Monday, September 23, 2013

War Crimes Trial Exposed-4(b)- Fake Nannu interview by Jammaty Lobbyist Toby Cadman

Prophet (S) was a forgetful person :Telling Lies Mandatory- Jamaat Founder Abul A'la Moududi

We will have to be brief about Maududi since he has written volumes upon volumes of nonsense. But a few glimpses should sufficiently demonstrate how the Moududi is playing god to his fans even after his death. His Name: Before presenting some glimpses of the famous Mullah Maududi’s wisdom and knowledge, let us reflect on his full name and title, Maulana Syed Abul A’la Maududi. The name translates as: “Our Master, Owner, the Father of the Most Glorious, Maududi”. It is strange that the man claiming to be a great Islamic scholar lived 76 odd years with this name. Does it need much insight to see that the very name is shrieking outright divinity and Shirk? According to the Quran, Maulana (our Master) is none but Allah (9:51). And, obviously, Al-A’la (the Most Glorious) can be none but God. Note: In this chapter, as an example, 1:31 will mean Vol 1 page 31. His Impact: The treacherous, imbecile Maududi, through his long, confused, confusing and inconclusive writings, has frozen the minds of millions of simple Muslims for the last half century making sure that the Ummah remains stuck in the spider-web of the manmade, counterfeit, Hadithi, Number Two Islam (N2I). The forsakers of the Quran got exactly what they deserved. A significant factor behind his popularity has been the generous royal Saudi support as in the case of the Egyptian Mullah-in-Chief, Syed Qutb in the 1950s. Maududi’s ‘Brilliance’: Let us examine some brilliance of Maududi through his famous Six Volume Tafseer, Tafhimul Quran (Urdu), by Idara Tarjumanul Quran, Lahore, November, 1982. We will turn to his other writings from time to time, with due reference given. The Captive Women: 1:340 means Vol 1 Pg 340. The summary and conclusion of his discussion on war captives, Vol 1 Pg 340: Even today, the government must distribute the women war captives among Muslim soldiers and the soldiers should “use” them. This rule will apply to women regardless of whether they belong to the People of the Book, or any other religion. How would the Mullahs feel if Muslims, getting thrashed all around the world today, had their women treated by the ‘infidels’ in this abominable fashion? The Quran, verse 47:4 states that the captives of war must be freed either for ransom (e.g. exchange of POWs) or as an act of kindness as soon as the battle ends. There is no third option. When an eminent scholar differed with him and showed how the Quran has closed the door of slavery forever, Maududi responded, “The error of this man lies in that he relies on the Quran to form his opinion.” (Tafhimat 2:292) Slavery: Maududi further alleges that: v A slave owner can sell his slave whenever and to whomever he pleases. v The act of kindness means that the captives be made slaves and given into the ownership of (Muslim) individuals. v A bondwoman given to any man by the rulers is as legal and binding a process as Nikah (marriage). v A captive of war will remain a slave even if he or she embraces Islam. v If a slave tries to escape or create mischief, the master has the right to kill him/her. v While the Shari’ah (religious law made up by Mullahs) has limited the number of wives to four, it places NO LIMIT to the number of concubines a man can possess. He can have sexual relations with them freely. There is no reason for any man to feel bad about having sex with these (captured) concubines. (Tafhimul Quran 1:340 onwards, and 5:14 onwards) Beware! Dear reader, whenever you encounter statements like “Islam says this,” or “Shari’ah states that,” know that it is almost invariably the Mullah’s own wishful thinking rather than the Word of God. The Prophet’s Broken Teeth: In Tafhimul Quran 5:14 and Tarjaman-ul-Quran 1975 Pg 93, Maududi, on the spurious authority of Ibn Hisham, happily relates that the idolater Sohail bin ‘Umro was captured at the Battle of Badr. Some companions wanted to break his teeth, for he was a fiery orator against Islam. The Prophet admonished, “No! If I break his teeth, Allah will break my teeth even though I am a Prophet.” Sohail was left alone, but even then, after one year, at the Battle of Uhud, the exalted Prophet’s teeth were broken. In the Quran, Allah promises to protect the Prophet (S) from people (5:67). What sinister point is Maududi trying to make? Did the Prophet (S) really lose his teeth in the Battle of Uhud? He lived nine more years after that battle. I have not come across a single narrative suggesting any missing teeth on the person of the exalted Prophet. Child Molestation: It is not only permissible to give in marriage the girls who have not had their menstrual periods yet. Rather, it is also permissible for the husbands to have sexual intercourse with them. Now it is obvious that something that has been allowed by the Quran, no Muslim has the right to declare it forbidden. (Mullah Maududi, Tafhimul Quran 5:571). Did he marry ‘off’ his daughters or nieces at age 6 or 9? The Mullahs are in the habit of opposing the Quran since the Glorious Book hurts their evil desires. The big question arises here, “Does the Quran permit this nonsense?” Here is the answer: The Marriageable Age: According to the Mullahs, the beginning of the menstrual cycles in a girl and nocturnal emissions in a boy are firm indicators of their age of marriage. To the unfortunate Mullah, everything revolves around sex. A Hadith from Bukhari atrociously tells us that a girl can have Nikah (the marital contract) at 6 and the marriage can be consummated at age 9 since the exalted Prophet did that with Hazrat Ayesha! Is there any wonder that the West call him a child-molester? Why don't then the Sunnah-peddlers "marry off" their daughters at 6 and 9? Many countries set an arbitrary 16 years for the girl and 18 years for the boy. The Divine Wisdom enshrined in the Quran makes things so sensible. It sets up three rational criteria: 1 - Sufficient maturity to grant consent. (4:21) 2 - Ability to sign a legal contract. (4:19) 3 - Competence to take care of one's own finances. (4:21) If Someone Dies of Hunger: If someone dies of hunger, he dies because Allah had written for him to die of hunger. (Tarjumanul Quran, Jan. 1966). Should the government and the community be so easily absolved of their fundamental duty? The Prophet (S) is reported to have said in a well-known Hadith, “If a single person sleeps hungry in a community, Allah removes His protection from that people.” Also, Hazrat Umar is reported to have said, “If a dog were to die of hunger by the Euphrates, I am afraid Umar will be held responsible.” How to Establish a Solid Islamic State: Maududi shows a brilliant way to establish a solid Islamic state: Send notice to the population that they must announce within one year whether they should be considered Muslims or non-Muslims. After that one year, all children born to Muslims will be considered Muslims. All those who register as Muslims will be forced to observe the worships and rituals of Islam, five prayers a day, Friday prayers, 2.5 percent charity well-documented, fasting in the month of Ramadhan, Pilgrimage to Makkah for the affluent, sacrificing a sheep or goat at least once a year etc. Then whoever falls short of these obligations of Islam, will be beheaded. (Murtad Ki Saza, Punishment of the Apostate, August 1953, Pg 76). Please note that many Mullahs considered Maududi a heretic apostate. He might have been the first to be put to sword. If this brilliant concept of Maududi is implemented, all the Muslim population of that ‘solid’ Islamic state will walk around without heads on their shoulders. The Prophet Was Forgetful: The Prophet came to lead prayers. People lined up. He then started to leave, realizing that he was “junbb” (he had not done the post-coital wash). He left the standing lines and went to take a bath. Then he came back with water trickling. (Tarjumanul Quran, Oct 1956). Maududi presents this insult on the authority of Bukhari reminding the reader that Bukhari also states that it is Satan who causes men to forget during Salaat. The Noble Ones Lived In Glass Houses: Maududi and other “experts” seem anxious to prove that the Prophet (S) was a forgetful person and that he and his companions walked around junbb. Did the exalted Prophet and his companions live in glass houses and had no sense of privacy? Were they so obsessed with sex? Or is it our Mullahs who are so obsessed? There are ample traditions filled with references to sex, ways of making love, lust, post-coital bath, menstruation, divorce, suckling, slaves, concubines, houris, etc with shameless detail. The grand Vision and the Supreme Ideology of Islam remain elusive to these small minds. The Prophet (S) and his companions were busy creating the noblest revolution in human history and they had no time for this kind of nonsense. Copies of the Quran Were Burned: Hazrat Uthman burned six copies of the Quran which were all in different tongues. Allah and Rasul had not ordered him to do this. (Syed Maududi, Tarjumanul Quran 1975 Pg 39). Did Maududi witness this? Does the Quran state that it has been revealed in different ways, tongues or dialects? Is There Life In The Grave? The belief of life in the grave is dangerous and that of no life is also dangerous. (Maududi, Tarjumanul Quran, Dec. 1959). The all knowing Mullah should have checked with the Quran to find the answer. Dead means dead. It is the human nafs, or self that lives on, not the material body. And according to the Quran, the dead do not return to this world. (23:100, 32:12). Death is a prolonged state of sleep until the Day of Resurrection, according to the Quran as shown below. 36:51 And when the Trumpet is blown, out of their disintegrated states to their Lord they will run. 36:52 They will say, “Oh, woe to us! Who has awakened us from our beds of sleep? ---.” Doom of the Grave – Without Judgment: These two verses strongly dismiss the clergy-peddled false concept of punishment in the grave. Will God punish the dead before the Day of Resurrection and before Judgment? Many kinds of suffering (‘Azaab) are named in the Quran but ‘Azaabil Qabr (Doom of the Grave) is not mentioned even once. But Mullah Maududi writes in his Tarjaman-ul-Quran Dec. 1959: Most people will suffer the doom of the grave until the Day of Resurrection, some of them because they used to eat in bed. Maududi’s Religious Freedom: In an Islamic country, non-Muslims will have full rights to spread their belief, but we will not allow any Muslim to change his or her religion. (Tarjumanul Quran, Dec.1959 Pg 269). The Mullah would behead the ‘apostate’. Can you see the blatant and silly contradiction here? According to the Quran, there is no compulsion in religion. (2:256) Ah! The ‘Infidel’ Kids: Children of non-Muslims will go to Paradise and will be made slaves of the owners of Paradise. (Ref same, Pg 134). The Mullah probably lived under the wishful thinking that he would be the owner of Paradise! How about slavery, even in Paradise? Maududi never thought that his own children could be eternal slaves. The daughters of non-Muslims who died young will be made hoors of Paradise. (Asia, Lahore, June 14, 1969). And how will they be treated? According to Maududi, the men of Paradise will have their young, full-breasted houris indoors in their palaces. And the little infidel 'houri girls', eternally staying little, will live in beautiful outdoor tents. Men of Paradise will have sex with them whenever they go about strolling in the evenings. Ah, the poor ‘infidel’ kids! Telling Lies May Be Mandatory: Truth is one of the most important principles of Islam and lying is one of the greatest sins. But in real life, needs arise when telling lies is not only allowed, rather it becomes mandatory. (Tarjumanul Quran, May 1958 Pg 54) Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah) is permissible under certain circumstances. (Tarjumanul Quran, August 1955). Maududi puts forward an example: If a man and woman get stranded on an island, as soon as they procure food, they should go ahead and indulge in sex regardless of their marital status. Calling Upon The Dead Saints: In response to a question concerning praying at gravesites to the dead saints, Maududi maintains, “It is possible that you may be calling, but they may not be listening. It is also possible that they may be able to listen, but their soul might not be there and you may be calling nobody. Also, it may be that they might be having sex or praying to their Lord and you may tease them in your selfishness.” (Ref same, Pg 261). It is possible that Maududi had lost his mind. It is also possible that he has no idea of what he is talking about. See Quran 36:51-52 above. Imam Abu Hanifa’s Fiqh has converted Islam into a frozen Hindu Shastra. (Tarjumanul Quran 1:136). [This one makes sense. SA] About Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal: In reply to a question regarding Sir Allama Iqbal’s critical view of questionable traditions, Maududi sarcastically states, “In the presence of other scholars, there is no need to know his views.” (Reference same, Pg 170). Allama Iqbal was a scholar par excellence and one of the greatest exponents of the Quran through his world-renowned poetry. Any scholarly work in Urdu ignoring the great Allama speaks of the mental destitution of the writer. Also, he was a benefactor of Maududi, providing the jobless Mullah with an opportunity to work at Pathankot. Yet, we do not find a single reference to his sublime thoughts or top class poetry in Maududi’s voluminous writings. v The more ancient the Mullah, the more authoritative he becomes. A dead Mullah also becomes more revered and authoritative. The Quran warns against blind following of ancestors and equates it with disbelief. (5:104 and many other verses). Pre-emptive Divorce: The Mullah-in-Chief of the 20th century blindly follows the ancient ‘authorities’, e.g. Hanafi jurists: If a man utters “divorce” three times even before marriage, the woman he weds will be instantly divorced. (Reference same, Pg 188). How’s that? Dear reader, these were just a few glimpses of the brilliance of Maududi. Only space limits us from presenting quite a few more gems. Let us finish with one more: ADULT MALE SUCKLING ON FEMALE BREASTS: This is a horrible Hadithi joke. Bukhari writes that Hazrat Ayesha’s goat had eaten up the date-leaf upon which were written two Quranic verses. This is supposed to have happened when there was chaos at home because of the demise of the Prophet (S). One of those verses was about stoning the ‘Sheikh and Sheikhah’, a mature or married man and woman, committing adultery. The other verse was about the grown-up men suckling on a young woman. The goat-eaten, non-existent, “Ten Sucklings Verse” (the so-called Ayah Ridha'at) is a horrible joke. The 'Imams' of Hadith report that Hazrat Ayesha and Hazrat Maimoona used to advise women of an 'easy' way to admit unrelated men into their privacy. Let any grown up unrelated man suckle on the woman's breasts on ten different occasions and lo and behold! He becomes a Mahram (one who is a family member and can intrude into their privacy from then on). (Hadith 1934 Ibn Majah, 30:12 Malik’s Muwatta about the ‘criminal’ goat). About foster mothers, the Quran clearly states: 4:23 The following women are prohibited for you in marriage: …… your foster-mothers who have ever nursed you, foster-sisters …… The verse is obviously talking of babies and their foster mothers. Children become related to one another in a solemn bond of brotherhood or sisterhood by nursing from a common woman. The woman attains the honor of becoming their mother. According to Maududi, Imam Hanbal says that suckling on a woman on three occasions will confer the bond of suckling relationship on a child. But Imam Shafi’i differs saying that it has to be five times. However, to an aesthetically sound mind the principle is quite clear. But our jurists and Mullahs get entangled in silly disputes. On Pg 338 Vol 1 of his Tafhim, Mullah Maududi writes that although the jurists differ on the age of suckling, even if a grown up man suckles on a woman, he will enter into the bond of suckling! But the foolishness does not end here. Maududi asserts in Tarjumanul Quran that the amount of milk actually swallowed is of terrible importance. How much milk? Maududi frantically seeks help from Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and comes up with a solution. Well, the amount is that which will be enough to break the fast of a fasting person. However, the three Mullahs fail to elaborate how much milk will be sufficient to break a fast. The Mullahs have neither the sense, nor the courage to reject A hadith that insult human intelligence, such as this one of a grown up man suckling on a strange woman! Would the Mullahs advise this nonsense to their wives, sisters and daughters? Who knows if Maududi did that? Ayatullah As-Syed Murtaza Hussain Nasir Ferozabadi, the compiler of “Life Events of Seven Sahaba” happily accepts the great insult but shows his ‘sensitivity’ by expressing his dismay on the reported judgment of Hazrat Ayesha and Hanbal for neglecting an important issue: “The man would have to handle the female breasts.” Maududi is least concerned about it. Oh, another question. What if a woman has no milk? "Imam" Abu Yousuf said: Sucking at BOTH the dry breasts of a woman will fulfill the Shari'ah law, provided it is done on ten different occasions. (Gharaib fil Tahqiq-il-Mazahib Wa Tafhimul Masaail, Vol 2 Pg 137). Dear reader, our Imams and Mullahs are in the habit of answering questions that were never asked! In fact, they invent hypothetical situations. Shabbir Ahmed, M.D.

Friday, August 2, 2013

‘Jamaat anti-democracy, may be banned’

“Jamaat-e-Islami, as an organisation, is not consistent with democracy. They were against the country’s liberation war and Bengali nationalism. They were against democracy since their birth. So they can be banned.” Salim Ullah Khan came up with the observation on a talk show moderated by Morshedul Islam on a private TV channel, Somoy, on Thursday 1st August. Constitutional expert Dr Shahdeen Malik and Executive president of Ekattorer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee Shahriar Kabir also took part in the talk show. Salim Ullah said, “There are some grounds to ban Jamaat. One of them is that they opposed the liberation war in 1971. Still, they are not repentant for their role. They didn’t make an apology to the nation either. So a ban can be imposed on them. But some say that this has been done out of enmity. The other reason is that they didn’t accept the ideals of Bangladesh; though on various occasions, they claimed that they believe in democracy. Democracy is the foundation of the country.” Referring to the history of establishing Jamaat, Salim Ullah said, “We have to see whether Jamaat abide by the rules set by democracy. Maulana Moududi established Jamaat in 1948 for two reasons. One was to oppose Jamiat-ul Olamaye Hind which was then participating in joint movements with Indian Congress, as it believed in Indian Nationalism. Another reason is, at that time, many Indian Muslims termed the politics of Muslim League communal. Muslim League wanted separate independent and sovereign states for Indian Muslims in the provinces where Muslims dominate in number.” He said, “It can be called as an incorrect version of region-based nationalism. They wanted to explain this place as religion-based region. Maulana Moududi even rejected that notion also. Today, no one remembers that Maulana Moududi opposed the creation of Pakistan. His main demand was that Pakistan must be a religion-based state and Islamic constitution must be introduced.” He also said, “Anti-Kadiani movement started in 1953 or 54. Moududi was sentenced to death at that time. He was released after two years of imprisonment. Various tactics were applied to get him released. He was the president of Jamaat-e-Islam till 1992. Jamaat’s Bangladeshi version is the same like the Pakistani one which carried out violence and attacks during the period from 1948 to the present times. Salim Ullah also said, “If a party considers itself a minority and think that a party is needed to promote its religion, then banning it would go against the constitution. But if any religion-based party thinks that their religion is better than others’ religion, then secularism does not exist. Banning Jamaat is a long-standing demand.”

Isolated and cornered: Syed Bashir

The High Court’s order cancelling the registration of the Jamaat-e-Islami has left the party with not many options. Specially if the Supreme Court turns down its appeal against the High Court order. The Jamaat will also have to get an immediate stay order to stop the Election Commission from implementing the High Court verdict — or else the Jamaat stands effectively debarred from contesting all elections including the one coming up for the parliament later this year or early next. At its hour of peril, the Jamaat actually finds itself totally isolated — bereft of friends and left to face its usual foes. Pakistan, to maintain whose unity the Jamaat fought and earned its share of notoriety by perpetrating horrible atrocities against its own people, has washed its hands off the Islamist party. Its foreign office has said: “Jamaat and what happens to it in Bangladesh is the internal matter of Bangladesh”. That in a way is a subtle admission of the atrocities that were committed in 1971 Liberation War, which the current Pakistani government is unwilling to get stained with. So leaving Jamaat to its fate works for Mian Nawaz Sharif perfectly. He is himself uncomfortable with the Pakistan army which brought down his government in 1999 and would not like to get entangled with 1971 war crimes because that is bad publicity for Pakistan, when it seeks to project itself as a key ally of the West in the war against terror. Sharif may still not consider putting out a public apology to Bangladesh for the horrendous atrocities of 1971 because that may upset the army once again which he cannot afford. But why stand up for Jamaat! Not the least because it is hardly popular in Bangladesh and never stands a chance of coming to power on its own. Why add to Pakistan’s own unpopularity, which is expectedly profound in Bangladesh by standing up for Jamaat! Sharif is smart enough to see through that. Now to Jamaat’s domestic allies. BNP and its top leaders may cry foul of Bangladesh’s justice system as being undermined by the ruling Awami League — whipping that up serves its campaign against the ruling alliance. But the BNP has no great reason to come out in support of Jamaat and defend its case for registration. Since Bangladesh returned to democracy from military rule in 1991, the BNP has needed the Jamaat to win elections because of the decisive vote bank the Jamaat enjoyed. But the Jamaat’s controversial wartime baggage has been becoming a huge liability for the BNP as it jockeys for power in a country which has upturned ruling governments every term since 1991. What happens if the Jamaat fails to contest if its registration is not restored? Will a Jamaat voter vote Awami League! Perhaps never. The Jamaat voter, like all hardline Islamists in Bangladesh, will have no choice but to vote for BNP in an electoral contest. So the BNP is not expected to make much noise on the Jamaat losing its registration except for the general critique of the ‘justice system under a government using it’ — that would expectedly be one of the many issues the BNP would raise in its litany of complaints against the ruling party. But much like having to support ‘on principle’ the war crimes trial (though calling it a farce to undermine the government), the BNP is not expected to go to town in a big way on the Jamaat losing its registration. In private, many BNP leaders, specially the freedom fighters in their ranks, are happy this has happened. The BNP is now free to fight the Awami League on its own terms, without having to carry a controversial ally who has failed to find a place in the heart of the nation. Quite literally. What about other Islamist groups who would normally be seen as blood brothers of Jamaat! Many of them including the Hifazat-e-Islam would love to see what has happened, because it frees the limited political space for hardline Islamist politics that Jamaat represented. With the Jamaat out of the scene, if that happens, the space for hardline political Islam is left vacant for others to jump in and capitalise on. In fact, some of these groups like the Hifazat may actually cash in on the Jamaat’s desire to keep that brand of politics alive in Bangladesh for obvious reasons by getting access to its considerable financial resources – at least until these groups have been able to carve out a space for themselves. In fact, the war crimes trials have exposed Jamaat to the new generation, Bangladesh’s GenNext. The media coverage of the trials have brought to this generation the sordid history of one of the most brutal repression campaign that gave birth to Bangladesh. A hard earned freedom any proud Bangladeshi will like to defend with every drop of his blood. Jamaat’s role in that war — being on the wrong side of history — will never enable it to find a place, as they say, in the heart of the nation. Even those who want to pursue hardline Islamist politics would like to do so without the 1971 baggage of Jamaat. That includes the younger generation of Jamaat leaders who want a party — perhaps a new one — which does not carry the foul odour of 1971 war crimes with them. And for the Awami League and its allies, the de-registration of Jamaat gives them a chance to whip up secular nationalist passions that had subsided after the Shahbagh platform was forcibly packed off by the government. Because revival of these passions seems to be the only way to beat the anti-incumbency trends that became evident in the five recent city corporation polls. So Jamaat now finds itself on the floor, alone and friendless. Will that force the party to go underground and become a terror group, as many in the US and other western intelligence have long feared? That’s a question only time can answer. —————————————– Syed Bashir is a