On 6th August, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) came up with a fantastic tweet (since deleted) that virtually scandalised the Supreme Court judgment. It said:
#BabriMasjid was and will always be a Masjid. #HagiaSophia is a great example for us. Usurpation of the land by an unjust, oppressive, shameful, and majority appeasing judgment can’t change its status. No need to be heartbroken. Situations don’t last forever. #ItsPolitics
In the Urdu tweet still available on its twitter account, AIMPLB still accuses the Supreme Court of miscarriage of justice. Do recall its assertions before the judgment when it swore fidelity to the Constitution and loudly promised to abide by the judgment of the Apex Court, even if it went against them. However, now its President, Maulana Arshad Madni says that when they will wield the stick, they will remove the Ram temple being built there.
Add to it the All India Imam Association rabble-rouser Maulana Sajid Rashidi, who happened to be one of the top persons defending the right of the Haji Ali Dargah to impose curbs on women. He boorishly threatened that they would demolish the temple when they get the power.
Does it bother the people in the country? Surely it does. But I argue here that it should not have surprised people at all if they had invested a little time into the history of Arabia and the history of the Khilafat movement and the partition movement. My recently published book ‘Nullifying Article 370 and Enacting CAA’ summarises and analyses the nature of the Muslim politics in India. We had an opportunity in 1947 to disempower the Ashrafia elites of the community and to demolish the hotbeds of separatism like AMU, Ala Hazrat, Bareilly and Deoband, but a naïve Prime Minister like Jawaharlal Nehru was more worried about his international image than the long-term interests of the country.
Two points have been repeatedly made throughout the book. The first is Dr. Ambedkar’s statement in his legendary book ‘Pakistan or the Partition of India’ that “Muslim Politics is gangster’s method of politics’, and by HV Seshadri as quoted in the book where he defines the Muslim behaviour as made up of ‘acrimony, accusations, complaints, demands, denunciations, and street riots’.
Any casual survey of the Muslim politics in independent India would confirm that nothing has changed as regards the nature of Muslim politics. The element of deception is ever present as the example of Treaty of Hudaibiyah is drilled into every Muslim mind. The sum and substance of the Treaty is that you enter a treaty when you are weak, and you break it when you are strong. Every treaty is a victory, as the Momin is able to lull the enemy into complacence even as it allows the Momin to prepare and consolidate, with the eventual goal of breaking the Treaty and overwhelming the enemy at an opportune time. On the other hand, a Momin never enters a Treaty when one is winning. At that time, one is supposed to be ruthless and follow the Quranic commandments of capturing and killing the enemy, capture war booty including women, and convert the land into Dar-ul-Islam.
The chimera of Hindu Muslim unity so doggedly pursued by Gandhiji was one such Treaty moment for the crafty Muslim leadership. They used him for the utterly regressive Khilafat Movement, and as soon as they had lulled the Hindus into sleep with the lullaby of ‘Ishvar Alla Tero Naam’, they got down to their gangster politics, causing street riots all over India till the country got partitioned, and then emptied out their territories of Hindus and Sikhs.
The naïve Nawab of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, on the other India continued the same disastrous policy. This particular Nehruism remains alive in some form or the other, with deadly consequences for the Indians, because the Muslim leadership and the institutions that caused the partition were not touched. AMU, Deoband and Bareilly have continued to teach the same theology and the doctrines that caused India’s partition. If anything, even Jamia Milia Islamia has now become a Muslim institution through the unconstitutional intervention of an unconstitutional regulator created by UPA, the iniquitous Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (CMIE). In many ways, the separatist tendencies have been encouraged in the name of minority welfarism, with the grotesque consequence that some of them now have the audacity to tell the Hindus that they would break the Ram temple when they get back into power. The mind-set is best exemplified by this speech by Khwaja Hasan Nizami, Indian Sufi saint of Chishti Islamic order of Nizamuddin Auliya, a well known Urdu essayist and humorist, in 1928:
Musalmans are separate from Hindus; they cannot unite with the Hindus. After bloody wars the Musalmans conquered India, and the English took India from them. The Musalmans are one united nation and they alone will be masters of India. They will never give up their individuality. They have ruled India for hundreds of years, and hence they have a prescriptive right over the country. The Hindus are a minor community in the world. They are never free from internecine quarrels; they believe in Gandhi and worship the cow; they are polluted by taking other people’s water. The Hindus do not care for self-government; they have no time to spare for it; let them go on with their internal squabbles. What capacity have they for ruling over men? The Musalmans did rule, and the Musalmans will rule.
The point is simple. If you have continued the same national policy of ‘acquiescence, assent, cajolery, concessions, cowardice, self-reproach and surrender’ in response to the continued Muslim policy of gangster politics, the result would be the same as achieved in 1947. The BJP government does not seem to have the weakness of cowardice, self-reproach and surrender, but when it comes to acquiescence, assent, cajolery, and concessions, it does seem to continue on the same path. Time has come to give appropriate responses to this religious bigotry that is paraded as ‘right to religious freedom’. We cannot allow any form of any religion that asserts supremacism of this kind and claims jihad and hate for the political form of the country as Dar-ul-Harb. How proper policy responses are to calibrated must be discussed and firmed up. Remember, a Gandhian response to a Jinnah will only mean more partitions and more losses for Hindus. Always remember that nearly every Ashrafia Muslim, among all 72 sects of Islam, in the Indian sub-continent has a burning desire to re-establish the Mughal Empire all over India. The point has been well explained in my book.(https://www.amazon.in/Nullifying-370-Enacting-Sanjay-Dixit/dp/9390077109/ref=sr_1_2?crid=39048UZQGRGE3&dchild=1&keywords=article+370&qid=1596796135&s=books&sprefix=Article+%2Cstripbooks%2C333&sr=1-2)
Given this situation, why should it surprise you that Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMPLB/Arshad Madni, and All India Imam Association/Sajid Rashidi speak the way they do. One of the foundational texts of Hanafi Islam in India states unambiguously that ‘To say anything which shows regard for the religious sentiments of non-Muslims and respect for their devtas and their leaders is wholly kufr’.
So dear Ram Bhakts, at least I am not surprised, nor should you be.
 Chapter 6, Nullifying Article 370 and Enacting CAA’ – Sanjay Dixit (Bloomsbury India, 2020)
 Chapter 2, ibid.
 Chapter 3, ibid.
 Fatawa-i-Razvia, Vol VI, pp 125 (Syed Ahmad Raza Barelvi)
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.