From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Aftab Ahmed's scholastic dishonesty. Another follower of Munir?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 17:29:10 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Apr13.013345.28674@seas.gwu.edu> ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab Ahmad) writes:
>
>Dear Mr. Irfan. it's awful to see your answer to a very simple thing that
>could be disproved/proved by using the supremecourt report. Here is a 
>summery of what you have done.
>   [Aftab Ahmed's incorrect summary deletd. For correct
     summary see Appendix A, one of my previous postings]
>
>Mr. Hussain said that this is a question that Mr. Maudoodi was
>asked and this was his answer.


Blatant lie. Mr. Hussain never mentioned what the question was!
He even didn't mention the first part of the reply. Which Zahid
Aziz reproduced and it clearly demonstrated that Mr. Hussain 
was out of context, as initially alleged by me.

Here is yet another person, a firm believer of Munir, indulging in
yet another scholastic dishonesty!

For all netters, here is the original posting of Mr. Arshad Hussain:

	In article <1992Apr9.183625.1418@prism.poly.edu> 
	ahussain@prism.poly.edu (Arshad Hussain) writes:
	>
	> 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.
	>
	>The report is published by Govt. of Pakistan.

It is exactly the same kind of viciousness with which Munir
report is filled with [For proof of at least one instance see
below]. Netters have here, the proof from three
followers of Justice Munir, indulging in scholastic dishonesty
blatantly, openly, right in front of all people.

First was Mr. Arshad Hussain who quoted out of context.
	On my pointing out his mistake, instead of giving
	the full context, he tried unsuccessfully
	to sidetrack the debate (See Appendix A).
 
Then came Mr. Zahid Aziz, at long last fulfilling my demands for 
	providing the full context (see appendix C),
  	the context which clearly proved that Arshad has quoted
	Maudoodi out of context. Even then he had the gal to 
	say that I was wrong and Arshad was right. What can
	be more blatant?

Finally arrives, Mr. Aftab Ahmad, brimming with viciousness,
	a viciousness of the order of Munir and their
	followers Arshad and Zahid Aziz. See above how
	blatantly he lies! 

I am now convinced about some kind of underhand connection of
Justice Munir and all the above people. Their viciousness
is of the order of that concept of "law of necessity" 
which even Aftab Ahmad can not deny. A viciousness
that has plunged Pakistan for the last
four decades from one martial law crises into another!!!!!
Should I say more? Yes I would there is limit to one's 
patience.

I will only refer Aftab Ahmad to my previous postings given in the 
appendix A. It is obvious that he has not read all the pertinent
postings and has decided to give his judgement (just like
Justice Munir did on that fateful day which plunged Pakistan
from one to another Martial law!). 



>You said the report is vicious.
>
>To prove your TRUTH you said that this is the same Justice who made another
>bad decision. You didn't refute their claim - you reinforced them.

Here is yet another example of the order of viciousness of Justice
Munir. Mr. Aftab Ahmad never read my postings. I never said that
I ever refuted what Arshad Hussain has said! I am saying from the
very begining, and will say again that "Mr. Arshad Hussain"
posted an "out-of-context quote" from the report, and that it was
a half-truth, some "half truths" are even more vicious then
"blatant lies". Some people never learn! (see appendicies)

>
>You claimed that he was out of context (you didn't object the validity of
>the report as such).

See how clearly Aftab is changing from one track to another. Exactly,
like Mr. Arshad Husain who tried to shift from Maudoodi's
position on Minority relations, and take refuge in the erst while
protector of their point of view, yes the same and only one,
THe Justice Munir. He is implying 
in the above that some how I was "refuting" the statement in
the report, and then goes on to say that I was simply saying
that it was out of context. Some people can never see their own
contradictory statements! (see only appendix A for a repeat telecast)

> He should read the report. Then
>you said that Mr. Maudoodi said this (something different) in another
>magazine. 
>Mr. Zahid (?) said you are wrong. He REFERRED to that report.

Again a Justice Munir type of conclusion. Aftab never read my
posting and is giving a judgement (He must first read my 
posting of the whole discussion in Appendix A). 
Now that we have finally come to Munir's report, 
here is an outline of the proof of viciousness of Munir report on at
least one count:

1: Just like Munir who never read what Maudoodi had said on 
	the subject in 1944. Had he read his views he could
	have simply quoted him from TarjumanulQuran. It was
	a subject which was so famous that Maudoodi's 1944 
	opinion required being reprinted again and again.
   
2: If he did read his views, then he failed to point out the discrepency
     	if any, that he noticed between Maudoodi's views in the
	article of 1944 and those of the answers of Maudoodi.
	(He never found any discrepency. Had he done that,
	  he would have definitely mentioned it, but may be not?)

(1) being correct clearly shows that Munir was not thorough in his
	investigations.    
(2) being correct shows that if he was thorough, he was vicious in not
	pointing out discrepency if any.

If both the above are false, it means that whatever Maudoodi
stated in Munir Report was exactly the same as his 1944
article. But, because not all the relevant "opinions of
Maudoodi vis-a-vis minorities" as printed in 1944 were
included in Munir report, this conclusively proves that
Munir was, if not vicious, at least not thorough!
      

Q.E.D

(see Appendix B for the complete views of Maudoodi on this
issue which were published "Rassail Massail-I",
"Tarjumanul Quran"-1944, and "Islami riyasat" 1967: )

>
>If you are rude, you don't want people to understand you. Because you
>have no point.

I am not perfect. I have been lied to again and again. There
is limit to one's patience. 

==============================================================
Appendix A:  (A previous posting of mine, which was never read
		by Aftab Ahmad, exactly like the "thoroughness" of
		Justice Munir in the classic "Munir Report")
============================================================


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.

Let's put  the records straight I never said that what arshad
hussain said was wrong. What I have been consistently
sayying is that it was quoted "out of context" and it was
because of this "out of context quote" a scholastic dishonesty,
because it scholastic honesty requires that when one quotes
he must give the complete meaning not half-truth! A half-truth 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



(18) above also conclusive proves the viciousness of Munir Report.
=================================================================
Appendix B: Who is right and wrong?
==================================================================


From news Sun Apr 12 15:48:49 CDT 1992
Article: 19758 of soc.culture.pakistan