THUS SPAKE ANWAR SHAIKH
|The following write-up by the intellectual
giant, Anwar Shaikh, has been reproduced from the INDIA POST WEEKLY, 17127
Pioneer Blvd # E, Artesia, CA 90701 of March 13, 1998. The editorial staff
of the SWORD OF TRUTH think that the points raised by Mr. Shaikh on
ISLAMIC DOCTRINE of DIVIDE and RULE would be quite appropriate for our
readers, most of whom are non-Mohammedans and therefore comparatively
ignorant of the contents of the Koran. In this day and age, this is a
great inadequacy and we need to inform our readers about what is in the
book that motivated even born Mohammedans like Rushdie to call it THE
SATANIC VERSES? That is a legitimate inquiry and if so who can enlighten
us better than a seer like Anwar Shaikh? - Publisher.
The facts throughout Islamic history demonstrate
that Muslims are the special people of Allah who has bestowed this distinction
on them for hating, hounding and hanging the non-Muslims. The Koran clearly
states (in I.VIII, The Disputer: 20) that the Muslims are Allah's Party and the
non-Muslims are Satan's Party. It is for this reason that the Koran has
1. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (II, The Cow: 90)
2. The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the
ungrateful who will not believe. (VIII, Spoils of War: 55)
3. Unbelievers are the enemies of Allah and they will
roast in hell. (Fusilat: 19)
4. Oh ye who believe! The non-Muslims are unclean. (IX,
5. Oh ye who believe! Fight the disbelievers...and let
them find harshness in you. (IX, Repentance: 125)
6. Oh believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers
as your friends, they are evil-doers. (IX, Repentance: 20)
7. Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that
they surrender and pay tribute. (IX, Repentance: 29)
8. Muslims are hard against unbelievers, merciful to
one another. (XL VIII, Victory: 25)
These references from the Koran explode the Gandhian
myth that Raheem (Allah) and Ram are one. In fact, Allah has permanently divided
mankind into two groups: the Muslims are his party and the non-Muslims are
Satan's party. Since Allah hates non-Muslims and wants their destruction, a true
Muslim must follow this Divine guideline. Thus, the only relationship between a
Muslim and a non-Muslim is that of ill-will, hatred and animosity. This is the
basis of the Islamic Two-Nation theory, which means that the Muslims and Hindus
cannot live together.
From the above discussion, it is clear that Islam, by
its very nature, seeks to brainwash its adherents with a view to infesting them
with the worst kind of fanaticism, which recognizes no moral and cultural
bounds. If these were not true, the Koran could not tell the believers to treat
their own parents as enemies, if they did not believe in Islam. To my mind,
one's parents are the most adorable people.
Preaching insouciance, insolence and ingratitude toward
one's own parents, disqualifies Islam as a Divine religion, and turns it into
the biggest tool of Divide and Rule.
The British have been described as the master of the
Divide-and--Rule policy, but Islam uses this weapon so effectively that the
British look like toddlers in this field. The Divide-and-Rule doctrine of Islam
is the practical exposition of its Two-Nation theory. It is not only India that
has suffered the crushing effects of this Islamic approach to humanity.
Yugoslavia, Russia and China are also experiencing its bite and the United
States of America shall not escape its due share of devastation when the Black
Muslim Movement gathers strength. It is owing to the Islamic ideology of hatred
that the Muslim cannot live with their non-Muslim countrymen and want to
partition their own motherlands to please the Prophet Muhammad in return for the
paradise swarming with charming young virgins, beautiful boys, superb wines and
choice foods. What a reward for betraying one's motherland! Such a sordid action
is, surely punishable by hell. This is the result of Islamic brainwashing which
makes the bitter taste sweet, projects the fool as wise and presents the blind
as the visionary.
This Divide-and-Rule attitude of Islam, makes the
non-Arab Muslims think of themselves as One Muslim Nation; it is why, they adore
Arabia, the land of the Prophet Muhammad, and deplore their own motherlands.
What is even more stunning is, they do so with a sense of pride and elation. In
fact, "Islamic nationhood" is the biggest myth that man ever invented.
Look at Pakistan, which was carved out of India on the
basis of Two-Nation theory. It soon orbit into two independent states and the
magic of Islamic nationhood could do nothing except causing the death of three
million innocent people. Despite this most terrible blood-bath, both Pakistanis
and Bangladeshis still believe in Islamic nationhood. This is a fine example of
The Islamic attitude of Divide-and-Rule is, of course,
a very subtle attempt to make the non-Arab Muslims hate their own motherland to
love Arabia. So successful has been this Koranic ploy that, whereas other
conquerors had to use fire and sword for securing submission of foreigners, the
Prophet Muhammad turned the non-Arab Muslims into moths, which cremate
themselves on the flame of Arab hegemony quite willingly.
How has it been brought about? It ought to borne in
mind that in Islam, Allah is only a figurehead, and the real majesty is
associated with Muhammad.
This is not a blasphemous statement because it is
vouched by the Koran. In every religion, it is man who worships God, but in
Islam, it is Allah, who along with his angels, worships Muhammad by praying
peace to him (XXXIII, The Confederates :55)!
This is the reason that the Prophet shall share the
Divine Throne of Justice, sitting on the right hand side of Allah, and it is his
word which will decide whether a person goes to heaven or hell. As stated
already, it is only the followers of Muhammad, who can enter paradise, and it
matters not even if they were murderers, rapists, thieves, traitors,
blackmailers, cheats, twisters, and so on.
Qualification for entering paradise is not the virtuous
conduct but treating Muhammad as the Perfect Model of behaviour (XXXIII, The
Confederates: 20) and following him blindly in all walks of life. Therefore, the
true believer is the one, who not only eats and drinks as did the Prophet, but
also thinks, talks and walks like him; even in sartorial tastes and tonsorial
designs, a follower of Islam must look a copy of Muhammad.
Here lies the crux: the Prophet Muhammad was an Arab
therefore, he naturally followed the Arab cultural traditions. Thus following
him in all details of life means practicing the Arab cultural traditions. It is
nothing but submitting to the Arab cultural hegemony and neglecting one's own
national culture. This is what makes Islam, the Arab National Movement and
destroys its religious veneer.
|We, of the Sword of Truth, are pleased to
present Anwar Shaikh's musings on Qaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah Alehe
Rahmat, the Father of Pakistan. This article had appeared in the INDIA
POST WEEKLY of Artesia, CA in its April 3, 1998 issue. The short write-up
is an extract from the author's recent publication titled The Tale of
Two Gujarati Saints. The book is available from A. Ghosh (Publisher),
5740 W. Little York # 216, Houston, TX 77091 at $7.50 each, postage and
handling included. The book deals with both the fathers, Gandhi and Jinnah,
the father of India and the father of Pakistan, all at the same time and
it is a treat to go through the reasonings and comments of the Shaikh. - Publisher.
Jinnah: A Saint at the Expense of Innocent people
" Hazrat Q aid-i-Azam , Muhammad Ali Jinnah Alehe
Rahmat" is the title of the Gujarati Saint, who was born as Mohammed Ali
Jinnah in Karachi in December, 1876.
This description bestows a greater dignity on him than
that of a Muslim saint. It is an outcome of Hindu tradition, which makes
ancestor-Worship an integral part of Dharma, and clearly shows that the Muslims
of the Indian subcontinent share a common culture with the Hindus and are
racially the same people. Without the unity of background, Jinnah could not have
been treated by Pakistan as if he were one of the spiritual luminaries of Islam.
A title of the Prophet Muhammad is "Hadi-e-Azam" i.e., the great
guide. Jinnah's title: "The Qaid-i-Azam" means very much the same.
Again, the use of "Hazrat" as prefix and "Alehe Rahmat" as
suffix, further add to his devotional splendour.
He has been honoured as such for being the founder of
Pakistan. It is only the success that should be saluted; failure cannot be
applauded because it eliminates the difference between fortune and fiasco.
Such a great political hysteria was whipped up during
the second decade of the 20th century that the mutual Hindu-Muslim hatred
assumed inhuman proportions. Using Dr. Iqbal as a scapegoat, the Muslim League
led by Jinnah, claimed that the Hindus and the Muslims were two separate
nations; as they could not live together, India must be partitioned to create a
separate homeland for the Muslims. This was considered the panacea for all
Muslim ills, religious, economic and political. Should Jinnah be allowed the
saintly title that he has come to possess? This is an honest question, and can
be answered sincerely only if one can establish objectively that Pakistan has
solved the major problems of all the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. If it
has, then Jinnah was certainly one of the greatest saints that ever lived, but
if it has not, then his status must be reviewed in the light of the results that
the partition has produced.
To start w ith, let us weigh up the concept of Pakistan
itself. It meant that the Indian provinces (Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, NW
Frontier and Bengal) where the Muslims were in a majority, must be treated as
the Homeland of the Muslims, and separated from India as an independent state.
This was a crazy idea for several reasons.
1. There was a distance of about one thousand miles
between East and West Pakistan. It was impossible to reach Karachi from Dacca by
Land, Sea or Air without the consent of the Indian government, which was bound
to be hostile for the simple reason that Pakistan would serve as a symbol of
Muslim hatred against the Hindus. This being the truth, diplomatic relations
between the two states could not remain cordial, and they would exist only to
demolish each other. It also meant that their budgets would be dedicated to
national defense instead of public welfare resulting in poverty with its
concomitant vices such as bribery, nepotism, tyranny, injustice and
History shows that one can have a far-flung empire, but
it is impossible to think of a homeland whose parts lie a thousand miles away
intercepted by a long hostile territory. The leader, who thinks of such a plan
as the elixir of national ills, does not know the difference between mirth and
misery, fruition and fiasco, delight and disaster.
Yet, Jinnah insisted on the formation of Pakistan. His
followers have, no doubt, offered mitigating factors to support his soundness of
judgment, but this is an exercise in futility. The fact is that he did secure
Pakistan consisting of Eastern and Western wings, which in essence, is a proof
of political incompetence. The man, obviously, wanted to be a hero at the
expense of innocent people.
As I shall explain later, nationhood is not founded on
religion but blood ties, a common culture and homeland, yet he insisted that
religion was the cornerstone of Muslim nationhood.
If this were true, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt,
Iran, Afghanistan, etc. would have been one state.
As we know, it has never happened, and these countries
are as independent from one another as England is from France and China from
However, if Jinnah had some secret knowledge of history
or some special powers to mould the Muslims of Indian into a separate nation, he
should have spent his energies to this effect.
After all, the prophet Muhammad had devoted his life to
welding the various warring Arab tribes into one nation. Genghis Khan had also
spent considerable time in uniting the Mongolian hordes into one nation.
But Jinnah did nothing to forge one nation out of
Muslims scattered throughout India. Delivering occasional lectures from a high
pulpit, canopied by an unswerving loyalty to the British Crown, was totally
insufficient to accomplish the task. In a nutshell, he did not go through the
laborious rehearsal, which is absolutely essential before staging the play.
Either he did not realize or deliberately ignored the fact that the secret of
Muhammad's and Genghis Khan's success lay in the fact that their people were
already racially one nation, who had become divided into clans. Of course, the
Muslims of India were racially and culturally Indian, but Jinnah had undertaken
an entiely unnatural task of splitting it into two nations based on religion. It
has never happened in this world because religion is not the natural unit of
|This is the third presentation of the Thus
Spake Anwar Shaikh, series. Like the previous two issues, this article
too, has been taken from the INDIA POST WEEKLY of April 10, 1998. No
civilized state can survive without a water-tight legal system today.
People often wonder why is it that only in Islamic countries, the rule of
law does not seem to survive. Pakistan is a glaring example, Taliban
controlled Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria and Iran follow closely behind. In
the present article, Mr. Shaikh tells it like it is. In short, he is
saying that the so-called Islamic Law is no law at all, if we go by the
standards of the Universal Legal System - Publisher.
The force of Jinnah's argument for Pakistan was
emotional and exploitative. He used the religious appeal as a bait to bring the
Muslims into the political net. He played upon the religious susceptibilities of
people to make them believe that the Islamic state was the sure guarantor of
peace, prosperity and plenitude, but he never explained the complexity, nature
and purpose of the Islamic Law, the main vehicle of bringing about this Divine
Revolution. Being a lawyer, it was his foremost duty to do so. This was the only
way to make people realize what was required of them. The fact that he did not
do it makes him less than honourable.
One must bear in mind that Jinnah was not a practicing
Muslim, yet he advocated the establishment of an Islamic state. On the contrary,
the formidable Muslim divines such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Husain
Ahmad Madni, Sayyad Ata Ulla Shah Bukhari, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, and many
more, opposed the concept of Pakistan and the Two-Nation Theory.
There is no evidence whatever that an Islamic state has
ever existed according to the Koranic principles. Nor can it be proved that
Islam required establishment of a single state for all Muslims to share its
bounties, benefits and blessings. The Indian Muslims boast a good deal about the
"Islamic Welfare State" established by the Second Caliph, Umar the
Great. Yes, he did invent the system of giving social benefits to the Arab
children, but where did the money come from? The finances were raised by robbing
the newly converted Muslims of Egypt and Iran, whose children cried from hunger
and disease. There is no record, whatever, to show that the Egyptian and Iranian
children were given any stipends from the Arab funds; it was for Arab children
The truth is that the much vaunted Muslim Law falls far
short of the universally accepted legal standards. What is law?
The law is a set of enforceable principles, which seek
to establish rights and duties between person and person, an individual and
society, as well as people and the state. The following peculiarities give the
law its true distinction, deference and decency:
1. The law is never made for the benefit of one person,
an individual and society. It is enacted for a whole group of people.
2. The law is strictly neutral in its application that
is, it applies to the low and high and great and small with equal force.
Incredible it my seem but the truth is that the Islamic
Law has nothing to do with public good because it revolved round the convenience
of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Koran lays it down that a Muslim can
have no more than four wives at the same time, but this law did not apply to the
And any woman, Believer, if she gave herself to the
Prophet and if the Prophet desires to take her in marriage, for thee, apart from
the believers. (The Confederates, 33:45)
Also bear in mind the following Koranic Law, pertaining
"....marry such women as seem good to you, two,
three or four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only
Thus the clause of equity is the pivot of having more
than one wife. It is well-known that the Prophet could not maintain balance of
fairness among his wives. As the Koran witnesses, it led to a lot of acrimony in
the household. Instead of enforcing the clause of equity, Allah gave Muhammad
dispensation from it:
"You (Muhammad) can suspend any of your wives as
you will and receive any of them as you will: and whomsoever you desire of those
whom you have set aside, it is no sin for you." (The Confederates, 33:50)
In simple English, it means that the Prophet is not
bound by the Law of Equity, the basic condition of polygamy: he can treat his
wives as he thinks fit. Since it is Allah, who makes the law a play-thing for
Muhammad, one wonders if Allah and Muhammad are not the one and same person. It
certainly led me to this conclusion.
The law, which is exclusive to a person for serving his
convenience, or if it is flexible at will, it ceases to be the law. In this
context, I ought to remind the reader that the Prophet was at liberty to marry
the widow or divorcee of another person, but nobody was allowed to marry his
widow (or divorcee). All his wives were raised to the status of
Ummahaat-ul-Momineen (Mothers of the believers) so that nobody could marry them.
When the Prophet died, his wife Aisha was only 18, and lived to be 73 as a
One can find many more examples to this effect, but I
think I have said enough to illustrate the purpose and nature of the so--called
Islamic Law. However, I may add that the poverty-stricken Muslims of India
believed that the Islamic Law stood for economic equality. We all were led to
think that way. Zulfikar All Bhutto openly equated the Islamic Law with the
Marxist concept of nationalization, for this reason, whereas the truth is that
Islam allows unlimited accumulation of wealth in any form, including land and is
the only source of feudalism in the modern age.
It is this ambiguity about the Islamic Law, which has
become the bane of Pakistan. Half a century has elapsed but Islamic Law has not
yet been enforced in Pakistan despite the fact that India was divided for this
reason. The truth is that there is no Islamic Law to be enforced. What is called
the Islamic Law is the result of the far-fetched interpretations of the Koran
and the Hadith; it also includes the vestiges of the legal contrivances that
were developed by the Arab and Turkish rulers to meet the demands of their