Is the Koran Truly Amazing?

Re: # 13

Saying la eela ha il-lah with belief is the most difficult thing to say for a non believer because it is this one sentence which changes the course of one`s life by 180 degrees. on the other hand, any one can quote some fancy verse from geeta which has no real meaning and implication.

`its appeal and ``scientific brilliance`` is limited to its followers`!
Rubbish. Many non-muslims most of which actually hate islam and therefore too stubborn to accept the truth are also amazed by the quran. Example Dr. Keith moore (and u can find many others, do a simple search on google)

Re: # 520

``Yeh zindagi ke mailay duniya mein kum na hongay ``

try saying that!!!!

try reading that ``mailay`` it reads dirty.

#527 tahmed32 writes <<< masadi: So you are reduced to namecalling? Let any impartial reader of the exchange below be the judge of who is the hypocrite >>>

Yes, let people witness first hand the extent to which you go, using trickery and deception, to support the tyrants that cause misery on earth. You try to cloud issues that have society wide, continent wide, world wide life and death implications for people by Ad Hominem inquiries of whether a particular individual volunteered his time at a soup kitchen or not. You have lost all sense of reason and integrity. By clouding these issues you help perpetuate them and that causes more harm than any benefit private ``volunteering`` will bring.

masadi: So you are reduced to namecalling? Let any impartial reader of the exchange below be the judge of who is the hypocrite.

Last post from me on this board.

#535 tahmed, you can conlcude whatever the hell you want to conclude but know that you conclsion is neither based on facts nor does it follow logically from my post, nor is it based on reality. It is based on your unconditional love for the American elite, that comes out more intense in your words than your love for anything else. You are a damn hypocrite. Let us hear you condemn the atrocities of the US elite, otherwise why don`t you shut up and spare us your hypocritical conclusions. People like you support the oppressors of the weak, and I support the weak and the downtrodden and have done so at every forum even at peril to my person and career. That is more in my opinion than any ``charity``- which I do not refrain from giving as well, as is my Islamic duty.

So: the short answer to my second question (namely, what have you done for the weak and downtrodden) is: nothing .

And dont give me your big talk about my turning negatives to positives and what not.

#522 tahmed writes <<< masadi: So, your long answer to my simple question boils down to: There is no other place on earth you would rather be than in the US.

Next question: If you are such a champion for the downtrodden, what have you done on their behalf here in the US. Have you volunteered your time to do something for the mentally handicapped? or the elderly? or the poor? or death row prisoners? or the victims of death row prisoners??

What have you done on their behalf outside the US?? >>>

What are you? A propagandist for the CIA? How conveniently you have turned my negative answer into a positive. People waste their lives in the US, they are trapped in a bureaucratized maze and their life passes them by without a moment of reflection. That is, in my opinion, the worst curse anyone can live under. If you take economic deprivation the effects of the policies of the US are felt greater abroad than at home but felt at home nonetheless. I would rather not be in the US and I would not wish that curse upon anyone else. I have made that quite clear in my answer that you are trying to spin.

When you ask me what I have done for the down trodden, you are thinking of private solutions to public problems, things that transcend an individual and his or her local environment. Public problems by definition can be fixed only by institutional restructuring and I am helpless, at the present , to bring about any such solutions. Private solutions are no help in fixing social problems, that is why the elite encourage private solution even as they help maintain the status quo. Look at all the private help foundations all their corporations have setup. They deprive the world yet they offer crumbs to the poor through the carnegie trust and the ford foundation etc. Hypocrisy plain and simple.

Next, what I do or do not do has nothing to do with what the facts are. You cannot deal with the arguments so you bring in questions that lead to Ad hominem criticism. You are trying to cloud the facts and thus maintian the status quo which causes GREATER harm than any private help you can give put together. You are trying to keep the public unconscious, I am trying in my limited way to wake it up to the reality of institutional pressure: in that I think I have put it quite a bit of effort and to me that is worth more than any charity that Mother Teresa can give.

dost mittar: afsos to yeh hai kai yai maelay bhi chand din kay mehmaan haiN. :-)

What I mean is, ``culture`` is not a static thing, but one that is changing with increasing rapidity nowadays all across the world. Thus, despite the surface similarities, the ``Panjabi`` culture of today is quite removed from that of a couple of generations ago: back then, when the sun went darkness set in virtually every across the world - and today we have the 24/7 culture all around the world. A couple of generations ago, few people ventured beyond their village during their entire lives, and today nearly every tom, dick and harry has been around the world. So, all that remains of the ``mela`` are surface similarities - the panjabi language, or panjabi music (which has world-wide popularity now among the youth), is like the smile which is all that remains of the cheshire cat whose body has disappeared. And one day that smile too will be gone. And we will have a totally different cat to deal with. And that cat will be speaking english (or at least english as it would have evolved by then). :-)

masadi: So, your long answer to my simple question boils down to: There is no other place on earth you would rather be than in the US.

Next question: If you are such a champion for the downtrodden, what have you done on their behalf here in the US. Have you volunteered your time to do something for the mentally handicapped? or the elderly? or the poor? or death row prisoners? or the victims of death row prisoners??

What have you done on their behalf outside the US?? Ever visit a community of impoverished hindu minority women in bangaldesh, and spend half a day listening to their problems and dreams, and then doing something about it? Ever visit an HIV clinic in Africa and talk to people with death staring out of their eyes, and try to understand what can be done to make life a little easier for me?? Ever go to an orphanage in Pakistan??

Lets have some straight answers please. (and btw, big talk does not qualify as doing something for the downtrodden - the downtrodden and the weak have no use for big talk).

#504, tahmed32 writes <<< So where exactly do you plan to go to free yourself from your misery?? >>>

Firstly, I don`t say what I say because it is a desire to ``free myself`` alone. Everytime a person faces an unpleasant situation, if he or she gets up and leaves, will that problem ever get noticed or fixed?

Second, if you noted what I write, it talks about global interconnectedness, a bureaucratized nation state system where the US plays a greater role in maintaining ghettos around the world. The effects of the policies of the US are felt greater abroad than at home in the US. SO if my purpose was to ``free myself`` alone I`d minimize the damage and stay in the US. But I do not plan to do that. Inshallah, I`ll be writing you all from a different IP address soon enough.

Third, also this myth that people around the globe are waiting to rush to the US is just that, a big myth. Look at the net migration rate tables from around the globe. The US net migration rate, the difference between in-migration (immigration) and out-migration (emigration) per 1000 population was around 3.31 last year. A surplus of 3 people per 1000 population came in compared to those that left this country. Now there are TONS of countries in the world that have a higher rate of net migration compared to the US. Here is a table, knock yourself out (http://www.travelgis.com/Asp/getranks.asp?category=Net+Migration+Rate&unit=per+1000&format=.htm )

Similarly there are TONS of countries where income inequality, and wealth inequality is less than the US. Now, if I wanted to answer your above question based on a rhetorical response that would be VALID, I`d say, I would move to a country where more people are rushing to and where income/wealth inequality is less. That would be a valid and good answer, but to be honest, I will return to the homeland and work from there, God willing.

tahmed32#508:

I do not believe that language is ``just a means of communication``. It is also a means of transmitting one`s culture, heritage or what the French call ``patrimony``. Unlike you, I cannot conceive of a unilingual world. This would not only mean all countries have the same official language but also that every human will be unilingual. In Pakistan even now, almost everyone is bilingual, they know Urdu as well as their mother-tongue, except for the Muhajirs whose mothertongue is Urdu.

We may have a predominant language for international communications. But I am certain that there is not going to be a unilingual world. Of course, we are talking about the Keynesian long run.

Yeh zindagi ke mailay duniya mein kum na hongay
Afsos hum na hongay!

[Try saying that in English :) ]

Dear Manto,

Sorry if bringing up the Prophet`s name hurt your feelings. But you have not objected to me comparing you with MAJ. That suggests that you hope to go down as a man as great as MAJ. Godspeed.

Regards

Dear Majumdar...

Comparisons, analogies and assumptions is what I was objecting to- the latter being most relevant. That is in any event a loaded statement- so either way have it as you may how you may if it pleases you.

Dear Manto,

Sorry if bringing up the Prophet`s name hurt your feelings. But since you have not raised any objections to your name being brought up as a comparison I suspect that you hope to go down eventually as great a leader as MAJ. Godspeed.

Regards

by ``this statement`` I refer to the 1940 statement and its distorted hearsay versions.

Dear Majumdar...

Unfair comment.

Ofcourse the man was human.. I think his final strategy was flawed even if his tactics were flawless and he had his blindspots- I think announcing the Direct Action Day which led to violence in Calcutta regardless of who did what tarnished his whole struggle and his name as a constitutional barrister who had never resorted to such calls. It was because of the basic inherent flaw in his demand, so carefuly nuanced and crafted to suit a very particular demand- Congress ran away with the partition of Bengal and Punjab ... the problem however is of relativity and comparison- an honest investigation will always conclude that Jinnah carried himself honestly and with integrity in that final period.

This statement would hardly qualify as a point of dispute. If it was true- I would accept it. Like I pointed out, I used to quote it when I considered it true... and many Jinnah admirers do to prove that Jinnah`s 11th August speech and not other Muslim League leaders` philosophy should be followed in Pakistan. However, research proves that it was this statement ... that got distorted and was quoted differently by different people. This is why hearsay is not admissible in court.

I am not sure why you bring up the Holy Prophet in the middle.

Dear Manto Sahib,

Did MAJ do any bad/wrong thing ever in his life?
In the history of mankind has a greater human being been ever born except of course Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and yourself?

Regards

Dear Harish,

Still abusing, insulting, huffing and puffing I see. You must be really upset that you`ve returned for another day of the ``teaching`` me a ``lesson``, all for exposing Gandhi as the racist, casteist, misogynist Hindu fanatic that he was. It is not my fault that Gandhi considered black people subhuman or was all for closing up women in doors or wanted to continue the caste system... those were uniquely his flaws.

Well here are two further points ...

1- My ``unique interpretation`` of history is amazingly shared by Ayesha Jalal, H M Seervai, Anil Seal, Asiananda, Patrick French, H V Hodson, Irfan Habib, Ainslee T Embree and a countless host of other Indian and western scholars... of the list given above only one is Pakistani.


2- As for evidence for that statement being from 1940- here it is once again:


#455 by Mantolives on February 21, 2006 4:12am PT
The typewriter fallacy..

The Real Statement (1940 speech) is:

‘My entire equipment is confined to an attache case, a type writer and a personal assistant’.

(Speeches and statements of Mr. Jinnah Vol 1 Ashraf Lahore 1960)


In the ‘Formative Phase’ (Chap 6 ‘The Muslim League: Its Role and Organisation’ on Page 176 OUP Karachi 2nd Edition) Khalid Bin Sayeed gives this footnote:

‘This statement is a speech made in 1940 in which Jinnah urged Muslims to strengthen the Muslim League organization and pointed out that it was only after Muslims were well organized that he would give them the Marching orders.’

#486 by Mantolives

[If you recall you claimed you will never indulge me in debate again because you had succeeded (allegedly) in achieving your objectives.]

Dear Yasser, yet another instance of your poor English comprehension skills? How many more times will you prove that your entire perception of Jinnah (which obviously differs from what most authors) is based solely on your unique interpretation of history flowing through either your imagination or your poor comprehension skills.

[The only person blabbering here is you and the realisation must kill you- you`ve wasted another day debating with me who you`ve ``taught`` a lesson so many times.]

Not really! Your twists and turns and desperation are worth the effort.

[Hearsay my friend was never admissible anywhere.]

Coming from you, this is really rich. I mean, for years now you`ve been saying Jinnah meant this Jinnah meant that, but as they say actions speak louder than words. Jinnah`s legacy is one of the single most distastrous events in the history of mankind, comparable with the holocaust, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

[Here is the process]

If it is so easy, why don`t you produce evidence to show that the 1940 statement you provided is the same as the one Rafiq Zakaria, Ayaz Amir, and G M Syed ``misunderstood``. Should be a cakewalk no?

[I know because I used to quote the type writer Pakistan statement all the time till I realised that it was merely a distortion.]

Was it realization based on some concrete evidence, or was it one of the ``because I think so`` things? For far too long, we`ve only been hearing about Jinnah meaning this, but doing exactly the opposite. If I had a nickel every time Jinnah was ``misunderstood`` (that is, as per your spin), I would be a billionaire by now.

I accept - the statement was badly worded.

However I am not asking him to leave... I am just trying to determine why he chooses to stick around. He certainly wasn`t born there ...

No comparison with Farzana is on. Farzana was born and raised an Indian..

Re: # 504

Dear tahmed32:

Although you are asking {masadi:
So where exactly do you plan to go to free yourself from your misery?? }

I know that he will go in circles to catch his tail. Poor wretched soul.

Respectfully submitted,

dm: i agree with you that the english language itself is changing, of course - but then, it has been changing through the ages, from the anglo-saxon language of the 7th century with danish added (virtually all english words with the letters ``sk`` like sky, skill and so on are of danish/viking origin); latin; french. there is a fascinating book ``the story of english`` that relates this, btw.

dost mittar: i think you would be better off trying to control the sea tides than trying to control the emergence of a single language.

the reasons i say that we are headed for a common language (and that language is english) whether we like it or not are as follows:

1. There has been an explosion in knowledge over the past half century, and thus a vast increase in the need for scientific terms. While latin served this purpose for the western world (and later for the westernized world) for the past few centuries, increasingly it is in english that phrases and words are being coined. The result: today english has a vocabulary of over 4 million words while french has around 100,000 (i remember reading this somewhere). urdu probably has even less (just look up any urdu dictionary), and other subcontinent languages probably even less.

So how is the deficit being met? through use of english words. This ``pidgin`` urdu in pakistan or hinglish in india is a reflection of this. The french even tried unsuccessfully in the 1960`s to legislate against use of english words in public displays etc., and failed. there is no turning back the tide.

2. Language is wrapped up in all sorts of emotions (the more backward the people, the more emotional they get on non-economic issues like language, ethnicity, religion, as evidenced by communal riots in india, sectarian violence in pakistan, the furor over cartoons). But nevertheless, language is ultimately a means of communication. And just as surely as water will carve out the path of least resistance to its flow, so too will people when communicating.

So, while i too feel sorry that all these different cultures we grew up with are disappearing, along with the languages - there is no turning back the tide.

tahmed32#491:

Tahmed saheb, one can look at it in another way - this topic is so relevant that it is being discussed even in English. Just because English is the language of globalisation does not meant that other languages have become irrelevant or will stop evolving. God forbid we ever have to live in a world with only one language, even in Canada we have two official languages and the government makes many of its publications available in many languages, including Urdu and Punjabi.

Let us also remember that English was not always the lingua franca of the world and there is no guarantee that it will remain so for ever. Even the global English has changed from British to American and is now changing into Internet English where for is `4`, two is `2` and you is `u`. As for the future, the brightest and the best of Uncle Sam`s children are learning mandarin to prepare for the future world.

#505


The US is like Pakistan in this regard. There are tons of people in Pakistan who hate Pakistan but live (happily) there too. You can live in the US and hate it too. It is the only country where people can burn flags out of sheer love for the country.

{#500 by Mantolives on February 22, 2006 7:26am PT
Dear Masadi...

Please tell us one thing. Why is it that if you hate the US so much ... do you continue to reside there.. }

hehehe..manto its like asking ferzana to buy one way ticket to kabul..LOL

masadi: There is certainly no place on earth you are going to find a ``level playing field``.

You could try Saudi Arabia - but first time some drunk, overspeeding saudi prince (yes, virginia, there is indeed such a thing as a Drunk, Overspeeding Saudi Prince - and indeed not one but hundreds maybe thousands) smashes your car, you not the prince would be arrested on the Saudi logic that if you had not entered Saudi Arabia in the first place, the Saudi Prince would not have smashed your car. Of course, you will find lots of rich, US haters in Saudi Arabia, so at least that should keep you happy. (Except they may not want to share their views with a mere immigrant).

So where exactly do you plan to go to free yourself from your misery??

#502 by masadi on February 22, 2006 9:14am PT


The US does not present a ``level playing field``.


You`re mistaking level playing field with an equal outcome..Even on a level playing field, the US soccer team would almost always lose to the Brazilian soccer team..level playing field means everyone has the same opportunity..it doesn`t guarantee an outcome..


the top 1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 99% combined, how can that translate into a ``level playing field``?


allah made 1% of people smart and intelligent and the other 99%, not so smart..and yet he`s created a world in which smart and intelligent poeple are more likely to do better..

Even allah hasn`t created a level playing field...what`s up with that?


What about those poor souls?


We`re enjoying the misery..thanks for asking..when you leave, we`ll miss your tax $$ financing our war machines...OTOH, maulana urstruly is sure to have a few legitimate offsprings who`ll grow up to be tax payers, disconcerting as the thought of urstruly having kids may be..

#500, Manto writes <<< USA is a great success... the reason why there aren`t any spontaneous revolutions by the proletariat ... is because unless you are an utter and total bum.. US presents a level playing field where you can secure the future of your family... >>>

The US does not present a ``level playing field``. In a society that is based upon purchasing power where the top 1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 99% combined, how can that translate into a ``level playing field``?

My being here or not has nothing to do with the fact that the US elite are tyrants. I am not the only one suffering here there are millions of others. I have an option though and soon I will excersie that option to escape from this misery. What about the others whose existance has been reduced to cheerful bondage in pursuit of a dream that will never materialize? What about those poor souls?

#495 by masadi on February 22, 2006 6:49am PT


Since when did mass action determine what the truth was?


Since muslims claimed non-muslims need to be deferential to mohammed because 1.2 billion people think he rocks..

comrade masadi..you can`t have it both ways...one one hand you say islam rocks because it`s the fastest growing religion..OTOH you say mass actions don`t determine the truth..

Dear Masadi...

Please tell us one thing. Why is it that if you hate the US so much ... do you continue to reside there.. I am sorry I have to call a spade a spade ... but given your angst... I would imagine you would live somewhere else...

USA is a great success... the reason why there aren`t any spontaneous revolutions by the proletariat ... is because unless you are an utter and total bum.. US presents a level playing field where you can secure the future of your family...

further to #498 (but will inshallah return in a few hours to respond to any comments you may have).

matolives/masadi: Nice chatting with you gentlemen. I must sign off now. Regards.

#495 you are entitled to your views. but you missed the point i reminded you of again. :-)

mantolives #493 That is indeed true. Jinnah was very much in the tradition of the spirit of enlightenment and the age of reason. The ``pursuit of happiness`` does indeed sound a triviality, given the grave problems of poverty and political instability in Pakistan. But I think as an ideal it is in fact a very serious one. After all, God himself gave us the power to smile and to laugh and to enjoy the fruits of the earth (without going over certain common sense limits of course). And we must look beyond the problems of today (the mullah-gardi, e.g.) to what we can potentially achieve as human beings - which is indeed very exciting things like expanding our scientific knowledge.

The ``pursuit of happiness`` is not mere indulging one`s appetites (as exemplified by our nihari-eating ex-prime minister), but of reaching for the stars (if I may put it a bit metaphorically). And human liberty is a means to it, as is economic progress and political stability.

#494 tahmed writes <<< (and you are dead wrong here anyway - why do you think people come from all over the world to the US?? in pursuit of sadness??? >>>>

Cultural hegemony and fake propaganda coupled with the crumbs that the US elite hands out to cheap labor is what brings people here. Since when did mass action determine what the truth was? I am not obsessed with anything just restoring dignity to the vast majority of humankind that has been robbed from it by this miserable elite you worship, at the same time, I cannot stand by and see you sell the ``American dream`` like a cheap insurance salesman when the reality of the situation is much different.

masadi #492 I am not discussing the extent to which the US has attained its ideal of ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness`` (and you are dead wrong here anyway - why do you think people come from all over the world to the US?? in pursuit of sadness???

What I am discussing is the merits of these words as an ideal . The fact that the point of my discussion escaped you is just another demonstration of your obsession with demonizing the US.

Tahmed...

Agreed...

Life and Liberty sounds good... ``pursuit of happiness`` is too sissy...

John Locke said ``Life Liberty and Property``- he was the father of modern society after all... John Locke was an inspiration after all to both Jefferson and Jinnah... Jinnah`s 11th August speech echoes John Locke`s ``On Toleration``.

Also readily available from Jinnah`s speeches... Equality, Fraternity and Social Justice... sounds similar to Equality Fraternity and Liberty from the French Revolution...

#490, tahmed32 writes <<< What do you think of the oft-repeated words of the US constitution: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? >>>

Fake propaganda that is what I think of these three words when they are applied to the US. Neither is opportunity to life equal, as revealed by the varying life expectancies based upon income and wealth, neither is liberty equal based upon access to the kinds of lawyers a person can afford, and of course happiness is what the vast majority of the US population never attains but is always after (in the form of material products), giving rise to massive consumerism. That is what I think of those three words. Tahmed why don`t you just set up a temple to worship the American elite. You support them moreso than you support the Quran or Islam. In fact you often side with these sobs to attack my every point of view. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness: you never lose an opportunity to glorify the world`s worst terrorists and their propaganda, do you?

dost mittar: I think it is supremely ironic that everyone is predicting the future being ``urdu`` or variations thereof - in english

There is an even greater influence on language than bollywood, believe it or not. It is globalization. And globalization has led to the emergency of a standard communication protocol in computer networks, whereby TCP/IP has emerged from among many contenders as the standard protocol for the internet and therefore for all computer networks. Similarly, like it or not, english has emerged as the standard communication protocol among human networks. To the extent that even proponents of urdu, panjabi etc. make their case in english, as pointed out above. :-)

Mantolives: Greetings.

The ``unity, faith, discipline`` motto was no doubt appropriate for the struggle for Pakistan. ``justice, fairplay and impartiality`` is certainly what is needed for nation-building (as opposed to struggling to acquire a nation to begin with). But even this does not go far enough, I think, in terms of placing the individual in control of his/her life. What do you think of the oft-repeated words of the US constitution: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Dear Tahmed...

The motto Ittehad Tanzeem Yaqeen Muhkam ... Unity of Pakistan, Discipline of the Ranks and Faith in one`s ability ... finds expression only once...

But I like the motto that Punjab University put up right up with a Jinnah picture to go with it on the Nehar after crushing the Jamiat in 2001... ``Justice Fairplay Impartiality``

Urstruly, Naqshbandi:

Re. Urdu

I am torn between heart and mind on this issue. I really love when someone speaks refined Urdu and I try to do so myself to the extent that my Punjabi background would permit me. I also love pure Hindi and pure Punjabi. I should use ``pure`` within quotation because what I consider pure at this point is itself a result of ``adulteration`` over decades and centuries.

But my mind is on the opposite side. I believe that a living language must evolve to absorb modern influences, otherwise it risks getting fossilised like the classical languages, such as Sanskrit and Latin. So, Urdu must evolve. However, I do not think that its evolution will be determined solely in Pakistan. The language of North India and Pakistan is increasignly determined by the popular media, films and now television, especially TV which is much more intimate a medium and brings language and culture in our living rooms. Here, unless Pakistan can effectively stop Indian TV channels from entry into Pakistani homes, they are the ones who will determine the subcontinental language of the future and they are increasingly veering towards a curious amalgam of English and Hindi with a sprinking of Punjabi, esp. in songs, while the flowery Urdu dialogues which enriched old Indian films are being used less and less, esp. on TV. And the Punjabi they use is of East Punjab where the vocabulary is dominated by Hindi words as against the Urdu words in West Punjab.

teshah #472: So your suggestion for the new national motto is: ``mullah-gardi zinda baad``

This certainly describes the situation today quite well. :-) And you have also made an addition to the urdu language (``mullah gardi``) while you were at it!! (urstruly should be happy with the expansion of the urdu language, although not perhaps with the reference to mullah gardi)

But more seriously, compare the words unity, faith, discipline with the corresponding words that have guided the US over the past two centuries: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . In Pakistan, life is cheap (worshippers are murdered in mosques in the name of ``Islam`` by ``muslims``!!); liberty is permitted only if you are among the rich and powerful - and then you have the liberty to do whatever you like; and the ``pursuit of happiness`` is sacriligeous if you are poor, but a sign of manhood if you are rich and powerful.

A motto is a guiding light for a nation - the US constitution has guided US actions for two centuries, and steadily allowed it to progress in the right direction. It is time we started having some ideals for the future in Pakistan, with the mullah gardi of today certainly having no place in that future and ``unity, faith, discipline`` being relevant only to a limited time (i.e. in the struggle for Pakistan).

Dear Harish

If you recall you claimed you will never indulge me in debate again because you had succeeded (allegedly) in achieving your objectives. You talk big and yet have nothing to show for it. The only person blabbering here is you and the realisation must kill you- you`ve wasted another day debating with me who you`ve ``taught`` a lesson so many times.

Please produce the alternative primary source that has been asked of you. Hearsay my friend was never admissible anywhere.

Here is the process:

Its not that hard- go to a library- find Rafiq Zakaria`s ``Man who divided India``... and look for the bibliography for the said statement. Once you`ve gotten the citation- look for the book and see.

But I tell you it will be a futile endeavor because this is the only statement (1940) by Jinnah which has both a type writer and a personal assistant in it. I know because I used to quote the type writer Pakistan statement all the time till I realised that it was merely a distortion.

#482 by Mantolives

[First it was creating ``defending Gandhi``, then ``creating doubts`` about Jinnah and now ``beating up on me``.]

Aww poor Yasser, are you so traumatized that you can`t understand that all of them are one and the same?

[You change your stated objectives more times than gandhi changed his dhoti.]

Going by the incoherent blabbering that you`ve been reduced to, the end result is achieved, so I don`t mind it.

Dear Harish Hyd,

``Nope, you merely produced ANOTHER statement trying to pass it off as the original claiming that Rafiq Zakaria and Ayaz Amir, two eminent writers distorted. Obviously, you did a poor con job. ``

Then why don`t you do us all a favor and produce the ``primary source`` for the statement that Rafiq Zakaria and Ayaz Amir quote. For the record I didn`t say they ``distorted`` the statement. They`ve merely reproduced hearsay and this indeed is in circulation- quoted more by Jinnah admirers than otherwise ironically. I also know that Raja of Mahmudabad did not visit Jinnah 1947 onwards- and therefore G M Sayed is mistaken.

Yes- I do know something they didn`t because I have found this statement in a primary source and K B Sayeed`s book which says:

“There are many people in Pakistan particularly among the services who tend to dismiss the contribution of the Muslim League towards the achievement of Pakistan as one of little consequence. They often quote, out of context, the statement of Jinnah …

Footnote says: This statement is from a speech made in 1940 in which Jinnah urged Muslims to strengthen the Muslim League and pointed out that it was only after Muslims were well organized that he would give them marching orders. This meant that he attached great importance to the organization of the League.

Page 176 Chapter 6 The Muslim League, its role and organization

#480 by Mantolives

[As the matter stands - I have quoted the direct statement.]

Nope, you merely produced ANOTHER statement trying to pass it off as the original claiming that Rafiq Zakaria and Ayaz Amir, two eminent writers distorted. Obviously, you did a poor con job.

[You have quoted paraphrased statements by 3 people- and none of them have quoted a primary source but simply reproduced a distortion of the original.]

It is a distortion just because you say so? Are you saying you know something that Rafiq Zakaria, Ayaz Amir, and G M Syed didn`t know?

[You are welcome to check these facts- but then that would require research which you are incapable of.]

Funny how you`re trying to pass on the buck to me. You want ``primary sources``, but you won`t provide any to those who doubt your claim. This is a clear give-away of a man who is tottering at his wit`s end.

[It seems to me that other than the abuse and insults, you have no way out of the mess you find yourself in. So my suggestion- concentrate on your job - maybe you are marginally better at that.]

My suggestion is you don`t take me on either insults or history, because you`re poor at both. And going by your debating prowess, may I humbly suggest you join law school again if you are ever to make something worthwhile of your life?

PS to Harish

Yaar ofcourse its not ``fun`` to beat up on me anymore (lets assume it was ever for a minute).

Is this the latest spin ? First it was creating ``defending Gandhi``, then ``creating doubts`` about Jinnah and now ``beating up on me``.

You change your stated objectives more times than gandhi changed his dhoti.

Dear Anil sahab,

Interesting point... and agreed.. but I am afraid Mullahs have different priorities and loyalties...

Jinnah`s stature as the founder of the nation.. as well as the myths of invincibility (like the one broken here today) surrounding his life reinforced by the nation state have made the Mullahs shut up about Jinnah progressively. It must be remembered that at the time of the Munir Commission and Report, the Mullahs were still speaking against him- still describing his conception of Pakistan as ``Kufr``.

Now- the Mullah treads with caution... Jinnah is one name the Mullah grudgingly bows his head to. We had a controversey in the national assembly ... when an MMA said ``He may be Quaid-e-Azam to you but not to me`` and then referred to him as ``Apka kay Quaid-e-Azam``.. but thats about it. It was Jinnah`s portrait in a suit in the NWFP assembly that stopped the bill against banning western dress as school uniform in Peshawar. The ANP (irony) pointed to Jinnah`s picture and asked if MMA believed Jinnah was a kafir.

Personally- I think the shield needs to be reinforced by other leaders- newer leaders who say the same thing again and again. Pakistan`s problem was- as I described in my post 442- the ideological confusion of the Muslim Salariat... Jinnah`s political training was from Congress and under Hindu and Parsi leaders like Gokhale and Naoroji... therefore he did not have a second string with similar thinking. We need a second string... someone like Aitzaz Ahsan to forget what happened since and pick up from 11th September 1948 ...

Also please visit unplugged… where I have reopened the CMP discussion with Sadna…

Harish Hyd,

No one is asking you to believe anything I say. I certainly don`t have the thaika to correct ignorance- especially someone like you.

As the matter stands - I have quoted the direct statement. You have quoted paraphrased statements by 3 people- and none of them have quoted a primary source but simply reproduced a distortion of the original. G M Sayed`s deputation especially is funny, because no where between the period of the creation of Pakistan and Jinnah`s death 10 months later did Raja of Mahmudabad ever visit the man. You are welcome to check these facts- but then that would require research which you are incapable of.

It seems to me that other than the abuse and insults, you have no way out of the mess you find yourself in. So my suggestion- concentrate on your job - maybe you are marginally better at that.

#476 by Mantolives

[So your insults don`t hurt me.]

They do Yasser, they do, nothwithstanding your bold assertions, which is why you refer to them in your very next post.

[It just shows that you don`t have an argument- a usual condition for you.]

One could be forgiven for thinking that you were talking about yourself. The fact that you resorted to talking about excreta amply proves that you don`t have an argument, or you yourself aren`t convinced about the `evidence` you provided, which is why the need to reinforce it with profanities.

[Kindly don`t indulge in the regular obfuscation. Produce a primary source.]

Please let us know why should we consider you more credible than Rafiq Zakaria (RZ) or Ayaz Amir (AA)? How is the `evidence` you provided even remotely connected to the statements the two gentlemen refer to? `My entire equipment is confined to an attache case, a type writer and a personal assistant` is not nearly the same as `Which Muslim League? Pakistan has been created by me and this typewriter of mine.`. It would take a fertile imagination from someone who is obviously high on some substance to think these two are connected.

G M Syed`s deposition in court clearly says that it took place after Partition, the tense in both statements by RZ and AA make it abundantly clear so you must be incredibly dumb to ask me again to prove it.

Now as I said, I don`t want you to s(p)oil this board so please don`t bother answering, because your arguments are so weak, its not even funny anymore to beat up on you.

Re: # 477

Yasser:

Would you not agree that Jinnah`s speech as a shield will be effective only if the Mullahs have as much respect, and Jinnah still commands as much control and authority over the Mullahs, as he does on intelligentia like yourselves?

Anil Kapuria

As for hidden implication- feeblemindedness notwithstanding.. to an ordinary and sane person it is absolutely clear that Mullahs are embarrassed of Jinnah`s clear pronouncement in the Constituent Assembly.. Therefore they try and lessen Jinnah`s importance in Pakistan movement. Similarly those who wish to make Pakistan a constitutional democratic state and use Jinnah`s speeches- especially 11th August 1947- as a shield against the Mullahs- want to exaggerate his importance in the Pakistan movement and lessen the rest..

I am not sure what conjecture, implication or hidden meaning a person may extract from such a simple statement.

Dear Harish,

First of all I have not abused you or used your tactics. So your insults don`t hurt me. It just shows that you don`t have an argument- a usual condition for you. Kindly don`t indulge in the regular obfuscation. Produce a primary source.

As for your claim that the statement I have quoted does not ``Remotely`` resemble the statement quoted by Ayaz Amir or Rafiq Zakaria...

Rafiq Zakaria as quoted by you paraphrases this way: He once remarked that he got Pakistan by using just the services of his secretary and typewriter

The actual statement:

‘My entire equipment is confined to an attache case, a type writer and a personal assistant’. `

(Speeches and statements of Mr. Jinnah Vol 1 Ashraf Lahore 1960)

#474 by Mantolives

[For your benefit I quote the primary source again]

Nowhere in the ``primary source`` does it say that THIS was the original statement which was twisted to the more famous `I made Pakistan with my typewriter` comment, so how does this prove your assertion?

[Your insults notwithstanding... the statement here quotes a primary source.]

It hurts doesn`t it? Respect begets respect, so think twice before insulting someone.

[Name-dropping might be good but as I have produced below the statement in full with actual primary source, the burden is on you to produce a primary source that proves this statement was indeed made after 1947.]

``Actual primary source``? The statement you provided doesn`t even remotely resemble (except for the two words `typewriter` and `secretary/assistant`) the statement that Rafiq Zakaria and Ayaz Amir quoted. Nor does it say that this statement was twisted into that. So how does it prove your assertion?

[This is a statement ``I made Pakistan with my typewriter`` is quoted by Jinnah admirers and Pakistani secularists to shut the Mullahs up when they say ``Jinnah was only one person- Pakistan was an entire movement``.]

And somehow we are to understand this implication and hidden meanings. For someone who was a very popular leader (at least amongst Muslims) Jinnah`s life is full of implications, assumptions, conjectures, and hidden meanings? Or is it that a myth was deliberately created to give him an undeserving halo?

Dear Harish,

For your benefit I quote the primary source again:


‘My entire equipment is confined to an attache case, a type writer and a personal assistant’. `

(Speeches and statements of Mr. Jinnah Vol 1 Ashraf Lahore 1960)



K B Sayeed writes:

“There are many people in Pakistan particularly among the services who tend to dismiss the contribution of the Muslim League towards the achievement of Pakistan as one of little consequence. They often quote, out of context, the statement of Jinnah …

Footnote says: This statement is from a speech made in 1940 in which Jinnah urged Muslims to strengthen the Muslim League and pointed out that it was only after Muslims were well organized that he would give them marching orders. This meant that he attached great importance to the organization of the League.

Page 176 Chapter 6 The Muslim League, its role and organization.



Your insults notwithstanding... the statement here quotes a primary source.

Look I accept that Ayaz Amir is a great journalist and that Rafiq Zakaria, despite my disagreement with his works, is a widely read author... but they have not quoted any primary source. Ayaz Amir wrote it or Rafiq Zakaria wrote it proves that this saying has been repeated many times.

I am not going to go into a name-calling match with you... Suffice to say neither Ayaz Amir nor Rafiq Zakaria have quoted a primary source. They have repeated a claim that is often made and I have PRODUCED the actual statement which has come down to us in a distorted form. Clearly you don`t understand how this history stuff works. Name-dropping might be good but as I have produced below the statement in full with actual primary source, the burden is on you to produce a primary source that proves this statement was indeed made after 1947.

You don`t even know what you are arguing about. This is a statement ``I made Pakistan with my typewriter`` is quoted by Jinnah admirers and Pakistani secularists to shut the Mullahs up when they say ``Jinnah was only one person- Pakistan was an entire movement``.

I know because I used to quote it a lot to bolster my arguments for a Pakistan based on the 11th August 1947 speech.

-YLH

#456 by Mantolives

[The ``sources`` you`ve quoted are hearsay. K B Sayeed, an author quite critical of Jinnah otherwise, has done some extensive research on the matter and he has traced back all hearsay to the 1940 statement.]

Congratulations on taking the art of spinning to new heights! Even by Paki standards, this is the most incredibly stupid statement I`ve ever heard. Rafiq Zakaria, a renowned scholar whose writing career is longer than the number of years of your wretched existence on the Earth is basing his statement on hearsay? What next? Will you now tell us you know more than Jinnah on what he wanted? YOU dear Yasser are an unknown beyond Chowk and some obscure suburb of Lahore. Ayaz Amir and Rafiq Zakaria are household names at least in the journalistic community. Next time, please come up with a better excuse, or better still, a source to back up your half-assed assertions.

[The problem with you is that you always ``google`` your way in or out of arguments and then declare victory.]

And your problem is that the only source you have is ``Yasser Latif Hamdani``, which most Chowkies have realized is as dubious as it gets. You don`t even have a ``google`` evidence to back your wild claims, let alone a concrete one.

[It is not a question of ``ruining the board``... it is the question of defaecation which is uniquely your style.]

Why this morbid fascination with human excrement? Is it because you have problems with your daily morning ritual or has someone abused you by forcing you to partake of it?

Re: # 467

I suggest a new motto in Urdu as under: -

`Khuda ki khudai khatam, nabion ki nabuwwat khatam, insan ki insaniat khatam, mullah ki mullah-gardi zinda baad`

``Galiaan ho janrh sunjian te wich Mirza (replace it with `mullah`) yaar phire.``

Re: # 459
``Urdu should be spoken pure and it should be high-falutin`; similarly punjabi should be spoken pure and the same goes for any other tongue``
Languages(and people) actually get hurt by this kind of elitism. Urdu lit in India has suffered because of the image of Urdu as a purely urbane language.If there occured any rural phrase then this would be attributed to the ganwarness of the writer and it would be said that he has still not been able to shake off his ganwar roots. By this a section of society is precluded from the literary canon. Thats why I dont think you will find any ``dalit`` literature in Urdu.

Ref masanamuthu #367

[Actually I am thankful to the ``caste supremacist Brahmin`` harimau for coining ``masanamuthu`` as the generic low caste name..]

Actually, I don`t have to coin any names. Masanamuthu continues to remain a reasonably common name in Tamil Nadu despite the current trend towards Rajiv, Rajesh, Mahesh, Ramesh, etc., which have replaced the previously popular Tamil Selvan, Anbarasan (Love King), etc.

From my viewpoint, the name that takes the cake is Thanga Maan Kani (Golden Mango Fruit -- I kid you not, there is a guy wandering around in Tamil Nadu with such a name) but then he is the son of Thamaraik Kani (Lotus Fruit -- does a lotus actually bear any fruit?) and the brother of Inba Thamizhan (Happy Tamilian -- sort of saying Fat, Dumb and Happy).

Other names that I have used such as Sudalaikkannu, Karuppannasami, etc., remain valid names in Tamil Nadu. It is actually bogus names like Tamil Kudimagan (does this mean Tamil Citizen, Tamil Drunkard or Tamil Choot, I am yet to figure out and will be grateful for any enlightenment you can provide) that bring disrepute to Tamilians of all castes.

The young lady with thick glasses seems to be a student of Prof. Masadi.

``Arabs used to refer to all people who did not speak Arabic as Ajami meaning dumb/mute. ``(Urs)

may be -- but the term was used mostly for the people from Persia (Ajam) -- one of the sahabas Sulman Farsi or Sulman Ajami -- who was the leader of of the committee that compiled Quran after prophet `s death as we see it today -- was an Ajami from Iran who was the scholar of both Arabic and Farsi.....

mantolives #466 I agree that no individual, not even Jinnah, is such a fount of wisdom that one should follow his direction unquestionably. In this spirit, let me question our national motto: Unity, Faith, Discipline.

This motto seems more suitable for a military camp than for a free people. It sits on the hillside on the way from Islamabad airport, and never fails to send a shiver down my spine (kind of like reading Dante`s ``All Hope Abandon, Ye Who Enter Here``).

``Unity`` is a euphemism for: ``Toe the Official Line``.
``Faith`` is a bit more nebulous and could mean ``Have Faith in Allah`` or ``Have Faith in Der Boss``. It does not mean the most important faith a free people should be encouraged to have: ``Faith in Yourself, and your God-given faculties to see or think``.
``Discipline`` is good if it means dont burn buses, dont jump ticket lines, dont push aside weaker guys, and so forth. But in Pakistan, it simply means ``Atta-a-a-in-shun``.

My recommendation: we could adopt the motto of the great state of virginia: Sic Semper Tyrannis. (Thus to all tyrants). But that doesnt fit well. We need to come up with a completely new one that fits with our current ethos and aspirations as a nation. Any ideas??

About Jinnah and his type writer…

Pakistani liberals and Jinnah’s admirers actually love to quote this statement to show that Jinnah was the founder of Pakistan- hence his vision as expressed as the founding head of state of the new country should be followed unquestionably… I too take this view or used to atleast… but I realized at closer examination that this is just not true…

K B Sayeed’s book generally takes a critical tone of Jinnah’s role in the Muslim League struggle though appreciative of his leadership skills. When this book came out in the 1960s it was seen as negative though in my opinion it is one of the finest and most balanced books written about the creation of Pakistan by a Pakistani… even if I might not agree with it in part…

From K B Sayeed’s book “Pakistan the Formative Phase”

“There are many people in Pakistan particularly among the services who tend to dismiss the contribution of the Muslim League towards the achievement of Pakistan as one of little consequence. They often quote, out of context, the statement of Jinnah …

Footnote says: This statement is from a speech made in 1940 in which Jinnah urged Muslims to strengthen the Muslim League and pointed out that it was only after Muslims were well organized that he would give them marching orders. This meant that he attached great importance to the organization of the League.

Page 176 Chapter 6 The Muslim League, its role and organization.

It is clear that this is only primary source document which somehow created the popular myth which finds no real evidence.


About why Congress, CMP, Muslim vote, autonomy and the Muslim League

Gandhi and Jinnah signed the following formula during the CMP negotiations…

The Congress does not challenge but accepts that the Muslim League now is the authoritative representative of an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of India. As such and in accordance with democratic principles they alone have today an unquestionable right to represent the Muslims of India. But the Congress does not agree that any restriction or limitation should be put upon the Congress to choose such representatives as they think proper from amongst the members of the Congress.

Gandhi agreed to it and signed it. So did Jinnah. This meant that both parties moved fundamentally from their extreme positions… Gandhi accepted that Jinnah had the right to speak for Muslims alone and Jinnah accepted that Congress could nominate Muslim members from their own party to the government…

It was Gandhi who backed out … after Nehru rejected the plan. But for a brief moment there was a chance of compromise.

Congress President Azad wrote in the aftermath of the CMP failure:

It was not correct to say that Congress was free to modify the plan as it pleased. We had further agreed to Sections viz. A, B and C in which the provinces would be grouped. These matters could not be unilaterally changed by Congress without consent of other parties to the agreement.


And Sadna loves to speak about “Interpretation”:


On 6 December 1946, the Pro-Congress Labour Government gave its legal opinion on the Cabinet Mission Plan …

The Cabinet Mission Plan have through out maintained the view that decisions of the Sections should, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be taken by a simple majority vote of the representatives in the Sections. This view has been accepted by the Muslim League but Congress have put forward a different view…

His Majesty’s Government have had legal advice which confirms what the Cabinet Mission always stated was their intention


And then…

On 5th January 1947 the Congress passed a resolution in which it advise action in accordance with the interpretation of the British Government in regard to the procedure to be followed in sections.

And then Congress backed out…

(Source for all above: Sir Maurice Gwyer and A. Appadorai “Speeches and documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-1947)

Re: 464

[This means that Urdu is going to survive and it is gonna be the ligua franca of subcontinent.]


If wishes had wings....


:-D

Naqshbandi

Sometimes ago I was of the same opinion as you are now. And I still think that the silky soft Urdu accent of UP and Lacknow sounds quite pleasant to ears regardless of our respective prejudices. But, I have been thiking about the languages lately and I have come to conclusion that the linguitic dynamics is quite independent of our conscience or unconsceince effort and wishes. It is so fluid that it is absoultely uncontrollable. Every language that is bound to survive has to evelove continuously and probably that is why Qura`n and Prophet (pbuh) guided us that linguistic chauvinism was absolutely false. As a matter of fact both went out of the way to emphasize that an Arab has no superiority over an Ajami and vice versa. I think you know very well what the term ``Ajami`` meant. Arabs used to refer to all people who did not speak Arabic as Ajami meaning dumb/mute. I think Urdu is evolving at hyper speeds and quickly absorbing words from Punjabi, Hindi, English and to a lesser extent from Sindhi and Pushto. This means that Urdu is going to survive and it is gonna be the ligua franca of subcontinent.

``By the way, Shahaab also happened to be the originator of a tareeqa-e-mairefat in his later years called shahaabya or something. i am sure you must have heard about it. ``

Ha ha... yes...

Mahdi Masood? or Mufti Masood? or a writer by that name was heavily influenced and considered Shahab some sorta wali ullah...

Naqshbandi:
i think what urstruly is getting at with purdu is various dialects spoken in punjabi cities (am i right?). i am familiar with lahori-urdu which is peppered with punjabi and has its own unique flavor.

Ofcourse, people who are into doing things properly would be speaking the languages the way it should be eg. professors or writers hazraat but they are getting fewer and far between due to, imo

- this weird complex about speaking english with some alien ``accent``. (this is also sometimes brought on chowk to mock indians)

- the disgust prevalent in the upper classes about their own culture and languages

By the way, Shahaab also happened to be the originator of a tareeqa-e-mairefat in his later years called shahaabya or something. i am sure you must have heard about it.

Tahmed...

The difference was Jinnah`s early death... and Ben Gurion`s long life after the creation of the two states... Same pitfalls face Israel but they have managed so far to evade them... See ... Jinnah stood above the Leaguers in much the same way Ben Gurion built himself above Zionists... infact Ben Gurion deliberately stood apart... calling himself atheist- refusing to wear the yahudi topi.. etc.. Furthermore... the problems I referred to in 442 are the real reason behind the mess...

Ironically the statement Harish refers to ... is actually used by Pakistani Liberals and secularists to make Jinnah`s vision a necessary condition in Pakistan... I have no issue with the statement ... it helps to bypass the mess by Muslim League and indeed the Muslim salariat in one go... but the statement unfortunately is not just true...

Later tonight when I get home... I`ll use two books ... Formative Phase by K B Sayeed and Clash of Fundamentalisms by Tariq Ali ... to write a bit more about the issues in discussion here..

mantolives: I think your comparison of ziionism with the muslim league is an interesting one. There are a number of commonolities:

1. Both were basically the products of ``push`` factors - in europe, the long-standing and abominable european tradition of anti-semitism (which included physical attacks on jewish ghettoes, e.g.); in the subcontinent, by hindu revivalism that caused muslim leaders (from sir syed down) to be concerned about a hindu-dominated post-british india.

2. Neither explicitly stated these ``push`` factors, and in fact used religious arguments that emphasized the ``pull`` factors (the ``promised land`` for zionists, the ``two-nation theory`` for muslim league). The reasons for these would be interesting to consider and you may wish to use your copious knowledge on these matters to shed some light in an article perhaps.

3. Orthodox jews opposed zionism, until after the 1960s. just as mullahs fought tooth and nail against the founding of Pakistan, but have changed their tune now.

So, how does one clear this mess created by muslim league that is now being exploited by the mullahs (who were the enemies of Pakistan before it was formed, and remain the enemies of Pakistan after it has been formed). I think the solution is simple - look at how the religious extremists (i.e. the settlers) were brought to heel in Israel: through strong leadership provided through a stable democratic government!!

What we have unfortunately is a military government, which is inherently weak since it lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the people. A fact that the mullahs of Pakistan are trying to take full advantage of recently.

urstruly:
Call me a purist but I cannot stand `purdu` as you call it; it is a disgrace. Urdu should be spoken pure and it should be high-falutin`; similarly punjabi should be spoken pure and the same goes for any other tongue.

I`ve not read the Shahabnaama but the excerpt you translated about the boys going to sit the exams was just disgusting; toilet humour does not great literature make. Maybe the original Urdu would sound less crude. A link would be appreciated.

I think UP Urdu is --and always--will be the benchmark; the only people who speak pure and rarified High Urdu if you will are the ulama in their speeches. Listen to, e.g. Mawlana Hashmi MiyaN from Kichaucha in UP, India or Shah Turab al Haq sahib from Karachi.

aslam #453 I am sorry about your loss. I think a basic lesson in business is to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risks, and to avoid the latter. The LC process has evolved over the centuries, and provides plenty of flexibility to ensure that you can cut out unnecessary risks in any export-import transaction that you as importer can define and engage in contract only if the exporter accepts the terms of payment. The LC is simply a means to ensure that there is a third party (namely the commercial bank) that determines if the terms of the contract as agreed to by you have been met.

Thus, I know that goods that do not meet specifications can have been rejected by importers even with an LC. A most common example used to be in connection with abuse of the ``export rebate scheme`` that the pakistan government had set up - the exporter would ship out goods that did not meet contract specs, get his ``export rebate`` and share it with a corrupt government offcial concerned. The shipment would be rejected by the importer in the foreign country - which the exporter knew would be the case and didnt care: the cost to him of the junk that he exported would be less than the ``export rebate`` he received. This racket lasted until genuine exporters started complaining and begged the government to get rid of this ``export rebate`` scheme.

The above is also an example of why the pakistan government should keep its nose out of meddling in every bloody thing in pakistan (business, religion), and focus on keeping law and order.

Kaalchakra...

The group he led was disparate with divergent aims and objectives... the way he was able to unify such a group under his command indeed is praiseworthy though it can also be said that his command over them was more apparent than real... It was uniquely the man who towered above the rest that he was able to whip together a genuine support. On another note if he had actually made the statement that people have falsely attributed to him ... it would not have been too far off from the truth given that he certainly was the major determinant of the movement.

The problem here is that this statement was never made. G M Sayed`s claim is wrong since there is no point after 1947 that Raja of Mahmudabad even had an opportunity as such of visiting Jinnah in Karachi. The relations between Raja of Mahmudabad and Jinnah had been strained throughout that final period after Jinnah had told Mahmudabad to distance himself from the Muslim League (because Mahmudabad was constantly compromising league`s position by suggesting that Pakistan would be some sort of an Islamic theocracy)...

I challenge any ``Self proclaimed`` scholar of history to produce one primary source evidence that proves that Jinnah said ``I made Pakistan with the help of my type writer`` ... the truth is that there is NO such evidence... and one must not simply repeat something because it has been repeated for a while.

Another fallacy ... and this will interest you Kaalchakra... is that Jinnah got booed off the stage because he refused to call Gandhi Mahatma in 1920... this is nonsense. Jinnah`s speech is there... he refers to Gandhi as ``Mahatma Gandhi`` through out... it was when he refused to call Muhammad Ali of the Ali Brothers Maulana was when he was booed off...

Such myths have been built around Jinnah... and people like Harish Hyd are willing consumers.

PS:

Dear Harish,

Next time pick up a book.

The ``sources`` you`ve quoted are hearsay. K B Sayeed, an author quite critical of Jinnah otherwise, has done some extensive research on the matter and he has traced back all hearsay to the 1940 statement.

The problem with you is that you always ``google`` your way in or out of arguments and then declare victory. It is not a question of ``ruining the board``... it is the question of defaecation which is uniquely your style.

Yours sincerely,

YLH

The typewriter fallacy..

The Real Statement (1940 speech) is:

‘My entire equipment is confined to an attache case, a type writer and a personal assistant’.

(Speeches and statements of Mr. Jinnah Vol 1 Ashraf Lahore 1960)


In the ‘Formative Phase’ (Chap 6 ‘The Muslim League: Its Role and Organisation’ on Page 176 OUP Karachi 2nd Edition) Khalid Bin Sayeed gives this footnote:

‘This statement is a speech made in 1940 in which Jinnah urged Muslims to strengthen the Muslim League organization and pointed out that it was only after Muslims were well organized that he would give them the Marching orders.’

re: Mantolives # 442

There is a certain ambiguity in the aims and objectives of almost all social movements. But indeed, the Muslim League`s goals were particularly unclear.

This confusion and lack of clarity may even have helped Mr. Jinnah bring his winning coalition about (that too, so quickly). There simply wasn`t much common in the elements that TNT had defined as one.

What do you think?

#430 by tahmed32
tahmed, there are 3 ways an importer can pay.
1/ advance payment which i did rather foolishly.
2/ payment after recieving the goods, not many exporters allow this facility.
3/letter of credit (LC) whereby importer opens LC, an exporter then presents a bill of lading to his bank and payment is made, even if he has shipped load of bricks.

#451 by majumdar

[If Jinnah got Pakistan by use of a typewriter and secy. that is much a commentary on undivided India`s sense of unity as of AIML`s leadership qualities.]

In case you didn`t notice, I`m neither talking about the ML`s leadership nor India`s sense of unity. I`m talking about Jinnah`s statement which our friend claims he never made.

Re 449 Harish

If Jinnah got Pakistan by use of a typewriter and secy. that is much a commentary on undivided India`s sense of unity as of AIML`s leadership qualities.

Manto,

The following statement about this gentelman called Shahab caught my eyes:

Or his personal attacks on several president`s wives?

I would be really interested in knowing what your First Ladies do in their spare time. Are they as bad as The Empresses of Rome or the Queens of Spain?

Regards

G M Syed`s deposition in court:

The Case of Sindh

``After the creation of Pakistan, the Raja Sahib of Mahmoodabad requested Mr. Jinnah that something should be done to reorganize the Muslim league, and the Muslim Leaguers should be properly recognized and looked after This annoyed Mr., Jinnah and he said angrily: ``Which Muslim League? Pakistan has been created by me and this typewriter of mine.````

#446 by Mantolives

[The ``statement`` that Indians love to quote ... is actually Jinnah`s statement in 1941 where he described how Muslim League was so ill-organised in 1935 that often he and his type writer were the only organisation that the party had. He was actually paying tribute to the new organisation, offices and cadres in post 1938...]

Dear Yasser, the good thing about the Internet is that it doesn`t allow people to lie and get away with it. I knew you would come up with lies and spin to extricate yourself out of the hole you dug yourselves in, but the odds are too stacked against you. As for me making an exit from the other board, what more did you expect when all you have is excuses (Congress made him do that) and spin (ML won ``Muslim`` votes, as if that mattered), and more absurdity (the Congress should have agreed to the CMP)? It is another matter that you can`t see the stupidity of having to defend an exclusivist agenda which is what Jinnah mian was doing.

In any case, I wouldn`t want to see you ruin this board as well, so you can declare victory here as well and walk away, I have no issues with that. But here`s some of the evidence about the typewriter comment. As you can see (or maybe you can`t), this was made well after the Partition (note the tense here) and not way back in 1