Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)

Re: # 13 sattar

Well said... this is yet another example of absurdity and stupidity expressed by YLH...

Re: # 14

What`s the difference anyway? Pakiland is already dead or so YLH says... Bangladesh is gone, Balochis are up in arms, taliban has taken over the ``frontier``... muhajirs have taken over karachi... so what`t big deal about gurdaspur or whatever other godforsaken place you guys have been crying over for last 60 years

get over it already...

Urstruly (#14),

Some time ago you claimed that Muslims constituted 80% of Gurdaspur population. You have now scaled it down to 55%. What gives (grin)?

Here’s a counter-point, with a reference more credible than your alleged uncle. Following is an excerpt from “Munir Report”, published by a commission to investigate anti-Ahmadi riots of 1953.

This Report suggests that in district Gurdaspur Muslims held majority by one percent, and that Qadian was one of 3 major towns where Muslims resided. If Ahamdis are declared non-Muslims, it is easy to see how Muslims are no longer the majority you make them out to be.

The Report goes on the praise Chaudhry Zafrullah Khan for his efforts to include Gurdaspur in Pakistan. FYI.

++++

“Provisional Partition had placed Qadian in Pakistan, but Muslims in the district of Gurdaspur in which Qadian was situated were only in a majority of one per cent, and the Muslim population in that district was mostly concentrated in three towns including Qadian. Apprehensions about the final location of Qadian, therefore, began to be felt, and since they could obviously not ask for its inclusion in India, the only course left for them now was to fight for its inclusion in Pakistan. Vile and unfounded charges have been levelled against the Ahmadis that the district of Gurdaspur was assigned to India by the Award of the Boundary Commission because of the attitude adopted by the Ahmadis and the arguments addressed by Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan who had been selected by the Quaid-i-Azam to present the case of the Muslim League before that Commission. But the President of this Court, who was a Member of that Commission, considers it his duty to record his gratitude to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan for the valiant fight he put up for Gurdaspur. This is apparent from the record of the Boundary Commission which anyone who is interested may see. For the selfless services rendered by him to the Muslim community, it is shameless ingratitude for anyone to refer to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan in the manner in which he has been referred to by certain parties before the Court of Inquiry.”

- Page 197, Report of The Court of Inquiry Constituted Under Punjab Act II of 1954 to Enquire Into The Punjab Disturbances of 1953, by M. Munir (President) and M. R. Kayani (Member)

Re: # 16

Rafi,

The highest concentration of Quadianis per square inch in anywhere in the world is that in Chenab Nagar (formerly Rabwah) in District of Jhang. The city which according to Quadiani claims is 95% Quadiani, has a total population of 48,700 (2003 numbers) whereas the district Jhang where this city is located has a population of 387,418 inhabitants (1998 numbers). This proportion makes the population of Quadianis in a district about the same size as that of Gurdaspur at about 12%. Please keep in mind that this proportion holds true only for the district of Jhang elswhere Quadianis are negligible minority. Granted that if we take the same proportion of Qudianis in district of Gurdaspur at the time of partition, the number of Muslims would still have exceeded that of Hindus, Sikhs, Quadianis, and miscelleneous put together according to the census of 1940. Quadiani propaganda about Gurdaspur is hence as absurd as Mantolives has claimed it to be.

Re: # 14
Urstruly,

You wrote: ``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%.``

Can you tell me if Ahmedies were counted as Muslims in that census?

Thanks.

Re: # 21

Yes, Quadianis were counted as Muslims in the census of 1940 since a separate category for them did not exist at the time. But keep in mind that separate categories did exist for other people in the British era government. Only the Hindus were divided into 12 scheduled casts, then there were Muslims, Parsis, Christians, martial and non-martial races, and whole plathora.

Look, Quadianis try to push the matter of ``Muslim`` in Gurdaspur to lay blame that when it suited Muslims they counted Quadianis among themselves and when it didn`t they separted them. How hypocritical. But fact of the matter is that the census of 1940 was not conducted by Muslims. It was conducted by a foreign occupation that was occupying our land for the past hundered years. It was them who categorized the people into scheduled casts and attributed religious classes. Common Muslims never considered Quadianis as one of them since even when their founder was alive.

Re: # 19

Yes I claimed the population of Gurdaspur to be 80% because I was making an argument with a Hindu on the issue of Nehru inciting violence in Gurdaspur for the reasons cited in my post below. That was the only way to extarct the truth out of Hindus who have no morals and ettiquettes. Lying for them is as easy as releiving oneself of his excrement; kind of like you. Just as I expected, the Hindu chimed back and ``challenged`` my assertion and ``corrected`` me that the actual number was 55%. I made that very clear in the very next post. So just like them again you are now telling the half truth even though you know the truth; all in the fine Quadiani tradition.

Re: # 13sattar2
(((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))))))

Sattar mian how many times do you want us to discuss this load of rubbish?I have seen the refrences that you have shown here but never did you bother to explain how do they support the continuation of Prophethood. I have requested you number of times to enlighten our dark souls with the `common usage` of the word `khatam` i.e. the meaning of the term prevailing in the time of Prophet[pbuh] and along with that.... a single unequivocal verse of the Quran which supports the crap of Qadianism.???Enough of this language game already....follow zeemax`s islam...get a life....in the hereafter.

Waisay BTW the person who claims to show the path to others MUST himself be able to see with both eyes.don`t you think?

I can sense the presence of abu_safwaan around. Nikil patli gali se..aur izaat bacha apni bhi aur HALF fried(kacha) messenger ki bhi.

Re: # 22

But fact of the matter is that the census of 1940 was not conducted by Muslims. It was conducted by a foreign occupation that was occupying our land for the past hundered years. It was them who categorized the people into scheduled casts and attributed religious classes. Common Muslims never considered Quadianis as one of them since even when their founder was alive.

I understand that the census was not conducted by Muslims but that is irrelevant. What I am trying to figure out is, had Ahmedies been counted as non-Muslims, would Gurdaspur be considered a Muslim-majority area? Were Muslims, minus the Ahmedies, could break the 50% barrier?

Thanks,

Rafi

Re: # 25

Please do the math. The 12% of 55% of Population becomes less than 6% of the total. So even if we count the Quadianis out the ration of Muslim non-Muslim population in Gurdaspur would have tied at 1:1. In that case the third principle of Partition would have taken effect, which was, holding a plebicite.

Urstruly,

So from 80%, you moved down to 55%. Your latest post takes it further down to 50%!!! What’s up with that??

You are also claiming that this consensus was conducted by foreign occupation. What exactly are you trying to say???

+++

If I recall correctly, you retracted your 80% figure when it was challenged by others. You then cited an alleged dialogue between Jinnah and Chaudhry Zafrullah. But when pressed for references, you conceded that this is probably how a dialogue took place between Jinnah and Zafrullah. Oh well …

Your remaining references turned out to be people you had talked to. That was the sad extent of the basis of your opinion. Read #19 for details.

Re: # 26
What would be the numbers if they were 12% of 51% instead of 55% as you claim.

Check the following out.

The Gurdaspur district in the undivided Punjab had on the basis of 1941 census was an overall Muslim majority of 51%.

Re: # 28

I guess it would be almost the same number.

Anyway, I would like to see the actual numbers if possible. Can you refer me to some source? Or maybe someone else can?

Thanks,

Rafi

Re: # 26

In that case the third principle of Partition would have taken effect, which was, holding a plebicite.

Now we are on the speculative grounds. I think that the plebicite would have gone the Indian way because Muslims were split about Pakistan but I don`t think Sikhs were.

philosopher (#24)

This seems to be causing you much grief: I explained a reference which asks believers to accept prophets of Allah as they appear. I asked you which part of this reference did you NOT understand. But you did not respond. Rubbish is what lies between your ears; not my problem.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) foretold appearance of a prophet among Muslims and referred to him as Issa-ibne-Marriam. Is this enough ahadith for you?

Now, you (like Urstruly and Naqshbandi) may argue that Issa from two thousand years ago resides above clouds and will reappear in flesh and blood. If this makes sense to you, what more can I possibly say?? And we’ll deal with abu when he shows up. Any more smart comments you’d like to make?

Sahib, fatwas of kuffr have been passed against most (all?) sects by other sects of Islam. There is no end to this insanity. And that`s the point of this article, which remains lost on the faithful. What a pity ...

this article is so absurd...i mean the complete ethnic clensing of hindus and muslims from pakistan was not demise of so called ``jinnahs pakistan``? you had to wait for constitutional declaration of ahmedis as non-muslims to figure out the problem?