Mujahid Ali

Ṣadrian anarchist · @JinnahFund · @IDLPK · @IndusFramework

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

An excellent rebuttal by @theRealYLH to the likes of Ishtiaq Ahmed and Arvind, explaining how the Cabinet Mission Plan could have preserved a united Subcontinent, and why Nehru and Gandhi bear much of the responsibility for its failure and the Partition that followed.

[Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH]

My article explaining the deadlock on the Cabinet Mission Plan and how the blame for partition of British India (1858-1947) lies with the lack of statesmanship on part of Nehru and Gandhi. The reasons I wrote this article are two fold: one I was censored on Independence Day event in Atlanta for saying that Jinnah would’ve agreed to a united India. Two the debate between @DanQayyum and Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed in which Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed’s article was just completely historically inaccurate and basically a barely concealed attempt to absolve Nehru and Gandhi of the blame for partition. So here it is:

“Jinnah’s Pakistan within an Indian union would have eroded both Gandhi’s majoritarian vision for India and Nehru’s centralising ambitions. A sovereign constituent Pakistan within a United States of India would have been a permanent check on the caste Hindu majority that was the political base of the two men. Hence they chose, and make no mistake about it - it was their choice, a Pakistan outside the Indian union to them was more palatable to their ambitions. So where does the blame lie for the violence and upheaval in 1947? It lies with the party that effectively sabotaged the one plan that could have given India its unity and the party that insisted on partitioning Punjab and Bengal. That party was the Congress which was despite its secular democratic protestations a representative of caste Hindu majority interests.”

https://t.co/PVoUJrWzmo

[Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH]

My article explaining the deadlock on the Cabinet Mission Plan and how the blame for partition of British India (1858-1947) lies with the lack of statesmanship on part of Nehru and Gandhi. The reasons I wrote this article are two fold: one I was censored on Independence Day event in Atlanta for saying that Jinnah would’ve agreed to a united India. Two the debate between @DanQayyum and Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed in which Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed’s article was just completely historically inaccurate and basically a barely concealed attempt to absolve Nehru and Gandhi of the blame for partition. So here it is:

“Jinnah’s Pakistan within an Indian union would have eroded both Gandhi’s majoritarian vision for India and Nehru’s centralising ambitions. A sovereign constituent Pakistan within a United States of India would have been a permanent check on the caste Hindu majority that was the political base of the two men. Hence they chose, and make no mistake about it - it was their choice, a Pakistan outside the Indian union to them was more palatable to their ambitions. So where does the blame lie for the violence and upheaval in 1947? It lies with the party that effectively sabotaged the one plan that could have given India its unity and the party that insisted on partitioning Punjab and Bengal. That party was the Congress which was despite its secular democratic protestations a representative of caste Hindu majority interests.”

https://t.co/PVoUJrWzmo

[Brethren of Purity @brethrenfpurity]

Mysticism is a reality that comes intuitively and naturally to the people. The vast majority of Muslim cultures historically have been based on a mystical outlook of reality.

In this modern materialist age, we need to bring back mystical intuitions as legitimate principles.

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

There is nothing utopian about free housing, energy, food, healthcare, education, or the eradication of private property and money. If you feel otherwise, you are the problem.

[Varendra ইতিহাসবিদ @varendrapill]

Here we have two absurd claims:

1) Bengali Muslims were illiterate
2) The ruling class was Hindustani, specifically from Uttar Pradesh

Now I'm going to debunk them one at a time.

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

@SamiTheAlien You could've given me a heads up before rpging the truck which was unnecessary collateral damage

[Brethren of Purity @brethrenfpurity]

Majority of literalists actually face serious doubts on the whole notion of faith. This makes them focus even more strongly on literalism until they eventually give up and burn out.

On the other hand, those who understand the message behind the communication...

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

On a more philosophical level, the findings suggest that the division we typically perceive between ourselves and the world is actively managed by the brain, Stoliker says. “Rather than psychedelics simply creating an illusion that the self and world are one,” he says, “they may temporarily reduce the brain processes that normally maintain this separation.”
https://t.co/369POPhUnV

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

This is Faisal Bilal's page on FB (https://t.co/Fn9GZmW3NU). Troll and ridicule this f*cker for fun or if you're bored.

[Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH]

People are so cowardly … Atlanta Waley (Facebook) ie Faisal Bilal of Atlanta asked me to speak about Jinnah which I did and it was shared live on Facebook. I said nothing controversial but apparently it seems that people started telling him that I was “Qadiani” so he removed the video and all its traces. Well Faisal bhai thanks for letting me know you are a coward and a religious bigot as well … unfollowed on Facebook. I don’t need your platform to do the work I do and you asked me to speak - lesson learnt. Never agree to do someone a favor. If I ever see you again it would be too soon.

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

@EmirMustakGhazi To you as well, brother 🇵🇰🇧🇩

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

🤍💚

[Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH]

Who Am I to Declare Someone a Non-Muslim?”
Jinnah’s vision of religious freedom, and the Pakistan that abandoned it. By Yasser Latif Hamdani.
STOP THE PERSECUTION
AUG 14, 2026

To Mr Jinnah, the Quaid-e-Azam, religious freedom was paramount — the grundnorm of Pakistan. Coming himself from a religious minority within a religious minority, he understood that the marginalisation of any community on the basis of religion would ultimately dissolve the very social fabric of the new state.
Much of his thinking on religious tolerance was the product of the British liberalism he had imbibed in his youth. But he also instinctively grasped the Quranic principle that “There is no compulsion in religion” (Chapter 2 Verse 257). There was therefore no contradiction between his Locke- and Morley-inspired secularism and his understanding of Islam. Islamic principles, to him, were equality and fraternity, and as such were applicable to modern society.
Nowhere was this more evident than in his treatment of the Ahmadis.

The pressure to exclude

There were voices among the Muslims of India, and even within his own Muslim League, that called for the expulsion of Ahmadis from the League and from the Indian Muslim body as a whole. In 1944 these voices reached a crescendo. Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam approached Jinnah and told him that they would support him to the hilt if only he would agree to declare Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. Jinnah refused to entertain the request.
Within the Muslim League, a group led by Maulana Abdul Hamid Badayuni brought forward a resolution on 30 July 1944 to the effect that “Qadianis [a pejorative term for Ahmadi Muslims] being Non-Muslims should be expelled from the Muslim League”. Jinnah refused to allow it to be discussed. Earlier, in Srinagar in May 1944, he had warned Muslims not to raise this potentially divisive question, ending the discussion with the remark:
“Who am I to declare someone who calls himself a Muslim a Non Muslim?”
This was not a new position. As early as 1937, members of the Punjab Muslim League had introduced an oath requiring every candidate standing on a League ticket in the province to work towards having Ahmadi Muslims declared non-Muslim. Jinnah resisted the move, and in doing so made his own view unmistakable. As Dr Ayesha Jalal writes in Self and Sovereignty:
“A courageous stand to have taken, it reflects Jinnah’s understanding of constitutional law and the imperatives of citizenship in a modern state… He saw no reason to strip the Ahmadis of their Muslim identity simply on account of a doctrinal dispute.” (Self and Sovereignty, p. 375)
Zafarullah Khan and the Boundary Commission

If any doubt remained about Jinnah’s intentions, he went further still, entrusting Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan to plead the Muslim case before the Boundary Commission. Earlier, in the Central Legislative Assembly of India, Jinnah had made a pointed reference to him:
“I wish to record my sense of appreciation … to the Honourable Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, who is a Muslim and it may be said that I am flattering my own son.” (Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, Vol. II, p. 973)
The description of him as a Muslim is significant, and was surely deliberate.
A slippery slope, and a lawyer’s warning

The easiest thing Jinnah could have done as a politician was to accept the demand and declare Ahmadis non-Muslim. But Jinnah was no mere politician. As a constitutional lawyer and a statesman, he understood that this was a slippery slope: Muslim society was divided into more than seventy sects, and once the state assumed the power to adjudicate between them, the divisions would never end.

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

The Namasudras, the Dalit community that Mandal belonged to, backed the idea of a Muslim-majority state because they believed the rights of their community would be better protected in Pakistan. Similar sentiments existed among tribal and Christian communities in the northeast.

Also, Mandal was not only Pakistan’s first law minister, but he also served as the first president of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan before Jinnah took over the position. This was a powerful statement against those who reject the idea of a secular Pakistani state grounded in Islamic socio-economic ideals.

[Hussain Shah Yemeni @VoxP0Pulie]

تصویر میں بائیں ہاتھ سے دوسرے نمبر پر پہلے وزیر قانون جوگیندر ناتھ منڈل صاحب جو کہ ایک ماہر قانون دان تھے اور دلت کمیونٹی سے تھے۔ جناح صاحب کے بعد ایسا ناروا سلوک برتا گیا کہ وہ چون میں ہندوستان کلکتہ چلے گئے۔ اور باقی کی زندگی غدار کے طعنے سن سن کے مر گئے۔

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

@gcwow26 & Sufism/Irfan.

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

https://t.co/Rgb6IKEwmX

[Yasser Latif Hamdani @theRealYLH]

A Sadrian anarchist and a secular constitutionalist in Atlanta earlier today.

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

@AliMubbashir12 You're a poor example of a Muslim. I already explained it and you ignored it, and now you're pretending that this is all I "have to share." Terrible, Ali sahib.

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

I explained it but you are ignoring it and unfortunately making things up, Ali sahib. You are also being dishonest choosing not to cite references. That cannot be traits of a 'normal' or honest Muslim. You have also referred to it as ugly and made other claims such as Sufis justifying incest. You should reflect on your words and actions.

Here's an excellent video by Filip to help you understand wahdat ul wajud.
https://t.co/7rfnGUTlHJ

[Mujahid Ali @mjhdl]

What rhetoric? You have moved on to another topic which you also misunderstand. Please show with reference where Ibn Arabi says that cosmos is khayal e mehez or that it has no objective reality. With the new question you have raised, you are connecting your lack of undestanding of khayal and wahdat al wajud with waad and waeed.