Islam and the Age of Globalization
Bina Shah June 18, 2006
#177 Posted by Dash_Dot on June 21, 2006 3:02:57 pm
here is the guardian article from the same era
http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,137433,00.html
Diplomat accused over film funds
Appointment of Cambridge academic as high commissioner risks backfiring spectacularly as row erupts over Jinnah script and money
Seumas Milne
Thursday February 17, 2000
When Akbar Ahmed was chosen to be Pakistan`s high commissioner in London by the country`s new military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, after last October`s coup, the appointment seemed to be a masterstroke by a regime struggling to avoid international isolation.
Here was an unexpectedly respectable frontman for the generals, a Cambridge academic acclaimed for his success in presenting a liberal face of Islam to the west, who might win understanding for the coup leaders` proclaimed mission to root out corruption in Asia`s new nuclear power.
Three months later, the posting risks backfiring in spectacular fashion as Mr Ahmed faces allegations of wrongful use of funds from a feature film he sponsored about Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the country`s founder, which stars the actor Christopher Lee in the lead role.
He also finds himself at the centre of a bitter dispute over whether he - or the Indian-born, non-Muslim former Channel 4 commissioning editor Farrukh Dhondy - co-wrote the screenplay. Mr Ahmed, who conceived the film as Pakistan`s answer to Richard Attenborough`s Gandhi and acted as executive producer, is accused by the film`s British-based producer, director and co-writer, Jamil Dehlavi, of unjustifiably paying himself more than £50,000 for the script and diverting £70,000 to an offshore bank account to pay his son and son-in-law for jobs they did not carry out.
Mr Dehlavi, who is also suing the high commissioner over the film`s credits and unpaid debts, says Mr Ahmed ``did not write a word`` of the screenplay, and insists his co-author was Mr Dhondy.
Mr Dhondy has confirmed his role, which he says he was asked to keep secret. He was hired by Mr Ahmed, who asked for some minor amendments to parts of the script which he decided were ``not Islamic enough``, he says, and was paid £12,000 for his work.
Mr Ahmed rejects the allegations - though he accepts Mr Dhondy was involved in the screenplay - and insists he has earned nothing from his years of involvement in the £3m Jinnah project.
He says he is preparing to go to the fraud squad with counter-claims about Mr Dehlavi`s handling of the film`s accounts.
The high commissioner says the accusations against him by Mr Dehlavi and Mr Dhondy are part of a campaign by the ``Indian lobby`` to discredit him and, by extension, the new military regime.
He claims credit for the film`s philosophy and says his collaboration in the script was an essential part of the process.
The eruption of controversy around the film, which is expected to be released in Pakistan in the spring but has yet to be sold in the west, follows a series of bitter disputes during shooting, when it was wrongly alleged at one point that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, was the real scriptwriter.
Jinnah is a revered figure in Pakistan and his portrayal by an actor best known for his role as a Dracula caused outrage in some quarters. The alarmed Pakistani government eventually withdrew £1m from the film.
During its production, Mr Ahmed let it be known that he would take no more than one rupee for his involvement - a claim witnessed by several of those involved in the production. The declaration was in emulation of Jinnah, who took a salary of only one rupee as Pakistan`s first president.
Documents seen by the Guardian confirm that Mr Ahmed was paid £51,500 by QPL, the company he set up to oversee the project, as a ``writer`s fee``.
They also show that £35,000 was paid through the film production company to Mr Ahmed`s son, Babar, as co-producer, and another £35,000 to his son-in-law, Arsallah Khan Hoti, as associate producer, into a private family bank account in Jersey in the name of his wife, Zeenat Ahmed, who acted as an unpaid company secretary for QPL.
Mr Ahmed - an author of books and a television series on Islam and an Iqbal fellow, sponsored by the Pakistan government, at Selwyn college, Cambridge, until his recent high commission appointment - rejects all accusations of wrongdoing, as does his wife. They say that they have had to sell jewellery and land to keep the film afloat.
The high commissioner says that, although he paid tax on his £51,500 writer`s fee, he has ploughed the money back into the film, and his executive producer`s fee of £70,000 has been deferred.
He has, he says, taken nothing for his role as head of the project, but like Jinnah, is entitled to his ``professional fees``. Future profits will, his spokesman now says, go to an ``educational trust``.
Mr Ahmed rejects the claim that he was not co-writer of the script and says his son and son-in-law were fairly paid for work for the film, notably helping to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds from their family.
Their fees have gone back into the project and will entitle them to a share of any profits. All Pakistani legal regulations have, he says, been followed over the Jersey account.
Mr Dehlavi denies that Mr Ahmed`s son or son-in-law played any role in the production. Two other men who worked on the film, production accountant Peter Winstanley and production supervisor Andrew Wood, also insist that neither of the men was to their knowledge involved in any way.
http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,137433,00.html
Diplomat accused over film funds
Appointment of Cambridge academic as high commissioner risks backfiring spectacularly as row erupts over Jinnah script and money
Seumas Milne
Thursday February 17, 2000
When Akbar Ahmed was chosen to be Pakistan`s high commissioner in London by the country`s new military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, after last October`s coup, the appointment seemed to be a masterstroke by a regime struggling to avoid international isolation.
Here was an unexpectedly respectable frontman for the generals, a Cambridge academic acclaimed for his success in presenting a liberal face of Islam to the west, who might win understanding for the coup leaders` proclaimed mission to root out corruption in Asia`s new nuclear power.
Three months later, the posting risks backfiring in spectacular fashion as Mr Ahmed faces allegations of wrongful use of funds from a feature film he sponsored about Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the country`s founder, which stars the actor Christopher Lee in the lead role.
He also finds himself at the centre of a bitter dispute over whether he - or the Indian-born, non-Muslim former Channel 4 commissioning editor Farrukh Dhondy - co-wrote the screenplay. Mr Ahmed, who conceived the film as Pakistan`s answer to Richard Attenborough`s Gandhi and acted as executive producer, is accused by the film`s British-based producer, director and co-writer, Jamil Dehlavi, of unjustifiably paying himself more than £50,000 for the script and diverting £70,000 to an offshore bank account to pay his son and son-in-law for jobs they did not carry out.
Mr Dehlavi, who is also suing the high commissioner over the film`s credits and unpaid debts, says Mr Ahmed ``did not write a word`` of the screenplay, and insists his co-author was Mr Dhondy.
Mr Dhondy has confirmed his role, which he says he was asked to keep secret. He was hired by Mr Ahmed, who asked for some minor amendments to parts of the script which he decided were ``not Islamic enough``, he says, and was paid £12,000 for his work.
Mr Ahmed rejects the allegations - though he accepts Mr Dhondy was involved in the screenplay - and insists he has earned nothing from his years of involvement in the £3m Jinnah project.
He says he is preparing to go to the fraud squad with counter-claims about Mr Dehlavi`s handling of the film`s accounts.
The high commissioner says the accusations against him by Mr Dehlavi and Mr Dhondy are part of a campaign by the ``Indian lobby`` to discredit him and, by extension, the new military regime.
He claims credit for the film`s philosophy and says his collaboration in the script was an essential part of the process.
The eruption of controversy around the film, which is expected to be released in Pakistan in the spring but has yet to be sold in the west, follows a series of bitter disputes during shooting, when it was wrongly alleged at one point that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, was the real scriptwriter.
Jinnah is a revered figure in Pakistan and his portrayal by an actor best known for his role as a Dracula caused outrage in some quarters. The alarmed Pakistani government eventually withdrew £1m from the film.
During its production, Mr Ahmed let it be known that he would take no more than one rupee for his involvement - a claim witnessed by several of those involved in the production. The declaration was in emulation of Jinnah, who took a salary of only one rupee as Pakistan`s first president.
Documents seen by the Guardian confirm that Mr Ahmed was paid £51,500 by QPL, the company he set up to oversee the project, as a ``writer`s fee``.
They also show that £35,000 was paid through the film production company to Mr Ahmed`s son, Babar, as co-producer, and another £35,000 to his son-in-law, Arsallah Khan Hoti, as associate producer, into a private family bank account in Jersey in the name of his wife, Zeenat Ahmed, who acted as an unpaid company secretary for QPL.
Mr Ahmed - an author of books and a television series on Islam and an Iqbal fellow, sponsored by the Pakistan government, at Selwyn college, Cambridge, until his recent high commission appointment - rejects all accusations of wrongdoing, as does his wife. They say that they have had to sell jewellery and land to keep the film afloat.
The high commissioner says that, although he paid tax on his £51,500 writer`s fee, he has ploughed the money back into the film, and his executive producer`s fee of £70,000 has been deferred.
He has, he says, taken nothing for his role as head of the project, but like Jinnah, is entitled to his ``professional fees``. Future profits will, his spokesman now says, go to an ``educational trust``.
Mr Ahmed rejects the claim that he was not co-writer of the script and says his son and son-in-law were fairly paid for work for the film, notably helping to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds from their family.
Their fees have gone back into the project and will entitle them to a share of any profits. All Pakistani legal regulations have, he says, been followed over the Jersey account.
Mr Dehlavi denies that Mr Ahmed`s son or son-in-law played any role in the production. Two other men who worked on the film, production accountant Peter Winstanley and production supervisor Andrew Wood, also insist that neither of the men was to their knowledge involved in any way.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#178 Posted by Dash_Dot on June 21, 2006 3:08:05 pm
and immediately after this - he was sacked (or left of his own volition) the job of being Pakistan`s representative at St James` Court and moved to the states for pastures new.
#179 Posted by Dash_Dot on June 21, 2006 3:12:26 pm
and then this from the paper pf mantolives` The Daily Times - the waters were so muddy that they made people here cringe in embarassment. And all for paltry sums when compared to the stature of Jinnah! Professor Ahmed was at the centre of this controversy. Sad to see that a man of his stature was dragged through this ordeal.
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Jinnah movie company goes bankrupt
Minister responsible, says ex-envoy’s wife
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The Quaid Project Ltd, (QPL) UK, the maker of the Jinnah movie, has been declared bankrupt.
Earlier, a London court had awarded the movie’s Pakistani film director Jamil Dehlavi 58,000 pound sterling plus costs and directed QPL (UK) to pay him.
With the declaration of bankruptcy, Dehlavi is unlikely to recover his dues from the company set up in 1994 by Dr Akbar S Ahmed and some others. The QPL’s current director is Dr Ahmed’s wife, Mrs Zeenat Ahmed, who is now living in Washington with her husband, a professor at the American University, Washington. QPL (UK)’s registered office was in Slough, England.
The movie, a victim of unresolved problems leading to litigation, consequently, has not been released commercially anywhere, except in Pakistan where it ran in both its English and Urdu versions.
Following the bankruptcy, Mrs Ahmed addressed a letter to President Pervez Musharraf, asking him to proceed against Dr Nasim Ashraf, head of the National Commission for Human Development, whom she accused of “theft” and an “Indian connection”.
Dr Ashraf raised a good deal of money in America as head of the Quaid Film Project (USA) that enabled the director, Jamil Dehlavi, to complete the movie.
In her letter to the president, Mrs Ahmed has accused Dr Ashraf of having “encouraged” Jamil Dehlavi to go to the London High Court of Justice and file his lawsuit against QPL. She concedes though that the court directed that monies due to the director’s company, Petra Films Ltd, be paid to it, but takes the position that it was Dr Ashraf and his US-based company that was required to pay Dehlavi and not QPL (UK), something that is not part of the court order which appears to have determined that director Jamil Dehlavi’s company was owed 58,000 pound sterling plus costs by the UK-based QPL.
In her letter to Gen Musharraf, Mrs Ahmed also accuses Dr Ashraf “a minister of your regime standing with Pakistan-hater Farukh Dhondy, who swore on the Bible, although he is a Parsi, both attacking QPL and both giving statements in defence of Dehlavi.” Dhondi, it may be mentioned, was engaged by the producers to co-write the script of the movie, something that would appear to be in ironic clash with what is now being asserted by Mrs Ahmed.
She also accuses Dr Ashraf of trying to sell the movie to Eros, a worldwide Indian entertainment distributor, stating that if the deal goes through and the movie “lands up in the unclean hands of anti-Pakistan and anti-Jinnah Indian-Hindus or the ‘Pakistani’ agents of India — who have been so instrumental in trying to destroy it — they will distort the pure message of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the liberator of the Pakistani Nation. Pakistanis can no longer afford to just sit back, relax and watch the corruption dramas of the corrupt.” Dr Ashraf, who has been given the status of a Pakistan minister of state by President Musharraf, denies the charges and would counter them legally.
Home | National
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Jinnah movie company goes bankrupt
Minister responsible, says ex-envoy’s wife
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The Quaid Project Ltd, (QPL) UK, the maker of the Jinnah movie, has been declared bankrupt.
Earlier, a London court had awarded the movie’s Pakistani film director Jamil Dehlavi 58,000 pound sterling plus costs and directed QPL (UK) to pay him.
With the declaration of bankruptcy, Dehlavi is unlikely to recover his dues from the company set up in 1994 by Dr Akbar S Ahmed and some others. The QPL’s current director is Dr Ahmed’s wife, Mrs Zeenat Ahmed, who is now living in Washington with her husband, a professor at the American University, Washington. QPL (UK)’s registered office was in Slough, England.
The movie, a victim of unresolved problems leading to litigation, consequently, has not been released commercially anywhere, except in Pakistan where it ran in both its English and Urdu versions.
Following the bankruptcy, Mrs Ahmed addressed a letter to President Pervez Musharraf, asking him to proceed against Dr Nasim Ashraf, head of the National Commission for Human Development, whom she accused of “theft” and an “Indian connection”.
Dr Ashraf raised a good deal of money in America as head of the Quaid Film Project (USA) that enabled the director, Jamil Dehlavi, to complete the movie.
In her letter to the president, Mrs Ahmed has accused Dr Ashraf of having “encouraged” Jamil Dehlavi to go to the London High Court of Justice and file his lawsuit against QPL. She concedes though that the court directed that monies due to the director’s company, Petra Films Ltd, be paid to it, but takes the position that it was Dr Ashraf and his US-based company that was required to pay Dehlavi and not QPL (UK), something that is not part of the court order which appears to have determined that director Jamil Dehlavi’s company was owed 58,000 pound sterling plus costs by the UK-based QPL.
In her letter to Gen Musharraf, Mrs Ahmed also accuses Dr Ashraf “a minister of your regime standing with Pakistan-hater Farukh Dhondy, who swore on the Bible, although he is a Parsi, both attacking QPL and both giving statements in defence of Dehlavi.” Dhondi, it may be mentioned, was engaged by the producers to co-write the script of the movie, something that would appear to be in ironic clash with what is now being asserted by Mrs Ahmed.
She also accuses Dr Ashraf of trying to sell the movie to Eros, a worldwide Indian entertainment distributor, stating that if the deal goes through and the movie “lands up in the unclean hands of anti-Pakistan and anti-Jinnah Indian-Hindus or the ‘Pakistani’ agents of India — who have been so instrumental in trying to destroy it — they will distort the pure message of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the liberator of the Pakistani Nation. Pakistanis can no longer afford to just sit back, relax and watch the corruption dramas of the corrupt.” Dr Ashraf, who has been given the status of a Pakistan minister of state by President Musharraf, denies the charges and would counter them legally.
Home | National
#180 Posted by HP on June 21, 2006 3:15:38 pm
Dotty and others...
Look folks! I dont know how true this story is but Akber on many occasions had accused presumably, our own Omar R Qureshi, formerly of Dawn for destroying Akber’s game before the movie was released.
Akber comes up with schemes every two years and I don’t know what his motivations are. He may be completely sincere or maybe a scam artist, but he does seem to run into problems regularly with every project.
I think this current project may just be another way for him to make some money or establish creditability in the academic world.
Akber claimed that Omar Qureshi wanted to work in the movie.
I hope Omar reads my post and confirms or denies this. This could be an identity issue too. But as far as I know, there was no other Omar Qureshi working for Dawn in 1999-2000.
#181 Posted by Dash_Dot on June 21, 2006 3:16:47 pm
The Farukh Dhondy (then channel 4`s man) interview to OUTLOOK - where he suggest that the Professor Asked him to keep stum about writing the script for the Jinnah Movie. The interview itself is interesting for other factors ....
http://www.outlookindia.com/10question.asp?listauth=t&secname=Arts+%26+Entertainment&fodname=20000306
On how Akbar Ahmed asked him to script Jinnah and keep quiet about it
Did your perception of Gandhi and Jinnah change after scripting Jinnah?
The film looks at things from Jinnah`s point of view. But I don`t think my views have changed. Gandhi was one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. But Jinnah also genuinely felt that Muslims were under threat.
Was the writing process difficult?
It was a pretty rough writing assignment because I began with being completely out of sympathy with the subject, and I did it by telling Ahmed I`ll write what I find out.
Why do you think Ahmed asked you, an Indian, to script the film?
I kind of knew him at Cambridge, I`d worked with the film`s director before and I don`t think Ahmed would`ve found a Pakistan writer to do this. They`re not good enough.
Did you face a conflict in scripting a film of this sort?
I stuck to what contemporary historians gave me, and they think Jinnah wasn`t as bad as we in India have made him out to be. The Partition was sad, and Jinnah shows that.
Why was the fact of your having scripted the film kept secret?
It was to protect Ahmed from how the Pakistanis would look upon a film written by an Indian, and an Indian socialist at that.
How did you react to Ahmed`s admitting your involvement?
No skin off my nose. It was to protect him. He and Jamil Dehlavi have had a quarrel and that fact`s become exposed in the course of the quarrel.
Has this soured your relationship with Ahmed?
Of course. And just to clarify things, Dehlavi cooperated with the production of the script. He read the drafts, made suggestions, was very much involved and Ahmed was not.
Why did you script it and risk the controversy?
For money, for fun, for creative challenges. But I`m not ghosting any more scripts now.
Does the film suggest the Partition was a good thing?
Partition was brought about by a lot of personal factors. What the film does say is the decision to partition the country was taken in difficult circumstances for all sides.
Were you happy with the end result?
Christopher Lee, the guy from Dracula, plays Jinnah. It`s well-directed, fairly well-acted.
http://www.outlookindia.com/10question.asp?listauth=t&secname=Arts+%26+Entertainment&fodname=20000306
On how Akbar Ahmed asked him to script Jinnah and keep quiet about it
Did your perception of Gandhi and Jinnah change after scripting Jinnah?
The film looks at things from Jinnah`s point of view. But I don`t think my views have changed. Gandhi was one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. But Jinnah also genuinely felt that Muslims were under threat.
Was the writing process difficult?
It was a pretty rough writing assignment because I began with being completely out of sympathy with the subject, and I did it by telling Ahmed I`ll write what I find out.
Why do you think Ahmed asked you, an Indian, to script the film?
I kind of knew him at Cambridge, I`d worked with the film`s director before and I don`t think Ahmed would`ve found a Pakistan writer to do this. They`re not good enough.
Did you face a conflict in scripting a film of this sort?
I stuck to what contemporary historians gave me, and they think Jinnah wasn`t as bad as we in India have made him out to be. The Partition was sad, and Jinnah shows that.
Why was the fact of your having scripted the film kept secret?
It was to protect Ahmed from how the Pakistanis would look upon a film written by an Indian, and an Indian socialist at that.
How did you react to Ahmed`s admitting your involvement?
No skin off my nose. It was to protect him. He and Jamil Dehlavi have had a quarrel and that fact`s become exposed in the course of the quarrel.
Has this soured your relationship with Ahmed?
Of course. And just to clarify things, Dehlavi cooperated with the production of the script. He read the drafts, made suggestions, was very much involved and Ahmed was not.
Why did you script it and risk the controversy?
For money, for fun, for creative challenges. But I`m not ghosting any more scripts now.
Does the film suggest the Partition was a good thing?
Partition was brought about by a lot of personal factors. What the film does say is the decision to partition the country was taken in difficult circumstances for all sides.
Were you happy with the end result?
Christopher Lee, the guy from Dracula, plays Jinnah. It`s well-directed, fairly well-acted.
#182 Posted by Dash_Dot on June 21, 2006 3:27:23 pm
Re: # 180
there was another by the same name - he was a great journo - and the Dawn bawa`s bossom friend - a cricket commentator, etc etc. Think he was mullah`s uncle - could be wrong here (maybe Omar Q could confirm it).
there was another by the same name - he was a great journo - and the Dawn bawa`s bossom friend - a cricket commentator, etc etc. Think he was mullah`s uncle - could be wrong here (maybe Omar Q could confirm it).
#183 Posted by HP on June 21, 2006 3:37:23 pm
You maybe right dotty. Lets hear it from Omar.
The cricket commentator Qureshi was not into this as far as I know abt this controversy but who knows.
What I recall now Akber accused Omar Rashid Qureshi who was a Dawn staff.
Jamil Dahlvi`s father S.K Dhalavi was a foreign secretary for Pakistan during the Ayub Regime. He was known for his integrity. I have met Jamil a couple times in London and in Karachi. He is married to someone known to our family.
Jamil seemed like a good guy but there are many things that go into these projects. Jamil was a film maker by profession. I don’t know what his trade is now but knowing the family, I would take jamil over Akber anytime.
#184 Posted by bjk on June 21, 2006 6:00:56 pm
#181 Dotty
Ama yaar...
[I don`t think Ahmed would`ve found a Pakistan writer to do this. They`re not good enough.]
Hmmmm....
#185 Posted by bjk on June 21, 2006 6:11:26 pm
#180 by HP
Ama yaar, are you a part-time detective, or what?!!!
[Akber claimed that Omar Qureshi wanted to work in the movie.]
So, our very own Omar the Quraishi is a jilted movie star! That is barely a notch below a jilted woman in love!
And we all know what they can wreak!
Baap re baap!
Now HP, let’s see how good a detective you make. Who would have been Omar’s leading lady?
Nobody from around here, I suppose!
#186 Posted by nasah on June 21, 2006 9:45:47 pm
Re: # 177
dear nameless -- did you have to spoil this article for everybody by declaring the distinguished professor a counterfeit coin -- writing checks to himself of 50,000 pounds and then 70,000 pounds for his son-in-law -- now that is called a truly self-employed professor -- hiding under his better-half`s skirt to avoid the creditors....
Islam revival project`s financiers plus those three kids should be a lttle wary of the tourist professor after what the gentleman scholar did to Farrukh and Jamil on Jinnah project.
One only hopes the good professor is not `self-employed` again....
there goes all that good work on the revival of Islam -- as Ghalib would say about Professor Ahmed`s work: jiski bunyad hee meiN lug guee deemuk -- aisi building ka keya karay koee....
still I would rather believe Bina than Irfan Hussain.....
dear nameless -- did you have to spoil this article for everybody by declaring the distinguished professor a counterfeit coin -- writing checks to himself of 50,000 pounds and then 70,000 pounds for his son-in-law -- now that is called a truly self-employed professor -- hiding under his better-half`s skirt to avoid the creditors....
Islam revival project`s financiers plus those three kids should be a lttle wary of the tourist professor after what the gentleman scholar did to Farrukh and Jamil on Jinnah project.
One only hopes the good professor is not `self-employed` again....
there goes all that good work on the revival of Islam -- as Ghalib would say about Professor Ahmed`s work: jiski bunyad hee meiN lug guee deemuk -- aisi building ka keya karay koee....
still I would rather believe Bina than Irfan Hussain.....
#187 Posted by sanjay on June 22, 2006 12:45:54 am
Aaiyey Aaiyey Professor Sahib,aaiyey,batheeyey...
Its good to know that you have taken-up the holy task of review/reconsideration/re-search of Islam. Before you publish your work, we can conclude (as many before you have done) that your final analysis will be that Muslims are indeed backward. And the reasons are :-
1. Because they are Muslims.
2. Because they believe in Allah.
3.Because they recite Koran.
4.Because they offer Namaz.
5.Because they keep Rozas.
6.Because they refuse to accept western values.
7.Because they crticise America.
And the remedy :-
1. They should stop calling themselves Muslims.
2. They should stop believing in Allah.
3. They should stop reciting Koran.
4. They should stop offering Namaz.
5. They should stop keeping Rozas.
6. They should accept western values.
7. They should sing hymns in praise of America.
Very Good.Very Good... Allah Tala apko kaamyabee dey
#188 Posted by bjk on June 22, 2006 4:41:08 am
#186 by nasah
Ama yaar,
Let me get this straight.
(1) You believe that the Prof. sahib is the type whose hands are best kept at a safe distance from your pocket book.
(2) You would rather believe my dear Bina Shah (okay fair enough, at least she shows up here unlike that Irfan who?!)
(3) And Bina’s faith in the good ole Prof. is stronger that the Washington monument and stands tall and proud – come what may!
Wait a minute!
Yaar, you can’t have it both ways – that would leave you heading up the creek with no patwaar!
Since mian Manto appears to have bolted like those proverbial donkey horns (perhaps he was reclaimed by his rightful owner of that figurative donkey (no offense, Ms. Sarwari (please do not misinterpret the reference to “figure”))) – let me put on the hat of the devil’s advocate for a moment.
The Prof. sahib may have a few (okay, maybe quite a few) rattling skeletons neatly tucked away (maybe packed away (or compressed away)) in that closet. Theek hai, maan lijiye kee ye aabo-hawaa ka asar hai! But look at it from his point of view, too!
All that publicity!
Encounters with the Oprahs!
Handshakes with the Mushies!
Lecture invitations left and right!
Merlot flowing like a river! Wow!
Munney makes the world go round!
Not to mention a bunch of gora-goree grad students gulping and gorging up on good old garbage!
Hey, there is nothing which looks as beautiful as a Pakistani lady decked up in that shalwar-kameez!
With the possible exception of a goree decked up likewise.
And hey, a bird in hand maybe worth more than 72 in those bushes up there!
#189 Posted by lillywhite on June 22, 2006 4:55:43 am
Re: # 177
So the old ghosts are out once again to haunt our `Professor of Islam`......
`accused by Jamil Dehlavi, Jinnah`s producer, director and co-writer, of paying himself £50,000 ($95,000) for the script which Farrukh Dhondi wrote, and diverting £70,000 ($133,000) to an offshore account to pay his son and son-in-law for jobs they did not carry out`
His son bought a flat a London`s posh Regent`s Park (next to the famous Mosque, where else), and his son-in-law bought a nice little hostel in Earls Court area.
None of them had any gainful employment then.
But every little bit helps.
Hope the current sponsers of the great trip of 3 kids plus whole family of ye olde fake Professor of Islam are doing their audits right now.
Any comments Bina ji?
So the old ghosts are out once again to haunt our `Professor of Islam`......
`accused by Jamil Dehlavi, Jinnah`s producer, director and co-writer, of paying himself £50,000 ($95,000) for the script which Farrukh Dhondi wrote, and diverting £70,000 ($133,000) to an offshore account to pay his son and son-in-law for jobs they did not carry out`
His son bought a flat a London`s posh Regent`s Park (next to the famous Mosque, where else), and his son-in-law bought a nice little hostel in Earls Court area.
None of them had any gainful employment then.
But every little bit helps.
Hope the current sponsers of the great trip of 3 kids plus whole family of ye olde fake Professor of Islam are doing their audits right now.
Any comments Bina ji?
#190 Posted by Dash_Dot on June 22, 2006 5:34:49 am
Re: # 189
the good olde professor has plenty of these tucked into his closet.....for example the question which needs to be answered is ``how did he get the Iqbal Chair in Cambridge? Who funded this chair? (my sources told me long time back that the money came from, the GoP and that there were a lot of promisory notes attached to this)?`` There is nothing in the grand olde man`s CV to suggest scholarly activities till 1988 (when he got the Iqbal Chair) other than being a ``political Agent in Pakistan`s NWFP``.
Life`s interesting. I read this article and sort of thought nothing much of it - till the authroress interacted citing the Olde Profesor`s integrity as being one which is untouchable (interact #10) which sort of intrigued me.
Apologies to Nasah and other readers for the digressions....
the good olde professor has plenty of these tucked into his closet.....for example the question which needs to be answered is ``how did he get the Iqbal Chair in Cambridge? Who funded this chair? (my sources told me long time back that the money came from, the GoP and that there were a lot of promisory notes attached to this)?`` There is nothing in the grand olde man`s CV to suggest scholarly activities till 1988 (when he got the Iqbal Chair) other than being a ``political Agent in Pakistan`s NWFP``.
Life`s interesting. I read this article and sort of thought nothing much of it - till the authroress interacted citing the Olde Profesor`s integrity as being one which is untouchable (interact #10) which sort of intrigued me.
Apologies to Nasah and other readers for the digressions....
#191 Posted by Bina_Shah on June 22, 2006 6:47:30 am
Re: # 189
All of what`s been said here is stuff I`ve heard about before.
None of it is anything I care to debate.
I was around during the time of the Jinnah movie and I remember the scandals well.
The journalist who wanted a part in the movie was Imran Aslam, not Omar Qureshi.
At least get your facts straight before you post them!
I also read the script while it was being filmed.
I know what happened with the movie after it was sold to a company that was meant to distribute it in the united states, but didn`t.
I repeat that Professor Akbar Ahmed`s integrity and honesty is non-negotiable for me.
The rest of you may make your own judgments.
But did any of you actually go to the Beliefnet link I posted in my first reply and read anything about this project?
Or are you satisfied wtih recycling old material and debating Jinnah - as you do on every board?
The intellectual laziness of Chowk interactors continues to astound me.
All of what`s been said here is stuff I`ve heard about before.
None of it is anything I care to debate.
I was around during the time of the Jinnah movie and I remember the scandals well.
The journalist who wanted a part in the movie was Imran Aslam, not Omar Qureshi.
At least get your facts straight before you post them!
I also read the script while it was being filmed.
I know what happened with the movie after it was sold to a company that was meant to distribute it in the united states, but didn`t.
I repeat that Professor Akbar Ahmed`s integrity and honesty is non-negotiable for me.
The rest of you may make your own judgments.
But did any of you actually go to the Beliefnet link I posted in my first reply and read anything about this project?
Or are you satisfied wtih recycling old material and debating Jinnah - as you do on every board?
The intellectual laziness of Chowk interactors continues to astound me.
#192 Posted by nasah on June 22, 2006 7:07:38 am
good professor or no-good professor -- whether he embezzled or did not embezzle is beside the point -- it is diffficult to agree with Bina`s article -- that Islam needs REVIVAL -- not REFORMS --
of course Islam needs to build bridges with ALL religions not exclusively with Judaism and Christianity -- for which it will need to lighten itself from overblown sense of self importance and self aggrandizment and not overburden itself with revivalist redundant heavy historical baggage once again --
because that revival business has already been taken over by Mr. OBL and he has done a bloody good job of it
so one doesn`t know about the mercurial ornamental Oriental Islam -- but the unsettling Occidental Islam -- that we Western muslims and our children have to contend with -- badly needs modernization..... and definitely requires a rather sedate Western Makeover.
if the good professor is on an expensive hopefully audited tour with the three adopted kids and his entire family -- to profess this spurious counterfeit `revivalist` Islam -- in the post 9/11 turmoiled Western world -- then this `professor of Islam` -- this time is out and out to embezzle Islam .....itself.
of course Islam needs to build bridges with ALL religions not exclusively with Judaism and Christianity -- for which it will need to lighten itself from overblown sense of self importance and self aggrandizment and not overburden itself with revivalist redundant heavy historical baggage once again --
because that revival business has already been taken over by Mr. OBL and he has done a bloody good job of it
so one doesn`t know about the mercurial ornamental Oriental Islam -- but the unsettling Occidental Islam -- that we Western muslims and our children have to contend with -- badly needs modernization..... and definitely requires a rather sedate Western Makeover.
if the good professor is on an expensive hopefully audited tour with the three adopted kids and his entire family -- to profess this spurious counterfeit `revivalist` Islam -- in the post 9/11 turmoiled Western world -- then this `professor of Islam` -- this time is out and out to embezzle Islam .....itself.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Aha_Snark: eklavya: just as the... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #261 eklavya: so, what... Pleas For Sanity as
- Eklavya: HPSauce, yaar, no point... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #260 HPsauce: Good show!... Pleas For Sanity as
- Eklavya: tahmedji, if people were... Pleas For Sanity as
- HPsauce: the day Tahmed32 and... Pleas For Sanity as
- BKisan: Well done Zarrar on... Nothing Queer About It
- tahmed32: #258 eklavya: conclusions based... Pleas For Sanity as
