Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui

Archive for June, 2010|Monthly archive page

Globalization – Part I & II

In Clsh of Civilizations on June 30, 2010 at 10:44 am

Did Jinnah know about the Kashmir War?

In Pakistan History on June 29, 2010 at 8:02 am

By Ishtiaq Ahmed

Those who want us to believe that an obscure colonel forced Pakistan into a war without the knowledge of the top political leadership, especially someone of the stature of Jinnah, are insulting common sense

In his comment, ‘Jinnah’s role in the Kashmir War’ (Daily Times, March 24, 2010) on my op-ed a week earlier, ‘The 1947-48 Kashmir War’ (Daily Times, March 16, 2010), Yasser Latif Hamdani writes: “There is no evidence, let alone ‘overwhelming’ one, of Jinnah’s knowledge of the tribal invasion.” In the next paragraph he quotes Alastair Lamb who writes, “The Governor General, M A Jinnah was kept ignorant of all the details, though naturally he was aware that there was trouble of some sort brewing in Kashmir…” Lamb speaks about Jinnah being kept ignorant about details, not about the event itself.

The relevant portion from NWFP Governor George Cunningham’s quote Hamdani invokes strengthens the inference I draw above. Cunningham remarked, “Apparently Jinnah himself heard first heard of what was going on about 15 days ago, but said, ‘Don’t tell me anything about it. My conscience must be clear’.” In plain English, one can only read it to mean that Jinnah did not want others to know that he knew about the Kashmir campaign. Hamdani calculates that Jinnah first learnt about it around October 10, 1947.

That means 14 days before “tribal warriors backed by Pakistani regulars and irregulars entered Kashmir in the last week of October”, as I wrote earlier. Fourteen days is long enough to put a stop to a misadventure. It was distinctly separate from the uprising in Poonch in August that comprised mainly Poonchis who had served in the Indian and Kashmir armies. The issue at debate is the invasion that started on October 24, 1947, that precipitated the decision of the Maharaja to accede to India. The events that preceded it are not relevant.

Hamdani claims that Major (retired) Agha Humayun Amin makes no claim about Jinnah being in the know about the Kashmir tribal incursion. In his book, The Pakistan Army till 1965 (1999), Amin writes, “The Muslim League’s high command had tasked Mian Iftikharuddin, Minister for Refugees, to prepare a plan aimed at ensuring that the Muslim majority state of Kashmir should join Pakistan. Brigadier Akbar Khan then serving in the Pakistan GHQ wrote an appreciation ‘armed revolt inside Kashmir’ on Mian Iftikharuddin’s request. It appears that Mr Jinnah had tasked Iftikharuddin to plan/handle the Kashmir business” (p 89). Further down, Amin talks of three principal parties that were involved in the whole invasion affair. Of the three, “One side was the Muslim League leaders like Shaukat Hayat (an ex-major), Iftikharuddin and Khurshid Anwar who had been ordered by Mr Jinnah to do something to help the Kashmiri Muslims…” (p 89).

Later Amin writes, “It may be noted that Mr Jinnah had ordered General Gracey the British Acting C-in-C…to attack Kashmir.” Gracey refused because Field Marshal Auchinleck, who was the Supreme Commander of both India and Pakistan, overruled British officers to take part in a war between India and Pakistan. Amin goes on to develop an argument that the Kashmir war was winnable. That is the opinion of a military officer and an author. One need not concur with that.

Hamdani latches on to Amin’s belief in victory in Kashmir and makes this interesting remark, “Jinnah tried to assert himself when he ordered [on October 24 or 25, 1947] the Pakistan Army to mobilise against the Indian Army’s movement towards Srinagar, but he was dissuaded from doing so by what can legally only be called ‘mutiny’ and nothing else.” How very interesting and original indeed! Instead of charging Gracey with mutiny, Jinnah promoted him as Pakistan’s second commander-in-chief in February 1948, which is several months after he allegedly mutinied. Gracey was C-in-C till 1951 when Ayub Khan took over.

Professor Ayesha Jalal has the Kashmir war in her book, The State of Martial Law: The Origins of Pakistan’s Political Economy of Defence (1990). She observes: “One has perforce to conclude that the government of Pakistan with the connivance of the Frontier ministry was actively promoting the sentiments that had encouraged the tribesmen to invade Kashmir. Admittedly, the Pakistani leadership refrained from officially committing the army in Kashmir. But they did so because of the severe shortage of arms and ammunition, not because this was the preferred course of action. If they had been in a position to do so, the Muslim League leaders, with Jinnah’s blessings, would have thrown in the army behind the tribal effort…The commander-in-chief of the Azad forces was a Pakistani army officer, colonel Mohammad Akbar, who went under the pseudonym of ‘General Tariq’ [legendary conqueror of Spain in the 8th century] and was known to be in close contact with Qayum Khan and through him with Jinnah and the League leaders in Karachi” (pp 58-9).

Hamdani and others who want us to believe that an obscure colonel forced Pakistan into a war without the knowledge of the top political leadership, especially someone of the stature of Jinnah, are insulting common sense. If that were true, then why did Jinnah not order Akbar Khan to be tried for gross insubordination that was tantamount to treachery? Akbar Khan should have been court-martialled. He was not, because he had acted only after clearance from the very top. Before he became really ill in June 1948, Jinnah exercised real power and authority and made key decisions. Liaquat Ali Khan was practically his sidekick.

In April 1948, Gracey was convinced by Jinnah to send troops into Kashmir. By that time some arms had been procured from Britain, writes Brian Cloughley in his book, A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections (2000). Thus officially Pakistan and India were at war from April 21, 1948. Cloughley notes that May 1948 onwards, India began to enjoy the upper hand, but the war remained stalemated with neither side scoring victory (pp 20-21). Major-General (retired) Shaukat Riza reached the same conclusion, that neither side could win the war in Kashmir in his book, The Pakistan Army 1947-1949 (1989). Under the circumstances, it was not extended to Punjab, but would have had India felt it needed to checkmate Pakistan. That is what I concluded in my previous article.

Jinnah was a poker player who projected invincibility even when he was dealt a bad hand by fate, asserts Hamdani. It is a peculiar way to sum up Jinnah’s politics, to say the least. I am convinced that if the Kashmir gamble had succeeded, Miss Jinnah, Soraya Khurshid, Yasser Hamdani and many others would have described it as yet another marvellous poker gambit of Jinnah. Our heroes never make a wrong move. If they do we feign ignorance about it.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg

Source: Daily Times

Pakistan As Bulwark Of Islam

In Pakistan's Ideology on June 29, 2010 at 6:41 am

By Malveer Hussain

The speeches of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah from August 1947 till his death, repeatedly advocated Muslim Ideology for Pakistan, he persistently stressed Islamic social justice, equality, brotherhood, Islamic ideals and principles and the onward march of renaissance of Islamic culture.

It is clear from the following excerpt of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on 11 August 1947 that Baba-e-Quam sketched the picture of Pakistan as a true Islamic society in which absolute generous religious freedom would be granted to every minority of the society, and where the state would not differentiate on the basis of caste or creed.

“You are free, free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State,”

During his speech at the inauguration ceremony of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 14 August 1947, Quaid-e-Azam marvelously ascribed pure Islam in response of Lord Mountbatten’s address in which he prayed for the betterment of the world and hoped to fulfill the principles of Akbar the Great:

The tolerance and good will that great Emperor showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origins. It dates back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet (peace be upon him) not only by words but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims wherever they ruled, is replete with those human and great principles which should be followed and practiced.’

The Father of the nation wanted to build Pakistan as bulwark of Islam, he emphasized that we should lead our lives according to Islam’s glorious traditions and Holy Quran should remain our motivating force for our future successes:

“If we take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Quran, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours”. (30 October 1947)

Similarly visionary Muhammad Ali Jinnah formulated the economic dimensions of Pakistan. In the inaugural ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan on 1 July 1948 he said:

“The adoption of western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal.”

By adding:

“We must present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concepts.”

Above mentioned very few excerpts from his many addresses explain and reflect the vision and ideology of Quaid-e-Azam and what he vitally wanted for Pakistan as a sovereign state.

All those who are trying to manipulate his guidelines and are crying for “Secular Jinnah and his Secular Pakistan” and “Secular Pakistan is the only solution for today’s problems”, off repeated intuitions propagated by many so called farsighted and open-minded intellectuals and writers who are in reality shortsighted and closed-minded, should vigilantly study why Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah gave major portion of his life to the cause of Sub-Continent’s Muslims plus what he said about himself:

“What ever I have done, I did as a servant of Islam and only tried to perform my duty and made every possible contribution within my power to help our nation.” (Quaid-e-Azam-17 August 1948)

Source : http://hamarapakistan1947.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/pakistan-as-bulwark-of-islam/


Israel – A Spider’s Web

In Islam - A Study on June 27, 2010 at 10:34 am

Iqbal on the Idea of Finality of Prophethood

In Anti Ahmadiies on June 26, 2010 at 9:06 am

In recent past we are continuously observing a false & baseless propaganda against  Great Islamic Scholar & poet Allama Iqbal about his associations with false prophet of Quadian. Brother “Waqar Ahmad Cheema” wrote an excellent piece on this topic at his blog. His article is just like a slap on Liberal / Ahmadi lobby wicked face

One of greatest Muslim philosophers and ideologues of all times, Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, gave special attention to the idea Finality of Prophethood (Khatam Al-Nubuwwah) and at length wrote about its significance in the House of Islam.

Here are some quotes from him;

“I want rather to fix your gaze on some of the ruling concepts of the culture of Islam in order to gain an insight into the process of ideation that underlies them, and thus to catch a glimpse of the soul that found expression through them. Before, however, I proceed to do so it is necessary to understand the cultural value of a great idea in Islam – I mean the finality of the institution of prophethood…

The birth of Islam, as I hope to be able presently to prove to your satisfaction, is the birth of inductive intellect. In Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need of its own abolition. This involves the keen perception that life cannot for ever be kept in leading strings; that, in order to achieve full self-consciousness, man must finally be thrown back on his own resources. The abolition of priesthood and hereditary kingship in Islam, the constant appeal to reason and experience in the Qur’an, and the emphasis that it lays on Nature and History as sources of human knowledge, are all different aspects of the same idea of finality…

The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that all personal authority, claiming a supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man’s inner experience. Just as the first half of the formula of Islam has created and fostered the spirit of a critical observation of man’s outer experience by divesting the forces of nature of that Divine character with which earlier cultures had clothed them. Mystic experience, then, however unusual and abnormal, must now be regarded by a Muslim as a perfectly natural experience, open to critical scrutiny like other aspects of human experience.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

At another place he further says;

“The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically the doctrine is that: The Socio-political organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam.

And he does not stop here rather he goes on to answer some of the fundamental arguments of the Ahmadiyya. He says;

“Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder‘s own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually, amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of Prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad‘s Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the ‘finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

He claims to be a ‘buruz’ of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a ‘buruz‘ of him his ‘finality‘ is virtually the ‘finality‘ of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the ‘finality‘ of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word ‘buruz‘ in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the ‘buruz‘ must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a ‘buruz‘ becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word ‘buruz‘ to mean ‘like in spiritual qualities’ the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.”

(Islam and Ahmadism, p.8 pub. Da’wah Academy IIUI, Islamabad)

And it is precisely the same Magian spirit which Iqbal like his great predecessor, Ibn Khaldun, considered to be against the spirit of the Muslim culture. In his lectures he says;

“I have already indicated the direction in which the student of Islam should seek the cultural meaning of the doctrine of finality in Islam. It may further be regarded as a psychological cure for the Magian attitude of constant expectation which tends to give a false view of history. Ibn Khaldun, seeing the spirit of his own view of history, has fully criticized and, I believe, finally demolished the alleged revelational basis in Islam of an idea similar, at least in its psychological effects, to the original Magian idea which had reappeared in Islam under the pressure of Magian thought.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

And the importance and vitality of the same idea of ‘finality’ he beautifully sums up in a single poetic verse;

لا نبی بعدی احسان خداست      پردہ ناموس دین مصطفیٰ است

‘No Prophet after me’ is of God’s grace,

And veil the modest beauty of the Faith

Source : http://thecult.info/blog/2010/06/21/iqbal-on-the-idea-of-finality-of-prophethood/

The Proven Links of Ahmadies & Israel – A Hidden Fact

In Anti Ahmadiies on June 25, 2010 at 11:46 am

One of the Pakistan’s greatest Ahmadi betrayer Sir. Zafarullak Khan who was unfortunately Pakistan’s first foreign minister provided a great damage to Palestine for fulfilling  his community wicked plans to be settle in Haifa – An Israeli City. Please read the following article which is opening a new debate & unveiling his role.

Pakistan delegation to the UN was led by Sir Zafarullah, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and included Mirza A.H Ispahani, Pakistan Ambassador in Washington, Mir Laiq Ali, Abdul Sattar Pirzada and Begum Tasadduq Hussain.

The position taken up by Pakistan with regard to Palestine in the UN was that the Balfour Declaration and the League’s Mandate were invalid and against the wishes of people and the proposal of partition was contrary to the Charter.

The Ad Hoc Committee to which Palestine question was referred by the General Assembly, appointed two sub-committees to deal with it. These sub-committees were so constituted that all the members of sub-committee I were in favour of the partition while the member of sub-committee II opposed partition. Thus there was no hope of a compromise solution emerging from either sub-committees. To redress this situation, the Chairman of sub-committee II, who was the representative of Colombia, requested the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to nominate two states holding a neutral attitude in place of two Arab states, who were members of the sub-committee and who were willing to resign from it. On the refusal of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, the representative of Colombia resigned his Chairmanship of sub-committee II and Sir Zafarullah was elected in his place.

Sub-committee I, in its report recommended the internationalization of Jerusalem and the partition of rest of Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish, with a common economic council. Sub-committee II recommended a unitary state for the whole of Palestine with constitutional safeguards for the rights of all its inhabitants.

A Crucial Mission

Although Mirza Mahmud left Qadian and had come to Lahore and was faced with the crucial problem of finding a place to set up a centre in Pakistan, he never lost sight of Palestine question. When the issue was being discussed in the UN, he instructed Hakim Fazal Rahman, Qadiani missionary of Nigeria, to visit Palestine immediately. Walillah Shah and Jalaluddin Qamar were also instructed to go to Middle East and East Africa respectively to provide support to them. Hakim Fazal Rahman reached Beirut on 31 October 1947. Sheikh Noor Ahmad, Qadiani missionary Palestine writes:

“Hakim sahib suddenly arrived in Beirut and made effort to search me out. I was in Lebanon to see the cousin of Jamil Bek, the Prime Minster of Lebanon. I met Hakim Sahib on my return from Lebanon. Since he had to reach Pakistan, he wanted to go to Palestine at the very earliest. Anyhow, he left for Palestine on 4 November. Jama’at Kababir welcomed him, Hakim Sabib toured the cities of Jerusalem, Nasara, and Acca. He desired to see members of the Arab League Committee but owing to shortage of time he could not visit them. He stayed in Palestine for ten days. Then he left for Damascus.  Noor Ahmad further states that he went to Beirut in connection with a very important work. During his absence from Damascus, Hakim Sahib saw many Barristers and Advocates, besides military officers. Hakim left for Karachi on 22 November 1947.”

Palestine issue came under frequent discussions in Lahore. In an important meeting held at Lahore, Mirza Mahmud discussed it in the context of an Arabic revelation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad which says:‘The holy men (Abdals) of Syria prayed for us (Arabic).‘ He interpreted it to mean that a section of Ahmadiyya Jama’at had to go to Syria in near future.

AlFazl reports:

‘Hazoor (Mirza Mahmud) while discussing the revelation of the Promised Messiah that ‘Abdals of Syria prayed for you’ declared that a friend had drawn his attention to the point that the Promised Messiah ‘s revelation had come in the context of those revelations which signified distress. Hazoor said that this revelation had already been under his consideration. In Palestine adverse condition were prevailing. However, it would be possible that a section of Ahmadiyya Jama’at from us might have to go Syria. The revelation can be interpreted in two ways: One that the Abdal of Syria prayed to God for us and the other that they called us.‘  Amended Plan

In the UN, Sir Zafarullah opposed the partition scheme in accordance with the stand taken by Pakistan on the Palestine issue. It may be recalled that the Quaid had always supported the Palestinian cause in numerous conferences, interviews, press releases and through the resolutions of the Muslim League at its annual sessions, Council and Working Committee Meetings from 1937-48.Pakistan’s stand was absolutely clear. In reply to a question by Reuter’s correspondent Duncan Hooper (25 October 1947), the Quaid said:

‘The leader of our delegation to the UN, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, has clearly defined our position regarding the latest developments in Palestine.’

Strangely enough when discussions were going on the partition scheme in the UN, Zafarulla started proposing amendments to it, which meant that he, in principle, agreed to the scheme if it was slightly amended. That was said to be done on the suggestion of Danish representative with a view to ‘crippling’ the scheme. Zafarullah says that he proposed an amendment just to see the reaction on it but the amendment was immediately accepted after voting.

Syed Jamal-ul-Hussaini, the leader of the Palestine delegation hurriedly approached him and enquired why he had done like that. Sir Zafarullah says that he explained the position and apprised him of the Danish strategy. To his utter surprise, he asked him in case all of his amendments were accepted he would favour the partition scheme: Zafarullah: No! We will be strongly opposing it. We want at least to weaken the partition plan even if it is accepted. It will not be as bad as it is now.

Jamale : We (Palestinians) will be in great difficulty then.

Zafarullah: You may inform Arab representatives that they may not vote in favour of an amendment and remain neutral.

Jamal: The difficulty still persists.

Zafarullah: What is that?

Jamal: If the Partition has not manifestly usurped our right, our people will not be prepared to wage a war against it. We will incur a heavy loss. We will be thankful if you do not propose any amendment!

Zafarullah: I got silent.

What was the real intention of Sir Zafarullah? Did he intend to sabotage Palestine case by favouring an amended Partition Plan instead of a unitary form of Government for a united Palestine? How far it projected Pakistan’s stand on Palestine issue? These questions need a suitable reply.

Sir Zafarullah, in his speech, deeply sympathised with the Jews in the misfortune that they had suffered in Europe. But the correct solution of their problem, he pleaded, was that they should be reabsorbed in the countries to which they belonged and if that were not possible, they should be offered facilities for settling down in the larger, newer countries, which had more space and greater resources than tiny Palestine.

The supporters of the partition scheme were determined to see it through at all costs. The vote was to be taken in plenary session on 26 November 1947. But according to Sir Zafarullah, if it had been put to the vote on that day, partition could not have been carried. But the UN Secretary General informed that the UN staff would not work on Thanksgiving Day (28 November) therefore the matter must be postponed. When the matter came to actual voting after the adjournment, some of the states whose representatives opposed partition proposal tamely supported it at the behest of America and the resolution was passed. Then necessary two third majority was obtained for the partition scheme which was backed both by the US and the Soviet Union. Zafarullah feels convinced that it was the personal intervention of President Truman that brought about these changes.’

During the thanksgiving interval when the US was availing time to secure required majority for the Partition Plan, a correspondent asked Sir Zafarullah: What were the basis of successful negotiations between Arab and Jews? He replied: ‘If they agree to appoint me an Arbitrator I can solve the matter on correct lines.’24 It is not clear why and in what capacity he offered his services for arbitration and how far it fell in line with our stand on Palestine?

What was Ahmadiyya reaction to the ‘creation’ of Israel? AlFazl Lahore wrote a short column on the unjust resolution of partition and creation of a Jewish state. It was called a great defeat for the Arabs but at the same time its two bright aspects were stressed. Firstly, the Arab countries would know how to stand on their feet without inculcating wishful thinking for the West. Secondly the Arab countries would have realized the benefits of unity.

The paper neither condemned the partition nor exposed Imperialist-Zionist intrigues in any way. On the contrary Mirza Mahmud called the creation of Israel a fulfillment of prophecy already given in the Holy Quran, Ahadith and the Bible. The Qadiani elders also emphasized that Mirza Mahmud had already visualized it in a dream and his prophecy relating to ‘Modified Treaty’ clearly stipulated the Soviet assistance for the Jewish state. The prophecy is said to have been gloriously fulfilled after the creation of Israel.27

Zafarullah ‘s Role

Sir Zafarullah, in the capacity of the leader of Pakistan delegation to the UN was supposed to project Pakistan’s stand on Palestine issue. I.H.Ispahani says Zafarullah did well Anyhow, he was Pakistan’s representative and not a spokesman of Qadian. But it is very strange that whenever Qadiani role in support of Jewish “aspirations ” is exposed, they quote Pakistan press comments given in favour of Zafarullah’s speech at the UN, as if Pakistan stand on the issue was similar to that of Qadian’s. It is nothing but an attempt to conceal real facts.

The fact is that Zafarullah later on exploited Pakistan stand and his position to project Qadianism and to deceive Arab countries. When he returned from the UN he deliberately stayed in Syria  to spend some time with Ahmadiyya community in Syria. He was welcomed at the airport by the Syrian officials as well as Sheikh Noor Ahmad Munir and other members of Qadiani community. Also present at the airport were Syed Sohail, the personal envoy of Syrian President, Ustaz Arif Hamza, representative of Syrian ministers, Ghalib Muoze Bek, General Superintendent Police, Fuad Mueen Bek and Izzat, and members of the Arab League. Zafarullah met the Syrian dignitaries in an ordinary and casual way but freely chatted with Qadiani members and warmly embraced them at the airport. That looked quite strange to the Syrian officials.

Noor Ahmad Qadiani writes in his report:

‘The representatives of Arab League asked the police officers who were these men (whom Zafarullah met so frankly). But he did not know Chaudhry Sahib had come to Damascus on our invitation and in accordance with our requests. His arrival here was a source of joy for us and moved by these feelings, every one desired to exchange greetings and embraced him with love. Every Syrian seemed to be surprised at it. They thought that Chaudhry Sahib had come here as a stranger. The Syrian press highlighted the reception accorded by Ahmadiyya Jama’at to him. In this way the Syrians came to know about the religious and political position of the Jama’at.’ Noor Ahmad further states: ‘The Syrian President requested Sir Zafarullah to have a lunch with him on 13 December 1947. He also invited me to lunch. We were informed that he (Zafarullah) would be the stage guest and a room had been reserved for him. Chaudhry Sahib asked me to request the President to allow him to stay with his Ahmadi brothers. He would like to stay in the hotel for only one night for his pleasure. I conveyed a literal translation of it to the President. He was very much amazed to hear it and inquired with surprise: ‘With whom he would stay’? I explained him in detail that Chaudhry Sahib would stay with us and we had made all arrangements in this regard.’ 31 Sir Zafarullah called on Mufti-e-Azam Palestine in Lebanon and exchanged views on Palestine question with high officials. He lunched with the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Jamil Bek alongwith a Qadiani party. Some important political issues were discussed during his stay with the President. In Beirut, Um-e-Jazam, the widow of the former President of Lebanese Parliament, Sheikh Muhammad Jassar was engaged in political activities. She and her husband embraced Qadianism for political reasons.

Zafarullah gave a proposal to Mirza Mahmud to launch a proselytising campaign in Arab states through setting up new mission. In subsequent years he fielded his missionaries in the Middle East in accordance with this plan.

Activities in Israel

Soon after the so-called State of Israel was proclaimed, the Palestinians waged an all out war against the Zionist forces. The Arab countries, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Egypt went into action against the Jewish state in support of Arabs of Palestine. Saudi Arabia and Yemen declared their participation in the war on the side of the Arab countries. In the armed conflict most of the territory of Arab states was forcibly annexed by Israel. The General Assembly ‘decision’ of 29 November 1947 for one Arab state remained unfulfilled. Israel carved out for herself 20700 sq. kilometer or nearly four-fifth of Palestine.

Ch.Muhammad Sharif, in his report sent from Israel to Pakistan calls the Israeli aggression, its ‘Victories’ and says:

‘On 23 April, 1948 Jews conquered Haifa. On 24 and 25 May they occupied suburbs of Haifa. Now came the turn of Arab population of Kababir. Early in the morning it was surrounded by the armed forces. They asked us if we wanted to leave the place then we should deposit all arms and surrender. We acted in accordance with the saying of the Holy Prophet (p.b.o.h), ‘A man who dies in defense of his wealth and land is a martyr.’ No army officer approached us. We gave ‘all clear’ (to the Jewish military forces) after making hectic search and investigation till evening.’  Mirza Mahmud fully realized the importance of Ahmadiyya Mission in Israel. He sent a special message ot Qadiani community of Israel from Lahore, a day before the termination of the British mandatory rule in Palestine. He instructed Kababir Jama’at of Israel not to sell their lands to Jews. Dost Muhammad, the compiler of Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat quotes an unpublished record of Ahmadiyya Advisory Body, Ratan Bagh, Lahore, dated 15 May 1948 stating that Hazrat Khalifa sent the following message to Ahmadis of Israel: ‘Write to Ahmadis of Syria to convey through whatever means they have, the message to Ahmadis of Kababir (Israel) to spend the difficult days with patience and in no way sell their lands to Jews whatever prices are offered to them.’  Brutal massacres and destructions were wreaked on Arab villages by Zionist organizations. There was ruthless murder of children and old people. The whole population of village Deir Yassin was mercilessly slain by the Hagana forces. The unarmed Palestinians fled in utter despair and panic from the villages to save their lives. During these days Ahmadi missionaries found an ‘excellent’ opportunity to exploit the miseries of Palestinian refugees. They visited the refugee camps and invited them to accept the false prophethood of Qadiani pretender. They also spied for the Zionists and informed them of the Palestinian resistance activities.

Rashid Ahmad Chughatai, in his report for the months of August-October, 1948 sent from Israel to Pakistan states:

I went to the city of Saur to see Ahmadiyya brothers of Haifa. There I preached Ahmadiyyat to Palestinian refugees. I stayed there for two days on the insistence of Ahmadi brothers. Besides preaching I spared time for their training. The Ahmadiyya message was given to 29 persons. Discussions took place with one of them for 4 to 6 hours. Some books were given to him to study Ahmadiyya creed.’ These shameful activities continued in utter disregard of the miserable plight of helpless refugees residing in tents and open. Ch.Sharif sent a report from Israel to Pakistan for the period 15 August, 1948-June, 1949. He says: ‘We saw the cities falling in front of our eyes. During these days nothing was heard except fire shots and every night we thought the day would not break on us. Although we were surrounded yet we continued to spread the message of Ahmadiyyat.’ An Absurd Proposal

On 16 May 1948 at the time of withdrawal of British forces from Palestine, Mirza Mahmud wrote a pamphlet in Urdu on Palestine question. Its Arabic translation was published from Iraq for wider circulation in the Middle East. The main theme of the pamphlet was:

Jews are occupying the holy places of Islam in accordance with the prophecies of the Heavenly Books. They intend to occupy the holy places of Islam. The greatest enemy of Islam is the Soviet Union. Its policy is much more dangerous to Islam than that of America. Pakistani Muslims should give at least one percent of their properties to the Government. In this way Rs. one billion may be collected. The Islamic world will follow the example and would contribute a sum of Rs. five to six billion for purchase of arms despite opposition from the Western countries. The holy places of Islam are in danger. Muslims should unite to defend them. In the end, it was emphasized that the prophecies of the Quran and Hadith undoubtedly stated that: ‘Jews would certainly occupy Palestine but only pious people would rule it forever. To shorten the period of prophecy Muslims should make sacrifice by casting aside their irreligiousness, heretic beliefs, lethargy and sluggishness.’  The pamphlet does not condemn Israel nor its brutal policies against the Arabs. Neither any sympathy with the Palestinian refugees has been expressed in any way. The proposal to hand over one percent of properties is not only impracticable but also ridiculous. At the time of partition, the Muslim refugees had even no place to take refuge not to speak of their properties. It was an attempt to win over the sympathies of Arabs in order to establish future pro-Zionist missions in the Middle East. Qadianis always considered themselves the chosen and pious people who would ultimately settle in Israel.  Being firm believers in the prophecies of their Promised Messiah, Qadianis uphold that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s revelations i.e. ‘I have saved Israel from detriment. The Pharaoh and Human, the armies of both, are in the wrong,.. Avenues useful for Arabs, Arabs set out from their home’ relate to restoration of Jews in Palestine. The Review of Religions, Rabwah, explains: ‘This feature of the prophecy received a clear fulfillment. The war (1914) was not yet over when, a sa consequence of war itself Mr. (later Lord) Balfour declared that the people of Israel who had without a ‘homeland’ would be settled in their ancient ‘homeland’, Palestine. The allied nations promised to compensate the people of Israel for injustices done to them in the past. In accordance with these declarations, Palestine was taken from Turkey and declared the national home for the Jews. The administration of Palestine was shaped so as to make it easy for Jews to make it their homeland. A very old demand of the Jews that conditions promoting their national cohension should be created for them was met…’38 The Qadiani jopurnal further emphasizes: ‘The revelation of the Promised Messiah also says ‘I will relieve the Children of Isreal.’ This indicated a great change in the position of the Jews. It indicated the end of the opposition which nations of the world had offered so long to an independent home for Jews.’

Mirza Nasir Ahmad, the third successor of the Ahmadiyya community, was on his European tour in 1980. At a press Conference at the Café Royal in Piccadilly, in reply to question whether he recognized the State of Israel, he stated that he could not refuse to accept a fact of history that Israel exists.After his death Mirza Tahir Ahmad captured the Rabwah ‘gaddi.’ He very shrewdly put forth his point of view over the issue. His booklet ‘From Rabwah to Tel Aviv’ is an interesting study on the subject.

During the Gulf War (1991), he gave a series of ‘revealing’ addresses and an analysis of the role of big powers in the political upheavals in the Middle East. He also discussed the past role of Israel as an ally of Western countries. 40 It was an updated beat, a smoke screen to debunk the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda. He continued to enjoy the support of Western countries and the Jewish lobby.

Source : http://alhafeez.org/rashid/british-jewish/bjc_16.htm

PEMRA – Council of complaints- A height of stupidity

In Advertisement, Clsh of Civilizations, Urdu Columns on June 21, 2010 at 12:42 pm

Qadianis Declare Other Muslims as Kafir

In Anti Ahmadiies on June 21, 2010 at 5:58 am

During Goggling I found following piece from not any other place but  from Lahori Ahmadiya Group website. Kindly keep in mind both groups (Quadiani and  Lahori Ahmadi Group) have declared  Non Muslim by National assembly in 1974

From about the year 1911 Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (second khalifa of the Qadiani Movement) started to put forward the doctrine that it is not sufficient for a person to declare belief in the Kalima Shahada in order to be a Muslim because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had now appeared as a prophet and belief in him must be acknowledged as well.

According to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, it is no longer sufficient for the existing Muslims to believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad and all the prophets before him. Now they must also declare that they believe in the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as well. Otherwise they cannot remain Muslims but become just like those Jews and Christians who believed in the previous prophets but failed to accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote a book A’inah-i Sadaqat, published in 1921, which was translated into English and first published in 1924 under the title The Truth about the Split. In this book, while acknowledging his beliefs, he writes:

“(3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his [i.e. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] Bai’at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.”

The Truth about the Split, Rabwah, 1965, pp. 55–56. The 2007 edition of this book is available on the Qadiani website from the link http://www.alislam.org/books/. See page 56 for this extract.

See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 1].

In this book, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also gives a summary of his first article expressing these views which had earlier appeared in April 1911. He writes regarding this article:

“The article was elaborately entitled — ‘A Muslim is one who believes in all the messengers of God.’ The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that ‘those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah’. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah were not Muslims.”

— pages 135–136 of the 1965 edition. In the 2007 online edition at http://www.alislam.org/books/ see page 144.

“Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims.” (pages 137–138 of 1965 edition; page 146 of online 2007 edition)

“…not only are those deemed to be Kafirs, who openly style the Promised Messiah as Kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai’at, have here been adjudged to be Kafirs.” (pages 139–140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)

“And lastly, it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable Kafirs.” (p. 140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)

See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 2].

According to these views, the only Muslims in the whole world at any time are those who have taken the bai‘at of the Qadiani leader of the time. In the last quotation above, the closing words given as “veritable Kafirs” are “pakkay kafir” in the original Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat. The word pakkay conveys the significance of ‘real, true, absolute and full-fledged’, meaning that all other Muslims are kafir in the fullest sense without the least doubt.

Views of M. Mahmud Ahmad’s brother Bashir

For the views of Mirza Bashir Ahmad, younger brother of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, see this link.

Qadianis disallow funeral prayers for other Muslims.

Since the Qadiani belief is that all Muslims outside their community are non-Muslims, just like a Christian or a Hindu is a non-Muslim, the Qadiani leader Mirza Mahmud Ahmad forbade his followers from saying the funeral prayers of other Muslims. This instruction is given by him quite clearly and forcefully in his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published October 1916. At the end of the section where he deals with this question, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes as follows:

“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said. This leaves the question that if a man who believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be true but has not yet taken the bai‘at, or is still thinking about joining Ahmadiyyat, and he dies in this condition, it is possible that God may not punish him. But the decisions of the Shariah are based on what is outwardly visible. So we must do the same thing in his case, and not offer funeral prayers for him.”

Anwar-i Khilafat, page 93 of original edition; underlining is ours.
This book is available online at the Qadiani website in the collection Anwar-ul-‘Uloom, v. 3, no. 5 from the link http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3. See pages 150–151.

See original Urdu text below from the book Anwar-i Khilafat [Urdu 3].

It is quite clear and plain from these instructions that the Qadiani belief is that all other Muslims, including the children , are unbelievers (kafir) and non-Muslims just as people of other religions such as Hindus and Christians.

Original Urdu texts of above quotations

Title page of first edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat:

Ainah-i Sadaqat, title  page

Images below are from the online edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat at http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=6 (book no. 5). We have used red-lining to indicate the words being referred to.

Urdu 1:

Ainah-i Sadaqat

(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 35 original edition; p. 110 online edition)

Urdu 2:

Ainah-i Sadaqat

(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 84 original ed., p. 149–150 online ed.)

Ainah-i Sadaqat

(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 85 original ed., p. 150 online ed.)

Ainah-i Sadaqat

(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 86 original ed., p. 151 online ed.)

Ainah-i Sadaqat

(A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 86 original ed., p. 151 online ed.)


Title page of first edition of Anwar-i Khilafat:

Anwar-i Khilafat, title  page

Urdu 3:

Anwar-i-Khilafat

Anwar-i Khilafat, p. 93 original edition, p. 150–151 online edition. Image above is from the online edition of this book at http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3 (book no. 5)

Quadiani Issue and Courageous Role of Bhutto

In Anti Ahmadiies on June 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm

گلوبلائزیشن ۔۔۔ ادراک اور لائحہ عمل

In Clsh of Civilizations on June 17, 2010 at 9:45 am

گلوبلائزیشن ۔۔۔ ادراک اور لائحہ عمل

اس بات میں کوئی شک نہیں کہ معرکہ حق وباطل روز اول سے جاری وساری ہے اس کے ہر زمانے میں مختلف دائرے، مختلف سمتیں اور مختلف میدان رہے ہیں مگر آج کے دور میں یہ معرکہ ہمہ جہت ہے۔  آج کا معرکہ شاید ماضی کے معرکوں کی نوعیت اور پھیلاؤ کے لحاظ سے مختلف اور سخت جان ہے۔ اب یہ معرکہ فرعون وموسیٰ، نمرود وابراہیم اور یحییٰ وعیسیٰ کی طرح صرف آزمائش کی پرﹸ صبر بھٹیوں سے ہی نہیں گزرتا کہ جہاں تک پہنچنے والا کندن بنکر ہی نکلتا ہے بلکہ اب یہ معرکہ کئی دیکھے اور کئی اندیکھے محاذوں تک پھیل چکا ہے جس کو جاننے اور پرکھنے کی ضرورت ہے۔

ہماری صورت حال یہ ہے کہ ہم شاید بیش بینی کی صلاحیتوں سے محروم ہوچکے ہیں ہماری”نظر“ آج پر ہے اور”آج“ میں بھی اس پر جو ہمارے”اطراف“ میں ہے حقیقت یہ ہے کہ طبل جنگ بج چکا ہے مگر ہم یونان کے نیرو کی طرح چین کی بانسری بجا رہے ہیں ہمارا سارا زور اس کے علاوہ کچھ نہیں کہ اپنی قوت وتوانائی اختلافات کی نذر کردیں یعنی  اﹺس مسلک کا ثبوت، اﹸس مسلک کا رد،  اﹺس فقہ سے اختلاف اﹸس فقہ سے اتفاق، فکر کی لاحاصل بحثوں، دانش کی الجھنوں اور مائیکرو اسکوپ سے بھی نظر نہ آنے والے نکات میں گم رہنا ہمارا المیہ ہے جبکہ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ افق پر حق وباطل کا ایسا تازہ معرکہ نمودار ہو رہا ہے جس میں صرف اور صرف یا تو حزب اللہ کے لوگ ہوں گے یا پھر حزب الشیاطین کے ,درمیان کا کوئی بھی فرد باقی ہی نہیں بچے گا۔ مگر حزب اللہ کے لوگوں کی یہ بات اچھی طرح معلوم ہونی چاہئے کہ اسلامی عقیدے، اسلامی تہذیب اور حتیٰ کہ اسلامی وجود کو کچھ اتنے بڑے بڑے چیلنج درپیش ہیں کہ ہماری حالیہ تاریخ میں شاید ہی کبھی امت مسلمہ کو پیش آئے ہوں۔

لاتعلق یا غیر جانبدار رہ کر اپنے اردگرد کی رونق اور سرگرمیوں سے دھوکہ نہیں کھانا چاہئے کیونکہ یہ تو دنیا کی چند روزہ زندگی کا دھوکہ ہے۔ کیا سیلاب کی صورت میں کشتے ﹸ اور بند غیر جاندار ہوسکتے ہیں۔ کامیاب تو معرکے میں اترنے والے ہی ہوں گے اﹺس دنیا میں نہیں تو اﹸس دنیا میں۔ ہاں یہ ہوسکتا ہے کہ ان کی طاقت”نظریات سے وابستگی میں“  اور”باطل سے اعلان بیزاری“  میں پنہاں ہو اور مقابل کی قوت کا محور”معیشت“ اور”ہتھیار“ ہوں۔

مسئلہ کچھ یوں ہے کہ باطل کے کیمپ میں کھڑے ہونے والوں کی بھی کمی نہیں، دجالی و ابلیسی تہذیب کے علمبردار بھی کم نہیں، اپنے شیطانی عقیدوں سے کمال وابستگی رکھنے والے بھی بہت ہیں اسباب ووسائل، ترقی وجمالات کی ایک کائنات ہے اس طرف’ مگر حق کا مورچہ تو اپنے وجود سے تشکیل دینا ہوگا۔ تصور”ملت“ اور”امت“ کا ہوگا، باقی دائرے ان تصورات میں گم ہو جائیں گے اور اخوت ورواداری کی تازہ بستیاں آباد کی جائیں گی یعنی بقول اقبال

ملت کے ساتھ رابطہ استور رکھ

پیوستہ رہ شجر سے امید بہار رکھ

اور

بتان رنگ وبو کی توڑ کر ملت میں گم ہو جائیں

نہ تورانی رہے باقی نہ ایرانی نہ افغانی

امت اور ملت کے دائروں کو مسلک، فرقے، فقہ، قوم، ذات وغیرہ کے چھوٹے، غیر مستحکم، ناپائیدار دائروں سے تبدیلی کی بھرپور مزاحمت رب کی دعوت پر یقین اور مومن کی فراست وعقل مندی کی روشنی میں درکار ہے۔ یہ وہی دعوت ہے کہ جس کا پرچم اور علم ہمیشہ انبیائ اکرام نے اپنی دعوت کے ذریعے بلند کرکے وقت کے داعیوں کو عزت اور بلند مرتبی عطا کی۔

مگر لگتا یوں ہے کہ ہم معرکے کے ظہور پذیر ہونے کی حقیقت کو شتر مرغ کی طرح مٹی میں منہ ڈال کر ٹال رہے ہیں وقت ہے کہ تیز رفتاری سے گزر رہا ہے آج تو وجود کی بقائ کا معرکہ درپیش ہے آج کے دور کے سفید فام آقا اپنے غلام کو برابری کی سطح پر دیکھنے کی تاب نہیں رکھتے۔ وہ زمین کے کھوئے ہوئے توازن کو جو سلطنت عثمانیہ کے ساتھ ختم ہوگیا تھا اب دوبارہ بحال ہوتے، قائم ہوتے اور اپنے ثمرات سے مظلوموں کی مطمئن کرتے نہیں دیکھنا چاہتے کہ

ہے جرم ضعیفی کی سزا، مرگ مفاجات

مگرحقیقت سے بھی کیسے انکار کیا جاسکتا ہے کہ اس گھور اندھیرے میں تازہ امکانات بھی روشن ہونا شڑوع ہوگئے ہیں کشمکش کی اس فضائ میں جہاں بظاہر ہر طرف چیلنجز ہیں، امکانات کے نئے دئیے جلتے نظر آرہے ہیں آج مغرب اپنے نظام کی ٹوٹ پھوٹ کو اپنی آنکھ سے دیکھ رہا ہے، بحث کسی نئے نظام کے لانے کی ہورہی ہے۔ اس دور کشمکش میں جہاں امید کے نئے دئیے جلتے نظر آرہے ہیں ان میں سے ایک پاکستان بھی ہے یہاں بے شمار امکانات ہیں یہاں جدید علوم تک رسائی 200 سال سے جاری ہے جس قدر اعلیٰ تعلیم یافتہ اور جدید دنیا سے واقف طبقہ عالم اسلام کے اسی خطے میں پایا جاتا ہے جو شاید کسی اور حصے میں نہ ہو۔ مگر مسئلہ کوتاہ نظری کا ہے جہاں وہ”نظر“  ہی دستیاب نہیں جو موجودہ چیلنجز کو ان کے حقیقی رنگ کے ساتھ دیکھ لے۔ ”نظر“کو کہیں پر قومیت کا عارضہ لاحق ہے اور کہیں پر مسالک، تنظیمی حدود بندیوں اور گروہی جکڑ بندیوں کا، دنیا پر نظر ڈالنے کی اگر کوئی صورت دستیاب بھی ہے تو دین میں اس کی نظر اہل حدیث، دیوبندی، شیعہ، سنی سے آگے نہیں بڑھتی۔ ان کیلئے یہ مسائل دائمی وآفاقی موضوعات کی حیثیت اختیار کرگئے ہیں۔ دنیا ان کیلئے انہی چھوٹی چھوٹی سرحدوں پر ختم ہو جاتی ہے اور افق کے اس پار دیکھنا ایک غیر مانوس بات ہے مگر حقیقت تو یہی ہے کہ

جہان نو ہو رہا ہے پیدا، وہ عالم پیر مر رہا ہے

آج امت مسلمہ کا مقابلہ عالمگیریت یا گلوبلائزیشن کے دیو سے ہے جو انٹرنیٹ کی اسکرینوں، فلموں، روزناموں اور میڈیا کے ذریعے ہم کو بار بار”گلوبل ولیج“ کے ظہور کا پیغام دے رہا ہے جس کا نقشہ اور ترتیب کفر اور الحار پر قائم ہے اس گلوبل ولیج کا مقصد اس کے علاوہ کچھ اور نہیں کہ ہم سے ہماری”اصلیت“ چھین لی جائے اور اس کا علاج اس کے علاوہ کچھ اور نہیں کہ ہم فروعی اور مسلکی اختلاف بھلا کر “کلمہ لا الہ الا اللہ” کو تھام لیں یعنی وہ کلمہ جو اسلامی بیداری کیلئے ریڑھ کی ہڈی کی حیثیت رکھتا ہے جس کو تھام لینے سے عروج اور جس کی عمل کے بغیر صرف گردان سے پستی مل جاتی ہے اور جس کے نظام کے قیام کے خوف سے طاغوت لرزہ براندام ہے۔

معدودے چند ہی اہل نظر کی” نظر” اس پہلو کی طرف گئی ہے کہ ہمیں آج ایک کھلے، ننگے باطل کے ساتھ پالا پڑا ہے جو کہ ہماری تاریخ کا ہی نہیں پوری دنیا کی تاریخ کا ایک انوکھا واقعہ ہے کہ زندگی کے سب شعبے اس کی براہ راست زد میں ہیں باطل کی دنیا میں ایسی ہمہ گیر اور عالمی پیشرفت اس سے پہلے کبھی نہیں ہوئی تھی۔ آج ہمارے سامنے ایک ایسا باطل ہے جس سے بڑھ کر منظم ہمہ گیر اور منصوبہ بند باطل شاید ہی کبھی پایا گیا ہو اور جس کی جڑیں ناقابل اندازہ  حد تک گہری ہیں اور جس نے معاشروں کو قابو کرنے کی ایک خاص صلاحیت پیدا کر رکھی ہے اور جس کے آگے بڑھی دیر سے ﴿محض اللہ کی رحمت سے ہی﴾ ہم لقمہ تر ثابت نہیں ہورہے ہیں جبکہ آج ہم معیشت، سیاست، عدالت، قانون، فنون، معاشرت، تعلیم، صحت، اخلاقیات، سماجیات، تعلقات، روایات، اقدار، آداب سب محاذوں پر کمزور ہیں، انٹرنیٹ، ایف ایم چینلز، ٹی وی کے لاتعداد چینلز، ہفتہ وار اور ماہانہ میگزین، اخبارات اور سب سے بڑھ کر لارڈ میکالے کا نظام تعلیم جو ہم کو طبقہ ور طبقہ تقسیم در تقسیم کررہا ہے باطل کے اصل ہتھیار ہیں اور ان کی تیز دھاروں سے ہم بے خبر ہیں۔

مسئلہ صرف”نیکی کی دعوت“ نہیں، حالیہ مرحلے میں گلوبلائزیشن اس بات کیلئے پوری گنجائش رکھتی ہے بلکہ اس کی حد سے بڑھ کر سراہتی ہے کہ مذہب کے حوالے سے لوگوں کا زیادہ تر شوق روحانی اور اخلاقی ترقی کے باب میں پورا کروایا جائے۔  2003 کی رینڈ کارپوریشن کی رپورٹ اس کے علاوہ اور کیا کہتی ہے؟ بات تو تلخ ہے مگر سچ یہی ہے کہ محض اپنی 6 فٹ کی ہیئت میں دیندار ہونا ظاہر ہے کہ قرآن کا مطلوبہ کردار نہیں اور نہ ہی اس معنی میں دینداروں کی تعداد بڑھانا رسولوں کا اصل مشن تھا حقیقت تو یہی ہے کہ تھوڑے بہت فرق سے ہر دھرم میں نیکی، اخلاق اور مذہبی رجحانات کے تصور ہیں۔ انبیائ کا دین اس کے علاوہ کچھ اور نہیں کہ وقت کی جاہلیت ﴿جو چاہے قومیت کی صورت میں ہو، سیکولرازم ہو، سوشلزم ہو، مسلک وفرقہ کی صورت میں ہو یا گلوبلائزیشن کی صورت میں ہو﴾ اور دین انبیائ ایک دوسرے کے مقابل آجائیں یعنی

توحید تو یہ ہے کہ خدا حشر میں کہہ دے

یہ بندہ دو عالم سے خفا میرے لئے ہے

نماز، روزہ، اخلاق وآداب، پردہ واذکار، معمولات یومیہ قرآن کے موضوعات تو ضرور ہیں مگر مقصود تو وہ کشمکش ہے جو وقت کی جاہلیت اور دعوت انبیائ کے درمیان ہمیشہ برپا رہی گلوبلائزیشن کہتی ہے کہ آپ دیندار تو باطل کے نظام کے اندر رہ کر بھی ہو سکتے ہیں کیونکہ مذہب تو ذاتی معاملہ ہے جبکہ دعوت انبیائ فرد کو نہیں معاشرے کی تبدیلی کی بات کرتی ہے۔

اگر کہیں سے بغاوت کی جری آوازیں بلند بھی ہوئیں تو ان کو اشتعال دلاکر شدت پسندی، انتہائ پسندی، غلو اور قتال کے دائروں میں محصور کردیا گیا کہ جس سے نپٹنا بظاہر طاغوت کیلئے آسان ہے یہ آوازیں بھی دعوت انبیائ کی آفاقی اور موثر دعوت کے لہجے سے نامانوس ہوکر علم کی گہرائی کھوکر، متانت وسنجیدگی سے محروم ہوکر ٹکراؤ کی پالیسی پر عمل پیرا ہوگئیں کہ جس سے نقصان سب کو ہی پہنچا۔

باطل یا طاغوت یا گلوبلائزیشن کو اچھی طرح معلوم ہے کہ مسلم دعوت وتہذیب کا پلہ ایک میدان میں ابھی بھی بھاری ہے وہ ہے نظریاتی کشمکش کا میدان۔ اقبال نے کہا تھا کہ

بازو تیرا توحید کی قوت سے قوی ہے

تو مصطفوی مصطفوی مصطفوی ہے

مغرب کے تھنک ٹینک اس وقت خبردار کررہے ہیں کہ اب معرکہ Clash of Civilization اور War on Terror کا نہیں بلکہ War of Ideas پر مرکوز کرلے۔ اس کو آپ”عقیدے کی جنگ“ اور”نظریات کی جنگ“ بھی کہہ سکتے ہیں۔ باطل کو معلوم ہے کہ نظریاتی محاذ پر اسلام اس قدر قوی اور حاوی ہے کہ گلوبلائزیشن کو اس کی تاب لانا بظاہر ممکن ہی نہیں سورہ الانبیائ میں ہے کہ”بلکہ ہم تو حق کی چوٹ باطل کے سر پر لگاتے ہیں جو اس کا کچومر نکال دیتی ہے اور تب وہ مٹ کر رہ جاتا ہے“ (18) ۔ بس ضرورت کلمہ لا الہ الا اللہ کی دعوت کو لیکر اٹھنے کی ہے کیونکہ

ذرا نم ہو تو یہ مٹی بڑی زرخیز ہے ساقی

یہاں پر یہ بات بھی سمجھ لینا چاہئے کہ قرآن جہاد وقتال اور ہتھیار اٹھانے کی دعوت دیتا تو ضرور ہے مگر اس وقت جب وہ باطل کے خلاف ایک فکری معرکہ ﴿نظریات کی جنگ﴾ لڑ چکے ہوتے ہیں بلکہ جب وہ یہ فکری معرکہ لڑ کر جیت چکے ہوتے ہیں اور جب وہ باطل کو نظریاتی میدان میں آخری حد تک پسپائی سے دوچار کرچکے ہیں جیساکہ مکہ کے اندر یہ فکری معرکہ جیت کر دکھایا جا چکا تھا اور باطل کے پاس معاشرے کی سرزمین پر زندہ رہنے کیلئے قوت کے بے دریغ استعمال کے علاوہ کوئی اور راستہ نہیں رہتا۔

انبیائ کی دعوت کا ایک اور مقصور یہ بھی رہا ہے کہ باطل کے ہر پہلو کو عریاں کردیا جائے اور اس کی بے بنیادی اور کم مائیگی کو معاشرے کے سمجھدار طبقے پر نہ صرف واضح کردیا گیا ہو اسی دوران معاشرے کا صالح عنصر چھٹ کر حق کے ساتھ آ ملے اور معاشرے کا باطل پرست اس کے مقابل آجائے اور عام افرد کیلئے حق اور باطل کا اختلاف وقت کا سب سے اہم موضوع بن جائے اور اس لاتعلق اور غیر جانبدار دنیا ناممکن ہوگیا ہو۔

اس بات کو بھی جان لینا چاہئے کہ گلوبلائزیشن کے تحت کہ آج کا ہر”مقامی“ ماحول مقامی نہیں رہ گیا بلکہ اس پر”عالمی اثرات“ پڑ چکے ہیں اب ضرورت اس امر کی ہے کہ عالمی ابلیسی دعوت کے مقابل عالمی اسلامی دعوت کو فروغ اور تقویب دی جائے کیونکہ آج کی دعوت کو اصل مقابلہ باطل کی عالمی تحریک سے ہے لہذا آج کے داعیوں کو دعوت کے مقامی تقاضوں کے ساتھ ساتھ دعوت کے عالمی تقاضے بھی بیک وقت پورے کرنا ہوں گے دعوت سے وابستہ ان موضوعات کو بیک وقت مخاطب کرنا پڑیں گے جو داعی کے محلے کی بھی ضرورت ہے، شہر کی بھی، ملک کی بھی اور اس عالمی دائرے کی بھی۔

دلچسپ بات یہ ہے کہ باطل کی مقامی صورت اب عالمی صورت اختیار کرتی جارہی ہے جو دعوت انبیائ سے براہ راست متصادم ہے ہر ہر پہلو سے اور ہر ہر انداز میں دعوت انبیائ سے صاف جدا اور علیحدہ ہے انبیائ کی دعوت صرف فرد کو دیندار بنانے کی دعوت نہیں دیتی بلکہ مکمل معاشرے کی تبدیلی کی بات کرتی ہے جو طاغوت کو قبول نہیں اسی لئے گلوبلائزیشن کے تحت فیصلہ ہوا ہے کہ مسلم معاشروں کا سب کچھ”فرنچائز“  بنا دیا جائے پہلے کسی زمانے میں حکومتیں بکی کرتی تھیں، حکمران باج گزار ہوتے تھے مگر اب تو معاشروں کو ہی ٹھیکے پر دینے کا کام جاری ہے گلوبلائزیشن آخری آسمانی شریعت کے ساتھ سب سے بڑھ کر بغض رکھتا ہے اور اپنے راستے کی سب سے بڑی رکاوٹ اسی کو جانتا ہے اسی لئے مسلم معاشرے میں کنفیوژن پھیلانے کیلئے آزاد خیال، ترقی پسند، جدت پسند، موڈیریٹ مسلم افراد اور اداروں سے نہایت اعلیٰ پائے کی پیشہ ورانہ خدمات لے رہا ہے جان لینا چاہئے اور سمجھ لینا چاہئے کہ گلوبلائزیشن کی اس عالمی تحریک کا  ہدف حکومتیں نہیں ﴿وہ  تو کب کا سر ہو گیا ہے﴾  بلکہ معاشرے ہیں سب محنت اب یہیں پر ہے سوچئے کہ مسلکی اور دعوتی بحثوں میں مشغول ہمارے کوہ تا نظر افراد کا ان باتوں سے صرف نظر کرکے اب بھی امت کو کچھ چھوٹے چھوٹے مسائل اور کچھ غیر ضروری بحثوں اور امور میں مشغول رکھنا اور اپنی استعداد وصلاحیتوں کا بڑا حصہ انہی لاحاصل امور میں صرف کروالینا کیا ہمارے حق میں بہتر ہوگا؟

دیکھنے کی بات تو یہ بھی ہے کہ باطل یہاں کس رخ کی ہوائیں چلا رہا ہے اور معاملات کی باقاعدگی کے ساتھ کس سمت کی طرف لے جایا جارہا ہے اس حوالے سے کس خوش فہمی میں رہ جانا بے خبری کی آخری حد کہلائے گا۔ سوچنے کی بات یہ ہے کہ مقامی طور پر آپ کو جس صورت حال کا سامنا ہے ﴿مثلاً بلوچستان کو ہی لیجئے﴾ عالمی سطح پر وہ کس چیز کی پیدا کردہ ہے؟ اپنی مقامی صورت حال کے پیچھے جو کہ شاید اب قیامت کی چال چلنے جارہی ہے، آپ کو کفر کی اس عالمی تحریک کے سوا دور دور تک کچھ نظر نہیں آئے گا جو رسولوں کے لائے ہوئے دین کے ساتھ تاریخ انسانی کا سب سے بڑا، سب سے منظم اور سب سے سنگین تصادم ہے، طاغوت وباطل تیزی کے ساتھ ہمارے چاروں طرف اپنے پر پھیلا رہا ہے اور میدان اس قدر خالی دیکھ کر شاید تعجب بھی کرتا ہو کہ یہ وہی”اذانوں کا دیس“ ہے جس کی طرف کبھی رخ کرنے کا بھی نہ سوچا جاسکتا تھا لیکن آج یہاں اس کی پذیرائی کیلئے”ذہن“ ہی نہیں”دل“ بھی کھول کر رکھ دئیے گئے ہیں اور دور دور تک مزاحمت کا نام نہیں المیہ یہ ہے کہ دعوت کے میدان کے سپاہیوں کا یہ”موضوع“ نہیں اور ابلاغ پر ہمارا زور نہیں تو پھر حضرات گلہ کیسا؟ پھر تعجب کیوں کہ صورت حال جوں کی توں جاری رہے اور کفر کی ہر روز کی پیش قدمی پر ہم کڑھتے ہی کیوں نہ رہیں کیا یہی ہمارا مقدر ہے؟ کیا ہم اسی طرح مایوس رہیں گے۔ اقبال نے کہا تھا کہ

مسلماں کو مسلماں کردیا طوفان مغرب نے

اس میں کوئی شک نہیں کہ چیلنج قوموں کو زندہ کر جاتے ہیں مگر شرط یہ ہے کہ کسی قوم کو راہ دکھانے والے پر وقت مل جائیں اس لحاظ سے”نظر“  کا مسئلہ ایک بنیادی مسئلہ ہے چارہ گری کی سب سے پہلی شرط یہی ہے ان چیلنجز کو پہچان جانا اس امتحان کی پہلی گھاٹی ہے لا الہ الا اللہ کا نعرہ مستانہ ہم کو ”نظر“بھی دیتا ہے اور”داعیانہ عمل“ بھی، چینلجز کا مقابلہ کرنے اور ان کو امکانات میں بدل دینے کیلئے یہی دو ضرورتیں ہیں صورت حال اس وقت یہ ہے کہ فقدان،”عمل“ اور”سرگرمی“ کے میدان میں اتنا نہیں کہ جتنا”خبر“ اور”نظر“ کے میدان میں۔

بس ضرورت ایک ایسی قیادت کی ہے جو میدان عمل میں اترے وار مسلم اقوام میں ایک نئی ”نظر“پیدا کرے۔ ملت اسلامیہ میں اسلام کی اسی اصل حقیقت کا ازسرنو احیائ کرے اور توحید کی وہی جوت جگائے۔ ان کو دین کی اساس اور بنیاد لا الہ الا اللہ سے ازسرنو وابستہ کرے، دنیا کو ایک ہی ”نظر“سے دیکھنا سکھائے۔ عالم اسلام میں ایسی قیادت ناگزیر ہے جو ان مسلم اکثریتی معاشرہ کو ازسرنو ان کا عقیدہ پڑھائے اور دعوت انبیائ کی بنیاد پر ان کے اور کافر معاشروں کے درمیان”حد فاصل“ قائم کرے، کفر اور اسلام کی اس حد کو پھر سے ان کا موضوع بنایا جائے جو باطل کا سینہ چیر کر گزرتی ہے۔ بقول اقبال

تو نے پوچھی ہے امامت کی حقیقت مجھ سے

حق تجھے میری طرح صاحب اسرار کرے

ہے وہی تیرے زمانے کا امام برحق

جو تجھے حاضر و موجود سے بیزار کرے

موت کے آئینے میں تجھ کو دکھا کر رخ دوست

زندگی تیرے لئے اور بھی دشوار کرے

دے کے احساس زیاں تیرا لہو گرما دے

فقر کی سان چڑھا کر تجھے تلوار کرے

آج کے چیلنج کے مقابلے کیلئے ضروری ہے کہ ہمہ جہت محاذوں پر جدوجہد کی جائے ایک دعوتی، تعلیمی وابلاغی مہم اور عمل کو آگے لایا جائے تاکہ اہم محاذوں کیلئے تازہ دم دستے جو منظم اور تربیت یافتہ ہوں مقابلے کیلئے روانہ کرسکیں ہمارا کام زمین تیار کرنا ہے جس پر آگے چلا جایا جاسکے تاکہ دعوت انبیائ ایک دفعہ پھر سینہ تان کے کھڑی ہو سکے جو کفر کی آنکھوں میں آنکھیں ڈال کر سماج اور معاشرت کو حرارت فراہم کرسکے جس سے باطل کے ایوان لرزہ براندام رہیں، انداز اور اسلوب کا فرق موضوع بحث نہیں مگر تصور سے وابستگی اہم ہے۔

کیا تو نے صحرا نشینوں کو یکتا

خبر میں نظر میں اذان سحر میں

کشاد در دل سمجھتا ہے اس کو

ہلاکت نہیں موت اس کی نظر میں

شہادت ہے مطلوب و مقصود مومن

نہ مال غنیمت نہ کشور کشائی

کتساب وتلخیض ۔“دعوت” کو نئے لہجوں کی ضرورت، از حامد کمال الدین۔ سہہ ماہی۔ ایقاظ لاہور، جنوری تا مارچ 2010)