Cosmo_R wrote:Tarek Fatah is no different Irfan Husain or Kamran Shafi or even our own MJAkbar. All 'moderates' who bemoan radical Islam and partition but are closet Mughalistas. Undivided India under Muslim rule is their utopia.
+108. Very succinctly put. These people seem to want to have their cake(Malsi) and eat it too(no green on green) and also dream of ghazwa-e-hind.
Essentially, these people seem to want a reformation of Malsi. What kind of reformation? A reformation where the sharia is not insisted upon, where one need not grow beard or wear short pyjamas, where one need not insist on hijab, where one can swill whisky(if one wants to)...etc. In short, they want the Malsi to learn from west(and its EJs) and become 'sophisticated', instead of being 'crude'.
These kind of reforms do not in anyway divert from the ghazwa-e-hind. And it does not change anything as far as Kaffirs are concerned. These reforms are only to make the life of the followers of Malsi easy and bearable(particularly the elite ones, who can afford to have comforts). Generally, these privileges are already bestowed upon the elites in all the lands where Malsi is dominant. The elites are free to indulge in whatever their fancies are, as long as they pretend to be pious in public. But, in Pakiland(fortress of Malsi), this trend is changing. In pakiland, strict adherence to Malsi principles is being demanded from various quarters. This phenomenon is more pronounced in Pakiland, but is certainly not limited to that place alone.
There has been a steady and gradual increase in demands for more adherence to purest form of Malsi. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is disagreement on the purest form of Malsi. And this is not really new. It started long back as soon as the Mughals came.
Link to original post
brihaspati wrote:^^^The Mughals provided second of the two fronts within Indian Islamism. The previous period was a single front with intra-front competition for leadership. To a large extent the mughals were the late arrivals, the neo-converts - who retained their west-Turkmenistan+pre-Islamic Persian + Indo-Buddhist-CAR-pagan threads.
Its the kind of frontal conflict between two sides in Islam, that arises when one front is a late-convert and is unable to completely relinquish pre-Islamic foundations. This was the conflict that created BD. In a way, the Mughal-TurkoAfghan competition destroyed the power basis of Arabic Islam in India.
Neither came with "sympathies" or identifications with pre-Islamic India. The Mughals by successfully centralizing Islamic control over much of India, thereby denuded it of resources, destroyed the economy eventually - and cleared the way for Brit takeover.
Both Mughals and Sultanate were equally bad as far as the Kaffirs are concerned. But, there is an internal conflict of ideas.
Mughals represent late-converts who want to retain some of the features that are not related to Malsi. They are the ones who do not want to follow Malsi in letter(like beard, pyjama, whisky), but they want to follow it in spirit(Ghazwa-e-hind).
Sultanate represents the other side who want to follow the Malsi both in letter and spirit.
Sultanate(early-converts) where replaced by the Mughals(late-converts). This created curious reaction. It gave rise to people like Sirhindi(during Akbar's time) and Waliullah. These people not only insisted on Malsi, but went ahead and made it more dictatorial and tyrannical(yes, they actually made the theory even more strict, because the practice was not up to the mark in their perception).
It does not mean that Mughals were benevolent towards the Kaffirs. Absolutely not. The jihad was on(with Rajputs, Vijayanagara, and later Sikhs and Marathas). But, it did not meet the high expectations of the people like Sirhindi and Waliullah.
So, there are two strains:
a) Hard version(hard on followers)
b) Soft version(soft on followers)
Both versions are vicious towards infidels and unbelievers within.
Should one follow the letter or spirit? That is the debate. The rest all(particular jihad) is same same only. Hard version insists on adherence to letter. The insistence on letter translates it into insistence on sharia. Soft version wants to adhere merely to spirit. Insistence on spirit means they can be hypocritical in their personal lives(beliefs), but do pious(jihad of Kaffirs) deeds in larger Malsi structure.
Sirhindi and Waliullah are the forerunners of the modern day Malsi(particularly in Sub-continent or South Asia, as the western media likes to call). The modern Pakiland is born from this strain of Malsi. The talibs also are the inheritors of this strain. They are goading the rulers, just as Sirhindi and Waliullah had done during earlier times.
Though the pakiland was born from the hard strain, the leadership was always by the Mughali ones(soft strain). People like Tarek(and the entire pakjabi elites) represent the Mughals(soft strain). The Mughals liked to enjoy themselves with their whiskies and all other pleasures. They also had to make some compromises due to geo-political realities to make their empire survive. The modern day pakjabi elites want to replicate the Mughals.
Both sides(hard and soft) have the same attitude towards the Kaffir. The difference is in how the green on green should be handled.
What is happening right now: The last strong emperor of Mughals, Aurangzeb, had to accept the hard version of Malsi, so that his rule was acknowledged by the followers of Malsi. In the short run, this saved the empire from dismantling into smaller fiefdoms and also allowed Aurangzeb to remain the ruler. In the long run, it made the Kaffirs take up active revolution against the Mughal rule. It resulted in creation of Maratha and Sikh empires.
The action of Aurangzeb was not out of blue. The hard version of Malsi was slowly being accepted by the Mughals. It seems to me that Babar was much more un-malsi like in his personal beliefs, then the later Mughal ones. Each successive generation of Mughal rulers had to accept and acknowledge that hard version was the pure version(and had to pretend to follow it). This phenomenon reached its zenith with Aurangzeb. And the hard version also became more and more hardened.
The same game is being played out in pakiland. It is like the rule of Aurangzeb right now. No more pretensions are being allowed. Absolute insistence on letter. This is allowing the nation to survive as single entity, for now.
People like Tarek want to reverse the whole thing and go back to the beautiful days when Kaffirs alone were hunted, while enjoying whiskey. Of course, if we see history, it is not possible. The soft version(the diluted version) always loses to the purer version.
It seems to me that Malsi today is much more purer than it was, when it started out. The definition of 'pure' in Malsi culture is the most narrow-minded and hard-core interpretation. So, the one who comes up with most narrow-minded and hard-core interpretation has the upper hand. Then, based on this interpretation, they can demand the elimination of all 'munafiqs'.