Question: An Englishman named m.riaz has written an article titled aslam at the crossroads on the open page of the last 27-11-2001 hindu newspaper. A few things in it need clarification.
In the article, he wrote in a short title that the slide discipline slowly dies. The argument he puts forward is that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that Muslims will be divided into 72 sects. But now there are more than 100 sects and everyone is choosing only one Quran, he said. What is your explanation about this?
And under the title of Indian Muslims, he said that those who migrated from India to Pakistan are still refugees even after 53 years, is it true? Why?
My Hindu friend asked the same question. Pakistan Sen will not admit you saying you are Muslim. Then why do Muslims say that they support Pakistan as a form of brotherhood. Why Indian Muslims in particular are not respected. This needs an explanation.
Answer: This is the argument of the ignorant.
A country has only one political and criminal law.
The District Court set aside the judgment passed by the Magistrate Court under that Act.
The State High Court ruled that the judgment passed by the District Court was not correct. Benches of the High Court set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court dismisses that too. The Supreme Court bench rejected the Supreme Court verdict.
In this way, we see such conflicting judgments being given in all the countries of the world.
All judge based on the same law.
Does the nerd writer call this confusion? Will you criticize? He definitely won't. Even if the law is the same, it can be wrong to understand it. One may refuse to notice important points.
Although the Qur'an is one like this, it is natural that there are differences in understanding it. Many people will understand this writer's article in many ways.
However, although there are many sects in Islamic society, there is no fundamental difference between them except one or two sects.
Ni Allah is one. There is no other god.
Muhammad is the Messenger and the final Messenger.
There are angels.
There are devils.
The world will be destroyed.
The destroyed will be resurrected.
Investigation will take place.
Heaven is hell.
Liquor, gambling, lottery, prostitution, fraud, adulteration, theft etc. are criminal acts
There is no difference of opinion among Muslims on 95 percent of the issues. There is a change in a couple of things in the way worship is performed. There are minor changes in some other laws as well.
Other religions hold fundamentally different views; therefore, his criticism stems from ignorance. It is a manifestation of jealousy arising from the rapid growth of Islam in his country.
Furthermore, his remarks regarding Pakistan also expose his ignorance.
The claim that Muslims here support Pakistan is a calculated act of slander. Not a single Muslim here supports Pakistan.
Muslims are rarely found on the list of those who have betrayed the nation's secrets. In fact, 90 percent of those arrested for acting in support of Pakistan were non-Muslims.
Among the Muslims arrested for acting in support of Pakistan, more than half were actually citizens of Pakistan, not Indian Muslims.
Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that in the various wars fought between India and Pakistan, Muslims have fought for the country with a zeal that surpassed that of others.
There is another crucial point that everyone must consider: among Indian citizens, only Muslims have passed the test set for them and proven their patriotism. No other community has ever been subjected to such a test.
Indian Muslims are the ones who chose to stay back, even when a separate nation was created for Muslims and invitations—along with tempting offers—were extended for them to move there.
When the opportunity to have a nation of their own arose, any community would naturally have seized it. Yet, Indian Muslims alone rejected that opportunity, chose to remain here, and demonstrated their patriotism.
Therefore, there can be no greater injustice than blaming those who stayed back and proved their steadfastness for the actions of those who chose to partition the country and leave. Next, let us address the allegation that 'Muhajirs' were not treated with respect in Pakistan.
To understand who the Muhajirs are, one must first understand the geographical basis on which Pakistan was created.
Pakistan was formed by partitioning two Indian states.
The state of Punjab was split in two; one half became West Pakistan, while the other half remains the state of Punjab within India.
Similarly, the state of Bengal was split in two; one half became East Pakistan, while the other half remains the state of West Bengal within India.
The region that was East Pakistan has since become the independent nation of Bangladesh.
Only the half of Punjab that was West Pakistan constitutes the current nation of Pakistan.
When the country was partitioned, the people of Punjab were separated along with their native land.
The people of Bengal were separated in the same manner.
Amidst this, an invitation was extended to Muslims across India to migrate to Pakistan. Ninety-nine percent of Muslims rejected this invitation; only one percent moved to the newly forming Pakistan. These individuals are the Muhajirs.
Those who migrated along with their land from Punjab and Bengal possessed homes and assets. In contrast, those who moved from other states had nothing there.
Consequently, the Muhajirs found themselves as refugees without homes or property.
This situation did not arise based on religion; rather, it is an issue of 'locals' versus 'migrants.'
Furthermore, Pakistan was not partitioned specifically for the sake of Islam. The people and leaders of that era did not possess even a quarter of the religious devotion found among the people and leaders of present-day Pakistan. Because the partition was not based on Islamic principles, migrants and locals are treated differently. The situation in Pakistan stems from the very same reasons that dictate how Tamils are treated in Karnataka.
Therefore, it is unacceptable to criticize Islam by citing the situation in Pakistan.