In siding with the single largest source of jihadi in Iraq, we are only doing what we have always done, confecting Islamist states in Bosnia and Kosovo, aiding and abetting Islamist terrorism in Chechnya and Xinjiang, taking out Iraq's bulwark against it, sucking up to Saudi Arabia, and propping up Pakistan.
Speaking of Pakistan, some actress there has had some row with some mullah, and we are all supposed to side with her against him. Why? The partition of India, whatever else it might have been, was not a partition between "Hindus and Muslims", but between those who accepted the Muslim League's theory of two nations and those who did not.
The Muslims among the latter have always outnumbered the entire population of Pakistan, and the two nations theory, including the call for partition, was vigorously opposed by the Darul Uloom Deoband. If this actress does not wish to live in a country the very name of which proclaims a pure Islamic state, then should she move to India? Where would that leave the Christians of Pakistan?
Or is it time to face the fact that Pakistan, as such, is the problem? After all, with Blair and the wrong Miliband gone, they no longer need somewhere to which to outsource their torture. Those who wish to defend the Islamo-nationalist nightmare should take it up with Darul Uloom Deoband.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As you obviously know, Deoband supported independence but not partition. So it cannot be compared directly with pro-British forms of political Islam such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood or the Libyan Senussi Order. Even so, though, there is potential there.
ReplyDelete