Jinnah or Nehru: Who’s Responsible for India’s Partition?

India media was in uproar over foreign minister Jaswant Singh’s expulsion from the Bharatiya Janata Party for claiming in his book that Nehru was responsible for India partition in 1947, while Jinnah sought unity. Is Singh shifting blame from Jinnah's shoulder to Nehru's...

"We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed."


This is what Jinnah said in the course of India’s independence. And it indeed became a reality.

There was uproar in Indian on Thursday, August 19, over former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh’s expulsion from the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, because his new book holds Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister and freedom struggle icon, responsible for India’s partition in 1947, while praising Jinnah on the issue.

While Singh’s sacking is a different matter, but Jinnah’s above statement, which turned the reality, simply means that Singh shifted the blame for the partition from Jinnah’s shoulder to Nehru’s.

The partition of India had been decided at least in 1930, when Muhammad Iqbal, Pakistan’s spiritual and ideological father, zealously preached in his Presidential Address at the All India Muslim League Meet in Allahabad that ‘The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other’, and then went on two propose the Two Nation theory: ‘I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state… the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India.’ And of course, with the Muslim League’s adoption of ‘Pakistan Resolution’ at Lahore in 1940, it had been sealed; it was only about time.

Any further attempts to keep India united by Hindus and a handful of nationalist Muslim leaders (Abul Kalam Azad and Fazlul Haq etc.) were destined to failure.

Singh’s thesis is based on the argument of Maulana Azad, India’s first Education Minister, who, in his book, “India Wins Freedom”, argued that the partition could have been avoided had Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel shown some flexibility over the Cabinet Mission plan.

According to Singh, ‘Nehru believed in a highly centralised polity. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted. Nehru didn’t. Consistently, he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India.’

Jinnah was leading the separatist movement as early as 1937, when Iqbal wrote to him: ‘Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India and outside India are.’ This, according to Iqbal, was need for saving ‘Muslims from the domination of Non-Muslims’.

Just before his death in 1938, Iqbal urged that ‘Muslims should strengthen Jinnah’s hands’ for achieving Pakistan, adding: ‘People say our demands smack of communalism. This is sheer propaganda. These demands relate to the defence of our national existence.’

Efforts to keep India united, continued nonetheless. The 1946 British Cabinet Mission to India released a plan on May 16, calling for a united India, comprising considerably autonomous provinces, formed on the basis of religion. The Congress initially rejected the plan, and the British Mission to release a second plan on June 16, calling for the Partition along religious lines. Jinnah, hoping that power would go only to the party that supported the plan, gave the League’s assent to both plans. But the Congress, eventually, accepted the May 16 proposal, the other.

Jinnah was disappointed for failing to grab all the power. The British Mission, then, advised by Jinnah, proposed formation of an interim government for united India, having equal number of Hindu and Muslim representatives. Muslims, being only about 20% of the population to 75% Hindus, the Congress objected to this arrangement, but agreed to a 12-member cabinet having 6 Hindu, 5 Muslim and another representative from remaining religious groups. However undemocratic, this was a jolly-good deal of Muslims, but Jinnah, who had hoped for all power, would not accede to anything less than 50% Muslim representation, which fitted well with Muslim League’s propaganda that ‘One Muslim should get the right of five Hindus’.

As the new proposal was supported by the British as well, Jinnah condemned the British negotiators of treachery, and quickly washed his hands off further negotiations. He called a Muslim League meet in Bombay on 29 July 1946. Its resolution said, ‘It has become abundantly clear that the Muslims of India would not rest with anything less than the immediate establishment of an independent and full sovereign State of Pakistan’ and urged upon the Muslim masses to undertake ‘Direct Action to achieve Pakistan and get rid of the present slavery under the British and contemplated future caste Hindu domination.’

When Jinnah was pressed on whether the Direct Action would be violent, he ominously replied: ‘I am not going to discuss ethics. We have a pistol and are in a position to use it.’ On his violent instigation, UK’s News Chronicle wrote: ‘…there can be no excuse for the wild language and abandonment of negotiations… Mr. Jinnah is totally wedded to complete intransigence, if, as now seems the case, he is really thirsting for a holy war.’

News Chronicle was prophetic concerning Jinnha’s thirst for “holy war”. There started the Direct Action on 16 August 1946 in Calcutta, the capital of Muslim-majority Bengal (53.4% Muslim), having a Muslim League government. Direct Action was a Jihad for Jinnah and his Muslim League, in the likeness of Prophet Muhammad’s stunning victory at Badr against a much stronger Meccan force; and Jinnah chose the date for Direct Action, coinciding with the day of Badr Jihad, 18th of Ramadan. A Muslim League propaganda pamphlet, read out in mosque sermons, said:

Muslims must remember that it was in Ramzam that the Quran was revealed. It was in Ramzan that the permission for Jehad was granted. It was in Ramzam that the battle of Badr, the first open conflict between Islam and Heathenism [i.e., idolatry, which equates Hinduism] was fought and won by 313 Muslims; and again it was in Ramzan that 10,000 under the Holy Prophet conquered Mecca and established the kingdom of Heaven and the commonwealth of Islam in Arabia. Muslim League is fortunate that it is starting its action in this holy month.

By the grace of God, we are ten cores [100 millions] in India but through our bad luck we have become slaves of the Hindus and the British. We are starting a Jehad in Your Name in this very month of Ramzan. Pray make us strong in body and mind—give Your helping hand in all out actions—make us victorious over the Kafers…

And the rest is history. Excited by inflammatory speeches of Muslim League leaders, the Muslim mob, after the rally, attacked the innocent Hindus and other non-Muslims of Calcutta, unleashing horrible slaughter, rape and arson for one-and-a-half days, before the Hindus and Sikhs (two-third of the population in Calcutta) hit back in like manners. Some 5,000 were dead with ~43% Muslim victims in one count—not as pretty a success as Prophet Muhammad achieved at Badr.

Nonetheless, this set off chain-reaction of violence from East Bengal to West Punjab leading to eventual partition in August 14-15, 1947. And until July 1947, violence was committed almost exclusively by Muslims, except in Bihar (Oct. 1946), where Hindus retaliated against Muslims, reacting to local Muslim instigations, and to their attacks and massacres of Hindus in Calcutta and East Bengal.

Thereafter, the Sikhs and Hindus hit back in East Punjab, as the partition was eventually agreed upon. The rest we all know: massacre of up to two million (evenly divided between Muslims and non-Muslims), rapes of hundreds of thousands (mostly Hindu & Sikh women), forced conversion of millions of non-Muslims and displacement of some 20 million across the border.

Concerning, who was responsible for the partition, enough evidence is presented above. Sri Aurobindo said, ‘The idea of two nationalities in India is only a new-fangled notion invented by Jinnah for his purposes and contrary to the facts’. Hindu Mahasabha leader, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, told the United Provinces Hindu Conference on October 8, 1944: ‘The sooner Mr. Jinnah understands that Pakistan in any form or shape will be resisted by Hindus and many others with the last drop of blood, the better for him…’

Nehru, for himself, was staunchly opposed to the partition, and blamed in his writings, wrongly and unequivocally, the British for forcing the partition upon the harmonious brotherhood (which never existed) of Hindus and Muslims. We have seen too many evidences of Jinnah’s campaign for the partition, but not a single statement, opposing it.

As concerns Nehru's lack of flexibility in forming the Interim Cabinet, it is absurd on the part of Azad and Singh to suggest that Nehru showed no flexibility. He had flexibility way to much by allowing 5 Muslim representatives in a cabinet of 12, when they deserved only 2. What Nehru didn't do is to be ridiculously flexible.

Even if Nehru did that, it was not going to be sustainable in popular democracy that India had proudly emerged as. The result would have been a recipe probably for greater horror, at a later.

What Friendship with Infidels Means in Islam

The Islamic concept of friendship proves beyond doubt that Islam is the invention of a deranged con-man...
To begin this article it is appropriate to quote directly from the Quran (9.23):
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.

SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.

Granted, this verse does not pertain to friendship. It pertains to one’s own family members. Can a person imagine a statement, a commandment, more perverse than these words spoken by the Islamic prophet Muhammad? Let’s consider this verse and its meaning for a moment before moving on the topic of friendship in Islam.
In Verse 9.23 of the Quran, Muhammad is claiming that god has commanded him to inform “the Muslims” that they must put Islam ahead of their own family in importance. In other words, Muhammad has said that Muslims should virtually disown their own family members should they simply choose not to remain Muslim. At minimum the family member is to be heartlessly ostracized.
Can you imagine being a Muslim parent or child and having to obey this verse should the reality arise within your own family? This tragic situation has arisen within millions of Muslims families throughout the centuries, and millions have been killed by their own families due to Islamic apostacy laws. Such is the sickening legacy of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Let us now consider friendship in Muhammad’s Islam.
First let us consider the reality of friendship amongst Muslims themselves. This topic concerned me greatly when I was a Muslim. For inside I knew the answers to the questions I was asking myself – and the truth was deeply disturbing. Some of the questions I asked myself were as follows:
If I were to leave Islam would my Muslim friends have to dump ME?
Does this mean that if one of my Muslim friends chose to leave Islam that I would have to dump THEM?
The answers to these fundamental questions helped open the door for me and leave Muhammad’s Islam. This and other “Islamic realities” led me to a critical study of Islam that helped free me from its perverse falsehood.
Obviously real friendship is profound and is to be highly respected and cherished. Many know how important friendship is to human health, happiness and our general development as individuals. Tragically, there can be no genuine friendship in Islam. Many Muslims still do not understand this basic fact. Let me explain why.
Muslim-to-Muslim friendship is contingent upon adherence to Islam. In other words, if a Muslim simply chooses to leave Islam for his own reasons his Muslim friends are obliged to consider him a traitor to the Muslim Umma, an enemy of god, and a worthless failure. And, of course, an Apostate that should be killed:
Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

Now let us look to Islam’s “holy book,” the Quran, and see what it has to say regarding friendship:
003.028 
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
005.051 
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
005.080 
YUSUFALI: Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah’s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.
058.014 
YUSUFALI: Turnest thou not thy attention to those who turn (in friendship) to such as have the Wrath of Allah upon them? They are neither of you nor of them, and they swear to falsehood knowingly.
060.013 
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves.
In closing, Islam’s treatment of friendship is obviously severely perverse. Upon close inspection, Islam is the obvious fraud of a very, very deranged con man.

Motto of Islam: ‘Thou Shall Not Live in Peace and Harmony’

Muslims created Pakistan in 1947 fearing that the majority Hindus would not let them live in peace, honor and dignity. Today, it's proven beyond doubt that it is Muslims, who have not let non-Muslims, including Hindus, live in peace and dignity---thanks to the Islamic mantra: Thou shall not live in peace and harmony.

carnage left by Muslim burning and masscre of Christians in Pakistan's gojraTHIS 14th August, Pakistan will be commemorating the 62nd year of running the bloody carnage, which engulfed this region of the subcontinent in the name of its freedom of religious needs and the violence in the name of Islam, which refuses to dissipate.

Yet again, Punjab, the land of five rivers, has witnessed a spate of violence against religious communities, in which seven people were burnt alive, and much property with scores of houses was ravaged, ransacked and looted. After 62 years, the perpetrators and the victims have changed, but the motives with their background remains the same: Thou shall not live in harmony.

Gojra massacre of Christian in Pakistan: Trail of carnage and destructionLast weekend around 100 houses were looted, burnt to the ground in and around Gojra in Toba Tek Singh district (a small city in western Punjab). A couple of weeks before this latest incident, dozens of houses were also ransacked and torched in Kasur, while some five months ago, a similar incident occurred in a Christian basti (slum) in Karachi, where about 40 houses were deliberately attacked and the carnage had left the basti-dwellers in complete shock. Some school-going children, deeply struck by the trauma of the terror, are still not able to go to school.

Gojra massacre of Christian in Pakistan: Trail of carnage and destructionAnd, in all these barbarous incidents, the perpetrators were from the Muslim community and the victims were hapless Christians. The violence was fueled by a rumor that ‘members of the minority community had desecrated copies/pages of the holy Quran’.

Whatever be the truth of these allegations, the response was shockingly disproportionate, criminal and barbaric.

An 1947-48, Muslims targeted and massacred the Hindus and Sikhs in order to create Islamic Pakistan and ethnically cleanse them from the newly created Islamic State (to which the Hindus and Sikhs belatedly retaliated). Here too, the Muslim mob targeted the Christian community because of its faith. Such shameful behavior—that in 1947 created deep wounds, which it is yet to heal—is still common in Pakistan and becoming all the more common.

Gojra massacre of Christians in Pakistan: Jihad masscred dead-bodies A number of commentators blame the current levels of intolerance—be it between Sunnis and Shiites or between Muslims and Christians or even the Hindus/Sikhs—on the Islamization policies of late General Ziaul Haq. No doubt, Gen Zia instituted the Hudood Ordinances and blasphemy laws, but the root of intolerant sentiments today goes beyond the questionable laws introduced in the Zia era. Even though Muslim-Christian riots invariably involve the issue of blasphemy Law, the central reason for this carnage, which frequently ensues and engulfs entire communities, is not the law alone, but, in general, a belief that violence in the name of Islam is very acceptable amongst Muslim believers. In Islamic Pakistan, none were brought to justice for the 1947-48 massacres (very few in India), nor were the perpetrators of the 1950s anti-Ahmedi riots. Most of the instigators of Shia-Sunni violence also roam free, while the general tone after attacks on the non-Muslim minorities (Christians, Hindus, Sikhs) has always been of ‘forgiving and forgetting’.

horror of gojra massacre of christians: relatives mourn the deadWhen a major attack on Christians took place in November 2005 in the Sangla Hill violence in Punjab, a committee was put into place to bring communal harmony by involving moderate Muslim thinkers/ politicians/ scholars in writing a full report of the incident for the National Council for Interfaith Dialogue, led by the formidable Fr. Francis Nadeem, representing the Christian side. During these dialogues, many reconciliation sessions/ meetings between its members took place, and the tone of all these meetings was so conciliatory that it would amount to encouraging the same crime. At every meeting/session, it was heard that “next time, we will not do this or that or...”

relatives mourn the dead of christians burned alive by Muslim mob in GojraI don’t know to whom the laws of blasphemy were supposed to apply, but the intent was to stop the crime. Tragically, blasphemy cases (allegations/ rumors) have proliferated with time since it promulgation; and actions taken against the accused is most often not by the state but by the vigilantes, maniac Islamic mob, whom the state cannot control. Section 295-B on defiling of copy of the holy Quran says: “Whoever willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Muslim Holy book or an extract there from, or uses it in a derogatory manner or any unlawful purpose, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life”. But the punishment has been inflicted without trial on people, who had nothing to do with it.

After great many such hearings, promising next time this and that, I always wondered what these people would do the next time there was such an allegation! If they do not torch their houses, will they just shoot them? Also, why is there always a mention of a ‘next time’? Why should there ever be a ‘next time’?

mourning the dead christians of gojra, punjab massacreGiving compensation to the victims (which was done in Shantinagar in 1997 and Sangla Hill in 2005) will never solve the problem, since there is always the threat of a ‘next time’, such as occurred in the latest Kasur and Gojra carnages (also compensation offered).

The sense of loss, the fear of another attack and the trust lost can perhaps never be reclaimed, as the victims forever live in perpetual shock and fear of a next time. As long as the perpetrators are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and exemplarily punished, as well as serious measures taken by the government to ensure rapid and decisive response to such events, these incidents will continue to happen. Suspending police officers is only a piecemeal initiative. Prosecution for inciting and perpetrating violence, murder, civil unrest and terrorism are measures, which will exhibit seriousness of the government in tackling this menace.

In addition to the blasphemy allegations, the other thing common to the attacks is that, they have so far been very well-planned.

No unruly mob consists of 30,000 people armed with everything from sticks to modern weapons as in Shantinagar...
No unruly mob goes and buys sulphuric acid in the nearest big city and then plans an attack such as the one that took place in Sangla Hill...
No unruly mob can successfully torch dozens of houses and then escape as easily as in the case of latest Gojra incidents.
Gojra maascre protest As concerns the recent attacks, it is clear that they have been well-planned, either by local extremists or by national or international Islamic groups, whose interpretations of the religion of Islam is markedly different from that of average Muslim thoughts. The failure of the local administrations, which played the usual silent spectator in all these incidents, is totally inexcusable.

Whatever be motive behind a particular attack, it is clear that Islamic intolerance thrives in its grotesque form in Pakistan. Be it against another religion or sect, this attitude is the larger problem in achieving much hyped-up religious harmony. It also partly explains why adherents of a specific faith, that touts itself as the proverbial religion of "tolerance and PEACE", would torch the homes of those outside their religion.

Some 62 years ago, Pakistan was created, because the Muslims of the subcontinent were not confident that India’s Hindu community would allow them to live in peace with full honour and dignity.

Today, it can be said with certainty that it is not the Hindus but the torch-bearers of Islam—who claim that Islam means “peace and tolerance” and that Allah has sent Islam for the good of mankind—who have not let the adherents of non-Muslim faiths peacefully with a semblance of freedom, honor and dignity.

Justic: Islamic Style

When oppression, discrimination, persecution and barbaric punishment for small crimes or noncrimes are justice...

In this article I discuss the concept of Justice in Islam. Many a time we hear expressions like "Islam promotes justice", "Islam is just", "Islam promotes a just society".

This article is divided into three part:

First, what is Justice and how it can be ascertained.

And second, the applications of Justice in Islam:

Jizya
Politics
Women
Inhertiance
Punishments for crimes
What is Justice and how it can be ascertained

The concept of “Justice” is not exact science. It also developed and matured throughout human history. “Justice” in ethical theory may or may not agree with “Justice” in political theory. I am not interested in discussing such scholarly differences that are better left for academicians. I am interested in social justice. Islam claims to offer social justice and I suspect that Muslims who say “Islam is just” have the concept of social justice in mind.

One of the best social concepts we have is the golden rule “treat others as you would want to be treated”. This is a great rule that is golden indeed. It promotes the genuineness of human equality in social affairs. There are no classes, and there are no caste systems. It means humans are brothers and sisters, and ought to treat each others in a decent and humane way. Every decent human being should practice and promote such a rule.

Even though the concept of Justice may not be defined in exact terms, we know what may or may not constitute a just rule. If every individual in the state can run to be elected president of the state, that is a just rule. If some individuals cannot run to be elected as a president of the state because of their eye colors, or because of income level or religious convictions, that is not a just rule. In summary, we can recognize the applications of Justice when we see them. We also know the converse.

Application of Islamic Justice

Let me move now to Islam and its applications of Justice on certain matters. There are certainly other matters in Islam that one can analayz to see if they insure justice or not, so my list is not conclusive by any means.

Jizya: This is a tax levied against non-Muslims living in a country ruled by Muslims. Please note that the “amount” of this tax is immaterial for our discussion. This tax is unjust regardless of how you look at it. Imagine if you live in a country that forces you to pay a special tax just because you are a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. It just does not make sense to force people to pay a special tax because they hold certain religious beliefs. Individuals in a specific state must be obliged under the same tax laws that apply equally to all citizens of the state, regardless of their religious convictions. The golden rule is clear on this matter.
 
Politics: In a country ruled by Muslims, only a Muslim can run for election as president of the state. The same applies for other elected seats. Is this a Just practice? Off course not. The golden rule tells you that you are disenfranchising individuals who may be highly qualified to run for such positions, and be very good for society if elected and allowed a chance to serve. The only reason they were not allowed to run for a political seat is because they are not Muslim. What a silly reason indeed. A person can serve well his society regardless of his personal religious beliefs.
 
Women: A man can beat his wife (Qur’an 4:34). A woman cannot beat her husband. Is this a just practice? The golden rule says that this is indeed not a just practice. The Qur’an does not have the equivalent of verse 4:34 that gives women a chance at beating their husbands. I reject the Qur’an as a useful book. But if one accepts the Qur’an, and the golden rule at the same time, then one accepts contradictions. Such a person believes that a man can beat his wife, but the wife cannot beat her husband. This is a contradiction in and of itself with regard to the golden rule. The golden rule is an instruction and a universal moral command to treat people equally and fairly. Also, a man is allowed to marry up to four wives in Islam. A wife is not allowed to marry up to four men. Is this a just practice? Off course not. The golden rule tells you that if you want to allow men to marry up to four women, the converse should be allowed too. A woman should be allowed to marry up to four men. However, Islam is a one-way street here. Hence, again, it is in contradiction with the golden rule.I do feel I need to insert my personal convictions about having multiple wives here. I think it is an ugly practice. It is crude and inhuman. I believe it degrades women as full human beings.
 
Inheritance: Islam has so many rules about inheritance. It has rules who gets what, and in what proportion. But one of the ugliest inheritance rules in Islam is that when a man dies, his sons get twice as much as his daughters. What an ugly and inhuman rule? It is a rule that is clearly designed to degrade women, and violate any universal moral code of decency, let alone the golden rule of what is just and fair.
 
Punishment for crimes: “Stealing” is an example of crimes and punishment in Islam. The punishment for such a crime in Islam, regardless of the amount stolen, is to cut the hand(s) of the perpetrator.
 
I submit to you that the cutting of hands in this case is one of the most inhuman acts a religion can do. First, when you cut the hands of an individual, you have put him/her at a disadvantaged position for the rest of their lives. Most jobs require hands to be able to work and make a living. If the hands are cut, society has to pick up the tab and pay for that individual’s life for the rest of his/her life. Second, the amounts of theft matter. When one steals a can of soda, the punishment should be much lighter than when someone steals a million dollar or a car or a motorcycle. So, clearly, stealing is a crime that requires a detailed system of gradual punishments according to the amount stolen.

Hence, Islam’s code of punishment does not promote a just society that deals in a fair way with criminals. “stealing” is just an example of how Islam’s laws of punishment should never be applied. They do not belong to human society, period.

Where does the golden rule apply here? Well, if you stole something, would you want your hand removed, and rely on state benefits to live a marginal life for the rest of your life, Or would you want to make up for your mistake and move on with your life? The golden rule takes the second choice for any individual. Islam’s rules of punishment are not fit for human consumption here.

Conclusion

The above analysis showed many problematic issues in Islam’s value system. Islam does not treat individuals in the same state equally. Islam does not provide a good value system in dealing with men and women. Islam’s political system does not promote the golden rule of fairness between people living in the same country. Islam’s system of punishment does not help individual’s in their lives, rather it is designed to maime people and render them useless for the rest of their lives. In short, Islam is unjust, and, in Sina’s words, “belongs to the dustbin of history.”

Zaynab and the Beast: Zaynab’s Divine Marriage to Muhammad & Zayd's Life-shattering Loss

How Allah's sanction to Muhammad's marriage to his daughter-in-law Zaynab relegated marriage simply into an institution of satiating sexual desire; how it was for Zayd, Zaynab's former husband and the prime loser in this divine drama, a life-shattering experience; and how Muhammad paved shattered Zayd's demise from the world soon afterward????

"Your marriages were arranged for you by your fathers, but my marriage was arranged for me by Allah from above the seven heavens" -- Zaynab to Muhammad’s other wives

The above assertion was Zaynab’s claim to fame, which no other woman had been able to match. Indeed, no other woman was privileged to have her marriage and family life planned for her by Allah, and carefully documented in the preserved tablet and the Quran. Zaynab’s ‘divine’ marriage was not a private matter because its implications still affect the life of Muslims. As a corollary to satisfying Muhammad’s sexual desires, Allah had to ban the highly moral practice of adoption, and introduce, instead, a morally corrupt legislation that allows women to breast feed adult men. Another upshot of this saga is that the Muslims today are still perplexed and divided regarding the wisdom of the ‘barrier (~hijab) verse’ that in effect locks women behind the dark shields of Islam. The historical events mentioned in this article are well-documented in the Quran and reputed sira (prophetic biographies); no Muslim can question their authenticity. The analysis, however, is mine and an attempt to read the small prints to understand that famous Islamic love, or rather lust, story.

Zaynab Bintu Jahsh was related to Muhammad from her mother’s side. Being twenty-three years younger than Muhammad, he must have had seen her many times as a young girl in Mecca, and noticed her good looks, which explains why he had chosen her as a wife for Zayd, his adopted son.

Zayd Ibn Haritha was an Arab slave, who was given as a gift to Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife. Muhammad inherited Zayd after Khadija’s death and because he liked him so much he adopted him. The tradition of adoption in Arabia, highly respected by the Arabs, ruled that the adopted children enjoy the same rights as the natural children. Zayd demonstrated exemplary obedience and loyalty to his master and served him with extraordinary devotion. In return Muhammad treated Zayd well, indeed, so well that he eventually adopted him.
 
 
The marriage of Zaynab and Zayd took place in Medina around the year 629 CE, when Muhammad had turned a renowned political leader in Arabia. Some Muslim traditions claim that Zaynab and her brother objected to the marriage on the ground of the superiority of her class to that of Zayd. Those traditions also claim that Zaynab really wished be married to Muhammad, not to Zayd. While it is understandable that Zaynab may have wished to marry Muhammad, who was the most important figure in Medina, there are doubts about the class issues because Zayd, once adopted, had automatically acquired the social class of his adopting father. Besides, Zayd was not an African slave but an Arab, who was captured in war.

The marriage was agreed and the couple lived in a house of their own in Medina. One day, while Zayd was away, Muhammad paid an unexpected visit to the couple’s quarter. While waiting at the door, a gentle wind blew a lightly woven curtain revealing a nearly naked figure of Zaynab inside the house. Muhammad was struck by the attractive figure of near-naked beautiful Zaynab, and went away saying: “Praise be to Allah, who can change how the heart feels”. The meaning of this ‘prayer’ is that Muhammad’s feeling toward Zaynab is now different from what it was, when he asked her to marry Zayd. In other words, he wasn’t attracted to her before, but now he is. What has changed in Zaynab that made Muhammad feel attracted to her? Obviously, when Muhammad peeped at Zaynab, he did not ‘see’ a change in her personality, but a nearly naked woman with a sexy figure. Zaynab told her husband of what happened, including what Muhammad had uttered as he left.

Accidents involving male and female members of the same family seeing each other in embarrassing positions or situations tend to happen in most households. The persons involved try to ignore the recollection or forget it completely without allowing it to have any negative consequences on their lives. What happened at the door of Zaynab would’ve passed without any far reaching consequences, had the person at the door been a man other than Muhammad.

The culture of strict sexual segregation practiced in the Gulf States, and some other Muslim countries, make some Muslims behave like wild sexual beasts. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the mere sight of a woman’s leg can be sexually-arousing experience to men. Women without total coverings were described by Australian Imam, Taj al-Hilaly, as uncovered meat; in other words, mouth-watering meals to would-be predators. However, it is hard to imagine that a man in his fifties, with many wives and sex-slaves at his disposal, would become a sexual monster at the sight of his daughter-in-law in flimsy dress.

There is nothing unusual for a man to see, accidentally, his daughter-in-law in underwear and Zayd shouldn’t have panicked at all, because it was nobody’s fault. But Zayd knew something the others didn’t know. He spent a lifetime with Muhammad and watched him grow from an insignificant person in Mecca to become a formidable warlord in Arabia, who claimed to have links with Allah. Zayd was not a psychoanalyst, and had no clue about why Allah had chosen his master to become a prophet. Muhammad’s success must have overwhelmed Zayd, who didn’t know how to make the connection between all those odd characters of Muhammad. Probably he thought it was all part of the package of being chosen by Allah. Having served Muhammad for years as a slave and then as a son, Zayd had a fairly good knowledge of Muhammad’s characters. He knew what his master liked and how he thought, and knew of the sex-monster imbedded in his personality. Zayd knew that, once Muhammad had a glimpse of Zaynab’s naked figure and uttered those words, no power on earth could stop him from having sex with her. For Zayd, the situation was a battle impossible for him to fight.

Zayd was so confident of his knowledge of the carnal nature of Muhammad that he had the courage to say to him what would be unthinkable for an ordinary Arab. Zayd panicked and went out looking for Muhammad until he found him, still preoccupied by his sexual fantasies about Zaynab. Zayd openly said to his adopting father, “perhaps you liked Zaynab, in which case I leave her for you”, to which Muhammad responded: “Keep your wife for you”. Of course, Zayd did not mean that Muhammad liked Zaynab as a person but as a sex-object.
 
What makes a man to panic and offer his wife to his superior, just because he happened to see her in her underwear? It strikes me with wonder about the amount of fear that generates that courage for a down-to-earth man like Zayd to say something that would so improper, immoral and offending to any man—never mind a prophet of Allah and the chief of Medina! Muhammad’s response springs more surprises. One would expect him to be outraged by the morally offensive offer, but he responded as if he had been offered something to eat: ‘You may keep her! (…and of course, if you persist, I will take it…)’

It is not that Zayd had simply guessed that Muhammad possibly liked Zaynab’s figure, he was dead-sure that he had been infatuated by her beautiful figure; otherwise he wouldn’t have dared ask Muhammad to take his daughter-in-law the way he did.

Similarly Zayd was firmly sure of how much lust Muhammad had developed toward Zaynab; otherwise, he wouldn’t dare suggesting divorce her, paving the way for Muhammad to have sex with her.

Likewise, Zayd was aware that Muhammad was capable of destroying any person, who would dare stand in his way to have what he desired; otherwise, he would never have announce his willingness to hand over his own wife, whom he was supposed to protect.

Zayd was dead-sure that Muhammad would eventually get his way; otherwise, he wouldn’t dare to suggest doing something would put the respected law of adoption in disrepute, which Muhammad, until then, recognized.

From that moment, Zayd knew that Muhammad would do whatever needed to have sex with Zaynab, even if that it be cancelling well-developed Arab law and tradition.

Having lived so closely for over three decades, Zayd had developed his own psychoanalysis of Muhammad’s personality. Muhammad’s generosity and kindness were always for a purpose; in Zayd’s case, they were because of his extraordinary commitment and total obedience to Muhammad. Zayd knew that he shouldn’t read too much into the fact that, he was Muhammad’s adopted son, because even that bondage wouldn’t tame the sex-monster Muhammad was.

Muhammad’s sexual desires towards Zaynab were not the product of the heat of the moment; weeks later, he was still in his world of fantasy about her. He became thoroughly convinced that Zaynab was too endowed to be given to Zayd. As with all other difficult problems Muhammad had faced, he had to use Allah to get his way.

One afternoon, while relaxing in Aysha’s house, closing his eyes and, undoubtedly, thinking of that beautiful figure of Zaynab, he came up with an ingenious solution. He suddenly opened his eyes with a big smile on his face, and said: “who can go to Zaynab and give her the good news? Allah ordered me to marry her”.

This is what Allah had to say:

وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِي أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِي فِي نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَاهُ فَلَمَّا قَضَى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَاكَهَا لِكَيْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِي أَزْوَاجِ أَدْعِيَائِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا

[Q.33:37] Behold! Thou didst say to one (i.e. Zaid), who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that there may be no difficulty to the Believers in marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.
 
As usual with translated Quran, the above translation contains serious and deliberate errors, this time, to conceal the rudeness of the original Arabic text. Yusuf Ali, Pikthal and other translators were stuck in the Arabic word ‘watara’ (coloured red), which means desire, want or need. I couldn’t help laughing when I read things like ‘dissolving the marriage’ and ‘divorce formalities’! What formalities were known at the time of Muhammad?

A more accurate translation would be: “when Zayd had finished what he wanted from her”. A man’s need for his wife is a lifelong need; there is no time in a successful marriage, when a man can say to his wife: “now I had accomplished my want from you” unless that man is speaking about sex. In simple language the above verse says: “as Zayd had finished from Zaynab, now it is your turn”.

In remarkable insensitivity to the suffering of Zayd, the prime victim of this whole saga, the above verse starts with a rather impolite reminder about Muhammad’s past favours to him. There is also a perceptible disrespect to women and the institution of marriage, in general, in this verse, as it suggests that Zaynab’s marriage to Zaid was for satiating mere sexual desire. The verse mirrored what was in Muhammad’s mind about Zaynab, and exposed his lack of integrity and his failure to recognize that Zaynab was a “loving” wife to Zayd, not merely a sex-object, like the way Muhammad wanted her for himself.

The section in above verse, “you feared people and it’s Allah whom you should fear”, raises another valid and embarrassing question that has no convincing answer. It is a sin for a Muslim to fear people more than Allah, and in the case of Muhammad, that sin contradicted the very principle of ‘issma’—i.e., his supposed infallible nature as a prophet. However, Muslims, who only see miracles in the Quran, come with this explanation to this issue: “this verse is a miracle that proves the Quran is from Allah, because had Muhammad authored the Quran he wouldn’t write something in it that implicates him”. Muslims do not grasp the idea that the Quran is Muhammad’s own thoughts spoken loudly. It is normal for people to kick themselves if they feel they made the wrong decision. In the above verse, Muhammad kicked himself, because he shouldn’t have let the fear from the public opinion to delay his decision to have Zaynab for himself.

Zaynab’s saga is one of those many Islamic issues that lie behind the red-line, which Muslims do not like to discuss or debate very often. In their defence, they say the moral of the story is that Allah wanted to put an end to the practice that prohibited the marriage of the divorced wives of the adopted sons. The Arabs have an old saying that describes this explanation: “the excuse is worse than the offence”. Muslims become speechless when they are reminded that Allah could have revealed a verse about the new legislation without having to go into that socially damaging scenario. That is, of course, if we accept that there was something wrong with the old legislation, which there wasn’t.

Out of all his marriages, Muhammad celebrated this one the most, probably the only one he threw a party for. A large number of guests were invited to enjoy free food, courtesy of Muhammad, and the celebrations went on for several days. Muhammad might have regretted that generosity because, one day, after everybody had his food and left, three of the guests stayed behind. Muhammad left them briefly to see his wives, and when returned, he saw they were still engaged in what seemed like an endless gossip. Muhammad was craving to be with Zaynab in bed, but those bad-mannered guests were wasting his valuable time. While waiting impatiently for them to leave, Muhammad must’ve recalled that infamous day, when he saw Zaynab in her underwear. He remembered that gentle wind that blew the lightly-woven curtain away revealing Zaynab’s beautiful figure, which led to his infatuation for Zaynab. Suddenly, Muhammad became alarmed, lest the same happens again, but to others at the door, including those guests, staying late at Muhammad’s home. Muhammad decided to shield Zaynab, and his other wives, with thick, windproof, curtains for added protection. Filled with greed and selfishness, Muhammad sought divine verses, not only to ask those men to leave, but also to stop all his followers from peeping at his wives or marrying them after him. Allah was waiting for Muhammad’s call and immediately revealed this handy verse, with far-reaching consequences for the Muslim woman-folk:

Q. 33:53: “O you who believe! do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless invited for a meal, but not waiting for its cooking being finished, but when you are invited, enter, and when you finished eating then disperse, do not linger for conversation; that would hurt the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it from behind a barrier (a curtain, Arabic for hijab). That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to hurt the messenger of Allah, nor that you ever marry his wives after him. That in Allah's sight would be an enormity.”
 
 
The above verse is now famously known as the Hijab Verse. As we can see it has nothing to do with the hair or head scarves. How many of those Muslims, who read the Quran every day, noticed that? So far, I met none!

The end of Zayd

Moral principles, ethics and human integrity were all losers in this tale, but Zayd was t he main victim because he lost his beloved wife and family life. Unlike Muhammad, Zayd did not consider Zaynab as a sex-object, but his only wife and partner for life and his entire family. He must have had struggled with his inner sense of loss and disappointment that it was divine will that broke down his family, robbed him of his beloved wife, and give her to Muhammad, who already had a number of wives and sexual partners. A blow of that magnitude would devastate any person regardless of his will-power or ability to endurance. But for Allah, punishing Zayd, it seems, wasn’t harsh enough as yet, as the Almighty delivered next shattering blow to Zayd in revealing verse Q.33:4:

....nor has He made your adopted sons your sons...

This verse delivered the final blow to Zayd’s only remaining comfort as concern Muhammad in that the warm fatherly bondage that Zayd had developed for over three decades, which was still connecting him to Muhammad, was also destroyed with the stroke of this divine revelation. With this verse, Zayd became an abandoned man, who not only lost his wife and father, but also his future and social standing. Totally, heartbroken and let down by Allah and his messenger, Zayd had to settle with the lie that he too was a winner because his name was mentioned in the Quran. His only option was to live in the shadow of the man, who was behind all this, to sing his praise and love him more than he loved himself, which Allah, indeed, demanded of all Muslims [Q 33:6]:

The Prophet is more worthy to the Believers than their own selves...

As to Muhammad, who got everything he wanted, there remained one tiny blemish that kept spoiling the pleasure of his greed. That was those sad looks from the eyes of Zayd. After his marriage with Zaynab, Muhammad didn’t see in Zayd anything more than a reminder of his insatiable hunger for sex. Zayd, once Muhammad’s loving adopted son, is no longer welcome in the world of Allah’s perfect man. Zayd had to go.

In 629, Muhammad decided to send Zayd to his final trip. He sent him with a small unprepared and poorly equipped army of around three thousands men to Muta, in present-day Jordan. From the beginning, the mission was doomed to fail because of the superiority of the Roman army in numbers and equipment. Muhammad assigned Zayd to hold the flag, which made him the first to be targeted by the enemy. The humiliating defeat was no surprise, neither was the fact that Zayd was one of the first to be killed in that battle.

And Muhammad lived happily ever after!