and Human Rights
Chapter 6: Thus Spake Anwar Shaikh
March 8, 2017
throughout Islamic history demonstrate that Muslims are the special
people of Allah who has bestowed this distinction on them for
hating, hounding and hanging the non-Muslims. The Koran clearly
states (in I.VIII, The Disputer: 20) that the Muslims are Allah's
Party and the non-Muslims are Satan's Party. It is for this reason
that the Koran has declared:
1. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (II, The Cow: 90)
worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not
believe. (VIII, Spoils of War: 55)
3. Unbelievers are the enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell.
ye who believe! The non-Muslims are unclean. (IX, Repentance:
5. Oh ye who believe! Fight the disbelievers...and let them find
harshness in you. (IX, Repentance: 125)
6. Oh believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers as your friends,
they are evil-doers. (IX, Repentance: 20)
the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay
tribute. (IX, Repentance: 29)
8. Muslims are hard against unbelievers, merciful to one another.
(XL VIII, Victory: 25)
from the Koran explode the Gandhian myth that Raheem (Allah) and
Ram are one. In fact, Allah has permanently divided mankind into
two groups: the Muslims are his party and the non-Muslims are
Satan's party. Since Allah hates non-Muslims and wants their destruction,
a true Muslim must follow this Divine guideline. Thus, the only
relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is that of ill-will,
hatred and animosity. This is the basis of the Islamic Two-Nation
theory, which means that the Muslims and Hindus cannot live together.
From the above
discussion, it is clear that Islam, by its very nature, seeks
to brainwash its adherents with a view to infesting them with
the worst kind of fanaticism, which recognizes no moral and cultural
bounds. If these were not true, the Koran could not tell the believers
to treat their own parents as enemies, if they did not believe
in Islam. To my mind, one's parents are the most adorable people.
insouciance, insolence and ingratitude toward one's own parents,
disqualifies Islam as a Divine religion, and turns it into the
biggest tool of Divide and Rule.
have been described as the master of the Divide-and--Rule policy,
but Islam uses this weapon so effectively that the British look
like toddlers in this field. The Divide-and-Rule doctrine of Islam
is the practical exposition of its Two-Nation theory. It is not
only India that has suffered the crushing effects of this Islamic
approach to humanity. Yugoslavia, Russia and China are also experiencing
its bite and the United States of America shall not escape its
due share of devastation when the Black Muslim Movement gathers
strength. It is owing to the Islamic ideology of hatred that the
Muslim cannot live with their non-Muslim countrymen and want to
partition their own motherlands to please the Prophet Muhammad
in return for the paradise swarming with charming young virgins,
beautiful boys, superb wines and choice foods. What a reward for
betraying one's motherland! Such a sordid action is, surely punishable
by hell. This is the result of Islamic brainwashing which makes
the bitter taste sweet, projects the fool as wise and presents
the blind as the visionary.
attitude of Islam, makes the non-Arab Muslims think of themselves
as One Muslim Nation; it is why, they adore Arabia, the land of
the Prophet Muhammad, and deplore their own motherlands. What
is even more stunning is, they do so with a sense of pride and
elation. In fact, "Islamic nationhood" is the biggest
myth that man ever invented.
Look at Pakistan,
which was carved out of India on the basis of Two-Nation theory.
It soon orbit into two independent states and the magic of Islamic
nationhood could do nothing except causing the death of three
million innocent people. Despite this most terrible blood-bath,
both Pakistanis and Bangladeshis still believe in Islamic nationhood.
This is a fine example of brain-washing.
attitude of Divide-and-Rule is, of course, a very subtle attempt
to make the non-Arab Muslims hate their own motherland to love
Arabia. So successful has been this Koranic ploy that, whereas
other conquerors had to use fire and sword for securing submission
of foreigners, the Prophet Muhammad turned the non-Arab Muslims
into moths, which cremate themselves on the flame of Arab hegemony
How has it
been brought about? It ought to borne in mind that in Islam, Allah
is only a figurehead, and the real majesty is associated with
This is not
a blasphemous statement because it is vouched by the Koran. In
every religion, it is man who worships God, but in Islam, it is
Allah, who along with his angels, worships Muhammad by praying
peace to him (XXXIII, The Confederates :55)!
This is the
reason that the Prophet shall share the Divine Throne of Justice,
sitting on the right hand side of Allah, and it is his word which
will decide whether a person goes to heaven or hell. As stated
already, it is only the followers of Muhammad, who can enter paradise,
and it matters not even if they were murderers, rapists, thieves,
traitors, blackmailers, cheats, twisters, and so on.
for entering paradise is not the virtuous conduct but treating
Muhammad as the Perfect Model of behaviour (XXXIII, The Confederates:
20) and following him blindly in all walks of life. Therefore,
the true believer is the one, who not only eats and drinks as
did the Prophet, but also thinks, talks and walks like him; even
in sartorial tastes and tonsorial designs, a follower of Islam
must look a copy of Muhammad.
the crux: the Prophet Muhammad was an Arab therefore, he naturally
followed the Arab cultural traditions. Thus following him in all
details of life means practicing the Arab cultural traditions.
It is nothing but submitting to the Arab cultural hegemony and
neglecting one's own national culture. This is what makes Islam,
the Arab National Movement and destroys its religious veneer.
Saint at the Expense of Innocent people
Q aid-i-Azam , Muhammad Ali Jinnah Alehe Rahmat" is the title
of the Gujarati Saint, who was born as Mohammed Ali Jinnah in
Karachi in December, 1876.
bestows a greater dignity on him than that of a Muslim saint.
It is an outcome of Hindu tradition, which makes ancestor-Worship
an integral part of Dharma, and clearly shows that the Muslims
of the Indian subcontinent share a common culture with the Hindus
and are racially the same people. Without the unity of background,
Jinnah could not have been treated by Pakistan as if he were one
of the spiritual luminaries of Islam. A title of the Prophet Muhammad
is "Hadi-e-Azam" i.e., the great guide. Jinnah's title:
"The Qaid-i-Azam" means very much the same. Again, the
use of "Hazrat" as prefix and "Alehe Rahmat"
as suffix, further add to his devotional splendour.
He has been
honoured as such for being the founder of Pakistan. It is only
the success that should be saluted; failure cannot be applauded
because it eliminates the difference between fortune and fiasco.
Such a great
political hysteria was whipped up during the second decade of
the 20th century that the mutual Hindu-Muslim hatred assumed inhuman
proportions. Using Dr. Iqbal as a scapegoat, the Muslim League
led by Jinnah, claimed that the Hindus and the Muslims were two
separate nations; as they could not live together, India must
be partitioned to create a separate homeland for the Muslims.
This was considered the panacea for all Muslim ills, religious,
economic and political. Should Jinnah be allowed the saintly title
that he has come to possess? This is an honest question, and can
be answered sincerely only if one can establish objectively that
Pakistan has solved the major problems of all the Muslims of the
Indian subcontinent. If it has, then Jinnah was certainly one
of the greatest saints that ever lived, but if it has not, then
his status must be reviewed in the light of the results that the
partition has produced.
To start with,
let us weigh up the concept of Pakistan itself. It meant that
the Indian provinces (Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, NW Frontier and
Bengal) where the Muslims were in a majority, must be treated
as the Homeland of the Muslims, and separated from India as an
independent state. This was a crazy idea for several reasons.
a distance of about one thousand miles between East and West Pakistan.
It was impossible to reach Karachi from Dacca by Land, Sea or
Air without the consent of the Indian government, which was bound
to be hostile for the simple reason that Pakistan would serve
as a symbol of Muslim hatred against the Hindus. This being the
truth, diplomatic relations between the two states could not remain
cordial, and they would exist only to demolish each other. It
also meant that their budgets would be dedicated to national defense
instead of public welfare resulting in poverty with its concomitant
vices such as bribery, nepotism, tyranny, injustice and mal-administration.
that one can have a far-flung empire, but it is impossible to
think of a homeland whose parts lie a thousand miles away intercepted
by a long hostile territory. The leader, who thinks of such a
plan as the elixir of national ills, does not know the difference
between mirth and misery, fruition and fiasco, delight and disaster.
insisted on the formation of Pakistan. His followers have, no
doubt, offered mitigating factors to support his soundness of
judgment, but this is an exercise in futility. The fact is that
he did secure Pakistan consisting of Eastern and Western wings,
which in essence, is a proof of political incompetence. The man,
obviously, wanted to be a hero at the expense of innocent people.
As I shall
explain later, nationhood is not founded on religion but blood
ties, a common culture and homeland, yet he insisted that religion
was the cornerstone of Muslim nationhood.
If this were
true, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.
would have been one state.
As we know,
it has never happened, and these countries are as independent
from one another as England is from France and China from Russia.
Jinnah had some secret knowledge of history or some special powers
to mould the Muslims of Indian into a separate nation, he should
have spent his energies to this effect.
the prophet Muhammad had devoted his life to welding the various
warring Arab tribes into one nation. Genghis Khan had also spent
considerable time in uniting the Mongolian hordes into one nation.
did nothing to forge one nation out of Muslims scattered throughout
India. Delivering occasional lectures from a high pulpit, canopied
by an unswerving loyalty to the British Crown, was totally insufficient
to accomplish the task. In a nutshell, he did not go through the
laborious rehearsal, which is absolutely essential before staging
the play. Either he did not realize or deliberately ignored the
fact that the secret of Muhammad's and Genghis Khan's success
lay in the fact that their people were already racially one nation,
who had become divided into clans. Of course, the Muslims of India
were racially and culturally Indian, but Jinnah had undertaken
an entiely unnatural task of splitting it into two nations based
on religion. It has never happened in this world because religion
is not the natural unit of nationhood.
of Jinnah's argument for Pakistan was emotional and exploitative.
He used the religious appeal as a bait to bring the Muslims into
the political net. He played upon the religious susceptibilities
of people to make them believe that the Islamic state was the
sure guarantor of peace, prosperity and plenitude, but he never
explained the complexity, nature and purpose of the Islamic Law,
the main vehicle of bringing about this Divine Revolution. Being
a lawyer, it was his foremost duty to do so. This was the only
way to make people realize what was required of them. The fact
that he did not do it makes him less than honourable.
One must bear
in mind that Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim, yet he advocated
the establishment of an Islamic state. On the contrary, the formidable
Muslim divines such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Husain
Ahmad Madni, Sayyad Ata Ulla Shah Bukhari, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi,
and many more, opposed the concept of Pakistan and the Two-Nation
There is no
evidence whatever that an Islamic state has ever existed according
to the Koranic principles. Nor can it be proved that Islam required
establishment of a single state for all Muslims to share its bounties,
benefits and blessings. The Indian Muslims boast a good deal about
the "Islamic Welfare State" established by the Second
Caliph, Umar the Great. Yes, he did invent the system of giving
social benefits to the Arab children, but where did the money
come from? The finances were raised by robbing the newly converted
Muslims of Egypt and Iran, whose children cried from hunger and
disease. There is no record, whatever, to show that the Egyptian
and Iranian children were given any stipends from the Arab funds;
it was for Arab children only!
is that the much vaunted Muslim Law falls far short of the universally
accepted legal standards. What is law?
The law is
a set of enforceable principles, which seek to establish rights
and duties between person and person, an individual and society,
as well as people and the state. The following peculiarities give
the law its true distinction, deference and decency:
1. The law is never made for the benefit of one person, an individual
and society. It is enacted for a whole group of people.
law is strictly neutral in its application that is, it applies
to the low and high and great and small with equal force.
it my seem but the truth is that the Islamic Law has nothing to
do with public good because it revolved round the convenience
of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Koran lays it down that
a Muslim can have no more than four wives at the same time, but
this law did not apply to the Prophet:
And any woman,
Believer, if she gave herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet
desires to take her in marriage, for thee, apart from the believers.
(The Confederates, 33:45)
in mind the following Koranic Law, pertaining to polygamy:
such women as seem good to you, two, three or four; but if you
fear you will not be equitable, then only one...."(Women,
Thus the clause
of equity is the pivot of having more than one wife. It is well-known
that the Prophet could not maintain balance of fairness among
his wives. As the Koran witnesses, it led to a lot of acrimony
in the household. Instead of enforcing the clause of equity, Allah
gave Muhammad dispensation from it:
(Muhammad) can suspend any of your wives as you will and receive
any of them as you will: and whomsoever you desire of those whom
you have set aside, it is no sin for you." (The Confederates,
English, it means that the Prophet is not bound by the Law of
Equity, the basic condition of polygamy: he can treat his wives
as he thinks fit. Since it is Allah, who makes the law a play-thing
for Muhammad, one wonders if Allah and Muhammad are not the one
and same person. It certainly led me to this conclusion.
The law, which
is exclusive to a person for serving his convenience, or if it
is flexible at will, it ceases to be the law. In this context,
I ought to remind the reader that the Prophet was at liberty to
marry the widow or divorcee of another person, but nobody was
allowed to marry his widow (or divorcee). All his wives were raised
to the status of Ummahaat-ul-Momineen (Mothers of the believers)
so that nobody could marry them. When the Prophet died, his wife
Aisha was only 18, and lived to be 73 as a lonely widow!
One can find
many more examples to this effect, but I think I have said enough
to illustrate the purpose and nature of the so--called Islamic
Law. However, I may add that the poverty-stricken Muslims of India
believed that the Islamic Law stood for economic equality. We
all were led to think that way. Zulfikar All Bhutto openly equated
the Islamic Law with the Marxist concept of nationalization, for
this reason, whereas the truth is that Islam allows unlimited
accumulation of wealth in any form, including land and is the
only source of feudalism in the modern age.
It is this
ambiguity about the Islamic Law, which has become the bane of
Pakistan. Half a century has elapsed but Islamic Law has not yet
been enforced in Pakistan despite the fact that India was divided
for this reason. The truth is that there is no Islamic Law to
be enforced. What is called the Islamic Law is the result of the
far-fetched interpretations of the Koran and the Hadith; it also
includes the vestiges of the legal contrivances that were developed
by the Arab and Turkish rulers to meet the demands of their times.
Back to English Library Index
Back to Library Index
Back to Islam Index
Back to Anwar Shaikh Index