From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re. Maudoodi and Minority relations: Who is right and wrong?
Date: 10 Apr 1992 18:17:30 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: burr.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Mr. Arshad Hussain better quit arguing


In article <1992Apr10.135120.26818@cs.nott.ac.uk> cczaziz@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Zahid Aziz) writes:
>Arshad Hussian is quite correct about what Maudoodi said at the Munir
>Court of Enquiry, and Syed Irfan Hyder is completely wrong.

I never said that what arshad
hussain said was wrong I only said that he told a "half-truth."
 What I have been consistently
saying is that it was quoted "out of context" and it was
because of this "out of context quote", a scholastic dishonesty.
Because scholastic honesty requires that when one quotes
he must give the complete meaning not half-truth! A half-truth about
minorities is an incomplete and wrong position of Maudoodi 
about Minorities! 

Let's keep track of the whole context of the discussion and all the
netters will then see  that not only Mr. Shahid Aziz by his own 
comments exposes his own scholastic dishonesty but also that
of Mr. Arshad Husain's. I would ask every one, for fair
ness sake, that we keep the original comments and then 
take the issues one by one and then see who is 'right' and who is 'wrong"  

The first posting was from Mr. Arshad Hussain. The  subject was 

	"Mr. Maudoodi and Minority relations"

        "In his testimony before Munir Commission 1953,
	Mr. Maudoodi states that he has no objection if
	Government of India starts treating MUSLIM minority as
	ASHOOTS & MALEESHS."
 	(In article <1992Apr9.183625.1418@prism.poly.edu> 
		ahussain@prism.poly.edu (Arshad Hussain))

1: First point we establish is that we are discussing
   "Maudoodi's position vis-a-vis minorities. This is clearly
   proven by the subject heading.

2: Secondly, our subject is not  "Munir-report". "Munir report"
   is only a "reference" used to provide Maudoodi's opinion
   on the subject. A reference is a reference not the ultimate
   authority on providing the whole picture.

3: Before you can completely characterize what an "author's view"
   is on a given subject, scholastic norms require that you give
   if not all, most of the places he has commented on the subject.
   
Because of the three points above I posted the article
		(<ku996aINN7t6@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>)  :
    

   		"Mr. Maudoodi and Minority relations: 
		      Another case of Dishonesty?"
     
      	"A classic case of quoting out of context and making
	the readers believe of some thing which is not intended at
	all. The context of the above is actually the "legal"
	position of a Muslim "sovreign" state `M' vis-a-vis another
	"sovereign" Non-Muslim state `N'.


	The question in front of Maudoodi was what will be your
	treatment of minorities in `M' if `N' is persecuting the
	Muslims and treating the Muslims as  ASHOOTS & MALEESHS.

	His answer was, whatever the treatment of Muslims in `N',
	even if  they are treated as ASHOOTS & MALEESHS, we can not
	and will not sacrifice our "principles" and start
	persecuting the minorities in `M'!!!!!!!!

	So, you have in front of you yet another piece of
	scholastic dis-honesty.
	
	[I have not read Munir report. However, I have read the above 
	objection being referred to in "Russail-o-Massail-I" and
	Maudoodi's answer to it. The above is from that
	source] 
	[I have changed III to I, the volume# was inadvertently
		 	mentioned incorrectly]

4: We see that here I am clearly not relying on Munir report. 

5: I even had no hesitation in declaring that I have not
   read "Munir report", simply because it is not the
   "Munir report" which we are discussing, but instead we
   are discussing Maudoodi's position on the issue of 
   "minority relations".

6: The above is clearly testified by my heading which states that
   "minority relations" are being discussed.

7: I am clearly stating in my first paragraph that Arshad Hussain's 
   "original remarks" of Maudoodi are out of context and not that
    they are incorrect.

8: Then I go on and provide the context by hypothetical nations `M'
   and `N' and what is the correct context.

9: However, Mr. Arshad Hussain realizing that he is now cornered, 
   suddenly changes the whole discussion around from "Maudoodi's 
   position w.r.t minority relations" to Maudoodi's position
   within "Munir Report". Yet another case of "scholastic
   dishonesty"?

Mr. Arshad Hussain keeping the subject title 
	"Mr. Maudoodi and Minority relation"  
      (In article <1992Apr10.003823.8314@prism.poly.edu>)

Referring only to my above reference line:

      [I have not read Munir report. However, I have read the above 
    	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	objection being referred to in "Russail-o-Massail-III" and
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Maudoodi's answer to it.] 
 
Then singling out the above part of my sources:

	"Who is talking out of context?
	I Have READ the report.
	I am talking about Mr. Moudoodi's TESTIMONY before commission. 
	Mr. Hyder is QUOTING  Mr. Maududi's ANSWER to READER's
	OBJECTION."

10: See how clearly he is shifting from Maudoodi's general position
    vis-a-vis minorities and trying to restrict himself just to
     Munir report.

11: He was not talking about "testimony before Munir Commission",
    he was "quoting" from it. He was talking about the view of
    Maudoodi vis-a-vis minority relations. If you look closely
    at the quotation you would see that he wants to create a 
    an impression that Maudoodi's view w.r.t minorities in
    other countries are "illogical". However, if we look at
    the complete context, we see that they are completely logical.

In fact Maudoodi's position in Rasail-o-Massail is much stronger than:

        whatever the treatment of Muslims in `N',
	even if  they are treated as ASHOOTS & MALEESHS, we can not
	and will not sacrifice our "principles" and start
	persecuting the minorities in `M'!!!!!!!!

Maudoodi says that even if Muslim minorities in `N' are being
subjected to a genocide or killed to the last child, we the 
muslims in  'M' will not  compromise our principles in dealing with
our minorities and will continue to treat them as Quran and Sunnah 
says!  

12: This context is again supported by the person who is saying
    what I am saying and still passes the judgement that I am
    wrong. What type of scholastic honesty is this? See for
    your self. He is providing the same context, which i pointed 
    out as missing from Mr. Arshad Hussain's posting. Let's
    see what in article <1992Apr10.135120.26818@cs.nott.ac.uk>
    cczaziz@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Zahid Aziz) writes:

	
>To paraphrase, Maudoodi was asked by the court: since your concept of
>an Islamic state, if implemented in Pakistan, would deprive Hindus
>etc. of many fundamental rights, how would you react if in India the
>Hindus established a state in accordance with their religious laws and
>started treated Muslims as untouchables?
>
>Maudoodi replied that he had NO objection if such a Hindu state was set up in
>India (because they had a right to do that if the Muslims had the right to
>establish an Islamic state in Pakistan).
>

14: The above is clearly my position and not Mr. Arshad Hussain's
     because Mr. Arshad Hussain has deliberately quoted Maudoodi
     out of context. Had he given the whole context as above
     I would never have cried foul in the  first place. Hence it
     proves that I was right and Mr. Arshad Husain was wrong (QED?)

15: "Mr. Hyder is QUOTING  Mr. Maududi's ANSWER to READER's
    OBJECTION." words of Arshad Hussain again imply that as
    if in that book Maudoodi was trying to cover his flanks
    on confronting objections pertaining to Maudoodi's
    testimony in front of Munir commission. Another slur?

16: However, if you look at Rassail-o-Massail, you will see that
    it is actually a reprint of the question and answer that
    were "first" published in Tarjuman-ul-Quran in 1944. Much
    before Munir commission, even before Pakistan's birth!

17: Maudoodi retaining the same position after Munir commission
    is testified by the inclusion of the same article in "Islami
    Riyasat" 1967 which was revied by Maudoodi himself. 

18: We see Maudoodi's position before Munir commission, and
    after Munir commission. Now even if only a section of
    of comment is written in Munir report, it is obviously
    that the whole context was not included. however as
    paraphrased by Mr. Zahid Aziz the whole context was
    included in Munir report. Yet Mr. Arshad Husain from
    whatever reasons, chose to tell the half-truth and not
    the whole truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:6479 soc.culture.indian:14329 soc.culture.bangladesh:2403