Dr. Zakir Naik says Partition was wrong

[TheSolution]

If I am not wrong, I think Zakir Naik is from the Deobandi school. The standard Deobandi position on partition was always that it was wrong.

The Darul Uloom Deoband in India is now a political tool since they issued fatwas against him lol. Afghanistan owns the Deobandi movement now.

Ahmed Deedat was probably the best preacher and scholar Pakistan produced.

On what basis from an Islamic perspective can you take partition to be a genuinely wrong decision?

Entertaining co-existence with a majority mushrikeen (note, not the typical kaffir, but a mushrikeen) led by secular laws - instead of Islamic.

I have been reading through this old thread. I have gained valuable insights from different members.

Oh Well, that is "just" Dr. Zakir Naik's opinion and he is entitled to it.

But he doesn't mention the fact that, had a United South Asia gotten independence, Muslims would have only made 33% maximum only.

We would still be a minority, but a larger minority in a United South Asia.

Would've been less, India had a forced sterilisation program for Muslims at one point

Authoritarianism and Anti-Muslim Violence: Comparing the Emergency to Today

Similar to today, Muslims and Dalits were explicitly targeted by Indira Gandhi’s administration for physical elimination.

www.google.com

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

If I am not wrong, I think Zakir Naik is from the Deobandi school. The standard Deobandi position on partition was always that it was wrong.

The Darul Uloom Deoband in India is now a political tool since they issued fatwas against him lol. Afghanistan owns the Deobandi movement now.

Ahmed Deedat was probably the best preacher and scholar Pakistan produced.

I respectfully disagree with you. There were many Salafis/Deobandis who agreed with the creation of Pakistan.

Like Muhammad Asad/Leopold Weiss who converted to Islam from Judaism.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

On what basis from an Islamic perspective can you take partition to be a genuinely wrong decision?

Entertaining co-existence with a majority mushrikeen (note, not the typical kaffir, but a mushrikeen) led by secular laws - instead of Islamic.

The Deobandi school had several pointers but their main point was that partition would lead to Muslims being divided and thus lead to the broader ummah being divided (Maulana Maududi argued this). In their view, dividing the ummah is the work of the Shaitaan and a British colonial conspiracy.

Deobandi ullema referred to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah which ""promoted mutual interaction between the two communities thus allowing more opportunities for Muslims to preach their religion to Qureysh through peaceful tabligh".

In addition, deobandi scholar Hussain Ahmed Madani wrote a book called "Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam" which means Composite Nationalism and Islam and in that book he argued that prophets shared the same territory with the unbelievers and hence their Qaumiyat (nationality) was not different from those who did not believe in their message. According to Maulana Madani, the very spirit of the Quran is to encourage harmonious co-existence in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious world.

Opposition to the Partition of India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Composite Nationalism and Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

On what basis from an Islamic perspective can you take partition to be a genuinely wrong decision?

Entertaining co-existence with a majority mushrikeen (note, not the typical kaffir, but a mushrikeen) led by secular laws - instead of Islamic.


Would've been less, India had a forced sterilisation program for Muslims at one point

Authoritarianism and Anti-Muslim Violence: Comparing the Emergency to Today

Similar to today, Muslims and Dalits were explicitly targeted by Indira Gandhi’s administration for physical elimination.

www.google.com

Correct Sir, we still would have been a minority of 30-33%. That is still a minority.

Hindus would have made 950 million people against 550-600 million Muslims. He doesn't mention that.

Or the Gujarat riots 2002, Babri Masjid demolition, or a United South Asia was given a chance from 1937- 1940, and the Hindu Congress party misused and abused their authority.

Muslims learned their lessons and thats why partition happened.

The Deobandi school had several pointers but their main point was that partition would lead to Muslims being divided and thus lead to the broader ummah being divided (Maulana Maududi argued this). In their view, dividing the ummah is the work of the Shaitaan and a British colonial conspiracy.

Deobandi ullema referred to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah which ""promoted mutual interaction between the two communities thus allowing more opportunities for Muslims to preach their religion to Qureysh through peaceful tabligh".

In addition, deobandi scholar Hussain Ahmed Madani wrote a book called "Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam" which means Composite Nationalism and Islam and in that book he argued that prophets shared the same territory with the unbelievers and hence their Qaumiyat (nationality) was not different from those who did not believe in their message. According to Maulana Madani, the very spirit of the Quran is to encourage harmonious co-existence in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious world.

Opposition to the Partition of India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Composite Nationalism and Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes but you forget to mention that even if all the Muslim were united in the South Asia, we would still only make 30-33% of the total population or even less.

Tell the whole story.

Stop Saying Deobandis this and that. There were many Deobandis/Salafis who supported Pakistan's creation.

 

[TheSolution]

The Deobandi school had several pointers but their main point was that partition would lead to Muslims being divided and thus lead to the broader ummah being divided (Maulana Maududi argued this). In their view, dividing the ummah is the work of the Shaitaan and a British colonial conspiracy.

Deobandi ullema referred to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah which ""promoted mutual interaction between the two communities thus allowing more opportunities for Muslims to preach their religion to Qureysh through peaceful tabligh".

In addition, deobandi scholar Hussain Ahmed Madani wrote a book called "Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam" which means Composite Nationalism and Islam and in that book he argued that prophets shared the same territory with the unbelievers and hence their Qaumiyat (nationality) was not different from those who did not believe in their message. According to Maulana Madani, the very spirit of the Quran is to encourage harmonious co-existence in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious world.

Opposition to the Partition of India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Composite Nationalism and Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Interesting. Although multi-religious part doesn't make sense to me considering we are meant to establish Sharia law, and while there's room for other religions to practice freely, it's not necessarily a multi-religious model (that would be secularism)

Although personally I would hard disagree on this, not even due to personal bias being a Pakistani, but that it would hand all power over to the mushrikeen in every sense.

NATO has proven that being divided in different nations, you can still work together for goals. But under occupation such aspirations are not possible if everyone is under the foot of mushrikeen. You cannot mobilise.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

Interesting. Although multi-religious part doesn't make sense to me considering we are meant to establish Sharia law, and while there's room for other religions to practice freely, it's not necessarily a multi-religious model (that would be secularism)

Ignore him. He is being a moron. I think he an Indian pretending to be a Pakistani. See his post history. He talks about Pushtun Nationalism and separatism.

Many Deobandis supported Pakistan's creation.

It was just Abul Kalam Azad who had a different opinion.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

Yes but you forget to mention that even if all the Muslim were united in the South Asia, we would still only make 30-33% of the total population or even less.

Tell the whole story.

Stop Saying Deobandis this and that. There were many Deobandis/Salafis who supported Pakistan's creation.

I am quoting the scholars and the institutions they were from.

Maulana Madani was the head of Jami'at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind

Madani stayed in India, but Maulana Maududi came to Pakistan and started Jammat-e-Islami there.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

I am quoting the scholars and the institutions they were from.

Maulana Madani was the head of Jami'at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind

Madani stayed in India, but Maulana Maududi came to Pakistan and started Jammat-e-Islami there.

But you behave like Indians quoting a wikipedia page which is edited by Indians. lol

I am quoting the scholars and the institutions they were from.

Maulana Madani was the head of Jami'at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind

Madani stayed in India, but Maulana Maududi came to Pakistan and started Jammat-e-Islami there.

And who is going to move 200 million Muslims out of India now? It is their country, they have to put up with it.

That's his former view!
He now understands the importance of the creation of Pakistan

Probably you are right, that he has changed his opinion.

Especially after moving to Malaysia.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

Interesting. Although multi-religious part doesn't make sense to me considering we are meant to establish Sharia law, and while there's room for other religions to practice freely, it's not necessarily a multi-religious model (that would be secularism)

I don't think the composite thing would've worked out.

I think the scholars weren't ill-intentioned but were probably under the influence of an anti-colonial era and probably had closer affinity to their non-Muslim coethnics due to a united idea and a united enemy (British imperialism). If they saw India today they would've changed their minds.

The root cause is Mughal incompetency in making the entirety of the subcontinent Muslim, they were more interested in marrying Hindus and making nahari.

This can also be attributed to the history of the 4 mazaabs. The Hanafi fiqh especially in South Asia were more lax on non-muslims and even labeled Hindus as people of the book (for political reasons). The other fiqhs had 0 mercy.

As much as Pakistan sucks, India in this state was bound to happen. Now we see Muslim rights curtailed and Muslim women getting r4ped and harassed in India.

But you behave like Indians quoting a wikipedia page which is edited by Indians. lol


And who is going to move 200 million Muslims out of India now? It is their country, they have to put up with it.


Probably you are right, that he has changed his opinion.

Especially after moving to Malaysia.

Read the reply I wrote to Bleek above.

 

[epebble]

Dr. Naik is a conceited man to think he has better judgement than learned men like Jinnah and Nehru. They lived through the worst part of 20th century and studied the history of modern world quite well to know how two incompatible populations can create a combustible situation. Dr Naik has the advantage of another half century of world history. He has seen the Balkan wars, break up of USSR, break up of Pakistan etc., to understand the challenges of co-existence.

 

[ziaulislam]

Personally I strongly disagree with his opinion.

I know this has already been posted and its an old video, but I want to see what other members think of this guy's stupid opinion.

Long live Pakistan.

Even jinnah thought partition was wrong but he had no choice left
His cabinet mission was rejected by Congress
He was able to stop vice roy fucking Nehru wife pussy(not me it's what indians say) and thus punjab and Bengal got divided too.. ultimately this meant we lost Kashmir too

 

[TheSolution]

Dr. Naik is a conceited man to think he has better judgement than learned men like Jinnah and Nehru. They lived through the worst part of 20th century and studied the history of modern world quite well to know how two incompatible populations can create a combustible situation. Dr Naik has the advantage of another half century of world history. He has seen the Balkan wars, break up of USSR, break up of Pakistan etc., to understand the challenges of co-existence.

His opinion has changed according some members above

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

Even jinnah thought partition was wrong but he had no choice left
His cabinet mission was rejected by Congress
He was able to stop vice roy fucking Nehru wife pussy(not me it's what indians say) and thus punjab and Bengal got divided too.. ultimately this meant we lost Kashmir too

See thing is, is that Jinnah took the "principled" stand. Jinnah was not going to let the British and Congress just have their way.

His opinion has changed according some members above

Yes that is what some members said. Zakir Naik has now changed his opinion. He now lives in Malaysia and not in India.

Why doesn't he go back to India? Afterall India has 200 million Muslims?

 

[TheSolution]

I don't think the composite thing would've worked out.

I think the scholars weren't ill-intentioned but were probably under the influence of an anti-colonial era and probably had closer affinity to their non-Muslim coethnics due to a united idea and a united enemy (British imperialism). If they saw India today they would've changed their minds.

The root cause is Mughal incompetency in making the entirety of the subcontinent Muslim, they were more interested in marrying Hindus and making nahari.

This can also be attributed to the history of the 4 mazaabs. The Hanafi fiqh especially in South Asia were more lax on non-muslims and even labeled Hindus as people of the book (for political reasons). The other fiqhs had 0 mercy.

As much as Pakistan sucks, India in this state was bound to happen. Now we see Muslim rights curtailed and Muslim women getting r4ped and harassed in India.

If Mughals had succeeded we would've had potential of being a global power and a Muslim one at that too.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

If Mughals had succeeded we would've had potential of being a global power and a Muslim one at that too.

Mughal era would never have lasted. A Minority can never rule over such a Huge majority like the Hindus in India. Then the Hindus would say they want to rule themselves.