Preventing More Lal Masjids

Harish mian,

Let me reproduce the post:

``I have already answered all these lies several times inter alia here http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007141&channel=university%20ave&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1 ``

If you visit the link you will realise that my argument went far beyond the little snippet- which is factual- that you intend to prove.

Only you think all those Indians and Atifs and echos etc were able to counter my arguments. it is an opinion not shared by reasonable people. As for Sadna`s ilogs... not a single one of her ILOGS proves anything about Jinnah. She has been exposed so many times that the only people who believe her lies are those wish to close their eyes to the facts.

Unless you can come up with something concrete- which you`ve failed to do so, your comments about Jinnah will be as baseless as Masadi`s idiotic claims... as well as your extravagant claims of victory vis a vis yourself, Masanamuthu, Shishapa, Atif2 etc . I`ve asked you many times to show us how ... for example on the othe board... but you`ve failed miserably.

It seems to me that you just come here to abuse me... and then in the process you end up making a right royal fool out of yourself... as you did here with your 106... and this is not the first time it seems.

Manto mian,

(Now perhaps you should go make a stand like Mullah Ghazi at the white minaret mosque next to GC`s main hall... )

Now that is an unfair comment on your part. I don`t agree with much of what Masadi sahib writes but he is not a religious bigot.

Harishbhai,

Thanks for clarifying. You r right, I think Masadi sahib was writing about MAJ and LAK. But then some of MKG`s followers were outright crooks can we blame MKG for that?

Regards

#124 by majumdar

But then some of MKG`s followers were outright crooks can we blame MKG for that?

There is a difference between Gandhi and Jinnah and a glaring one at that.

When Chauri Chaura happened, Gandhi responded by calling off the non-cooperation movement and started a fast unto death. In court, he asked the judge to award him the harshest punishment because as the leader, he was responsible for the acts of his followers.

What did Jinnah do? In the days preceding the Direct Action Day violence, speaker after speaker from the Muslim League issued bloodcurdling calls to violence, saying Pakistan could only be achieved by shedding their (Muslims`) blood, and if the opportunity arose, of others (Hindus), and that Muslims were no believers in Ahmisa. Jinnah didn`t utter a single word to stop them. And when violence raged on for days, what was Jinnah doing? According to his own Orient Press, he was sleeping on the floor anticipating arrest. No remorse, no sorrow, no sense of responsibility.

That is the difference.

#123 by Yasser

Is that all you have Yasser mian? For all that bombastic talk, you won`t reproduce the earlier arguments because you fear getting exposed. But why am I not surprised?

The biggest lie that Harish mian keeps spinning is that Chaura Chauri was the first incident of violence in the Non-Cooperation movement. Gandhi-led Khilafat Movement was full of rioting and religious violence...



``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


As for Statesman... if you had seen I had quoted the editorial of Blitz, the Congress Mouthpiece... which holds a diametrically opposite view:


Meanwhile the Congress Mouthpiece ``Blitz`` wrote this about the direct action day:

The worst enemies of the Muslim League cannot help envying the leadership of Mr Jinnah. Last week`s cataclysmic transformation of the League from the reactionary racket of the Muslim Nawabs, Noons, and Knights into a revolutionary mass organisation dedicated, by word if not be deed, to an anti-Imperialist struggle, compels us to express the sneaking national wish that a diplomat and strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the held of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of diplomacy Jinnah has outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress alike and confounded the common national indictment that the Muslim League is a parasite of British Imperialism

Now why would a Congress Newspaper praise Jinnah if Direct Action Day was all that you are making it out to be...

The fact is that Calcutta was an exception... a well thought out plan by the Congress which sabotaged the League`s programme for temporary political gain....


More on Direct Action

It is funny how Indians here use the word `Direct Action` as if it means some kind of violence in of itself... Infact in the examples of `Direct Action` ... this website speaks of `Non-violent Direct Action` by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr....

http://www.free-definition.com/Direct-action.html

Direct Action simply means civil disobedience... as Dr. King put it:

``Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.``


Now consider H V Hodson`s description of the League Programme:

``The working committee followed up by calling on Muslims through out India to observe 16th August as direct action day. On that Day meeting would be held all over the country to explain League`s resolution. These meetings and processions passed of- as was manifestly the Central league leaders` intention- without more than commonplace and limited disturbance with one vast and tragic exception... what happened was more than anyone could have foreseen.``

(Page 166 `The Great Divide`)


Explaining Direct Action Jinnah made it clear that the direct Action will not be in any form but in peaceful form...


``16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner.``

Press Release Jinnah 14th August 1946

The second paragraph should start with:

``Now coming to Harish mian`s lies about the Direct Action Day:``

Dear Dr. ``Peace``,

There are many questions that are unanswered in my view regarding the whole Lal Masjid saga and operation ``silence`` - which has been the bloodiest and noisiest of all operations! I fail to understand the liberal stand on this affair as well as the civil society perspective on the whole issue. You have been part of many protests to promote peace where were you and the Citizen`s Peace Commission when the operation was being carried out? I hate this liberal stance where you silently watch so many innocent people being killed because you know that one day you will be rid of all militants and those outfits that are self-proclaimed moral brigades, just so that a certain kind of liberalism prevails for your benefit. You and others like you could have arranged for a massive protest outside the G-6 area to ward off the stance the government took in the end. Where was your idea of peace? Where is our sense of humanity ? Do such militants deserve to die in this manner just because they are promoting an ideology that you fear might curb your personal freedom? In my humble opinion, this operation which the government has termed ``silence`` has further bared many `open secrets`` of the government - this is an opportunity for the civil society to highligh the complete and utter failure of the government, register a case against the military government that is now responsible for many deaths (including May 12, Karachi) and pressure it to accept its failure and open up the whole process for further scrutiny.

You will agree that this case CAN NOT be understood in isloation - there is whole history of total government support (especially Ejaz ul Haq) to Abdur Rashid and his followers. In my view the total and utmost repsonsibility of what happened has to be borne by the government and I believe that a certain pressure has to be maintained for this whole bloody episode to be kept alive. There are too many unanswered questions, the death toll for instance is hidden - figures just don`t match up, no reporter or media person is allowed to access hospitals or the area near the Masjid. The way the government conducted the whole operation in secrecy bears testimony to the possible human rights abuses inside the complex. As I write this, the news is that media persons will be taken on a tour of the masjid - what do they expect to capture on this disaster tourism when all the bodies would have been removed and what probably remains are the remains of a dying building.

I believe that we have to pick up the pieces and protest the lack of information provided, the utter and sheer use of military force against its own people (a bourgeoning trend in Pakistan - Waziristan, Balochistan) and especially in this particular case against its own project of talibinisation to make a case of extremism in Pakistan - Musharraf`s only and last resort to staying in control and to show people that he is all for curbing extremism but at the same time keeping it alive.

What do you say? Shall we arrange a protest to have a full enquiry into this whole thing or would you run away from even the humanistic elements of something that you may never want to be associated with. Dr. Hoodbhoy (liberal element) siding with the militants on humanitarian priniciples sounds scary, but think about it and let me know.

As for Gandhi`s KM and NM...

The incredible violence that broke out with Moplahs killing the Non-muslims... was the direct result of the encouragement by Gandhi...

Did Gandhi call off the Khilafat Movement or his flirtation with Islamic fundamentalists? No. He declared that they were true freedom fighters...

In other words gandhi could do it... but Pakistan Army can`t.

According to Harish mian... the fact that Jinnah had taken to sleeping on the floors anticipating arrest is the smoking gun...

The World of Masadi finally has another member.

Re: # 132

Harish mian,

First of all you don`t have primary source evidence for any of these statements. All these statements are taken from a third rate website article... For example... The statement attributed to Sir Feroze Khan Noon ise entirely false. Similarly it is highly unlikely that Abdul Rab Nishtar said what is attributed to him... Liaqat Ali Khan`s comment is hardly offensive (unless Congress` entire policy was offensive)... and this Ghulam Mustafa Gelani seems like a small fish from Multan side perhaps... whose statement I have not found on record.


But assuming that all these statements were indeed made... did you miss this bit:

16th August is not for the purpose of resorting to Direct Action in any form or shape, Therefore I enjoin upon the Muslims to carry our the instructions and abide by them strictly and conduct themselves peacefuly and in a disciplined manner. by Jinnah...

Incidentally ... none of these leaders that you now quote were ever implicated in any violence... since Direct Action Day was peaceful in all parts of India... Suhrawardy who is held responsible by many Indians does not seem to have made any of those statements.


Essentially you have no argument...

Here is the official record:

``Last weekend has seen dreadful riots in Calcutta. The estimates of casualties is 3000 dead and 17000 injured. The Bengal Congress are convinced that all the trouble was deliberately engineered by the Muslim League Ministry, but no satisfactory evidence to that effect has reached me yet. It is said that the decision to have a public holiday on 16th August was the cause of trouble, but I think this is very far-fetched. There was a public holiday in Sind and there was no trouble there. At any rate, whatever the causes of the outbreak, when it started, the Hindus and Sikhs were every bit as fierce as Muslims. The present estimate is that appreciably more Muslims were killed than the Hindus``


Now coming to your stupid comment about sleeping on the floor... so assuming that Jinnah was apprehensive of going to prison... and given that Gandhi and Nehru were in and out of prisons many time... how exactly are you tryng to make it relevant the issue at hand?

Seems like you`ve been signing your name in bold letters...

#127 by Yasser

Now Yasser mian expects us to believe that after the Leaguers issued one call after the other inciting Muslims to shed their blood and if opportunity arose, Hindus` blood, raging Muslims were expected to calm down by Jinnah issuing a piddly statement that too in ENGLISH. It would be downright hilarious if it weren`t so pathetic.

If such is the dishonesty of the self-appointed defenders of Jinnah, is it any wonder that the TB-ridden crook is not known outside of the subcontinent, while Gandhi is worshipped everywhere?


For Majumdar bhai, here are a few statements by Muslim Leaguers in the days preceding the Direct Action Day:

Jinnah: ``To-day we have forged a pistol and are in a position to use it``.

Jinnah: ``Direct Action by Muslims would lead to one hundred times more destruction than the Direct Action of the Hindus``.

Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan: ``Direct Action means resort to non-constitutional methods, and that can take any form which may suit the conditions under which we live. We cannot eliminate any methods. Direct Action means any action against the Law.``

Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar: ``Pakistan can only be achieved through shedding blood of ourselves, and if need be, and if opportunity arose, by shedding blood of others. Muslims are no believers in Ahimsa.``

Ghulam Mustafa Shah Gilani: ``Any attempt to prevent the establishment of Pakistan would lead to bloodshed.``

Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan: ``The Punjab Muslims do not believe in non-violence and should not, therefore, be given cause for grievance because once the Muslim lion is infuriated it would become difficult to subdue him.``

Sir Feroze Khan Noon: ``I tell you this much that if we find that we have to fight Great Britain for placing us under one Central Hindu Raj, then the havoc which Muslims will plays will put to shame what Jenghez and Halaku Khan did.``

And just what did Jinnah do to shut them up? NOTHING.

#131 by Yasser

You`re living up to your name, Yasser mian!

1. Why would a man used to the cushy comforts of his mansion suddenly take to sleeping on the floors, unless he was trying to get used to a prison?

2. This was reported by his very own Orient Press, so maybe they knew better than you, or probably were simply more honest than you?

Mr. Hoodbhoy:

Not confronting Lal Masjid administration until July 3rd was actually a wise decision on the govt`s part. Aunty Shamim was beaten up, Chinese massage therapists were abducted then released, a children`s library was occupied. But no loss of life occured. Maulana Abdur Rasheed Ghazi was hawkish one day, and mellow the next day. During negotiations with Chaudhry Shujaat from March till July, this man rarely spoke about Shariah imposition. Some of the demands he made in those talks were quite specific and not entirely unreasonable e.g. reconstruction of mosques that were demolished in Islamabad.

However, despite his posturing Ghazi failed to win the support of major political parties including MMA and leading religious scholars. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry`s campaign dwarfed the Maulana`s stature for a few months. Some people even blamed Musharraf for propping up Ghazi, but recent developments have proven these allegations wrong.

There are also fundamental differences between Ghazi`s position on Shariah and that of MMA or conservative PML(Q) members. The latter are campaigning for the espousal of Shariah through elections and parliament. A Hasba or Shariah bill passed into law by the Parliament enjoys legitimacy and sanction of the people. Once passed into law, the civil bureaucracy would be tasked with its implementation, and the judiciary would be responsible for oversight. Unless you are a hardcore Islamophobe, there is really no reason to oppose a Shariah bill passed by the parliament, in a country where 95% of the population is Muslim anyway.

But Ghazi favors Mullah Umar-style Shariah imposed through force, circumventing the parliament, judiciary and civil bureaucracy. Ghazi`s Shariah has no penal codes, no legislation and no checks & balances. His Shariah is a vehicle of personal glory.

The killing of police personnel on July 3rd revealed Ghazi`s true intentions. With hindsight, we can conclude that this man was a clever tactician. He used the dialogue with govt to gain time, and prepare for the military operation. Perhaps he was being propped by foreign jihadis inside the mosque. By blowing hot and cold, he disguised his true intentions even from the govt for almost 3 months. And finally, he picked a fight with the govt when he thought the govt would be unable to respond because of floods in Baluchistan, the Justice Chaudhry challenge and pressure from political opponents gathered in London.

This time he miscalculated.

Lal Masjid is the story of one man`s unbridled quest for power. It is not representative of the average mosques or madrassas in Pakistan, which has neither the resources nor the temerity to fight the govt.

If we want to prevent more Lal Masjids, we need to ensure that mosques are run by either Auqaf Department or Wafaq-ul-Madaris, not by individuals. Maulanas should only be appointed as caretakers by these institutions.

#134 by Yasser

First of all you don`t have primary source evidence for any of these statements. All these statements are taken from a third rate website article.

Yasser playing clairvoyant here? Now why don`t you even tell us which ``third-rate`` website it is from?

The statement attributed to Sir Feroze Khan Noon ise entirely false.

And what`s the evidence to back your statement up?

Similarly it is highly unlikely that Abdul Rab Nishtar said what is attributed to him... Liaqat Ali Khan`s comment is hardly offensive (unless Congress` entire policy was offensive)... and this Ghulam Mustafa Gelani seems like a small fish from Multan side perhaps... whose statement I have not found on record.

Looks like once again, you`re confused between opinion and fact. We don`t need your opinion, you can keep it to yourself, thank you very much. If you have any evidence, share it with us.

But assuming that all these statements were indeed made... did you miss this bit:

In case you didn`t notice it, my argument was that after all those bloodcurdling statements Leaguers made and then issuing a statement in ENGLISH calling for a peaceful DAD, only morons like you are likely to be fooled by Jinnah`s gimmickry. But the vast majority of Muslim masses weren`t too educated to understand what he`d said, which is why what followed was exactly what he intended.

Incidentally ... none of these leaders that you now quote were ever implicated in any violence...

Nor was Jinnah, but since when did conviction become THE basis for proving someone innocent or guilty? Are you really a lawyer? The way you put forth stupid arguments, I`m having serious doubts.

Now coming to your stupid comment about sleeping on the floor... so assuming that Jinnah was apprehensive of going to prison... and given that Gandhi and Nehru were in and out of prisons many time... how exactly are you tryng to make it relevant the issue at hand?

Yasser mian, you can try this trick elsewhere. Gandhi and Nehru being in and out of prison is out of context here. The fact is that Jinnah, who never experienced a single day in prison all his life, knew that he could be arrested for having incited violence, which is why he was sleeping on the floors.

Dear Harish mian,

As far as I can see you`ve not produce a single statement that proves your point. Your claim that Jinnah was sleeping on the floor and was anticipating arrest blah blah and hence he planned violence is just laughable...

On the other hand I have quoted Jinnah asking Muslims to remain peaceful... which historians say they remained ... and then you have a secretive government report/correspondence that says that there was no evidence of Muslim League`s involvement....Given that by all primary source accounts more many many more Muslims were killed, it is quite clear to anyone with some grey matter what went down in Calcutta.
People like you believe that if you repeat a lie long enough it might just become the truth ... well truth shall remain the truth.. this is my conviction.

Given that not even a single FIR was lodged against any of the ML leaders in this respect, it is quite that even the Congressites didn`t believe their own claims and knew full well how Calcutta got bloody. So instead of arguing pigheadedly... come up with something substantial because I am done responding to inane and stupid baseless arguments that oly you are capable of.

majumdar #114, harish_hyd #121:

I think that the legitimator in chief was Hazrat Allama Sir Mohammad Iqbal Lahori (patron saint of Pakistan) and the facilitator in chief was QA MA Jinnah (pbuh). At least that seems the most obvious interpretation.