Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I know that this article will attract a lot of attacks from all sides ... which I personally take as the validation of my point of view... but before that I want to put up a simple disclaimer..

In my personal religious view- which has evolved over time- I am quite clear that Ahmaddiya faith is simply an off-shoot of the sunni paganism which was invented in the early period of Islam by the children of Ummaya in order to usurp power ... in my estimate Ahmadis are as misguided as 80% of the rest of the Islamic world...

However... I will stand by their right to call themselves whatever they please as I will for the rights of a sunni pagan to call himself a Muslim, despite my complete antipathy for such paganism.

Masadi,

Zaban sambhal kay baat karo... I know tumhe kisi nay tameez nahi sikhai.

I have nothing to do with Chowk or Chowk staff or its editorial policies. I therefore suggest that you apologise immediately for your abusive language.

Consider: The cornerstone of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah and Muslim League`s struggle to achieve Pakistan was that a permanent majority should not, by sheer numerical weight, be allowed to dominate a permanent minority


That ``cornerstone`` is when muslims are in the minority...

wherever muslims are in the minority, they raise a stink(and more) about their right not being protected...and countries where muslims are in the majority..well, think saudi arabia...nuff said...

Yasser,

Relevant article, one which may lead to a meaningful discussion; but I must ask re #2: was it necessary to describe Ahmadi beliefs as something rooted in misguided sunni paganism aimed at usurping power invented by children of Ummaya from early Islamic history? That is a mouthful and begs to be elaborated upon … or omitted altogether. So I remain unsure of the place of your personal views in this discussion, as they come across more as demeaning and derogatory, without serving a meaningful purpose. Thanks, but no, thanks.

If demise of Pakistan continues to be caused by self-righteous Muslims, then I hope you too will join in. Welcome to the party; hope you’ll stick around for awhile.

YLH

{The cornerstone of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah and Muslim League`s struggle to achieve Pakistan was that a permanent majority should not, by sheer numerical weight, be allowed to dominate a permanent minority}

Absolutely beautiful, pure and simple liberal democracy. Thanks.

Dear Sattar,

If you take out the one issue on the interpretation of ``Khatim`` ... Ahmadis are for all practical purposes Sunnis following the Hanafi School of Islamic law...

My personal religious beliefs should not be an issue ... for you or for Urstruly or any other interactor... what matters is that I stand for everyone`s right to profess as they please.

The meaningful discussion ought to be around this single point alone ... or else it is as meaningless as the god awful debate about whether Jesus is dead or alive.

Is religion the sole criteron (sp?) for majority/minority decision?
A state/nation/city/country is divided into all kinds of majorities/minorities.
Why not apply ethnicity/language/sect/colour and so on?
Once you start dividing people using one criterion, there is no end to it.

Mian shishapa,

I on the other hand have been favoring using all distinctions together to bring a sense of overlapping identities...

Since you participated on my article ``Citizenship and Ethnicity in Pakistan`` ... one would imagine you would know that I already addressed that issue...

Or maybe you just don`t like to read the article before commenting.

[...Absurdities abound...]

It took you this long to figure this out, huh?...

Absurdity start from the very beginning, from the cornerstone theory of of ``tyranny of majority`` that you are throwing around... hinuds and moslems were hardly homogenous in any sense of the word - so to brand them as ``permanent majority`` and ``permanent minority`` is the biggest Absurdity and stupidity to begin with... It was pegion-holing at its worst, it was complete lack of common-sense, because of the multiple fractures that runs thru these communities spread across vast landscapes of the sub-contient... and that too when the so-called ``permanent minority`` were almost one-third of the population...

What you realized today is exactly what has been foretold in 1947 and immediately after... That pakistan was not an sustainable entity, the concepts and theories are based on which it was being created is simply untenable and patently absurd...

Only thing the subcontinent needed was sustainable development, free-wheeling democracy and fundamental rigths to all... it didn`t need identity politics, there was no need to invent ``permanent`` scare-crows where none existed... there was no need to invent paranoid theories of ``domination`` where nothing was even remotely possible...

By doing so - Mahomed Jinnah unwittingly handed over power to the forces he was opposed to... in retrospect, he wasn`t really that smart a man... he was a man who was most comfortable with hinuds who he demonized while least comfortable with mullahs and fanatic abduls which he he ended up living with...

It ended up creating lands where muslims are never at peace with each other... and gave perfect opportunity for hinuds to dominate the sub-continent...

So yes, Absurdities abound...

Re: # 9

Shishapa is exactly right... what you have been writing in your multiple articles here is just your confusion and lack of understanding of very simple facts... you keep beating around the bush, invent theories, change your minds a bunch of times... In short - you still don`t get it... :)

+++

That pakistan died in 1974,or 1971 or whenever was not a surprise to anyone... In fact, even the impostor, as you call it, that continues to exist is a big deal in itself... shows the rare committment of a very fractitious and paranoid people to keep going despite all absurdities that militates against their cohesion... I will give pakis that much, but it remains to be seen for how long...

Re: # 6 rf mian

YLH`s theory of permanent majority and minority is absurd and against common sense... as pointed out by posts below...

Yasser (#7),

Minor but critical point: The word is “khatam” … and not “khatim”. Note the subtle difference, which is at the root of bulk of misunderstanding. And I can cite reference after reference to support my viewpoint on this. Not only that, I can comfortably argue in favor of continuation of prophethood from a Quranic viewpoint on basis of reason. But do you really want to start this debate? I don’t think so. So let’s not open this can of worms when it is neither the time, nor the place for it.

If you think that difference in interpretation of one word (which remains highly debatable by any standard, to say the least) makes Ahmadi-Muslim belief part of a power-usurping paganism, it says a lot about your own narrow take on Islam. Like I said, thanks, but no thanks. I can do without such narrow-minded self-righteousness. And spare me this “Hanafi School of Islamic Law” stuff … it makes you sound dangerously like Naqshbandi.

And finally, it is very naïve of you to unnecessarily make derogatory comments about Ahmadi-Muslim beliefs, while insisting that your personal views are not an issue. Imagine Lyndon Johnson supporting equal rights for African-Americans, and ending his speech by insisting that personally he has nothing but disdain for blacks. Pardon me, but that’s a load of crap. If your personal view is irrelevant, then learn to keep a lid on it.

The claim that the District of Gordaspur had a majority of Quadianis instead of Muslims is a myth propagataed by Quadiani establishment to divert attention from the incompetence and criminal neglect of Zafarullah Khan (a Quadiani) who was representing Muslim League in the Radcliffe Award. The fact of the matter is that the Census of 1940, which was done in lieu of coming elections after failure of Congress governemnt, put the Muslim population of Gurdaspur well above 55%. So due to the two principles of partition: a. The geographical contingency principle and b. Majority principle the district of Gurdaspur was absolutely the part of Pakistan. But the fact of matter also remains that Nehru was bitterly opposed to awarding Gurdaspur to Paksitan because it was the only opperable land connection to the Kashmir, which was his birthplace and he held it dear. He made a deal with Master Tara Singh to incite violence in Gurdaspur to change the demography of the district in exchange for an autonomous Punjab. Horrendous and horrible crimes and violence were committed against Muslims there by Sikhs and Hindus from Southern Punjab to expell them.

Meanwhile, Zafarullah also wanted Quadian, which was in Kashmir to remain on Indian side where he deemed it more protected by fellow hindu pagans. During the Radcliffe Award, an uncle of mine who was very close to Quaid-e-Azam told me later that Quaid was furious at Zafarullah when he found out that despite the expectations of every Punjabi Muslim and even Hindus Radcliffe had awarded Gurdaspur to India, when whole nation was holding its breath for the expected outcome. The following conversation took place between Quaid and Zafarullah:

QA: Zafarullah! Its unbelievable. What has gone wrong with Gurdaspur.

Z: Sir! Gurdaspur was not on the agenda of todays meeting.

QA: Abbay bhootnee ke, who else was supposed to put such a sensitive issue on agenda but you?

Z: Sir! there were white people in the meeting, how could I dare to speak in front of them.

QA: Chal bhaag naalaique, aindaa shakal matt dikhaaio; qasm se naa hooi qarooli (knife)varna bhonk daita.

The proof of this factoid of history can be verified by checking the agendas of the Radcliffe Award which have been published by many authors. The rest is history.

#14 by Urstruly on June 28, 2007 12:21pm PT

stop crying over spilt milk...or a lost gurdaspur and a lost kashmir....

Yasser,

An interesting article and a good read, as usual.

You wrote: ``Forget that the Muslim majority in Gurdaspur was only a majority if Ahmadis were counted as Muslims.``

Can you substantiate that claim by number/references?

Regards,

Rafi Aamer