Maududi on Jinnah and Pakistan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2023
- We have been taught that Pakistan was made to be an Islamic State. The organisation that has championed this idea is the Jamaat e Islami. However, the actual works of Maududi from the 1930s till the 1950s allege that Pakistan had nothing to do with Islam or the demand for an Islamic state. He alleges that the Muslim League was a secular, democratic & nationalist organisation. It was precisely on this basis that Maududi did not support the demand for the independence of Pakistan. Hence, the work of Maududi actually, ironically, proves that Pakistan was meant to be a secular democratic state.
*English UA-cam: / taimurrahman1975
*Instagram: / taimur_laal
*Twitter: / taimur_laal
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
📌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 😢
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.
Thanks for your v.good real analyses.
بہترین👍
The reason why Pakistan was created is to protect the wealth of rich Muslims mostly those Muslims were either Gujurati or Sayyed origins. Sayyeds or Persians still hold the majority Land in Pakistan 🇵🇰 while Gujuratis are the big business tycoons.
That was the reason for the creation of Pakistan.
Add Nawabs and Ashraf of UP Bihar......
Sarddars of Balochistan, Waderas of Sindh , Chaudharys of Punjab are ruling Pakistan since its creation
@@girishdubey724 They were of Persian origins.
@@asadjalal2558 Sindhi Wadeeras are Sayyeds
Baluch Feudals were powered by Nader Shah from Iran since Baluchs are Persians
Chaudhary clans like Sethi and Khans married with Sayyeds of Punjab to remain in power majority of Chaudhary Hindus migrated to India.
Try ready anything anything ok
Great job 👌
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_want. 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
Bhot aala sir, esi videos bnaty rhen
Thank you so much Sir 😢
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?
Brilliant analysis and well researched.
@taimoor_urdu did you discussed this topic with engineer mirza?
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
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❤
In which book maudoodi said this kindly update that
مولانا کی بات ٹھیک ہے
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"
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".
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
Book name please
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 .
Maududi has great polemical writing skills
Aisi writing skills ko Gaand mein lena hai jis ke pichee facsist aur exclusive ideology ho
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.
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
Yes because professor Saab works for Syed Maratib Ali :) another Persian Nawab cum Billionaire:)
Dr Ishtiaq is like Hoodboy , their hate for religion shows in their interviews and writings .
One such chap recently passed away .
Great Mawlana saab, you were way ahead of your time.
📍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 🙂
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.
More power to u❤
Sir book reference please
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 ۔۔
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 ...
Minitey of education ko bhi pharhaye ta k syllabus darust kia ja ske...
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
What difference does it make now. Pakistan is reality. Just run it whichever way you want with civilised relationship with your neighbors.
🌟 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 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
👍👍
in 1946,there was slogan in Pakistan 'Pakistan ka matlab kya La ilah il Allah,After 2014 there is slogan in India Hindustan ka matlab kya Jai shri Ram
📌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"
Still India is a secular country whereas Pakistan zindabad is Pakistan SE zindabhag
North India is not all of India. Northern India may seem like Pakistan Just two different twisted side of the same coin. But unlike Pakistan where liberals failed to overpower radicals, in india liberals either overpower radicals or remain equal to them in terms of power. So India will always be a secular country and it's the only South Asian country without a state religion. India is the only non muslim majority country in the world which had four former muslim president and two former muslim vice presidents. And southern part of india has always been liberal and progressive peoples. I say as a indian Christian that India's constitution guarantees rights to each and every civilians. It doesn't matter what Radical says. And I would rather say today's right wing within India give the argument that muslims are not loyal for the nation by citing the India's partition where indian muslims demanded partition of India to create a nation in the name of Islam but every other communities was against of the partition. So technically today's indian muslim are seen with suspicion by India's Radical far right wing because of the partition. And Jinnah is solely responsible not just for demeaning muslim community but also splitting indian muslims into three different nationalities. Even deobandi said that partition of India will actually weaken the muslim community politically as well as financially. India's partition actually united all non muslims within India and splitted muslims through out the indian subcontinent. I literally don't see partition helped muslims in anyway
@@What_do_you_want. 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.
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.
❤❤❤
He was part of the parliament which was jumhuriyat
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_want. 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.
Tehalka khaiz, comrade sir
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.
Well analyize
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?
thought provoking
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
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
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"
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?
Marx would never misquote Martin Luther. Intellectual honesty is rare in Pakistan
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
Ut Maududi came to Pakistan after its inception and joined politics. Why?
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.
No reference of any book of syyed Abu aala modudi
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.
If Democracy was so wrong why Mododi made Jamat e Islami ?
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
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
Shias ( Twelve’s, Ismailis , Bohras ) don’t consider Sahaba as good people so you can’t make an Islamic state in Pakistan.
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_want.That's not possible today Muslim are illiterate 😂
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
this was so good....he gave jamaatis a hiding!
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.
Anti India?
Thank you. It was our honour.
@@Taimur_Laal thank you sir
@@ChefbyMistake 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 .
@@mahadeepsingh4035 Politics in SAsia is based on Identity not logic.
💯 % 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.
جو بھی بننا ہے بس کچھ بن جائے پاکستان ہماری بلا سے سیکولر بنے یا اسلامی۔ اسلامی سے مراد اگر ملائیت ہے تو ہماری توبہ ہمیں نہیں چاہیے انکا اسلام
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,.
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
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.
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.....
میں تیس سال کا ھوں لکین میں نے مولانا کی بات آج سنی ہے میں مولانا کی بات سے اتفاق کرتا ھوں
کیا مودودی صاحب اور صنعتی انقلاب کی کے زمانے میں پوپ کے موقف میں کوئی فرق نظر آتا ہے؟
مولانا مودودی نے صحیح فرمایا پاکستان بننے کے بعد پاکستان کے ساتھ جو کچھ ھوا وہ آپ کے سامنے ھے
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.
Brilliant analysis 😉😉😉
😭😭😭...
Agar Quaid RA aaaj zinda hotay to bohot pachtaaatay k hy ye kiaaa hogiaaa may to Pakistaaan bananaaa chahta tha magar ye to chorooon dakowooon qatelooon aor zamir faroshooon kaliye falaaahy markaz ban giaaa ???
Molana Ubaid Ullaaah Sindhy RA 1939 may 20 sal ky jala watny k bad wapas aaaye to bohot khafa rahay lagay, Baity na kahaaa ab to Pakistaaan bun raha hay angraiz ja raha hay ab kia pareshaaany hay to aaap nay jawaaab dia k jin ko chorh kar ja rahay to awaaam yahy kahaingay k insay to angraiz acha thaaa ???
Isliye barai meherbaaany Modooody saaab par zyada noqta cheny karnaiky bilkol zarorat nahy ???
المضتصر۔::
پاکستان کا مسلہ کیا؟۔
لا الہ اللہ ۔۔😂😂😂
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۔
پاکستان کا تصور مسلم اقلیت کے حقوق کا تحفظ تھا کیونکہ ہندو اکثرت ذات بات کی درجہ بندی پر یقین رکھتی تھی اور مسلماںون کو اپنی پانچ ذاتون سے بھی کمتر دلیت سمجہتی تھی ان حالات مین مودودی نے اسلام نے نام پر پاکستان کی مخالفت کی۔
مولانا کا کہنا یہ تھا کے جو لوگ پاکستان تو بنا لیںگے لیکن اسلامی ملک نہں بنا سکیںگے کیوں کہ اسلام سے بالکل نہ واقف تھے بعد کے حالات سے ان کی باتیں سچ ثابت ہو ءں.
One thing that Jinnah was not pro Islamic but a true democrat and a statesman is very true.
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۔
Molana moududi theek thy...💔
💯
@@What_do_you_want. 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"
you sound like Chahat Fateh Ali khan in between especially listen to the way he pronounces Balkey"
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. ?
Modudi was spot on 80 years ago
Please explain
Absolutely. Maududi was right. Pakistan was not meant to be an Islamic state.
@@Taimur_Laal thanks
@@Taimur_Laal
Yes. Jinnah was a communist.
@@Taimur_Laal
Maudoodi didn't say this in any of his books which you are quoting here. He only highlighted and criticized the hypocritic nature of League's leaders becuz their lifestyle contradicted their public statements but as far as public's demand or dream was concerned, their motivation was to create a true islamic State as of State of Madeenah...Which matters is /was the public demand NOT their leadership's hypocrisy!
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.
Molana Maududi RA is greatest the scholar of our time
The USA constitution specifically separates religion and politics
because their union has always caused turmoil and instability in society.
Sir which is your reference book?
It is mentioned in the video.
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_want. 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.
Kuch kuch Samjh aa rahi ha
Pehlay aap ne Kuch videos ma Modudi ko Aik Acha Scholar Sabit kernay ki koshish(Iss baat pe heraangi ka Izhar ker k K log unhay Bura kehtaY hain)
Or Abb ye Video
Psycologically acha jaa rahay hain
exactly
Democracy duniya kay kitnay mulsim countries mai hai is extrimist mula ko kufar kay fatway lganay aur nafret philanay per is ki garift zaror ho gi inshallah
@@awaisahmed8095Muslim countries ma tu Prostitution, hijjab ban bi hai tu kiya ab wo bi islam ka part ban gai ga. Naqis ul Aqal thora dimag ka istamal karo🤦
We could have read the manuscript. What is your contribution?
Putting it together, making the video.
پھر مولانا مودودی کو قائد اعظم نے قیام پاکستان کے بعد ریڈیو پاکستان پر کیوں لیکچر دینے کا بولا گیا تھا؟
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.
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
خدا کے بندے پاکستان کے لئے جو قربانیاں دی گئیں کیا وہ سیکولر ازم کے لئے تھیں ہر گز نہیں