Dr. Israr asked: if you wanted secularism, then why partition from India? Because India chose secularism, and the Muslims who chose the same refused to migrate to Pakistan, i.e. the only people migrating were those who did not want secularism. If both countries are secular, the partition is pointless.
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims --Hindus, Christians, and Parsis --but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.(Broadcast talk to the people of the United States of America on Pakistan recorded February, 1948.
Jinnah sold his hateful propoganda and fake 2 nation theory successfully to achieve his political goals. he was agent of brittish to avoid Indian independence. Congress was never Hindu supporter, it was secular since before independence. many Muslim leaders were in congress
@@stargazer5487 Both are right. Law will be made according to the tradition and culture of Muslims. But implementation will be fair and equal for every one, Muslims and non-Muslims. Example, Western law was mainly formed according to the Protestant code of conduct but they applied it on everyone equally without any prejudice and partiality. Even today, church of England has a function in national life and the parliament but UK applies its law without partiality.
@@stargazer5487No you can't say that and have equal rights for all rasis and religion cuz that's what islam says There is no religion which gives us a way to govern and democracy/Uncle Sam's slavery isn't doing well! We need islam to protect every rase and religion! Either give us a democratic country like india (not todays india with hindutva,india before bjp) or let us govern this country No milliterism and uncle samism!
Two things, first I don't think Maududi was saying that ideology of Pakistan had not any connection with Islamic theocracy, I think he pronounced that the people establishing it on the popular level are not honest and their claim is superficial. I think he was right saying that League leaders didn't express the intention to create an Islamic country in clear cut words but used as a mere slogan to gain sympathies of politically immature public. Second, I think this debate about whether Pakistan was Islamic or not is pretty useless. Imagine you wake up in a place and are told that the people before you didn't want it to be a good place. Even though, you would have the urge to make it a good place. I think when the majority is Muslim and wants Sharia law as the constitution, it is of no use that the founding father was even Muslim or even an atheist!
I would not be able to decide on the matter unless I heard from both sides but one thing I know is maulana modudi understood Quran, Islamic Law, and politics from the Quran and Sunnah far better than most of the scholars of his time till today. (Waiting for the next episode keenly).
@@honorhonor3352 you're right. but i think we're not really adressing the actual problem here.What i wanted to ask him is what made him say that maudodi was not one of the top scholars of his time.
Wow! Molana was really harsh. How ironic that not only he accepted Pakistan's formation but his political party took part in democracy. Now his party is considered the most democratic party of Pakistan.
@@What-do-you-want824 I second your point. It's a good thing that an intellectual like Maududi finally accepted Pakistan and his party became a key political force in Pakistan's politics.
I think that even if the Molana considered League's leaders to be Muslims only by name, it was evident that Pakistan's constitution would be Islamic in nature.
I read the book (Mawjoda Siasi Kashmakash awar Muslam) around twenty years ago and I knew how Maudodi staunchly opposed the creation of Pakistan just because he did not agree with the idea of Muslim or Islamic nationalism. But if we look into the issue from a different perspective we will be able to see that It was not because of Islamic teaching rather his personal understanding of Islam which he believed in. Obviously he found the whole religious justification for a separate state irreconcilable for what he stood for. He was not alone in his condemnation and mocking of the Muslim League leadership. Jamiat Ulema Hind, which included towering scholars and learned theologists in its files and ranks, also did not buy the notion of Islamic or Muslim nation. Ahrar too opposed the AIML. So because of all such religious opposition do we still believe that Pakistan was created for the sole purpose of enforcing Sharia or creating a secular state for Muslims of the subcontinent.. Mr. Jinnah never ever hinted that Pakistan would be a secular state but at the same time also did not promise a Sharia system. If we claim that he stood for a secular state then it would hit the root of the very concept of the state. Because the very genesis of the country was based on two nations (Muslim Nation and the rest as separate nation) theory. If it was not secular then was it a theocratic state. If it was theocratic then why all these religious scholars and best theologists opposed it? Why did none of the AIML leadership have any authority on theology? I have my own views. I believe It was not the AIML who strived and then succeeded in achieving a separate state of Pakistan. In fact it was the mix of few historical incidents, needs, understanding, co-incidents and the future needs of the dying/rising of colonial power. Indian National Congress nonetheless; boasted of secularism and claim of representing the Indian masses irrespective of their color and creed but few important leaders in their ranks were infected with communal pest. Besides the INC also committed political blunders and when they were needed to accommodate, they shun their opponents. The drying British colonialists and the rising American Imperialists need to have a piece of land to continue the great game against its historical rival - Soviet Union. Finally Muslims were numerically in majority where the present Pakistan was established. We had no problem and even there was no chance for the non Muslim to have won elections and ruled us in near future. Unfortunately those Muslims who feared the Hindu dominance and loss of their Muslim identity once the British departed India and democracy set in, were left to face the brunt of communal hatred. As far as the massacre of around half a million Hindu, Sikh and Muslims during pre and post partition is concerned, that was not for the sake of their struggle for freedom. Pathetically the British sown the seeds of communalism, hatred and division on the basis of faith around a hundred years ago but harvested by Indians with the blood and tears. None of these Sikh, Muslim, Hindu etc died in the path of fighting for freedom but they were killed by the opposite faith believers. Sadly enough the leadership of AIML, Congress and Sikh were too to be blamed for their apathy, selfishness and at times political expediency .
Not sure how Congress is responsible. Gandhi accepted the Muslim league demand that Muslims will have the right to kill and rape Hindus and Sikhs. After the Noarkhali riots, the Bihar riots happened and for the Muslim league Gandhi's words had no meaning.
اگر جناح ایک سیکولر ریاست بنانا چاہتے تھے تو پھر قرارداد مقاصد کیوں کیوں منظور کی گئی ڈاکٹر تمور صاحب میرا یہ اپ سے سوال ہے اگر مسلم لیگ اتنی سیکولر تھی تو انہوں نے قرارداد مقاصد کیوں منظور کی۔
🌟 Agar secular mulk hi chahiye tha toh Partition kyu hua? 🤦🏻♂️ I'm a Leftist myself but I'm sorry this is sheer cope by liberals and leftists in implying Pakistan was imagined as a secular state and not an Islamic one. QeA Jinnah has only one speech talking about Secularism compared to 100s where he talks about an Islamic State and how Muslims are a different Nation. Historical Revisionism by Ayesha Jalal is unfortunate.
Yeah That's contradictory too ! First u made a country on the basis of religion for a particular religion followed by worst bloodshed in the history , then expect secularism 🤷🤷
I think it's crucial to distinguish the political narrative of a political party from the personal/ private actions and beliefs of its leaders/organizers. Political persona/image of the party should be set apart from the private individual. The political narrative is influenced by many factors, among which, the popular sentiment of the community whose support the political party aims to garner is the most significant one. Thus, the secular lifestyles of the leaders of Muslim League did not hold them back from using religion as a tool for popular appeal. They effectively used the religio-nationalist rhetoric as a means to a political end. One such piece of rhetoric will suffice to support this claim: In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on November 21, 1945, MA Jinnah said: “We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.” The key words are "Muslims", "rule", and "Islamic Law".
India dunya k dusre secular mulko k saath q nai mil jata? Pakistan was envisioned as a separate state for Muslims, not an Islamic state. It is funny how Indians try to Hinduize everything. Unlike Sanatan which is a cultural construct that encompasses everything from drinking cow urine to software engineering, Islam is an individualized religion with a well-defined context. Only humans can follow a religion, not animals or non-living things. As such, a state cannot be Islamic, and the concept of institutionalized and all-encompassing Islam has been borrowed from Christianity and Hinduism, and amplified through Islam's ability to magnify worldly immateriality.
Molana was not perfect neither are we. Change of opinion is normal in intellectuals. But as a nation are far away from the intellect and like past narratives rather than supporting the current one. Which party was in favour of Pakistan? ANP? JUI-H? Communist?? But people only talk about JI because they find nothing else to defame them. Although Professor Taimur is a gem, and I liked this video because he is a scholar and it is a scholarly discussion, I am feeling strange about how people are using this video for political purposes.
Might be a good idea to date the works you quoted because Mr. Maududi was initially against the creation of Pakistan and Muslim League, but later reneged on his stance. It appears you quoted his older works while ignoring his later, revised stance. It also appears you have an ulterior agenda against Islam in Pakistan; in other videos, you misquoted Maududi and Dr. Israr so blatantly that one is left wondering how you even became a professor in the first place.
مولانا مودودی کی جو تحریریں آپ نے پیش کی ہیں اور جِس دور میں وہ لکھی گئیں اُس دوران تو لوگوں کو مُغالطہ ہو سکتا تھا کہ مولانا مودودی کا تجزیہ درست نہیں ہے اورمسلم لیگ مسلمانوں کی حقیقی خیرخواہ اور نجات دہندہ ہے لیکن مولانا مودودی نے جِن خدشات کا اظہار قبل ازوقت کِیا بعد ازاں وُہ حرف بحرف درست ثابت ہوئے- ستر سال بعد آپ ذراتعصبات سے بالا ہو کر اور حقیقت پسندانہ بصیرت و بصارت سے کام لیتے ہوئے موجودہ پاکستان کا پوسٹ مارٹم کریں گے تو آپ کو معلوم ہو گا کہ آپ کا آدھا وجودتو موجود ہی نہیں- اپنی قوم کی عالمی ساکھ کو دیکھیں تو اِس قوم کے بارے میں عالمی تاثر یہ پایا جاتا ہے کہ یہ پیسوں کیلئےاپنی ماں کو بیچنے سےبھی نہیں چُوکتے-دو نمبری اور چور بازاری کا حال بازاروں اور اداروں میں خواہ سرکاری ہوں یا غیر سرکاری جاکر آزما لیں - آپ کا صدر بے شرمی اور ڈھٹائی سے کہتا ہے وعدے قرآن اور حدیث نہیں ہوتے- سیاستدانوں میں لوٹے کی اصطلاح شاید ہی کِسی اور ملک میں پائی جاتی ہو- اور جمہوریت کا فارم 47 آپ کا منہ نہیں چِڑا رہا تو آپ اپنے نفسیاتی علاج کا اہتمام کریں - اور اپنی جمہوریت کا موازنہ اُس ملک سے کر کے دیکھ لیں جس سے آپ نے علیحدگی اختیار کی- آپ اپنے سماجی اور معاشرتی روّیوں کو دیکھ لیں لوگوں کے جان و مال اور عزت و آبرو کِس قدر محفوظ ہے - میرے بھائی اگر قائد اعظم نے خود تسلیم کر لِیا کہ اُن کے گرد و پیش بالفاظِ دیگر مسلم لیگ کے لوگ محظ اُنکی جیب کے کھوٹے سِکّے ہیں تو پھر مولانا مودودی کا تجزیہ کچھ غلط نہ تھا - رہا اُن کا کاروبارِ ریاست جیسے کہ الیکشن وغیرہ میں حصہ لینا تو جب ریاست نے بَاَمرِ مجبوری ہی سہی قراردادِ مقاصد منظورکر لی تو اُنہوں کہاآج مملکتِ پاکستان نے کلمہ پڑھ لِیا ہے مگر پھر بھی ایمان کاعملی ثبوت دینا ابھی باقی ہے- مولانا مودودی نے اصلاحِ اُمّت کے جس کام کا بیڑا اُ ٹھایا اُس میں اپنی جان کھپا دی اور ﷲ نےاُن کے کام کو بین الاقوامی سطح پر پزیرائی بخشی٫ اُن کی جماعت میدان میں موجود ہے جس کے کارکنان با عمل اور بےغرض اصلاحِ احوال کے لِئے کوشاں ہیں- اُن کی جماعت اُس ہندوستان میں بھی مصروفِ عمل ہے جس سے آپ علیحدہ ہوئے اور اُس بنگلہ دیش میں بھی جو آپ سےعلیحدہ ہوا- آپ ذرا خورد بین لے کر تلاش کریں اور قائد اعظم کی مسلم لیگ تلاش کریں اور اُس کا پتہ معلوم ہو جائے تو اہلِ پاکستان کو ضرور بتا دیں یہ آپکا قوم پراحسان ہو گا- اور مولانا مودودی کی جماعت کے علاوہ پاکستان میں کوئی دوسری جمہوری اور غیرخاندانی پارٹی پائی جاتی ہو تو اُ س کا پتہ مُجھے لِکھ بھیجیں میں ممنون رہوں گا- میرے خیال میں آپ کے معدےکے لئے اتنی غذا کافی ہے میں آپ کی بیماری کا سبب نہیں بننا چاہتا اللہ آپ کو تندرست رکھے -آخر میں ایک صائب مشورہ ہے اور وہ یہ کہ اپنی رائے قائم کرنے اور کوئی پروگرام طے کرنے سے پہلے اپنی تحقیق کا دائرہ آخری حدوں تک وسیع کریں - والسلام
I think it's crucial to distinguish the political narrative of a political party from the personal/ private actions and beliefs of its leaders/organizers. Political persona/image of the party should be set apart from the private individual. The political narrative is influenced by many factors, among which, the popular sentiment of the community whose support the political party aims to garner is the most significant one. Thus, the secular lifestyles of the leaders of Muslim League did not hold them back from using religion as a tool for popular appeal. They effectively used the religio-nationalist rhetoric as a means to a political end. One such piece of rhetoric will suffice to support this claim: In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on November 21, 1945, MA Jinnah said: “We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.” The key words are "Muslims", "rule", and "Islamic Law".
📍On Feb 19, 1948, in a broadcast Jinnah proclaimed: "Make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy, or anything like it. " Jinnah ki is baat se hum kya muraad lein? 📍On August 11 1947, he said You are free, you are free to go to ur temples, u r free to go to mosques or to any other place of worship in the state of Pakistan. ye secularism ni hai?.... what is secular state: State which guarantees religious freedom for every citizen.. Then where is لیکون الدین کلہ للہ۔۔ Just humble qs ...if u can answer 🙂
You are confused between secularism and liberalism. Jinnah is pointing towards a liberal state (even though it contradicts the right to choose your partner for marriage).
Before independence it was Muslim League who took the lead in uniting the Muslims of sub continent for a just cause, whereas, leadership of Jammat-e-Islami was as pathetic and lousy as it is now- meaning they were never able to fight for a cause. Infact due to the lack of funding they even go against creation of Pakistan, and Maududi was ethical enough not to oppose like today's vulgar politicians infact he was as pathetic and lousy as his other members of the party. At least he is right on one thing, Pakistan is definitely a Miracle of Allah, even if Maududi is so idealogical then he should had that much of shame of not migrating to Pakistan. Jihad (Hand, words or by heart) is required at all times under some single leadership to overcome the corruption in a society. Wal Khat Hussaini
How can one build argument on the basis of one man? There were many ulemas in favour of the establishment of Pakistan including Shabeer Ahmad Usmani, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Pir of Golra etc. Your all questions were answered in 1949's objective resolution
@@Taimur_Laal. Pakistan Movement perhaps can be BEST described and analysed by Marxist perspective. Even if those who actually participated / joined from a religious perspective, disagree with that ( which they would and should) it will still hold true. BECAUSE. It was truly based on the POLITICAL awareness of a group who who wanted to survive against a bigger group , it just happens to be the case that they recognized the other ( or each other on the baes of religion). Even the religious dimension was described more in cultural terms ( like with the arguments pertaining to food and clothing) instead of theoretical or theological arguments. They really did not need Maudoodi. Its just another story
@@Taimur_Laal sir, all the leaders/politicians who created Pakistan may not be practicing muslims but they all passed Objectives Resolution! next time please analyse objectives resolution for clarity.
@@hassansiddique8821 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Dono cheezain Theek Hain Apny Hisaab se, Muslim league ny Public ko Bewakoof banaya islaam ke name par, to public to yehi smjhy gi Islamic state bnana maqsad tha, dosri tarf Agar aik expert ki nazar se dekha jaye jaisy molana moududi ny dekha to Muslim league sirf mufaad parasat jamat thi or ye batt sabat bhi hoi. Tab b awam aisy e Bewakoof bani thi Islam ke name par aj bhi ban rahi.
@@Taimur_Laal پوری بات نقل کیا کریں۔ جس جمہوریت میں حاکمیت اعلی عوام کے پاس ہو وہ جمہوریت کفر ہے۔ اور قرار داد مقاصد کے بعد پاکستان کی جمہوریت اور مغربی جمہوریت میں بڑا فرق آگیا تھا کہ یہاں حاکمیت اعلی کا اختیار اللہ تعالی کو دے دیا گیا ہے۔ آپ پہلے بتائیں، قرار داد مقاصد کو مانتے ہیں؟
Islam me majhab ka istemal Musalmano ka giroh banane ke liye kiya jata hai. Aur jisne Islam ko manne se inkar kiya unhe jahannami kafir makhluq wagairah batakar nafrat sikhata hai. Gair muslim ke upar islami huqumat failane ko jihad batata hai aur jihadi ko jannat hooro ka jhansa deta hai. Ek Allah ka ul julool tasawwur banakar logo ko kolhu ke bail Andhnamazi aur zunooni banata hai. Gyan ki roshni nahi balki andhvishwas failata hai. Ul julool manghadant kahaniya aur khokhle dawo ki buniyad par sirf khud ko ekmatr sach aur baki sare dharm ya faith ko galat batata hai. Jahalat ghode talwar ke zamane me chal nikla lekin aaj ki science philosohy Logic par adharit mile jule samaj me kabhi bhi bhaichara harmony nahi la sakta. Islam ke buniyadi usool badalne jaruri hai..
@@Taimur_Laal That's just revisionist cope by you Comrade. If Pakistan was truly supposed to be Democratic as u say why did Jinnah choose to ve Governor General instead of PM like Nehru, centralised all power in his office, dismissed NWFP Govt, etc. Stop simping over Ashleigh Coffin and go read some actual history 😂
Islam me majhab ka istemal Musalmano ka giroh banane ke liye kiya jata hai. Aur jisne Islam ko manne se inkar kiya unhe jahannami kafir makhluq wagairah batakar nafrat sikhata hai. Gair muslim ke upar islami huqumat failane ko jihad batata hai aur jihadi ko jannat hooro ka jhansa deta hai. Ek Allah ka ul julool tasawwur banakar logo ko kolhu ke bail Andhnamazi aur zunooni banata hai. Gyan ki roshni nahi balki andhvishwas failata hai. Ul julool manghadant kahaniya aur khokhle dawo ki buniyad par sirf khud ko ekmatr sach aur baki sare dharm ya faith ko galat batata hai. Jahalat ghode talwar ke zamane me chal nikla lekin aaj ki science philosohy Logic par adharit mile jule samaj me kabhi bhi bhaichara harmony nahi la sakta. Islam ke buniyadi usool badalne jaruri hai..
Very right.The law maker at the time of Independence was a HINDU and the foreign minister was AHMADI.This clearly indicates the fact that Pakistan was originally a secular nation as this involvement of other religions in big authorities is unacceptable in Islam
That's contradictory too ! First u made a country on the basis of religion for a particular religion followed by worst bloodshed in the history , then expect secularism 🤷🤷
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
@@What-do-you-want824 In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims --Hindus, Christians, and Parsis --but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.(Broadcast talk to the people of the United States of America on Pakistan recorded February, 1948.
Islam me majhab ka istemal Musalmano ka giroh banane ke liye kiya jata hai. Aur jisne Islam ko manne se inkar kiya unhe jahannami kafir makhluq wagairah batakar nafrat sikhata hai. Gair muslim ke upar islami huqumat failane ko jihad batata hai aur jihadi ko jannat hooro ka jhansa deta hai. Ek Allah ka ul julool tasawwur banakar logo ko kolhu ke bail Andhnamazi aur zunooni banata hai. Gyan ki roshni nahi balki andhvishwas failata hai. Ul julool manghadant kahaniya aur khokhle dawo ki buniyad par sirf khud ko ekmatr sach aur baki sare dharm ya faith ko galat batata hai. Jahalat ghode talwar ke zamane me chal nikla lekin aaj ki science philosohy Logic par adharit mile jule samaj me kabhi bhi bhaichara harmony nahi la sakta. Islam ke buniyadi usool badalne jaruri hai..
Allama Iqbal's critique of democracy [Bang e Dra -196]: _Utha ke phenk do bahir gali mein,_ _Nayi tezheeb ke ande hain gande._ _Election, memberi, council, sadarat,_ _Banaye khoob azaadi ne phande._ _Mian najjar bhi cheele gaye saath,_ _Nihayat tez hain Europe ke rande._
Dr Taimur would do well if reads more about Maulana Maududi, The Reformer of 29th century. Maulana addressed issues of Islam looking straight into eyes of all anti Islam elements. By presenting Islam with modern arguments his words sink straight into one hearts. We r so lucky to have this great writer in our library. Allah Pak may bless him in peace with all His kindness and mercy
There was / is huge difference and gap in what was / is the leadership's desire and what was / is the public's desire.. Both desired opposite things, poor public needed an Islamic Idealogical State ( as claimed by League's leadership) but Leaders have some other motives for independence.. This was the dilemma!!
There can be a third opinion as well : that is It's a good discussion whether Muslim league leaders internally want Pakistan to be an Islamic state or otherwise but this is vividly clear that their mandate on which Indian-Muslims support them was completely of the Islamic state. Proofs: 1> Khilafat Movement 2> Quaid sayings i.e.: "Quran will be our constitution". 3> The whole narrative, though & poetry of Iqbal. 4> The demand for Islamic implementation on the state level after independence which led to Objective Resolution and many other things. There is so much more that can be said on this topic, but I leave it for some other day. Thanks
Jamooriat par molana ke old views bta raye ap. Update karain khud ko. Molana jamooriat ke haami thy lekin Allah ki Itaa'at main rehty howy, Jb "Hakmiat Allah ki " ye law bana to onho ny kaha tha ap riasat ny Qalma parh lia hai
اس وقت پاکستان کے قیام کا مقصد ایک الگ ریاست کا تھا جس کو اسلام کا نام دیا گیا لیکن جب یہ ایک الگ ریاست بن گئی تو اس کی اولین ترجیح یہ ہے کہ اس میں اسلامی نظام حکومت نافذ کیا جائے۔ جس کی پہلی اینٹ ملانا مودودی نے مسلہ قادنیت لکھ کر کیا اور اس کے بعد مولانا نے قرارداد مقاصد میں بھی اہم کردار ادا کیا
Chad maududi bashed everyone else but always supported military takeovers, supported Zia in the execution of Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto, JUI was formed by the backing of the establishment after partition, and supported the Islamization program of Zia Ul Haq. One can see clear dualism in his personality. What kind of political Islam supports the actions of a tyrant (military coup), which are directly against the fundamental rights of the citizens. Undoubtedly, maududi had a firm grip on Islamic principles but he always backed authoritarianism politically, which is sad. I was an ardent supporter of Maududi and read a lot about his views. Alas! I read too much and know his blunders.
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
مولانا مودودی بلا شبہ ایک مجدد تھے جن کو سکہ بند علماء کی جانب سے سخت مخالفت کا سامنا کرنا پڑا۔ تاہم ان کی عظمت کا ایک پہلو یہ بھی ہے کہ آپ نے ان تنقید کا جواب نہیں دیا ۔
Agr sahih maini mai islami riasat k asool apna liye jayen to kisi bhi mazhab, zuban aur nasl sy taaluq rkhny walon k haqooq ghazab nhe hon gy.....hmara almia ye hai k hum ny Islam ko samjha he nhe.
According to me the answer is very very simple........the ultimate goal of getting a separate land from India was to apply totally Islamic laws.....if during separation they wanted to make a circular state then they were faulted...It doesn't matter what were qaid e Azam's intentions relating secularism and Islam because he was not a prophet and we have to follow our prophet in this matter.....
Molana moududi was right that democracy was not ideal for Islam. But Mr. Jinnah had no choice as it was not an easy task to get a separate Muslim welfare state in those circumstances. We can realize the importance of Pakistan for Muslims by looking at the pitiable situation of Muslims in India especially in Kashmir.
why not talk about Pakistani Hindus too? Since you care more about Indian Muslims! But you will never understand, this is the reason why Pakistan is in this situation today. But never mind
@@HOG1070 i will never support any discrimination against any non-Muslim in Pakistan. But, if we compare India and Pakistan, we can find a great difference in the attitude towards minorities. And i am not in the favor of spreading hate against India. But i think that the secular ideology of Mr. Gandhi is and will always be ideal for a country like India.
75 سال بعد آپ کو مودی صاحب کا حوالہ دے کر پاکستانیوں کو گمراہ کرنے کا خیال کیوں آیا ھے.....؟ جبکہ پچپن سے سنتے آ رہے ہیں کہ ایک مودی سو یہودی، معاز اللہ، استغفراللہ! ویسے آپ جیسے لوگ اچھی طرح جانتے ہیں کہ پاکستانی عوام اب فیصلہ کن موڑ پر کھڑی ھے. ویسے سامعین کے لیے آپ کی اس بیہودہ قسم کی ویڈیو کا جواب محترم اوریا مقبول جان نے جواب دے دیا ھے 👇ua-cam.com/video/Mg06gRRJclE/v-deo.html
For the establishment of an islamic state...a leader like Prophet PBUH and a community like Sahaba ( companions) is required which seems impossible to exist in the very period of time... that's why 14 centuries never ever seen an islamic state where all the islamic laws have implemented
@syedbakeruddinbekar9433whose laws we need? Western laws? Those war mongers who have killed 100's of millions of people for resources and considered blacks to be inferior until only a ~100 years ago.
Knowledge is power and ignorance is not a bliss. Ignorants are found in all forms and colours: with beards, without beards, laal, Sabaz… Read history without agenda and prejudice, then you will discover the truth, otherwise stories are fabricated to promote one agenda or another. Lies have many colours, truth has just one. In this case the truth is in the words of great Jinnah, not taken from one speech but all what he said before and after partition, and the words of those who advised him and stood with him against Maududis, Muftis, father of Fazlur Rahman, Madnis, Azads … Truth is difficult to find in the sea of lies, but the truth is there for those who have no agenda and intellect that is drawn to truth.
Taimoor ne Jamat Islami se Sawalt to utahe asal maqsad ye btana tha ke Pakistan aik Secular state ke tor par ban tha na ke koi Islamic Theocratic state ke toor par.
ڈاکٹر تیمور صاحب! کیا ہی اچھا ہوتا کہ آپ مودودی صاحب کی کتب/تحریر سے مذکورہ تمام مواد جن کا آپ نے ذکر کیا ، دکھایا جاتا۔ جس کتاب سے آپ یہ مواد لے رہے ہیں وہ مودودی صاحب کی کتب یا ان کے شائع کردہ کسی رسالے سے ماخوذ نہیں ہیں۔ خود مودودی صاحب کی کتب / رسالے کا تحریری عکس دکھائے بغیر تحقیق یا حوالہ مکمل ن ہیں ہوگا۔
One should know and ask about the intentions of 'Pakistan Movement' and of 'the creation of Pakistan' from the people and the founders (Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Iqbal) of Pakistan and not from the third party who were not, as it is known, in favour or movement of Pakistan. What did Muhammad Ali Jinnah say about the intentions behind the creation of Pakistan. ?
The Muslim League already lost its credibility when it accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. The continued rejection of every proposal tabled by the Congress for funds approval in front of the finance minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, finally convinced Vallabhai Patel and Nehru who then convinced Gandhi to get rid of The League by giving them, in the words of Jinnah, a 'Moth-Eaten' state. Quoting K.K. Aziz from his book 'The Murder of the History', "Pakistan was created by the Hindus. Had the Hindu leaders shown greater wisdom, more flexibility, less ignorance, the Muslim League would not have insisted on a partition of India."
What was wrong about accepting the cabinet mission plan? As I understand it, it would have preserved the political union of India as one country, while giving self rule to Muslims. Sounds like a good deal.
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Excellent video, very informative. I was informed in this regard but i dod not have direct quotes as you have provided in this video. Every member of Jamyat should read these writings of Moududi and understand that they are (probably) mistaken about Pakistan.
Members of jamat do read books but others hardly do. i recommend you to read the original book of maulana maudoodi تحریک آزادئ ہند اور مسلمان It will change the whole narrative ۔
@@shakeelurrahman1846 we also read books, but different books. Moududi was no fool. He was a very intelligent traditional Muslim thinker. however, he was wrong about religion as we can see in the world today. today, secular countries have some of the least crime and corruption perception as well as the best economy. not to mention life expectancy and education See crime index, Corruption perceptions index, GDP per Capita, Human development index
@@ultraali453hadef sharef hai kay aik waqet ay ga kuch logislam ka istmal duniya ka shikar kernay liya kerain aur un kay dill bhairiyon jaisay ho ab is molvi ki batain sun kay to is ka dill mujay aisa hi lag raha hai
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Exactly, If modudi was an atheist, his opinions would be regarded as of an "intellectual" Crazy if you're following a religion, your opinions are automatically vilified
Did you intensionally left the name of Dr. Istiyaq Ahmed out, while mentioning Dr. Ayesha Jalal? He has written a book debunkink Dr. Jalal's theory with compelling references. He also mentions with references about the written communication between British higher-ups of that time that subcontinent was divided to prevent a possible super power of the future. He says that Jinnah was just a politician who was used for this purpose, he was not a true leader.
I have not read his book, but watched a very detailed interview. He seemed to build his argument on the public speeches of Jinnah. But in day to day politics how much do the public statements reveal? There is lot going on at micro level and behind the scenes. He also places Ghandi above Imam Hussein because in his view he was so great that he backed on his conviction for the sack of saving people which was a greater act compared to great people who would typically wont do that. Funnily, even in India they have a growing debate if Gandhi was really great or father of nation, or if Godse should instead be their Hero. And Pakistanis are trying to glorify even more than Indians would do
مولانا مودودی ایک بہترین مبلغ تھے. آپ ماشاءاللہ سےتاریخ پر بھی نظر رکھتے ہیں. آپ کو یہ بھی بتانا چاہیے تھا کہ کس ماحول اور کیسے دور میں مولانا نے کیا بات کی. جس قسم کا دور تھا اور جیسے جیسے تبدیل ہو رہا تھا وقت اور حالات کے مطابق تجزیہ دیا جانا تھا. اور وہ مولانا نے دیا. آپ کا مسئلہ مولانا نہیں اسلام ہے. کم از کم مجھے تو ایسا ہی لگا ان سب باتوں سے جو آپ نے اس ویڈیو میں کیں
In my honest opinion, those who argue whether Pakistan was meant to be a secular democratic republic with a Muslim majority or an Islamic state are oblivious about the bigger picture. Colonialism and imperialism. If the European white people could create borders in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention poking their noses in the internal affairs of the developing world; like Britain and the US did in Iran in 1953, or in Egypt in 1956, or even the protectorate in Aden (Yemen); then why the heck wouldn’t Britain impose its will on the Subcontinent? We are colonized people mentally and even economically.
Moreover Maududi didn't have technical skills and contemporary political know how. Mr Taimur you are just dragging and forcing an unnecessary narrative here. Cherry picked something that justifies your Marxist position subtly.
اس سے بڑھ کر یہ کہ حوالہ مولانا مودودی کی تحریروں سے نہیں بلکہ مخالفین کے پراپیگنڈہ کے لئے نکالی گئی کتابوں سے دئیے گئے ہیں۔۔۔ صاحب اگر تحقیق کا شوق ہے تو ذرا source document ہی کو پڑھ لیں یا وہاں سی quote کریں تاکہ سننے والا اپنے طور پر بھی معلومات حاصل کرسکے۔
Started going through your videos for historical clarity, but they contain the same biasness and just one sided tendencies to promote liberalism. What's the point of the channel if this is only about shifting views towards "your" idealogy more than "clarification" of ideologies that was needed.
Yet another failed attempt to malign Maududi, just showing your incompetence or precisely academic dishonesty to explain the point of view of Maulana Maududi on Islamic state, and Pakistan. At least person should know the history of some party that's unfortunately manifested even in comment section...
if socialism is not adopted, it is against the principle of Islam.See the gap between HAVES and Haves Not in Pakistan and compare per capita GDP OF Pakistan ,India and Bangladesh
Quo vadis Comrade Taimur Rahman? It's absolutely not mandatory to accept one or other of the suggested options, both of these could be misleading. Surprisingly you have missed to quote a third option, which has been suggested by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed and which seems to be the most important and contemporary one. Is it only a matter of coincidence?
Brother! I think you misunderstood his narrations . He never said that Pakistan is MEANT to be a secular state rather he commented that it would LED to a secular state with the conduct of affairs Muslims had at that time. ( And we can see it clearly today) It might be an aspiration for them but their conduct was not as per the aspirations. And this is nothing different from the spirit of the common man in the subcontinent. I.e we want to tag with Islam but our conduct of affairs is exactly opposite to what we aspire as ummah. This is what he emphasized in the fundamental literature of tehreek as well: ہر فرد کو اپنی ذات میں موجود نفاق ، غیر اسلامی طرز فکر و عمل کو پہچاننے اور دور کرنے کی فکر کرنی چاہیے ۔ For reference you may read the دستور تحریک اسلامی (ہماری دعوت کیا ہے) But at the same time as you quoted his words " through un-islamic ways if Islam comes in true spirit it would be no less than a Miracle." Which means it's highly unlikely that with the wishful thinking Muslims have in general along with the opposing conduct of affairs Islam could ever re-emerge as the glorious 1st century of Islam.
Sure, Madudi Sahib was against Muslim League and Its leaders and harshly criticized them. He thought that Muslim Leaguis didn't get independence to create an Islamic state but wanted a secular state. But it doesn't mean Madudi sahib himself didn't want Pakistan to be an Islamic state. It is apparently quite evident from his works. What's your point here? You are saying we shouldn't make any efforts to make Pakistan an Islamic state because Madudi sahib said that Quaid sahib did not want Pakistan to be an Islamic state? Even though you know Madudi sahib tried to make Pakistan an Islamic state his whole life. Just wow. Good try. You truly are a master of manipulation. Disclaimer: not a Madudi sahib fan
Jinnah once gave his strongest point for the creation of Pakistan that when the first Hindu embraced Islam, Pakistan was created. You have Rana, Suri, Puri, Cheema, Bajwa,Suddhan, Rajput, Chouhan, Choudhary etc as Muslim in Pakistan. Please try to know that they came in Islam through jizzah, Gawza Iconoclasm, Dhimmi, Mal a Ganmit, Loondis, benefits from the sale of loondis, Haram system where one Muslim ruler had up to ten thousand concubines,use of epithets like pigs,, monkeys, dogs , bastards and Nashjit for idolaters or indigenous people . These concepts of Islam contributed 90% for the creation of Pakistan.
@@Taimur_Laal 21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Maulana's ideological philosophy was based on political concept (his) of ' Iqamat e Deen' of Quran, So Maulana took many U- turns politically but keeping the viewpoint of "Islamic system" (his) rule worldwide
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
@@What-do-you-want824 So his changed opinion about Pakistan should also be mentioned in the above video. Why only one sided picture is being presented?
Jinnha family India mai kyu rehte hai . Or kyu kaha 47 mai ko mera Mumbai wala ghar nhi todna mai summer mai waha time batine ayuga. . Or jinnha porke burger 🍔 khate thei or sari jindgi kabi be hajj par nhi gaye or wine petai thai. Unke grandfather ek hindu thai. Or wo koi practice Muslim nhi thai. Ap unki daughter ki autobiography dekh lo jisko pakistan army ne pakistan mai ban kara .or Fatima jinnha ki autobiography book my brother study karlo
It is such a sad thing that our history which doesn't spans over thougsands of years but still we can't seem to get historc clearity its really someting which is bothersam ...
Maudidi ko opportunity nahi mili leader banny ki isi liye wo ye opinion rkhty thy. Fitrat ny Pakistan bnany ka kaam lyna tha wo kisi sy bhi lyskti thi. Taimur ap bht khush horhy hon gy is tamashy pr
You think Maududi sahab Muhtaaj the Leader ki seat ke? 😂😂 Lol Quaide Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah is still just known in Pakistan.. But Maududi sahab ke Aaj Bhi Millions me students hain poori duniya me.. I don't agree with taimoors stupidity but ye chawalen mat maaro.. Maududi sahab is the only person in the history of Muslim Leaders jiski Namaze Janaza Ghayabana Haram Makkah me Adaa ki gayi thi.. Or unke students aaj duniya ke bare leaders me se.. RECAP TAYYAB Urdogan is one of his Students.. And go and read the story of DR BILAL Philips.. That man became a Muslim only after reader a Small Booklet of Maulana Maududi and Dr Bilal Philips alone converted more then 10000 American Soldiers into Muslims after 9 11 till now.. So agar un logo ke Intellectual level tak ni pohach sakte to unki chappal mat khencho
@@theknowledgeseeker1 maududi ki religious knowledge and capacities pr koi shak nahi ker rha... But agr maududi sahb Pakistan k bnany pr khush nahi thy ya muslim league k logo sy itefaq nahi rkhty thy tw ye unko chaye tha k ek Islami riyasat wajud ma aarhi hai tw aysi position na rkhyn k Dr. Taimur jysy logo ko Mauqa milay Pakistan ki Roohani ehsaas pr tanqeed kerny ka.
@@Walk-in-cultures unho ne apna Opinion diya Tha us waqt ke lihaaz se... Ab ye Dr Taimuur jese log unke moo me apna Luqmaa ghusa kar apne matlb ki baat nikalwana chah rhe hain to uska koi Hal ni... Or aaj Jo Pakistan ke halaat hain.. Unko dekh kar aapko kya lagta ha ke wo Ghalat oppose karrhe the?
@@theknowledgeseeker1 Jee ghalt oppose ker rhy thy... Aap bhi Maududi shb ki shksiyat parasti kerny sy guraiz kryn... Jo hota hai wo Allah ki Raza sy hota hai. Han aaj jo ho rha wo ghalt hai... Aur ap qrardade Maqasad ko kiu bhul jaty hain... Liaqat Ali Khan ka qatal ho ya Quaideazam ka ye naik niyat log thy... Technical or jadid vocabulary rakhny walay English men sy ankho ma ankhien daal kr logical or political baat kerny waly... Ye domain maududi sahb ki nahi thi... Aap smjhyn is baat ko
@@Walk-in-cultures lol ma Maulana Maududi ki Shakhsiyat parasti karrha hun to aap Quaide Azam ki kya karrhe ho? Or jahan tak ha Halato Waqiat ki baat to Maulana Maududi ki Jo Islam ke liye Khidmat hain Wo shayad poori Muslim League ki na hon... Baaqi Quaide Azam ki niyyat par koi shak ni karrha.. Maulana Maududi ko bhi sirf unke tareeqe se Ikhtilaaf Tha Jo rakhne ka unka poora haq ha
He didn’t make it to run in elections. He decided that when Ayub Khan proposed elections. Then he decided to support Fatimah Jinnah. This caused many people in JI to leave the party. They continued to believe that voting was kufr Dr. Israr Ahmed was one of these people.
What is an Islamic state ??? We Muslims in Pakistan are free to perform Namaz, roza and hajj . Women have freedom to wear hajab/ parda or whatever they like . What else people want?
@7xr1e20ln8 Dear if your real intention is knowledge then please note There is only 1 Quran in the Whole world that contains 114 Chapters( 30 Parts .. that's not 30 versions Dear
@@imransikandar.Imran saab, Quran I found in Morocco is different from the one in Dubai. Same in North Africa. This is why I asked which one is correct.
موودودی صاحب : ایک قوم کے تمام افراد کو محض اس وجہ سے کے وہ نسلاً مسلمان ہیں حقیقی مسلمان فرض کر لینا اور یہ امید رکھنا کہ ان کے اجتماع سے جو بھی کام ہوگا ............اسلامی اصولوں پر ہی ہوگا پہلی اور بنیادی غلطی ہے ____انبوہ عظیم جس کو مسلمان قوم کها جاتا ہے اس کا حال یہ ہے اس کے 999 فی ہزار افراد نہ اسلام کا علم رکھتے ہیں نہ حق اور باطل کے تمیز سے آشنا ہیں اور نہ ہی انکا اخلاقی نقطہ نظر اور ذہنی رویہ اسلام کے مطابق تبدیل ھوا ہے __باپ سے بیٹے اور بیٹے سے پوتے کو بس مسلمان کا نام ملتا چلا آ رہا ہے .اس لیے یہ مسلمان ہیں____نا انھوں نے حق کو حق جان کر قبول کیا اور نہ باطل کو باطل جان کر ترک کیا ہے ____انکی اکثریت راے کے ہاتھ میں باگیں دے کر اگر کوئی شخس یہ امید رکھتا کہ گاڑی اسلام کے راستے پر چلے گی تو اسکی خوش فہمی قابل داد ہے ""_ ( تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان حصہ دوم ص 140)
جمہ۔وری انتخاب کی مثال بلکل ایسی ہے جیسے دودھ کو بلو کر مکھن نکالا جاتا ہے اگر دودھ زہریلا ہو ہوسکا اس سے جو مکھن نکلے گا قدرتی بات ہے کہ دودھ سے زیادہ زہریلا ہوگا ____ اسی طرح سوسائٹی اگر بگڑی ہوئی ہو تو اس کے ووٹوں سے منتخب ہو کر وہی لوگ برسر اقتدار آئیں گے جو اس سوسائٹی کی خواہشات نفس سے سند مقبولیت حاصل کر سکیں گے ____ پس جو لوگ یہ گمان کرتے ہیں کہ اگر مسلم اکثریت کے علاقے ہندو اکثریت کے تسلط سے آزاد ہو جائیں اور یہاں ج۔مہوری نظام قائم ہو جائے تو اس طرح حکومت الٰہی قائم ہو جائے گی ان کا گمان غلط ہے ____دراصل اس نتیجہ میں جو کچھ حاصل ہوگا وہ صرف مسلمانوں کی کا۔فرانہ حکومت ہوگی ____اسکا نام حکومت الٰہی رکھنا اس پاک نام کو ذلیل کرنا ہے "" ( تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان ص 142)
" ایک مسلمان کی حیثیت سے جب میں دنیا پر نگاہ ڈالتا ھوں تو مجھے اس امر پر اظہار مسرت کی کوئی وجہ نظر نہیں آتی کہ ترکی پر ترک ،ایران پر ایرانی اور افغانستان پر افغان حکمران ہیں ، مسلمان ہونے کے حیثیت سے میں : حکم الناس علی الناس للناس (Government of the people by the people for the people) کے نظریہ کا قائل نہیں ھوں کہ مجھے اس پر مسرت ہو میں اس کے حکم اللہ علی الناس بالحق (Rule of Allah on man with justice) کا نظریہ رکھتا ہوں ____ اس اعتبار سے میرے نزدیک انگلستان پر انگریزوں کی حاکمیت اور فرانس پر اہل فرانس کی حاکمیت جس قدر غلط ہے اسی قدر ترکی اور دوسرے ملکوں پر انکے اپنے باشندوں کی حاکمیت بھی غلط ہے بلکہ اس سے زیادہ غلط ،اس لیے کہ جو قومیں اپنے آپ کو مسلمان کہتی ہیں ان کا اللہ کے بجاے انسانوں کے حاکمیت اختیار کرنا اور بھی زیادہ افسوس ناک ہے غیر مسلم اگر ضالین کے حکم میں ہیں تو یہ اس طرز عمل کے بنا پر مغضوب علیھم کی تعریف میں آتے ہیں ____ مسلمان ہونے کی حیثیت میں میرے لیے اس مسلہ میں بھی کوئی دلچسپی نہیں ہے کہ ہندوستان میں جہاں مسلم کثیر التعداد ہیں وہاں ان کے حکومت قائم ہو جائے میرے نزدیک جو سوال سب اقدام ہے وہ یہ ہے کہ آپ کے اس پاکستان میں نظام حکومت کی اساس اللہ کی حاک۔میت پر رکھی جائے گی یا مغربی نظریہ جمہوریت کے مطابق عوام کی حاکم۔یت پر ؟؟ اگر پہلی صورت ہے ہو تو یقیناً یہ پاکستان ہوگا ورنہ بصورت دیگر یہ ویسا ہی "" نا پا۔۔کستان "" ہوگا جیسا ملک کا وہ حصہ جہاں آپ کی اسکیم کے مطابق غیر مسلم حکومت کریں گے _____بلکہ اللہ کی نگاہ میں یہ اس سے زیادہ ناپاک ، اس سے زیادہ مبغوض و ملعون ہوگا کیونکہ یہاں اپنے آپ کو مسلمان کہنے والے وہ کام کریں گے جو غیر مسلم کرتے ہیں _____ اگر میں اس بات پر خوش ہوں کے یہاں """رام داس""" کی بجاے """ عبدللہ "”" خدائی منصب پر بیٹھے گا تو یہ اسلام نہیں ہے _____بلکہ نرا نیشنلزم ہے اور یہ مسلم نیشنلزم بھی اللہ کی شریعت میں اتنا ہے ملعون ہے جتنا ہندوستانی نیشنل ازم _____ مسلمان ہونے کی حیثیت سے میری نگاہ میں اس سوال کی بھی کوئی اہمیت نہیں کہ ہندوستان ایک ملک رہے یا دس ٹکڑوں میں تقسیم ہو جائے _____تمام روے زمین ایک ملک ہے _____انسان نے اسکو ہزاروں حصوں میں تقسیم کر رکھا ہے _____یہ اب تک کی تقسیم اگر جائز تھی تو آئندہ مزید تقسیم ہو جائے تو کیا بگڑ جائے گا _____یہ کونسا ایسا بڑا مسلہ ہے جس پر مسلمان ایک لمحہ کے لیے بھی غور و فکر میں اپنا وقت ضایع کریں ؟ مسلمان کو تو صرف ایک چیز سے بحث ہے کہ یہاں انسان کا سر اللہ کے حکم کے آگے جھکتا ہے یہ حکم الناس کے آگے _____اگر اللہ کے حکم کے آگے جھکتا ہے تب تو اسے اور زیادہ واسیع کیجئے _____ ہمالیہ کی دیوار کو بیچ میں سے ہٹائیے ______سمندر کو بھی نظر انداز کر دیجئے تاکہ ایشیا ،افریقہ اور امریکہ سب ہندوستان میں شامل ہو سکیں اور اگر یہ حکم الناس کے آگے جھکتا ہے تو جہنم میں جائے ہندوستان اور اسکی خاک کا پرستار ______ مجھے اس سے کیا دلچسپی کہ یہ ایک ملک رہے یا دس ہزار ٹکڑوں میں بٹ جائے ______اس بت کے ٹوٹنے پر تڑپے وہ جو اسے معبود سمجھتا ہو مجھے تو اگر کہیں ایک مربع میل کا رقبہ بھی مل جائے جس میں انسان پر اللہ کے سوا کسی اور کی حا۔کمیت نہ ہو تو میں اس کے ایک زرہ خاک کو ہندوستان بھر سے زیادہ قیمتی سمجھوں گا ______ مسلمان ہونے کے حیثیت سے میرے نزدیک یہ امر بھی بھی کوئی قدر و قیمت نہیں رکھتا کہ ہندوستان کو انگریزی امپیریلزم سے آزاد کرایا جائے _____انگریز کی حاکمیت سے نکلنا تو صرف لا الہ کا ھم معنی ہوگا ____فیصلہ کا انحصار محض اس نفی پر نہیں ہے بلکہ اس پر ہے کہ اس کے بعد اثبات کس چیز کا ہو گا _____اگر آزادی کے یہ ساری لڑائی صرف اس لیے ہے .........اور مجاہدین حریت میں کون صاحب یہ جھوٹ بولنے کی ہمت رکھتے ہیں کہ اس لیے نہیں ہے .........کہ امپیریلزم کے الٰہ کو ہٹا کر ڈیمو۔کریسی کے الٰہ کو بت خانہ حکومت میں جلوہ افروز کیا جائے تو مسلمان کے نزدیک در حقیقت اس سے کوئی فرق بھی واقع نہیں ہوتا _____ لات گیا منات آگیا _____ایک جھوٹے خدا نے دوسرے جھوٹے خدا کی جگہ لے لی_____باطل کی بندگی جیسی تھی ویسی ہی رہی _____کون مسلمان اسکو آزادی کے لفظ سے تعبیر کر سکتا ہے ؟؟؟؟
اس وقت ہندوستان میں مسلمانوں کی جو جماعتیں اسلام کے نام سے کام کر رہی ہیں فی الواقع اسلام کے معیار پر ان کے نظریات ، مقاصد اور کارناموں کو پرکھا جائے تو سب کے سب جنس فاسد نکلیں گی _____خواہ مغربی تعلیم و تربیت پاے سیاسی لیڈر ہوں یہ قدیم طرز کے مذہبی رہنما دونوں راہ حق سے ہٹ کر تاریکیوں میں بھٹک رہے ہیں _____ ایک دماغ پر ہندو کا ہوا سوار ہے اور وہ سمجھتا ہے کہ ہندو امپیریلزم کے چنگل سے بچ جانے کا نام نجات ہے اور دوسرے گروہ کے سر پر انگریز کا بھوت مسلط ہے وہ انگریزی امپیریلزم کے چنگل سے بچ جانے کو نجات سمجھ رہا ہے ____ ان میں سے کسی کی نظر بھی مسلمان کی نظر نہیں ورنہ یہ دیکھتے کہ اصلی شیطان یہ ہے نہ وہ ، اصلی شیطان غیر اللہ کی حاک۔میت ہے اس سے نجات نہ پائی تو کچھ نہ پایا ______ لڑنا ہے تو اسکو مٹانے کے لیے لڑو ، جو تیر چلانا ہو اس ہدف کی طرف باندھ کر چلاو _____ جس قدر قوت صرف کرنی ہے اسے محو کرنے پر صرف کردو ______ اسکے سوا جس کام میں بھی تم اپنی مساعی صرف کرو گے وہ پراگندہ اور رائیگاں ہو کر رہے گا ______ مغربی طرز کے لیڈروں پر تو چنداں حیرت نہیں کے ان بیچاروں کو قرآن کی ہوا تک نہیں لگی ______ مگر حیرت ہے ان علماء پر جن کا رات دن کا مشغلہ ہی قال اللہ اور قال الرسول ہے ، سمجھ نہیں آتی کے آخر ان کو کیا ہو گیا ہے ؟ یہ قرآن کو کس نظر سے پڑھتے ہیں کہ ہزار بار پڑھنے کے بعد بھی انہیں اس قطعی اور دائمی پالیسی کے طرف رہنمائی نہیں ملتی جو مسلمان کے لیے اصولی طور پر مقرر کردی گئی ہے ______ جن مسائل کو انہوں نے اہم قرار دے رکھا ہے قرآن میں ہمیں انکی فروئی اور ضمنی اہمیت کا بھی نشان نہیں ملتا اور جن معملات پر بے چین ہو کر انھوں نے دلی میں آزاد مسلم کانفرنس منعقد فرمائی اور تڑپ تڑپ کر تقریریں کیں اس نوعیت کے معملات کہیں اشارتاً بھی قرآن مجید میں زیر بحث نہیں آتے برعکس اسکے قرآن حکیم میں ھم دیکھتے ہیں کہ نبی پر نبی آتا ہے اور ایک ہی بات کی طرف اپنی قوم کو دعوت دیتا ہے : ""'""" يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَهٍ غَيْرُهُ """""" (هود /61) """ اے میری قوم اللہ کی بندگی کرو اس کے سوا تمہارا کوئی معبود نہیں """_ """"اسلامی تحریک کے ہر رہنما نے ہر ملک اور ہر زمانے میں وقتی اور مقامی مسائل کو نظر انداز کرکے اسی ایک مسلہ کو اگے رکھا ، اسی پر اپنا زور صرف کیا تو اس سے صرف یہ نتیجہ نکالا جا سکتا ہے کہ ان کے نزدیک یہ مسلہ ام المسائل تھا اور وہ اسی کے حل پر پر زندگی کے تمام مسائل کا حل موقوف سمجھتے تھے ____________""""" ( تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان )
کسی نے مسلم لیگ کے حمایت کے لیے یوں دلیل دی کہ اس وقت مسلمانان ہند دو فتنوں میں مبتلا ہیں _ اول کانگرس کی وطنی تحریک کا فتنہ اور دوم مسلم لیگ کی مسلم نیشنلزم کی تحریق _دونو تحریکیں اسلام کے خلاف ہیں مگر انسان جب دو بلاؤں میں مبتلا ہو تو چھوٹی بلا کو قبول کر لینا چاہیے_ یقیناً مسلم لیگ کے تحریک کانگرس کے مقابلہ میں کم فتنہ ہے کیا اس صورت میں ھم مسلم لیگ کے حق میں ووٹ نہ دیں ؟ سید مودودی صاحب نے جواب دیا : """""" آپ ذرا وسیع نظر سے دیکھیں ان دو فتنوں کے علاوہ آپ کو اور بوہت سے اخلاقی ،تمدنی ،مذہبی ، سیاسی اور معاشی فتنے نظر آئیں گے جو اس وقت مسلمانوں پر ہجوم کیے ہووے ہیں _یہ ایک فطری سزا ہے جو اللہ کے طرف سے ہر اس قوم کو ملا کرتی ہے جو کتاب اللہ کے حامل ہونے کے باوجود اس کے اتباع سے منہ موڑے _______اس سزا سے اگر مسلمان بچ سکتے ہیں تو وہ صرف اس طرح کہ اپنے اصلی اور بنیادی جرم سے باز آجائیں """""""_ پھر سید مودودی نے اپنی جماعت کا مقصد قیام یوں بیان فرمایا : "" یہ جماعت کسی ملک یا قوم کے وقتی مسائل کو سامنے رکھ کر وقتی تدابیر سے انکو حل کرنے کے لیے نہیں بنی ہے اور نہ اس کے بناے قیام یہ قاعدہ ہے کہ پیش آمدہ مسائل کو حل کرنے کے لیے جس وقت جو اصول چلتے نظر آئیں ان کو اختیار کر لیا جائے _اس جماعت کے سامنے صرف ایک ہی عالمگیر اور ازلی و ابدی مسلہ ہے کہ انسان کی دنیوی فلاح اور اخروی نجات کس چیز میں ہے پھر اسکا ایک ہی حل اس جماعت کے پاس ہے کہ تمام اللہ کے بندے صحیح معنوں میں اللہ کے بندگی اختیار کریں اور اپنی پوری انفرادی اور اجتمائی زندگی کو اسکے تمام پہلوؤں سمیت ان اصولوں کے پیروی میں سپرد کر دیں جو اللہ کے کتاب اور اسکے رسول ﷺ کے سنت میں پاے جاتے ہیں _ہمیں اس حل کے سوا دنیا کی کسی دوسری چیز سے قتعاً کوئی دلچسپی نہیں ہے _اور جو شخس بھی ہمارے ساتھ چلنا چاہتا ہو اسے لازم ہے کہ ہر طرف سے نظر ہٹا کر پوری جمعیت خطر کے ساتھ اس شاہراہ پر قدم جماے چلتا رہے اور جو شخس اتنی ذہنی و عملی یکسوی بہم نہ پوھنچا سکے ،جس کے ذہن کو اپنے ملک یا اپنی قوم کے کے وقتی مسائل بار بار اپنی طرف کھینچتے ہوں اور جس کے قدم بار بار ڈگمگا کر ان طریقوں کی طرف پھسلتے ہوں جو دنیا میں آج رائج ہیں ،اسکے لیے مناسب یہ ہے کہ پہلے ان ہنگامی تحریکوں میں جا کر اپنا دل بھر لے ______ (تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان ص 227)
کسی نے اعتراض کیا کہ اگر تمام مسلمان اسمبلیوں سے پرہیز کریں گے ہوسکا پھر سیاسی حیثیت سے مسلمان تباہ ہو جایں گے___ اس سیاسی تباہی سے بچنے کے لیے آپ کیا تجویز کرتے ہیں ۔سید مودودی : " مسلمانوں میں بتدریج تھوڑی تھوڑی تعداد میں پاک اور اعلی درجہ کے لوگ ذہین ہماری دعوت قبول کریں گے اور جب تک صالحین کا یہ گروہ منظم ہوکر ایک طاقت بنے اس وقت تک غلط کار مسلمانوں کی عظیم اکثریت وہ سارے کام کرتی رہے گی جن کے نہ کرنے سے آپ سمجھتے ہیں کہ مسلمانوں کا قومی مفاد خاک میں مل جائے گا _البتہ اگر یہ سارے کام ہوتے رہے اور صرف وہی کام نہ ھوا جس کے طرف ھم بلا رہے ہیں اور اگر ھم بھی امر حق اور اسکے تقاضوں سے آنکھیں بند کر کے محض قوم اور اس کے مفاد کے فکر میں ان باطل کاریوں کے طرف دوڑتے چلے جایں جو آج اسلام اور مسلم مفاد کے نام سے ہو رہی ہیں تو یقین جانیے کے اسلام کو جھنڈا ہوسکا خیر کیا بلند ہوگا مسلمان قوم اس ذلت و خواری اور اس پستی کے گڑھے سے کبھی نہ نکل سکے گے جس میں وہ یہودیوں کی طرح صرف اس لیے مبتلا ہوئی ہے کہ اللہ کی کتاب رکھتے ہوے اس نے کتاب کا منشاء پورا کرنے سے منہ موڑا ہے """____ (تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان ص 232)
I have great respect for you and agree with you on some things but u started your video by saying some people believes that Pakistan was created for Islam and some says it was for secular reasons. You said that you'll give both sides and will not agree on one thing but u created whole video on quoting Maududi that Pakistan was not meant for Islam, Then where is that point of view which negates the point that Pakistan is created for secularism? Maulana did great work for Islam but if you take his words last words for everything my question to you is that what about other things which Maulana says will you also take them as last and right words?
As I said in the conclusion, either you accept that Maududi was right (that Pakistan was meant to be a secular state) or you openly declare that Maududi was wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
@@Taimur_Laal My question to you is simple, You told this is really big debate either Pakistan is created as Islamic state or Secular. This is really big debate how can we rely whole debate on just one person's point of view? It don't make sense to me
It would have been more interesting if the title had name like ' A teaser for jamatis '. ( Based on the sarcastic and rehtorical way you are speaking to them in the end ).😅😅 Waiting for the episode 2 in which you should describe how they substantiate against this and what's your answer then.
Who is the author of your reference book ? I can't read his name it's Chaudhary Habib or what's the name of author it's blurry in the video. Mr Jinnah was a secular Muslim no doubt in it his personal life style is witness of it. As far as his political views I think it was mixture of secularism and Islamic teachings as he had never explained clearly in his speech es that what exact system would be of Pakistan nor they have prepared any document or constitution as Indian leadership was clear what will be the system of India or it can be a political move so keep people in disguise because if clearly he will say a secular state then what's the reason for partition and two nation theory which already congress Muslim and deoband leaders were saying so he had used and given the full Islamic touch to Tehreek Pakistan as he was a great politician of his time. Molana Muduade was critic of Mr Jinnah as you explained in the end of your video that Jinnah was not clearly explaining how they will run the country sometime they say as per Islamic teachings but they don't show or prepare any constitution as per Islamic laws. On western democracy Molana Muduade said it's against islam because in western democracy any law can be made as per will of people but Islamic laws can't be change as per will of people that's why he is against western democracy. As far selection of government is concern according to voting system he is always in favor of it and JI has always taken part in elections. He is also not like typical Madarsa molana he has changed his views also as per the present situation of world if anything is not colliding with Islamic principles he is accepting it if it was not done in past by Muslims.
21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's" The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
@@What-do-you-want824 As you can see in this speech only Muslim word and Islamic laws words were mentioned no clear and concrete steps are mentioned how they are going to apply and run. Islamic laws are not allowing him to appoint first Pakistani Foreign Minister a Qadyani person
💯 % True about the Muslim leagie leaders and nazria e islam. However, if given a chance to the jamiet islami like parties, the situation would be as bad as now.
Sir im a currently a law student studying in a NLUs and i search about you and feel amaze an d proud that you and your LAAL band perform in india infront of our gem Ravish kumaar former senior anchor of NDTV and also known as nightmare for politicians of india . Please reply me☺😊 sir.
@Furrukh Rao I'm not support any government but I've given a vote to a government or not but certain party government is in power and it's government accountability to nsure people well being, nowadays people were targeting Ravish kumar without knowing that he's also do a same criticism to other party pm of india like Manmohan singh, party leader kejriwal singh and many others because he's a real patriotic of a india who doesn't bring religion to his journalism. He just wants our country to be developed with the people of all section of our society but not with certain rich people .
@Furrukh Rao that's the reason that why we can't progress so fast but if we look at western world they also have a some problem when they also in a developing face so yeah we'll also bounce back on real track of progress but it will took some time.
@Furrukh Rao I think South asians have some inferiority complex issues . You say about Russia and china, but here's the catch that Chinese population is getting old and Russians are younger I think we're okay with what we ourselves it took some times for a change.
Dr. Israr asked: if you wanted secularism, then why partition from India? Because India chose secularism, and the Muslims who chose the same refused to migrate to Pakistan, i.e. the only people migrating were those who did not want secularism. If both countries are secular, the partition is pointless.
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims --Hindus, Christians, and Parsis --but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.(Broadcast talk to the people of the United States of America on Pakistan recorded February, 1948.
@@stargazer5487 I bet he would be proud of the blasphemy laws and lynching thats going on
Jinnah sold his hateful propoganda and fake 2 nation theory successfully to achieve his political goals. he was agent of brittish to avoid Indian independence. Congress was never Hindu supporter, it was secular since before independence. many Muslim leaders were in congress
@@stargazer5487
Both are right.
Law will be made according to the tradition and culture of Muslims. But implementation will be fair and equal for every one, Muslims and non-Muslims.
Example,
Western law was mainly formed according to the Protestant code of conduct but they applied it on everyone equally without any prejudice and partiality.
Even today, church of England has a function in national life and the parliament but UK applies its law without partiality.
@@stargazer5487No you can't say that and have equal rights for all rasis and religion cuz that's what islam says
There is no religion which gives us a way to govern and democracy/Uncle Sam's slavery isn't doing well! We need islam to protect every rase and religion! Either give us a democratic country like india (not todays india with hindutva,india before bjp) or let us govern this country No milliterism and uncle samism!
The fact that there is disagreement, 75 years later, about why Pakistan was created, shows where it is headed 😢
Two things, first I don't think Maududi was saying that ideology of Pakistan had not any connection with Islamic theocracy, I think he pronounced that the people establishing it on the popular level are not honest and their claim is superficial. I think he was right saying that League leaders didn't express the intention to create an Islamic country in clear cut words but used as a mere slogan to gain sympathies of politically immature public. Second, I think this debate about whether Pakistan was Islamic or not is pretty useless. Imagine you wake up in a place and are told that the people before you didn't want it to be a good place. Even though, you would have the urge to make it a good place. I think when the majority is Muslim and wants Sharia law as the constitution, it is of no use that the founding father was even Muslim or even an atheist!
I agree!! 💯
Stronglu agree❤
I would not be able to decide on the matter unless I heard from both sides but one thing I know is maulana modudi understood Quran, Islamic Law, and politics from the Quran and Sunnah far better than most of the scholars of his time till today. (Waiting for the next episode keenly).
It is just an opinion that he understood Islam better than others. Opinions and facts are two different things.
@@waqarahmad5403 and based on what do you think its just an opinion?
@@khizarshykh414 because we can’t create facts and only interpret them and come up with our own opinions and conclusions.
@@honorhonor3352 you're right. but i think we're not really adressing the actual problem here.What i wanted to ask him is what made him say that maudodi was not one of the top scholars of his time.
Bcz ppl who've read his tafseer and other work know that he always gave his arguments based on true premises.
Wow! Molana was really harsh. How ironic that not only he accepted Pakistan's formation but his political party took part in democracy. Now his party is considered the most democratic party of Pakistan.
Aik hades sharif hai kay aik waqet ay ga kay log islam ka istmal duniya ka shikar kernay kay liya kerain gay
Changing of opinion is normal in intellectual's 🗿💁
@@What-do-you-want824 I second your point. It's a good thing that an intellectual like Maududi finally accepted Pakistan and his party became a key political force in Pakistan's politics.
@@muhammadnajam1His party is not a key political party by any stretch of imagination.
Maududi sahb renounced Jamat e islami and said it was a mistake
I think that even if the Molana considered League's leaders to be Muslims only by name, it was evident that Pakistan's constitution would be Islamic in nature.
I read the book (Mawjoda Siasi Kashmakash awar Muslam) around twenty years ago and I knew how Maudodi staunchly opposed the creation of Pakistan just because he did not agree with the idea of Muslim or Islamic nationalism. But if we look into the issue from a different perspective we will be able to see that It was not because of Islamic teaching rather his personal understanding of Islam which he believed in. Obviously he found the whole religious justification for a separate state irreconcilable for what he stood for. He was not alone in his condemnation and mocking of the Muslim League leadership. Jamiat Ulema Hind, which included towering scholars and learned theologists in its files and ranks, also did not buy the notion of Islamic or Muslim nation. Ahrar too opposed the AIML. So because of all such religious opposition do we still believe that Pakistan was created for the sole purpose of enforcing Sharia or creating a secular state for Muslims of the subcontinent.. Mr. Jinnah never ever hinted that Pakistan would be a secular state but at the same time also did not promise a Sharia system. If we claim that he stood for a secular state then it would hit the root of the very concept of the state. Because the very genesis of the country was based on two nations (Muslim Nation and the rest as separate nation) theory. If it was not secular then was it a theocratic state. If it was theocratic then why all these religious scholars and best theologists opposed it? Why did none of the AIML leadership have any authority on theology?
I have my own views. I believe It was not the AIML who strived and then succeeded in achieving a separate state of Pakistan. In fact it was the mix of few historical incidents, needs, understanding, co-incidents and the future needs of the dying/rising of colonial power. Indian National Congress nonetheless; boasted of secularism and claim of representing the Indian masses irrespective of their color and creed but few important leaders in their ranks were infected with communal pest. Besides the INC also committed political blunders and when they were needed to accommodate, they shun their opponents. The drying British colonialists and the rising American Imperialists need to have a piece of land to continue the great game against its historical rival - Soviet Union.
Finally Muslims were numerically in majority where the present Pakistan was established. We had no problem and even there was no chance for the non Muslim to have won elections and ruled us in near future. Unfortunately those Muslims who feared the Hindu dominance and loss of their Muslim identity once the British departed India and democracy set in, were left to face the brunt of communal hatred. As far as the massacre of around half a million Hindu, Sikh and Muslims during pre and post partition is concerned, that was not for the sake of their struggle for freedom. Pathetically the British sown the seeds of communalism, hatred and division on the basis of faith around a hundred years ago but harvested by Indians with the blood and tears. None of these Sikh, Muslim, Hindu etc died in the path of fighting for freedom but they were killed by the opposite faith believers. Sadly enough the leadership of AIML, Congress and Sikh were too to be blamed for their apathy, selfishness and at times political expediency .
Not sure how Congress is responsible. Gandhi accepted the Muslim league demand that Muslims will have the right to kill and rape Hindus and Sikhs. After the Noarkhali riots, the Bihar riots happened and for the Muslim league Gandhi's words had no meaning.
اگر جناح ایک سیکولر ریاست بنانا چاہتے تھے تو پھر قرارداد مقاصد کیوں کیوں منظور کی گئی ڈاکٹر تمور صاحب میرا یہ اپ سے سوال ہے اگر مسلم لیگ اتنی سیکولر تھی تو انہوں نے قرارداد مقاصد کیوں منظور کی۔
🌟 Agar secular mulk hi chahiye tha toh Partition kyu hua? 🤦🏻♂️ I'm a Leftist myself but I'm sorry this is sheer cope by liberals and leftists in implying Pakistan was imagined as a secular state and not an Islamic one. QeA Jinnah has only one speech talking about Secularism compared to 100s where he talks about an Islamic State and how Muslims are a different Nation. Historical Revisionism by Ayesha Jalal is unfortunate.
Angrezi kutta jahannami Jinnah sharabi
@@ibratnak That's the dumbest shit I've heard. Lay of the cheap drugs and Pakistani Studies brainwashing
Yeah That's contradictory too ! First u made a country on the basis of religion for a particular religion followed by worst bloodshed in the history , then expect secularism 🤷🤷
I think it's crucial to distinguish the political narrative of a political party from the personal/ private actions and beliefs of its leaders/organizers. Political persona/image of the party should be set apart from the private individual.
The political narrative is influenced by many factors, among which, the popular sentiment of the community whose support the political party aims to garner is the most significant one. Thus, the secular lifestyles of the leaders of Muslim League did not hold them back from using religion as a tool for popular appeal. They effectively used the religio-nationalist rhetoric as a means to a political end. One such piece of rhetoric will suffice to support this claim:
In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on
November 21, 1945, MA Jinnah said:
“We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.”
The key words are "Muslims", "rule", and "Islamic Law".
India dunya k dusre secular mulko k saath q nai mil jata? Pakistan was envisioned as a separate state for Muslims, not an Islamic state. It is funny how Indians try to Hinduize everything. Unlike Sanatan which is a cultural construct that encompasses everything from drinking cow urine to software engineering, Islam is an individualized religion with a well-defined context. Only humans can follow a religion, not animals or non-living things. As such, a state cannot be Islamic, and the concept of institutionalized and all-encompassing Islam has been borrowed from Christianity and Hinduism, and amplified through Islam's ability to magnify worldly immateriality.
Molana was not perfect neither are we. Change of opinion is normal in intellectuals. But as a nation are far away from the intellect and like past narratives rather than supporting the current one. Which party was in favour of Pakistan? ANP? JUI-H? Communist?? But people only talk about JI because they find nothing else to defame them. Although Professor Taimur is a gem, and I liked this video because he is a scholar and it is a scholarly discussion, I am feeling strange about how people are using this video for political purposes.
Might be a good idea to date the works you quoted because Mr. Maududi was initially against the creation of Pakistan and Muslim League, but later reneged on his stance.
It appears you quoted his older works while ignoring his later, revised stance.
It also appears you have an ulterior agenda against Islam in Pakistan; in other videos, you misquoted Maududi and Dr. Israr so blatantly that one is left wondering how you even became a professor in the first place.
تیمور صاحب آپ اپنے لئے دعا کیا کریں کہ آپ کا انجام عاصمہ جہانگیر کے ساتھ ھو ھم دعا کرتے ہیں کہ اللہ ھمارا انجام مولانا مودودی رح کے ساتھ فرمائے
مولانا مودودی کی جو تحریریں آپ نے پیش کی ہیں اور جِس دور میں وہ لکھی گئیں اُس دوران تو لوگوں کو مُغالطہ ہو سکتا تھا کہ مولانا مودودی کا تجزیہ درست نہیں ہے اورمسلم لیگ مسلمانوں کی حقیقی خیرخواہ اور نجات دہندہ ہے لیکن مولانا مودودی نے جِن خدشات کا اظہار قبل ازوقت کِیا بعد ازاں وُہ حرف بحرف درست ثابت ہوئے- ستر سال بعد آپ ذراتعصبات سے بالا ہو کر اور حقیقت پسندانہ بصیرت و بصارت سے کام لیتے ہوئے موجودہ پاکستان کا پوسٹ مارٹم کریں گے تو آپ کو معلوم ہو گا کہ آپ کا آدھا وجودتو موجود ہی نہیں- اپنی قوم کی عالمی ساکھ کو دیکھیں تو اِس قوم کے بارے میں عالمی تاثر یہ پایا جاتا ہے کہ یہ پیسوں کیلئےاپنی ماں کو بیچنے سےبھی نہیں چُوکتے-دو نمبری اور چور بازاری کا حال بازاروں اور اداروں میں خواہ سرکاری ہوں یا غیر سرکاری جاکر آزما لیں - آپ کا صدر بے شرمی اور ڈھٹائی سے کہتا ہے وعدے قرآن اور حدیث نہیں ہوتے- سیاستدانوں میں لوٹے کی اصطلاح شاید ہی کِسی اور ملک میں پائی جاتی ہو- اور جمہوریت کا فارم 47 آپ کا منہ نہیں چِڑا رہا تو آپ اپنے نفسیاتی علاج کا اہتمام کریں - اور اپنی جمہوریت کا موازنہ اُس ملک سے کر کے دیکھ لیں جس سے آپ نے علیحدگی اختیار کی- آپ اپنے سماجی اور معاشرتی روّیوں کو دیکھ لیں لوگوں کے جان و مال اور عزت و آبرو کِس قدر محفوظ ہے - میرے بھائی اگر قائد اعظم نے خود تسلیم کر لِیا کہ اُن کے گرد و پیش بالفاظِ دیگر مسلم لیگ کے لوگ محظ اُنکی جیب کے کھوٹے سِکّے ہیں تو پھر مولانا مودودی کا تجزیہ کچھ غلط نہ تھا - رہا اُن کا کاروبارِ ریاست جیسے کہ الیکشن وغیرہ میں حصہ لینا تو جب ریاست نے بَاَمرِ مجبوری ہی سہی قراردادِ مقاصد منظورکر لی تو اُنہوں کہاآج مملکتِ پاکستان نے کلمہ پڑھ لِیا ہے مگر پھر بھی ایمان کاعملی ثبوت دینا ابھی باقی ہے- مولانا مودودی نے اصلاحِ اُمّت کے جس کام کا بیڑا اُ ٹھایا اُس میں اپنی جان کھپا دی اور ﷲ نےاُن کے کام کو بین الاقوامی سطح پر پزیرائی بخشی٫ اُن کی جماعت میدان میں موجود ہے جس کے کارکنان با عمل اور بےغرض اصلاحِ احوال کے لِئے کوشاں ہیں- اُن کی جماعت اُس ہندوستان میں بھی مصروفِ عمل ہے جس سے آپ علیحدہ ہوئے اور اُس بنگلہ دیش میں بھی جو آپ سےعلیحدہ ہوا- آپ ذرا خورد بین لے کر تلاش کریں اور قائد اعظم کی مسلم لیگ تلاش کریں اور اُس کا پتہ معلوم ہو جائے تو اہلِ پاکستان کو ضرور بتا دیں یہ آپکا قوم پراحسان ہو گا- اور مولانا مودودی کی جماعت کے علاوہ پاکستان میں کوئی دوسری جمہوری اور غیرخاندانی پارٹی پائی جاتی ہو تو اُ س کا پتہ مُجھے لِکھ بھیجیں میں ممنون رہوں گا- میرے خیال میں آپ کے معدےکے لئے اتنی غذا کافی ہے میں آپ کی بیماری کا سبب نہیں بننا چاہتا اللہ آپ کو تندرست رکھے -آخر میں ایک صائب مشورہ ہے اور وہ یہ کہ اپنی رائے قائم کرنے اور کوئی پروگرام طے کرنے سے پہلے اپنی تحقیق کا دائرہ آخری حدوں تک وسیع کریں - والسلام
I think it's crucial to distinguish the political narrative of a political party from the personal/ private actions and beliefs of its leaders/organizers. Political persona/image of the party should be set apart from the private individual.
The political narrative is influenced by many factors, among which, the popular sentiment of the community whose support the political party aims to garner is the most significant one. Thus, the secular lifestyles of the leaders of Muslim League did not hold them back from using religion as a tool for popular appeal. They effectively used the religio-nationalist rhetoric as a means to a political end. One such piece of rhetoric will suffice to support this claim:
In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on
November 21, 1945, MA Jinnah said:
“We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.”
The key words are "Muslims", "rule", and "Islamic Law".
📍On Feb 19, 1948, in a broadcast Jinnah proclaimed:
"Make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy, or anything like it. "
Jinnah ki is baat se hum kya muraad lein?
📍On August 11 1947, he said
You are free, you are free to go to ur temples, u r free to go to mosques or to any other place of worship in the state of Pakistan.
ye secularism ni hai?.... what is secular state: State which guarantees religious freedom for every citizen..
Then where is
لیکون الدین کلہ للہ۔۔
Just humble qs ...if u can answer 🙂
You are confused between secularism and liberalism. Jinnah is pointing towards a liberal state (even though it contradicts the right to choose your partner for marriage).
Before independence it was Muslim League who took the lead in uniting the Muslims of sub continent for a just cause, whereas, leadership of Jammat-e-Islami was as pathetic and lousy as it is now- meaning they were never able to fight for a cause.
Infact due to the lack of funding they even go against creation of Pakistan, and Maududi was ethical enough not to oppose like today's vulgar politicians infact he was as pathetic and lousy as his other members of the party.
At least he is right on one thing, Pakistan is definitely a Miracle of Allah, even if Maududi is so idealogical then he should had that much of shame of not migrating to Pakistan.
Jihad (Hand, words or by heart) is required at all times under some single leadership to overcome the corruption in a society.
Wal Khat Hussaini
What difference does it make now. Pakistan is reality. Just run it whichever way you want with civilised relationship with your neighbors.
How can one build argument on the basis of one man? There were many ulemas in favour of the establishment of Pakistan including Shabeer Ahmad Usmani, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Pir of Golra etc. Your all questions were answered in 1949's objective resolution
I can build the argument that for that man and his followers, Pakistan was a secular democratic movement. No?
@@Taimur_Laal. Pakistan Movement perhaps can be BEST described and analysed by Marxist perspective. Even if those who actually participated / joined from a religious perspective, disagree with that ( which they would and should) it will still hold true. BECAUSE. It was truly based on the POLITICAL awareness of a group who who wanted to survive against a bigger group , it just happens to be the case that they recognized the other ( or each other on the baes of religion). Even the religious dimension was described more in cultural terms ( like with the arguments pertaining to food and clothing) instead of theoretical or theological arguments. They really did not need Maudoodi. Its just another story
@@Taimur_Laal sir, all the leaders/politicians who created Pakistan may not be practicing muslims but they all passed Objectives Resolution! next time please analyse objectives resolution for clarity.
@@beak3432 then who passed Objectives Resolution and who said Quran is the constitution of Pakistan?
@@hassansiddique8821 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Dono cheezain Theek Hain Apny Hisaab se, Muslim league ny Public ko Bewakoof banaya islaam ke name par, to public to yehi smjhy gi Islamic state bnana maqsad tha, dosri tarf Agar aik expert ki nazar se dekha jaye jaisy molana moududi ny dekha to Muslim league sirf mufaad parasat jamat thi or ye batt sabat bhi hoi.
Tab b awam aisy e Bewakoof bani thi Islam ke name par aj bhi ban rahi.
Maududi was a great man and his party jamat e islami in pakistan is real democratic party
“Democracy is kufr” Maududi.
@@Taimur_Laal
پوری بات نقل کیا کریں۔
جس جمہوریت میں حاکمیت اعلی عوام کے پاس ہو وہ جمہوریت کفر ہے۔
اور قرار داد مقاصد کے بعد پاکستان کی جمہوریت اور مغربی جمہوریت میں بڑا فرق آگیا تھا کہ یہاں حاکمیت اعلی کا اختیار اللہ تعالی کو دے دیا گیا ہے۔
آپ پہلے بتائیں، قرار داد مقاصد کو مانتے ہیں؟
@@AtifRiazMughalجمہوریت میں حاکمیت صرف عوام کی ہوتی ہے۔
اپنی مرضی سے جمہوریت کی تشریح کی ہوئی ہے ۔۔
Islam me majhab ka istemal Musalmano ka giroh banane ke liye kiya jata hai. Aur jisne Islam ko manne se inkar kiya unhe jahannami kafir makhluq wagairah batakar nafrat sikhata hai. Gair muslim ke upar islami huqumat failane ko jihad batata hai aur jihadi ko jannat hooro ka jhansa deta hai. Ek Allah ka ul julool tasawwur banakar logo ko kolhu ke bail Andhnamazi aur zunooni banata hai. Gyan ki roshni nahi balki andhvishwas failata hai. Ul julool manghadant kahaniya aur khokhle dawo ki buniyad par sirf khud ko ekmatr sach aur baki sare dharm ya faith ko galat batata hai. Jahalat ghode talwar ke zamane me chal nikla lekin aaj ki science philosohy Logic par adharit mile jule samaj me kabhi bhi bhaichara harmony nahi la sakta. Islam ke buniyadi usool badalne jaruri hai..
Maududi has great polemical writing skills
Aisi writing skills ko Gaand mein lena hai jis ke pichee facsist aur exclusive ideology ho
Love him or Hate him, Maududi was Honest unlike Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan.
Yes. Maududi was right. Pakistan was not meant to be an Islamic state but a secular Democratic state.
@@Taimur_Laal That's just revisionist cope by you Comrade. If Pakistan was truly supposed to be Democratic as u say why did Jinnah choose to ve Governor General instead of PM like Nehru, centralised all power in his office, dismissed NWFP Govt, etc.
Stop simping over Ashleigh Coffin and go read some actual history 😂
@@Taimur_Laaland now you are at wrong direction 😅😅
@@stdew07 WTH is Ashleigh?
Islam me majhab ka istemal Musalmano ka giroh banane ke liye kiya jata hai. Aur jisne Islam ko manne se inkar kiya unhe jahannami kafir makhluq wagairah batakar nafrat sikhata hai. Gair muslim ke upar islami huqumat failane ko jihad batata hai aur jihadi ko jannat hooro ka jhansa deta hai. Ek Allah ka ul julool tasawwur banakar logo ko kolhu ke bail Andhnamazi aur zunooni banata hai. Gyan ki roshni nahi balki andhvishwas failata hai. Ul julool manghadant kahaniya aur khokhle dawo ki buniyad par sirf khud ko ekmatr sach aur baki sare dharm ya faith ko galat batata hai. Jahalat ghode talwar ke zamane me chal nikla lekin aaj ki science philosohy Logic par adharit mile jule samaj me kabhi bhi bhaichara harmony nahi la sakta. Islam ke buniyadi usool badalne jaruri hai..
Very right.The law maker at the time of Independence was a HINDU and the foreign minister was AHMADI.This clearly indicates the fact that Pakistan was originally a secular nation as this involvement of other religions in big authorities is unacceptable in Islam
That's contradictory too ! First u made a country on the basis of religion for a particular religion followed by worst bloodshed in the history , then expect secularism 🤷🤷
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
@hulagukhan-we3fw 💯
@@What-do-you-want824 In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims --Hindus, Christians, and Parsis --but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.(Broadcast talk to the people of the United States of America on Pakistan recorded February, 1948.
Islam me majhab ka istemal Musalmano ka giroh banane ke liye kiya jata hai. Aur jisne Islam ko manne se inkar kiya unhe jahannami kafir makhluq wagairah batakar nafrat sikhata hai. Gair muslim ke upar islami huqumat failane ko jihad batata hai aur jihadi ko jannat hooro ka jhansa deta hai. Ek Allah ka ul julool tasawwur banakar logo ko kolhu ke bail Andhnamazi aur zunooni banata hai. Gyan ki roshni nahi balki andhvishwas failata hai. Ul julool manghadant kahaniya aur khokhle dawo ki buniyad par sirf khud ko ekmatr sach aur baki sare dharm ya faith ko galat batata hai. Jahalat ghode talwar ke zamane me chal nikla lekin aaj ki science philosohy Logic par adharit mile jule samaj me kabhi bhi bhaichara harmony nahi la sakta. Islam ke buniyadi usool badalne jaruri hai..
Allama Iqbal's critique of democracy
[Bang e Dra -196]:
_Utha ke phenk do bahir gali mein,_
_Nayi tezheeb ke ande hain gande._
_Election, memberi, council, sadarat,_
_Banaye khoob azaadi ne phande._
_Mian najjar bhi cheele gaye saath,_
_Nihayat tez hain Europe ke rande._
Molana was a greatest person
Dr Taimur would do well if reads more about Maulana Maududi, The Reformer of 29th century. Maulana addressed issues of Islam looking straight into eyes of all anti Islam elements. By presenting Islam with modern arguments his words sink straight into one hearts. We r so lucky to have this great writer in our library. Allah Pak may bless him in peace with all His kindness and mercy
Bhot aala sir, esi videos bnaty rhen
I haven't read molana moddodi, but i think he was right all along.
U think???without reading how can u think?this is the problem with our society.
@@anishbanerjee5761 i believe his argument is right, how can people with liberal mindset think of an islamic state??
There was / is huge difference and gap in what was / is the leadership's desire and what was / is the public's desire.. Both desired opposite things, poor public needed an Islamic Idealogical State ( as claimed by League's leadership) but Leaders have some other motives for independence.. This was the dilemma!!
@@Shoaib.siddiquiU should only read his tafheem ul quran
He who?
There can be a third opinion as well :
that is It's a good discussion whether Muslim league leaders internally want Pakistan to be an Islamic state or otherwise but this is vividly clear that their mandate on which Indian-Muslims support them was completely of the Islamic state.
Proofs:
1> Khilafat Movement
2> Quaid sayings i.e.: "Quran will be our constitution".
3> The whole narrative, though & poetry of Iqbal.
4> The demand for Islamic implementation on the state level after independence which led to Objective Resolution and many other things.
There is so much more that can be said on this topic, but I leave it for some other day. Thanks
Jamooriat par molana ke old views bta raye ap. Update karain khud ko. Molana jamooriat ke haami thy lekin Allah ki Itaa'at main rehty howy, Jb "Hakmiat Allah ki " ye law bana to onho ny kaha tha ap riasat ny Qalma parh lia hai
I think the most accepted and Muslim scholar of that the was Moulana Abdul kalam Azad.who predicted was 100% proved and will be proved right.
اس وقت پاکستان کے قیام کا مقصد ایک الگ ریاست کا تھا جس کو اسلام کا نام دیا گیا
لیکن جب یہ ایک الگ ریاست بن گئی تو اس کی اولین ترجیح یہ ہے کہ اس میں اسلامی نظام حکومت نافذ کیا جائے۔ جس کی پہلی اینٹ ملانا مودودی نے مسلہ قادنیت لکھ کر کیا اور اس کے بعد مولانا نے قرارداد مقاصد میں بھی اہم کردار ادا کیا
Great Mawlana saab, you were way ahead of your time.
Chad maududi bashed everyone else but always supported military takeovers, supported Zia in the execution of Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto, JUI was formed by the backing of the establishment after partition, and supported the Islamization program of Zia Ul Haq.
One can see clear dualism in his personality. What kind of political Islam supports the actions of a tyrant (military coup), which are directly against the fundamental rights of the citizens. Undoubtedly, maududi had a firm grip on Islamic principles but he always backed authoritarianism politically, which is sad. I was an ardent supporter of Maududi and read a lot about his views. Alas! I read too much and know his blunders.
I can smell a hatred in ur hearts for those who demand Pakistan to be islamic republic of Pakistan.😊
And I can sense ignorance in your words that you are still living in cookoo cookoo land.
These people read history with agenda and prejudice to support their claim.
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
مولانا مودودی بلا شبہ ایک مجدد تھے جن کو سکہ بند علماء کی جانب سے سخت مخالفت کا سامنا کرنا پڑا۔ تاہم ان کی عظمت کا ایک پہلو یہ بھی ہے کہ آپ نے ان تنقید کا جواب نہیں دیا ۔
Marx would never misquote Martin Luther. Intellectual honesty is rare in Pakistan
Agr sahih maini mai islami riasat k asool apna liye jayen to kisi bhi mazhab, zuban aur nasl sy taaluq rkhny walon k haqooq ghazab nhe hon gy.....hmara almia ye hai k hum ny Islam ko samjha he nhe.
According to me the answer is very very simple........the ultimate goal of getting a separate land from India was to apply totally Islamic laws.....if during separation they wanted to make a circular state then they were faulted...It doesn't matter what were qaid e Azam's intentions relating secularism and Islam because he was not a prophet and we have to follow our prophet in this matter.....
Molana moududi was right that democracy was not ideal for Islam. But Mr. Jinnah had no choice as it was not an easy task to get a separate Muslim welfare state in those circumstances. We can realize the importance of Pakistan for Muslims by looking at the pitiable situation of Muslims in India especially in Kashmir.
Strangely Maududi thought democracy was bad but JI supported the military dictatorships of Yahya and Zia.
Nice.
why not talk about Pakistani Hindus too? Since you care more about Indian Muslims!
But you will never understand, this is the reason why Pakistan is in this situation today.
But never mind
@@Taimur_Laal i totally agree. This was even worse
@@HOG1070 i will never support any discrimination against any non-Muslim in Pakistan. But, if we compare India and Pakistan, we can find a great difference in the attitude towards minorities. And i am not in the favor of spreading hate against India. But i think that the secular ideology of Mr. Gandhi is and will always be ideal for a country like India.
@@lifeexists988
Just do a simple comparison
Pakistani Constitution vs Indian Constitution.
That shall be enough to make you understand the truth.
تیمور صاحب تو کیا پاکستان کا مقصد ایک سیکولر کمیونسٹ ریاست بنانا تھا؟
75 سال بعد آپ کو مودی صاحب کا حوالہ دے کر پاکستانیوں کو گمراہ کرنے کا خیال کیوں آیا ھے.....؟ جبکہ پچپن سے سنتے آ رہے ہیں کہ ایک مودی سو یہودی، معاز اللہ، استغفراللہ! ویسے آپ جیسے لوگ اچھی طرح جانتے ہیں کہ پاکستانی عوام اب فیصلہ کن موڑ پر کھڑی ھے. ویسے سامعین کے لیے آپ کی اس بیہودہ قسم کی ویڈیو کا جواب محترم اوریا مقبول جان نے جواب دے دیا ھے 👇ua-cam.com/video/Mg06gRRJclE/v-deo.html
Sir book name or refrence batya karain
For the establishment of an islamic state...a leader like Prophet PBUH and a community like Sahaba ( companions) is required which seems impossible to exist in the very period of time... that's why 14 centuries never ever seen an islamic state where all the islamic laws have implemented
ever heard of "no true Scotsman" fallacy ?
Tabi Abdul aziz ka nam suna hai.?¿
Deen pori ummah ka liya aya hai sirf Sahaba ka liya nhi 😂 Ya lame excuses hai, kiyo na ham bi Islamic system establish kara or sahaba ki trah bana
@@What-do-you-want824That's not possible today Muslim are illiterate 😂
@syedbakeruddinbekar9433whose laws we need? Western laws? Those war mongers who have killed 100's of millions of people for resources and considered blacks to be inferior until only a ~100 years ago.
Thanks for your v.good real analyses.
Majority of the (myopic) moolahs opposed the establishment of Pakistan but quickly hijacked Pakistan soon after Jinnah had made it
Knowledge is power and ignorance is not a bliss. Ignorants are found in all forms and colours: with beards, without beards, laal, Sabaz…
Read history without agenda and prejudice, then you will discover the truth, otherwise stories are fabricated to promote one agenda or another.
Lies have many colours, truth has just one. In this case the truth is in the words of great Jinnah, not taken from one speech but all what he said before and after partition, and the words of those who advised him and stood with him against Maududis, Muftis, father of Fazlur Rahman, Madnis, Azads …
Truth is difficult to find in the sea of lies, but the truth is there for those who have no agenda and intellect that is drawn to truth.
آپ نے تو جماعت اسلامی سے بہت ہی مشکل سوالات پوچھ لئے ہیں۔ ❤️
Taimoor ne Jamat Islami se Sawalt to utahe asal maqsad ye btana tha ke Pakistan aik Secular state ke tor par ban tha na ke koi Islamic Theocratic state ke toor par.
Sar G muj likina nei atia viruna ma ap ka sat pori bais kirta visa ap ke video muj bhot pisen aye good sar G full Bacha khani pikar da
ڈاکٹر تیمور صاحب! کیا ہی اچھا ہوتا کہ آپ مودودی صاحب کی کتب/تحریر سے مذکورہ تمام مواد جن کا آپ نے ذکر کیا ، دکھایا جاتا۔ جس کتاب سے آپ یہ مواد لے رہے ہیں وہ مودودی صاحب کی کتب یا ان کے شائع کردہ کسی رسالے سے ماخوذ نہیں ہیں۔ خود مودودی صاحب کی کتب / رسالے کا تحریری عکس دکھائے بغیر تحقیق یا حوالہ مکمل ن
ہیں ہوگا۔
One should know and ask about the intentions of 'Pakistan Movement' and of 'the creation of Pakistan' from the people and the founders (Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Iqbal) of Pakistan and not from the third party who were not, as it is known, in favour or movement of Pakistan. What did Muhammad Ali Jinnah say about the intentions behind the creation of Pakistan. ?
The Muslim League already lost its credibility when it accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. The continued rejection of every proposal tabled by the Congress for funds approval in front of the finance minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, finally convinced Vallabhai Patel and Nehru who then convinced Gandhi to get rid of The League by giving them, in the words of Jinnah, a 'Moth-Eaten' state.
Quoting K.K. Aziz from his book 'The Murder of the History', "Pakistan was created by the Hindus. Had the Hindu leaders shown greater wisdom, more flexibility, less ignorance, the Muslim League would not have insisted on a partition of India."
What was wrong about accepting the cabinet mission plan? As I understand it, it would have preserved the political union of India as one country, while giving self rule to Muslims. Sounds like a good deal.
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Excellent video, very informative. I was informed in this regard but i dod not have direct quotes as you have provided in this video.
Every member of Jamyat should read these writings of Moududi and understand that they are (probably) mistaken about Pakistan.
Members of jamat do read books but others hardly do. i recommend you to read the original book of maulana maudoodi تحریک آزادئ ہند اور مسلمان It will change the whole narrative ۔
@@shakeelurrahman1846 we also read books, but different books.
Moududi was no fool. He was a very intelligent traditional Muslim thinker.
however, he was wrong about religion as we can see in the world today.
today, secular countries have some of the least crime and corruption perception as well as the best economy. not to mention life expectancy and education
See crime index,
Corruption perceptions index,
GDP per Capita,
Human development index
@@ultraali453bro aik baat ka jwab do dosron per kufer kay fetway lganay aur dosron kay islam ko napnay walon ko muslim smejtay ho
@@ultraali453hadef sharef hai kay aik waqet ay ga kuch logislam ka istmal duniya ka shikar kernay liya kerain aur un kay dill bhairiyon jaisay ho ab is molvi ki batain sun kay to is ka dill mujay aisa hi lag raha hai
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Maududi and Socrates both hated democracy difference is Maududi was muslim and Socrates was atheist.
Exactly, If modudi was an atheist, his opinions would be regarded as of an "intellectual"
Crazy if you're following a religion, your opinions are automatically vilified
If Democracy was so wrong why Mododi made Jamat e Islami ?
Did you intensionally left the name of Dr. Istiyaq Ahmed out, while mentioning Dr. Ayesha Jalal? He has written a book debunkink Dr. Jalal's theory with compelling references.
He also mentions with references about the written communication between British higher-ups of that time that subcontinent was divided to prevent a possible super power of the future. He says that Jinnah was just a politician who was used for this purpose, he was not a true leader.
The individual intellectuals are not relevant. What is relevant are the positions.
I have not read his book, but watched a very detailed interview. He seemed to build his argument on the public speeches of Jinnah. But in day to day politics how much do the public statements reveal? There is lot going on at micro level and behind the scenes. He also places Ghandi above Imam Hussein because in his view he was so great that he backed on his conviction for the sack of saving people which was a greater act compared to great people who would typically wont do that. Funnily, even in India they have a growing debate if Gandhi was really great or father of nation, or if Godse should instead be their Hero. And Pakistanis are trying to glorify even more than Indians would do
Dr Ishtiaq is like Hoodboy , their hate for religion shows in their interviews and writings .
One such chap recently passed away .
@taimoor_urdu did you discussed this topic with engineer mirza?
Ut Maududi came to Pakistan after its inception and joined politics. Why?
مولانا مودودی ایک بہترین مبلغ تھے. آپ ماشاءاللہ سےتاریخ پر بھی نظر رکھتے ہیں. آپ کو یہ بھی بتانا چاہیے تھا کہ کس ماحول اور کیسے دور میں مولانا نے کیا بات کی.
جس قسم کا دور تھا اور جیسے جیسے تبدیل ہو رہا تھا وقت اور حالات کے مطابق تجزیہ دیا جانا تھا. اور وہ مولانا نے دیا.
آپ کا مسئلہ مولانا نہیں اسلام ہے. کم از کم مجھے تو ایسا ہی لگا ان سب باتوں سے جو آپ نے اس ویڈیو میں کیں
No reference of any book of syyed Abu aala modudi
One thing that Jinnah was not pro Islamic but a true democrat and a statesman is very true.
In which book maudoodi said this kindly update that
In my honest opinion, those who argue whether Pakistan was meant to be a secular democratic republic with a Muslim majority or an Islamic state are oblivious about the bigger picture. Colonialism and imperialism. If the European white people could create borders in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention poking their noses in the internal affairs of the developing world; like Britain and the US did in Iran in 1953, or in Egypt in 1956, or even the protectorate in Aden (Yemen); then why the heck wouldn’t Britain impose its will on the Subcontinent? We are colonized people mentally and even economically.
Moreover Maududi didn't have technical skills and contemporary political know how. Mr Taimur you are just dragging and forcing an unnecessary narrative here. Cherry picked something that justifies your Marxist position subtly.
Beautiful and beautifully presented.
Thank you so much Sir 😢
اس سے بڑھ کر یہ کہ حوالہ مولانا مودودی کی تحریروں سے نہیں بلکہ مخالفین کے پراپیگنڈہ کے لئے نکالی گئی کتابوں سے دئیے گئے ہیں۔۔۔ صاحب اگر تحقیق کا شوق ہے تو ذرا source document ہی کو پڑھ لیں یا وہاں سی quote کریں تاکہ سننے والا اپنے طور پر بھی معلومات حاصل کرسکے۔
Why you not talking about bacha khan
He was also against Pakistan
Yes. And the irony is that he is considered a traitor while Maududi is considered the real author of two nation theory. Kamal nahin hai,.
Started going through your videos for historical clarity, but they contain the same biasness and just one sided tendencies to promote liberalism. What's the point of the channel if this is only about shifting views towards "your" idealogy more than "clarification" of ideologies that was needed.
Yet another failed attempt to malign Maududi, just showing your incompetence or precisely academic dishonesty to explain the point of view of Maulana Maududi on Islamic state, and Pakistan.
At least person should know the history of some party that's unfortunately manifested even in comment section...
if socialism is not adopted, it is against the principle of Islam.See the gap between HAVES and Haves Not in Pakistan and compare per capita GDP OF Pakistan ,India and Bangladesh
Look the question here is pretty simple, if Jinnah wanted to make an absolutely secular state, there was no need for pakistan then.
Could you care to explain?
Jinnah's argument was that Congress was not a secular but a Hindu party.
Book name please
Quo vadis Comrade Taimur Rahman?
It's absolutely not mandatory to accept one or other of the suggested options, both of these could be misleading. Surprisingly you have missed to quote a third option, which has been suggested by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed and which seems to be the most important and contemporary one. Is it only a matter of coincidence?
Brother!
I think you misunderstood his narrations . He never said that Pakistan is MEANT to be a secular state rather he commented that it would LED to a secular state with the conduct of affairs Muslims had at that time. ( And we can see it clearly today)
It might be an aspiration for them but their conduct was not as per the aspirations.
And this is nothing different from the spirit of the common man in the subcontinent. I.e we want to tag with Islam but our conduct of affairs is exactly opposite to what we aspire as ummah.
This is what he emphasized in the fundamental literature of tehreek as well:
ہر فرد کو اپنی ذات میں موجود نفاق ، غیر اسلامی طرز فکر و عمل کو پہچاننے اور دور کرنے کی فکر کرنی چاہیے ۔
For reference you may read the دستور تحریک اسلامی (ہماری دعوت کیا ہے)
But at the same time as you quoted his words " through un-islamic ways if Islam comes in true spirit it would be no less than a Miracle." Which means it's highly unlikely that with the wishful thinking Muslims have in general along with the opposing conduct of affairs Islam could ever re-emerge as the glorious 1st century of Islam.
Minitey of education ko bhi pharhaye ta k syllabus darust kia ja ske...
He was part of the parliament which was jumhuriyat
Sure, Madudi Sahib was against Muslim League and Its leaders and harshly criticized them. He thought that Muslim Leaguis didn't get independence to create an Islamic state but wanted a secular state.
But it doesn't mean Madudi sahib himself didn't want Pakistan to be an Islamic state. It is apparently quite evident from his works.
What's your point here? You are saying we shouldn't make any efforts to make Pakistan an Islamic state because Madudi sahib said that Quaid sahib did not want Pakistan to be an Islamic state? Even though you know Madudi sahib tried to make Pakistan an Islamic state his whole life.
Just wow. Good try. You truly are a master of manipulation.
Disclaimer: not a Madudi sahib fan
Jinnah once gave his strongest point for the creation of Pakistan that when the first Hindu embraced Islam, Pakistan was created. You have Rana, Suri, Puri, Cheema, Bajwa,Suddhan, Rajput, Chouhan, Choudhary etc as Muslim in Pakistan. Please try to know that they came in Islam through jizzah, Gawza Iconoclasm, Dhimmi, Mal a Ganmit, Loondis, benefits from the sale of loondis, Haram system where one Muslim ruler had up to ten thousand concubines,use of epithets like pigs,, monkeys, dogs , bastards and Nashjit for idolaters or indigenous people . These concepts of Islam contributed 90% for the creation of Pakistan.
Molana moududi theek thy...💔
💯
@@What-do-you-want824 I agree. He was 100% right that Pakistan was never meant to be an Islamic state.
@@Taimur_Laal 21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
Maulana's ideological philosophy was based on political concept (his) of ' Iqamat e Deen' of Quran,
So Maulana took many U- turns politically but keeping the viewpoint of "Islamic system" (his) rule worldwide
Sir why did then Maududi come to Pakistan and participate in democratic system?
Even today his party is participating in the democratic system.
Cuz the Changing of opinion is normal in intellectual's 🗿
📌21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
@@What-do-you-want824 So his changed opinion about Pakistan should also be mentioned in the above video. Why only one sided picture is being presented?
Dr taimur Rahman I want you to please comment on this.
Jinnha family India mai kyu rehte hai . Or kyu kaha 47 mai ko mera Mumbai wala ghar nhi todna mai summer mai waha time batine ayuga. . Or jinnha porke burger 🍔 khate thei or sari jindgi kabi be hajj par nhi gaye or wine petai thai. Unke grandfather ek hindu thai. Or wo koi practice Muslim nhi thai. Ap unki daughter ki autobiography dekh lo jisko pakistan army ne pakistan mai ban kara .or Fatima jinnha ki autobiography book my brother study karlo
Fiction to malign great Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Jinnah was a Great leader
Molana Maududi RA is greatest the scholar of our time
سید مودودی نے فکری کام کۓ
پاکستان کی تخلیق بھی انکی فکری کاموں کا نتیجہ ہے
It is such a sad thing that our history which doesn't spans over thougsands of years but still we can't seem to get historc clearity its really someting which is bothersam ...
Maudidi ko opportunity nahi mili leader banny ki isi liye wo ye opinion rkhty thy. Fitrat ny Pakistan bnany ka kaam lyna tha wo kisi sy bhi lyskti thi. Taimur ap bht khush horhy hon gy is tamashy pr
You think Maududi sahab Muhtaaj the Leader ki seat ke? 😂😂 Lol Quaide Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah is still just known in Pakistan.. But Maududi sahab ke Aaj Bhi Millions me students hain poori duniya me..
I don't agree with taimoors stupidity but ye chawalen mat maaro.. Maududi sahab is the only person in the history of Muslim Leaders jiski Namaze Janaza Ghayabana Haram Makkah me Adaa ki gayi thi..
Or unke students aaj duniya ke bare leaders me se.. RECAP TAYYAB Urdogan is one of his Students.. And go and read the story of DR BILAL Philips.. That man became a Muslim only after reader a Small Booklet of Maulana Maududi and Dr Bilal Philips alone converted more then 10000 American Soldiers into Muslims after 9 11 till now..
So agar un logo ke Intellectual level tak ni pohach sakte to unki chappal mat khencho
@@theknowledgeseeker1 maududi ki religious knowledge and capacities pr koi shak nahi ker rha... But agr maududi sahb Pakistan k bnany pr khush nahi thy ya muslim league k logo sy itefaq nahi rkhty thy tw ye unko chaye tha k ek Islami riyasat wajud ma aarhi hai tw aysi position na rkhyn k Dr. Taimur jysy logo ko Mauqa milay Pakistan ki Roohani ehsaas pr tanqeed kerny ka.
@@Walk-in-cultures unho ne apna Opinion diya Tha us waqt ke lihaaz se...
Ab ye Dr Taimuur jese log unke moo me apna Luqmaa ghusa kar apne matlb ki baat nikalwana chah rhe hain to uska koi Hal ni...
Or aaj Jo Pakistan ke halaat hain.. Unko dekh kar aapko kya lagta ha ke wo Ghalat oppose karrhe the?
@@theknowledgeseeker1 Jee ghalt oppose ker rhy thy... Aap bhi Maududi shb ki shksiyat parasti kerny sy guraiz kryn... Jo hota hai wo Allah ki Raza sy hota hai. Han aaj jo ho rha wo ghalt hai... Aur ap qrardade Maqasad ko kiu bhul jaty hain... Liaqat Ali Khan ka qatal ho ya Quaideazam ka ye naik niyat log thy... Technical or jadid vocabulary rakhny walay English men sy ankho ma ankhien daal kr logical or political baat kerny waly... Ye domain maududi sahb ki nahi thi... Aap smjhyn is baat ko
@@Walk-in-cultures lol ma Maulana Maududi ki Shakhsiyat parasti karrha hun to aap Quaide Azam ki kya karrhe ho? Or jahan tak ha Halato Waqiat ki baat to Maulana Maududi ki Jo Islam ke liye Khidmat hain Wo shayad poori Muslim League ki na hon...
Baaqi Quaide Azam ki niyyat par koi shak ni karrha.. Maulana Maududi ko bhi sirf unke tareeqe se Ikhtilaaf Tha Jo rakhne ka unka poora haq ha
To phir election ladne ke liye madudi ne political party kyun banai ?
.
He didn’t make it to run in elections. He decided that when Ayub Khan proposed elections. Then he decided to support Fatimah Jinnah. This caused many people in JI to leave the party. They continued to believe that voting was kufr
Dr. Israr Ahmed was one of these people.
@@Taimur_Laal😮 ye kya mazaq horaha hai hamary sath? Jo kuch hum ne suna sab ghalat sabit horaha hai🤐
What is an Islamic state ??? We Muslims in Pakistan are free to perform Namaz, roza and hajj . Women have freedom to wear hajab/ parda or whatever they like . What else people want?
@@sairaqureshi8470 economic reforms, khalifa election system instead of democratic one etc etc
Can any Pakistanis tell us what version of Quran is correct. Out of 30 or so different Qurans?
WhatsApp University🤣
@7xr1e20ln8 Dear if your real intention is knowledge then please note There is only 1 Quran in the Whole world that contains 114 Chapters( 30 Parts .. that's not 30 versions Dear
@@imransikandar.Imran saab, Quran I found in Morocco is different from the one in Dubai. Same in North Africa. This is why I asked which one is correct.
Can you explain what difference you have seen ? in Text itself ? In writing Fronts /style ?
And Please note the Quran is sent from GOD for all Human beings on this planet earth not only for the Pakistanis or Muslims.
Sir book reference please
Molana madoudi himself answer to the question is he against Pakistan. See his book .
Brilliant analysis and well researched.
The USA constitution specifically separates religion and politics
because their union has always caused turmoil and instability in society.
موودودی صاحب : ایک قوم کے تمام افراد کو محض اس وجہ سے کے وہ نسلاً مسلمان ہیں حقیقی مسلمان فرض کر لینا اور یہ امید رکھنا کہ ان کے اجتماع سے جو بھی کام ہوگا ............اسلامی اصولوں پر ہی ہوگا پہلی اور بنیادی غلطی ہے ____انبوہ عظیم جس کو مسلمان قوم کها جاتا ہے اس کا حال یہ ہے اس کے 999 فی ہزار افراد نہ اسلام کا علم رکھتے ہیں نہ حق اور باطل کے تمیز سے آشنا ہیں اور نہ ہی انکا اخلاقی نقطہ نظر اور ذہنی رویہ اسلام کے مطابق تبدیل ھوا ہے __باپ سے بیٹے اور بیٹے سے پوتے کو بس مسلمان کا نام ملتا چلا آ رہا ہے .اس لیے یہ مسلمان ہیں____نا انھوں نے حق کو حق جان کر قبول کیا اور نہ باطل کو باطل جان کر ترک کیا ہے ____انکی اکثریت راے کے ہاتھ میں باگیں دے کر اگر کوئی شخس یہ امید رکھتا کہ گاڑی اسلام کے راستے پر چلے گی تو اسکی خوش فہمی قابل داد ہے ""_
( تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان حصہ دوم ص 140)
جمہ۔وری انتخاب کی مثال بلکل ایسی ہے جیسے دودھ کو بلو کر مکھن نکالا جاتا ہے اگر دودھ زہریلا ہو ہوسکا اس سے جو مکھن نکلے گا قدرتی بات ہے کہ دودھ سے زیادہ زہریلا ہوگا ____ اسی طرح سوسائٹی اگر بگڑی ہوئی ہو تو اس کے ووٹوں سے منتخب ہو کر وہی لوگ برسر اقتدار آئیں گے جو اس سوسائٹی کی خواہشات نفس سے سند مقبولیت حاصل کر سکیں گے ____ پس جو لوگ یہ گمان کرتے ہیں کہ اگر مسلم اکثریت کے علاقے ہندو اکثریت کے تسلط سے آزاد ہو جائیں اور یہاں ج۔مہوری نظام قائم ہو جائے تو اس طرح حکومت الٰہی قائم ہو جائے گی ان کا گمان غلط ہے ____دراصل اس نتیجہ میں جو کچھ حاصل ہوگا وہ صرف مسلمانوں کی کا۔فرانہ حکومت ہوگی ____اسکا نام حکومت الٰہی رکھنا اس پاک نام کو ذلیل کرنا ہے ""
( تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان ص 142)
" ایک مسلمان کی حیثیت سے جب میں دنیا پر نگاہ ڈالتا ھوں تو مجھے اس امر پر اظہار مسرت کی کوئی وجہ نظر نہیں آتی کہ ترکی پر ترک ،ایران پر ایرانی اور افغانستان پر افغان حکمران ہیں ، مسلمان ہونے کے حیثیت سے میں : حکم الناس علی الناس للناس
(Government of the people by the people for the people)
کے نظریہ کا قائل نہیں ھوں کہ مجھے اس پر مسرت ہو میں اس کے حکم اللہ علی الناس بالحق
(Rule of Allah on man with justice)
کا نظریہ رکھتا ہوں ____ اس اعتبار سے میرے نزدیک انگلستان پر انگریزوں کی حاکمیت اور فرانس پر اہل فرانس کی حاکمیت جس قدر غلط ہے اسی قدر ترکی اور دوسرے ملکوں پر انکے اپنے باشندوں کی حاکمیت بھی غلط ہے بلکہ اس سے زیادہ غلط ،اس لیے کہ جو قومیں اپنے آپ کو مسلمان کہتی ہیں ان کا اللہ کے بجاے انسانوں کے حاکمیت اختیار کرنا اور بھی زیادہ افسوس ناک ہے غیر مسلم اگر ضالین کے حکم میں ہیں تو یہ اس طرز عمل کے بنا پر مغضوب علیھم کی تعریف میں آتے ہیں ____
مسلمان ہونے کی حیثیت میں میرے لیے اس مسلہ میں بھی کوئی دلچسپی نہیں ہے کہ ہندوستان میں جہاں مسلم کثیر التعداد ہیں وہاں ان کے حکومت قائم ہو جائے میرے نزدیک جو سوال سب اقدام ہے وہ یہ ہے کہ آپ کے اس پاکستان میں نظام حکومت کی اساس اللہ کی حاک۔میت پر رکھی جائے گی یا مغربی نظریہ جمہوریت کے مطابق عوام کی حاکم۔یت پر ؟؟ اگر پہلی صورت ہے ہو تو یقیناً یہ پاکستان ہوگا ورنہ بصورت دیگر یہ ویسا ہی "" نا پا۔۔کستان ""
ہوگا جیسا ملک کا وہ حصہ جہاں آپ کی اسکیم کے مطابق غیر مسلم حکومت کریں گے _____بلکہ اللہ کی نگاہ میں یہ اس سے زیادہ ناپاک ، اس سے زیادہ مبغوض و ملعون ہوگا کیونکہ یہاں اپنے آپ کو مسلمان کہنے والے وہ کام کریں گے جو غیر مسلم کرتے ہیں _____ اگر میں اس بات پر خوش ہوں کے یہاں """رام داس""" کی بجاے """ عبدللہ "”" خدائی منصب پر بیٹھے گا تو یہ اسلام نہیں ہے _____بلکہ نرا نیشنلزم ہے اور یہ مسلم نیشنلزم بھی اللہ کی شریعت میں اتنا ہے ملعون ہے جتنا ہندوستانی نیشنل ازم _____ مسلمان ہونے کی حیثیت سے میری نگاہ میں اس سوال کی بھی کوئی اہمیت نہیں کہ ہندوستان ایک ملک رہے یا دس ٹکڑوں میں تقسیم ہو جائے _____تمام روے زمین ایک ملک ہے _____انسان نے اسکو ہزاروں حصوں میں تقسیم کر رکھا ہے _____یہ اب تک کی تقسیم اگر جائز تھی تو آئندہ مزید تقسیم ہو جائے تو کیا بگڑ جائے گا _____یہ کونسا ایسا بڑا مسلہ ہے جس پر مسلمان ایک لمحہ کے لیے بھی غور و فکر میں اپنا وقت ضایع کریں ؟
مسلمان کو تو صرف ایک چیز سے بحث ہے کہ یہاں انسان کا سر اللہ کے حکم کے آگے جھکتا ہے یہ حکم الناس کے آگے _____اگر اللہ کے حکم کے آگے جھکتا ہے تب تو اسے اور زیادہ واسیع کیجئے _____ ہمالیہ کی دیوار کو بیچ میں سے ہٹائیے ______سمندر کو بھی نظر انداز کر دیجئے تاکہ ایشیا ،افریقہ اور امریکہ سب ہندوستان میں شامل ہو سکیں اور اگر یہ حکم الناس کے آگے جھکتا ہے تو جہنم میں جائے ہندوستان اور اسکی خاک کا پرستار ______ مجھے اس سے کیا دلچسپی کہ یہ ایک ملک رہے یا دس ہزار ٹکڑوں میں بٹ جائے ______اس بت کے ٹوٹنے پر تڑپے وہ جو اسے معبود سمجھتا ہو مجھے تو اگر کہیں ایک مربع میل کا رقبہ بھی مل جائے جس میں انسان پر اللہ کے سوا کسی اور کی حا۔کمیت نہ ہو تو میں اس کے ایک زرہ خاک کو ہندوستان بھر سے زیادہ قیمتی سمجھوں گا ______
مسلمان ہونے کے حیثیت سے میرے نزدیک یہ امر بھی بھی کوئی قدر
و قیمت نہیں رکھتا کہ ہندوستان کو انگریزی امپیریلزم سے آزاد کرایا جائے _____انگریز کی حاکمیت سے نکلنا تو صرف لا الہ کا ھم معنی ہوگا ____فیصلہ کا انحصار محض اس نفی پر نہیں ہے بلکہ اس پر ہے کہ اس کے بعد اثبات کس چیز کا ہو گا _____اگر آزادی کے یہ ساری لڑائی صرف اس لیے ہے .........اور مجاہدین حریت میں کون صاحب یہ جھوٹ بولنے کی ہمت رکھتے ہیں کہ اس لیے نہیں ہے .........کہ امپیریلزم کے الٰہ کو ہٹا کر ڈیمو۔کریسی کے الٰہ کو بت خانہ حکومت میں جلوہ افروز کیا جائے تو مسلمان کے نزدیک در حقیقت اس سے کوئی فرق بھی واقع نہیں ہوتا _____ لات گیا منات آگیا _____ایک جھوٹے خدا نے دوسرے جھوٹے خدا کی جگہ لے لی_____باطل کی بندگی جیسی تھی ویسی ہی رہی _____کون مسلمان اسکو آزادی کے لفظ سے تعبیر کر سکتا ہے ؟؟؟؟
اس وقت ہندوستان میں مسلمانوں کی جو جماعتیں اسلام کے نام سے کام کر رہی ہیں فی الواقع اسلام کے معیار پر ان کے نظریات ، مقاصد اور کارناموں کو پرکھا جائے تو سب کے سب جنس فاسد نکلیں گی _____خواہ مغربی تعلیم و تربیت پاے سیاسی لیڈر ہوں یہ قدیم طرز کے مذہبی رہنما دونوں راہ حق سے ہٹ کر تاریکیوں میں بھٹک رہے ہیں _____ ایک دماغ پر ہندو کا ہوا سوار ہے اور وہ سمجھتا ہے کہ ہندو امپیریلزم کے چنگل سے بچ جانے کا نام نجات ہے اور دوسرے گروہ کے سر پر انگریز کا بھوت مسلط ہے وہ انگریزی امپیریلزم کے چنگل سے بچ جانے کو نجات سمجھ رہا ہے ____ ان میں سے کسی کی نظر بھی مسلمان کی نظر نہیں ورنہ یہ دیکھتے کہ اصلی شیطان یہ ہے نہ وہ ، اصلی شیطان غیر اللہ کی حاک۔میت ہے اس سے نجات نہ پائی تو کچھ نہ پایا ______ لڑنا ہے تو اسکو مٹانے کے لیے لڑو ، جو تیر چلانا ہو اس ہدف کی طرف باندھ کر چلاو _____
جس قدر قوت صرف کرنی ہے اسے محو کرنے پر صرف کردو ______ اسکے سوا جس کام میں بھی تم اپنی مساعی صرف کرو گے وہ پراگندہ اور رائیگاں ہو کر رہے گا ______
مغربی طرز کے لیڈروں پر تو چنداں حیرت نہیں کے ان بیچاروں کو قرآن کی ہوا تک نہیں لگی ______ مگر حیرت ہے ان علماء پر جن کا رات دن کا مشغلہ ہی قال اللہ اور قال الرسول ہے ، سمجھ نہیں آتی کے آخر ان کو کیا ہو گیا ہے ؟ یہ قرآن کو کس نظر سے پڑھتے ہیں کہ ہزار بار پڑھنے کے بعد بھی انہیں اس قطعی اور دائمی پالیسی کے طرف رہنمائی نہیں ملتی جو مسلمان کے لیے اصولی طور پر مقرر کردی گئی ہے ______ جن مسائل کو انہوں نے اہم قرار دے رکھا ہے قرآن میں ہمیں انکی فروئی اور ضمنی اہمیت کا بھی نشان نہیں ملتا اور جن معملات پر بے چین ہو کر انھوں نے دلی میں آزاد مسلم کانفرنس منعقد فرمائی اور تڑپ تڑپ کر تقریریں کیں اس نوعیت کے معملات کہیں اشارتاً بھی قرآن مجید میں زیر بحث نہیں آتے برعکس اسکے قرآن حکیم میں ھم دیکھتے ہیں کہ نبی پر نبی آتا ہے اور ایک ہی بات کی طرف اپنی قوم کو دعوت دیتا ہے :
""'""" يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَهٍ غَيْرُهُ """"""
(هود /61)
""" اے میری قوم اللہ کی بندگی کرو اس کے سوا تمہارا کوئی معبود نہیں """_
""""اسلامی تحریک کے ہر رہنما نے ہر ملک اور ہر زمانے میں وقتی اور مقامی مسائل کو نظر انداز کرکے اسی ایک مسلہ کو اگے رکھا ، اسی پر اپنا زور صرف کیا تو اس سے صرف یہ نتیجہ نکالا جا سکتا ہے کہ ان کے نزدیک یہ مسلہ ام المسائل تھا اور وہ اسی کے حل پر پر زندگی کے تمام مسائل کا حل موقوف سمجھتے تھے ____________"""""
( تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان )
کسی نے مسلم لیگ کے حمایت کے لیے یوں دلیل دی کہ اس وقت مسلمانان ہند دو فتنوں میں مبتلا ہیں _ اول کانگرس کی وطنی تحریک کا فتنہ اور دوم مسلم لیگ کی مسلم نیشنلزم کی تحریق _دونو تحریکیں اسلام کے خلاف ہیں مگر انسان جب دو بلاؤں میں مبتلا ہو تو چھوٹی بلا کو قبول کر لینا چاہیے_ یقیناً مسلم لیگ کے تحریک کانگرس کے مقابلہ میں کم فتنہ ہے کیا اس صورت میں ھم مسلم لیگ کے حق میں ووٹ نہ دیں ؟
سید مودودی صاحب نے جواب دیا :
"""""" آپ ذرا وسیع نظر سے دیکھیں ان دو فتنوں کے علاوہ آپ کو اور بوہت سے اخلاقی ،تمدنی ،مذہبی ، سیاسی اور معاشی فتنے نظر آئیں گے جو اس وقت مسلمانوں پر ہجوم کیے ہووے ہیں _یہ ایک فطری سزا ہے جو اللہ کے طرف سے ہر اس قوم کو ملا کرتی ہے جو کتاب اللہ کے حامل ہونے کے باوجود اس کے اتباع سے منہ موڑے _______اس سزا سے اگر مسلمان بچ سکتے ہیں تو وہ صرف اس طرح کہ اپنے اصلی اور بنیادی جرم سے باز آجائیں """""""_
پھر سید مودودی نے اپنی جماعت کا مقصد قیام یوں بیان فرمایا :
"" یہ جماعت کسی ملک یا قوم کے وقتی مسائل کو سامنے رکھ کر وقتی تدابیر سے انکو حل کرنے کے لیے نہیں بنی ہے اور نہ اس کے بناے قیام یہ قاعدہ ہے کہ پیش آمدہ مسائل کو حل کرنے کے لیے جس وقت جو اصول چلتے نظر آئیں ان کو اختیار کر لیا جائے _اس جماعت کے سامنے صرف ایک ہی عالمگیر اور ازلی و ابدی مسلہ ہے کہ انسان کی دنیوی فلاح اور اخروی نجات کس چیز میں ہے پھر اسکا ایک ہی حل اس جماعت کے پاس ہے کہ تمام اللہ کے بندے صحیح معنوں میں اللہ کے بندگی اختیار کریں اور اپنی پوری انفرادی اور اجتمائی زندگی کو اسکے تمام پہلوؤں سمیت ان اصولوں کے پیروی میں سپرد کر دیں جو اللہ کے کتاب اور اسکے رسول ﷺ کے سنت میں پاے جاتے ہیں _ہمیں اس حل کے سوا دنیا کی کسی دوسری چیز سے قتعاً کوئی دلچسپی نہیں ہے _اور جو شخس بھی ہمارے ساتھ چلنا چاہتا ہو اسے لازم ہے کہ ہر طرف سے نظر ہٹا کر پوری جمعیت خطر کے ساتھ اس شاہراہ پر قدم جماے چلتا رہے اور جو شخس اتنی ذہنی و عملی یکسوی بہم نہ پوھنچا سکے ،جس کے ذہن کو اپنے ملک یا اپنی قوم کے کے وقتی مسائل بار بار اپنی طرف کھینچتے ہوں اور جس کے قدم بار بار ڈگمگا کر ان طریقوں کی طرف پھسلتے ہوں جو دنیا میں آج رائج ہیں ،اسکے لیے مناسب یہ ہے کہ پہلے ان ہنگامی تحریکوں میں جا کر اپنا دل بھر لے ______
(تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان ص 227)
کسی نے اعتراض کیا کہ اگر تمام مسلمان اسمبلیوں سے پرہیز کریں گے ہوسکا پھر سیاسی حیثیت سے مسلمان تباہ ہو جایں گے___ اس سیاسی تباہی سے بچنے کے لیے آپ کیا تجویز کرتے ہیں ۔سید مودودی :
" مسلمانوں میں بتدریج تھوڑی تھوڑی تعداد میں پاک اور اعلی درجہ کے لوگ ذہین ہماری دعوت قبول کریں گے اور جب تک صالحین کا یہ گروہ منظم ہوکر ایک طاقت بنے اس وقت تک غلط کار مسلمانوں کی عظیم اکثریت وہ سارے کام کرتی رہے گی جن کے نہ کرنے سے آپ سمجھتے ہیں کہ مسلمانوں کا قومی مفاد خاک میں مل جائے گا _البتہ اگر یہ سارے کام ہوتے رہے اور صرف وہی کام نہ ھوا جس کے طرف ھم بلا رہے ہیں اور اگر ھم بھی امر حق اور اسکے تقاضوں سے آنکھیں بند کر کے محض قوم اور اس کے مفاد کے فکر میں ان باطل کاریوں کے طرف دوڑتے چلے جایں جو آج اسلام اور مسلم مفاد کے نام سے ہو رہی ہیں تو یقین جانیے کے اسلام کو جھنڈا ہوسکا خیر کیا بلند ہوگا مسلمان قوم اس ذلت و خواری اور اس پستی کے گڑھے سے کبھی نہ نکل سکے گے جس میں وہ یہودیوں کی طرح صرف اس لیے مبتلا ہوئی ہے کہ اللہ کی کتاب رکھتے ہوے اس نے کتاب کا منشاء پورا کرنے سے منہ موڑا ہے """____
(تحریک آزادی ہند اور مسلمان ص 232)
I have great respect for you and agree with you on some things but u started your video by saying some people believes that Pakistan was created for Islam and some says it was for secular reasons. You said that you'll give both sides and will not agree on one thing but u created whole video on quoting Maududi that Pakistan was not meant for Islam, Then where is that point of view which negates the point that Pakistan is created for secularism? Maulana did great work for Islam but if you take his words last words for everything my question to you is that what about other things which Maulana says will you also take them as last and right words?
As I said in the conclusion, either you accept that Maududi was right (that Pakistan was meant to be a secular state) or you openly declare that Maududi was wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
@@Taimur_Laal So do you really think debate with such wide angles only depend on person's point of view? Either we accept Maududi or not?
@@Taimur_Laal And honestly I'm your student here. I want to learn without any biasness but that was the question which arose in my mind
I’m afraidi don’t understand your question. Could you rephrase it. Thanks
@@Taimur_Laal My question to you is simple, You told this is really big debate either Pakistan is created as Islamic state or Secular. This is really big debate how can we rely whole debate on just one person's point of view? It don't make sense to me
It would have been more interesting if the title had name like ' A teaser for jamatis '. ( Based on the sarcastic and rehtorical way you are speaking to them in the end ).😅😅 Waiting for the episode 2 in which you should describe how they substantiate against this and what's your answer then.
میں تیس سال کا ھوں لکین میں نے مولانا کی بات آج سنی ہے میں مولانا کی بات سے اتفاق کرتا ھوں
Who is the author of your reference book ? I can't read his name it's Chaudhary Habib or what's the name of author it's blurry in the video.
Mr Jinnah was a secular Muslim no doubt in it his personal life style is witness of it. As far as his political views I think it was mixture of secularism and Islamic teachings as he had never explained clearly in his speech es that what exact system would be of Pakistan nor they have prepared any document or constitution as Indian leadership was clear what will be the system of India or it can be a political move so keep people in disguise because if clearly he will say a secular state then what's the reason for partition and two nation theory which already congress Muslim and deoband leaders were saying so he had used and given the full Islamic touch to Tehreek Pakistan as he was a great politician of his time.
Molana Muduade was critic of Mr Jinnah as you explained in the end of your video that Jinnah was not clearly explaining how they will run the country sometime they say as per Islamic teachings but they don't show or prepare any constitution as per Islamic laws. On western democracy Molana Muduade said it's against islam because in western democracy any law can be made as per will of people but Islamic laws can't be change as per will of people that's why he is against western democracy. As far selection of government is concern according to voting system he is always in favor of it and JI has always taken part in elections.
He is also not like typical Madarsa molana he has changed his views also as per the present situation of world if anything is not colliding with Islamic principles he is accepting it if it was not done in past by Muslims.
21 November 1945 M.A Jinnah said in Frontier Muslim League Confrence : "We have to fight at double edged battle, one against the Hindu congess and the British imperialist, The Muslim demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic law's"
The key word is "Muslim" "rule" and "Islamic laws"
@@What-do-you-want824 As you can see in this speech only Muslim word and Islamic laws words were mentioned no clear and concrete steps are mentioned how they are going to apply and run. Islamic laws are not allowing him to appoint first Pakistani Foreign Minister a Qadyani person
💯 % True about the Muslim leagie leaders and nazria e islam.
However, if given a chance to the jamiet islami like parties, the situation would be as bad as now.
Sir im a currently a law student studying in a NLUs and i search about you and feel amaze an d proud that you and your LAAL band perform in india infront of our gem Ravish kumaar former senior anchor of NDTV and also known as nightmare for politicians of india . Please reply me☺😊 sir.
Thank you. It was our honour.
@@Taimur_Laal thank you sir
@Furrukh Rao I'm not support any government but I've given a vote to a government or not but certain party government is in power and it's government accountability to nsure people well being, nowadays people were targeting Ravish kumar without knowing that he's also do a same criticism to other party pm of india like Manmohan singh, party leader kejriwal singh and many others because he's a real patriotic of a india who doesn't bring religion to his journalism. He just wants our country to be developed with the people of all section of our society but not with certain rich people .
@Furrukh Rao that's the reason that why we can't progress so fast but if we look at western world they also have a some problem when they also in a developing face so yeah we'll also bounce back on real track of progress but it will took some time.
@Furrukh Rao I think South asians have some inferiority complex issues . You say about Russia and china, but here's the catch that Chinese population is getting old and Russians are younger I think we're okay with what we ourselves it took some times for a change.
کیا مودودی صاحب اور صنعتی انقلاب کی کے زمانے میں پوپ کے موقف میں کوئی فرق نظر آتا ہے؟