that of not engaging in Naql-o-Harkat. I am saying it extremely clearly that we do not make Tashkeel to merely go out to learn Deen, because there are other avenues of learning Deen. Why is it necessary to go out in Tableegh only? The object is to learn Deen. Learn in a Madrasah. Learn in a Khaanqah.”
Some quotations from his Bayaans have also been received from which it becomes apparent that Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi regards the vast meaning of Da’wat to be confined to the current form present in the Tableegh Jamaat. Only this form is expressed as the manner of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) and the Sahaabah (radhiyallaahu anhum). Only this specific form is regarded to be Sunnah and the effort of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam), whereas it is the unanimous viewpoint of the majority of the Ummah that Da’wah and Tableegh is a universal command, regarding which the Shariah has not stipulated any specific form, which, if left out, will equate to leaving out the Sunnah.
In different eras Da’wat and Tableegh took on different forms. In no era was the divine command of Da’wat completely ignored. After the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum), the Taabi’een, Tab-e-Taabi’een, A’immah Mujtahideen, Fuqahaa’, Muhadditheen, Mashaaikh, Awliyaa’ of Allah and in recent times our Akaabir made an effort in different ways to bring Deen alive on a global scale.
In order to maintain brevity we have only mentioned a few things. Besides these, many other points have been received that go beyond the scope of the Jumhoor Ulema and have taken the shape of a new ideology. These things being incorrect is very apparent, therefore, a detailed treatise is not required here.
Before this, on numerous occasions, attention was drawn to this in the form of letters sent from Darul-Uloom Deoband. It was also brought to the attention of the delegations from “Bangla Wali Masjid” on the occasion of the Tableeghi Ijtimaa’. To date no reply to the letters was received.
Jamaat-e-Tableegh is a purely Deeni Jamaat, which cannot be left to operate in a manner that is ideologically and practically apart from the majority of the Ummah and the Akaabir (rahmatullahi alayhim). The Ulema-e-Haq can never be unanimous nor can they adopt silence over disrespect to the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam), deviant ideologies, Tafsir Bir Raay and whimsical explanation of the Ahaadeeth and Aathaar, because, these types of ideologies will later on cause the entire group to deviate from the path of truth as has happened to some Deeni and Islaahi Jamaats.
This is why we consider it our Deeni responsibility to inform the Ummah in general and the Tableeghi brothers specifically in light of these points that:-

Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi Saheb, due to a lack of knowledge has strayed from the path of the majority of the Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in his ideologies and his explanation of Qur’aan and Hadeeth, which is undoubtedly the path of deviation. Therefore, silence cannot be adopted regarding these matters, because, even though these ideologies are those of a single person, they are spreading with great speed among the general masses.
The influential and accomplished Zimme-Daars of Jamaat who are moderate and composed also wish to turn our attention that an effort needs to be made that this Jamaat which was established by the Akaabir be kept upon the pattern of the majority of the Ummah and that of the previous Zimme-Daars. An effort also needs to made so that the incorrect ideologies of Molvi Saad that have spread amongst the general masses may be rectified. If immediate action is not taken, there is fear that a great portion of the Ummah, which is affiliated to the Tableegh Jamaat will succumb to deviance and take on the form of a Firqah Baatilah.
We all make Du’aa that Allah Ta’aala protect this Jamaat and keep the Jamaat-e-Tableegh alive and flourishing with Ikhlaas upon the manner of the Akaabir. Aameen. Thumma Aameen.
Note: These types of inappropriate statements were made previously by some individuals connected to the Tableegh Jamaat, upon which the Ulema of that time, for example, Hazrat Sheikhul Islam (rahmatullahi alayh) etc. cautioned them after which those individuals desisted from such statements. Now, however, the Zimme-Daars [i.e. the leaders of Tabligh Jama’at] themselves are saying such things, rather, even worse things are being said, as is apparent from the above quotations. They were cautioned, however, they did not heed the caution, due to which this decision and Fatwa is being approved, in order to save the people from deviance.
[END OF STATEMENT FROM DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND]
The original Urdu version is available at this link:
http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Dawah–Tableeg/147286
THE KUFR IDEOLOGY OF MOLVI SA’D  (Detailed Analysis by Majlisul Ulama)
QUESTION: Maulana Sa’d of the Tablighi Jamaat, had in a bayaan made some serious claims which have caused some consternation and confusion. Kindly listen to his bayaan and guide us. Are the views expressed by him in conformity with the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah? He claimed: 
1. Khurooj (emerging and travelling in Tabligh) is the Asal (actual objective). He basis his view on the Hadith of Hadhrat Ubay Bin Ka’b (Radhiyallahu anhu).
2. Allah and His Rasool are displeased with those who do not make khurooj in Tabligh.
3. The greatest calamity of this age is that Muslims do not consider it a crime to abstain from khurooj.
4. Hidaayat is not in the Hands of Allah Ta’ala. He had therefore sent the Ambiya to impart Hidaayat.
5. Hidaayat is the effect of mehnet (effort). People had received hidaayat because of the mehnet of the Ambiya.
6. The Ambiya did not spread hidaayat with their tawajjuh and roohaaniyat.  
ANSWER 
Ghulu’ (nafsaani extremism) is a satanic affliction bringing bid’ah and even kufr in its wake. A person suffering from the affliction of ghulu’ disgorges any rubbish without applying his mind and without reflecting on the consequences of his stupidities.  
Molvi Sa’d is guilty of ghulu’ (haraam extremism). Unfortunately, the Tabligh Jamaat in general has slipped into ghulu’.  He believes that the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat is Waajib whereas it is not so. The Tabligh Jamaat’s method is mubah (permissible), and will remain mubah as long as ghulu’ and bid’ah do not overtake and destroy the Jamaat by deflecting it from its original path. 
He is confusing or intentionally misusing the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah with the Tabligh Jamaat’s specific methodology, especially of its ‘khurooj’ method. He is equating Tabligh Jamaat khurooj to the Khurooj of the Sahaabah whose Khurooj was for JihaadQitaal –  to subjugate the lands of the kuffaar and to open and prepare the way for the conversion of the kuffaar nations of the world.  In contrast, the methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat excludes non-Muslims. Its field of activity is limited to Muslims. While there is nothing wrong with this, it is wrong and not permissible to find a basis for the specific method of the Tabligh Jamaat in the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah. There is no resemblance. The analogy is fallacious. There is no resemblance between the Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj and the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah. The Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj groups do not encounter a thousandth of the hardships, dangers and trials which the Sahaabah had to face and bear in their Jihaad campaigns. The Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj groups move and live in comfort and even luxury.
The claim that Allah and His  Rasool are displeased with those who do not make khurooj in  Tabligh, is a monstrous lie  fabricated on Allah Ta’ala and  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). Did Molvi Sa’d receive  wahi with which he could back  up his preposterous falsehood?   This contumacious claim comes within the purview of the Hadith:
“He who intentionally speaks a lie on me, should prepare his abode in the Fire.”  
His ghulu’ has constrained him  to disgorge this haraam flotsam. The baseless premises on which  he has raised this palpable falsehood is that the only method of tabligh is the Tabligh Jamaat’s methodology. Allah Ta’ala and  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) are not displeased  with anyone who does not adopt the methods of the Tabligh Jamaat.Sa’d has absolutely no Shar’i evidence for substantiating his preposterous claim of ghulu’.
His claim: The greatest calamity  of this age is that Muslims do not consider it a crime to abstain  from khurooj, is nafsaani drivel disgorged without applying  the  mind. The greatest calamity of the Ummah is gross disobedience fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and even kufr.  This is the actual cause for the  fall and disgrace of the Ummah,  not non-participation in Tabligh  Jamaat activities. The Shariah has not ordained Tabligh Jamaat  participation as an obligation.    The Jamaat’s specific methodology is mubah as long as it is not disfigured with ghulu’  and  bid’ah. Presenting it as ‘waajib’  and even ‘fardh ain’, is ultimately  destroy the dangerous. This ghulu’ will original Tabligh  Jamaat. It will then become a deviant sect. With the Sa’d character, the process of deviation has gained much momentum. The Tabligh Jamaat elders have the incumbent obligation of arresting the slide of the Jamaat into deviation. 
His claim: Hidaayat is not in the Hands of Allah Ta’ala. He had therefore sent the Ambiya to impart Hidaayat is tantamount to kufr. This is the most dangerous of Sa’d’s claims. He is clearly espousing an entirely new concept of kufr. The Qur’aan Majeed is replete with aayaat which categorically state that Hidaayat comes from only Allah Ta’ala. Some random Qur’aanic aayaat follow to show the gross and dangerous deviation which Sa’d has introduced under cover of the Tabligh Jamaat.  
(a) “Verily you (O Muhammad!) cannot give hidaayat to those whom you love. But Allah gives hidaayat to whomever He wills, and He knows best who are to be guided.”  
This Aayat explicitly negates the ability of granting hidaayat from Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). 
(b) “And, We have  guided them (given them hidaayat) to Siraatul Mustaqeem. This is Allah’s Huda (guidance/hidaayat) with which He guides whomever He wills from His servants.  [Al-An’aam, Aayat 89]      
It is Allah, Alone who provides hidaayat.
(c) “If Allah had willed, then they would not have committed shirk. And, We did not make you (O Muhammad!) a protector over them nor are you over them a guard.”      
The obligation of the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was to only deliver the Message – the Deen. Providing hidaayat was beyond the capability of the Ambiya, hence the Qur’aan repeatedly instructs them to say: “Upon us is only to deliver the Clear Message.”  
(d) “Thus, Allah leads astray whomever He wills, and He guides (gives hidaayat) to whomever He wills.”  [Ibraaheem, Aayat 4] 
(e) “Therefore, on the Messengers it is only the Clear Delivery (of the Deen) Verily, We have sent for every Ummat a Rasool so that they (their people) worship Allah and abstain from (worshipping) the devil. Thus, from them are those whom Allah guided, and among them are those upon whom dhalaal (the deviation of kufr) has been confirmed.”  [An-Nahl, Aayats 35 and 36] 
(f)  “(Even) if you (O Muhammad!)  ardently desire that they be guided, then too, verily Allah does not guide those whom He has caused to go astray, and for them there is no helper.”  [An-Nahl] 
(g) “If  Allah had so wished, He would have made you all one Ummah, but He misleads whoever He wills and He guides whomever He wills.”  [An-Nahl, Aayat 93]
(h) “And, if your Rabb had willed, He would have made all mankind one Ummah, then they would not have differed.”  [Hood, Aayat 118] 
(i) “If Allah had willed, He would have gathered them on guidance. Therefore never be among the jaahileen (believing that you can guide them all).”  [An-Aaam, Aayat 35] 
(j) “Whomever Allah wishes, He leads him astray, and whomever He wishes, he establishes him on Siraat-e-Mustaqeem.”  [An-Aaam, Aayat 39] 
(k) “If Allah had so desired, they would not have committed shirk. And, We did not make you (O Muhammad!) a guard over them, nor are you for them a protector.” [An-Aam, Aayat 107] 
(l) “If He had willed, then most certainly He would have guided you all.”   (An-Aam,  Aayat 150) 
(m) “If your Rabb had desired, then all people on earth would have accepted Imaan. What! Do you want to compel people until they become Mu’mineen?” [Yoonus, Aayat 99]
(n) “And, whomever Allah misleads, there will be no guide forhim.”  [Ra’d, Aayat 33]
The aforementioned are merely  some Qur’aanic Aayaat chosen at  random for the edification of  Molvi Sa’d. The Qur’aan, replete with Aayaat of this kind,  categorically confirms that Hidaayat is a prerogative  exclusively of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Hidaayat is in entirety reliant on Allah Ta’ala, NOT on mehnet (effort) as Molvi Sa’d contends. Apportioning Hidaayat  to human beings is ordained by Allah Ta’ala. It is not the effect of the effort of the Ambiya, and to a greater extent not the effect of mehnet of the Tabligh Jamaat. 
While all people are required to  strive and struggle in whatever occupation/profession they are  involved, the end result, its success or failure, is the decree  of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Thus, a man  makes mehnet in the quest of his  Rizq; in the quest of Knowledge,  and in many other pursuits. But  the final result is Allah’s decree.  The Rizq we received is not on  account of our effort. It is not  permissible, and it is nugatory of  Imaan to believe that the  consequences of Taqdeer are  reliant on personal and not on  Divine Directive.
The Qur’aan repeatedly declares  that Hidaayat effort, is Allah’s prerogative, not the effect of the was mehnet of the Ambiya. If mehnet is the criterion and imperative requisite for Hidaayat, Rasulullah’s uncle Abu Talib,  Hadhrat Nooh’s wife and son, Hadhrat Loot’s wife, Hadhrat  Ibraaheem’s father and innumerable others closely  associated with the Ambiya would not have perished as kuffaar.
They would all have acquired the treasure of Imaan as a direct  effect of the supreme Ambiya.  Thus, Sa’d’s contention that mehnet of the Hidaayat is not in  the control of Allah Azza Wa Jal  is blatant kufr. He must renew his Imaan. It is haraam for the Tabligh Jamaat elders to tolerate such a deviate within the ranks of the Jamaat.  
Molvi Sa’d with his jahaalat, pivots hidaayat on mehnet (struggle/striving). This is a capital blunder which is the effect of ignorance. If the basis of hidaayat was mehnet, then his argument will imply that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had, nauthubillah, failed in his duty of mehnet because there were many who did not accept Imaan despite all the efforts of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). And the same ‘failure’ stemming from the kufr view of Sa’d, will apply to all the Ambiya.  
On the death occasion of his beloved uncle, Abu Taalib, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) pleaded with all his heart in the effort to guide his uncle. But Abu Talib rebuffed Rasulullah’s mehnet, and died without Imaan. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) spared no effort – he left no stone unturned in his mehnet to guide people. But, many remained mushrikeen and rebuffed all his efforts. It is palpably clear that hidaayat is not the consequence of the muballigh’s mehnet. It is the effect of Allah’s Will. He guides whomever He wills. The Qur’aan is categorical in this averment. 
This Sa’d character is incapable of understanding even simple Qur’aanic aayaat and the facts of reality. The Nabi was Allah’s Messenger. His duty was to only discharge the obligation of delivering the message of Allah Ta’ala. Hence the Qur’aan repeatedly instructs the Ambiya to say: “Upon us is to only deliver the Message.”  
The Maqsood is not mehnet. The Maqsood (Objective) is to discharge the obligation with which the Bandah has been entrusted. Whether a person will be guided or not, is beyond the control and ability of the muballigh. Hidaayat is the prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. 
Molvi Sa’d claims that the deception of Muslims is their belief that change in the Ummah will occur by way of the spiritual state (Roohaaniyat) of the Auliya. This is obviously wishful thinking and the charge is false. No one entertains this idea. It is merely Sa’d’s hallucination. The Ummah’s condition will change only if Muslims obey Allah’s Shariat whether they make Tablighi Jamaat type of khurooj or not. The Ummah’s rotten state is not because Muslims do not participate in Tabligh Jamaat activities. It is because of the flagrant transgression of fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr in which the Ummah is sinking.  
Abstention from Tabligh Jamaat activities is not sinful. Participation is not Waajib. Non-participation in Tabligh Jamaat activities never was the cause of the fall and humiliation of the Ummah. In fact, the Ummah had scraped the dregs of the barrel of disgrace and degeneration many centuries before the birth of the Tabligh Jamaat.   
The Khurooj during the era of the Salf-e-Saaliheen and even thereafter was always only for the purpose of Jihaad – Qitaal Fi Sabeelillaah. There never ever was mass khurooj for tabligh. While khurooj for tabligh is permissible and meritorious, it is not Waajib and the idea of it being waajib is haraam ghulu’ which culminates in Sa’d type dhalaal and kufr.  Applying to the Tabligh Jamaat activities the narrations which relate explicitly to Jihaad, is dangerous deviation. The thawaab of tabligh –i.e. tabligh of any method, not of only the Tabligh Jamaat, is immense. But to mislead the masses by presenting the Jihaad narrations as if they apply to the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat is not permissible. It is a fabrication for which there is no basis in the Shariah
Molvi Sa’d’s istidlaal from Hadhrat Ka’b’s Hadith is utterly baseless. His interpretation of the Hadith is baseless and erroneous. He is gumraah (astray) and leading others into gumraahi. Firstly, his claim that Khurooj whether it is khurooj in actual Jihad, or khurooj for Tabligh Jamaat activity, is the asal (i.e. actual objective), is manifestly baatil, baseless and corrupt. The objective of Jihaad is I’laa Kalimatullah for the sole purpose of gaining Allah’s Pleasure. This is the Asal, not khuroojKhurooj is merely a method for the acquisition of the Asal. But, Sa’d has placed the cart in front of the horse. 
The displeasure incurred by Hadhrat Ka’b (Radhiyallahu anhu) for failure to participate in the specific Jihad campaign of Tabook, was ‘disobedience’. He had failed to observe the command to emerge. He had unilaterally without valid reason decided to remain behind. This was his error for which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered the boycott. 
Furthermore, Hadhrat Ka’b’s error pertained to Khurooj related to actual JihaadQitaal fi Sabeelillaah. It was not a khurooj for the specific method of tabligh which the Tabligh Jamaat had innovated some decades ago.  If Sa’d’s logic is to be accorded  any credibility and validity, it will  follow that the Hadhrat Ka’b’s  failure to make Khurooj consequences of should be  extended to all those who refuse  to make khurooj for Tabligh  Jamaat activity. The logical result  would be to boycott the almost  3 billion Muslims of this era who  not only do not participate in  Tabligh Jamaat khurooj,  but they  also deny  the essentiality  of participation in the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat.
A grave error of the Tabligh Jamaat is the predication  of all the Jihaad narrations to their specific method of tabligh, whilst there is absolutely no  affinity between the Tabligh  Jamaat and Jihaad, i.e. the type  of Jihaad of the Sahaabah.  Whilst the absence of this affinity is not sinful, the appropriation of  the Hadith narrations pertaining  to Jihaad is inappropriate and  not permissible. The Tabligh  Jamaat has as its goal the  reformation of Imaan and the impartation of the basic teachings of the Deen. Qitaal in our era for  the  acquisition of  these  fundamental requisites is not a condition as it was during the era  of the Sahaabah. Qitaal was imperative to subjugate the lands of the kuffaar for removing the obstacles in the path of  establishing the Deen. But this  method of Qitaal does not form  part of the Tabligh While  the  Tabligh Jamaat’s methodology. Jamaat may not be criticized for  this, the criticism for misusing the Jihaad narrations is valid.
Molvi Sa’d’s claim:“In this age  people do not regard as a crime and a sin reduction in  emerging  in the Tabligh Jamaat’s way  (of khurooj).”, is another stupid  fallacy. There is no Shar’i basis  for believing that it is a crime and sinful to refrain from the specific khurooj methodology of the  Tabligh Jamaat. Sa’d has no  affinity with the Ilm of the Deen,  hence he acquits himself as do  the juhala, disgorging just any  drivel of his nafs.
He presents the fallacious analogy of gheebat,  speaking lies, theft, zina and riba  in his ludicrous attempt to liken  the so-called ‘sin and crime’ of  non-participation in Tabligh Jamaat khurooj the  aforementioned kabeerah sins.
This is a monstrous lie fabricated  against the Shariah. The major  sins of zinariba, liquor, etc.  are substantiated by Nusoos of  the Qat’i category, while the  contention of abstaining from Tabligh Jamaat khurooj being a crime and a sin is the horrid  product of corrupt personal opinion stemming from ghulu’.   
He finds fault with those who say  that it is sinful to indulge in zina,  liquor and gheebat, but not  sinful to abstain from the Tabligh Jamaat khurooj. This haraam  opinion is scandalously baatil. Sa’d’s ideology is scandalous. He constitutes a grave danger for proper functioning of the Tabligh  Jamaat. The deviation from the  Jamaat’s original principals  bodes evil for the Tabligh Jamaat. It is Waajib for the elders of the  Tabligh Jamaat to eradicate the evil and eliminate the rot which  is gnawing at the foundations of the Jamaat.

source : another Blog