Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)
Yasser Latif Hamdani June 28, 2007
#1079 Posted by KaalChakra on July 7, 2007 3:14:40 pm
Krishna, as you can see, your posts confirm my fears about Hindus.
Krishna, nobody is denying any of what you wrote. At long-last Hindus are free. They can help themselves or not. If they like, they can go back to being old-time Hindus.
All we are asking, or anyone is asking, for is that they do not question Muslims` (may be of Jews as well) right to be a self-contained ethncity and race, separate from all others.
Krishna, nobody is denying any of what you wrote. At long-last Hindus are free. They can help themselves or not. If they like, they can go back to being old-time Hindus.
All we are asking, or anyone is asking, for is that they do not question Muslims` (may be of Jews as well) right to be a self-contained ethncity and race, separate from all others.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#1078 Posted by krishna_abcd on July 7, 2007 1:59:09 pm
#1076 by kaalchakra
[I think the concept of Muslims as a separate and self-contained ethnicity or race is not understood well, even presumed morally offensive by many non-Muslims. This failure leads to great strife. ]
I could care less how Muslims choose to define themselves. Muslims (belonging to one or more ethnicities) wanting to create a ``Muslim`` state is no different than the RSS wanting to create a ``Hindu`` state (except that historically Muslims have always repressed other religious minorities - only comparable perhaps to the repression of Jews by Christians).
[I think the concept of Muslims as a separate and self-contained ethnicity or race is not understood well, even presumed morally offensive by many non-Muslims. This failure leads to great strife. ]
I could care less how Muslims choose to define themselves. Muslims (belonging to one or more ethnicities) wanting to create a ``Muslim`` state is no different than the RSS wanting to create a ``Hindu`` state (except that historically Muslims have always repressed other religious minorities - only comparable perhaps to the repression of Jews by Christians).
#1077 Posted by krishna_abcd on July 7, 2007 1:53:39 pm
#1074 by Mantolives
[That Muslims formed majorities in North West and North East was also a demographic reality... ]
To begin with, like a good lawyer, you have clouded up the issue by bringing in ethnic and linguistic identities - which is not the same as religious identities - you can be christian, but belong to any one of a thousand ethnicities. (although even in the case of ethnic and religious identities, there is the issue of how the nation was formed and when - but we can discuss that later).
So let`s first talk about religious identities - then we can move on to ethnic and religious identities.
[Can religion be a basis for ethnicity? Turkey and Greece even exchanged populations on that principle through an international treaty and both of them are secular states. ]
Pakistan was for Muslims of ALL ethnicities. So let`s not talk about ethnicities.
[FYI ...the US my friend was very much a Dutch Colony and then turned British after wars. ]
The US my friend was not a democratic country back then.
[And even after the creation of the US through the constitution of 1789... till 1865 atleast the Supreme Court was ruling that ``Black people did not fall under the definition of citizens`` (Dredd Scott).]
And that my friend was undemocratic.
[Most nation states of Europe are based around ethnicity and language.]
EVERYONE in the region today known as France spoke french - it came to be known as a French nation. If it had been ``created`` out of the blue in a planned way in democratic times (as in the case of India and Pakistan), when there were other major languages and ethnicities present in France, then it is quite likely that it would not have been christened a ``French`` nation.
But we digress - religion and ethnicity are not the same thing.
[I am afraid I just don`t accept the basic contention that you have... Jinnah`s description of Pakistan as a ``Muslim state`` was simply that Muslims were in a majorty in Pakistan and he had to speak the language of his people. ]
Nope. Why is his calling for a ``Muslim`` state any less repugnant than the RSS calling for a ``Hindu`` rashtra? The same logic could be applied in both cases. The RSS also talks about a secular but Hindu government and all kinds of rights and protection for minorities.
Sorry. I cannot buy it.
[That Muslims formed majorities in North West and North East was also a demographic reality... ]
To begin with, like a good lawyer, you have clouded up the issue by bringing in ethnic and linguistic identities - which is not the same as religious identities - you can be christian, but belong to any one of a thousand ethnicities. (although even in the case of ethnic and religious identities, there is the issue of how the nation was formed and when - but we can discuss that later).
So let`s first talk about religious identities - then we can move on to ethnic and religious identities.
[Can religion be a basis for ethnicity? Turkey and Greece even exchanged populations on that principle through an international treaty and both of them are secular states. ]
Pakistan was for Muslims of ALL ethnicities. So let`s not talk about ethnicities.
[FYI ...the US my friend was very much a Dutch Colony and then turned British after wars. ]
The US my friend was not a democratic country back then.
[And even after the creation of the US through the constitution of 1789... till 1865 atleast the Supreme Court was ruling that ``Black people did not fall under the definition of citizens`` (Dredd Scott).]
And that my friend was undemocratic.
[Most nation states of Europe are based around ethnicity and language.]
EVERYONE in the region today known as France spoke french - it came to be known as a French nation. If it had been ``created`` out of the blue in a planned way in democratic times (as in the case of India and Pakistan), when there were other major languages and ethnicities present in France, then it is quite likely that it would not have been christened a ``French`` nation.
But we digress - religion and ethnicity are not the same thing.
[I am afraid I just don`t accept the basic contention that you have... Jinnah`s description of Pakistan as a ``Muslim state`` was simply that Muslims were in a majorty in Pakistan and he had to speak the language of his people. ]
Nope. Why is his calling for a ``Muslim`` state any less repugnant than the RSS calling for a ``Hindu`` rashtra? The same logic could be applied in both cases. The RSS also talks about a secular but Hindu government and all kinds of rights and protection for minorities.
Sorry. I cannot buy it.
#1076 Posted by KaalChakra on July 7, 2007 1:45:32 pm
manto, krishna
I think the concept of Muslims as a separate and self-contained ethnicity or race is not understood well, even presumed morally offensive by many non-Muslims. This failure leads to great strife.
That is not just an issue in India-Pakistan. Look at Sri Lanka. You have tamils, sinhalas, and Muslims. Go around the world and you will find Muslims labeled as a separate race and/or ethnicity. It`s happening in Europe, as more and more Muslim reach there. So neembu, for instance, who is a liberal and secularist in every way, sees the problems of Muslims in the Western world as problems of racism.
This may even be true for other religions, and not confined to the issue of Muslims. But personally, I am only familiar with race and ethnicity being defined in religious terms only in the presence of Muslims and Jews.
Once we accept Islam (or may be, all religions) as a sufficient basis for separate race and ethncity then it becomes easier to contruct constitutions that protect everybody.
I think the concept of Muslims as a separate and self-contained ethnicity or race is not understood well, even presumed morally offensive by many non-Muslims. This failure leads to great strife.
That is not just an issue in India-Pakistan. Look at Sri Lanka. You have tamils, sinhalas, and Muslims. Go around the world and you will find Muslims labeled as a separate race and/or ethnicity. It`s happening in Europe, as more and more Muslim reach there. So neembu, for instance, who is a liberal and secularist in every way, sees the problems of Muslims in the Western world as problems of racism.
This may even be true for other religions, and not confined to the issue of Muslims. But personally, I am only familiar with race and ethnicity being defined in religious terms only in the presence of Muslims and Jews.
Once we accept Islam (or may be, all religions) as a sufficient basis for separate race and ethncity then it becomes easier to contruct constitutions that protect everybody.
#1075 Posted by MantoLives on July 7, 2007 1:10:29 pm
PS: Not only was early American settlements very strongly dutch but also had a very strong religious identity affiliation i.e. Puritanism... and the Puritan Commonwealth. Infact the first secular state in the world i.e. Rhode Island emerged out of the conflict between clergy.....
Furthermore... the concept of hyphenated secular states is not new... The Head of state in Great Britain is the head of the anglican church and in constitutional theory Great Britain is a Christian Protestant nation with ecclesiastical lords and what not in House of Lords...
#1074 Posted by MantoLives on July 7, 2007 1:07:10 pm
``The fact that any one ethnicity is usually a majority is a demographic reality - that`s perfectly okay.``
That Muslims formed majorities in North West and North East was also a demographic reality... Can religion be a basis for ethnicity? Turkey and Greece even exchanged populations on that principle through an international treaty and both of them are secular states.
FYI ...the US my friend was very much a Dutch Colony and then turned British after wars. And even after the creation of the US through the constitution of 1789... till 1865 atleast the Supreme Court was ruling that ``Black people did not fall under the definition of citizens`` (Dredd Scott). Most nation states of Europe are based around ethnicity and language. I am afraid I just don`t accept the basic contention that you have... Jinnah`s description of Pakistan as a ``Muslim state`` was simply that Muslims were in a majorty in Pakistan and he had to speak the language of his people.
That Muslims formed majorities in North West and North East was also a demographic reality... Can religion be a basis for ethnicity? Turkey and Greece even exchanged populations on that principle through an international treaty and both of them are secular states.
FYI ...the US my friend was very much a Dutch Colony and then turned British after wars. And even after the creation of the US through the constitution of 1789... till 1865 atleast the Supreme Court was ruling that ``Black people did not fall under the definition of citizens`` (Dredd Scott). Most nation states of Europe are based around ethnicity and language. I am afraid I just don`t accept the basic contention that you have... Jinnah`s description of Pakistan as a ``Muslim state`` was simply that Muslims were in a majorty in Pakistan and he had to speak the language of his people.
#1073 Posted by krishna_abcd on July 7, 2007 12:52:31 pm
#1072
[Jinnah believed that the state ought to be impartial to matters of the faith regardless of dominant cultural group... ]
And I am saying that this is a contradiction in terms - if the state is impartial in matters of faith, then it should NOT be called a ``muslim`` state - I personally know for example that I would hate to live in a state that is declared a ``Christian`` state or a ``Muslim`` state or a ``Jewish`` state - because that designation automatically makes me a second-class citizen, regardless of any copious statements of ``rights`` and ``protections`` for minorities.
[for example... what if he had formed the state on ethnic or linguistic identity? That would be equally ``undemocratic`` from your stand point... when most nation states of the world are based along those lines. ]
The fact that any one ethnicity is usually a majority is a demographic reality - that`s perfectly okay. But for example if in America, the Dutch settlers (just to make up an imaginary situation), were the majority ethnic group, and America was formed as a ``Dutch`` state, the rest of the European settlers would not have tolerated that, and would have demanded that the state be not linked to majority ethnic identity. In India, if Biharis were the majority of the population, and India was constituted as a ``Bihari`` state, that would be undemocratic as well.
[Jinnah believed that the state ought to be impartial to matters of the faith regardless of dominant cultural group... ]
And I am saying that this is a contradiction in terms - if the state is impartial in matters of faith, then it should NOT be called a ``muslim`` state - I personally know for example that I would hate to live in a state that is declared a ``Christian`` state or a ``Muslim`` state or a ``Jewish`` state - because that designation automatically makes me a second-class citizen, regardless of any copious statements of ``rights`` and ``protections`` for minorities.
[for example... what if he had formed the state on ethnic or linguistic identity? That would be equally ``undemocratic`` from your stand point... when most nation states of the world are based along those lines. ]
The fact that any one ethnicity is usually a majority is a demographic reality - that`s perfectly okay. But for example if in America, the Dutch settlers (just to make up an imaginary situation), were the majority ethnic group, and America was formed as a ``Dutch`` state, the rest of the European settlers would not have tolerated that, and would have demanded that the state be not linked to majority ethnic identity. In India, if Biharis were the majority of the population, and India was constituted as a ``Bihari`` state, that would be undemocratic as well.
#1072 Posted by MantoLives on July 7, 2007 12:37:15 pm
Re: # 1068
Krishna,
We`ve had this discussion many times on these boards... and there is a clear progression from Jinnah`s evolution/regression (depends on what opinion you accept) from secular Indian natonalism to Muslim nationalism. However the discussion of Cabinet Mission Plan etc shows how the idea of a Muslim majority state become a reality.
Jinnah believed that the state ought to be impartial to matters of the faith regardless of dominant cultural group... for example... what if he had formed the state on ethnic or linguistic identity? That would be equally ``undemocratic`` from your stand point... when most nation states of the world are based along those lines.
You are quoting his famous 1940 address which gave the basis for Muslim nationalism... but here is his speech as the newly elected president of constituent assembly on the issue of constitution making:
I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India`s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.
I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.
Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.
Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.
....
Now ... regardless of how you wish to interpret Jinnah`s movement and Pakistan`s creation this above is talking of a secular state and not a Muslim state that is secular.
Krishna,
We`ve had this discussion many times on these boards... and there is a clear progression from Jinnah`s evolution/regression (depends on what opinion you accept) from secular Indian natonalism to Muslim nationalism. However the discussion of Cabinet Mission Plan etc shows how the idea of a Muslim majority state become a reality.
Jinnah believed that the state ought to be impartial to matters of the faith regardless of dominant cultural group... for example... what if he had formed the state on ethnic or linguistic identity? That would be equally ``undemocratic`` from your stand point... when most nation states of the world are based along those lines.
You are quoting his famous 1940 address which gave the basis for Muslim nationalism... but here is his speech as the newly elected president of constituent assembly on the issue of constitution making:
I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honourably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. But you must remember, as I have said, that this mighty revolution that has taken place is unprecedented. One can quite understand the feeling that exists between the two communities wherever one community is in majority and the other is in minority. But the question is, whether it was possible or practicable to act otherwise than what has been done, A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it. And what is more, it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India`s constitutional problem. Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen. All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make.
I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.
Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.
Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism. My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.
....
Now ... regardless of how you wish to interpret Jinnah`s movement and Pakistan`s creation this above is talking of a secular state and not a Muslim state that is secular.
#1071 Posted by KaalChakra on July 7, 2007 12:37:04 pm
Just out of curiosity, what is Amedism, or any faith, if not self-righteousness?
#1070 Posted by bubba on July 7, 2007 12:32:50 pm
Re: # 1067
{You are a Muslim because you say so.}
And that is exactly why I have always respected you. Thanks for such a profound thought.
{You are a Muslim because you say so.}
And that is exactly why I have always respected you. Thanks for such a profound thought.
#1069 Posted by sattar2 on July 7, 2007 12:15:18 pm
Yasser dude,
And how do you level this playing field by condemning Ahamdis for their beliefs when the discussion is on civic responsibilities? Or did you reevaluate the need to make these comments in the first place? If you expressly did so, I surely missed it
And I am not asking that you accept Ahamdi faith. I am only criticizing your going out of your way to take jibes at Ahamdi faith. Note this critical difference.
Another critical difference: I am not trying to convince anyone on correctness of Ahamdi views. I am only pointing out that their criticism of Ahmadis is without valid reasons and seems hypocritical. If they leave the matter alone, I have no reason to go around convincing others of correctness of Ahmadi beliefs. Such debates reek of self-righteousness and hypocrisy and thats the point I have made all along.
I am willing to chalk it all up as a misunderstanding between me and you ... and move on. Largely I agree with your point. It was what transpired later that I found annoying. That`s all ...
#1068 Posted by krishna_abcd on July 7, 2007 12:07:46 pm
#1065
[The reason there is no difference is because Jinnah`s ideas were buried... ]
I beg to differ on this point...Jinnah`s ideas were for a MUSLIM state that is Secular - that is like having your cake and eating it too. I`m sorry, regardless of whatever theories he had, a ``Muslim State`` is by definition undemocratic - why would ANY non-Muslim prefer to live in a ``Muslim`` state - which he effectively admits in the quote I gave below:
Jinnah:
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. [3]
On a sidenote - in the above paragraph, you can substitute ``Hindu`` with ``Buddhist`` (Thailand), ``Secular`` (China), ``Christian`` (Malayasia, Philippines, UK, France, Holland and other Euro countries, USA), ``Jewish`` (Anywhere in the middle east or any Muslim majority country).
[The reason there is no difference is because Jinnah`s ideas were buried... ]
I beg to differ on this point...Jinnah`s ideas were for a MUSLIM state that is Secular - that is like having your cake and eating it too. I`m sorry, regardless of whatever theories he had, a ``Muslim State`` is by definition undemocratic - why would ANY non-Muslim prefer to live in a ``Muslim`` state - which he effectively admits in the quote I gave below:
Jinnah:
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. [3]
On a sidenote - in the above paragraph, you can substitute ``Hindu`` with ``Buddhist`` (Thailand), ``Secular`` (China), ``Christian`` (Malayasia, Philippines, UK, France, Holland and other Euro countries, USA), ``Jewish`` (Anywhere in the middle east or any Muslim majority country).
#1067 Posted by MantoLives on July 7, 2007 11:56:56 am
My dear sattar2,
My civic responsibility is to ensure that everyone is given a level playing field. Beyond that I don`t need to respect any faith and you may rest assure that I respect Ahmadis only as much as I respect Sunnis or Shias or others.
However... I do wish to set the record straight which I have done so above. You on the other hand are busy trying to convince Sunnis and Shias that your beliefs are right instead of saying the needful: You are a Muslim because you say so.
My civic responsibility is to ensure that everyone is given a level playing field. Beyond that I don`t need to respect any faith and you may rest assure that I respect Ahmadis only as much as I respect Sunnis or Shias or others.
However... I do wish to set the record straight which I have done so above. You on the other hand are busy trying to convince Sunnis and Shias that your beliefs are right instead of saying the needful: You are a Muslim because you say so.
#1066 Posted by sattar2 on July 7, 2007 11:51:53 am
Yasser,
I think you continue to miss the point. I am poking fun at ummahs sanctimonious views, while underscoring futility of this Muslim/non-Muslim debate. At times I make acerbic comments, mainly to highlight the irony, travesty of it all. I criticize thakaedars of Islam only when Islam is used to perpetuate division, malice, self-righteousness. Otherwise I have no beef with anyone.
Along similar lines, I remain unclear of your reasons for writing what you wrote earlier. Your own comments undermine the larger point you were trying to make. It is somewhat absurd of you to remind others of their civic responsibility, while unnecessarily condemning, seemingly not without malice, Ahmadis for their beliefs. Irony of it all is yet to dawn on you, it seems.
I am not one to get into the Muslim/non-Muslim debate. If a person claims to be a Muslim, he is a Muslim in my view. Any more discussion is of little interest to me. Furthermore, if I am an Ahmadi-Muslim, I see no reason to badmouth others or their beliefs whether they be shias, khizrites, wahabis, mutazallites, bahais, etc. And this is more than what can be said of your views. So cut it out
+++
zee (#1060),
yes, and I can see how your ullema at Lal Masjid are fighting to save Muslims
#1065 Posted by MantoLives on July 7, 2007 11:48:41 am
The reason there is no difference is because Jinnah`s ideas were buried... and it was the Deobandis and Ahraris and others who came into define Pakistan`s ideology, despite their earlier support to Gandhi and the Congress Party against Jinnah...
You see my friend... the irony is not that these people after Pakistan was created became Pakistan`s chacha mamas... but that they were willing to accept a Hindu Majority Secular state but not a Muslim Majority Secular state...
The real problem was the Mullah`s estimation of his own power... in a Hindu Majority state Mullah would remain strong as community leader ... but in Muslim majority secular state the Mullah would lose ground to Muslims from business and other secular backgrounds... hence it suited the same Mullahs - who had championed the cause of United Secular India- to oppose a Secular Pakistan and put forth the idea of an Islamic State.
#1064 Posted by krishna_abcd on July 7, 2007 11:41:59 am
#1063
While it is true that Jinnah did not STATE that he wanted an ``Islamic`` state, he DID STATE that he wanted a MUSLIM state which would be secular - which is a contradiction in terms - with the result we see today. There is NO DIFFERENCE between a ``Muslim State`` and an ``Islamic State`` in theory or in practice.
From Wikipedia:
``The idea of Pakistan was presented by Allama Muhammad Iqbal in 1930. Iqbal asked Jinnah to focus his energies towards getting an independent homeland for Muslims of the South Asia. ``
Allama Iqbal :
I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.[2]
Choudhary Rahmat Ali :
At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in Pakistan - by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan - for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.[1]
(Complete annihilation indeed - look how Hindus continue to dwindle in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Muslims continue to increase as a percentage of the population in India!)
Jinnah:
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. [3]
While it is true that Jinnah did not STATE that he wanted an ``Islamic`` state, he DID STATE that he wanted a MUSLIM state which would be secular - which is a contradiction in terms - with the result we see today. There is NO DIFFERENCE between a ``Muslim State`` and an ``Islamic State`` in theory or in practice.
From Wikipedia:
``The idea of Pakistan was presented by Allama Muhammad Iqbal in 1930. Iqbal asked Jinnah to focus his energies towards getting an independent homeland for Muslims of the South Asia. ``
Allama Iqbal :
I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.[2]
Choudhary Rahmat Ali :
At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in Pakistan - by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan - for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.[1]
(Complete annihilation indeed - look how Hindus continue to dwindle in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Muslims continue to increase as a percentage of the population in India!)
Jinnah:
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. [3]